It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon Now Public on Google

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I never said that.

You said this:

if you were a true skeptic who was against the war on terror that you should be helping to highlight and promote the evidence we have uncovered

How is this ambiguous?


Yet you choose to dismiss the evidence we present in favor of your purely faith based claim that the official story is true.

I have already explained that denying all opposing evidence and then making a decision based on this is not a proper way to investigate. Because of this you call my belief "faith based" despite the fact it is actually based in evidence. Your only way to dismiss this evidence is to claim that it's not good enough and could have been faked. Well I consider it entirely possible your witnesses are mistaken yet somehow this seems to be impossible.


This demonstrates an inherent confirmation bias on your part and a complete disregard for critical thinking principles.

Not at all, notice that you must prefix your phrases with "independent verifiable". This means you are filtering the evidence to that not provided by any governmental or related agency, despite there being no evidence that this is suspect. For example, there are well over 50 impact witnesses, which is a mutually exclusive event with your theory, but you still deny this evidence because to you it is either not verifiable, or simply proves that these people were deceived.

If you were truly interested in critical thinking, you would not be accusing people of lying to you, or dismissing evidence in a circular fashion.


Why are you changing the topic?

How much did NIST get paid and who paid them?

How much taxpayer money went to fund the independent investigations of P4T and CIT?

Are you asking for NISTs budget or for participant pay? They were paid by the taxpayers as their task is to investigate building collapses. This is part of the law.

No taxpayer money funds your investigation, because as you state it is independent. I don't think you realise that by collecting money it includes an inherent bias.




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I listed independent verifiable evidence....


You sure have! Of at least 7 witnesses telling all of us they saw the aircraft hit the building!

Appreciate that. Wish you'd talk it up a bit more - its almost like you are hiding it, like you don't want people to know or something.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Ok I'll help you.

NIST was initially budgeted $16 million for their report and I believe that has climbed to over $20 million.

So yes we, the American taxpayers sure as hell DID pay for it.

You lied and said they provide it for free.

You lied again and said the P4T "charges" when this very thread is the announcement of the release of their brand new presentation for free.

Since I have forced you to admit that you were aware that NIST did NOT provide the report for free you have been exposed as dishonest.

This proves you are not concerned with truth and that your confirmation bias in favor of the government story has inspired you to lie in its defense.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Let me ask you pinch. Where does your faith lie when it comes to the computer simulations of NIST et al for the towers' and wtc 7's collapses without any evidence, physics, or experimental data to back it up?

Wouldn't your Computer M&S quote be equally valid for them? But, I'm sure you'll give me some reason why it's not.


Sure! And to be fair, some models out there are no better than Captain Bob's cartoon - they are done for no other reason than to inform the public of *one organization's interpretation* of what occurred. That one simulation that they were whooping it up about a few weeks ago is a classic one - no better than Captain Bob's cartoon. The one where the lamp pole was supposedly sucked in the starboard engine is another. Nice visual treats, but are they based on properly verified and validated data?

As I said before (you must have ignored it) verification and validation is not a subjective matter. Every model or simulation that is used for any part of a decision-making process (definitely in the military, although the civilian world is closing the gap quickly with similar requirements) needs to go through a V&V process, particularly if someone else's data is used. If you vette your own model or simulation, you can build it to reach whatever conclusions you want, resulting in the exact decision you want. You people don't seem to get that.

The same would go with any simulation or model.


Then interpret the data yourself. Either that, or listen to the government who always tells you the truth. Right?


Me? Interpret data that is a) not mine b) outside my field of expertise? I can give you some pretty good guidance on how to document VV&A and why it needs to be done, but I am not in the analyst/interpretation business, nor am I that sort of systems engineer. Plus, I don't belong to CIT or PffT, so I don't like to play being something I am not.


Again, pure hypocrisy. But, it's A-OK for NIST to do the same with their data and simulations on the towers? Even worse is that as far as I've seen, PFT have their data available for all the world to see. Not so with the government's "findings", eh?


If you can point out to me how Captain Bob's cartoon is similar to/with NIST's models and simulation and how, from a professional aeronautical/engineering perspective they are alike and how Captain Bob's credentials in this field match up with those of NIST, and if you can point out that NIST has not done any verification or validation on their models and used data that came from an outside/third-party source, then you might have something there, sport!

In the meantime, keep using that really cool avatar and posting baseless accusations formed from an ignorance of the topic under discussion.


[edit on 14-10-2008 by pinch]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by exponent


This is what I am trying to pin down, please show the evidence for alternate hypotheses, and we can see where the balance of evidence lies.


This is completely unnecessary and not our burden of proof.


Yes, of course it's your burden of proof, Craig. You are making the claims. You continue to refuse to present the evidence necessary to show AA77 flew over the Pentagon.


This isn't an academic discussion.

It is the burden of the government to provided enough evidence prove the official story and they have failed.


FALSE. There is NO official story and you know that, Ranke, so stop lying to us. There is only the evidence and you are unable to refute any of it.


Furthermore P4T and CIT present enough information to prove the official story false.


CIT and P4T know that is a bald-faced lie. You refuse to present any eyewitnesses or reports of a flyover from the other side of the Pentagon.

It is time for you to either put up or shut up, Craig Ranke. We're tired of your repeated lies.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

FALSE. There is NO official story






You don't believe the officials claim Hani Hanjour piloted tail#N644AA into the Pentagon?

Really?

You think the officials do not have story at all?

Really?

You believe this and it doesn't even bother you that the officials supposedly refuse to provide a story for what happened on 9/11 even though it is consistently used as the justification for permanent global war?

Very interesting logic you've got there!




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So yes we, the American taxpayers sure as hell DID pay for it.

You lied and said they provide it for free.

No I didn't


You lied again and said the P4T "charges" when this very thread is the announcement of the release of their brand new presentation for free.

This is also wrong. Perhaps it would be worth you re-reading my original post:

Originally posted by exponent
Furthermore, Pilots For Truth charge for DVDs and similar, they are raising funds in this manner. NIST do nothing of the sort.


NIST do not charge for their reports, nor do they add extra chrages for FOIA acts above the expected amount. If you want to accuse me of lying, please make sure I actually lied.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent


NIST do not charge for their reports, nor do they add extra chrages for FOIA acts above the expected amount. If you want to accuse me of lying, please make sure I actually lied.


You were being disingenuous as you are right now about your statement.

That is dishonest.

The U.S. taxpayers paid NIST millions of dollars in advance for their report.

P4T was paid nothing and has still made it available for free as they have all of their reports.

You suggested the opposite in a blatant attempt at character assassination of P4T.

Your point was false and now proven dishonest since you admitted you already knew NIST was budgeted an incredible amount of money for the report.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

posted by exponent
Furthermore, Pilots For Truth charge for DVDs and similar, they are raising funds in this manner. NIST do nothing of the sort.


posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Talk about disingenuous.

Both P4T and CIT provide all of our presentation for free online.

In fact this thread is specifically regarding the release of their latest presentation FOR FREE.

Do you think NIST worked for free?

Please look into how much they got paid and who paid them and report back.

Thanks.

Why are you so deliberately dishonest exponent? On this thread, I specifically described how to download a free copy of the full video to a person's computer and how to watch it there also for free. There are other methods of obtaining a free copy of the video. There is no need to pay one thin dime to watch the free video. Did you watch it exponent? Did you pay anybody anything? No? Then why are you whining like a little child?

You claim to be British, yet you appear to have a fanatical attachment to defending the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) as expounded by the Bush Regime and the government owned Mainstream Media and the Pentagon Building Performance Report and the 9-11 Whitewash Committee and the Military Industrial Complex mouthpiece Popular Mechanics and a multitude of other highly paid defenders of the status quo. What is your stake exponent; covert agent or perhaps just a volunteer OCT hanger-on and groupie?


posted by SPreston
Rob has now provided the full video for download to your hard drive. The iPOD version downloads as a mp4. Find a free player for mp4s and install it to your computer and share it with your family and friends. However the DVD version is a much better quality and helps support more good patriotic investigation into the 9-11 Inside Job Attack On America. The mp4 version is pretty good.

9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - Official Release


Google Video Link





posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The U.S. taxpayers paid NIST millions of dollars in advance for their report.


Really? You don't think the NIST would have been paid that money *anyway*? You don't think that there is money set aside for contingency programs and analysis? The only question would have been what were they required to analyze and produce. You don't know much about government funding for programs and agencies, do you Craig.

I also don't see NIST Gear - you know, like those cool hats and that beer cozy and those absolutley DELISH little string nighties with the stylish PfT or CIT Logo stitched in it (no cheap silkscreen here!). Especially those sweat pants? You know, the ones with "Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed!" across the bum? Nice!

Amazing what you can get for 3,000 dead, huh Craig? Perhaps if MORE people had died you and Aldo, in addition to the above, could even start your own traveling DJ show! A-hip and a-hop for da TROOTH!

How are those Impact Witnesses coming, Craig? You know...the ones you talked to who said they saw the aircraft hit the building. You really need to go back and flesh that out a bit more with them so, you know, people don't get the idea you are hiding something or they have a story to tell you don't want people to hear.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by pinch]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
You know, the ones with "Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed!" across the bum? Nice!



Prove it or admit you lied.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You were being disingenuous as you are right now about your statement.

That is dishonest.

Not at all, you've read into my words and are now arguing that your interpretation is right and therefore I am dishonest.

I quite clearly said that PFT/P4T charge for DVDs rather than claiming they charged for the video. I have already watched the video and am obviously aware it is free. I am also obviously aware that NIST were given a budget out of taxpayer money. The two are not the same.

If such money is required to pay off expenses, as I accept it may well be reasonable for CIT to need, then the correct way is to set up a non profit foundation, in order to ensure that the money is used in an appropriate fashion.

Do you or P4T run a non profit foundation? If so, I will retract my point as this does give some guarantee of good practise.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by exponent]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


By bringing up money at all and stating that P4T "charges" for their work and that NIST does not was a false claim for the clear purpose of diminishing the independent efforts of P4T and propping up the efforts of NIST on behalf of the government.

It exposes your confirmation bias but since you admitted you knew that NIST most certainly was paid many millions of dollars for the report and that P4T most certainly does offer their reports for free you have been caught in a deliberate lie.

These are the facts no matter how much you attempt to spin them.

You have been proven to be dishonest and the more you deny it the more you continue to validate this fact.





[edit on 14-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
FALSE. There is NO official story and you know that, Ranke, so stop lying to us. There is only the evidence and you are unable to refute any of it.


This is the ultimate corollary of the "Bush Doctrine". (Read the rest in the accent of Dana Carvey doing Bush Sr. talking to Porgy.)

"Wouldn't be prudent to make a statement, son. If we don't make a statement they can't take potshots at it, see? It's like stealth for speech."

"Yes Poppy."



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


If you really believe that then there's obviously no way I can change your [edit: whoops!] mind. I am quite sad that you would assume I would sink to that level, rather than you misunderstanding my point but that appears to be what has happened.

Tell me Craig, do you think that this is my typical debate style? Do you think I often lie?



[edit on 14-10-2008 by exponent]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Tell me Craig, do you think that this is my typical debate style? Do you think I often lie?



I would have said no yesterday but this is a rather egregious example that throws your credibility completely in doubt moving forward.

Unless of course you were to own up to it and at least admit that you can now see how it was not a fair statement on your part.

But you've done the opposite and proceeded to defend it as if it was a perfectly reasonable or legitimate statement.

That demonstrates dishonesty even worse than the initial false statement imo.


[edit on 14-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by jthomas
 


If I was to try to "Prove" anything I would need some evidence. As would you. I am quite sure we can all aggree that ther are more than 4 frames of footage of the event. Without that key piece of information, nothing can be "proven".


I'll repeat so please read carefully. One does not need ANY video whatsoever to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. It is not in any way a "key" piece of evidence. It is incidental. Surely you must understand that by now?


Eye witnesses are not 100% reliable.


You DO realize that the statements from widely separated and independent eyewitnesses corroborate with ALL of the other evidence, and with each other, don't you?

If not, please explain what you don't understand about that fact.


There are a bunch of things that don't add up for me, but If I was to be shown that the pentagon issue was just as it was reported by the media, than the rest of the questions I have would probably be less important.


You neither have to rely on the media nor the government.


I am open to the truth. I have yet to hear it. And I don't claim to have any proof of my own, just questions.


You're contradicting yourself. Why? How is it possible for you to claim you "just have questions" but turn around and claim that you DON'T have the Truth??? You're just confirming the Truther habit of hiding behind the canard of "just asking questions" when you really want to believe a "story" completely at odds with the evidence and reality.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I'm afraid you have chosen not to think rationally about the implications and consequences of the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale. You have a choice to learn to think critically or keep on believing nonsense.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnsrings

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 

There is no public outcry because the sheeple, just want to live in their own little corner of the world. They don't want to even think that our own government, could murder thousands of their citizens, to aid their agenda.


If you can't provide any evidence after seven years, then we have to believe you are deluding yourself that the government was behind 9/11.

Perhaps you find comfort in the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale.
No sir, I was far more comfortable believing the official theory was the correct one. The fact that the many coincidences that had to fall perfectly in place that day, for the whole government explanation to work has to be billions to one.


Why do you insist on engaging in such fallacious reasoning? First, we all know (except for 9/11 Truthers) that there is only the evidence, that the government is neither the source of that evidence nor had any control of it to begin with. There is no "government explanation" There is only thousands of independent lines of evidence which your 9/11 Denial Movement has never been able to refute.

Why do you insist on denying that fact?

Coincidences are a fact of life and ALL deniers pretend they do not exist. It is another crutch you all rely on to fantasize that coincidences don't exist.


Perhaps you can answer my first and biggest coincidental question.
Military exercises dealing with hijacked aircraft crashing into buildings, the very day that it happened?


Where's your question? You don't want to believe it's a coincidence but you have absolutely nothing for evidence that it wasn't? The laughs on you, buddy.



How about the pentagon release some video of the alleged 757 crashing into the building? That one thing would change my mind, and I bet nearly all of the rest of the truthers out there.


I'm always amused by that canard. You believe the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale that because you don't have a video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon, then you don't have proof that it hit.

That's been one of the BIGGEST hoots of your crashing denial movement. You guys go around completely ignoring and defaming all of the NON-government, independent evidence from thousands of sources and then believe that you have to have a video to prove it.



George Bush telling us to not pay attention to the conspiracy theorists?


We don't need Bush to tell us what everybody already does. Look how badly you messed up in your reply already!



You believe the governments official explanation, but those are the same ones that possibly pulled this off, or at the very least let it happen, so why would they let an independent investigation happen?


You need to pay attention to your lessons, good buddy. You believe in the fairy tale that the evidence of what happened on 9/11 magically came from the government. This is the saddest part of your 9/11 Denial, not to see the obvious that the evidence did not originate with the government nor was under its control.

But your denial of truth and reality is what makes all denial movements possible. I seriously doubt, however, that your 9/11 Denial Movement will last anywhere as long as Holocaust Denial has. But all denial movements end up in the trashbin of history and your's is no exception.

Why not join us in the real world, instead?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas

FALSE. There is NO official story



You don't believe the officials claim Hani Hanjour piloted tail#N644AA into the Pentagon?


The laughs on you again, Craig. We all know that the thousands of independent lines of evidence show that AA77 hit the Pentagon without the government having to say anything about it. That Hani was identified as the pilot - and never refuted by you or anyone else - is not a "story". It's supported by the evidence. And we all know how Craig Ranke hates evidence with a passion, don't we, Craig.

You'll note that you STILL REFUSE to provide evidence, Craig.


You think the officials do not have story at all?


Can't you read? There's no "official story". There is only the evidence that none of you can refute. And it didn't come from the "government."




You believe this and it doesn't even bother you that the officials supposedly refuse to provide a story for what happened on 9/11...


Gosh. First, there's an "Official Story", now you claim that "officials" refuse to provide a story!.


What a hoot.

Craig, when are you going to stop your nonsense and admityou have no evidence?



[edit on 14-10-2008 by alien]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by pinch
You know, the ones with "Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed!" across the bum? Nice!



Prove it or admit you lied.


Prove you claims or admit you lied, Craig Ranke.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join