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.

 

There Was No Missile At the Pentagon - But the Plane Did Not Hit

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple
This is ridiculous. Craig claims that because a few eyewitnesses mis-judged the flightpath of the aircraft that it couldn't have impacted.


Incorrect. I never claimed that they mis-judged the flight path of the aircraft.


Right...in fact, you assume that they are all correct about the flight path and use that assumption to also assume that they are incorrect about the impat.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You claim they mis-judged it.


The fact that the plane hit proves that they misjudged it.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Every eyewitness in the area, including the ones in the linked videos, state that the plane hit the Pentagon,


That isn't true. You haven't interviewed every GENUINE witness in the area.


I don't have to. There is no eyewitness account presented in which someone claims that the plane DID NOT hit the pentagon.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

and there were THOUSANDS who participated in the rescue effort & cleanup who saw the plane parts, bodies, etc.


Thousands? You counted? You talked to them about what they believe now?


Yes, thousands. There's no need for me to interview them...you are the one claiming that no plane hit....and they're the ones who cleaned up the plane that you claim didn't hit.


Well we were given a midnight tour of the Pentagon by a victim/rescue/recovery participant. His letter is displayed on our site.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
An ACFD Captain and a camerman on scene both don't believe a 757 hit that building. Both were at the Air Florida crash. The fire captain had been on 5 plane crashes in his 29 years and does not believe a 757 hit.


Source?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Plane parts blown out onto the lawn and bodies from Pentagon victims are not proof of an impact.


Then perhaps you'd like to tell us what is?




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Craig Ranke CIT,

Now I have been reading a lot of your research - and I feel it is quite professional - but some things you seem to be unfairly dismissing.

1) Cab Driver hit by a light pole claims he saw the aircraft go overhead I believe (didn't he?) - he did not mention seeing any explosion causing the pole to fall.


Hi TM,

We most certainly have not "dismissed" the cab driver Lloyde England.

In fact I have spent many hours with the man in person. We interviewed him in 2006 but I re-interviewed him again in 2008 and we even took a road trip together to physically examine the actual cab that he had preserved on his property in the country about an hour and a half from his house in Arlington.

The entire experience is available for everyone to view for free here.

Please do and feel free to discuss the issue at length in that thread.

However I don't know where you get the notion that the poles were felled by explosives. We have never claimed such a thing and the evidence proves that this did not happen as I explain in detail in this thread.

But more importantly we have demonstrated how not a single witness has been confirmed to have seen the plane hit the light poles at all as outlined in this thread.

Feel free to bump any of these threads if you wish to discuss these separate topics further as this thread is about the fact that there is no evidence for a missile.

Thanks!



2) Wasn't an engine part clearly visible near the hole in the Pentagon - while it has been theorized that this was not a 757 engine part - surely you are not suggesting this had been planted there?


As most people know there were no large sections of aircraft outside of the building and this fact is what got many questioning the event to begin with.

But since we know the plane was on the north side and could not have hit the building we most certainly DO suggest that what few photographed (yet unidentified) parts that were there had to have been planted. And yes that includes this relatively tiny rotor:



As well as these relatively small scraps:




Not a big deal really especially in all the chaos.

Did you know that minutes after local first-responders arrived there was an order to frantically evacuate everyone from the area INCLUDING the fire-firefighters because of reports of another plane coming in?




Could this be when the few scrap parts outside of the building were planted?

Sure but it could have easily happened a number of other ways as well and we know that it DID happen because all of the witnesses saw the plane on the north side.




I am still finding the Pilots for 9/11 truth theory that a drone missle was dropped right before the Pentagon flyby to be more compelling - because it could have clipped the poles AND left the engine part satisfying these two conditions.


Pilots for 9/11 Truth NEVER stated that theory nor do they state any theory at all so I'm not sure where you get that one. You won't be able to provide a quote from the organization making this claim anywhere.

And there is no evidence for such a scenario.

Everyone only saw one plane on the north side of the citgo.



And it seems like that could have happened quick enough to not be intelligently witnessed by even fairly close - but untrained - observers.


We have an interview with Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger who was in the heliport tower as you can view in this thread.

He is not an "untrained observer".

Naturally he had an amazing view from the tower right next to the alleged impact point and he only saw one plane on the north side like everyone else and he did not see anything launch a drone or a missile.

Nobody did because this did not happen.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Plane parts blown out onto the lawn and bodies from Pentagon victims are not proof of an impact.


Then perhaps you'd like to tell us what is?


14 or more first-hand witness accounts of the plane on the southern approach flight path.

Since there are zero and since everyone saw the plane on the north side we know that 9/11 was an inside job.

Now please stop trying to derail this thread.

This thread is about the fact that there was no missile and it is an open letter to the 9/11 truth movement of which I do not believe you consider yourself a member.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Great job at presenting information and theory.

And thanks to the many who continue to keep
this massively important issue open -
despite such equally massive attempts to close it.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Thanks for another great thread Craig!


I just wanted to add that what you are saying about no missile corroborates what April Gallop seems to think- that there were bombs in the building.

And bombs in the building seems to be the operative phrase for 911. I have a hunch that 93 was headed for WTC 7. Would just seem to make sense- but something went wrong, or it was shot down, dunno. The whole thing may have been a huge insurance scam, with other attached motives and benefits for all involved.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Plane parts blown out onto the lawn and bodies from Pentagon victims are not proof of an impact.


Then perhaps you'd like to tell us what is?


14 or more first-hand witness accounts of the plane on the southern approach flight path.


Nope...that's affirming the consequent. Try again.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Nope...that's affirming the consequent. Try again.


Nope.....it's not.

You are incorrectly applying a logical fallacy label which does not bode well for your critical thinking abilities.

We provide independent verifiable evidence proving the plane did not hit. You have not provided any evidence at all to either refute this or prove that a plane did hit.

You accept what you are told and dismiss scientifically validated independent evidence based on nothing but pure faith.

In fact if you are suggesting that plane parts blown out onto the lawn and bodies from Pentagon victims DOES prove a plane impact YOU are the one committing the "affirming the consequent fallacy.


If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.



If a plane hit the building then some plane debris would be blown out on the lawn and bodies from Pentagon victims would exist.

Some plane debris was blown on the lawn and bodies from Pentagon victims exist.

Therefore a plane hit.



All you have to hold on to your OCT fantasy is faulty logic and pure unadulterated faith in what you were told while we provide hard evidence proving it false.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


So they flew a plane real close, then the exact moment it passed overhead they set of the "bombs" in the building?

How exactly does a plane, that would obviously be banking in to the air at some speed, not get noticed by anyone? How could they possibly take the risk of someone capturing the fly by on camera? Or what if someone caught the explosion at the pentagon but didn't see a plane or a missile?

Are you saying that not one person actually saw a plane fly into the pentagon?

Edit to add: To me your theory sounds like a logistical nightmare. It would be so much easier to use some type of missile or indeed a few nutters to fly a plane in to it.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by thesneakiod]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Nope...that's affirming the consequent. Try again.


Nope.....it's not.


You stated that if a southern approach is agreed upon by 14+ eyewitnesses, then impact is proven. That's affirming the consequent.

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

If the plane impacted (P), then flew a "southern approach" (Q)
The plane flew a southern approach (Q), (assuming true if witnesses provided the evidence you require)
Therefore, it impacted (P).



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I know we have been down this road before but I have to say it again...

CIT, you have 13 eyewits , witnesses are notoriously famous for "remembering" a event differently from what they even observed the first time. Not to mention that all of your guys still ultimately believe the plane hit the building. Regardless, you kill me with your talk about scientifically validated whatever ...they are not. They are just a bunch of people who may all be wrong in what they remember.

Don't get me wrong as I have said before I have a Life special 9/11 edition bought right after 9/11 and oddly enough it's graphic of the Pentagon attack shows the NOC approach and impact, same as the Norad video. Strange indeed when you add that with your 13 wits. But then you have the poles and damage path. I hope you hit the mother load and come up with something really big b/c as I'm sure you see the 13 wits aren't gonna cut it alone. If what you say is true than there is more evidence out there to be found, Ill keep reading. GL.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 




Ok fair enough.

You don't agree that southern approach witnesses would prove an impact.

Come to think of it.....I will concede that you are right about this.

However north side approach witnesses most certainly DO prove that the plane did not hit.

At least we have established how we both agree that plane parts blown out onto the lawn and bodies from Pentagon victims are not proof of an impact either.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911

CIT, you have 13 eyewits , witnesses are notoriously famous for "remembering" a event differently from what they even observed the first time.


Sure but that is where the scientific validation method of corroboration comes into play.

People who do not remember accurately have differing accounts.

The fact that all first-hand witness accounts in the entire body of evidence unanimously corroborate the north side approach scientifically proves that they are NOT remembering inaccurately.

If 13 unanimous witnesses who have not been contradicted by anyone aren't enough for you what amount of witnesses would be and what made you choose that number?









[edit on 27-2-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Hi TM,

We most certainly have not "dismissed" the cab driver Lloyde England.

In fact I have spent many hours with the man in person. We interviewed him in 2006 but I re-interviewed him again in 2008 and we even took a road trip together to physically examine the actual cab that he had preserved on his property in the country about an hour and a half from his house in Arlington.

The entire experience is available for everyone to view for free here.




Ahh Craig - thanks for getting me up to date!

(I wasn't aware of the many inconsistancies in Lloyde's account)

And as far as the Pilots for Truth - they suggested it in a video - but no I don't believe they specifically endorsed a drone or cruise missle - it was just a theoretical animation they had to help possibly reconcile the pole damage with the North Side approach data.

I think Occams Razor makes a lot of what possibly happened at the Pentagon hard to believe - but people must understand a convoluted (disinformational) approach can be purposefully executed - especially when a much more important principle is considered - Qui Bono?

Thanks you for your tireless efforts on researching this most perplexing event - keep up the great work!




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

If the plane impacted (P), then flew a "southern approach" (Q)
The plane flew a southern approach (Q), (assuming true if witnesses provided the evidence you require)
Therefore, it impacted (P).

I think that your logic isn't as sharp as it should be, adam.

From what I gather, Craig's position is this:

p - a plane impacted the Pentagon.
q - the plane flew a SOC path.

Given the alleged damage pattern, most people would argue that p -> q.

If a plane impacted the Pentagon, then it must have flown SOC.

Now, Craig takes the logically equivalent contrapositive stance.

q' -> p'

If the plane did not fly SOC, then it did not hit the Pentagon.

Craig can correct me if I'm wrong, however, I'm fairly certain that's what he's stating.

I'm not sure what you're trying to state, adam.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
[

Ahh Craig - thanks for getting me up to date!

(I wasn't aware of the many inconsistancies in Lloyde's account)


My pleasure!

Thanks for paying attention.

His account is beyond inconsistent.

It is physically impossible and if you watch the full presentation you can hear how his FBI employee wife admitted that she didn't believe the plane hit and ALSO how Lloyde himself virtually admitted to to being involved when he didn't know he was being recorded. He said:



"One thing about it you gotta understand something when people do things and get away with it, you - eventually its gonna come to me; and when it comes to me its going to be so big I can't do nothing about it."

~Pentagon Taxi Cab Driver Lloyde England





And as far as the Pilots for Truth - they suggested it in a video - but no I don't believe they specifically endorsed a drone or cruise missle - it was just a theoretical animation they had to help possibly reconcile the pole damage with the North Side approach data.


I can assure you that they do not endorse any theory however they certainly do recognize, acknowledge, and argue for the legitimacy of the evidence we present proving the north side approach.

Have you seen their latest full-length release 9/11 ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON?

If not I highly recommend you check it out.




Thanks you for your tireless efforts on researching this most perplexing event - keep up the great work!



You bet!

Thanks for helping to spread the word about this important information.





[edit on 27-2-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by adam_zapple
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

If the plane impacted (P), then flew a "southern approach" (Q)
The plane flew a southern approach (Q), (assuming true if witnesses provided the evidence you require)
Therefore, it impacted (P).

I think that your logic isn't as sharp as it should be, adam.

I'm not sure what you're trying to state, adam.


I asked Craig what evidence would prove impact...and his answer was:


14 or more first-hand witness accounts of the plane on the southern approach flight path.


A southern approach is a pre-requisite of impact, it is not a guarantee of impact.

To say that a southern approach is proof of impact is to affirm the consequent.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

posted by adam_zapple

I asked Craig what evidence would prove impact...and his answer was:


14 or more first-hand witness accounts of the plane on the southern approach flight path.


A southern approach is a pre-requisite of impact, it is not a guarantee of impact.

To say that a southern approach is proof of impact is to affirm the consequent.


A southern approach is a requirement of an impact into the Pentagon wall as demonstrated by the damage path through the light poles and through the Pentagon 1st floor interior.

Diagram taken from official US Department Of Defense Pentagon 9-11 Book



A flight path from Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo gas station and without the downed light poles along its direct path negates the official damage path through the light poles and through the Pentagon 1st floor interior demonstrated by photos and contained within the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

Screen capture taken from US Federal Aviation Administration official flight path animation (comments added)



1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

FAA flight path





[edit on 2/27/09 by SPreston]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
This theory of a fly-over doesn't make much sense to me. Clearly no Boeing punched through 3 rings at the Pentagon, but here's my issue - why even bother with the fly-over? Why not just blow up the building and just tell everyone 'a plane did it'?

I don't get the logic to this fly over theory. If they are going to plant fake evidence of a plane, why do they even need a fly over? How could they be sure no one would report it flying away from the Pentagon? Plenty of sources reported the approach. I am sure lots of people would of seen it flying away, just as they did when it was coming in. Everyone would of heard it at that low altitude. Big passenger planes flying that low? Someone is going to notice it leaving.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by Insolubrious]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
This theory of a fly-over doesn't make much sense to me. Clearly no Boeing punched through 3 rings at the Pentagon, but here's my issue - why even bother with the fly-over? Why not just blow up the building and just tell everyone 'a plane did it'?



There is no "theory".

If you don't believe the plane hit then you have no choice but to believe in a flyover because ALL of the witnesses saw a very large low flying twin engine passenger jet timed perfectly with the explosion.

Did you watch the interviews with these working class folk who all watched the plane fly north of the gas station?




After watching them describe their first-hand accounts on-camera on-location do you really think they are liars?




[edit on 27-2-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Did you watch the interviews with these working class folk who all watched the plane fly north of the gas station?

After watching them describe their first-hand accounts on-camera on-location do you really think they are liars?




[edit on 27-2-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


Of course I watched, at least twice! No, I am not saying they are liars, infact I am saying quite the opposite. I have little reason to doubt their testimony and I do believe they saw 'something' that looked exactly like a plane, lots of people did. But how can you be sure that 'whatever' was flying in the pentagon airspace wasn't a missile dressed up (modified ) to look like a plane? (or vice versa, the plane was converted into a missile). After all, we all saw something that looked just like a plane punch through the steel towers on TV, exploding through the other side of the building. Only missiles can do this. And by extension, whatever they used on the towers was most likely the same deal at the Pentagon. The damage is consistant with a missile. Why is the concept of a dressed up missile so hard to grasp? I still felt that after watching your presentations as it never really cast any doubt on the modded missile theory for me but only re-enforced that idea.



Ever seen one of these? The JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile). ^
Look's like a plane. They are pretty big too (compare the size against the truck that it hits @ 1:45).

Also, just because I or anyone else says a 'plane' didn't/couldn't punch through 3 rings of the Pentagon does not mean that person can only conclude that it 'flew over'. If i recall you only have one witness who claims that he thought he saw a fly over. One witness? Or am I wrong there too?



[edit on 27-2-2009 by Insolubrious]




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join