There Was No Missile At the Pentagon - But the Plane Did Not Hit, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 1-3-2009 @ 11:55 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Since I am ‘arguing from incredulity’ and using faulty logic, when will you be presenting your 'smoking gun' evidence elsewhere? You know, some place other than internet forums? Meaning, with your superior logic and your ability to overcome arguments from 'incredulity' you will have no problem convincing a DA to bring charges?

Please.

This is what pseudo-skeptics always resort to when it's clear they have lost the argument and are intellectually bankrupt.

I've answered this question over and over as you can read in this response but the gist of it is that we HAVE done something and we will continue to do more even AS we continue to discuss it wherever people will discuss it with us online and in person.

You act like you are oblivious to the implications of a crime of this nature.

You act like we haven't already committed to permanent global war and that many 100's of billions of dollars haven't been involved.

You act like any D.A. would be happy to take the military-industrial-complex head on and risk the fate of Jim Garrison.

Spare me the off-topic self-righteous simplification as if the reaction from the authorities and media to this information could possible prove or disprove this information.

It only underscores the fact that you have ZERO evidence to refute what we present and are forced to defend a mass murderous war crime based on nothing but your pure unadulterated faith in the government.

Rest assured, more action than you know has been, is, and will be taken as this evidence only continues to grow because it's based on truth and facts.

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 12:18 AM by D.Duck

Craig Ranke CIT,

Fantastic presentasion on Pentagon, very good job, you guys nailed it.

Shanksville next.

D.Duck

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 01:31 AM by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by D.Duck
Craig Ranke CIT,

Fantastic presentasion on Pentagon, very good job, you guys nailed it.

Shanksville next.

D.Duck

and I agree completely... but i think craig and preston both realize why i was asking the previous questions regarding missle/drone launch, the HOLE PUNCH etc.

I needed to clear up a few areas in my line of thinking before proceeding on since before one can defend and support something and feel comfortable with doing so, there has to be certain logical sensical answers before committing ones very essence to a cause.

but the reinforcing will only strengthen those supporting them. Skepticism is healthy, but there's a line when skepticism can be taken too far.
Like me, Most in the truth movement including probably craig, initially set out to find or disprove the conspiracy "nuts" who were saying inside job and ended up finding the conspiracy was real. and this is why those fighting to expose the truth/conspiracy are increasing exponentially around the world and the discussions aren't going away as much as CAMERONFOX and friends (LOL) want to claim its diminishing.

If one has too many doubts in what they're defending, then the strength of that chain is only as strong as the weakest link. By that analogy, i think one reason craig and all those who support inside job are still around and getting stronger is because they/we have the TRUTH on our side.... and the TRUTH always prevails. And why those who support the OCT, continue looking foolish and will always in the end, lose the argument.

I commend CIT and what they've acheived. Their work has laid an important foundation and framework for truthseekers to be able to separate speculation and disinfo from irrefuatable evidence, science and fact. Which will ultimately strengthen the movement, gain real true critical thinkers and in the end help bring the perps to justice or at least provide proof beyond a doubt 911 was an inside job. And that may be whats the most important in the bigger picture whether the perps are ever brought to justice or not.

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 06:28 AM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Your post is another example of conspiracy theory inflation. When pressed about why you haven't taken your 'smoking gun' evidence to the authorities, you expand the conspiracy to include anyone and anything that doesn't agree with you. Why haven't you take it to the authorities? Why, they are either "in on it" or 'too scared' to do anything!

As far as the "pseudo skeptic" charge: you're setting up the false assertion that either everyone (me) believes you, or they are sheeple.

I will modifiy my previous assertion. CIT has gotten outside attention. It's just that it wasn't what you expected. You do remember the previous calls to action? The call CIT did, in fact answer?

For those of you how may not be aware of CIT's first main stream media exposure, please click here.

You may not like it, but the following is your theory (even though you like to side-step the absurdity of your narrative by claiming you dont have a theory):

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:
*They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
*The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
*The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
*The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
*One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
*A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
*The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
*The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
*A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,
The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 09:21 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Appeal to authority AND argument from incredulity.

All you have is faulty logic and pure unadulterated faith in the government.

You can not provide a single piece of independent evidence to refute what we present so you frantically work as hard as you can to derail the thread by focusing on me personally with deceptive debate tactics.

It's rather transparent.

You don't fool people here.

You come off as a troll because that is what you do by working day and night saying the same thing over and over hoping it makes a difference as you desperately argue with people you claim are nuts.

That, SAP, is the very definition of insanity.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 09:24 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by matrixNIN11

Thanks man.

My point is you don't need all the pieces of the puzzle to see the picture.

The north side approach evidence alone is proof of a deception.

It's not necessary to speculate anything else.

We don't have to know exactly what type of explosives or weaponry was used to cause the damage and we likely never will know.

That's ok.

We have proof so let's focus on it.

That's really all I am saying here.

Peace!

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 12:51 PM by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
People who do not remember accurately have differing accounts.

Isn't it true that, of the witnesses interviewed by CIT who were asked to draw the flight path on a map, all of them drew a different path?

Is this seriously the flight path that you guys think the plane took? That's a pretty extreme turn for a plane going that fast. Do you have any idea the angle of bank that would be required to make that turn?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Appeal to authority AND argument from incredulity.

SAP's post was neither an appeal to authority nor an argument from incredulity. Please learn what these fallacies are before accusing others of committing them. I think you'll find that you're guilty of more fallacies than you realize.

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 01:19 PM by Ligon

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Isn't it true that, of the witnesses interviewed by CIT who were asked to draw the flight path on a map, all of them drew a different path?

[...]

Is this seriously the flight path that you guys think the plane took?

It's an approximation. Here is another image which has the various flight paths that witnesses have drawn all put together.

It's not possible to know who was the most accurate, but the witnesses agree that it came over the Navy Annex (ONA) and flew north of the Citgo station (NOC) while banking, which means it is physically impossible for it to have caused the physical damage to the light poles and building.

That's a pretty extreme turn for a plane going that fast. Do you have any idea the angle of bank that would be required to make that turn?

This question is addressed at length in this presentation:
The North Flight Path: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

Please remember that plane being ONA/NOC means the FDR data is bogus, which means we don't know how fast the plane was going. According to the witnesses it was going much slower than the FDR claims.

If there is anything that is (beyond) extreme it's the notion that the plane could do this:

See this video for calculations and analysis:
9/11: Attack on the Pentagon

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Ligon]

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 03:15 PM by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Isn't it true that, of the witnesses interviewed by CIT who were asked to draw the flight path on a map, all of them drew a different path?

[...]

Is this seriously the flight path that you guys think the plane took?

It's an approximation. Here is another image which has the various flight paths that witnesses have drawn all put together.

The approximation requires a high degree of bank not reported by the eyewitnesses, and depending on the speed, not possible for the aircraft to perform.

Originally posted by Ligon

That's a pretty extreme turn for a plane going that fast. Do you have any idea the angle of bank that would be required to make that turn?

This question is addressed at length in this presentation:
The North Flight Path: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

This presentation doesn't address the physics of the flight path in blue.

Originally posted by Ligon
If there is anything that is (beyond) extreme it's the notion that the plane could do this:

I agree...the 2 scenarios above are ridiculous at best...straw-men at worst. They both have a constant descent and an instant pull up. A more reasonable scenario would be a reduction in the descent rate over a period of time, which would result in a much lower maximum-g load on the aircraft.

Edit: If the same instantaneous attitude change were applied to CIT's "flyover" scenario, it would result in even greater g-loading on the aircraft.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by adam_zapple]

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 03:21 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

The approximation requires a high degree of bank not reported by the eyewitnesses, and depending on the speed, not possible for the aircraft to perform.

Incorrect.

The witnesses reported a significant bank AND a significantly low speed.

The presentation linked proves it entirely possible.

This presentation doesn't address the physics of the flight path in blue.

Yes it does.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the definition of the term "approximation".

I agree...the 2 scenarios above are ridiculous at best...straw-men at worst. They both have a constant descent and an instant pull up. A more reasonable scenario would be a reduction in the descent rate over a period of time, which would result in a much lower maximum-g load on the aircraft.

Incorrect.

the math used to determine the g forces was based on an arc.

The yellow line in the image was drawn by me merely to demonstrate the distance but it is not what was used by P4T in the calculations to determine the g force values.

You would already know this if you had bothered to view the presentation or paid any attention whatsoever to the math used.

Not a single person has disputed the math used as is evident in this thread about the subject.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 03:35 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Isn't it true that, of the witnesses interviewed by CIT who were asked to draw the flight path on a map, all of them drew a different path?

[...]

Is this seriously the flight path that you guys think the plane took?

It's an approximation. Here is another image which has the various flight paths that witnesses have drawn all put together.

......and where do everyone one of those witnesses say the plane wound up?

Drum roll please.............in the Pentagon.

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 03:41 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

......and where do everyone one of those witnesses say the plane wound up?

Drum roll please.............in the Pentagon.

Circular logic.

You LOVE logical fallacies!

Most admitted to not even being able to see the alleged impact point at all.

A belief that the plane hit is not evidence that the plane hit.

A first-hand account of SEEING the plane fly on the north side is evidence that it flew on the north side.

The fact that they all are unanimous in this fact makes it proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Same old desperate tired arguments.

But all you have is faulty logic and faith.

You have provided ZERO evidence and demonstrated your complete lack of critical thinking skills.

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 04:34 PM by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

The approximation requires a high degree of bank not reported by the eyewitnesses, and depending on the speed, not possible for the aircraft to perform.

Incorrect.

The witnesses reported a significant bank AND a significantly low speed.

59.6 degrees is more vertical than it is horizontal...none of the eyewitnesses reported a bank that extreme. Additionally, the more severe the bank, the greater the airspeed required to complete it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

This presentation doesn't address the physics of the flight path in blue.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't. in the video the plane is shown flying north of the impact point. This image shows the plane south of the impact point and nearly parallel with the south wall of the pentagon.

I agree...the 2 scenarios above are ridiculous at best...straw-men at worst. They both have a constant descent and an instant pull up. A more reasonable scenario would be a reduction in the descent rate over a period of time, which would result in a much lower maximum-g load on the aircraft.

Incorrect.

the math used to determine the g forces was based on an arc.

The yellow line in the image was drawn by me merely to demonstrate the distance but it is not what was used by P4T in the calculations to determine the g force values.

The arc would still require less of a g-load than your fabled "pull up" maneuver. So claiming that this is impossible doesn't bode well for your flyover theory either.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

......and where do everyone one of those witnesses say the plane wound up?

Drum roll please.............in the Pentagon.

Circular logic.

You LOVE logical fallacies!

What, exactly, about the eyewitnesses reporting the plane hitting the Pentagon is circular logic?

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 04:58 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

59.6 degrees is more vertical than it is horizontal...none of the eyewitnesses reported a bank that extreme. Additionally, the more severe the bank, the greater the airspeed required to complete it.

Ok so now you expect the same witnesses you believe all completely hallucinated something drastically different from reality regarding a very general north or south side detail to be mathematically accurate down to the degree regarding the much more specific detail of bank angle!

It's hilarious how you have to pretend to be oblivious to this insanely contradictory logic in such a claim.

ANY right bank at all of a plane on the north side as they all report is 100% fatal to the official story.

No it doesn't. in the video the plane is shown flying north of the impact point. This image shows the plane south of the impact point and nearly parallel with the south wall of the pentagon.

Wrong.

There is not only one example given in the presentation that you are once again exposing yourself as not having bothered to even view.

You really should view information that you are attempting to argue against.

Seriously.

The arc would still require less of a g-load than your fabled "pull up" maneuver. So claiming that this is impossible doesn't bode well for your flyover theory either.

You weren't even aware of the math presented when you tried arguing against it!

We present math to back up our claims.

You have no idea what you are arguing and have presented no math and no evidence.

Your hollow unsupported false claims mean nothing.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

What, exactly, about the eyewitnesses reporting the plane hitting the Pentagon is circular logic?

They are mutually exclusive claims.

A belief in an impact does not refute actually witnessing the plane on the north side.

A belief is not evidence.

Witnessing something first-hand is evidence.

Since they ALL unanimously report the plane on the north side and they all actually witnessed this it proves their deduction of an impact incorrect.

Particularly since most did not even have a view of the alleged impact point.

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 04:59 PM by Ligon

Originally posted by adam_zapple

The arc would still require less of a g-load than your fabled "pull up" maneuver. So claiming that this is impossible doesn't bode well for your flyover theory either.

Again, the plane flew over the Navy Annex (ONA) and north of the Citgo gas station (NOC), meaning the FDR data is bogus. (This is also proven by the evidence that the plane flew east of the Potomac River, the impossible 34G's required to pull out of the corresponding dive, and other facts.)

Given that the FDR data is bogus, it is only on the south of Citgo (SOC) flight path that the plane *still* had to be impossibly high seconds before "impact" due to the height VDOT antenna.

The ONA/NOC flight path has no such obstacle, and indeed the witnesses report that the plane was very low, barely making it over the Navy Annex.

You would know these basic facts if you had viewed the presentations that I and others have linked to.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Ligon]

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 05:10 PM by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Since they ALL unanimously report the plane on the north side and they all actually witnessed this it proves their deduction of an impact incorrect.

THERE is your circular logic ;-)

reply posted on 2-3-2009 @ 05:28 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by adam_zapple

Pay attention.

They ALL actually witnessed the plane on the north side.

That is evidence.

Most could not even see the the alleged impact point so they COULD NOT witness an alleged impact and therefore only deduced it.

That is not evidence.

The fact that you dismiss evidence in favor of deduction in order to cling to your fantasy faith in the officially conspiracy theory is very telling.

It proves you are a conspiracy theorist without regard for true skepticism or critical thinking principles.

You have provided zero evidence.

Only pure unadulterated faith in the government and a cult like following in favor of a fraudulent war.

reply posted on 3-3-2009 @ 09:23 AM by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

Pay attention.

They ALL actually witnessed the plane on the north side.

Untrue: Lloyd, Morin, and Paik never mentioned the citgo.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThat is evidence.

Yes....
So are the pieces of the plane found inside the Pentagon...
So are the statements of the eyewitnesses that you didn't bother to interview...
So is the fact that the black box was found inside the pentagon...
So is the DNA evidence that proves that the passengers & crew from the plane were in the Pentagon...

Starting to get the idea now?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Most could not even see the the alleged impact point so they COULD NOT witness an alleged impact and therefore only deduced it.

That is not evidence.

Everything they say is evidence...it's not just "not evidence" because it goes against your theory.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The fact that you dismiss evidence in favor of deduction in order to cling to your fantasy faith in the officially conspiracy theory is very telling.

No...I dismiss a small minority of eyewitness claims in favor of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts them.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It proves you are a conspiracy theorist without regard for true skepticism or critical thinking principles.

You've described yourself perfectly.

A true skeptic would wonder why ALL of the other available evidence contradicts these 10 claims of the plane being north of the Citgo station.

That's why you're here arguing on a message board instead of forming a grand jury.

reply posted on 3-3-2009 @ 12:18 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

They ALL actually witnessed the plane on the north side.

Untrue: Lloyd, Morin, and Paik never mentioned the citgo.

Read my statement because I didn't mention the citgo either

I said they all place it on the "north side".

Lloyde said it was north side of the bridge.

Morin and Paik said it was north side of Columbia Pike.

Therefore they all said it was on the north side approach.

North side of any of these things is 100% fatal to the official story every bit as much as north side of citgo yet matches the right banking north side approach perfectly.

You know this already. Stop playing dumb.

The FAA even animated it for you:

National Geographic did too:

Why are you pretending like you don't understand?

Yes....

So are the pieces of the plane found inside the Pentagon...

Affirming the consequent.

You LOVE logical fallacies!

That is NOT evidence that a plane hit and it most definitely not evidence that "Flight 77" hit.

So are the statements of the eyewitnesses that you didn't bother to interview...

Haha!

That is not even close to evidence that a plane hit!

It is a personal accusation against me that YOU have no evidence for.

So is the fact that the black box was found inside the pentagon...

Affirming the consequent.

If a black box was really found in the Pentagon there is zero evidence that it came from a plane that hit the building.

This is a purely faith based claim wrapped in a logical fallacy.

So is the DNA evidence that proves that the passengers & crew from the plane were in the Pentagon...

Once again affirming the consequent.

You have zero evidence at all that DNA from passengers & crew from "Flight 77" was ever anywhere near the Pentagon.

This is a faith based claim.

You are merely demonstrating a cult like belief in what you are told by the government with zero regard for true skepticism and critical thinking principles.

Starting to get the idea now?

Everything they say is evidence...it's not just "not evidence" because it goes against your theory.

As usual you are wrong and demonstrating a complete abandonment of common sense in your desperate attempts to defend the official story.

A witness has to actually witness something for their claim to be considered valid evidence!

Go figure.

It's not evidence for a claim when they admit to merely deducing it as most all witnesses did about the alleged impact due to the complex topography and landscape.

No...I dismiss a small minority of eyewitness claims in favor of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts them.

Wrong.

You have presented zero evidence contradicting them.

You have only presented faulty logic and faith based claims.

But zero evidence.

A true skeptic would wonder why ALL of the other available evidence contradicts these 10 claims of the plane being north of the Citgo station.

Since you have provided zero evidence that contradicts them your statement rings extremely hollow.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply posted on 3-3-2009 @ 01:11 PM by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

They ALL actually witnessed the plane on the north side.

Untrue: Lloyd, Morin, and Paik never mentioned the citgo.

Read my statement because I didn't mention the citgo either

I said they all place it on the "north side".

Lloyde said it was north side of the bridge.

Morin and Paik said it was north side of Columbia Pike.

Therefore they all said it was on the north side approach.

Is this a joke?

You just start picking arbitrary objects south of their reported flight path so that you can claim that their "north side" claims are unanimous?

Guess what...I can use your faulty logic to say that all eyewitnesses unanimously place the plane on a "south side" approach. (South of 10th street)

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
National Geographic did too:

Why have you cut out the part of the animation that shows the plane hitting the Pentagon?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If a black box was really found in the Pentagon there is zero evidence that it came from a plane that hit the building.

Except that the data contained therein included the flight data of the impact plane...including other prior flights.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Affirming the consequent.

You LOVE logical fallacies!

Affirming the consequent.

Once again affirming the consequent.