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.

 

New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
LOL!

That's right, Erik Dihle! This is the guy who, when contacted by CIT, claimed that he couldn't even remember passing on hearsay to the CMH to the effect that the plane bombed the Pentagon and continued past it.

When Wanda Ramey, who claims she witnessed the impact and the light poles being knocked over, told you she had been taking medication and that her memory of the day was no longer clear, YOU THREW HER ENTIRE TESTIMONY OUT!

Yet another CIT investigative double standard!

And isn't it strange how the information that Craig relies on to support his theory WAS PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT!

Too much.




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

ETA: Yes I invited Lloyde and Sucherman.


In addition to the DVD, I'm sure you included copies all of the posts you've made to "SMEAR" them. If you didn't be sure to give them my email address and I'll link them up.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

posted by discombobulator
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Was it a sophisticated military deception that fooled everyone like you claim it did, or did it only fool those with verifiable names and testimonies?


And yet there are no verifiable names or testimonies from the alleged 104 witnesses or hundreds of witnesses to the official Flight 77 south flight path.

The JREFers who threatened to dig up south flight path witnesses failed miserably when they traveled to Arlington Virginia and hung their heads in shame. One JREFer was even too cowardly to question right in front of him a man who he thought was Edward Paik.

Don't need any witnesses to the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is their battle cry. The Mainstream Media printed their teensey little testimonies and there is no need to verify them and question them and show their faces. So what if they were miles away in their offices or at the Reagan National Metro platform out of sight. So what if their tales changed several times. The Mainstream Media printed only the truth and must be trusted.

It's these guys who are unafraid to show their faces and unafraid to testify what they saw in public and go against the official story who have to be liars.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 

SPreston,

I'll give you a clue, mate. I don't bother reading any of your posts.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator


Was it a sophisticated military deception that fooled everyone like you claim it did, or did it only fool those with verifiable names and testimonies?


Roosevelt Roberts has a verifiable name and testimony.

Erik Dihle supports him and the north side approach witnesses prove him correct.

Some people were fooled by the deception and some people weren't.

The ones who weren't fooled but were convinced it was a "2nd plane" have written it off as inconsequential, yet others who understand the implications are afraid and do not want to talk.

We've encountered all of this just like we have encountered recovery worker first responder heroes who silently and nervously support our efforts.


The fact is that there was NOT a "2nd plane" that was "veering away" within "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion or "shadowing" the attack jet as nervously relayed by Sucherman and Wheelhouse.

The C-130 wasn't in the airspace for 3 minutes as confirmed on video by Anthony Tribby and all the ANC witnesses INCLUDING Erik Dihle.

The jig is up and you know it.

Stop the spin and join us in the effort to seek accountability.





[edit on 29-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Stop the spin and join us in the effort to seek accountability.

Since you have asked so nicely, I have a counter-proposal for you.

You release the five minutes of video immediately prior to and immediately following Lloyde England's alleged confession. If the context of the conversation confirms your allegation that he has confessed his involvement in 9/11 I will gladly join your side and promote your ideas.

Do we have a deal?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
You release the five minutes of video immediately prior to and immediately following Lloyde England's alleged confession. If the context of the conversation confirms your allegation that he has confessed his involvement in 9/11 I will gladly join your side and promote your ideas.

Have you seen The Eye of the Storm?

Check it out, it's entirely devoted to Lloyde. It probably has everything that you are looking for.

The parts with Lloyde in National Security Alert are edited segments from The Eye of the Storm.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Did that NCOIC know WHAT your were doing? I'll bet he knew just like all of the other people you've interviewed knew what you were doing, even those you've SMEARED with libelous posts on the Internet.

You have unbelievable audacity showing that flag that you piss on daily with your accusations of a "military deception". Forum rules and decorum prevent me saying what I really think, but I suspect you can guess.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
And isn't it strange how the information that Craig relies on to support his theory WAS PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT!


And what kind of point is that supposed to make? NONE. The government has been the only source of official information, so what's he supposed to use? Info from Scorcha Faal?


And besides, that statement is only half true anyway. He uses CIT's own evidence gathered from eyewitnesses at the scene, common sense, in depth analysis, good graphics, a host of help from aviation and other professionals, and a relatively open mind. And he admits mistakes, as rare as those are.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Have you seen The Eye of the Storm?

Yes.


Check it out, it's entirely devoted to Lloyde. It probably has everything that you are looking for.

It does not. The clip is 53 seconds in length, begins with him seemingly in med-sentence, and ends with him saying that noone planned or wanted him to be there that morning.

There is no context to the discussion that is taking place, and elements of what Lloyde is saying do not support Craig's allegation that Lloyde is confessing his involvement.

But we'll know soon enough. No reason for Craig not to produce the additional video if he is telling the truth...



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

Since you have asked so nicely, I have a counter-proposal for you.

You release the five minutes of video immediately prior to and immediately following Lloyde England's alleged confession. If the context of the conversation confirms your allegation that he has confessed his involvement in 9/11 I will gladly join your side and promote your ideas.

Do we have a deal?


It's all in Eye of the Storm in context in full.

But I never maintained that he confessed involvement!

I specifically said that he was "careful NOT to outright confess".

But of course he did admit it was a "planned event" by the people with all the money and he also admitted he was "in it" with a big smile on his face.

It was a very cryptic "virtual" confession but Lloyde kept his proven deliberate lie about the light pole and his north side location right until the end.

I never suggested otherwise.

The notion that I would "bargain" with you as a means to get you to lie about taking action on this definitive information is rather comical.








[edit on 29-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

Since you have asked so nicely, I have a counter-proposal for you.

You release the five minutes of video immediately prior to and immediately following Lloyde England's alleged confession. If the context of the conversation confirms your allegation that he has confessed his involvement in 9/11 I will gladly join your side and promote your ideas.

Do we have a deal?


It's all in Eye of the Storm in context in full.

No it isn't, as stated before, the clip is 53 seconds and begins with Lloyde seemingly in mid-sentence and ends with him saying that noone planned from him to be there that morning.

I would like to see the five minutes of footage immediately before the clip starts, and the five minutes of footage immedaitely after.

Can you provide it please?


But I never maintained that he confessed involvement!

You have maintained that he made a "virtual confession".


The notion that I would "bargain" with you as a means to get you to lie about taking action on this definitive information is rather comical.

So you are refusing to produce the video that I have asked for?

May I ask why?

[edit on 29-6-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Did that NCOIC know WHAT your were doing?


How could he not know?

Why else would he address the letter to Citizen Investigation Team and Craig?



You have unbelievable audacity showing that flag that you piss on daily with your accusations of a "military deception". Forum rules and decorum prevent me saying what I really think, but I suspect you can guess.


Yes it's clear you are rather riled up over the fact that a 9/11 hero supports us and sent a handwritten letter of appreciation to us on patriotic stationery.

Think about that Reheat. Think real hard.

He didn't go through all that trouble because he thinks we're delusional nutcases.

You should see what his "token of appreciation" was!

Don't worry, I'll spare you. You'd probably have a heart attack.





[edit on 29-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator


You have maintained that he made a "virtual confession".


Yep. He clearly made cryptic comments while being careful to NOT outright confess and maintaining his proven lie about the light pole and north side location!

Are you arguing that he DID confess?





So you are refusing to produce the video that I have asked for?

May I ask why?


Because you are nothing but an anonymous internet forum poster and I owe nothing to you.

Besides, the information is 100% verifiable.

Lloyde is not anonymous and as we have shown he is quite accessible.

If you think I am being dishonest it is up to you to prove it with evidence.

Contact Lloyde yourself and get him to tell you that I misrepresented what he said.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Yep. He clearly made cryptic comments while being careful to NOT outright confess and maintaining his proven lie about the light pole and north side location!

Are you arguing that he DID confess?

Nope, just trying to confirm your allegation that he made a confession, virtual or otherwise. I have not seen any evidence of this so far.


Because you are nothing but an anonymous internet forum poster and I owe nothing to you.

So let me get this straight. You have video of the biggest bombshell ("virtual") confession of all time, and you can only present it in a 53 second video clip that has no context, and more importantly, doesn't have Lloyde confessing to anything at all?

The proposal I offered was sincere... If the old guy confessed then I am prepared to believe your story. Unfortunately what you have shown is not a confession, virtual or otherwise so I am not yet convinced of anything you say.

I am offering you an opportunity to silence me as a detractor, and perhaps even have my assistance. Your request for my assistance was sincere, was it not?

All you have to do is show the video immediately before and after Lloyde's "virtual" confession so that we can confirm your version of events.

Can you please provide the evidence that has been asked for?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Hell YEs S bro i love this movie. it has really helped u should make a thread that has that clip of the taxi driver talking about the staging it when he doesn't know he is being taped. every one skip to 1 hour and 10 min he says it. man he #EDDDDD up.lol



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinveezy
Hell YEs S bro i love this movie. it has really helped u should make a thread that has that clip of the taxi driver talking about the staging it when he doesn't know he is being taped. every one skip to 1 hour and 10 min he says it. man he #EDDDDD up.lol

Well well, it looks like there is some interest in your clip, Craig. Now perhaps you could expand the clip by about 5 minutes on both sides and then post it in a new thread like your friend here suggests?

Can't wait to see it.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

The proposal I offered was sincere... If the old guy confessed then I am prepared to believe your story. Unfortunately what you have shown is not a confession, virtual or otherwise so I am not yet convinced of anything you say.


Since I said in the presentation that it wasn't an outright confession and that he maintained his proven deliberate lie I guess we only disagree about the definition of the word "virtual".

Frankly I really don't care if you find nothing cryptic/odd/ or telling when considering his comments regarding "history/his story", the David Icke book that he claimed he read but was unable to cite a single detail from, and his reference to this being an event for the people with all the money that was too big for him to do anything about.




I am offering you an opportunity to silence me as a detractor, and perhaps even have my assistance. Your request for my assistance was sincere, was it not?


You do not qualify as a detractor because you have no name, no coherent logic, and no evidence. However you are a great thread bumper!


I did not request your assistance nor do I care one way or the other whether or not you give it. This will continue to grow either way. I simply suggested that you do what's right for your own good.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

The proposal I offered was sincere... If the old guy confessed then I am prepared to believe your story. Unfortunately what you have shown is not a confession, virtual or otherwise so I am not yet convinced of anything you say.


Since I said in the presentation that it wasn't an outright confession and that he maintained his proven deliberate lie I guess we only disagree about the definition of the word "virtual".

So you are virtually saying that Lloyde didn't confess to anything.

Thanks for that, I thought as much.


Frankly I really don't care if you find nothing cryptic/odd/ or telling when considering his comments regarding "history/his story", the David Icke book that he claimed he read but was unable to cite a single detail from, and his reference to this being an event for the people with all the money that was too big for him to do anything about.

I didn't ask about his "his/story" comments or his David Icke book, or his reference to people with money. You are diverting attention elsewhere.

I have asked for evidence of his confession, virtual or otherwise, and you continue to refuse to provide it.

We've been down this road before, if you remember - I asked you to provide the video before and after you allegedly confirmed Sucherman's location and you refused to provide that too. And when I spoke to Sucherman he personally told me that you had misrepresented what he had said.

I knew you weren't going to provide the video for either incident, because I know that you know that both videos don't tell the same story that you are.

In the best case scenario you are being deliberately deceptive to your viewers.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

And when I spoke to Sucherman he personally told me that you had misrepresented what he had said.




Prove it.

I think you are lying.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join