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.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Many More than 8 People at CIT Conference

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by CameronFox

I just saw some pictures on CIT's facebook.

The crowd appears to be at 30. Give or take.


You only saw one picture of the crowd. There's no "take" considering that there's 30 in that picture alone. There's more off camera too.


There are 5 pictures on Facebook.


Yes. One of them is "of the crowd". The other four are not.

EDIT: Actually there is a second picture of the crowd which is almost identical to the first. This has no bearing on my point that CamronFox made an unsubstantiated statement about the room not being half full.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
The only question I wish and hope to be answered by all those that think no plane hit anything and it was all smoke and mirrors is...

IF NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON....
WHERE IN HELL IS THE GOVERNMENT HIDING ALL THOSE PASSENGERS SO THAT THEIR RELATIVES CAN'T FIND THEM! SAME WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA FOLKS! WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT GOT ON THOSE PLANES NOW????

Zindo



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Oh and of course the trip included some research/investigation as well.

We made a surprise visit to the house one of the alleged witnesses who has been shown to be dishonest. We had an EXTREMELY interesting discussion where he said something very serious that further implicates him.

I'll eventually put out a report but in the mean time will not answer any questions about it.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Oh and of course the trip included some research/investigation as well.

We made a surprise visit to the house one of the alleged witnesses who has been shown to be dishonest. We had an EXTREMELY interesting discussion where he said something very serious that further implicates him.

I'll eventually put out a report but in the mean time will not answer any questions about it.



What? Did he tell you to get off his front porch before he knocked you off of it?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

It's pretty funny though how people like Jthomas are willing to spread blatant lies about the event (without having the courage to show up) while 911files and others are more than happy to perpetuate this deliberately fabricated rumor without any evidence or even before hearing a single report from us about it.


Since you've evaded answering my questions for over two years why would any rational person waste their time going to your buffet lunch to ask you the same questions you refuse to answer?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Since you've evaded answering my questions for over two years why would any rational person waste their time going to your buffet lunch to ask you the same questions you refuse to answer?


It was Free JT. Free lunch is always good. Heck, one of my vendors just brought me lunch. I sat at my desk eating it as I chuckled reading through this thread.

911Files...

That was one funny post, dude!!




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
The only question I wish and hope to be answered by all those that think no plane hit anything and it was all smoke and mirrors is...

IF NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON....
WHERE IN HELL IS THE GOVERNMENT HIDING ALL THOSE PASSENGERS SO THAT THEIR RELATIVES CAN'T FIND THEM! SAME WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA FOLKS! WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT GOT ON THOSE PLANES NOW????

Zindo


Frequently Asked Questions >> If Flight 77 did not hit the building what happened to its passengers and crew?

citizeninvestigationteam.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by CameronFox

I just saw some pictures on CIT's facebook.

The crowd appears to be at 30. Give or take.


You only saw one picture of the crowd. There's no "take" considering that there's 30 in that picture alone. There's more off camera too.


There are 5 pictures on Facebook.


Yes. One of them is "of the crowd". The other four are not.

EDIT: Actually there is a second picture of the crowd which is almost identical to the first. This has no bearing on my point that CamronFox made an unsubstantiated statement about the room not being half full.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]


Don't forget your Twoofer standards: "If there are no photos, there is no evidence."

Show us the photos of Ranke and Aldo with the entire group of people. By your standards, if you can't provide those photos, than you have no "proof" that more than a few people who were shown with Craig and Aldo attended.

You want to be consistent in your standards, correct, Ligon?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
There were at least 70 people there. They were extremely attentive, dying to ask questions the entire time, and to my surprise there was actually a standing ovation at the end.


From 8 people to more than 70 is a pretty big difference. In fact, that is such a difference that it qualifies in my book as deliberate misinformation. ATS has T&C's against knowingly posting false information. jthomas, you are busted. Bigtime.

Craig, I am trying to get a hold of my friends to see if they went, because they can further confirm this if they were there. I suppose it's going to take additional confirmation, because the next thing you know, the jref idiots are going to claim all your videos and pictures of the event are CGI or photoshopped!


Anyway, it sounds like that was a great event. Next one should be in front of 50,000 fans at a huge stadium, complete with lighters, special effects (ok, no special effects), a laser light show, and a kick butt band!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
This is still going on? meh...

No one is ever going to make me think this plane magically flew over the building and no one noticed. It's like... dozens of people were watching it, and it managed to find the ONE spot where NO one could see it, at which point it flew off over the Pentagon, and no one saw it.

And then after it didn't actually hit, some folks ran out and knocked some light poles down, because gee, the thing would seem totally fake otherwise. I mean a gaping hole, plane bits all over the place.. no, that's not enough... we REALLY need to knock over a few light poles too, or no one will believe it!


Oops.. knocked them down in the wrong place though, ah well.

The entire premise that a plane just.. flew over.. and then they planted bodies and plane parts very quickly.. knocked over light poles... not a single person saw ANY of this happening, and that those who say they saw it hit are all apparently lying.. and NO one saw it flying away.. (and then of course, we have a magically disappearing plane / passengers)... it's just too unbelievable.

But I guess folks need a hobby.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
ATS has T&C's against knowingly posting false information. jthomas, you are busted. Bigtime.


Feel free to show us the post where I "knowingly posted false information." We all need a good laugh.


If you can't do it, I expect your retraction.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Next one should be in front of 50,000 fans at a huge stadium, complete with lighters, special effects (ok, no special effects), a laser light show, and a kick butt band!




They couldn't fill an 80 seat auditorium. (which is smaller than a middle school auditorium)

50K ?


Fresh...simply fresh.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Ligon
 


Wow!!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
damn if it did and damn if it didn't, nothing changes. not here.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Don't forget your Twoofer standards: "If there are no photos, there is no evidence."

Show us the photos of Ranke and Aldo with the entire group of people. By your standards, if you can't provide those photos, than you have no "proof" that more than a few people who were shown with Craig and Aldo attended.

You want to be consistent in your standards, correct, Ligon?


When did I ever say "If there are no photos, there is no evidence"? Please quote me or stop putting words in my mouth.

Clearly I am not of this view because I do not require a photograph to conclude which side of the gas station the plane flew on. I've seen/heard firsthand interviews with over a dozen witnesses who all had different yet excellent vantage points to judge this and they all insist it was on the north side. It is impossible for all of them to be wrong about this general detail in the same way.

Likewise, I do not know the exact number of people who were at the conference. I made a rough estimate of 40-60 after you guys begged me to do so. Craig estimated 70+. If you ask all of the people there (witnesses) for a number they will vary within a reasonable margin of error, but they will all confirm to you that it was well north of 8. I'm an eyewitness to the event (conference) and would bet my life on it. It's not possible for all of us to be so wildly and drastically mistaken in the same way. Get it?

Maybe this whole attendance situation will finally help you to think rationally about the flight path of the plane on 9/11.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon
I've seen/heard firsthand interviews with over a dozen witnesses who all had different yet excellent vantage points to judge this and they all insist it was on the north side. It is impossible for all of them to be wrong about this general detail in the same way.[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]


Yet you dismiss the fact that if the plane was to the north of the Citgo, these same ANC witnesses would have had the plane almost directly overhead. You completely disregard the fact that the ones who are shown pointing towards where they saw the plane do not point overhead, but over the Citgo, exactly where the plane would appear to be if it was to the south side of the Citgo.

Cherry-picking.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


You can ignore what they told the CMH weeks after the event and then confirmed to us in person all you want in defense of mass murder but that does not change the facts.

Darius Prather to CMH:


Prather: Up there, where that building is, right there.

CMH officer: Towards the Navy Annex...

Prather: The Navy Annex, above midway. You can see where is a little area on the roof... the lower roof [...]. Right along in that area is where the American Airlines plane came directly across that, and it was only about 3 and half or 4 feet above that. We thought it was the weirdest thing. "It is too damn low", we were saying [...].

So as it came across there... and once the plane came across the building it lowered down [...], it came on down in between where the gas station [CITGO] is and our parking lot. [...] Then he just aimed that nose of the plane like a missile straight over the Pentagon. So as it came right there everybody just ran. I ran into the [inaudible]. [...]

official audio interview





The fact is that they ALL place it directly over their employee parking lot which is NORTH OF THE CITGO and NOT directly over their heads.

Of course it also matches perfectly with where Lagasse places it from the opposite perspective as corroborated by all the other witnesses at the gas station.

Granted you did say "almost directly overhead" however this is exactly what the ANC witnesses all described! Over the Navy Annex, headed straight TOWARDS THEM, and then banking right while over their employee parking lot.

The article that you wrote for Gaffney's book proves how you were perfectly willing to accept their accounts as supporting a north side approach when they were anonymous and ambiguous and you could use them to push a 2-plane disinfo theory with the north side flyover being the E4B.

Unfortunately for you we pulled the rug out from underneath your plans by figuring how who they were and interviewing them on camera on location. This 100% confirmed that they corroborate the citgo witnesses perfectly BUT ALSO that the C-130 approached from the northwest as opposed to the south or southwest proving the 2007 released RADES data fraudulent.

You already know all this yet you are insisting on trying to continue to spin their accounts in defense of mass murder.







[edit on 13-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Yet you dismiss the fact that if the plane was to the north of the Citgo, these same ANC witnesses would have had the plane almost directly overhead. You completely disregard the fact that the ones who are shown pointing towards where they saw the plane do not point overhead, but over the Citgo, exactly where the plane would appear to be if it was to the south side of the Citgo.

Cherry-picking.


Nice try John. They point to the north side and then draw where they saw the plane on overhead maps so there is no ambiguity. You cannot spin this. Carter says that anyone who claims it was on the south side "must didn't see it". Prather specifically places it over the exit sign on the north side between the ANC buildings and Citgo. Stafford explicitly says "No, not the south side; the north side" in regards to the plane's location in regards to the Navy Annex", and on and on.



People can watch these interviews for themselves in The North Side Flyover and see how dishonest you are.

citizeninvestigationteam.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Now Craig, you and I have both been in that parking lot and you know that is a load of manure. A plane with a 124 foot wingspan directly over that lot would be at a between 70 - 90 degree angle up from the ground from their POV. The angle indicated by their arms in your interviews is less than 45 degrees. Please pick up a trig book and do the math.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

As Ligon stated none of the official story defending debunkers had the courage to show up but not even any of the alleged "truthers" who refuse to accept this info were willing to show up and challenge the info.


How do you know? Did you know every single person in that room? If you did, what sort of conference is that? Did you invite all your relatives and Aldo's relatives? Is that how you "know" there were no "official story defending debunkers" there? Did you know I was there?


However I'll admit that I never thought they would come because the honest witnesses are scared to speak out now that they understand the implications of what they saw and the lying witnesses OF COURSE wouldn't show up because they know this information implicates them as accomplices to mass murder.


They didn't show up because you are the head of a freak show that nobody is a) interested in b) cares about or c) is concerned about.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join