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.

 

Gage, Asner, Hicks, Griffin, etc. endorse Pentagon Investigation

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Then there is that troublesome Doubletree video, which also does NOT show the plane flying over.

Casual readers to the thread will note that the Doubletree video did prove troublesome for Soloist.

In this thread, Soloist made the following quote:

Originally posted by Soloist
It doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building, and there is no proof at all that it didn't.

Yes, that's right... Soloist did not consider that the speed of the object (that he alleged was Flight AA77) should be important.

Soloist was prepared to state that speed could have been 100mph and still stick with his belief that the alleged plane was Flight AA77. Note, for Soloist to believe the official story, he needs to be able to prove that the alleged object in the video was travelling at speeds over 400mph. A plane travelling at 100mph conflicts with official story data, yet Soloist disregarded this with his abstract speed claim.

Read the thread and see how troublesome it was for Soloist to try to prove anything regarding the Doubletree video. He offered no speed estimate, other than allowing a variation of 400mph!




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



Hi cashlink, why'd you change your name?


Care to tell me who is cashlink?
For all we know you are “ThroatYogart”


I will look at evidence, I assure you. But, there is none here. Nothing but hearsay.


There is plenty of evidences however, there are those that refuse to look at it when one’s eyes are closed.

You have not proved anything here; your post is nothing but a rant with insults nothing new here. Try to debunk something and provide some real sources beside, spewing your venom.





[edit on 29-7-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Casual readers to the thread will note that the Doubletree video did prove troublesome for Soloist.


Actually it is quite troublesome for the CL's (conspiracy loyalists, can I claim that one?) due to the fact that it does not show the plane flying over the Pentagon as claimed by Craig and his mystery "witnesses" of the flyover.



Yes, that's right... Soloist did not consider that the speed of the object (that he alleged was Flight AA77) should be important.


Yes, that's right. Tezza has a hard time understanding that the video does not show the plane flying over at any speed! Most people can get that, it's pretty easy to understand.


Note, for Soloist to believe the official story, he needs to be able to prove that the alleged object in the video was travelling at speeds over 400mph. A plane travelling at 100mph conflicts with official story data, yet Soloist disregarded this with his abstract speed claim.


Yawn. "Conflicts" and "magic trick conspiracy" aren't one and the same. Sorry, since you took my post so literal let's say it WAS going 100mph, it still HIT the building. Conflicting? Sure. Flyover? Nope.

Twist it however you want, but I am talking specifically about this "flyover" nonsense, anything else is irrelevant to my post.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Care to tell me who is cashlink?


Oh, I'm quite sure you know...



For all we know you are “ThroatYogart”


...not all all, but it's funny you would know who that is considering it looks like he was banned a few months before you were a member here. However, I was a member here well before he was banned, so I'm not him... interestingly enough so was cashlink. Funny how you guys have the same exact typos and writing style and opinions on the subject matter.

Surely I must be mistaken, no? I guess only you know the truth, eh? And that's what you're here for right? The truth?



There is plenty of evidences however, there are those that refuse to look at it when one’s eyes are closed.


There is NO evidence of a flyover, only hearsay. Funny how you mention closed eyes, when all the CIT has ever presented hasn't even come close to what most would consider proof.


You have not proved anything here; your post is nothing but a rant with insults nothing new here. Try to debunk something and provide some real sources beside, spewing your venom.


Geez, calm down. I'm not the one making the claim that the plane flew over the Pentagon and that several witnesses saw it. Sorry, but that's where you SHOULD be asking for proof, not taking hearsay and running with it.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



Care to tell me who is cashlink?


Oh, I'm quite sure you know...



For all we know you are “ThroatYogart”

...not all all, but it's funny you would know who that is considering it looks like he was banned a few months before you were a member here. However, I was a member here well before he was banned, so I'm not him... interestingly enough so was cashlink. Funny how you guys have the same exact typos and writing style and opinions on the subject matter.

Surely I must be mistaken, no? I guess only you know the truth, eh? And that's what you're here for right? The truth?

There is plenty of evidences however, there are those that refuse to look at it when one’s eyes are closed.


Wrong! That what you get for assuming. Furthmore “YOU ARE OFF TOPIC”! I am not the topic of this tread. Try to stay on topic.



There is NO evidence of a flyover, only hearsay. Funny how you mention closed eyes, when all the CIT has ever presented hasn't even come close to what most would consider proof.


There is no evidences to support the OS it funny how the debunkers cling to insults and ridiculing when their alleged fact blow up in their faces.


Geez, calm down. I'm not the one making the claim that the plane flew over the Pentagon and that several witnesses saw it. Sorry, but that's where you SHOULD be asking for proof, not taking hearsay and running with it.


Sarcasm noted! I don’t need to question the witness they appear to be very credible and there is no reason for them to lie. As far as hearsay this is evidences to me, what was the witness suppose to do jump high enough in the air when the plane flew over the pentagon, rip a pieces of airplane part off the plane, and hand it to YOU. What evidences should this witness have? How would this witness get any evidences when the government did their best to cover- up this event?

I just love this game you play, demanding evidences from people who could not possibly have anything but their word but, you want all of us to believe in YOUR eyewitness who also have no evidences why is that Soloist? Your OS is nothing but concocted lies presented by people in power who never question anything and do as their told. One only needs to do ten min of Google research to conclude that. Then there are those who spend all their time on disinfo web sites looking for ways to distract the truth from being heard.

When all fails usually ridiculing and insulting good people presenting facts and creditable sources works, by running them off, or do your best to get them band. That is the best way to shut them up!



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

There is no evidences to support the OS


There is plenty, I just listed some, yet you keep your eyes closed, which you accused me of doing.



I don’t need to question the witness they appear to be very credible and there is no reason for them to lie.


And they didn't lie. The plane did not fly over the Pentagon.



As far as hearsay this is evidences to me, what was the witness suppose to do jump high enough in the air when the plane flew over the pentagon, rip a pieces of airplane part off the plane, and hand it to YOU. What evidences should this witness have?


How would they know to jump when the plane did not fly over the Pentagon AS they reported? That's just silly. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "What evidences should this witness have" when they all report the plane impacted the Pentagon.


I just love this game you play, demanding evidences from people who could not possibly have anything but their word but, you want all of us to believe in YOUR eyewitness who also have no evidences why is that Soloist?


You misunderstand, possibly on purpose. I don't take CIT by their word, I think they are full of it. In order to prove their claim, they would need to present quite extraordinary evidence, not "some guy said people reported this". They have tossed out MANY witnesses for the exact same reason - "they didn't see the impact to the light poles/Pentagon but deduced it"... sound familiar? Yet when they think something fits their fantasy they suddenly promote it.

You should demand more quality evidence than hearsay. But if you want to believe it, go right a., understand that most people who think logically will not so easily be suckered.


When all fails usually ridiculing and insulting good people presenting facts


What facts? How is it a FACT that the plane flew over the Pentagon? There is NO proof of this at all. I would not consider someone being deceptive and promoting this as a fact as "good people".



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Please stay on topic.

Any and all further deviation of the personal sort will be summarily removed.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Casual readers to the thread will note that the Doubletree video did prove troublesome for Soloist.


Astute and perceptive readers to the thread will understand and realize what Soloist was alluding to. Its all about another of the CIT/PfT team's problems. How can a video that *should* show a "flyover", but doesn't, be reconciled? Doesn't matter what speed the plane was flying. You don't see a 500 knot 757, you don't see a 25 knot blimp, you don't see squat - nothing but a hint of a tail flashing by followed by the explosion and smoke billowing. No flyover, at 500 knots or 25.

Plus, if we are to believe CIT's claim that Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane flying away "...around the lane one area" at "...fifty feet to less than a hundred feet..." , we ought to be able to see it in the Doubletree video since the camera angle covers the Lane 1 area.

So yes. Astute and perceptive readers to this thread will understand.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Doesn't matter what speed the plane was flying. You don't see a 500 knot 757, you don't see a 25 knot blimp, you don't see squat - nothing but a hint of a tail flashing by followed by the explosion and smoke billowing. No flyover, at 500 knots or 25.

Casual readers to this thread will note that Solosit been unable to identify the alleged plane in the video, nor was he able to provide any calculations that supported a speed consistent with the official government story.

Now, despite his alleged 25 year career of being a spook with the DOD, trebor has also decided that the speed of the alleged object does not matter!

Note that member trebor really doesn't know what that video shows, as he states that it is a 'hint of a tail flashing by'. I don't suppose that you managed to read the number on the tail, as it flashed by, did you?

These two official government story believers completely disregard the speed of the alleged plane as though it is not important. Yes, the speed is important. It must be consistent with the government story... I can't believe that you would so carelessly toss about illogical comments about the facts that you allege to be true. Amazing.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Congrats to CIT!!
After all your hard work you deserve to be heard.

Thanks for the post

North of Citgo...I'm convinced by CIT's EVIDENCE.

The other side has nothing to offer except the same old lame tactics of ridicule and character attacks. That's not enough anymore. You guys need to come up with something new.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Casual readers to this thread will note that Solosit(sic) been unable to identify the alleged plane in the video, nor was he able to provide any calculations that supported a speed consistent with the official government story.



And there you go, tap dancing around the issue again. The whole point is that video does NOT show the plane flying over the Pentagon. Period.

Why are you so afraid to face that fact?


Now, despite his alleged 25 year career of being a spook with the DOD, trebor has also decided that the speed of the alleged object does not matter!


Nope the speed does not matter! It did NOT flyover. Are you going to address this or keep shying away from it?


Note that member trebor really doesn't know what that video shows, as he states that it is a 'hint of a tail flashing by'. I don't suppose that you managed to read the number on the tail, as it flashed by, did you?


Since it exploded in the Pentagon and didn't flyover it's fair to say noone could read the tail number. Was anyone at all able to read it? Should they have been?


These two official government story believers completely disregard the speed of the alleged plane as though it is not important. Yes, the speed is important. It must be consistent with the government story... I can't believe that you would so carelessly toss about illogical comments about the facts that you allege to be true. Amazing.


No, it isn't important. Well to you it is perhaps, since you don't want to face the fact that this video proves the plane did not flyover the Pentagon and the whole "speed" hangup you have helps deflect away from it.

Your attempted troll post has failed yet again.

Come back when you want to talk about the topic of our posts.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
North of Citgo...I'm convinced by CIT's EVIDENCE.


They have no evidence. In this thread Craig himself stated after being called out over his statement that "people saw it flyover" that he was just parroting someone who said only that. Hearsay, that is all.

No names, no "independently corroborated" interviews, no actual eyewitness statements, nothing. The doubletree video clearly shows the plane did not flyover, and CIT's own witnesses say it impacted the Pentagon.

I repeat, no evidence.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
And there you go, tap dancing around the issue again. The whole point is that video does NOT show the plane flying over the Pentagon. Period.
Why are you so afraid to face that fact?

I'm not afraid to face that at all, Soloist.

The video shows an unrecognisable blob, travelling at an unknown speed.

I don't care what that unrecognisable blob did, whether it hit the Pentagon, flew under it, flew over it, flew below it, morphed into it or holographed into it.

For your story to be consistent, you have to be able to identify that unrecognisable blob and you have to be able to prove that it was travelling at the alleged official government speed.

You've done neither, Soloist. You have not been able to prove either of those points.


Originally posted by Soloist
Nope the speed does not matter! It did NOT flyover. Are you going to address this or keep shying away from it?

Again, casual readers to the thread will note Soloist's illogical hypocrisy. He's married to the official story. He must believe every aspect of it. There is no leeway for him to be wrong or for his official story to be wrong.

Yet, Soloist thinks that that he can casually disregard the speed of the blob as though it is unimportant. Wrong. How utterly wrong.

Once more, Soloist, I don't care if a flyover was or was not pictured. That doesn't concern me. What concerns me is your complete failure to identify the alleged blob and your complete disregard of attempting to verify the speed of the blob.


Originally posted by Soloist
No, it isn't important. Well to you it is perhaps, since you don't want to face the fact that this video proves the plane did not flyover the Pentagon and the whole "speed" hangup you have helps deflect away from it.

For the third time in the same post, Soloist - I don't care what the alleged blob did with regards to the Pentagon.

You've got serious problems of your own, that are beyond your ability to understand. An unknown blob, with an unknown speed does not prove to anyone that Flight AA77 struck the Pentagon as per the official script.


Originally posted by Soloist
Your attempted troll post has failed yet again.

You would love to think so, wouldn't you.

Probably the sadest aspect is that you and trebor can't even see that your logic is wrong. From that perspective, it's a waste of my time trying to school the pair of you.

Still, casual readers to the thread can follow along and chuckle at your collective, logical demise.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Still, casual readers to the thread can follow along and chuckle at your collective, logical demise.


Ain't that the truth!



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
For your story to be consistent, you have to be able to identify that unrecognisable blob and you have to be able to prove that it was travelling at the alleged official government speed.


It's not *my* story, it's CIT's flyover fantasy story that we were talking about before you came in with your off topic ramblings related to the speed of the plane in the video. Surely you can discuss this in that context? If not, then you have no need to reply as most people will be able to tell you are simply trolling without addressing the real issue.

Now, for CIT's story to be consistent, that "blob" as you call it would have to rise completely above the Pentagon and flyover right as the explosion happens. This is not the case in the video. Unless you somehow see a plane "flying over" the Pentagon in the doubletree video, or know of any other evidence about the flyover that is not hearsay, then this totally disproves CIT's fantasy.



He's married to the official story. He must believe every aspect of it. There is no leeway for him to be wrong or for his official story to be wrong.


Off topic, and completely incorrect. You shouldn't presume to know what I believe.



Once more, Soloist, I don't care if a flyover was or was not pictured.


Bingo. Thanks for stopping by, using your above statement since you don't believe the "official story", you have no leeway to be wrong, if you believe the CIT (why else are you in this thread) then you know the plane should be on the video flying over the Pentagon.

It was not.



From that perspective, it's a waste of my time trying to school the pair of you.


School? Hilarious! You cannot even get the simple logic of context, and you think you are schooling us? LOL, come back when you have some real proof.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Correct me if I am wrong.
It seems the OS folks here post in increments sorta like folks in an office on different shifts. Kinda like tela marketers or phone sex girls.
And as offensive.
You would think a person not personally involved or a paid disinfo agent would welcome further investigation into a National tragedy and not just wisk it away to such a hasty suspicious conclusion.

You know democracy at work. A government by the people for the people.
Please disprove this -----------
The US Government and or it's agents Lie to the Tax Payers.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Which is in fact by definition, hearsay of a flyover, not evidence of one.


Which is in fact by definition, hearsay of a plane crash, not evidence of one.

GG


[edit on 30-7-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
You would think a person not personally involved or a paid disinfo agent would welcome further investigation into a National tragedy and not just wisk it away to such a hasty suspicious conclusion.


Exactly. Why are they so defensive and so quick to tell whatever new version they have been given if they are so obviously right? If I claimed to know exactly what really happend that day, I would truly welcome investigation so that I could just watch everyone walk away tired and empty after thet are done. These folks are determined to make sure we are all deafened by their version of what happend that day.

Many of these are the same folks that are claiming that 'illegal alien Obama' needs to show them proof he was born in Hawaii or else it is not true. Ok...why do they not need to prove any of the 9/11 OS?

Why is it so hard for them to just demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that plane crashed into the pentagon? I guess logic is just as hard for them.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join