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.

 

CIT, Richard Gage, Kevin Barrett and more to present in NYC Sept 11 to 13, 2009

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Be sure to catch up on Gage's debunking before spending money on that conference:

I wouldn't consider a debate to be a debunking. Both words have different meanings. Try again?



Originally posted by CameronFox
i wont comment on the two red flags under my avatar

No need to comment. They speak for themselves.





Now that I'm not typing from my phone, I can say that I really wanted to be in NYC this year. But slow times caused my job to shut down for a couple weeks which caused us to waste our vacation days during those two weeks. Then I started school and had to pay for my books and classes myself until my financial aid comes. So the cash will be tight with no days off. Maybe next year.


Bill, really hope you get to go. It will be a very informative day for those that have questions or haven't had the time to do much research.




[edit on 24-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
Be sure to catch up on Gage's debunking before spending money on that conference:

I wouldn't consider a debate to be a debunking. Both words have different meanings. Try again?


Sure debates can result in debunkings - like the one I linked to.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Thanks for posting TrueAmerican!

This should be a great event.

Hope to see you there S.O.!



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Thanks for posting TrueAmerican!

This should be a great event.

Hope to see you there S.O.!


Be prepared to address questions about your claims that you are unable to address, Craig, for example, this:



Your answers and evasions will be videotaped and on the record.



[edit on 25-8-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Oh really?

I bet it won't be by you!

But I certainly welcome it no matter who it is.

Either way let me make it easy for you and discuss it "for the record" right now.

That image is a DRAMATIZATION that was created for us in 2007 before we were aware of Roosevelt Roberts Jr's account of the flyaway being "just above the light poles" or "about 50 feet less than a hundred feet" altitude immediately after the explosion.

Of course no doubt the plane eventually made it that high as it made its ascent out of there AFTER the explosion while the massive smoke plume continued to grow but we now know that while the explosion was still occurring it was lower than depicted in that image. So that image was never meant to be an exact representation and is merely a generalized depiction of a plane flying away.

But yes we know people saw it Jthomas as proven by Roosevelt and Erik Dihle.

However since low flying planes are permanent fixtures in the landscape due to the extremely close proximity of Reagan National Airport it makes perfect sense that most people wouldn't notice it flying away as their attention would be fixated on the massive explosion and smoke plume rising from the Pentagon.






Particularly since it was initially as low as reported by Roosevelt Roberts.

I understand how you prefer to write Roosevelt, the people that Erik Dihle reported, and the north side witnesses all off as delusional as you continue your senseless campaign against this definitive information but evidence and truth are not on your side.

Hope to see you at the conference!
(yeah right)



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas
 


However since low flying planes are permanent fixtures in the landscape due to the extremely close proximity of Reagan National Airport it makes perfect sense that most people wouldn't notice it

So how is it that all your so-called north of the gas station witnesses noticed Flight 77, and not only noticed but were able, in the blink of an eye, able to positively determine which side of a small pump island it was flying on? Particulraly since all of your witnesses were regulars in the area and well accustomed to low flying planes near the airport. As opposed to the many person that would have seen the fly over, tourist and travelers on the highways and in the are nearby?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Maybe you should stay on topic. He was defending himself. If this is that important to you go start a new thread.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas
 


Oh really?


Yes, really.


I bet it won't be by you!


If I could be there, I would.


But I certainly welcome it no matter who it is.


Just wait and see.


Either way let me make it easy for you and discuss it "for the record" right now.

That image is a DRAMATIZATION that was created for us in 2007 before we were aware of Roosevelt Roberts Jr's account of the flyaway being "just above the light poles" or "about 50 feet less than a hundred feet" altitude immediately after the explosion.


I see. However you have been using it since 2/25/2008 - a full 1 1/2 years. Let me remind you that it's right here:

"The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off"
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...


Of course no doubt the plane eventually made it that high as it made its ascent out of there AFTER the explosion while the massive smoke plume continued to grow but we now know that while the explosion was still occurring it was lower than depicted in that image. So that image was never meant to be an exact representation and is merely a generalized depiction of a plane flying away.


We ALL recognize that it represents your claim that a jet "flew over and away from the Pentagon."


But yes we know people saw it Jthomas as proven by Roosevelt and Erik Dihle.


We ALL know that is your claim. But we are talking about the implications if Roberts's claim is true, aren't we? We are talking about the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon in their cars in heavy traffic on the freeways, on the bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots, and in other buildings, all around the Pentagon, you remember, Craig, all those people in ideal positions to see a low-flying, fast moving, and excruciatingly loud "flyover" jet?

Just look how easy it would have been to see from all around the Pentagon:



Remember, now, Craig? How many years have I been asking your "Crack Investigating Team" for those eyewitness statements? Do you want everyone to think you do not know how to do an investigation?


However since low flying planes are permanent fixtures in the landscape due to the extremely close proximity of Reagan National Airport it makes perfect sense that most people wouldn't notice it flying away as their attention would be fixated on the massive explosion and smoke plume rising from the Pentagon.


As you well know clairvoyance doesn't qualify as evidence in the real world. You have no ability to claim to know that people would not see a flyover if one had taken place. You are not clairvoyant. Those people were all around the Pentagon. You haven't produced a single statement from them.

Just think of ALL the people in their cars facing the Pentagon with the jet directly in the line of sight of the explosion had there actually been a flyover. Why many of them might conclude that a never-before-seen-sight of an explosion occurring with the jet flying away from it at a unheard of low altitude might be connected.

Just imagine the calls to the news media: "I just witnessed a fast moving, low flying jet drop a bomb or fire a missile or SOMETHING at the Pentagon. There's a HUGE explosion and the jet is flying away from it!"

Gosh.


I understand how you prefer to write Roosevelt, the people that Erik Dihle reported, and the north side witnesses all off as delusional as you continue your senseless campaign against this definitive information but evidence and truth are not on your side.


Gosh, the so-called "north side witnesses" didn't report seeing any jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon." And you couldn't get Roberts to answer the phone to clarify what he meant, remember? What we are talking about is the implications of any flyover claim and why you haven't produced a single eyewitness report of ANYONE from all of those hundreds of people on ALL sides of the Pentagon, not just the approach side., confirming that they ALSO saw a flyover.

You see, now you have some explaining to do in admitting that other eyewitnesses were around the Pentagon in a position to see your claimed - or anyone's claimed - "flyover."

From your very same video, " The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off"
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com... you show the much higher flying C-130:



Then you explain that the C-130's purpose was to fool people into thinking that the "decoy" jet flying over and away from the Pentagon, this...:



....was actually the much higher flying C-130 flying at a much lower altitude than it actually did:



A real curiosity those magic C-130s, eh, Craig?

And you claim right in that video that "government deception" was done "...for anyone who may have seen the decoy jet fly away from the Pentagon."

"Anyone who may have seen the the decoy jet fly away from the Pentagon," you say?

Yes, hundreds of people all around the Pentagon. And not a hint of a jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon" from anyone.

I really wish I could go to that conference. They're going to be asking you for those eyewitness statements of a "flyover." I can't wait to see the videos of you squirming, Craig.




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Didn't anyone look at the website of the "group" organizing this thing???

Tickets are $40, advance. $50 before August 23....(Ooops, too late!) and $60 at the door!!!!!

$60???

Maybe I'm just jaded, but...being held at a Church, so doubt that will cost much? (Donation?)

I know there are people who really, really think they've all found something, and want to be heroes or something, but --- my smell test alarm is going off.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Your four little videos there, trying to make your point, are intentionally deceptive, aren't they?

Everyone knows (or should know) how to force perspective with lens focal lengths.

We see it, fortunately, because of the last-second zoom of the jet taking off, filmed from the Cemetery.

The third video, I believe it was, the USAirays regional jet!! Smaller than a B737! It is the Embraer 170. 72 passenger seats.

Here's a picture:

I guess I could post the relative dimensions too, but why spoil someone's fun looking it up?

Reason I point that out? Two, really: It is shown landing to the South (as most of the others, are too) and being a Regional Jet, it is able to slide over to Runway 15. on VFR days, to make room for other traffic on Runway 19. Capt. Balsamo might be able to explain it.

ALSO, since it's important to the "story" for people to be so accustomed to low-flying airplanes near the Pentagon....you DO realize that IF landing South (RW 15 and 19) that they have their landing gear down, and are fully configured for the landing, correct? IT IS a common procedure, as an SOP, for us to be fully configured for landing by the time we reach 1,000 AGL. That means, gear, flaps AND appropriate approach speed.

SAY, about 130-138 knots, depends.

The jets seen on departure, climbing out, are still "cleaning up" the flaps and slats...they aren't going very fast, at all....IN FACT, the retraction of flaps doesn't even BEGIN until --- you guessed it!! 1,000 feet AGL.

SO, that first stage of climb, they're at about V2 plus 10 to 20 knots airspeed. Not much more than 150-160 knots.

My point? All of the people relied upon to be so used to seeing low-flying jets landing and taking off from National Airport would certainly be expected to notice something behaving atypically!!! Screaming by at high speed/low altitude, gear and flaps up (not that the average person would know about that) but they'd sure notice the speed!!!!

Ever seen the airborne salutes when they bury Airmen at Arlington Cemetery? Low, and fast....200-250 knots. Gets people's attention!!!

Not sure why I bothered to post this. The "believers" won't pay attention, and the rational folks already know this.
_____________________________________

Edit picture



[edit on 25 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Tickets are $40, advance. $50 before August 23....(Ooops, too late!) and $60 at the door!!

They're trying to cover the travel and lodging expenses of the out-of-area speakers.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Well, wishing them a safe trip, then.

I suppose the presentation will be without controversy?? Guess it won't be so much a debate as it will be an attempt to explain a certain point of view.

Perhaps there will be some discussion, though. Obviously being in the minority opinion will be daunting. It would be nice if it were balanced fairly.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Well, wishing them a safe trip, then.

I suppose the presentation will be without controversy?? Guess it won't be so much a debate as it will be an attempt to explain a certain point of view.

Perhaps there will be some discussion, though. Obviously being in the minority opinion will be daunting. It would be nice if it were balanced fairly.


Scientific polls show that people who believe the government account of 911 are in the minority. You will at the very leas have to post one poll that contradicts that before I can even begin to consider it.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Well, source is Wiki, but it includes Scripps polling, rather old (2006):


Scripps Howard polls

A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent. It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true.

"Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".
59% "not likely"
20% "somewhat likely"
16% "very likely"

"The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings".
77% "unlikely"
10% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"

"The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists".
80% "not likely"
6% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"
-----------------------------------------
In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question

How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?
32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely"
30% "Unlikely"
8% "Don't Know/Other"


The last bit is interesting. The "LIHOP" sentiment.
__________________________________________________

ooops....gotta add the Source

[edit on 25 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Bravo.

I used the same source and came up with this:



Notice that in all of the poll questions you posted ask if you believe in a particular CT...

Scientific polls show that people who believe the government account of 911 are in the minority.


Big big difference. CT's are a joke.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
So, any more news on your coverage of this, Skeptic Overlord? How goes it with the plans?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join