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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 100
215
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by pteridine
You are really panicking, tezza.

Panicked by you? Hardly, pteridine. When you make claims about interviewing Lloyde's corpse,...


How is your tracking down of any eyewitnesses who "saw AA77 fly over and away from the Pentagon" going, tezz? How many more years are you going to keep us waiting? Another eight years?





posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by pteridine

What north side evidence? Selected witness testimony? Then you have to disallow all those witnesses that saw the strike.


It is a logical fallacy to suggest that people who believe the plane hit refute the placement of the plane on the north side of the gas station. Particularly since the north side witnesses all believed the plane hit when we first spoke with them! And also since the plane on the north side proves a deliberate deception regarding an impact.


There was no plane on the "North side."


Faulty logic does not refute evidence. In order to refute evidence you MUST provide direct counter-evidence of greater strength.


Correct. You have to refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon and provide positive evidence that AA77 "flew over and away from the Pentagon" as you keep claiming. You cannot do it.


In this case it would be 4 or more witnesses who were at the gas station filmed on location placing the plane on the south side as emphatically as Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcios place it on the north side.


None of them saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon." And you showed in your video that Robert Turcios was pointing to the correct South of CITGO flight path.



CIT is finished, washed up.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
How is your tracking down of any eyewitnesses who "saw AA77 fly over and away from the Pentagon" going, tezz?

jthomas, I have been through this with you multiple times. Many many times. We discussed this well over a year ago and you were Moderator warned when you started hurling insults at me.

You need to search my 4400+ posts and quote me where I stated that there was a fly over. Last time, when you were Moderator warned, I only had about 2000 posts at that stage. You've got more homework to do now.

Go on, do it. Come back to me when you've got something.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Many people are banned in many forums, frequently for reasons that could be argued aren't valid. From how you describe it, it seems like they should have let you back anyway. I find it rather ironical that I'm bringing this up with you, and I think you know why. Honestly though, I've been to JREF, posted about 2 posts and decided that the place just wasn't for me; it's heavily slanted towards the official story and they really don't treat people who disagree with it very well.

The most neutral place I've found is a small little forum called "Unexplained Mysteries", but it doesn't get much traffic; this place may be somewhat slanted towards truthers, but the traffic is much higher volume and I consider myself a truther anyway :-p.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


Yeah, right, Ranke, like when you claimed Robert Turcios was pointing to your fantasy NOC flight path when he was actually pointing to the correct SOC flightpath.


It's amazing watching you drone on with your blatant lies knowing full well anyone who views the interview will quite easily be able to tell he is referencing the NORTH side throughout the entire interview INCLUDING the part from which you have taken an out of context deceptive freeze frame.

Here is a gif of that part to show the full hand motion he is executing here where he is quite obviously gesturing to the NORTH side of the canopy (where he is standing at the time) with his hand.



But just to make sure people like you couldn't lie to those who are too lazy to view the interview we also had Robert illustrate the path to leave no doubt that he was talking about the NORTH side of the canopy.



How can you live with yourself being so blatantly deceptive?

It's like you don't care if a million people see you as a liar if you can just cast doubt in ONE really lazy person's mind for even a fraction of a second.

And you are SO dedicated to it too!

It's really pretty amazing.

All I have to say to you is thanks for keeping the thread bumped because I am quite certain the amount of attention you help focus on this issue is well worth having that 1 lazy person doubt the info for a fraction of a second while you expose yourself as a liar to countless others! Your dedication alone makes the readers here realize we are on to something!



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
Honestly though, I've been to JREF, posted about 2 posts and decided that the place just wasn't for me; it's heavily slanted towards the official story and they really don't treat people who disagree with it very well.


after having the likes of Craig Ranke, Basalmo, and all their socks pretending to be in search for the truth, then turn around and insult members, harass them, demand private information, then turn around and violate the forum rules to the point they have to be banned because they can't handle that their CLaims are destroyed in less than one reply, you have to wonder why the forum regulars treat those who REPEAT 4 year old claims as if they were brand new ones, with disdain.

They've heard it all, and probably have debunked the sAME claims over and over again, nearly a 1000 times each. We are tired of the con games that these "seekers of truth" are pulling. They ask for your money, but provided lies and propaganda in return


What we want to see is EVIDENCE. NO one from the Truther movement has provided such in the last 8 years.

WATERGATE was discovered in less than 3 and that is WITHOUT the internet.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


Stop lying about me.

You have provided no quotes to back up your wild accusations and they are off topic anyway.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I have been banned there [JREF] it has nothing to do with my "behavior" and everything to do with the fact that they are scared to death of this information and of me discussing it on their forum.

They banned me for no other valid reason.



"scared to death of this information"


My jaw dropped when I read that.

I can't believe you're serious.

JREF discusses you bizarro claims, if I recall sometimes providing links. Essentially they are providing further exposure to non-Truther real world audience.

If they had the slightest concern they could forbid the topic, remove posts or whole threads, etc. It was mentioned the trouble they had was sock puppet members for banned ones.

And the really big question:

What Could JREF possibly have to fear from yet another "Big Bad Guvvamint Did It" claim? One that's built on obviously manipulated pseudodata and testimony that has been floating on the Conspiracy Circuit for ages. One that even has a few webpages exposing it.

Their worst fear might be loss of credibility that they even bothered to mention it.


[edit on 29-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by RipCurl
 


Stop lying about me.


NOt lying at all. Anyone can do a search on your old user name "LyteTrip" and see exactly the kind of behavior you had as well.


You have provided no quotes to back up your wild accusations and they are off topic anyway.

I provided a link as to why you were banned. YOu violated the rules of the forum. You were suspended many times and never adhered to the rules.

Not off topic, since it was in reply to a thread on this forum about why you should go to JREF, and I responded in kind to the person who suggested that you WERE no longer wanted at JREF for your behavior and was banned.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
Now here's a question for you; have you gone over how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking that the plane crashed into the building?


Yes but since a few described the impact in detail, it must have been a "hologram special"


People can modify memories to include things that didn't actually happen. And people can lie. Lies and made up memories are frequently inconsistent, however, and I believe this is born out in the testimony of those who don't support the north of citgo flight path.



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
You think the wind couldn't carry the smoke inwards? Also, I've heard that someone in the building smelled cordite, but that's not jet -or- diesel fuel; it's a smell associated with explosives.


It wasn't smoke, it was fire.


Explosives can certainly set things on fire.



Originally posted by pteridine
No theory of how thousands of pounds of fuel got in there?


What evidence do you have that thousands of pounds of fuel got inside the pentagon?



Originally posted by pteridine
The "cordite smell" is due to nitrogen oxides which are associated with high temperature combustion in air.


Do you have any evidence that it was this instead of cordite?


Originally posted by pteridine
No evidence of explosives was found or witnessed.


In the WTC buildings, NIST admitted that they never searched for evidence of explosives. Do you have any evidence that they searched for explosives at the pentagon?



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by pteridine
How were engine parts planted?


I have already mentioned that I don't know the answer to that one, but I do remember someone saying that the president was scheduled to land in the nearby helipad later on that day; perhaps some elements of the secret service were involved.


and perhaps not.


Granted. The point here, however, is that it is possible that they did. Given the preponderance of evidence in favour of the flyover theory, this would suggest that someone with access to the area did it.



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by pteridine
Did anyone witness plane debris being planted?


Clearly the people who planted it would have witnessed it, but as to others, I really don't know. I think you should consider the fact that there was certainly no official investigation as to whether any of the evidence was planted.


no witnesses


I didn't say that.


Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
one doesn't need to know every single detail of how something was done in order to know that it's what was most likely done.


would this apply to the lamp post taxi interaction also?


If the preponderance of evidence favoured the official story, then yes. The thing is, it doesn't.


Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
There are no witnesses to space rays. There were no reliable witnesses to a south of the citgo flight path for the plane that approached the pentagon. There are -many- reliable witnesses who place the plane on a north of the citgo flight path, however. And if the plane flew in from that direction, it simply couldn't have hit the building, as I believe you know.


Who decides on witness reliability? The CIT folks who have a vested interest in it[?]


In this forum, we all do. Perhaps we should go through the witnesses who favour a south side approach one by one, and see if we can agree on whether their testimony is reliable or not. I move that we disqualify Lloyd England from the getgo, seeing as he now claims that he was a north side witness, even though we know that it's impossible that he could have been one.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I have been banned there [JREF] it has nothing to do with my "behavior" and everything to do with the fact that they are scared to death of this information and of me discussing it on their forum.

They banned me for no other valid reason.



And absolute lie. You were banned becaue of your behavior. Your constant attacking other members who particpated in the threads you started, and subsequently destroyed your arguments; your constant asking of private information from other members, spamming your animated images (which slowed down the forum) and spamming of your videos over and over again.

YOU were warned more than many times to stop dong this, and was suspended. during the many suspensions you had, it was discovered that your information for your account you signed up for contained false information and you were asked to correct it. YOU didn't. Then it was found out that you WERE sharing your account with your partner, WHICH is a violation of the forum rules.

And during your suspension, you had hte GALL to sign up for a new account and quickly found that is was a SOCK. Thereby violating ANOTHER forum rules.

YOU were subsequently banned for that violation. Those violations are a result of YOUR behavior.


NO one was afraid of what you had to say, since you repeated the same damn thing over and over again, with nothing new. We proved that you TWISTED your own witnesses statements and you just repeatedly insulted the members.


Not even your fellow truthers believe anything you say. YOU are the laughing stock of the truth movemen. YOu're up there with Judy Wood and her Keebler elves tree and space beams



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Stop lying about me.

You have provided no quotes to back up your wild accusations and they are off topic anyway.



You failed to provide proof he's lying.

We want to see multiple website links, sworn affidavits, unretouched photographs, Youtube videos.

More than one can play this game.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 



Originally posted by RipCurl
We proved that you TWISTED your own witnesses statements...


No need to shout it Rip. What witness statements do you believe CIT twisted?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

Not even your fellow truthers believe anything you say. YOU are the laughing stock of the truth movemen. YOu're up there with Judy Wood and her Keebler elves tree and space beams


Wrong.

National Security Alert has had over 200,000 views with widespread praise including an unprecedented endorsement list with several respected pilots, PhD's, experts, researchers, journalists, and activists.

endorsement list for National Security Alert



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by RipCurl

Not even your fellow truthers believe anything you say. YOU are the laughing stock of the truth movemen. YOu're up there with Judy Wood and her Keebler elves tree and space beams


Wrong.

National Security Alert has had over 200,000 views with widespread praise including an unprecedented endorsement list with several respected pilots, PhD's, experts, researchers, journalists, and activists.

endorsement list for National Security Alert



so what? I dont care kind of priase you get. It only means that there are kooks in even the most respected professions.

200,000 page views? jeez...why so little? the JREF forum on 911 conspiracy gets that in ONE month. how long has your little con site been up?

Care to link to those praises of people who have written papers and published to RESPECTABLE peer reviewed journals that relates to their respected fields of studies, to qualify their "praise" for your piss poor investigation?

Argument from popularity noted.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by RipCurl]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl


Argument from popularity noted.


No it is not my argument.

I was merely addressing your patently false claim that "Not even your fellow truthers believe anything you say" and that I am a "laughingstock".

You're simply exposing how you are willing to say anything to cast doubt on me personally even when the opposite is true.

Thanks for revealing your agenda while keeping the thread bumped.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by RipCurl
 



Originally posted by RipCurl
We proved that you TWISTED your own witnesses statements...


No need to shout it Rip. What witness statements do you believe CIT twisted?


All their witnesses statements. They ignore that 10(?) out of 12 of them saw the plane hit the pentagon. Sorry, its been a VERY long time that i've examined the lies that the CIT has spouted over the last three years.


Ask CRaig why they wont release the UNEDITED version of their witnesses interview videos? that promise was made 3 years ago.

We are still waiting.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by RipCurl


Argument from popularity noted.


No it is not my argument.



It is your arugment. You are using the page views and "praise" to prove that youre claims are supported.

That is an argument from popularity top it off, an argument from FALSE authority.




I was merely addressing your patently false claim that "Not even your fellow truthers believe anything you say" and that I am a "laughingstock".


Wow, you are seriously blind to even what people say on this forum. talk about willful ignorance.


Not even the folks at Loose change take anything you say seriously. Prison Planet forums? They rather ignore you thinking you ARE nothing more than Disinfo.



You're simply exposing how you are willing to say anything to cast doubt on me personally even when the opposite is true.



No one believes anything you say anymore ranke. We've proven how much you have lied over the last few years.

You've twisted everything your witnesses have stated and proven that even YOUR witnesses corroborate the official story.

You said you promised to release the unedited interviews of your witnesses three years ago. When asked, you ignore it.

Sorry but your credibility is that of pond scum


Thanks for revealing that its all about you.


ETA: Pertaining to the thread at hand: Since the is about CIT's "independent" yet fact-less investigation, its totally on topic to have Craig provide


1) unedited footage of his witness interviews (something he has promised to do for the last three years)
2) provide corroboration of all his claims. None of this "just asking questions" bull crap. VERIFIABLE corroboration of everything the CIT has claimed thus far.
3) provide evidence of a fly over (none exist by the way)
4) more interviews with witnesse (not just the 12 he did, ALL of them, nearly 300 witnesses to the event and countless workers who cleaned up the Pentagaon site).


after 4 years of pushing his con game, you've got to wonder why the CIT hasn't even bothered to go back and interview the people who were there.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by RipCurl]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

All their witnesses statements. They ignore that 10(?) out of 12 of them saw the plane hit the pentagon.


We didn't ignore that they believed the plane hit at all.

In fact the only reason you know they believed the plane hit to being with is because we included the full testimony where they make this claim.

This does not change the fact that their unanimous placement of the plane on the north side proves they were deceived regarding the impact.



Sorry, its been a VERY long time that i've examined the lies that the CIT has spouted over the last three years.


In other words you have no examples because there are none.

We have been completely forthright and honest.



Ask CRaig why they wont release the UNEDITED version of their witnesses interview videos? that promise was made 3 years ago.

We are still waiting.


Apparently you really haven't been paying attention and you are again lying about what I have said without providing quotes.

The full interviews have all been initially released in long form in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version and The North Side Flyover.

The long form versions were only minimally edited but anyone can see that they go on for LONG periods without editing and actually are rather difficult for most people to sit through as a result. That's why we put out the concise edited compilation of all of them in National Security Alert.

But there is no need (or practical way) to put out over a dozen of hours of completely raw footage primarily since this evidence is 100% verifiable with the witnesses directly anyway.

All names are provided.

NONE of the witnesses have accused us of misrepresenting their claims and all of them stand by the north side approach to this day even now that they know the implications.

However if we HAD misrepresented them they would have been more than happy to speak out against us since NONE of them were pushing a conspiracy to begin with.

So out of 3 years and not a single witness speaking out against us even though all are easily reached by ANY of our detractors we have nothing more to prove.

The notion that we "manipulated" their placement of the plane on the north side is a joke and we always strongly encourage people to contact the witnesses themselves to confirm this if they don't believe us.





[edit on 29-11-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
words..



One of your witnesses has spoken out. He assures that he saw an AMerican Airlines 757 plane hit the pentagon.

Care to apologize to Lagasse?

www.apfn.net...



Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building thatday, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating
that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris
is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you
people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk
you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general
aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen
photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts
of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake
aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence
to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a
diffrent sort of thinker.




A witness of yours has spoken out, and is angry that his words, his testimony has been twisted by your ilk.



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join