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: 101
215
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


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



How long has your website been up?

How much longer will we see this:


This area is "under construction", but it will eventually be a place for you to report the outcome of your Operation Accountability efforts. For now please contact us via e-mail with any information. Thank you.

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Remember this is the "report" section where you are supposed to:

(from your "Strategy" tab)


Stage 5: Report back to this website with your results after you feel you have exhausted all efforts with any particular individual. We will maintain a published list of individuals who have failed to respond or take action, and we will build a case for the aforementioned crimes when appropriate. The more evidence of your correspondence you can make available the stronger case we will have......


(go to the website for further information)
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Your 200,000 hits have done exactly... what?




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


You are being deceptive again.

That email was to Dick Eastman way back in 2003.

That was 3 years before we ever spoke with Lagasse and before CIT even existed.



The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse
Tue Jun 24 20:16:58 2003


So stop trying to twist the facts.

Lagasse has NEVER spoken out against us nor has he EVER retracted his placement of the plane on the north side proving he was deceived regarding the impact.

In fact here is what he said to us after he first saw The PentaCon.



"Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station
."

-Sgt William Lagasse via email to CIT
(emphasis added)


It's easy to lie about us over at jref where I can't reply 16.5.

That's why they are so afraid to let me post there....I will easily expose you.


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



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Sorry that we don't work on your time frame ImAPepper.

Operation Accountability is an ongoing process that has already begun behind the scenes WHILE our investigation continues and we will start reporting on it publicly when we are ready to do so.

Glad to see you are so interested and concerned, keep checking back!



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


If you actually have a theory, it should have testable details and you should be able to describe them.
Here are some you can start with:
What explosives were used and where were they placed?
Where are the many wtnesses that saw the flyover?
Where are the witnesses that saw parts and lamp posts being planted? How did the fuel explode inside the Pentagon when the diesel gen set was outside? [Not even a good try on that count]
What happened to the plane?




You said "Actually none of those questions are relevant once the plane has been proven to have been on the north side of the gas station which it has."

It hasn't been proven. Its been estimated by some of the witnesses. Some of your NOC witnesses are also stating that they saw the plane strike the building. If this is true, then the errors must have been in estimating the flight path.
All the questions are relevant if you have more than a wild guess at a theory. Your theory has to fit the physical evidence also, not just witness descriptions of a flight path.
It seems that your theory lacks consistency.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
keep checking back!


Bank on it


I'm just wondering how long this will take? I mean.... it's been close to a year. Surely you have threatened at least one member of the MSM with a lawsuit? no?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You are being deceptive again.
That email was to Dick Eastman way back in 2003.
That was 3 years before we ever spoke with Lagasse and before CIT even existed.

RipCurl should do some basic fact checking, it seems. Perhaps RipCurl might like to join pteridine interviewing Lloyde's corpse some time in the future?

Busted.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
yes it was in 2003. However, till this day, YOU continue to twist his testimony. YOU cotinually ignore the FACT that since 2001, the DAY he was interviewed that he SAW the plane hit the pentagon..

In 2003, he REPEATEDLY has to defend that he SAW The plane hit hte pentagon. AND EVEN in your taped interview of him, HE has been adamant about SEEING THE plane hit the pentagon.

YOU are still to this day, telling him that he is wrong.

The letter in 2003, is applicable today, concerning his claims as long as your ilk claim that he didn't see what he saw. All of your videos with him, do this.


No, you have not released your unedited interviews. Even your smoking gun version provided edited interviews.


Till this day:
1) no evidence (*physical) of your claimns
2) your own witnesses contradict your claims
3) witnesses that yOU never interviewed contradict your claims
4) PHYSCIAL evidence contradict your claims.

YOu are grapsing at straws hoping that more people buy into your con



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

If you actually have a theory, it should have testable details and you should be able to describe them.


I already explained to you that our thesis is concerning the very simple and testable detail that the plane flew north of the citgo.

We have tested it over and over with unanimous results from independent sources.

This simple detail, if demonstrated true, proves the plane did not hit the light poles or the building.

Agreed?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You are being deceptive again.
That email was to Dick Eastman way back in 2003.
That was 3 years before we ever spoke with Lagasse and before CIT even existed.

RipCurl should do some basic fact checking, it seems. Perhaps RipCurl might like to join pteridine interviewing Lloyde's corpse some time in the future?

Busted.


no it only proves that since 2001 people like you and the CIT have continued to twist Lagasse's claims. that 2003 letter is as true today as he originally wrote it. As long as CIT and your ilk continue to twist his claims, he has a right to be angry.


Not busted. I know the truth when I see it. The CIT Fraud team of Ranke and those who believe the crap they spew; you buy into their bull and can't see the reality of everything.


Till this day, Craig can't even provided a theory that matches the witnesses and physical evidence. HE hand waves anything that is inconvenient to his truth as "faked or planted" of course, without proof.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by pteridine

If you actually have a theory, it should have testable details and you should be able to describe them.


I already explained to you that our thesis is concerning the very simple and testable detail that the plane flew north of the citgo.



unfortunately for you, its not testable. YOu have yet to provided a testable theory. you have to ignore EVERY single witness statement (including the 12 you interviewed) as well as the physical evidence.



We have tested it over and over with unanimous results from independent sources.


So you've crashed a plane into the pentagon? Really? please provide proof that you did.

That is the only way to test your claim.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
no it only proves that since 2001 people like you and the CIT have continued to twist Lagasse's claims.

RipCurl, three years ago you made two posts on ATS, then disappeared.

Now, three years later, you have started to post again on ATS and on your first day back you've made a false claim about me.

You've joined a growing list of people who enjoy making false claims about me. You will need to search my 4400+ posts and quote me where I twisted Lagasse's claims.

Your failure to do this will be your admission that you're really having a bad first day back and that you were wrong.

I don't expect you to apologise, very few of them who made false claims about me ever do.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
keep checking back!


Bank on it


I'm just wondering how long this will take? I mean.... it's been close to a year. Surely you have threatened at least one member of the MSM with a lawsuit? no?



dont expect it anytime soon. based on the CIT's track record, it'll be at least 3. come one, he can't even be bothered to released unedited witnesses interviews which he has promised to do so for the last 3 years.


You know they're too busy making crap up, doing cgi animation of impossible flight paths, twisting their witnesses testimonies...so on so forth.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
yes it was in 2003. However, till this day, YOU continue to twist his testimony. YOU cotinually ignore the FACT that since 2001, the DAY he was interviewed that he SAW the plane hit the pentagon..



Wrong.

That is a lie since we include his statements in our interview where he claims that he believes the plane hit.

Stop lying about what we have said or didn't say. We twisted nothing and included his entire account of believing the plane hit.

Of course he also clarifies by admitting that he "flinched" out of a "fear" as the plane passed by him on the north side and that he ended up in his car and that he didn't see what happened when the plane reached the building because of the "fireball".

Apparently you forgot all that.

Bottom line, it is impossible for a plane on the north side to hit the light poles, generator trailer, or cause the directional damage to the building as photographed and reported.

Agreed?




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig,

Correct me if I'm wrong... but did you have to show him what pump he was getting his gas from?

Dr. P



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
ah yes. infamous craig and his bloated animated gifs of his interviews.

what you forgot to include is the leading question you asked.

and the fact you had to remind him where he was exactly.

and you also forget that he was under a covered pump (canopy over the station) and didn't see the plane.

He claimed he saw the plane north of citgo, but when you look AT ALL the avaialble evidence (something YOU never do) he actually SAW THE SHADOW of the plane, that would have casted it NORTH of the citgo station.

ooh boy Craig how basic science can destroy your claims.

BTW, witness statements 5 years after the fact can suffer. Lagasse may not remember the exact path but till this day he still says the plane hit hte pentagon.

You have to resolve this.

And of course:

Physical evidence
Testimony of the 100's of other witnesses who saw the plane hit (of which you never bothered to interview).
the ground crew who cleaned up the crash scene.
The DNA identifying all but 1 passenger aboard Flight 77 found within and around the crash scene at the pentagon.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
keep checking back!


Bank on it


I'm just wondering how long this will take? I mean.... it's been close to a year. Surely you have threatened at least one member of the MSM with a lawsuit? no?



Actually the site was launched in June so it's been less than half a year.

It will be an ongoing process and we have no inclination to work on the timetable of anonymous detractors who obsess over our every move.

Operation Accountability does not specifically state that we are seeking to move forward with "lawsuits" which would take considerable funding that we are not asking for.

We are quite clear about our goal for the effort.



This is strictly a non-violent campaign, and again, it is an organized effort with the main goal of seeking out honest people who are able to understand the implications of this evidence and who are in a position to do something about it in the public and/or legal arenas, while putting legal pressure on those who insist on keeping this important information suppressed.



Legal pressure meaning not illegal pressure.

However, future lawsuits provided funding and/or competent legal representation is acquired will not be ruled out.








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



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig,

Correct me if I'm wrong... but did you have to show him what pump he was getting his gas from?

Dr. P



Yup . the CIT had to show the exact pump.

and also Lagasse put the downed light poles further north-east than they were. If he had put the downed light poles correctly, he would have had the plane on the correct path.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Actually the site was launched in June so it's been less than half a year.


Sorry, I guess if I followed your every move, I should have known this.

So, 6 months. Any leads? Will you be holding Ba Ba Booey accountable? Seriously, can you share any of the correspondence you have had in the past 6 months?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You are being deceptive again.
That email was to Dick Eastman way back in 2003.
That was 3 years before we ever spoke with Lagasse and before CIT even existed.

RipCurl should do some basic fact checking, it seems. Perhaps RipCurl might like to join pteridine interviewing Lloyde's corpse some time in the future?

Busted.


Ah, another unreliable witness according to the Tezza doctrine of retro-unreliability. So much for him. If we look carefully and find any inconsistencies over the years we can disregard a given witness at will. Eventually, no witness will have the reliability stamp needed to be deemed worthy and only the physical evidence will count.

You still haven't answered my question tezza. Are you worried about having shattered credibility? Someone is keeping score, somewhere.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig,

Correct me if I'm wrong... but did you have to show him what pump he was getting his gas from?

Dr. P


Good question.

Actually no.

At first he naturally pulled up to the front pump (as people typically do at gas stations) and proceeded with the interview.

As the lengthy interview progressed I asked him if he was sure if he was at the front pump and when scrutinizing this minor detail closely Lagasse on his own realized he was at the back pump.

AFTER he admitted this I revealed to him that his police cruiser was visible in the Citgo security video that had just been silently released weeks prior with the camera view facing the Pentagon as confirmed by the citgo manager Barbara manipulated out.

However this minor mistake that he corrected on his own makes no difference whatsoever because the vantage point barely changes and it has NO BEARING AT ALL on whether or not he could tell the plane was north or south of the gas station.

Lagasse even alludes to this when he and Brooks come together after independently corroborating each other regarding the north side approach.



Craig: What's the percentage chance that the plane was on the south side of the station?

Lagasse: Uh, zero chance. Is there less than zero percent? You know it's not a silly question because there's people that think they saw it there or are going to say they saw it there. Well if you're 3 miles that way (points to the south) and you are on the other side of the station, and you don't have a good judge of distance, maybe they thought they saw it there.

So believe me, look, I thought I was parked there, I was parked 15 or 20 feet different...that's that's 15 to 20 feet difference from where I was parked has no bearing on that plane being over there (points to the north).
source at 104:30






new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join