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: 11
215
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


And yet another example of someone believing that the Pentagon has a piggy bank in which Rumsfeld discovered on Sept 10 that there was 2.3 trillon dollars missing.

Good grief man, this has been debunked so many times on ATS it is unreal...and yet it shows up like clockwork.




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 





I hope I'm not being redundant but it makes absolutely no sense for the Pentagon to have NOT had surface to air missles to protect it.


Then you need to look at the aerial photos of the area. Even a less than average in intelligence individual should be able to see the reason why it would have been a stunningly BAD idea to have SAMs at the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 
And yet,here's old Rummy and others making even more money by passing themselves off as anti-terrorism experts when they failed to protect the nation due to their incompetence and greed.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Independent investigation?

Who conducted this investigation?

There was no link to this so called independent investigation team.

The only link that was offered in the OP was to CIT, yes these goofballs,

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...


After 8 years you nuts need to do better than that.

Only a nutjob would call an investigation by this biased group "independent".

Shame on you!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You missed that easily I demonstrated that Ranke's supplementary video on the "flyover" claim simply contradicts his own claims and does not in any way whatsoever demonstrate any "flyover."

I have seen no evidence of you doing anything of the sort. The entire “NSA” video confirms a flyover. You may need to look up the definition of “contradicts” because at no point did you exhibit a time in which Craig contradicted himself.


It's easy to see Craig Ranke's screw-ups and he could not rebut it at all:

It’s easy to say that someone is screwing up and then provide no evidence to back your claim. Nice appeal to pride (1) by the way.~


www.abovetopsecret.com...

You’re entire post in that thread is an ignoratio elenchi (2)


CIT will be facing many questions at the NYC conference in 2 weeks., including about his own contradictions,-
What contradictions?! I still see no evidence that CIT has contradicted itself.


-CIT's complete inability to provide any positive evidence whatsoever of any "jet flying over and away from the Pentagon"-

Inability to provide positive evidence? Did you even watch the video? CIT provided so much evidence that the plane flew over the pentagon it’s ridiculous. At times in the video I was saying to myself, “jezz, this is overkill, 2 cops, a tower guard, an aviation expert “and then some” all corroborating the same exact story?”

The evidence is undeniable that the plane did not crash into the building. Wouldn’t you say that it is logical to assume that if it did not crash into the building then it flew over it?


-will be the focus of questions from many participating skeptics of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

Why should it matter how many skeptics there will be? Argumentum ad populum (3) ;cough; Simply because a vast majority of people believe something to be true, does not mean that it is. On top of that, it is not even the case that more people believe the official story. More people are “on the fence” or believe something else.

[edit on 9/3/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Read th openingt post.

The only viable link that is offered is from a admittedly pro inside jobby job group.

[SNIP]

Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary insult.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
Independent investigation?

Who conducted this investigation?

CIT, it’s quite obvious if you watched the video.


There was no link to this so called independent investigation team.

Like I said, if you watched the video, it’s obvious the investigation team is CIT. They are called the citizen INVESTIGATION team for crying out loud.


The only link that was offered in the OP was to CIT, yes these goofballs,

Well these “goofballs” just made one of the most impressive independent research movies that myself and others, with which whom I have shown the video have ever seen.
Nice ad hominem (1) attack though.


www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...
that’s their website.


After 8 years you nuts need to do better than that.

Appeal to ridicule(2), ad hominem(3)and a baseless assertion(4)
(2)Simply because they are thorough and have taken 8 years to amass their evidence doesn’t mean they are incompetent as you are implying.
(3) You shouldn’t call people nuts, it doesn’t help your argument
(4) There is no evidence that they have to do better. In my opinion, they’ve outdone themselves.


Only a nutjob would call an investigation by this biased group "independent".

Wow an appeal to fear(5) a false dilemma(6), a baseless assertion(7) and a genetic fallacy(8) all in one sentence?! You sir win the prize for the most illogical sentence I’ve ever encountered on this forum.


Shame on you!

No, shame on you, 8 logical fallacies in one post is deplorable.

[edit on 9/3/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
There is no use appealing to logic amongst the brainwash.

This jerk actually believes CIT is an "independent" investigation entity.

What more needs to be said?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


So even though all your witnesses were well aware of the events in NYC and therefore on the lookout for errant planes, no one else, in a position to see flight 77 continue pass the Pentagon, was aware of the unfolding events even though most of them would have been in cars with almost all radio stations doing emergency broadcasts.

I would think that you would find that hard to believe.

And the topography around the Pentagon is not that complex. It is pretty much flat. Been there (in the area) many times. We know from the parking lot videos that the fireball from the crash exceed the height of the building, so even those on the opposite side the Pentagon would have looked up, yet you contend that they would not have seen Flight 77 flying past the building and continuing on up the river, or wherever other path it took.

Sorry, really not buying it.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   





Brilliant work!

Don't let these know it all shills deter you from finding the truth.

A dedicated soldier against histories misconceptions you are.
You have pierced the veil on this one....bravo.

I personally thank you for you efforts, they were more than fruitful.

God bless and all carry on...


P.S. With everything being outsourced nowadays aren't you glad 911 was homegrown?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
 


Can i ask one question, please:

If it was OK to fly 2 planes into the twin towers as part of a false flag operation, why would that operation wish, or need to avoid using a real plane impact for the Pentagon?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
There is no use appealing to logic amongst the brainwash.

This jerk actually believes CIT is an "independent" investigation entity.

What more needs to be said?




Do you know what independent means?

This is, of course, on topic...

As their is really no possible logical rational way to claim that this was not independent investigation...



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
You missed that easily I demonstrated that Ranke's supplementary video on the "flyover" claim simply contradicts his own claims and does not in any way whatsoever demonstrate any "flyover."

I have seen no evidence of you doing anything of the sort. The entire “NSA” video confirms a flyover. You may need to look up the definition of “contradicts” because at no point did you exhibit a time in which Craig contradicted himself.


Trying reading more carefully.


It's easy to see Craig Ranke's screw-ups and he could not rebut it at all:


It’s easy to say that someone is screwing up and then provide no evidence to back your claim. Nice appeal to pride (1) by the way.~


Take your blinders off. I've shown for three years that CIT cannot back up ITS claims. Pay attention. It's easy to understand why.



CIT will be facing many questions at the NYC conference in 2 weeks., including about his own contradictions,-

What contradictions?! I still see no evidence that CIT has contradicted itself.


Read my post again. Watch and LISTEN to CIT's video I posted. Pay attention this time.


-CIT's complete inability to provide any positive evidence whatsoever of any "jet flying over and away from the Pentagon"-



Inability to provide positive evidence? Did you even watch the video? CIT provided so much evidence that the plane flew over the pentagon it’s ridiculous.


No, my friend, CIT has not provided one piece of positive evidence or any eyewitnesses who ever stated they saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon." DO catch up with the facts.


At times in the video I was saying to myself, “jezz, this is overkill, 2 cops, a tower guard, an aviation expert “and then some” all corroborating the same exact story?”


Nope. Not even they ever saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon." You're easily hoodwinked by Ranke & Co.


The evidence is undeniable that the plane did not crash into the building. Wouldn’t you say that it is logical to assume that if it did not crash into the building then it flew over it?


If ANY jet "flew over and away from the Pentagon" as you all claim, then there would be mountains of positive evidence of such a fact, including statements and media reports from a sizable portion of the hundreds of eyewitnesses in a position to see a "flyover" had one occurred.

But no such evidence has ever surfaced and CIT has provided none. CIT is on record of refusing to provide ANY eyewitness statements from any of those hundreds of people from all around the Pentagon as to what they actually saw. And ALL of the people he selectively chose to interview never claimed to see any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

You really MUST catch up, JPhish.


-will be the focus of questions from many participating skeptics of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.



Why should it matter how many skeptics there will be? Argumentum ad populum (3)


You have difficulty reading. It doesn't matter how many. One is sufficient to ask the questions Ranke knows he cannot answer.

CIT exists because Ranke and Marquis know full well how many gullible people easily fall for their utter nonsense. It's too bad for you that you are one of them.

Hopefully, you'll understand one day the fraudulent nature of CIT's claims.

Good luck.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
No, my friend, CIT has not provided one piece of positive evidence or any eyewitnesses who ever stated they saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon." DO catch up with the facts.

The facts are that jthomas has already debunked himself with the following statement:

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

Yes, that's right... jthomas has admitted that no one really knows what people would have seen. He's admitted that there are an unknown number of people and that no one can determine anything definitive.

In many threads, jthomas often forgets about his own contradictions. Pay little attention to him. Remember, he's an official government story believer, yet he refuses to endorse the Pentagon Security Images... That shows the contradictory nature in jthomas' beliefs. The 9/11 script is a little too confusing for him to understand.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
No, my friend, CIT has not provided one piece of positive evidence or any eyewitnesses who ever stated they saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon." DO catch up with the facts.

The facts are that jthomas has already debunked himself with the following statement:

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

Yes, that's right... jthomas has admitted that no one really knows what people would have seen. He's admitted that there are an unknown number of people and that no one can determine anything definitive.


It's a measure of 9/11 Deniers' nonsense that you still have to fib, tezz.

You know perfectly well that neither Craig Ranke nor you can claim to know that any of the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon saw a flyover. You never interviewed them. You refuse to.

Duh.


And you couldn't even provide a proper link to my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Boy, you 9/11 Deniers are really desperate.



[edit on 3-9-2009 by jthomas]

[edit on 3-9-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Trying reading more carefully.

I did read carefully . . . there was no apparent evidence that there was a contradiction in CIT’s findings. I’m asking for you to show me where these contradictions are. Surely if these things are as easy to comprehend as you claim them to be, elucidating shouldn’t be a hard task for you?


Take your blinders off. I've shown for three years that CIT cannot back up ITS claims. Pay attention. It's easy to understand why.

What claim are they making that they can’t back up? Give me one.

It's easy to understand why.
Appeal to pride (4) insulting my intelligence will not encourage me to agree with you.


Read my post again. Watch and LISTEN to CIT's video I posted. Pay attention this time.
basless assertions (5)(6) I was giving the audio and visual presentation of the video my full attention. You have no proof that I did otherwise.


No, my friend, CIT has not provided one piece of positive evidence or any eyewitnesses who ever stated they saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon." DO catch up with the facts.

argumentum ad ignorantiam (7) Ignoratio elenchi (8)

They don’t need evidence that the “plane” flew over because they’ve provided enough evidence that it didn’t hit into the building. It’s the SAME thing.

I will ask this question again. Since it is PROVEN that a 747 did not crash in to the building. This is PROVEN. Isn’t it logical to assume that the “747” flew OVER the building and didn’t magically disappear? Or is it your belief that there was never a plane at all?

FACTS

1. Something resembling an airplane was seen approaching the pentagon

2. It came in from the north side and banked right

3. If it was a 747 it could not have crashed into the building because the physical evidence doesn’t match that of a 747 crashing into the building.

Basically the choices you are left with are . . .

CHOICES (open to slight variations of course)

A. It was a missile that was fashioned to look like a plane so well that it fooled an aviation expert, 2 cops, and a tower guard (amongst others). THAT “missile” hit into the pentagon.

B. There was never a plane or missile; all the witnesses experienced a holographic image or are lying as part of a mass conspiracy in which “Bombs” were pre-planted in the building.

C. A jet plane shot a missile at the pentagon and flew away.

I’m going with C because quite frankly the other choices are rather ridiculous considering the current information available.

Are you seriously considering A or B jthom?


Nope. Not even they ever saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon." You're easily hoodwinked by Ranke & Co.

Another . . . baseless assertion(9) you have no proof that I am easily fooled.

Jthom, I will ask the question again . . . since it is PROVEN that a 747 did not crash into the pentagon, isn’t it logical to assume that if a“747” appeared approach the pentagon that day, it flew over the building?


If ANY jet "flew over and away from the Pentagon" as you all claim, then there would be mountains of positive evidence of such a fact, including statements and media reports from a sizable portion of the hundreds of eyewitnesses in a position to see a "flyover" had one occurred.

So you believe that something that appeared to be a 747 but NOT a 747 approached the pentagon hit into it, OR disappeared into thin air; but DID NOT fly over the building. So I’m asking you this. Was it a missile of sorts or was there nothing at all? These are basically your only choices because it is 100% proven that if it crashed into the pentagon, it was not a 747.


But no such evidence has ever surfaced and CIT has provided none. CIT is on record of refusing to provide ANY eyewitness statements from any of those hundreds of people from all around the Pentagon as to what they actually saw. And ALL of the people he selectively chose to interview never claimed to see any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

argumentum ad ignorantiam (10) Ignoratio elenchi (11)
You’re missing the entire point. SINCE A 747 DID NOT CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON, WHERE DID IT GO?


You really MUST catch up, JPhish.

Yeah you’re way ahead of me with 11 logical fallacies to my 0. Sorry I can’t keep up; I’m a pretty logical person.


-You have difficulty reading. It doesn't matter how many. One is sufficient to ask the questions Ranke knows he cannot answer.

That’s why it is illogical to mention there will be many of them. Thank you for agreeing with me. Thank you for telling me I have difficulty reading though. baseless assertion (12)


CIT exists because Ranke and Marquis know full well how many gullible people easily fall for their utter nonsense. It's too bad for you that you are one of them.

baseless assertion [13] you have no proof that CIT has malicious intentions

Appeal to pride (14) Baselessly asserting (15) that I must be gullible for agreeing with CIT doesn’t help your argument, in fact, it hurts it, because it is illogical.


Hopefully, you'll understand one day the fraudulent nature of CIT's claims.

Good luck.

Well . . . isn’t that some wishful thinking (16)?

[edit on 9/3/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by JPhish
 


Wow thank you man.

It means a lot to hear that people get it and appreciate it.




Craig, what do you think about this FOIA release?

The witness says that he saw TWO planes.

Also, the second plane was RIGHT BEHIND the first plane.

The first "plane" hit the pentagon, and then a much larger plane flew over the pentagon.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
There is no use appealing to logic amongst the brainwash.

baseless assertion (9) you have presented no proof that i am brainwashed.

genetic falacy(10) even if i were brainwashed, you have no evidence that because of my brainwashing i am not logical. In fact, my lack of logical fallacies juxtaposed to your many, show you to be GRAVELY mistaken.


This jerk -

ad hominem (11) calling me a jerk and attacking me does not help your argument.


-actually believes CIT is an "independent" investigation entity.

What do you mean i believe? They ARE an independent investigation team. Look up the definition of independent, post it here, and attempt to show how they do not fit the definition.


What more needs to be said?

what more must you say? how about something logical?

[edit on 9/3/2009 by JPhish]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join