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: 14
215
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

So what exactly are CIT saying? That the 757 never existed and the C-130 is what did the approach and magic flyover AND at the exact same time manage to climb to a very high altitude and come around again to make it appear it was shadowing the "757", or are they saying the C-130 flying at the much higher altitude as it was "shadowing" the "757", is what was suppose to trick the people into thinking it crashed into the Pentagon?



What altitude are they talking about for the C-130 flies rather low altitudes compared to jets. Mid 20,000 is about max and most fly operationally below 20,000 feet. Where your typical jet wants to be at 35,000 and up.




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hoghead cheese
 


It was 2.3 trillon and the first stories about it were in 1999. Not to mention, it wasnt missing cash, it was 2.3 trillon in accounting entry mistakes streching back quite a few years.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by GenRadek

hey jthomas.
This CIT's idea that the C-130 is what helped do the flyover illusion has been bothering me since day one when this nonsense first came out. I do not understand how they can twist a C-130 which was shadowing the 757 from a much higher altitude into it was the actual "fly-over" illusion aircraft. It actually hurts my head trying to understand this line of illogical thinking.


Haha.

What you are doing is racking your brain to create YOUR OWN "illogical" scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with what we have claimed.


No, GenRadek is exactly right. You have created a hopelessly contradictory scenario as you have had to create new explanations to try to stay ahead of the easy debunkings of your "scenarios" that we have given you.

Now you are completely trapped by your own contradictions. If the rumors are true that you are backing out of speaking in NYC, I'm sure it's because you KNOW you have painted yourself into a corner with no escape.


Let me give you a hint: your above description isn't even close.

We KNOW the C-130 was real.


Yes, it was real.


We KNOW the C-130 was at a much higher altitude.


Yes, we know it was at a much higher altitude as you showed in your video "The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off"




We KNOW the C-130 was not in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the attack as confirmed by video, several eyewitnesses, and the C-130 pilot himself.


That is also correct.

But you contradicted yourself because you also claim the same event was the C-130 acting as a decoy for the jet "...for anyone who may have seen the decoy jet fly away from the Pentagon."

1. Right as the explosion took place.

2. At the much lower altitude.

3. Three minutes earlier.



There it is, the C-130 smack over the Pentagon just as the "explosion" takes place.

Just like that - magic!

So, it is no wonder that GenRadek and I caught you representing the [b[same event with contradictory claims.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The end is nigh for the CIT Fantasy. You are trapped, Craig Ranke, by your own contradictory claims. None of us will be surprised if you do back out of the NYC conference next week. IT will be the CIT Crash & Burn Show if you show up.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 




What proof to you have that a plane hit the pentagon? We don’t want to hear you say Oh I told you all years ago! I am asking you now, what proof do YOU have that an airplane hit the pentagon?

Just answer the question.


You refuse to answer my question. We know why because, you do not have any proof a plane crashed at the pentagon. Your avoidances is noted.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas
 




What proof to you have that a plane hit the pentagon? We don’t want to hear you say Oh I told you all years ago! I am asking you now, what proof do YOU have that an airplane hit the pentagon?

Just answer the question.


You refuse to answer my question. We know why because, you do not have any proof a plane crashed at the pentagon. Your avoidances is noted.


I'm not making the "flyover" claim. YOU are. And you can't demonstrate it.

All you can do is say that a C-130 can be at two different altitudes at the same time.


Please review this thread in its entirety until you get it:

Why does CIT have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover?



[edit on 7-9-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas
 




What proof to you have that a plane hit the pentagon? We don’t want to hear you say Oh I told you all years ago! I am asking you now, what proof do YOU have that an airplane hit the pentagon?

Just answer the question.


You refuse to answer my question. We know why because, you do not have any proof a plane crashed at the pentagon. Your avoidances is noted.


I'm not making the "flyover" claim. YOU are. And you can't demonstrate it.

All you can do is say that a C-130 can be at two different altitudes at the same time.


Please review this thread in its entirety until you get it:

Why does CIT have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover?



[edit on 7-9-2009 by jthomas]


I believe you were asked what proof there was that a plane hit the pentagon. It seems you always manage to avoid that question by ignoring it, deflecting it, then offering poor links to lead to lengthy propaganda stories with no actual proof or evidence. How about you slap up a few pictures of the orange jumpsuit guys and call them passengers while you are at it.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johndor
reply to post by burntheships
 

Why? Can you think of one good reason? I can't.


Just because you can't does not mean that there is none.

I am fairly certain there are many things you cannot explain, understand, comprehend, etc. Does that make them null?

How about redundancy? Every really good plan comes with built in redundancy.

Your logic works both ways.

Why would terrorist attack the pentagon when they already had the twin towers to deal with? We are told that the attack was to send a message. What was that message again? Why could they not deliver that message with 2 planes instead of 4? Why would terrorist risk attacking the pentagon when they already had such a spectacular plan for New York City? Can you think of a good reason? I can't.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 6EQUJ5
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Attacking my speculation, or me for that matter, still does not provide the extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claims. Provide irrefutable proof, and I'll be the first to join you, pitchfork in hand.

As a veteran, I've got to believe that my government is at least somewhat on the level (I know, silly), and that although they might've "allowed" Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to occur for some perceived greater good, I'd hope that they'd draw the line at doing something crazy like actually stage an attack that took American lives.


Not much of a history buff are ya?

Remember how we got into WWI? How about Korea? Vietnam? The Spanish-American War?

Our government loves to stage attacks on American people to start wars. You should have at least heard of Project Northwoods right? What war are you a veteran of and how much do you know about it?

Here is some light reading for you The History of American False Flag Operations


(I suppose someone will argue that allowing something to happen is probably as bad a committing the act yourself, but for some reason with me there's a difference) If I can't believe that, then I'd have a hard time leaving my military awards on my wall.


If you earned your awards for doing what you thought was right, they are not tainted, our government, your CIC are all tainted. Thank you for serving our country. That is brave and commendable no matter the war. The problem comes when the truth is shown to you and you deny it because it hurts too much to believe it. Here you are, in the perfect place to learn the truth. Educate yourself and accept that things are not always as you were lead to believe. You are still a functioning human being, you can still do something to right the wrongs.

Your reasoning sounds much like this fake patriotism where America is the best at everything and does nothing wrong. America is perfect. How does any of this make sense? If you loved your car but it started stalling out, would you ignore that and continue to say it is the best car in the world, or would you take care of it, fix it, make it actually be the best?

Face it. The government is inherently evil and could care less about you or me. We are less than pawns. You would be handed over to the worst fate imaginable just for more power, money, or whatever else the powers that be feel they need.






posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Oh, PLEASE post your photos of the "orange jumpsuit guys" PLEASE!!!!!

Just so I can show how wrong you are.

Pieces of Flight 77..
www.911myths.com...

Jamie McIntyre from CNN (yeah I know truthers like to take his words out of context, but the whole transcript always demolishes their claims)




A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.


transcripts.cnn.com...

I have to point out the intellectual dishonesty of the truthers here. They normally just use this snippet of his report to support their views.



You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon


What the truthers NEVER do is post the question he was answering.




WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?


In other words, he is being asked if he thought the plane had hit the ground first, before it hit the building. Here is his FULL response..




MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse


So what he said is that from his observations, the plane hit the building...and not the ground in front of the building. The full quote tends to paint a different picture don't you think?

So, photos of airplane wreckage and an account of someone who was there about seeing pieces of airplane wreckage, would tend to point towards an airplane hitting the building.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas



There it is, the C-130 smack over the Pentagon just as the "explosion" takes place.

Just like that - magic!

So, it is no wonder that GenRadek and I caught you representing the [b[same event with contradictory claims.




Except that you have not pointed out a single "contradiction".

You are simply taking images out of context while failing to quote what the narration says during the presentation in order to make up your own "contradiction" that doesn't exist.

During the presentation when we show that image, we clearly point out how it is not OUR claim that the C-130 was flying away during the explosion and we expose how this proven false claim is attributed to KEITH WHEELHOUSE.

Yes we show a graphic depicting what KEITH WHEELHOUSE described while explaining how this is not what happened and explaining how this acted as a cover for the flyover.

That is not a contradiction.

We showed this graphic in the same presentation also:


Not because WE believe this is what happened. But because we were depicting the proven false claim that KEITH WHEELHOUSE made.

I know that actually LISTENING to what is being said may be difficult for you but that is what is required for one to be intellectually honest when discussing the claims of another.

We're allowed to show graphics depicting the claims of others when referencing that.

As another example, in National Security Alert we show numerous animations of the official south side approach while explaining this is what the govt reports. That doesn't mean we believe them. Just because we are depicting what the govt or a proven fraudulent witness says doesn't mean it's what WE believe or what the evidence proves.

That's why you refuse to quote us while making up these false "contradictions".

I know you know this already and are merely trying to misrepresent my position deliberately and with confidence in order to confuse people and/or cast doubt.

Guess what? It doesn't work.

Your dishonesty is easily exposed as it has been continuously in the past resulting in a complete lack of credibility for anything you post.

Not to mention most of what you post is pretty much incoherent blather anyway delivered in a peculiarly obnoxious, overly detailed, yet silly sounding prose as if you are some crazy man on the street passionately preaching to a non-existent congregation regarding Armageddon.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Oh, PLEASE post your photos of the "orange jumpsuit guys" PLEASE!!!!!

Just so I can show how wrong you are.

Pieces of Flight 77..
www.911myths.com...

Jamie McIntyre from CNN (yeah I know truthers like to take his words out of context, but the whole transcript always demolishes their claims)


Dude. Whoa. Hold up. When did I mention CNN or Jamie McIntyre?

Can you show me the quotes because I cannot seem to find them.

I said there was no plane and no passenger bodies. Why did you skip around that to attack other people's misquotes? Where are the bodies? Where are the wings?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Sorry, I should have added some other words in there. You asked for evidence of which I posted some (the pics and Jamie McIntyre's report)

And you mentioned the orange jumpsuited bodies, I truly want you to post a link to those pictures. Because there are not any orange jumpsuits on any of the bodies found at the Pentagon and anyone who claims there is, is a fool.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Sorry, I should have added some other words in there. You asked for evidence of which I posted some (the pics and Jamie McIntyre's report)

And you mentioned the orange jumpsuited bodies, I truly want you to post a link to those pictures. Because there are not any orange jumpsuits on any of the bodies found at the Pentagon and anyone who claims there is, is a fool.


k, here.


thanks to here


[edit on 7-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 




You refuse to answer my question. We know why because, you do not have any proof a plane crashed at the pentagon. Your avoidances is noted.

I'm not making the "flyover" claim. YOU are.





Not only do YOU spread disinformation but you have told one big whooper of a lie about me. Where have I made any claim to the fly over in this thread? I have asked you a question in my last two post and YOU respond by telling lies and avoided answering the question that I have asked you.



you can't demonstrate it.


I don’t have too because, I have never made any claims yet.
So, where have I made this fly over claim?



All you can do is say that a C-130 can be at two different altitudes at the same time.


Again, where have I made such a statement? When are you going to STOP LYING?



Please review this thread in its entirety until you get it:


Been there, done that, YOU lose. Your imagination seems to keep getting in the way of reality. Get it?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Those aren't orange jumpsuits. They are burnt humans.

Wake up.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




Those aren't orange jumpsuits. They are burnt humans.

Wake up.




… in burnt orange jumpsuits.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Those aren't orange jumpsuits. They are burnt humans.

Wake up.


Please click on the link and look at the larger version of the pictures. There is no doubt that they are wearing orange jumpsuits if you actually look. WAKE UP!






[edit on 7-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Those are khaki uniforms, not orange jumpsuits. You are in error.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Those are khaki uniforms, not orange jumpsuits. You are in error.


No they are not, the color is orange NOT khaki you are pushing disinformation.
Now YOU want me to tell my eyes that they are lying to me. The color is orange.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Look at the last photo. What color appears on the piece of rubble just to the left of the people?



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join