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: 17
215
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
This shows the columns bent -outward-. While true, they may be bent to the left, they still seem to bent out.


They are bent to the left because that was the way the airplane was travelling. Seeming to be bent out is “seeming.” To bend them all in the same direction, charges would have to be placed on the opposite sides of each column. All explosives for the inner columns would have to be placed the same way. If you were working in the Pentagon and saw the charges placed against each column, what would you do? Keep working?


The part of the pentagon that was allegedly hit by the plane was undergoing renovations, so there wouldn't be any workers there.



Originally posted by pteridine
Then there is the matter of the fuel. Thousands of gallons of fuel would have to be placed on the outside wall and throughout the building. Did you see a tanker truck parked near the impact hole? This theory is really ridiculous. The perpetrators of such crapola have no technical backgrounds in the areas they need to make coherent stories.


I have heard there was a tank, if not a tanker truck, near the impact hole.



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
Admittedly, there is a web page that has argued against the theory that the fact that the columns bent outward necessitates that the damage was instigated from within:
911review.com...
However, there is a lot more evidence to support the theory that the plane didn't crash into the pentagon, as I have already made clear.


There is no evidence that the plane didn’t crash into the Pentagon.


You have countered -some- of my points, but not all of them. Aside from the many witness statements, there is also the impossible dive that would have been required in order to pull off the official story crash that Pilots for 9/11 Truth brought up as well.



Originally posted by pteridine
Before you were banned, did you ask what happened to the flyover plane or who was in the coffins of the passengers?


From what I have heard, the flyover plane may have landed at the airport nearby. As to what was in the passenger coffins, who knows? All I know is that I have seen no solid evidence that any of the passengers who were allegedly aboard Flight 77 were found at the pentagon.



Originally posted by pteridine
Did you ask how the complex conspiracy was carried out? These guys tend to theorize without thinking about the details.


I think that the people over at PFT and CIT may well have gone over more of the details than the rest of the sites on the subject combined. This doesn't mean that they know all the details, but they have never claimed to have known them all either. The undertaking of such a conspiracy would clearly have to have been fairly complex. What they have done is shown how the official story version is impossible. They have done far more than their share in uncovering the truth. It's up to the rest of us to realize this and to join them in seeking a new, more independent/less hampered investigation of what happened that day.


Originally posted by pteridine
The entire NOC, flyover, planted evidence and bodies, CD story is on a par with the holographic planes and death rays from space WTC story.


Again, I strongly disagree.


Originally posted by pteridine
At least those guys don’t ban you for impure conspiracy thoughts.


I must admit I laughed when I read that the first time :-p. Like I said, I think they need to work a bit on their people skills. But I long believed that their technical knowledge is bar none.




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Then I respectfully suggest you get your eyes checked if you cannot see it. You also might want to dump your false belief on the issue.


Which false belief is that, exactly? That there were no passenger bodies? Sure thing, just show some evidence there there were.

You have never been respectful. If you really cared, you would have pointed out what you were talking about instead of just telling me I was wrong. You either do not or cannot. Either way, take your fake "respectfully" elsewhere.

I said there were no passenger bodies.

How many pages later and no one has proven that there were? You have all claimed that there were. Strapped into a seat, I believe one person even said. Uh huh, ok, where are they?

You insist there were bodies of passengers. I say there were not. Do you have any evidence that there was?

Originally I added - and do not bother with the orange jumpsuit guys and you pounced on that. Is that because it is easier for you to argue khaki over orange instead of no bodies over bodies?

You completely ignored the bottom half of what you replied to - it does not matter what they are wearing, they are still not the bodies of passengers.

You go ahead and keep arguing over what they are wearing. I will go back over here with the adults and try to get some evidence of any passenger bodies, since you say they were there. When you get off your tantrum, maybe you can join me.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by pteridine
 



[The part of the pentagon that was allegedly hit by the plane was undergoing renovations, so there wouldn't be any workers there.

I have heard there was a tank, if not a tanker truck, near the impact hole.

You have countered -some- of my points, but not all of them. Aside from the many witness statements, there is also the impossible dive that would have been required in order to pull off the official story crash that Pilots for 9/11 Truth brought up as well.


From what I have heard, the flyover plane may have landed at the airport nearby. As to what was in the passenger coffins, who knows? All I know is that I have seen no solid evidence that any of the passengers who were allegedly aboard Flight 77 were found at the pentagon.

I think that the people over at PFT and CIT may well have gone over more of the details than the rest of the sites on the subject combined. This doesn't mean that they know all the details, but they have never claimed to have known them all either. The undertaking of such a conspiracy would clearly have to have been fairly complex. What they have done is shown how the official story version is impossible. They have done far more than their share in uncovering the truth. It's up to the rest of us to realize this and to join them in seeking a new, more independent/less hampered investigation of what happened that day.

I must admit I laughed when I read that the first time :-p. Like I said, I think they need to work a bit on their people skills. But I long believed that their technical knowledge is bar none.


There were people working there. Navy and Army personnel along with civilain workers. Those were the casualties in addition to the passengers.

There would have been the remains of an exploded tank that had been filled with fuel. No such evidence was found. There would have been sharp explosion[s] and not a boom if all the columns would have had charges on them. One charge to do it all would have been enormous. The damage is not consistent with HE demolitions nor was the fire. A projectile and fuel oil had to do the work.
The dive is not as impossible as they make it out to be if it is a straight-in flight path. The difficult part is the NOC path that ends up in the Pentagon. The truthers started out with the flight data, which is not too accurate to begin with. That led them to the NOC path. They interviewed people with the idea of getting some to say NOC because the other pilots on the boards said that the flight data wasn't that accurate near the ground. Then they said that since they couldn't make a collision fit with the NOC and a tight turn to knock over the light poles and hit the Pentagon, that there must have been a faked event. They had to say that the light poles were planted, the flyover was timed for big explosion, etc., all because they wanted to find a conspiracy. The problem was that the position data was wrong to begin with and that data led to their Rube Goldberg version of the Pentagon attack. If you were going to have a conspiracy to hit the Pentagon, wouldn't it be easier and more damaging just to fly a plane into the building and not have to invoke a complicated chain of events requiring split second timing with a good chance of being discovered when all those people see a giant aircraft fly away form the building. They haven't shown the official story is impossible. It is far more possible than anything they ever came up with.
Their technical knowledge of aircraft is as good as any but their knowledge of explosives, energetic materials, and fuels isn't so good.

If you want a reinvestigation where would you start, what evidence would you look at and who would do it. I just started a thread "If there were to be a reinvestigation of 911 who would do it and what evidence would they investigate." Most of these guys haven't responded. I set ground rules and will collect responses, collate, and post them. I'm trying to determine what people think are the strongest areas to reinvestigate, what they would look for, and who would look. They can post what they think. They can post as many times as they want but I'll only take the last post from any given member as their official post.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 

There is a map of where the remains were found in the Pentagon and articles on their DNA identification. If you want to see it, I'll look for the link. Having photos of bodies is pointless because even if someone were ghoulish enough to publish them the trolls always demand more and more evidence or claim fake.
The flyover boys haven't agreed on what happened to the plane and passengers, yet. Some of their ideas are strange, to say the least. The simplest version is that a plane filled with passengers hit the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

I have found that CIT and P4T have slowly been gaining ground. There are already proofs that unless the laws of physics were broken on 9/11, allowing the plane that approached the pentagon to pull out of an impossible dive, and a nearly industructible taxi cab windshield, the official story just doesn't wash.



Craig Ranke is an ATS member and it's considered bad form to criticize members.

You really must read these exposes of CIT and their methods of obtaining information.

There is a reason even the mainline fundamentalist Truthers have completely distanced themselves from these people.


M


911review.com...

To Con a Movement: - Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'


arabesque911.blogspot.com...

On the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Forum, Victoria Ashley correctly summarized the critical problem with the flyover hypothesis as promoted by the CIT researchers,

“If I were a person trying to sell a product and I did a survey of people and found that people ranked my product the best, would you trust that survey? This is why there are scientific standards. You are not looking for the truth when you do not consider all the evidence as a body. You are looking for what people said that can then support your thesis, whatever it may be. This is non-scientific, unfortunately. I don't say that to be rude or to say what your intentions are, only to underscore that the only type of investigation of the Pentagon that is sincere about being a scientific investigation is one that does not discard evidence or make claims about evidence as though the claims are factual when they are not.”

Aside from the discussed evidence, there is no motive to fly a plane over the Pentagon as the risks of getting caught in the act would be impractically dangerous, while a plane strike would give the misleading appearance of a hijacker attack. Any such an attack on the Pentagon would suggest insider complicity because the Pentagon is defended by the nearby Andrews Air Force Base, NORAD, and sophisticated radar. Incredulously, and outrageously, the only plane sent to intercept the incoming aircraft was a C-130 cargo plane sent by a civilian air traffic controller! On the other side of the river, the similarly reported on radar E-4B “doomsday” plane resulted in evacuating the White House, and yet no similar action was taken at the Pentagon? Not only this, Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission that the incoming plane was coming into the Pentagon. False and misleading claims function as a part of the 9/11 cover-up. As correctly suggested by Thomas Pynchon, Jr., “if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about [the important] answers.”

Because there is no direct evidence of a flyover, the theorists claim that the government must be hiding it and any evidence countering it is labeled “controlled by the perps”; a clear example a non-falsifiable theory and circular logic. I define non-falsifiable theories as the sixth level of disinformation. Releasing the videos of the Pentagon attack would force 9/11 truth seekers to ask the more important question: “Why and how was the Pentagon ever hit at all in the first place since an incoming object was widely reported on radar, and who would really gain to benefit from such a successful attack?” The fact that Hani Hanjour was an incompetent pilot and the unoccupied wing of the Pentagon under renovation was struck strongly suggests that the attack was made to happen by remote control to minimize casualties and prevent high level Pentagon officials from being killed. What about the military War games involving simulated hijackings using exactly this type of remote control on 9/11? Why is it that high level Pentagon officials seemingly allowed the plane to strike the Pentagon without even making an effort to evacuate the building as it approached as reported by Norman Mineta in a bunker with Dick Cheney and air traffic controllers? As many of these and other questions suggest, it is a straw-man to accuse those who believe a 757 impacted the Pentagon of “supporting the official story”. As Jim Hoffman has shown, the evidence for a 757 crash is far more compelling than any alternative explanation.

As for the flyover theory, it is not directly supported by any witness statements as acknowledged by CIT. Instead, CIT makes the claim that the witnesses who claimed the Pentagon were struck were “fooled”. In order to “support” this theory (frequently referencing the “proven” north of CITGO gas station flight path), CIT makes the following hypothetical and clearly deceptive and disingenuous claims:

• A carefully timed “illusion” enabled a flyover

• Witnesses were confused with the other planes in the area despite their significantly different appearances, locations, speeds, and altitudes

• The fireball allowed the plane to fly past the Pentagon without anyone noticing

• The Pentagon trees were used to disguise the plane from impacting the building, completely ignoring the fact that they would not prevent witnesses from seeing the plane fly over the building

• The light poles were taken down in the middle of the night and planted on the crime scene without anyone noticing or reporting this happened

• The video evidence contradicting both the north side claim and the flyover are “manipulated by the perps” to counter CIT’s “smoking gun” evidence

• The alleged flight path North of the CITGO gas station is considered “proven” despite the contrary evidence that three of these same witnesses claim that the plane hit the Pentagon

• Radar data which clearly contradicts the flyover theory is dismissed as “controlled by the perps”

The CIT researchers frequently and falsely interpret criticism of their theory as a personal attack along with accusations of government sponsored “neutralization”. As the flyover theory is clearly unsupported by any credible evidence, the CIT theorists frequently rely on vicious, slanderous, and libelous ad hominem attacks and antagonism to those who dare to question their flyover theory. Any disagreement with the “smoking gun” evidence is derided with hostility on internet forums, while any criticism of the theory is largely interpreted as an “attack” or “spook operation”. Pentagon researchers in particular, are highlighted for accusations including “treason”, “supporting the official story”, “COINTELPRO”, and “brainwashed”. Similarly, any witnesses who contradict the north claim are called “propaganda”, “agents”, and in the case of a taxi cab driver, “the devil”. Aside from the weakly supported flyover hypothesis, whether intentional or not, the ridiculous antics and outrageous behavior of the CIT researchers are damaging and destructive to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x
 


Ask the poster about the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions. Ask about energy expended in breaking the base of the pole, detaching the lamp, the modulus of elasticity of teh aluminum alloy used in the pole, the aspect angle of the aircraft, the fluid dynamics of the airflow around th eplane and engine, and whether a wing or engine struck the pole. Then ask how high school physics could solve those equations. No one can calculate the trajectories of the light poles. Pretending to calculate energies and trajectories of light poles is just more noise to cover up the unbelievably idiotic flyover theory.


this is inanly irrelevant.

no plane hit into the light poles so the point is moot.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

this is inanly irrelevant.

no plane hit into the light poles so the point is moot.



Are you certain it is inane and moot? You have found the truth, already.

Even Gide found the truth. It was Voltaire's, first, of course.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x
 


Ask the poster about the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions. Ask about energy expended in breaking the base of the pole, detaching the lamp, the modulus of elasticity of teh aluminum alloy used in the pole, the aspect angle of the aircraft, the fluid dynamics of the airflow around th eplane and engine, and whether a wing or engine struck the pole. Then ask how high school physics could solve those equations. No one can calculate the trajectories of the light poles. Pretending to calculate energies and trajectories of light poles is just more noise to cover up the unbelievably idiotic flyover theory.


this is inanely irrelevant.

no plane hit into the light poles so the point is moot.


I too believe that no plane hit the light poles, for reasons such as the impossible pull up from a dive that the plane would have had to have made in order to do so. But just because -we- believe this doesn't mean that everyone else does. For this reason, I believe it's good to provide yet more evidence that the official story is false.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by pteridine
 



[The part of the pentagon that was allegedly hit by the plane was undergoing renovations, so there wouldn't be any workers there.

I have heard there was a tank, if not a tanker truck, near the impact hole.

You have countered -some- of my points, but not all of them. Aside from the many witness statements, there is also the impossible dive that would have been required in order to pull off the official story crash that Pilots for 9/11 Truth brought up as well.


There were people working there. Navy and Army personnel along with civilain workers. Those were the casualties in addition to the passengers.


I've heard contradictory things as to how many were working in that section of the pentagon at the time. I got the following information from a truth movement site; it linked to an LA Times article, but that link no longer goes to the article. Here's the quote:

While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there Tuesday, officials said.


Then, in a military article if memory serves, I heard them claim that 'initial reports' were mistaken, and that 80% of the workers were in fact there, but that casualities were minimal because of the recent renovations done there. Unfortunately I didn't save the link for that article and can no longer find it.



Originally posted by pteridine
There would have been the remains of an exploded tank that had been filled with fuel. No such evidence was found.

There would have been sharp explosion[s] and not a boom if all the columns would have had charges on them. One charge to do it all would have been enormous. The damage is not consistent with HE demolitions nor was the fire. A projectile and fuel oil had to do the work.


I'll bring up your claims on a truth movement site I know.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by JPhish

this is inanly irrelevant.

no plane hit into the light poles so the point is moot.



Are you certain it is inane and moot?

It is inane to discuss the light poles trajectories, compositions, sizes, etc. when apparently all of the independent and unbiased evidence supports that a plane was never any where in the vicinity of those light poles. So yes, the point is moot.


You have found the truth, already.

I believe I have found a truth; not the truth.


Even Gide found the truth. It was Voltaire's, first, of course.

Not going to presume to know what you are implying there.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x

You have countered -some- of my points, but not all of them. Aside from the many witness statements, there is also the impossible dive that would have been required in order to pull off the official story crash that Pilots for 9/11 Truth brought up as well.


The dive is not as impossible as they make it out to be if it is a straight-in flight path. The difficult part is the NOC path that ends up in the Pentagon. The truthers started out with the flight data, which is not too accurate to begin with.


It seems that truthers and official story supporters alike think that the NTSB data isn’t too accurate at the very least. Why is it that the government hasn’t further investigated this?



Originally posted by pteridine
That led them to the NOC path.


This is not my understanding; my understanding is that the NOC path was first discovered by CIT in their initial trip to Arlington, Virginia. Only -after- this was the NTSB data released. I know that it was released due to a FOA request by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, but I’m not sure when the FOA was originally filed. The reason I even bring it up is because I’d like to know if nothing was done about the FOA until after CIT’s initial investigation, or whether the FOA request had in fact been filed after said investigation.



Originally posted by pteridine
They interviewed people with the idea of getting some to say NOC because the other pilots on the boards said that the flight data wasn't that accurate near the ground.


Again, this is not my understanding, atleast for their initial investigation; my understanding is that they went to Arlington to determine if a plane had, indeed, approached the pentagon, and whether the plane was AA 77.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
Then they said that since they couldn't make a collision fit with the NOC and a tight turn to knock over the light poles and hit the Pentagon, that there must have been a faked event. They had to say that the light poles were planted, the flyover was timed for big explosion, etc., all because they wanted to find a conspiracy.


Perhaps you are unaware of this, but a conspiracy doesn’t -have- to involve the government. All it needs is 2 more or people to plan something of a malicious nature in secret. In other words, even the official story is a conspiracy. But for the sake of brevity, we can define a conspiracy for this discussion as one involving high level officials in the U.S. government.

In terms of CIT -wanting- to find a conspiracy, I have never seen any evidence of this, although I certainly believe that by the time they went to investigate the event in 2006, they had already found a lot of inconsistencies in the official story, which I would imagine fueled their wish to investigate the scene of the crime. Honestly, I think that most people generally -don’t- want to find a conspiracy involving elements of their own government. I generally think that wanting to find a conspiracy of this nature is kind of like wanting a ‘big bad wolf’ to be in your back yard; not exactly what most people desire.

However, while virtually everyone would prefer to not have the aforementioned scenario occur, people employ different approaches when they suspect something might be wrong. For many, what essentially occurs is what in a way can be seen as self preservation; if you can unconsciously persuade yourself that the big bad wolf is really a misunderstood dog who’s actually friendly once you get to know him, you avoid making a powerful enemy while still believing that you didn’t just chicken out of dealing with the aforementioned big bad wolf. This is what one of the former CIT members, Russell Pickering, apparently managed to persuade himself of; as far as I know, he’s no longer investigating anything to do with 9/11.

The alternative is to not be so easily persuaded. I have frequently thought of the role of truth movement detractors. On the one hand, it could be said that they are hampering efforts to get the truth told. And yet on the other hand, I think they are generally a good way of determining the wheat from the chaff; the chaff can’t withstand close scrutiny, but the wheat, or truth, can. Furthermore, some who today are on the side of the detractors could in the future cross the line; it’s certainly happened before. I think that crossing the other way hasn’t happened so often.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
Then they said that since they couldn't make a collision fit with the NOC and a tight turn to knock over the light poles and hit the Pentagon, that there must have been a faked event.


As I've mentioned before:


You seem like the type who might actually read the following, which I transcribed, from Pilots for 9/11 Truth's video, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, so here goes:


Originally posted by scott3x
9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 8:52

Placing the aircraft on the south path, lowered from the FDR altitude of 699 feet above sea level at this point in space to the top of the VDOT antenna, we can examine the pull up needed at pole 1 and measure the radius using a 3 point ark radius tool provided with this 3d animation software program.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Believe what you wish. Faith-based truther sites will feed your fervor.

"Even Gide found the truth. It was Voltaire's, first, of course."

Check our respective signatures.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


All of this is lock-step with the various truther sites. I have read much of it and it makes no sense. Someone does some calculations based on an assumption and concludes that some part of the story can't be true based on those calculations. That then leads to the most contrived, unbelievable series of events that strain the credulity of even the most hard core believer.
Of course, no one noticed the demolition charges in the Pentagon, the thousands of gallons of jet fuel in hermetically sealed containers, the people trooping about with bent light poles, a plane that flew over the building just as a blinding flash obscured it, aircraft parts being delivered on fork lifts and cranes to be placed in predetermined locations, bodies being delivered, and who knows what else they'll claim when out on their limb.
How many people would it take to do this? How much time to set it up? Do you honestly believe that any group of people could have orchestrated the events, as fantasized by CIT, et al., and left no traces and no witnesses?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
Haven't been here much, or for a while, but I'll jump in...



You cannot provide any positive evidence of any flyover.


Are you aware of the positive evidence that CIT has already presented for the flyover, namely the very credible north of the citgo gas station witnesses, and the lack of any credible south of the citgo gas station witnesses?


You must be new at this. Now pay careful attention: IF any plane or jet flew over and away from the Pentagon, then there must be positive evidence of an actual flyover. You should understand by now that claiming a NOC flight path took place, therefore a flyover must have taken place is NOT evidence that a flyover actually took place.

Positive evidence means that a flyover must satisfy ALL conditions of having actually taken place. This means, quite obviously, refuting the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. It also means that there must be an explanation of WHY none of the hundreds of eyewitnesses ALL around the Pentagon in perfect positions to see a flyover, on the freeways, on the bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots, and in surrounding buildings never once reported seeing ANY aircraft fly over and away from the Pentagon as claimed by CIT. Many of those people would have had a LOUD, low-flying, fast moving jet flying in their direction with the explosion directly in their line of sight with the jet in front of it.

See this for details: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yet there are no such reports by anyone nor any media reports of any such flyover. CIT wants gullible people like you to accept on faith that its hand-picked eyewitnesses who claim a NOC flight path but who NEVER saw ANY flyover is sufficient. Bunk.

Furthermore, CIT wants you to believe that Roosevelt Roberts is a "flyover" eyewitness. It is clear from CIT's own telephone interview that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis could not establish what Roberts actually meant. But so what? IF Roberts had actually seen a flyover, THEN dozens of others were even in a better position to see a flyover. But NO such reports have ever been presented by anyone.

And, when you finally do some research and see how CIT and P4T are taking you for a ride, you'll understand why CIT has refused to provide a stitch of evidence for the last 3 years of what wreckage removed from inside the Pentagon over 1,000 people saw, handled, removed, and sorted openly on the Pentagon in the hours, days and weeks after 9/11 from among this group below.

Just ask Ranke why his Crack Investigation Team refuses to talk to any of them and watch him make excuses.


Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


Don't be one of CIT's sheeple, scott3x. CIT cannot demonstrate a flyover nor refute ANY of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

And both Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis know it.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

You still refuse to answer my question. You have spun this in every way you can to avoid answering my question, why is that jthomas?

Answer the question? You can’t can you!


You refuse to answer my questions about your claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. Now let's try again. THIS time I expect you to answer my question and stop your evasions, ok?

IF you claim AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, then what did all of these people, over 1,000 of whom saw, handled, removed, and sorted the wreckage, have to say about the wreckage from inside the Pentagon?

Why do you 9/11 "Truthers" refuse to present their statements? Do you think by hiding it from us for the last 3 years that we have asked you for it that you can convince ANYONE that your claim is valid?

Not in the real world, impressme.

Now stop whining and present us the statements of these people once and for all or retract your claim:


Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


We skeptics are tired of waiting for you 9/11 "Truthers" to get off your butts and do your homework. You'll NEVER convince a soul that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon if you keep refusing to deal with the evidence.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
Then they said that since they couldn't make a collision fit with the NOC and a tight turn to knock over the light poles and hit the Pentagon, that there must have been a faked event. They had to say that the light poles were planted, the flyover was timed for big explosion, etc., all because they wanted to find a conspiracy.


Perhaps you are unaware of this, but a conspiracy doesn’t -have- to involve the government. All it needs is 2 more or people to plan something of a malicious nature in secret. In other words, even the official story is a conspiracy. But for the sake of brevity, we can define a conspiracy for this discussion as one involving high level officials in the U.S. government.

In terms of CIT -wanting- to find a conspiracy, I have never seen any evidence of this, although I certainly believe that by the time they went to investigate the event in 2006, they had already found a lot of inconsistencies in the official story, which I would imagine fueled their wish to investigate the scene of the crime. Honestly, I think that most people generally -don’t- want to find a conspiracy involving elements of their own government. I generally think that wanting to find a conspiracy of this nature is kind of like wanting a ‘big bad wolf’ to be in your back yard; not exactly what most people desire.

However, while virtually everyone would prefer to not have the aforementioned scenario occur, people employ different approaches when they suspect something might be wrong. For many, what essentially occurs is what in a way can be seen as self preservation; if you can unconsciously persuade yourself that the big bad wolf is really a misunderstood dog who’s actually friendly once you get to know him, you avoid making a powerful enemy while still believing that you didn’t just chicken out of dealing with the aforementioned big bad wolf. This is what one of the former CIT members, Russell Pickering, apparently managed to persuade himself of; as far as I know, he’s no longer investigating anything to do with 9/11.

The alternative is to not be so easily persuaded. I have frequently thought of the role of truth movement detractors. On the one hand, it could be said that they are hampering efforts to get the truth told. And yet on the other hand, I think they are generally a good way of determining the wheat from the chaff; the chaff can’t withstand close scrutiny, but the wheat, or truth, can. Furthermore, some who today are on the side of the detractors could in the future cross the line; it’s certainly happened before. I think that crossing the other way hasn’t happened so often.


Thanks for keepin the spooks busy. They have nothing!
You realize they post no actual testimony of a cross examined witness and no explanation why. Then post a pile of elephant manure right out of the DC zoo instead. 911 is serious business.
They seek only to protect their own and could care less about America.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
We skeptics are tired of waiting for you 9/11 "Truthers" to get off your butts and do your homework. You'll NEVER convince a soul that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon if you keep refusing to deal with the evidence.


I keep asking for evidence and all I ever get are snide remarks about how I need to do my homework. I did. There is no evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon. NONE. You seem to have fallen for the government line, so where is the evidence that convinced you? Where are the wings? passenger bodies? Plane parts positively identified as belonging to the plane in question? Between the pentagon and Shanksville, it is amazing how many things just evaporated that day.

Us "truthers" although I do not call myself that, are tired of waiting for you to get off your butts and do your homework. You will NEVER convince a thinking soul that AA77 hit that building if you keep refusing to find the evidence.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Us "truthers" although I do not call myself that, are tired of waiting for you to get off your butts and do your homework. You will NEVER convince a thinking soul that AA77 hit that building if you keep refusing to find the evidence.


Like get a life. The documentation has been provided to you in tens of thousands of pages and summarized on the Internet a hundred times over.Go find it, it's there.

Do you actually feel you can type in "where's the proof" and anyone has to jump to attention.

And where is your equally documented, citationed paperwork analysis and material evidence that disproves what hundreds of professionals worldwide have assembled and reviewed?

A Youtube, a Truther site with bunch of diagrams?

M



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join