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: 82
215
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The poles were upright and traffic was moving one minute, and the next they're on the ground just after a huge low flying plane passes over?

You have not proven this, mmiichael. Please show your proof that demonstrates this.

You have also failed to prove that a light pole hit the taxi.

You have refused to supply names of the thousands (hundreds) of witnesses who you alleged saw the flight depart.

Why do you avoid your claims, mmiichael?




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE...
We are on page 82 now of this thread...
And we still haven´t seen "the alarming info. yielded by the investigation".

ISN´T IT AMAZING???!!!




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Are you saying that if no one saw it, it didn't happen? No witness means no event?

Yes. And he also says that the over 1,000 people who saw, walked through, handled, removed, and sorted through the wreckage don't count.

In the past, jthomas, you have failed to quote me a few times on the claims that you think I made.

This is another occasion. Your utter failure to quote me here will be your admission that you have, again, fabricated an alleged claim against me.

I suspect that your lack of knowledge with physics, confusing speed and acceleration, may be more than just a lack of knowledge in physics, as you consistently try to make false claims against me.


So do you now agree that the statements of those over 1,000 people constitute evidence or not?

Tell us what those people have stated about the wreckage and what they know.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
I've supplied links as well, and spoken of CIT's and PFT's work. Have you looked at it? How about you supply or quote from -1- link that deals with the material of the OP of this thread, and we'll take it from there.


I've watched CIT videos. As an experienced journalist the obvious misleading, omissions, and evasive techniques are embarrassing. If poor old Lloyde England had a good lawyer he could sue Ranke for false representation and libel.

Check the search function on ATS for message from member "Reheat'. He is a retired US Air Force pilot experienced in training and fighter operations with 200 combat missions, domestic and international airline experience.

In a number of threads he has directly confronted Ranke and consistently exposed his false information, evasions and fraudulent techniques.

Some of his findings disproving CIT claims are here
.

www.911myths.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE...
We are on page 82 now of this thread...
And we still haven´t seen "the alarming info. yielded by the investigation".

ISN´T IT AMAZING???!!!



Nothing about 9/11 "Truthers" surprises me anymore.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
If poor old Lloyde England had a good lawyer he could sue Ranke for false representation and libel.


So could a lot of other people, especially some of the family members of the victims of AA77's crash into the Pentagon.




[edit on 20-11-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So do you now agree that the statements of those over 1,000 people constitute evidence or not?

jthomas, you claimed that I stated that 1,000 people who saw wreckage don't count.

You need to support to this claim to maintain your integrity. You need to quote me.

Your failure to quote me will be your admission that you have made another false claim against me.

I've been through this game with you before, well over a year ago on another thread. You failed to quote me on a 'fly over' quote, you lost your cool and you ended up being warned by a Moderator.

You have a history of attributing false claims against me and you are doing it again.

Support your claim against me, or retract it and apologise.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Your failure to quote me will be your admission that you have made another false claim against me.

I've been through this game with you before, well over a year ago on another thread. You failed to quote me on a 'fly over' quote, you lost your cool and you ended up being warned by a Moderator.

You have a history of attributing false claims against me and you are doing it again.

Support your claim against me, or retract it and apologise.


Anyone who has completely failed to provide any information whatsoever on the topic is in any position to demand things of others.

I read somewhere there are people who act as if they are engaged in discussions but actually just use any conversation as an opportunity to display hostility and aggressiveness in the need to inflate their frail egos. The clinical term is 'inadequate personality.'

Wonder if we're seeing any of that in this discussion of "Alarming Information" from an "Independent Investigation"?




[edit on 20-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Anyone who has completely failed to provide any information whatsoever on the topic is in any position to demand things of others.

That's an interesting statement coming from you, mmiichael.

You have clearly failed to prove that a light pole hit the taxi.

You have clearly failed to provide the names of the thousands (hundreds) of witnesses who you alleged saw the plane depart.

It would be advisable for you to note, that when you make claims, as facts, then you will be expected to prove them.

Unless, of course, it is just your opinion?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
Anyone who has completely failed to provide any information whatsoever on the topic is in any position to demand things of others.

That's an interesting statement coming from you, mmiichael.

You have clearly failed to prove that a light pole hit the taxi.

You have clearly failed to provide the names of the thousands (hundreds) of witnesses who you alleged saw the plane depart.

It would be advisable for you to note, that when you make claims, as facts, then you will be expected to prove them.

Unless, of course, it is just your opinion?



I have failed to find a good reason to continue responding to people who have such abysmally low self-esteem they actually take pride in being Internet trolls.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
I've supplied links as well, and spoken of CIT's and PFT's work. Have you looked at it? How about you supply or quote from -1- link that deals with the material of the OP of this thread, and we'll take it from there.


I've watched CIT videos. As an experienced journalist the obvious misleading, omissions, and evasive techniques are embarrassing. If poor old Lloyde England had a good lawyer he could sue Ranke for false representation and libel.

Check the search function on ATS for message from member "Reheat'. He is a retired US Air Force pilot experienced in training and fighter operations with 200 combat missions, domestic and international airline experience.

In a number of threads he has directly confronted Ranke and consistently exposed his false information, evasions and fraudulent techniques.


Seems like it's the other way around; you taken a look at the closer for this particular thread?:
Craig Ranke vs Adam Larson (Caustic Logic) debate

I'll excerpt it:


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Reheat already verified the flight path is "possible" for me. He simply refuses to admit it and ironically turns back to the eyewitnesses.

Call it hallucinate or call it drastically and wildly mistaken in the exact same way but the fact remains that Reheat is relying on these same witnesses that you are all accusing of this for pertinent and difficult to tell values such as speed, heading, and exact wing tilt.

A general placement of the plane would be much easier to tell and the fact that they all report this general detail the same proves the north side claim correct.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


The flight path is dictated by the wreckage. The preponderance of evidence shows that an aircraft hit the Pentagon. If Craig wants to fly in circles to have the plane fly NOC and then hit where it did, that's dandy. Ask him why it matters.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
Anyone who has completely failed to provide any information whatsoever on the topic is in any position to demand things of others.

That's an interesting statement coming from you, mmiichael.

You have clearly failed to prove that a light pole hit the taxi.


Why does he have to "prove" a light pole hit the taxi? Speak up.


You have clearly failed to provide the names of the thousands (hundreds) of witnesses who you alleged saw the plane depart.


You clearly have failed to name these people, interview them, or know what they said:


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...


Why have you failed to do your investigation, tezz, to support your claims? You have provided NO names, NO statements, and NO knowledge of what these people saw or know. Now THAT is truly an EPIC FAIL of yours, tezz.



[edit on 20-11-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
Seems like it's the other way around; you taken a look at the closer for this particular thread?:

I'll excerpt it:

/pg6#pid4277373]post by CaptainObvious[/url]

Reheat already verified the flight path is "possible" for me. He simply refuses to admit it and ironically turns back to the eyewitnesses.


Good try Scott,

A CIT groupie trying to discredit a contradiction of the imaginary 'flyover'

I can't immediately locate one of Reheat's direct refutations of Ranke.
But I came across this interesting interaction with Ranke by our very own 'jthomas'


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.'s account is the ultimate validation of a flyover at the Pentagon and is the critical first flyover witness as officially documented in the Library of Congress with an interview from 11/30-2001 as well as independently confirmed by us this year as cited by biscuit cough.


[jthomas]

Craig Ranke's erroneous claim is, once again, very easy to refute, as already has been done:

1. Roosevelt Roberts statement was not verified by anyone, including CIT. There are no confirmatory accounts and Craig Ranke contradicted Robert's statement of the supposed direction the jet took.

2. ALL of CIT's other 13 eyewitnesses were on the wrong side of the Pentagon to witness a "flyover" given that the "fireball" would have blocked their view of the jet once it was "supposedly" over the Pentagon, according to CIT. They were all positioned on the approach side of the Pentagon, not on the departure side.

3. None of CIT's 13 other eyewitnesses ever said they witnessed a flyover.

4. ALL of CIT's 13 eyewitnesses believe the jet crashed into the Pentagon.

5. A flyover would have been witnessed by untold scores of eyewitnesses within position to see a jet fly away from the Pentagon. The yellow area represents all geographical spots within a two-mile range of the Pentagon that would be able to see a jet at the instant it was 100 Feet over the Pentagon.

NO eyewitness reports were ever made claiming to see a "flyover." For more details see:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

6. Had a flyover occurred, scores of eyewitnesses would contact the media to say so.

7. Had a flyover occurred, scores of eyewitnesses would contact the media and been all over the Internet demanding to know why the media didn't report a flyover.

8. CIT and Ray Balsamo each categorically refuse to look for, or present, ANY "flyover" eyewitnesses who witnessed a jet flying away from the Pentagon after the "explosion."

9. CIT and Ray Balsamo each categorically refuse to present ANY "flyover" flight path away from the Pentagon.

10. Craig Ranke contradicted Robert's muddled testimony.

11. Reheat has demonstrated that ALL CIT-proposed flight paths to the Pentagon are aerodynamically impossible for a passenger jet.

The above-listed facts are irrefutable. CIT and P4T cannot demonstrate in any way whatsoever that a jet flew over the Pentagon. They completely lack any evidence or eyewitnesses and refuse to provide any evidence, flight path, or eyewitnesses whatsoever.



[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Why does he have to "prove" a light pole hit the taxi? Speak up.

Because he claimed it happened, jthomas!

Should mmiichael wish to retain some sense of credibility on ATS, then he will need to learn that making claims, stated as fact, will require proof.


Originally posted by jthomas
Why have you failed to do your investigation, tezz, to support your claims?

When was I given the resources, payment and power to subpoena witnesses to conduct a proper investigation? Please list all of the claims that I have made, jthomas? Your failure to do so will be your admission that you are inflating a false argument against me.

Your ludicrous suggestion that I should be able to conduct a proper investigation shows the shortfall in your logical process.

I suspect, that your failure to quote me on claims that you have made against me, and your failure to understand the difference between speed and acceleration, could possibly indicate that you're not clearly thinking on this matter.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Should mmiichael wish to retain some sense of credibility on ATS, then he will need to learn that making claims, stated as fact, will require proof.

Your failure...

your failure...



I'm actually responding to your missive.

That alone brings my credibility to it's all time low.

The concept of "failing" or "failure" seems to haunt some people.

So where's that "Alarming Information" from the "Independent Investigation"?

[edit on 20-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Michael and Jthomas why do you keep ignoring tezza's posts???

You keep making all these claims and then when you are asked to support them you go silent???

JThomas you are pathetic in saying that tezza has FAILED to do his investigation.

Michael your last post was just more of the same old dodging and denying.

Back yourselves up! Stop making false claims!

It astounds me that you can still believe the OS after (presumably) reading so much of the information that contradicts it.

They showed the plane hitting the towers millions of times around the world. Why would they not show whatever hit the Pentagon?

That is an honest question and I would be stoked with a reply from either jthomas, pteridine or michael, peace.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
It astounds me that you can still believe the OS after (presumably) reading so much of the information that contradicts it.

They showed the plane hitting the towers millions of times around the world. Why would they not show whatever hit the Pentagon?

That is an honest question and I would be stoked with a reply from either jthomas, pteridine or michael, peace.



I recommend using the search function of this site and check the massive archives going back 6 years. There are tens of thousands of messages addressing every possible questions on 9/11. Many from the above named contributors. Enough detailed information to keep you reading for months.

The same questions have be asked hundreds of times and well-researched in-depth answers supplied with considerable documentation, analysis, names, pictures.

But no matter how much information is given to some people in the form of data, links, testimony - they insist on asking the same questions again and again. These people are generally ignored when it becomes apparent they are here as disruptive trolls rather than actually seeking answers to questions.

They're pretty easy to spot. They try to attribute failure to everyone else and contribute absolutely nothing in the way of information.


M





[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I recommend using the search function of this site and check the massive archives going back 5 years. There are tens of thousands of messages addressing every possible questions on 9/11. Many from the above named contributors.

Please show us where the light pole hitting the taxi has been proven.

Please show us where the names of thousands (hundreds?) of witnesses who saw the plane depart, have been stored for reference.

These are the claims that you have made, mmiichael. All of your distractionary hand-waving do not help you trying to prove these claims.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Please show us where the light pole hitting the taxi has been proven.

Please show us where the names of thousands (hundreds?) of witnesses who saw the plane depart, have been stored for reference.


As you refuse to respond to links or information provided - and supply no information - you are treated accordingly.

And as you try to assume some sort of authority on this thread -where is "Alarming Information" from the "Independent Investigation"?

Your failure is noted.



[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join