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.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Like the fact that although April Gallop was confirmed only about 35 to 45 feet from the alleged impact point:
i14.photobucket.com...
She wasn't obliterated by jet fuel and crawled out of the front hole with her baby alive.
She is the Pentagon's version of Edna Cintron.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You have ADMITTED it was a hastily written, poorly done, rush to judgment "hit-piece". You called us "Pentagon sponsored disinfo" for gods' sake!
It most certainly was an empty, unjustified ATTACK.
There is no other way to characterize it.
Suspicion of disinfo. Based on a pttern I had already identified (Rummy's missile "admission," etc.) that it fell right into. I've never made a specific argument to that end.
Long past due Retraction/clarification: if not gloatworthy. The PentaCon is neither misinformation nor disinformation. It is IMO a forceful presentation of a flawed theory extrapolated according to eyewitnesses whose odd accounts are certainly evidence of something, leveraged to fit a pre-conceived notion contrary to the general body of evidnce as I see it. I have no reason to think the CIT are deliberately miselading people, it's only my opinion they are misleading at all, and there's no evidence the Pentagon are involved in this operation in any way.
Jeez, why didn't I clear that up better before.
Otherwise, the review was rushed. Some typos. Now it's empty? I had no real concerns worth publishing? It was only motivated by my irrational hatred of your video? Puh-leeeeze. Basically what I said is I don't buy it and here's why. I don't give a hoot if you like the content. Of course you don't, and that's why you lash back, because it was an attack on your theory that worked. You need to get better at taking criticism and quit trying to read too much into a passing observation and a few mistakes. Oohh, he's so eager to hurt our wonderful theiry he can't even type straight blah blah blah.
It may be hard for you to see someone call a spade a spade in the forum but that's what your article amounted to.
Clearly you agreed enough to take it down so coming back to defend my accurate characterization by arguing semantics seems rather wishy washy.
Say what you will about where I stand. You would know better than me wouldn't you? You're an expert after all at extrapolating what people mean, and always so objectively. But for the record I have never "admitted" I was wrong in the core issue of doubting your theory and criticizing the approach and logic of it. I have bent over backwards enough for you. Just keep re-hashing that little victory there, CL pulled his hit piece blah blah blah. That should tide you over till DRG helps you get that little second wind. You are not stopping, so just keep on going, man, and you'll get where you're headed to.
Aldo: I feel there's no need for a phone conversation. It's established to my satisfaction that there can be no informational breakthrough either way, and whatever you want to explain to me is already evident enough. You guys believe what you believe, and you don't want to keep fighting me over it. Me neither. My energy is better used elsewhere.
I wish you guys luck.
Originally posted by nick7261
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Like the fact that although April Gallop was confirmed only about 35 to 45 feet from the alleged impact point:
i14.photobucket.com...
She wasn't obliterated by jet fuel and crawled out of the front hole with her baby alive.
Ms. Gallop was also not obliterated by the alleged series of explosive devices that your theory would require inside the Pentagon. Ms. Gallop stated that the initial blast sounded like A, as in ONE, bomb. Nothing that Ms. Gallop stated would indicate that she heard a series of explosions that would have been necessary to cause the multiple beams to be taken down, and well as the hole in the C-ring. Of course it's always possible that the conspirators had all these bombs timed to explode simultaneously.
Ms. Gallop's ear-witness testimony has no relevance anyway. Do you really think she'd be able to differentiate between the explosion caused by a plane hitting the building and an explosion caused by a missile or a bomb?
Finally, Ms. Gallop also stated that she saw no plane debris. However, there WAS plane debris, which you claim would have been planted pre-crash. Obviously Ms. Gallop not seeing plane debris is not evidence of anything except that she didn't see it. Again, this is an example of how you selectively choose evidence that only fits your theory.
Did you take time to interview other Pentagon survivors who DID see the plane debris? Or is your claim that there AREN'T any such people?
She is the Pentagon's version of Edna Cintron.
No, Edna Clinton is dead and has no choice that her likeness has been exploited daily by CTers in an attempt to make some ridiculous point about how there were only "tiny little fires" in WTC1. April Gallop is alive and has protested how her experience has been twisted and her words taken out of context by people trying to promote their own agendas.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Many people died in the Pentagon from those charges. Obviously damage from strategically placed bombs would be much more random then complete obliteration from the impact of a 757 and thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
Did I say she would be able to differentiate that? Her testimony most certainly IS relevant because she SURVIVED and because she literally exited out of the alleged entrance hole. Yes the fact that she saw nothing that indicates a plane hit the building is also quite relevant.
Nobody said that because she didn't see plane debris that it proves there was none. We are saying that it most certainly is suspicious and notable that she saw NOTHING at all including seats, luggage, debris or anything of the sort. It is selective for you to dismiss this testimony as having no "relevance" at all.
We certainly have! We talked to a retired fire captain who was all throughout the building particularly by the alleged c-ring exit hole. He saw the landing gear. He saw tiny pieces the size of a "quarter". He does not believe a plane hit the building. In fact he told US he believes a plane flew over and that a "missile" did the damage.
We talked to another officer who actually helped April Gallop escape. He confirmed she came out of the alleged entrance hole. He was not able to describe any discernible plane debris.
So far we have not been able to find any evidence of additional significant sized pieces of debris other than what we already know about.
We would be happy to talk with ANYONE who reports something different.
The difference between us and you is that we actually talk to people. For you to smugly imply we are selective in our investigation is an unsupported and completely unwarranted personal attack. I thought you learned your lesson.
Go ahead and be disingenuous while attacking the 9/11 truth movement. She survived the impact and she survived the fires that allegedly melted the steel of the building so much that a catastrophic virtual free fall collapse ensued ultimately causing her death.
We do this for justice for people like Edna Cintron and April Gallop. Spare me the condescending diatribe insinuating we or the 9/11 truth movement are exploiting anyone.
That was a cheap and transparent way to dodge the point.
Originally posted by snoopy
Obviously damage from strategically placed bombs would be more random? Based on what? Based on 4 eyewitnesses thinking the plane flew in a different path and a woman who thought the sound of an explosion was a bomb? yet no physical evidence what so ever. And her not seeing the plane hit the building is evidence that there was no plane? Oh sorry, it makes it 'suspicious'? And because SHE didn't see parts?
Well many other people saw parts, many other people saw the plane. You seem to think they are all wrong. You seem to think all the pictures of that stuff is all wrong. But when someone says otherwise, it's good evidence. And you call that scientific method? It's a witch hunt.
And the only one dismissing testimony is you guys. No one here is ruling any of their testimony out, we're just not selectively ONLY using that testimony and using it to discard the rest as you guys are doing. Or using it to make up the rest to fill in the holes with what we want to believe.
Can we see the footage of this fire captain who saw a missile hit the building and the plane fly over? And now this seems to be a new twist. So now not only was there a fly over and bombs in the building, but a missile as well. Where might this missile have come from and how come none of the witnesses saw the missile parts? Now of course that's his theory, not yours, but since you are using him as more evidence...
And again with sizable pieces. How is a plane flying at over 500mph hitting a concrete building going to leave large parts? I suppose with certain approaches and angles it could, but to say it must? That's not true.
And all the tear jerking rhetoric is not going to change the facts here. Trying to accuse people of "attacking the truth movement' and what not is not going to work. You like to question ofther people, but when others question you guys, it's an attack on the truth movement and people who died. That's pretty low.
The bottom line is that you got some good eyewitness testimony on people who think they saw the plane fly on the north side. And that's great. But everything else is pure conjecture and speculation based on that.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The difference between us and you is that we actually talk to people. For you to smugly imply we are selective in our investigation is an unsupported and completely unwarranted personal attack. I thought you learned your lesson.
Originally posted by nick7261
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The difference between us and you is that we actually talk to people. For you to smugly imply we are selective in our investigation is an unsupported and completely unwarranted personal attack. I thought you learned your lesson.
Craig, you really need to lighten up a little bit. Just because I don't think your investigative skills are the be all and end all of investigations doesn't mean it's a personal attack.
By the way, what were you before you became an investigator? Do you have a resume or anything you can post to let people know your qualifications for making conclusions about the physical evidence? How do you extrapolate your skills at running a video camera to being qualified to render expert opinions on everything to do with 9/11?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I am a concerned citizen.
If that's not enough for you then you probably are not in the right "movement".
Plus what are you talking about "be all end all"? When did I say that and what does that have to do with your accusation?
You made a very specific claim about how we conducted this investigation without citing any evidence to back it up or giving a reason why you would make that statement.
Dodging it by asking for my credentials doesn't seem very fair.
My credentials do not change the testimony of Edward, Robert, Chad, and Bill.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
There are many suspicious things about the pentagon attack. The fact that you refuse to admit that any exist does not change this. There is not a pentagon researcher that doesn't agree about this simple fact.
No sir. We acknowledge all the parts that were planted/found. Most were indistinguishable tiny pieces but there was a few that were somewhat recognizable.
That's about it for the somewhat recognizable parts.
Huh? We heavily analyze all the witnesses and have called dozens. NONE directly contradict the citgo witnesses and only a couple indirectly contradict them the strongest of which is Lloyd the cab driver!
Almost every single other account could easily support either flight path.
He did not "see" a missile or the plane at all. He is a first responder. He simply doesn't believe a plane hit because he observed the c-ring "exit" hole up close and simply could not fathom it being created by a plane.
He did not see any plane debris but the landing gear.
CIT does not believe there was a missile and he did not see one. He simply believes there was a missile and thinks the notion that a plane caused the damage that he saw up close is ludicrous.
Oh and he has responded to several plane crashes within his career.
We will present this in the Researcher's Edition.
The plane was on the north of the citgo and therefore could not be what caused the physical damage starting with the light poles and ending with the curiously round c-ring hole.
It's what he did. He said Edna Cintron's story is "exploited". I claim BS. No doubt Edna Cintron would support people that are seeking justice for her murder.
Ok well demonstrate how the plane could have possibly flown on the north side of the station and still hit pole number one or you have just admitted this is proof the plane didn't cause the physical damage.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The only way to counter it is by dismissing the evidence as being false.
This has been done by people accusing us as having staged the entire thing or by people suggesting that all of these witnesses are simply wildly incorrect in the exact same way.
If you refuse to think critically or accept the evidence presented I suggest you do some soul searching and make a determination as to why.
I understand there is a very large mental barrier for most in accepting this important and thorough information.
I'm sorry but I can not change that.
Originally posted by coughymachine
To my mind, this scenario begs the question, why did the perpetrators stick the aircraft within a few tens of metres of the Pentagon and then execute a flyover when it surely would have been easier to hit the building? If the plan did involve a flyover, then it also involved either the carefully synchronised launch of a missile or the detonation of pre-planted explosives (or some other means of achieving the damage to the Pentagon). This added and seemingly unnecessary layer of complexity introduced all sorts of potential complications. Why take the risk when there was a more straightforward option?
Originally posted by coughymachine
This is not perhaps the best thread for the questions I have but I’m reluctant to start yet another Pentagon-related thread.
Let’s make two assumptions: first, 9/11 was an inside job; and second, the eyewitness testimony presented in The PentaCon is correct – a commercial aircraft did fly north of the Citgo station. We have, by default, a third assumption. The aircraft that flew north of the Citgo station did not impact the Pentagon building, since the physical damage is inconsistent with such a flightpath.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I understand there is a very large mental barrier for most in accepting this important and thorough information.
I'm sorry but I can not change that.
Originally posted by nick7261
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I understand there is a very large mental barrier for most in accepting this important and thorough information.
I'm sorry but I can not change that.
The only mental barrier is the one you possess which prevents you from accepting evidence that contradicts your pet theory. Your videotaped witnesses have done little, if anything, to change anybody's mind. The people who cite your video as evidence of a conspiracy are also the same people who believe that fire doesn't melt steel, or that there were only tiny little fires in WTC1.
And yes, if you're looking into whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then you must also address the question of what happened to the passengers on Flight 77. Apparently you believe the victims on Flight 77 were real people who actually died. So then how does your theory account for who killed them?
You incorrectly implied in another post that Operation Northwoods related somehow to your scenario. What you failed to admit was that Northwoods never called for the cold-blooded murder of innocent children like Asia Cottom, Bernard Brown, or Rodney Dickens. If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and these children aren't at home sleeping in their beds tonight, then where are they? Are they dead? Who issued the order to murder 11-year old children, and who followed these orders?
Considering the long history of global Islamic terrorism I personally find it more likely that these 5 guys...
...would be happy to kill 11-year old American children -not members of the U.S. armed services, special forces, CIA, or FBI.
On the other hand, I can cite crime after crime in which radical muslims carried out the murders of civilian men, women, and children. Of course mentioning such incidents might be considered in poor taste since the accused murderers are not members of the U.S. government.