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 IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm sensing some hostility.
Close enough I didn't actulaly say that you did argue that either.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAnd why are you putting words/concepts in my mouth? What kind of a way is that to have a discussion? When did I ever use the term "total control" at all let alone in the context you are using it?
Ahem...
Why wouldn't the gas station be "secured and controlled"? Having "unlimited time, money, and access to unknown technology" why wouldn't they have had the employee positions filled at the gas station overlooking the entire thing?
I'm not sure why you lumped those together. Now that I review what I had skimmed over it's clear that you weren't the one arguing for the scuff. I thought you had brought it up and I was vague on that point.
But, considering your staunch view of the Pentagon, it's really not too much to assume that you'd subscribe to the E4-B 'what-I-said'. But the way you lumped those together I'm still unclear on that.
Anyways...
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITFrom the images we know that traffic was completely blocked at 9:54.
So that's a 14 minute window within which they had to work. Do we know how many other official cars & "traffic controllers" were in the visible area (on the road there with them)?
The poles being moved around differently. Anything really. It's really pulling for a stretch claiming that the poles were already laid out in advance on both sides of the highway. All sorts of people would/could have noticed them like that: commuters, Pentagon personnel (security details, etc employees drving by them or seeing them across the lawn outside their windows, etc). We're not talking about little SimBots, who only do or look at what the mouse pointers points them at. We're talking about complex beings interacting within the nearby environment, thus raising all sorts of possibilties of people noticing things and then later reporting them on the Internet/etc.
It doesn't make sense that you have a Broadway staged scene built in advance with props and the rest and nobody notices. You have pre-impact commuters, local security and police details, FBI agents, firefighters, Pentagon personanel including DOD and civilian contractors, post-impact-commuters etc. LITERALLY thousands of people 'walking across this stage' between day break and highway shutdown post-impact, YET, it doesn't make sense that nobody would notice? To me, that is ludacrous if anything here is.
Because when you have thousands of people near or around a scene before during and after something it tends to become less plausible (your argument) the more conscious individuals you bring into the picture.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We are real researchers and we leave no stone unturned.
I'd like to ask if you asked those Police or other witnesses if they say anything happeneing over there or what their ideas were about how those poles were knocked down. I'm quite surprised you missed that opportunity the first time (I don't recall you asking them anyways). That was your big moment, and I got the impression that at least one of them would have had an overlook of that spot. Maybe asked them how they think it could have happened if they didn't. Boy would that have caused some unpredictable cognitive dissonance if you popped that question at the very end of each interview?!
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Get ready for this: It's not impossible for them to have not scratched the hood. It may seem very improbable, but it's irrational to declare its impossibility in pure absolutes.
And realistically, going by your logic, it would have been a snap for them to change his hood. After all, Lloyd is a suspect, the guy in the van might as well be guilty, and he had a van. They could get away with almost anything over there since the Pentagon was on fire and the highway wasn't worth anybody even getting in anybody's line of site. Next they just switch the hood with the one in the agents van. Four bolts to "freedom". Would you say that's absurd? It's not far off from what you're proposing, except the motives are just different. In all actuality, if we're to take either seriously, they could have done both. Or they could have done neither. It's all incredible no matter how you boil it.
To have them dumped on the far side until before the impact is one thing, but then to have them alid out on both sides is taking it over the top. Either is, actually. Pun intended.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The pole did not spear the cab after being hit by a plane. The physical evidence proves this.
It contradicts it. PROOF is another story. Proof would be if there was no damage to the taxi whatsoever, yet they claimed there was.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITHow did they rig the towers and building 7 with nobody noticing?
How many people would it take? What are the chances that somebody would notice them planting bombs?
Since nobody noticed that or has come forward does this prove that the buildings fell from fire and damage alone?
That's a far different scenario. Until perhaps you (I mean anybody) begin declaring that explosives on the outside of the towers blew the cartoon holes into them. Then it's more on par with planting and arranging props such as lightpoles on teh side of the highway in broad daylight during morning rush hour in visible range next to the largest office building in the world.
The "CD" idea of the towers would be using maintainence access to the internal towers... during things such as power-downs... and removing bombsniffing dogs... or whatever. Far different than the side of the road. People are apparently coming forward this year claiming to see things exploding inside WTC7 etc before etc and so forth.
You did see our interview with him right?
We independently found these previously unknown witnesses on our own during a guerrilla investigative effort.
Suggesting some mainstream media published accounts that were used in the propaganda were fabricated is obvious.
To suggest unknown witnesses who we randomly found 5 years later were waiting quietly for us to approach them to put out disinfo proving 9/11 was an inside job is simply absurd.
We aren't done IIB.
We have 2 more north side witnesses that we haven't presented yet and I am about to release a 38 minute short presenting more first-hand testimony from other previously unknown witnesses that we found in the neighborhoods from canvassing.
Do you understand the extreme effort we have made to find pure witnesses for you?
The media failed us so we flew out there, walked the neighborhoods on foot, knocked on doors and ASKED people what they saw and brought back video tape for you.
Sorry if I am coming off agitated but it saddens me to have to defend what we have done to someone who I have always respected and thought of as being more aware than most.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
You guys do know tthere were multiple explosions at the Pentagon, right?
Here's one of them:
His aaccount matches Lagasse's, so the same things apply. No memory probem can explain this, especially the same problem in two different heads. If one can be programmed to recall the north path, why not two? And if one can be convinced to lie, why not two?
And then some civilians to add supports from less 'controlled' sources and create an air of broader factuality?
Is this scenrio REALLY any more ridiculous than Lloyd, McGraw, and the USA Today guys as plants, the impossible flight path, unseen overflight, bombs that only bow columns inward, faked damage and and all that? Or is it far less ridiculous, meaning CIT should have entertained this scenario at least as seriously as the one they did instead of not at all? And then to get snippy when anyone even mentions it?
Originally posted by robert z
b) 4 light poles were already hidden on the side of the road, and the 5th light pole was somehow blown out of the ground, placed on the road next to the taxi
And the evidence for scenario b is what again? A fabricated presupposition that the hood MUST be damaged if the windshield was damaged. Based on nothing more than the inability to imagine any other reality?
And four (maybe 6?) witnesses to the north of Citgo story? Compared to how many witnesses who claim they saw the plane hit the Pentagon?
And all the plane parts were planted along with the light poles?
How many witnesses testified to seeing a 757 flying on the east side of the Pentagon after the explosion? Zero?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The \"5th\" light pole did not need to be \"blown out of the ground\". It was simply placed there minutes after the event when the feds had secured the area.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I report the evidence.
It is not my job to explain why the evidence contradicts their story.
It was a complex operation and there are many contradictions.
The fact that you find it hard to believe does not change the fact that the evidence proves their story false.
Your line of questioning does not refute the evidence and amounts to nothing but an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.
Please adhere to true critical thinking principles and valid debate tactics and address the evidence directly.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisssAhem...
Why wouldn't the gas station be "secured and controlled"? Having "unlimited time, money, and access to unknown technology" why wouldn't they have had the employee positions filled at the gas station overlooking the entire thing?
I know you are not this ignorant. We go way back to myspace back when GQ was posting. You know I am Lyte Trip and that my partner Aldo is Merc right? Please STOP these pointless arguments. Suggesting that they had control over traffic of a single highway during the operation of an operation that they created is NOT even close to the same as suggesting they "totally controlled" every single human that was present even 5 years later when we are there looking for witnesses. I have NEVER made such a ludicrous claim and that is exactly your point by saying that every citizen immigrant gas station attendant was involved and that Robert Turcios had the special assignment of providing corroborated testimony that PROVES the official story wrong for disinfo purposes.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
You guys do know tthere were multiple explosions at the Pentagon, right?
Here's one of them:
So why do you think Lloyd removed that detail from his account?
Every time after the initial Survivor Fund story he made a point to say how "quiet" it was.
He said it to us multiple times.
In fact he specifically said that he fell while removing the pole because the top bent part of the pole "flipped" as they were removing it and that he did not hear any explosions.