Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

BTW this is my last post in this thread. I'll let Craig have the last word, since it's his thread and then I'm letting it drop.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Robert ~

Great job on your posts. Stars!

Craig has also claimed that the NON government contractors that were hired to do the Pentagon renovations are also "suspect."

Thanks.

By the way, just to clarify something, has it been confirmed that the foundation that Craig is speaking of is the actual foundation of the Pentagon, e.g., are there no basement floors below the impact point?

It just seems odd that a building that large would not have sub-levels below the impact point. Maybe because it was built so close to the water?

The plane made such a neat impact instead of just flopping down
on the building... its just screwy.

No plane need do it and one frame of a security tape just isn't anything.

Originally posted by robert z

It just seems odd that a building that large would not have sub-levels below the impact point.

How would that affect the amount of damage a 90 ton jet aircraft would have on the concrete?

Do you have a point that counters my argument with this or are you simply regurgitating irrelevant information spewed in desperation by jrefers?

I agree with Craig, I don't see Robert pointing out any logical fallacies in his initial evidence. You have to realize Craig's theories about bombs and how the light poles were broken are just that....theories to answer your secondary questions....but here is what we know for sure:

a) based on the official story, known contact point of the nose and angle of the plane, there clearly should be some sort of damage to the ground in front of the pentagon and/or the foundation. The fact that we know this also brings into question how the plane could have possibly NOT skidded into the pentagon. That engine clearly should have hit the ground, possibly getting knocked off. Is there any evidence of this?

I think this picture is the most damning of the collection. It does not look like new foundation, and is obviously before they had even finished cleaning up the place:




b) 100% there is no possible way that plane was anywhere near the lightpoles which were broken. I'm new to his material, but the fact that he got two police officers who were known witnesses to corroborate the exact same flight path and testify that there was no possible way the planes could have flown over the broken street lights is huge. I honestly think anybody in their right mind who saw his smoking gun video would have serious questions about the official story, assuming all of his facts that he presents are completely accurate (position of the broken light poles, maps used, official explanation accurately represented, types of things that can be verified but take time, the types of things you guys should be focusing on rather than playing these word games about having no evidence...)

Unless you can prove that the officer(s) that was in his video was in fact not the officer(s) that were the official witnesses that day, or some other ACTUAL fallacy in his evidence as discussed in my previous parenthesis, then there is no way I could ever believe otherwise and I am brand new to this forum and his material.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by drannno]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
BTW this is my last post in this thread. I'll let Craig have the last word, since it's his thread and then I'm letting it drop.

Haha!

Awesome.

Not surprising since this thread and everything we discussed in it destroys your entire belief system and you have been conceding like John Kerry the entire time.

I'll savor this for a while before I put the final nail in your coffin by responding to that last incoherent rambling you made in desperation.

They Let it Happen

reply to post by drannno


It's clear you are a true critical thinker who is considering evidence logically.

I can guarantee you that CIT has just begun and will produce even more solid evidence to make the mountain that is required to get people to listen.

Peace and thanks for the support.

Most likely blown out from within....

but then... why no floor damage.

A circle of charges on the wall.. like in the towers.

And some napalm for the fire ball.. used by Hollywood in movies.

Keep it simple... that gets the job done.

The Arab plans were just too complicated.
And also didn't happen so the secret government had to do it.

Originally posted by drannno
100% there is no possible way that plane was anywhere near the lightpoles which were broken.

Here's some "critical" thinking for ya :

Who's to say the plane they saw is "that" plane?????

All the witnesses (who were misled and laughed at later in front of a backdrop of an upside down American flag) (Which brings up some more critical thinking, do you really trust someone with such an obvious political bias to deliver the "truth" to you?) who seem to disagree on details, other than the plane *they saw* (very important) appeared to be a white, or shade of gray, off white etc... is it possible , knowing that a Doomsday plane was in the area (which IS white), that THIS is the plane they saw, perhaps on it's way to try and intercept the path of the AA jet????

In the earlier posted interview the "author" even admits that there are flights over the Pentagon at a rate of 1 every 3 minutes, and that other planes were reported in that same area at the same time as the attack.

Think about that for a minute, watch the interview, then watch the video again.

Did anyone see THAT plane actually impact? Did they see it pull away?

Think. Think. Think.

Just remember if someone if willing to mislead their eyewitnesses to get their testimony, are they willing to mislead you too?

Think. Think.

Just because some people may have saw a different plane, does NOT proves conspiracy, hidden explosives, or anything at all, there is no need to listen to anyone tell you the ONLY conclusion from the testimony is that it was an inside job. That's leading. Arrive at your own conclusion.

Think.

1. An upside down flag is NOT unpatriotic or sign of a political bias it is a signal of distress and that was the backdrop provided by the show, not me.

2. The plane they all saw was tree-top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion.

No planes out of Reagan have ever flown that way nor did the E4B.

THINK!

First of All...hanging the American Flag upside down when the nation is NOT in distress is not appropriate. To stand in front of this flag spewing garbage is 100 time worse.

Lets look at this:

"The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property."
www.ushistory.org...



Also, why in 1992 prior to game 2 of the world series were Canadians upset at the United States color guard? Because they marched onto the field in Atlanta with the Canadian flag upside down.
query.nytimes.com...

When the flag is hung upside down other than the reasons stated above, it is typically a sign of disrespect.

www.flagstuff.com...

www.flagstuff.com...

OR.. if you care to follow this group:

www.godhatesfags.com...

Either way, as an American I would not have stood infront of that backdrop.




[edit on 20-10-2007 by CaptainObvious]

I would also like to add this:

Title 36, U.S.C., Chapter 10
As amended by P.L. 344, 94th Congress
Approved July 7, 1976

§ 176. Respect for flag: No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Either way, as an American I would not have stood infront of that backdrop.

Of course you wouldn't.

Because you swallow the government story hook line and sinker.

If you had uncovered evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job and still wouldn't think the nation was under distress enough to simply exercise your freedom of speech to express that with an upside down flag I would seriously worry about you.

The fact that "godshatesfags" does it has NOTHING to do with 9/11 or me.

That would be yet another logical fallacy.

I swear you official conspiracy theory defenders love those since the evidence is clearly not in your favor.

What about Sgt. Lagasse's Explosive Detection Canine?


One of the police officers Sgt. Lagasse states this December 4, 2001:

I have an explosive detection canine with me so, we were kind of busy searching luggage that people, when they were running out of the building just dropped their bags and things like that. We'd get to search all of them before we could declare an area safe. Think that's about it, you have any specific questions you want me to answer?

Now, he was there after impact with an EXPLOSIVE DETECTION CANINE. Would that dog be able to pick up scents of explosive that were detonated?

www.fbi.gov...

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You keep parroting your same catch phrases Craig and they do not stick. It was disrespectful for you to stand in front of that flag and you know it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1. An upside down flag is NOT unpatriotic or sign of a political bias it is a signal of distress and that was the backdrop provided by the show, not me.

I would have not agreed to appear in front of it if I had wanted to be taken seriously. Then again I would not have been having a laugh at my own witnesses expense either.

2. The plane they all saw was tree-top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion.

So? Still doesn't make it *that* plane as I stated above. My point is, that they saw another plane, and I have presented another theory that can account for that to show that because they may have saw another plane on a different path in no way does that in itself mean the Pentagon attack was an inside job.

No planes out of Reagan have ever flown that way nor did the E4B.

Wellllllll something did, and these people say they saw (mostly) a white plane...that one was filmed in the area around the same time...so, it's not hard to come to the logical conclusion that's what they saw, either trying to catch the plane or intercept it's path.

THINK!

Exactly.

Your incredible patronizing attitude makes it hard for me to post in this topic, as I fully expect you to respond with some sort of smart ass reply with many smiley face emoticons and perhaps a comment telling me to "think," but here goes anyways.

First off, your pictures.

Do you know where, in any of your pictures the plane would have been in relation? The engine is the only thing that could have MAYBE done any damage to the ground. Anything else would have just crumpled. In addition, the foundation is the very, very bottom, and is generally below the ground. I don't know the exact foundation of the Pentagon, as there are like 10 different ways to build a foundation. If you can provide me some information(after all the burden is on you to prove your theory) on how the pentagon's foundation was built, I can further argue. I'll look through the internets as well trying to find some info.

Also, do you know the date of when those pictures were taken?

What are you suggesting caused this damage if it was not a plane?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Now, he was there after impact with an EXPLOSIVE DETECTION CANINE. Would that dog be able to pick up scents of explosive that were detonated?

www.fbi.gov...

Do you even read the irrelevant nonsense you post?

What does a study regarding the "Survivability of Human Scent" have to do with detecting explosives AFTER they have been detonated and what does this special study have to do with Lagasse's dog?

A new and innovative approach that uses human-scent evidence to identify bomb makers and arsonists is presented.

Every post you make has no relevant point whatsoever.

You really should throw in the towel like Caustic Logic.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


The dogs were sent POST impact. And I posted the part about the dogs as a QUESTION!! If the dog was searching for explosive devices... could the dog sniff out explosive residue which would be EVERYWHERE due to the the size of the explosions???

Throw in the towel? Why? Your claims are without merit. Where is that grand jury investigation you were bragging about? You claim to have evidence yet not one investigation.

Your witnesses saw the plane IMPACT. You can't continue to cherry pick your witnesses and then say "EVERYONE" saw it.

By the way... how are those airphones working??


[edit on 20-10-2007 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You claim that the private contractors that were hired to work on the renovations were in on it. Where is your proof?

Sorry, but judging by the responses you are recieving here.... The towel should be thrown by you!