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 CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
The witnesses claim to have seen the North Side...
The same witnesses claim to have seen the plane strike the Pentagon.
Keep on going Craig.... you have nothing.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I have proof of a military DECEPTION.
Perhaps you should look up the word "deception" so you can understand why they would all still believe the plane hit the building even though their testimony proves it could not have.
Also please look up "circular logic" under "logical fallacies" because you continue to refuse to adhere to critical thinking principles in this discussion.
Pseudo-skeptics.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Dealing with you official story apologists is like swatting flies.
You always come back.
Show me a thread you have made that has 12 stars, 21 pages long, 400 replies, and almost 8,000 views.
Originally posted by robert z
Craig, as somebody who professes knowledge of critical thinking, but who fails to display much proclivity for it, you should realize that 400 replies to this thread is evidence that you have not put an end to the debate as your thread title claims.
Originally posted by robert z
Sorry, Craig, this has not been one of your better moments. When you have to start citing stars and thread views on ATS to boost your ego and perceived credibility, it pretty much means the substance of your argument is seriously lacking.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The sexy terms you use like Pseudo-skeptics, logical fallacies, etc etc.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Logical fallacy is a "sexy term"?
Wow.
That is all I read.
You are clearly not a critical thinker or one who discusses information based on logic and reason.
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Contact Rich Bartram of Masonry Arts.
Ask him if he noticed any bombs planted in the wall system he installed!
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ok I went back and read it.
You are a joker.
Sure.......I'll get right on that.
And while I'm at at I'll call Bush and Cheney and ask them if 9/11 was an inside job as well.
You should really forget about this cyberbullying stuff and become a detective.
Because we are ruthless investigators/researchers who leave no stone unturned and tirelessly fight to uncover this heinous crime of mass murder that is being used for a permanent global war and justification for virtually all policy decisions foreign and domestic.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ok called him.
Thanks for the awesome lead C. Oblivious!
Originally posted by robert z
reply to [/url]
The slab appears to something that was poured after 9/11 to provide a solid bas e for the heavy equipment needed to shore up the building.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by robert z
Please show me evidence that this concrete was poured within 10 days of 9/11.
[edit on 20-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]
I will look at photos later.
The rebar coming up through slab is evidence that it was attached to something below the concrete. What?
The foundation is poured first, and is poured below the frost line. That is evidence that this concrete is NOT the foundation.
The debris could have fallen on it from the upper floors during the shoring up process.
Do you have evidence this IS the original foundation? 10 days is plenty of time to move debris and pour concrete, btw.