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 tezzajw
Originally posted by jthomas
Imagine CIT trying to prove there was a flyover but go completely hysterical when asked for the necessary eyewitnesses that they need!
Imagine jthomas trying to prove that AA77 allegedly crashed but go completely hysterical when asked for the alleged parts to be formally identified by serial numbers.
“Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent."
- Susan Stevenson, NTSB
Imagine jthomas trying to prove that AA77 allegedly crashed but go completely hysterical when asked for the video evidence to be shown, to help identify the alleged plane.
posted by jthomasThe list of where the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon was provided to Craig Ranke and Aldo over two years ago. Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis BOTH refused to interview any of those people and they are on record of refusing to do so. If you don't know that then you are really gullible.
Let's provide the big list again:
Shall I continue with CIT's two-year refusal to interview any of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon?
Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by jthomas
posted by jthomasThe list of where the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon was provided to Craig Ranke and Aldo over two years ago. Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis BOTH refused to interview any of those people and they are on record of refusing to do so. If you don't know that then you are really gullible.
Let's provide the big list again:
Maybe my eyes are failing me, but I don't believe I see one single name in that list.
It would take a crew of a hundred investigators to sift through that jthomas list. How did that infamous jthomas bogus claim go again? Oh yeah. Here it is.
Shall I continue with CIT's two-year refusal to interview any of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon?
Amazing isn't it? All those people and not one photo of a passenger strapped into a seat; not one serial number; NO JET FUEL near ground zero.
Originally posted by tezzajw
pinch, your whole post was off topic. What did any of those plane crashes have to do with the alleged plane crash at the Pentagon?
Why should I respond to off-topic plane crashes and derail the thread to your liking?
Originally posted by exponent
Allow me to answer on behalf of Pinch.
I believe his(her?) point was that nobody disputes these crashes occured, and that the planes involved with them were as described. However, they have not met the criteria you require for basic confirmation of the events at The Pentagon.
Why is AA77 special?
by tezz
Why should I respond to off-topic plane crashes and derail the thread to your liking?
Originally posted by pinch
Again, you must be new to this online discussion world.
Now that is settled, are you going to answer? What is your answer regarding those mishaps I detailed,
Originally posted by pinch
Threads migrate to various topics as ideas are explored or discussed. As long as you don't run afoul of the Moderator Gods, go with it.
posted by tezzajw
pinch, your whole post was off topic. What did any of those plane crashes have to do with the alleged plane crash at the Pentagon?
Why should I respond to off-topic plane crashes and derail the thread to your liking?
posted by exponent
Allow me to answer on behalf of Pinch.
I believe his(her?) point was that nobody disputes these crashes occured, and that the planes involved with them were as described. However, they have not met the criteria you require for basic confirmation of the events at The Pentagon.
Why is AA77 special?
Originally posted by SPreston
Why is AA77 special?
posted by SPreston
Why is AA77 special?
posted by jthomas
According to you and CIT, AA77 is special because it could be seen by hundreds of independent eyewitnesses approaching the Pentagon
Originally posted by SPreston
posted by SPreston
Why is AA77 special?
posted by jthomas
According to you and CIT, AA77 is special because it could be seen by hundreds of independent eyewitnesses approaching the Pentagon
Hundreds? Really? Mind linking to those hundreds according to me and CIT?
Originally posted by SPreston
Just a reminder that the new FAA video released on 9-12-2008 showing the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and somehow mysteriously disappearing high above the ground near the Pentagon, is still available for FREE download to your hard drive.
Originally posted by tezzajw
reply to post by jthomas
You appear to be running out of original material, jthomas. Instead of explaining to us all why the FAA has a different flight path from the one that you claim, all you're doing is supplying a link?
Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing more foolish for you to do than illustrate my point for me.
Originally posted by tezzajw
jthomas, why does the FAA flight path show the alleged Flight AA77 flying North of Citgo?