Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by Markshark4


Sorry Mark, i know you're asking Craig, but if i may . . . Sounds like dis-info to me. Maybe scripted, maybe not, i don't know. *edited*

The main voice in the video doesn't mention how large the first "plane" was so it's pretty ambiguous. It could have been the missile and he is only assuming it was a plane because he was told a plane hit the building.

[edit on 9/3/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
Trying reading more carefully.

I did read carefully . . . there was no apparent evidence that there was a contradiction in CIT’s findings. I’m asking for you to show me where these contradictions are. Surely if these things are as easy to comprehend as you claim them to be, elucidating shouldn’t be a hard task for you?

I didn't realize it would be so hard for you. It's quite plain as day in my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now pay attention. Refer to the actual post for Craig's pictures:

"From your very same video, 'The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off' you show the much higher flying C-130:

(the frame from the video of the actual C-130 flying over the Pentagon at a higher altitude - got that finally, JPhish?)

"Then you explain that the C-130's purpose was to fool people into thinking that the "decoy" jet flying over and away from the Pentagon, this...:"

(Craig Ranke's photoshopped representation of the jet flying low over the Pentagon and away from it - the same thing my avatar represents of his claims from a different angle. Are you clear on that, JPhish?)

"....was actually the much higher flying C-130 flying at a much lower altitude than it actually did:"

(Craig's photoshopped picture of the C-130 flying in place of the jet. Ranke has changed the C-130 from it's original altitude - the altitude at which he admits it flew and uses actual footage of it - and claims, NO, it was actually seen as the "flyover" aircraft just above the Pentagon at the much lower altitude and BEFORE it was actually seen at the much higher altitude.)

Gosh, that contradiction must be really hard for you to grasp, eh, JPhish?

Take your blinders off. I've shown for three years that CIT cannot back up ITS claims. Pay attention. It's easy to understand why.

What claim are they making that they can’t back up? Give me one.

I don't need to repeat them. You can use the search function on ATS and read them yourself.

It's easy to understand why.

Insulting my intelligence will not encourage me to agree with you.

I guess I should have said, "It's hard to understand why", is that it? No, buddy, it IS very easy to see that CIT cannot address questions about their claims. Do your homework.

Read my post again. Watch and LISTEN to CIT's video I posted. Pay attention this time.

basless assertions (5)(6) I was giving the audio and visual presentation of the video my full attention. You have no proof that I did otherwise.

Then why is it hard for you to understand what Craig himself wrote and said in his video?

They don’t need evidence that the “plane” flew over because they’ve provided enough evidence that it didn’t hit into the building. It’s the SAME thing.

That one statement alone shows you know nothing about logic and logical fallacies and is why you have been sucked into CIT's utter nonsense. You've turned facts upside down and backwards.

IF any jet flew over the Pentagon, as CIT claims, it has to demonstrate with positive evidence that a jet flew over the Pentagon. Period. Absent such evidence, one cannot conclude that a jet flew over the Pentagon. I - and others - have quite clearly demonstrated why there would be positive evidence of a flyover IF a flyover had actually taken place. NO such evidence exists and Craig Ranke is incapable of providing a stitch of positive evidence that any jet - or one that magically turns into a C-130 - "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

I will ask this question again. Since it is PROVEN that a 747 did not crash in to the building.

But a Boeing 757, AA77, did, by every line of independent evidence there is.

This is PROVEN.

No, it never has been demonstrated. It remains what it has always been, simply a unproven claim. And not a single bit of any of the massive evidence from multiple, independent sources that converges on the same conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon has ever been refuted.

Why do you think Craig Ranke has been running away from questions about his claims for the last 3 years?

Isn’t it logical to assume that the “747” flew OVER the building and didn’t magically disappear?

OF COURSE NOT.

You need to catch up on evidence AND logic and understand why Craig Ranke relies on your gullibility and lack of questionning of HIS claims to keep his snake-oil sales pitch going.

Start here: www.fallacyfiles.org...

and continue here: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Remember, if you cannot actually demonstrate a "flyover" took place, nobody is going to pay attention to your claims.

Originally posted by jthomas
I didn't realize it would be so hard for you. It's quite plain as day in my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now pay attention. Refer to the actual post for Craig's pictures:

"From your very same video, 'The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off' you show the much higher flying C-130:

(the frame from the video of the actual C-130 flying over the Pentagon at a higher altitude - got that finally, JPhish?)

"Then you explain that the C-130's purpose was to fool people into thinking that the "decoy" jet flying over and away from the Pentagon, this...:"

(Craig Ranke's photoshopped representation of the jet flying low over the Pentagon and away from it - the same thing my avatar represents of his claims from a different angle. Are you clear on that, JPhish?)

"....was actually the much higher flying C-130 flying at a much lower altitude than it actually did:"

(Craig's photoshopped picture of the C-130 flying in place of the jet. Ranke has changed the C-130 from it's original altitude - the altitude at which he admits it flew and uses actual footage of it - and claims, NO, it was actually seen as the "flyover" aircraft just above the Pentagon at the much lower altitude and BEFORE it was actually seen at the much higher altitude.)

Gosh, that contradiction must be really hard for you to grasp, eh, JPhish?

Obviously you need to be reminded of what a contradiction is.

contradiction con⋅tra⋅dic⋅tion [kon-truh-dik-shuh n] –noun
a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

It doesn’t matter what altitude the plane flew away at. The entire theory remains congruous and is not compromised by a deviation in the altitude of the plane so long as it flies over (or even around) and not into the building. What you have presented is not a contradiction it is a red herring/Ignoratio elenchi.(17)

The only thing that CIT has done is update their theory in light of new evidence. It’s part of the scientific method and I suggest you try it.

Originally posted by JPhish
What claim are they making that they can’t back up? Give me one.

Originally posted by jthomas
I don't need to repeat them. You can use the search function on ATS and read them yourself.

Well then shouldn’t you be able to present at least ONE? You are claiming something, I’m calling your bluff; the burden of proofs falls on you. Unless you offer proof, everyone on this forum should disregard your claim that CIT can not back up a claim.

Originally posted by jthomas
It's easy to understand why

Originally posted by JPhish
Insulting my intelligence will not encourage me to agree with you.

Originally posted by jthomas
I guess I should have said, "It's hard to understand why", is that it?

No, it’s simply the negative form of that fallacy; which is still wrong . . .

You don’t claim that anything is easy or hard, because something’s comprehensible difficulty is subjective and glib within a debate of this nature. What you’re supposed to do is explain your point in a matter in which it can be understood; which you have not done successfully.

No, buddy, it IS very easy to see that CIT cannot address questions about their claims. Do your homework.

The burden of proof falls on you jthom, sorry. You are claiming something, you must prove it to be true.

Here are some TRUTHS, So far you have failed to show any contradictions made by CIT and have failed to show any claims made by CIT that they can not support.

And please refrain from calling me buddy. I am not your buddy, so one can only assume you are calling me buddy in a derogatory way. ad hominem (18)

Then why is it hard for you to understand what Craig himself wrote and said in his video?

You have provided no evidence to support your claim that I am having difficulty understanding something that Craig wrote/said in his video. Baseless assertion (19)

Originally posted by JPhish
They don’t need evidence that the “plane” flew over because they’ve provided enough evidence that it didn’t hit into the building. It’s the SAME thing.

Originally posted by jthomas
That one statement alone shows you know nothing about logic and logical fallacies and is why you have been sucked into CIT's utter nonsense. You've turned facts upside down and backwards.

really? What logical fallacy do you wish to invoke? You mess with the bull you get the horns. I’m waiting.

Originally posted by jthomas
IF any jet flew over the Pentagon, as CIT claims, it has to demonstrate with positive evidence that a jet flew over the Pentagon. Period. Absent such evidence, one cannot conclude that a jet flew over the Pentagon. I - and others - have quite clearly demonstrated why there would be positive evidence of a flyover IF a flyover had actually taken place. NO such evidence exists and Craig Ranke is incapable of providing a stitch of positive evidence that any jet - or one that magically turns into a C-130 - "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

Your argument is an argument of irrelevance(20). If the “jet” didn’t crash into the pentagon, where did it go jthom???

Originally posted by JPhish
I will ask this question again. Since it is PROVEN that a 747 did not crash in to the building.

Originally posted by jthomas
But a Boeing 757, AA77, did, by every line of independent evidence there is.

none of the independent evidence shows that a boing 757 crashed in to the pentagon. Absolutely 0 %. Because any evidence from the NTSB, the 9-11 commission, etc is NOT independent because they are funded, operated or controlled by the government/special interest groups, which makes them anything BUT independent.

Pilots for truth, firefighters for 9-11 truth, CIT, are free to conduct the research as they wish and they fund their own investigation through donations and their own money! These are INDEPENDENT research teams.

Originally posted by JPhish
This is PROVEN.

Originally posted by jthomas
No, it never has been demonstrated. It remains what it has always been, simply a unproven claim. And not a single bit of any of the massive evidence from multiple, independent sources that converges on the same conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon has ever been refuted.

pilots for truth and CIT which are 2 independent research teams both corroborate that a 757 did not hit the pentagon. 2 is more than 1. Which means that, multiple independent sources agree that a 757 did not crash into the pentagon.

Why do you think Craig Ranke has been running away from questions about his claims for the last 3 years?

The only reason why I entertain illogical tirades such as yours is because I enjoy doing so. I’m sure Craig has better things to do with his time; like finding the truth.

Originally posted by JPhish
Isn’t it logical to assume that the “747” flew OVER the building and didn’t magically disappear?

Originally posted by jthomas
OF COURSE NOT.

You think that the plane magical disappeared???

You need to catch up on evidence AND logic and understand why Craig Ranke relies on your gullibility and lack of questionning of HIS claims to keep his snake-oil sales pitch going.

Start here: www.fallacyfiles.org...

and continue here: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

I’ve seen most of the evidence, and I still have to disagree with you. Craig Ranke is a HERO, and saying otherwise is really in bad taste unless you are going to provide evidence to the contrary.

HERO

1. somebody who commits an act of remarkable bravery or who has shown an admirable quality such as great courage or strength of character

2. somebody who is admired for outstanding qualities or achievements

Those definitions seem to fit Craig/CIT pretty well. What he is doing is VERY brave. Not everyone has the crass to stand up for the truth especially against an entity that is powerful enough to pull off something like 9-11. Not everyone has the patience and perseverance to do what he has done. You don’t even have the patience to find ONE example to support your hollow claims.

Those websites you linked me to contain audio tracks of faceless people, and no signatures. Their testimonies are worthless. First hand unbiased accounts like the ones that CIT has obtained are the only kind I am interested in. Accounts that have no motive, interviewees that were not persuaded, gave signatures, have FACES. You need a lesson in epistemology if you think some writing on a webpage and some audio samples from faceless people are proof that something is real.

Remember, if you cannot actually demonstrate a "flyover" took place, nobody is going to pay attention to your claims.

poisoning the well (22) Instead of making negative predictions in hopes of swaying future events. Why not let them unfold if you are so sure no one will listen?

[edit on 9/4/2009 by JPhish]

Com'n guys, was my question ignored because i have no avatar, or is it a faliure to deny ignorance?

I'll ask again and would be grateful if some kind soul can put me right, please:

If it was OK to fly 2 planes into the twin towers as part of a false flag operation, why would that operation wish, or need to avoid using a real plane impact for the Pentagon?

If they've sacrificed 2 planes already, then why not 3? Why risk screwing up the operation in order to save the 3rd plane? Why not do it for real, as they'd already done in New York?

Answers appreciated

Originally posted by McGinty
Com'n guys, was my question ignored because i have no avatar, or is it a faliure to deny ignorance?

my apologies McGinty.

I'll ask again and would be grateful if some kind soul can put me right, please:

If it was OK to fly 2 planes into the twin towers as part of a false flag operation, why would that operation wish, or need to avoid using a real plane impact for the Pentagon?

Did they fly 2 commercial airliners into the twin towers? I’m not so sure. Again, my best bet would be that they used missiles or some sort of UMV. A lot of visual effects artists were employed to create fake videos of the event and the news media was in on it . . . so who knows, after these special effects wizards worked their magic, there may have been nothing but the bombs in the towers.

If they've sacrificed 2 planes already, then why not 3? Why risk screwing up the operation in order to save the 3rd plane? Why not do it for real, as they'd already done in New York?

It’s not about “sacrificing” a plane; it’s about how realistic crashing a commercial airliner into a skyscraper is. The answer is not very realistic at all. If you look at pilotsfor911truth.org. Nearly all of the pilots seem to agree that what those alleged “commercial airliners” did was NEAR impossible. A 757 crashing into the pentagon the way the 9-11 commission claims it did; ABSOLUTELY impossible.

Answers appreciated

wouldn't call them "answers", but i did my best . . .

[edit on 9/4/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


Many thanks JPhish.

I watched the recent pentagon crash video you linked to earlier and found it compelling. The only counter argument i could come up with was the one i mentioned.

So i guess the answer to that argument hinges on the twin tower impacts being faked too. This is a big ask, but i'll keep an open mind. With unknown advances in laser projected holograms no doubt being made by the military i guess anything is possible.

But like i said, it's a big ask. Can i take it then that if the twin towers were indeed hit by real planes, then it's fair to question the motive for not using a real plane on the pentagon.

Thanks again for answering. Great thread.




[edit on 4-9-2009 by McGinty]

Originally posted by McGinty
reply to post by JPhish

 

Many thanks JPhish.

You’re very welcome.

I watched the recent pentagon crash video you linked to earlier and found it compelling. The only counter argument i could come up with was the one i mentioned.

So i guess the answer to that argument hinges on the twin tower impacts being faked too.

not really. If the most effective way of pulling off the attack on the country was with real planes crashing into the twin towers, I have no doubt that they would have actually done so. I’m simply saying that I think there is a better chance that they used some sort of UMV or missile. Less margin for error.

This is a big ask, but i'll keep an open mind. With unknown advances in laser projected holograms no doubt being made by the military i guess anything is possible.

very true. Very scary, but very true.

But like i said, it's a big ask. Can i take it then that if the twin towers were indeed hit by real planes, then it's fair to question the motive for not using a real plane on the pentagon.

Like I said, it probably came down to what was most efficient. Whatever was the most effective way of executing the plan was the way they did it. It may have been very practical for them to fly two planes into the towers, but not practical for them to fly a plane into the pentagon.

Also, they intentionally mix and match their methods, spread dis-info, and even start their own conspiracy theories in hopes of making people scratch their heads so many times afterward that their brains fall out.


[edit on 9/4/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas

Gosh, that contradiction must be really hard for you to grasp, eh, JPhish?

Obviously you need to be reminded of what a contradiction is.

contradiction con⋅tra⋅dic⋅tion [kon-truh-dik-shuh n] –noun
a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

It doesn’t matter what altitude the plane flew away at. The entire theory remains congruous and is not compromised by a deviation in the altitude of the plane so long as it flies over (or even around) and not into the building. What you have presented is not a contradiction it is a red herring/Ignoratio elenchi.(17)

Criag Ranke claims ONE C-130 flew at TWO different altitudes at TWO different times representing the SAME event.

I showed you. You claim it is not a contradiction. Amazing.

You've got one huge problem, JPhish. Only you can resolve it. Start with taking your blinders off. Even among 9/11 Deniers, you are one of the most gullible and irrational I've run into, impervious to reason.

Originally posted by McGinty
reply to post by JPhish

 

Many thanks JPhish.

I watched the recent pentagon crash video you linked to earlier and found it compelling. The only counter argument i could come up with was the one i mentioned.

So i guess the answer to that argument hinges on the twin tower impacts being faked too. This is a big ask, but i'll keep an open mind. With unknown advances in laser projected holograms no doubt being made by the military i guess anything is possible.

But like i said, it's a big ask. Can i take it then that if the twin towers were indeed hit by real planes, then it's fair to question the motive for not using a real plane on the pentagon.

Thanks again for answering. Great thread.

It is impossible to know all aspects of the conspiracy.

I find it easier just to stick to the basic contractions and anomalies that prove SOMETHING else happened.

If a car crashed into the pentagon but it didn't look anything like any other car crashes, would you think it was odd that their was no video evidence to prove it?

reply to post by Stylez


Well here is some more advice....lay off the controlled substances.

If you are unable to understand that...

Politicians fell all over themselves taking abilities away from our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the 70s...

Politicians fell all over themselves dismantling our Continental Air Defense in the 90s to take advantage of the post Cold War enviroment...(prior to 1992 we had 48 fully armed, fully fueled interceptors on 24 hour alert, on 9/11/2001, we had 14 minimally armed interceptors) and even those, were primarily focused on threats from outside our borders....not jets already in our airspace.

Bill Clinton's administration changed the rules so that our intelligence agencies could only deal with people who were "nice" (no human rights issues) instead of the dirtballs that had the info we needed.

That our politicians restricted the flow of information not only between agencies, but also between departments in the same agencies. Even after the Patriot Act some of the restrictions are still in place.

That under Bill Clinton, terrorism was viewed as a law enforcement issue instead of a military issue.

That Bill Clinton could have taken care of Osama on several occasions, but chose not to.

That feats of engineering arent infallible. Nor are airliners as flimsy as many people on here appearantly think.


If you cannot understand those...then you will never be able to understand the how's and why's of what happened on 9/11.

Looking at this, one might think I was a bit harsh to Bill Clinton. Not a bit. I blame 97% of the elected officials we have had over the last 40 years for their ignorance that left us wide open.

reply to post by mike dangerously


So either you believe in the piggy bank or you do not...which is it?

Here is some more info for you, the 2.3 trillon wasnt a secret, it was known about long before Rumsfeld was SecDef. Plus, it wasnt 2.3 trillon in cash....it was 2.3 trillon in accounting transactions, screwed up inventories and other related accounting issues.

Originally posted by jthomas
Criag Ranke claims ONE C-130 flew at TWO different altitudes at TWO different times representing the SAME event.

I showed you. You claim it is not a contradiction. Amazing.

I’m not claiming anything, it’s a fact. Read the definition. All the information that CIT has presented is congruous within itself, therefore there is no contradiction that compromises their theories.

Obviously you need to be reminded AGAIN of what a contradiction is.

contradiction con⋅tra⋅dic⋅tion [kon-truh-dik-shuh n] –noun
a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

AGAIN It doesn’t matter what altitude the plane flew away at. The entire theory remains congruous and is not compromised by a deviation in the altitude of the plane so long as it flies over (or even around) and not into the building. What you have presented is not a contradiction it is a red herring/Ignoratio elenchi.(23)

(That means that what you are talking about is not only off topic, but irrelevant.)

AGAIN The only thing that CIT has done is update their theory in light of new evidence. It’s part of the scientific method and I suggest you try it.

You've got one huge problem, JPhish.

ad hominem(24) should I be paying you by the hour? Oh, wait, you’re already being paid for that. Give your boss my contact info by the way; I’m much better at this than you are.

Only you can resolve it. Start with taking your blinders off.

bare assertion (25) you have no proof that I have blinders on. In fact, it is very illogical to assume that I do, for I am not a horse.

Even among 9/11 Deniers, you are one of the most gullible and irrational I've run into, impervious to reason.

bare assertions (26) (27) really?? You have not provided any evidence that I’m a 9-11 denier, nor that I am I impervious to reason.

Well let’s add up the tally and see who’s been illogical.

JPhish = -2
Jthom = -27

Your theory that I am illogical holds absolutely no water in light of the factual evidence that you’ve committed 27 logical fallacies and I have only committed two.

[edit on 9/4/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by tezzajw


Sigh.

If you were capable of displaying maturity and rational thinking, tezzjaw, I was considering answering your post.

but since you, like many other of the extremists in the truth movement, are incapable of carrying out a debate without resorting to childish name calling and editing, I shall simply let you stew in the stink of your obvious rational and critical thinking deficiencies.

Just when this thread was finally starting to amuse me, too. Shame.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
No, my friend, CIT has not provided one piece of positive evidence or any eyewitnesses who ever stated they saw any jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon." DO catch up with the facts.

The facts are that jthomas has already debunked himself with the following statement:

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

Yes, that's right... jthomas has admitted that no one really knows what people would have seen. He's admitted that there are an unknown number of people and that no one can determine anything definitive.

In many threads, jthomas often forgets about his own contradictions. Pay little attention to him. Remember, he's an official government story believer, yet he refuses to endorse the Pentagon Security Images... That shows the contradictory nature in jthomas' beliefs. The 9/11 script is a little too confusing for him to understand.

I don't really know if "he" really believes it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually analyzed the evidence could believe it.

Originally posted by Markshark4


Craig, what do you think about this FOIA release?

The witness says that he saw TWO planes.

Also, the second plane was RIGHT BEHIND the first plane.

The first "plane" hit the pentagon, and then a much larger plane flew over the pentagon.

www.youtube.com...

Great question and JPhish had a pretty good hunch based answer.

However I would call it disinfo with a qualification....the witness doesn't have to be a liar or a plant. (although he could be)

First realize the context and source of this "evidence". It was released by the FBI in 2008. It was disseminated by "John Farmer" the man behind the now defunct website 911files.com who dedicated himself to attacking CIT while disseminating LOTS of govt data between 2007 and 2008 (including the alleged radar data).....only eventually to very vocally "quit" the truth movement and virtually disappear from the internet.

Anyway.....due to the circumstances behind the release of this video in conjunction with the release of the information we have uncovered, and due to the fact that there is no name given for this witness and his face is blurred out leaving no way to confirm or clarify his account with him directly...this can not be fairly considered independent or verifiable evidence.

Now....we have spoken with dozens of witnesses and while several saw the C-130 fly in a few minutes AFTER the explosion (as confirmed by video, photographs, and the C-130 pilot himself) only one claims they saw 2 planes flying together at the time of the explosion.

That would be Keith Wheelhouse.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d77c63de82ca.gif[/atsimg]

Except that he specifically describes this "shadowing" plane as being the C-130 when we know for a FACT that it did not "shadow" anything and that it wasn't in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the explosion.

So....since the account of this anonymous individual in the FBI's video can not be corroborated, and since there are DOZENS of corroborated accounts of ONE plane, and since we know that Wheelhouse's "shadowing" claim regarding the C-130 has been proven false on many levels...the only 2 possible conclusions are that the witness in the FBI video was far enough away that he simply conflated the timing of the C-130 approach with the explosion (which is quite possible in all the initial chaos)....or that he is literally a plant giving this vague description to the FBI for the purpose of it eventually being disseminated as disinfo.

Either way I believe it was intentionally disseminated to fuel the fire of the 2-plane disinfo conspiracy theory for the deliberate purpose of obfuscation of the evidence we have uncovered.

Realize too that the main reason "John Farmer" had to disappear was because we exposed his intentions to disseminate a 2-plane theory and pulled the rug out from underneath his plans. He went forward with the plan anyway while using Mark Gaffney's book on the E4B as the dissemination conduit. The entire story is explained in detail in this article.

I can't stress enough how critical the 2nd plane cover story was to the success of the operation.

Originally posted by McGinty
Com'n guys, was my question ignored because i have no avatar, or is it a faliure to deny ignorance?

I'll ask again and would be grateful if some kind soul can put me right, please:

If it was OK to fly 2 planes into the twin towers as part of a false flag operation, why would that operation wish, or need to avoid using a real plane impact for the Pentagon?

If they've sacrificed 2 planes already, then why not 3? Why risk screwing up the operation in order to save the 3rd plane? Why not do it for real, as they'd already done in New York?

Answers appreciated

This is not my personal belief/theory but satifies your question:

The plot to fly the panes into the twin towers was intercepted and a lihop scenario was decided upon. The destruction at the pentagon was seperate from the attacks on the twin towers.

But then research into 911 that asks "why" is useless. If you find out the facts "why" will present itself.

Except that he specifically describes this "shadowing" plane as being the C-130 when we know for a FACT that it did not "shadow" anything and that it wasn't in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the explosion.

I dig the research you do and try not to be negative, but when you say you know somthing is a fact based on witness testimony you lose all credibility in my book, sorry.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Except that he specifically describes this "shadowing" plane as being the C-130 when we know for a FACT that it did not "shadow" anything and that it wasn't in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the explosion.

I dig the research you do and try not to be negative, but when you say you know somthing is a fact based on witness testimony you lose all credibility in my book, sorry.

1. That's not what I said. I said it is a proven fact based on video, photographs, statements from the C-130 pilot himself, the alleged radar data (even though it has also proven fraudulent on a different level), AND corroborated statements from several witnesses who saw it approach minutes later. If that's not enough for you, what would be?

2. Yes witness statements alone can be considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt when the scientific validation method of independent corroboration has been employeed on a sufficient level.

When enough witnesses independently agree on a simple and specific right or left detail, with nobody disagreeing, it can be fairly considered proof.

Yes witness statements are often unreliable. But when that is the case their accounts differ. The more a claim becomes independently corroborated the more it becomes validated until eventually proof beyond a reasonable doubt is acheived.






[edit on 5-9-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jprophet420

Except that he specifically describes this "shadowing" plane as being the C-130 when we know for a FACT that it did not "shadow" anything and that it wasn't in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the explosion.

I dig the research you do and try not to be negative, but when you say you know somthing is a fact based on witness testimony you lose all credibility in my book, sorry.

1. That's not what I said. I said it is a proven fact based on video, photographs, statements from the C-130 pilot himself, the alleged radar data (even though it has also proven fraudulent on a different level), AND corroborated statements from several witnesses who saw it approach minutes later. If that's not enough for you, what would be?

2. Yes witness statements alone can be considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt when the scientific validation method of independent corroboration has been employeed on a sufficient level.

When enough witnesses independently agree on a simple and specific right or left detail, with nobody disagreeing, it can be fairly considered proof.

Yes witness statements are often unreliable. But when that is the case their accounts differ. The more a claim becomes independently corroborated the more it becomes validated until eventually proof beyond a reasonable doubt is acheived.






[edit on 5-9-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

1. Using your logic if there are more people who say they saw a plane hit the pentagon than a plane do something else the plane hit the pentagon.

2. "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has been proven to be around 70% by independent researchers, and does not qualify as fact.

Its so hard to talk about this w/o sounding like a negative Nancy. I read a lot of the eyewitness reports (from the pentagon) before CIT was even on ATS. I totally agree that most of the testimony given involved it being implied that the witness's saw a plane hit the pentagon. I totally agree that the flight path presented by the government is inaccurate. Beyond that opinions, egos, and piss poor investigating (not implying you there) skew the picture.

I have always wondered why they have never shown the complete or even partial video of the "plane" hitting the pentagon. I mean they have showed the twin tower planes hitting all the time but not one video of the pentagon. And what video they did show was a 8 second loop of a merged video of something real real real fast sprinting across the field and then an explosion on the pentagon. It almost looks like a missile coming across the field. Why was it so important to confiscate every and all videos in the whole area (gas stations and the what not). There is no benefit from a gas station or a food mart security camera taping a low flying plane coming over there building, especially when no body would know where or when this picture or video was taken. If it was for terrorists propaganda then I can see the ones close to the Pentagon. The reason my be that what happened that day at the pentagon isn't what they are saying. Maybe it showed something that looks like a plane and a smaller plane, and the smaller plane went into the pentagon. Almost like it was remote controlled.

Something that day was amiss and for the "terrorists" to have attacked the same day that they where having an operation and there was a stand down on interceptor fighters shows more than terrorists may have been involved. Do any of you remember the LoneGunmen series that came out in 2000. it premier episode was about a plot of a secret cabal of agents taking over airplanes electronically and hoping to crash them into the world trade center. You all do know that we can control and have controlled large planes like the 737 before in tests and to crash it, so I wonder how hard it would have been for a rogue agency or group to manage to put controls (both hardware and software) into those planes in order to crash them.

I tell you, that day that day is shrouded in mystery and also obfuscation. They don't want people to dig to much into all the facets of that day. To much stuff happened like it was a act or play that was being produced.