The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

If there are plausible alternative explanations, I would think the fact that the damaged light poles are there and the government says a 757 caused the damage isn't proof as one of the alternative explanation might be the right one. Anyway, there's lots of other proof. I put some of it on page #1 of this thread.

 

I agree, there's a ton of evidence the US government is lying about just about everything that happened on 9/11. I understand there are many alternate explanations and many of these have merit and are supported by the facts. And I also agree that there is one alternate explanation that is correct because the official one is absolutely false. However, plausible explanations must be supported by conclusive and irrefutable fact and evidence in order for one of these to be considered valid.

 

Yawn!

Nope. Wrong again.

There were hundreds of cars, dozens of fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehicles damaged too; at least 4 murders before the planes hit their targets etc. It was in no way, the purview to investigate each crime committed that day.

 

Yes, impossible.

Middle of rush-hour on a clear day on one of the more well-traveled roads in the area, a bunch of light poles are staged, a wrecker unloads a cab in the middle of it and nobody sees any of it? Reports any of it?

A green tarp? Oh brother.

 

It rules out a missile and confirms a plane knocked down the poles. There would be no reason to stage them. Supposedly your team of expert ninja operatives staged wreckage (some weighing 1200 pounds) all around the Pentagon as well as inside the Pentagon!!!! The suggestion is flat out stupid.

 

No one said anything about investigating each crime committed that day. You're obviously introducing a red herring in an attempt to try defend the 9/11 Commission's failure to legitimately investigate 9/11 as required by their mandate, not to mention your own contradictory position. As you well know since you quoted it, the 9/11 Commission's mandate was SWEEPING with regard to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01:

Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,"

The term SWEEPING does not leave any wiggle room.

In fact, now that you brought it up, the 9/11 Commission (and NIST) also failed to investigate why and how there were so many vehicles best described as toasted and melted, some just partially. This is an anomaly that can't be explained by a collapsing building 7 blocks distant.

http://rense.com/general75/melt.htm

The damaged/downed light poles were well within the 9/11 Commission's mandate to investigate as they were without question a part of the circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, not a different crime.

 

Of course. The plausible scenario of a 757 having hit the lightpoles isn't supported by conclusive and irrefutable fact and evidence.

If there is conclusive and irrefutable proof that whatever was behind the box in this picture was too small to be a 757...
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe1.jpg
http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif

...we can conclude that the light poles were staged.

 

There is no proof of any kind whatsoever that any thing smaller than or other than a 757 hit the building.

You are essentially stating falsehoods and lies and then stating the narrative has to fit your lies.

Therefore you have no conclusion at all and cannot conclude anything.

All you can do is repeat proven fiction and claim it is a conclusion

 

Agreed. However, it doesn't mean a 757 didn't hit the light poles, it just means we don't know for sure.

Not so fast. The same doctrine applies here, that the light poles were staged also has to be supported by conclusive irrefutable fact and evidence. Remember the burden of proof is always on the claimant (whoever makes the claim they were staged). There was no forensic analysis of the physical evidence (the damaged/downed light poles) and without that there is no conclusive physical evidence that these were staged. It doesn't mean they weren't staged, it just means we simply don't know for sure.

Proof can only be based on a positive, not a negative. For example, one who claims leprechauns exist has the burden to prove it. No one has to prove leprechauns don't exist just because someone claims they do. All claims are theory unless and until proven to be fact.

And for a more realistic scenario. The official claim is that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were globally destroyed by planes/damage/fire alone. The burden of proof is on the US government to prove it and the US government failed miserably to prove it. Unless and until the US government proves the claim, all we can do is conclude that planes/damage/fire alone did not cause the global destruction of the 3 towers. We can theorize that they were destroyed by controlled demolition because that is the only other possibility we know of that can accomplish that, however we can't claim to know for sure without proving they were destroyed via CD.

 

And your proof for this statement (the underlined red part) is where exactly?

Many posters in this forum reject the idea that a large plane impacted at the Pentagon for many reasons. I personally am not convinced about anything about the Pentagon given the entity that gave us the story and the lack of key evidence, namely videos and the missing matching of serial numbers from the alleged recovered parts (especially the FDRs) to the actual logs of the physical planes, among other issues.

 

From the OP’s source:



Wait, it gets better:




Thanks for bringing that source to our attention there Champ….LOL

 

I highlighted the key word for you.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11066
http://911blogger.com/node/14081

Bottom line, if it indeed was done (and to my knowledge there is no official acknowledgment anywhere that it was done), it is not publicly available and therefore there is no physical proof that any of the alleged recovered debris belongs to the officially claimed airplanes (see burden of proof). Denied FOIA requests under false pretenses = coverup, not physical proof.

 

Your proof that something WASN’T done is a message board and a blog.

 

The above is why I asked you what the object of your game is (you have yet to answer). It's difficult to imagine someone who can post reasonably coherently yet be that obtuse. Nothing I posted can prove a negative because there is no such thing. Burden of proof requires that the claimant prove a positive (i.e. the claimant's claim). What I posted merely demonstrates that there exists no proof that any of the alleged debris belongs to any of the 4 claimed airplanes because there exists no evidence that a standard serial number match was ever conducted. The burden of proof is not on me to prove anything about 9/11, it's always on the claimant, the US government.

 

Uh no, it is on you to prove it wasn’t done as you contest.

The DNA from the passengers isn’t enough for you?
The radar tracking from take off to crash isn’t enough for you?
The phone calls from the planes are not enough for you?

So if they matched up a serial number to a seat or a door frame or landing gear or any of the millions of plane parts that have numbers, would that suffice or do they have to match all million pieces?

 

Your understanding of burden of proof is non-existent despite that it was explained to you (see post #409) so that even a child can understand it. I said there's no evidence that it was done and there's not even evidence of an official claim it was done, which violates NTSB airplane crash investigation protocol. One can't assume leprechauns exist if there's no evidence they do. I contest everything about the US government's 9/11 story because it's all not only suspect and not based on any legitimate investigation (of which there's ample evidence) but contradicts itself in many ways.

No, all the above are unproven and disputed (see burden of proof). For you the 9/11 Commission Report is "accurate" despite all the evidence proving it's a complete fraud. For me it's far from just the 9/11 Commission Report that proves the official 9/11 story might as well be the official version of proof of leprechauns, there's a ton of other evidence that proves the OCT is an official fairy tale.

The protocol exists for a reason. There is a video recording of a NTSB investigator at the Pentagon site claiming upon seeing a serial number on a piece of debris that they can use it to identify the aircraft. Bypassing all investigative protocol is proof of a coverup and criminal.

What is the object of your game?

Edit: To be sure, even if by some miracle the US government released verifiable evidence that the debris actually belongs to the 4 claimed airplanes, it would only resolve some controversies, it would still not legitimize the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports in the least. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of other problems with the official story.

 

You've been shown this before.

Painful Deceptions 911 Documentary by Eric Hufschmid Full Version

(43:45 time mark)

You've also been shown this before.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)

(1:37:45 time mark)

You've been shown this before too, several times in fact.

Above video 1:38:22 time mark. An objective truth-seeker doesn't forget things such as these so fast. I think you know what I'm thinking.

I'll go along with that but if there's other proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, we have to include that in our assessment of the situation.

 

Yet you can cite no inaccuracies in the Commission report

 

Agreed but trying to prove a negative is not the way to go. You use contradictory evidence to dispute a claim.

Example:

Claim: The 3 towers collapsed as a natural result of planes/damage/fire for WTC1 & WTC2 and fire alone for WTC7.

Evidence: The collapse wave was an unimpeded acceleration at near free fall for WTC1 and WTC2 and indistinguishable from free fall for WTC7.

Dispute of Claim: Based on the evidence, the laws of physics (a basic universally accepted scientific standard) do not support the claim and therefore contradict the claim.

What you can't do scientifically is claim the evidence proves controlled demolition. You can say that controlled demolition is the only known method that can produce such a collapse wave and therefore the controlled demolition THEORY is supported by the evidence, but that's not enough by itself to prove controlled demolition. It's a fine line if you want to remain scientifically accurate.

Common sense however is a different story. Common sense says that if the evidence does not support the claim and that if the only known way these buildings can "collapse" in that manner is controlled demolition, then the ONLY possibility that remains is controlled demolition.

 

You are trolling. Repeating a lie ad nauseum doesn't make it true and fits the definition of trolling. If you have nothing intelligent to contribute, stay the **** out of this discussion.

 

Perhaps because of your lacking analytical skills, YOU are unable to perceive the many gross misstatements and falsehoods and omissions in the report.

 

I guess I'm relying on common sense. What did they do with the light poles anyway. Were they carted away and destroyed the way the metal from the towers was.

 

Lets review what is required to show inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission Report.

1. First take the report:https://9-11commission.gov/report/
2. Highlight what you think is an inaccuracy. Usually done by holding down the left mouse button and dragging the cursor over the text. Then either click on Copy or “CTRL + C”.
3. Paste it on this site surrounded by the quotation marks which are “&“.
4. Then post what you think actually happened.

Voila!

It’s so simple even a Twoofer could do it; if they could find an inaccuracy that is.

 

You're posting in the wrong thread, the correct thread for your post belongs in the link below. Please post in the appropriate thread. Having said that, I will respond regardless.

The above is false nonsense on many levels. If you need to know and understand what kind of a fraud the 9/11 Commission Report is (the term "inaccurate" doesn't scratch the surface), just review the irrefutable facts as posted in the following thread or do some research:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/

If you need a bullet point reference, just go to post #195 in the same thread. You have not shown anything that could be considered a challenge to the facts listed, so what is the object of your game?

Speaking of simple, you have yet to answer the above question, it's so simple even you could do it.

 

Sorry I missed the edit window. I should have added: Please review the discussion on Burden of Proof in this thread. Thank you.