The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Nov 1, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The burden of proof for the official 9/11 narrative rests with the claimant, in this case the US government. The questions asked by Margot attempt to reverse the burden of proof to me. Since I'm not the one who created the official narrative, it isn't within my purview to try to explain the alleged evidence surrounding the official narrative. For me the official narrative about a large commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon on 9/11 is filled with massive holes, woefully lacking in evidence, filled with contradictory anomalies and covered up to the hilt, among other failures that should have long been settled by a legitimate forensic criminal investigation that follows standard NTSB airplane crash investigation protocol.

    That's partly correct, partly incorrect. If I'm going to claim a plane didn't the building, then the burden of proof is fully mine to prove a plane didn't the building. That may or may not include any of the above. I am not making any such claims. My claim is strictly about the failure to legitimately investigate 9/11, certainly including the Pentagon on 9/11.

    It does no such thing since my claim (premise if you will) is not what you think it is. I question why some posters, including Margot and likely you, are failing to hold the US government's feet to the fire with respect to the lack of any legitimate 9/11 investigation for which there are known lies, conflicts, inconsistencies, extreme convenient coincidences, failures in logic and science and most importantly obvious deliberate coverups. I'm not the one who should be questioned about 9/11, I had nothing to do with it and the only investigation I ever took part in is my own personal investigation of the official narrative and the storytellers which I have been conducting nearly daily for the last 14+ years.
     
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Was the plane wreckage "all around the building" consistent with a 757? No.

    How do you know about the "passenger DNA"? From the pentagon, the same liars who told Mary Tillman so many lies about the death of her son Pat.

    The lightpoles could not have been taken down by AA77 because the path it followed to take down those poles DID NOT ALIGN with the path necessary to do the damage done.

    The official story fails at every turn. That people still believe it 16 years later suggests those believing it are fantastically ignorant of the details involved.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's one reason why no one needs to explain the "evidence" supporting the official narrative (when and if it actually does). No one needs to invent any theory if the official story makes no sense and the alleged proof is inconsistent, contradictory or lacking, it just doesn't stand on its own merit. I don't believe a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon in the manner described by the official narrative but that doesn't mean a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, it only means that for me, the story makes no sense for many reasons.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2018
    Eleuthera likes this.
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. Charles Rice

    Charles Rice Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Again...if you can't account for the physical evidence of the plane parts, the DNA, and the lightpoles, your case falls apart. The Commission report does all of it. No other "could have", "may have", "might have" or whatever is being alleged accounts for the physical evidence everyone can see with their own eyes. You can also add in the flight controllers tracking the plane into the pentagon to the mountain of physical evidence you folks ignore.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 9/11 Commission Report is a massive failure that has zero credibility by the 9/11 Commission members' own statements, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report's many disclaimers and absence of standard universally accepted criminal/forensic investigation protocol and much more described in detail in the thread below.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/
     
    Mr_Truth and Eleuthera like this.
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you or anybody else cannot prove "plane parts, the DNA, and the lightpoles" then YOUR case falls apart. Your case cannot be made. It is a BS story concocted to deceive the public. Mission Accomplished.
     
  8. Charles Rice

    Charles Rice Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Everyone saw the plane parts. You have no explanation for how they got there. Thus everyone is content with the Comm report and nobody believes you.
     
  9. Charles Rice

    Charles Rice Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yet the report is believed by most and accepted by nearly everyone except a small percentage relegated to message boards.

    Again, it accounts for the physical evidence. You do not. Thus it is believed and you are relegated.
     
  10. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    from another thread

    OK, so you do not believe a 757 hit the Pentagon ... I am sure you will play the semantics card here, but how about comparing the evidence for vs the evidence against a 757 hitting the Pentagon? ... I believe the preponderance of evidence you will overwhelmingly point to a 757 hitting the Pentagon ...
     
    Charles Rice likes this.
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What evidence? The one that has never been matched to AA77? If I'm not satisfied that the parts have been forensically matched to AA77 (there's zero evidence that was done) and there are serious anomalies with the official story (ALL OF IT), there's nothing trustworthy for me about the government's "evidence". The preponderance of evidence, no the overwhelming evidence shows the US government is covering up (LYING about) 9/11.

     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And these people:

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/
    https://www.ff911truthandunity.org/
    http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/Petition-2750-AEs-17-01.pdf
    http://www.consensus911.org/panel-members/
    https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/about2/
    http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/about.html
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html


    They count, you don't.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  13. Charles Rice

    Charles Rice Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    So you know for certain it wasn't done? I've lived a long time, seen many reports of plane crashes. I don't recall any such broadcast by any news media stating that there was such a match. I'm wondering if you'd even admit that there were plane parts at the Pentagon on 9/11. Certainly there were numerous pictures of what looked like plane parts; pieces of he fuselage, landing gear, engine parts, etc. Will you even admit that these were plane parts?
     
  14. Charles Rice

    Charles Rice Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3

    Hey, don't get angry at me that you can't account for the physical evidence. Nobody is forcing you to adopt positions that are so bizarre.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you really believe I care enough about you to be "angry" at you? Was there something you didn't understand about you don't count? Why are you so terrified about what I believe? Just call me the usual names/labels, that will make the terror go away. Shiner does that all the time, it makes him feel better.

    But back on topic.

    Was there something you missed about there's no evidence it was done? In fact there were at least 2 FOIA requests for such a match, a simple NTSB protocol for all airplane crashes. They were both denied. There should have been 4 matches conducted since the claim was 4 airplane crashes. Not one match. How convenient, right?

    Me too and agree. Although I was never really looking for such a news media broadcast but if it did exist, I would have been all over it. So you see, no evidence, we agree.

    Why do I need to "admit" anything (especially to you)? The US government needs to admit, this isn't about me, it's about the Pentagon on 9/11. I had nothing to do with 9/11 or the fake investigations. As already well noted, the totality of the recovered "parts" from the 4 alleged airplane crashes barely fit the back of one pickup truck. I find that quite an eye opener, don't you? That's rhetorical.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  16. Charles Rice

    Charles Rice Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    About what I expected...when asked a direct question, you refuse to answer. The government did their investigation and it makes perfect sense to both those who are lay on the circumstances and facts of the day as well as those (like me) who have studied the matter for quite a while.

    Again, whether it was a scrap of plane parts or the numerous pieces we all saw that were there, you need to account for the physical evidence if you claim no plane crashed there (as you accidentally admitted earlier). Since you can't, you don't matter. Dismissed.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I made no such claim or admission. I don't know what hit the Pentagon, I wasn't there and the official story makes no sense to me. If it makes all the sense in the world to you why are you so desperate to try to convince me it does? I don't matter by your own words, right? I'm not here to convince you of anything, I don't care what you believe or not. It seems to me you are terrified of those who post facts that contradict or question the official narrative. That's why you are quick to dismiss posters such as myself. Sorry but you're in no position to dismiss me, I'm still here and will continue to post here regardless of your fears.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey charles..

    Why did you ignore post #454?
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-23#post-1068925552

    Here's something you should check out.
    http://physics911.net/georgenelson/
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
     
  19. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    don't be thick Bob ...

    it amuses me when you and others of your ilk use the term cognitive dissonance ...

    I never said anything regarding a cover up ... you have never explained what you think is actually being covered up ...

    from the facts as we know them, AA Flight 77 took off from Dulles ... and?
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't be so fake Shiner.

    Good, that's what you claim to be here for, your amusement. It's a hobby right?

    Of course not, why would you? You bought the whole shebang you were fed and skipped all the disclaimers, such as the admissions of lies.


    I did but in case you missed it, 9/11 was covered up.

    From the story YOU were fed, please try to be accurate. Oh wait, that's not part of your hobby.

    And?
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  21. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet no civilian or independent examiners were allowed to examine those parts. The Pentagon controlled the whole show, and they are known liars.

    Nobody is content with the Commission Report. After reading it in August 2004, then Senator Mark Dayton said NORAD had lied in their testimony because the time lines they cited did not add up. Yes, there are a few Senators with common sense.

    The Commission Report noted 63 times that they "found no evidence" to support one detail or the other from the official narrative.

    After it came out, one poll conducted found that 85% of respondents thought the government was covering something up.

    You need to increase you Knowledge Quotient of the report and the story if you're going to make such claims. Right now that quotient is very much on the low side.
     
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would you be interested in providing any of the facts or evidence FOR your claim that AA77, a Boeing 757, struck the Pentagon?

    Didn't think so....

    There is none. And all the known facts work against that theory. The FDR was counterfeit.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it was the FBI from my understanding. They took over the "investigation" from the NTSB as part of their PENTBOM pretense and reported nothing of any significance publicly that would change the official fairy tale, then hid over 80,000 pages of documents for more than a decade and lied to Congress and the 9/11 Commission telling them they turned over everything. The Pentagon's top brass just lied and told the 9/11 Commission different conflicting stories as did the FAA.

    See points MC-6 through MC-9.

    http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/#Commands1
     
    Mr_Truth and Eleuthera like this.
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the truth could be known, I'm sure it was an equal effort by all players. Being their own HQ, likely the DIA and other pentagon agencies were more active and involved there, but I don't know for sure.

    The FBI role at Shanksville was dominant, as reported by Wally Miller and others.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some of that effort was motivated by CYA, not necessarily direct involvement.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page