The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

This rational is what the truthers want to disappear, so they don't have to answer to it, Next question, quick,

 

Someone who pretends to know so much about flying planes should at least know how to spell SIMULATOR.

 

Ah yes,the spelling and grammar police show up when there is no case.

and I don't know "SO much", My education in flying is very limited to Cessna's and private pilot.

But there are many things that apply to all aircraft.

Ant these so-called "truthers", depend on people like you, who know nothing about flying.

 

I usually don’t make an issue of spelling and grammar but in this case there is a case to be made. Anyone who claims to be familiar with the subject of flight should have seen the word “simulator” countless times. It just goes to show you are FOS Red Baron.

I am not a “so-called” I am Bob and if I know how to spell “simulator” and you don’t I already know more about flying than you. No one needs to depend on me for anything but one would have to be a total idiot to depend on one who claims to know about flying but can’t even spell a very common flight term such as “simulator”.

 

Bob, you don't know a thing about flying.
You cannot bullsh-t a pilot, there is too much you have to learn.

 

Sure I do I know how to spell “simulator” that's more than you know.

I wasn't trying to, there is no pilot here anyway.

 

You make that very obvious.

 

I rarely do videos about 911 anymore because for about 10 years I've understood that the official story was a fabrication, a hoax. After you reach that level, then the possibilities are endless as to exactly what did happen.

The military industrial complex, corrupted for decades, pulled off a training exercise that will be talked about for years to come. Other players had supporting roles, including judges.

 

The underlying purpose of the videos is to try to put to rest the no plane theory theorized by many who don't buy the OCT. They are several members of AE911T who feel that such a theory undermines their effort to expose the portion of the OCT that claims the 3 towers collapsed naturally on 9/11 as a consequence of planes. damage, fire or a combination. They feel they have a scientific approach that proves the towers did not collapse as claimed by the OCT. By introducing a detailed highly scientific analysis of the Pentagon event, they believe they can promote their own credibility. For me these people were always highly credible and always produced papers and videos that were very well thought out scientifically and logically. Nothing can ever be perfect so there will always be some mistakes in analysis due to a variety of reasons, especially when dealing with the limited amount of evidence available.

The videos do not settle the Pentagon issue nor do I believe they were ever intended to settle the issue. As explained in post #771, most of which was copied from the videos, there are numerous unexplained components even if AA77 or a 757 did indeed impact the Pentagon on 9/11. The fact that much of the event is hidden away in extreme secrecy by the US government is a red flag in itself that screams that there is so much more that the public at large is unaware of.

The bottom line is there is only one reason for a coverup, especially of a massive crime such as 9/11, it's always to protect the criminals.

 

If you can reach that level, you have different problems..
Other players had supporting roles.
All the police dept. from several districts
All the fire department, from several districts
all the EMT's
All the cleanup crew
All the air traffic controllers.
All the people on the grounds, of the worlds largest office building.
all the people killed in the planes.
all the people they had to kill, because they wouldn't go along with the plan.
all the government people they needed to talk to these thousands of people
all the news media.
And they probably only have 1 hour to get all this in motion, less for the eyewitnesses.

Add in all the families of these people.

De you not have any concept, just how insane that is.

 

All the ad hominems you keep trying to attribute to other posters are as insane as your phony tactics. Haven't you yet figured out all you're doing is making yourself sound insane.

 

LOLOL

I can't believe you even said that.

 

Yes, reading your post shows how insane people can be when they choose willful ignorance over informed research.

 

Well, setting aside your willful ignorance, how many people were involved, and what positions were they in.

 

where do you come up with your insane theories? ...

Eleuthera contributes plenty of whacked out theories ... I'm not putting any words in his mouth and I certainly don't use tactics ...

 

And you merely parrot and defend the official one on a regular basis. At least he's creative, you're just an echo chamber.

Really? Your prolific use of the term "troofer" is not a tactic? How about your constant avoidance of several discussion points I've brought to your attention, not just here but in many threads?

 

oh he's creative now? ... well he certainly takes a lot of creative liberty ...

and quit lying (one of your tactics) ... and stop accusing me of parroting and defending when neither is true (another one of your tactics)

laughable coming from the king of avoidance (yet another one of your tactics) ... you never answer direct questions ...

my using the term troofer is not a tactic ... I honestly think people in the truth movement are for the most part paranoid, anti-government loons, hence the term troofer ... now don't try to spin that last sentence into my being pro-government ...

when you actually address the actual physical evidence and quit harping on perceived or even genuine lack of evidence, then we might be able to have an adult conversation ... if you actually back the non evidential claims that Eleuthera makes, then you are a troofer ... funny how you never question the BS that he and Scott spout ...

drop your bias and let's discuss the evidence regarding the Pentagon ...

what have I avoided that you would like to discuss? ...

 

This actually is another tactic.
He harped on my typo for several posts, rather than answer the issue on the plate.
Another is to flood the page with countless, worthless points, to avoid the one being addressed.

 

I've never seen you do otherwise. Sure once in a blue you'll give some lip service about NIST "hacks" but for the most part all you do is parrot and defend the OCT.

I answer legitimate questions, not idiotic ones such as "who planted the evidence" (for example).

You just contradicted yourself. You generalize by ridiculing those who don't buy the OCT. Name calling/assigning labels is a tactic, a false one at that. Everyone is an individual, there is no cult here. Many are not satisfied with the OCT, don't believe it and/or want to know the truth and everything that's being covered up. It doesn't make them a cult of some kind. having said that organizations such as AE911T and the 9/11 Consensus Panel are better off united in some sense when questioning the US government, rather than individually. There is strength in numbers. These organizations have done a tremendous job bringing 9/11 to the forefront and causing many extensive studies to be undertaken. The ones you constantly attack by ridicule and publicly hope they will disappear. Why on earth wouldn't you hold the US government's feet to the fire for an event such as 9/11 if you're not "pro-government"? Are you really that terrified that something may come out you don't want to hear?

It's difficult to imagine otherwise. I never see you attack NIST, the 9/11 Commission or the Bush administration in any detail with respect to 9/11. I have seen you defend these entities on many occasions though. "CYA" is not the all-purpose answer to their actions/non-actions with regard to 9/11, that's just an easy copout. The same kind they propagandize with their "failure of imagination" idiocy made for gullible children. You praise "good science" but how on earth could you possibly accept that trash as good science?

That makes no sense. First I do address the actual physical evidence whenever and wherever appropriate. Second, there is only a genuine lack of evidence, it's not a theory or a perception. Third, if you'll quit tossing in your favorite garbage (troofer and conspiracy theorist) then maybe once in a while an adult conversation can be had with you. There have been a few rare instances. The problem is once you use that tactic, there is no adult discussion to be had with you.

The difference between you and they is that they haven't bought the official fairy tale. My focus is to question the OCT, not all the other theories out there. If you parrot and defend it, I will question YOU. Having said that, I have commented on their posts on occasion depending on context. I am not inclined to believe all the theories out there but I will listen because you never know when someone has a point to make.

I'm ready anytime you are as long as you're wiling to include the lack of evidence as well. Excluding that would be biased. It's not a one way street. Lies come in many different forms, partial truths and omissions are also lies.

Most of what I posted with respect to the videos.

Post #731 (last sentence)
Post #733
Post #750 (second paragraph, last sentence)
Post #768
Post #771 (only addressed superficially, no detail despite the long list I provided)

 

Hey Shinebox

You never responded to post #773.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-39#post-1069561871

 

My theories are not really insane. They are based upon knowledge gained over many years. A few of those sources are David Ray Griffin, Michael Ruppert, Christopher Bollyn, Richard Gage, and many other private citizens who were not satisfied with President Bush's refusal to investigate the events. They began investigating on their own, and discovered all sorts of fascinating little facts.

For example, some private citizens began searching the Social Security Death Index, and discovered that in many cases the names of the deceased in the official narrative were not included. Other private citizens discovered that the passenger manifests in the official story did not include the names of the "hijackers". Other private citizens, familiar with how cell phones worked, pointed out the absurd claim of the official story regarding cell phone calls.

Even the members of the government commission pointed out 60+ times that "we found no evidence" for one part or the other of that bankrupt official story.

That you are grossly uninformed of those facts is your personal problem, not mine. That your cognitive dissonance overwhelms your rational side is another personal problem.

 

Amazing hypocrisy Bob ... you get your panties in a bunch at the term troofer but you love to throw around OCT Defender, Parrot, cognitive dissonant etc ... bog off already ...

btw, Post #731 (last sentence) doesn't have fvck all to do with the videos ... but keep trying to play your psychological games Bob ... dismissed ...

 

Who planted the evidence, and how they did it with nobody seeing them, are very legitimate questions.

It seems you and your buddy Eleuthera, after studying this for 14 years, would have some idea.

 

...