The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

the credibility of your New Pearl Harbor has been called into question numerous times ... did you even watch the Coste videos? ... no you didn't ... you just want another "click" to add a nickel to your paypal account ... bring something new Scott ...

 

Bob0627 said: ↑
I
I answer legitimate questions, not idiotic ones such as "who planted the evidence" (for example).

ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
)
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.

 

Thanks for confirming my point about you. You rarely ever have anything adult or intelligent to discuss about 9/11, you are not only dismissed, you've been intellectually absent for years now in this section of the forum, the only one you ever post in Mr. Hobby.

 

Maybe it was UFOs.

 

Unlikely, someone would have seen them.

 

the confirmation is only in your mind ... you don't know anything about me and this thread is not about me ... the thread is about what happened at the Pentagon ...I have addressed the evidence while you choose to dismiss it and instead focus on the lack of evidence that you so desperately require, though you would find a reason to dismiss that as well if provided due to your preconceived notions about what happened on that fateful day ...

please let me know when you want to address the elephant in the room ...

 

No. I haven't had time to watch them yet. Could you link to something in one of those videos that debunks the security video analysis?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-39#post-1069561871

You haven't made the issue go away.

 

sure thing Scott ... give me a few minutes ...

 

Here you go Scott ... ...

but please feel free to take your time to watch the whole series and how they throw Pearl Harbor and many other troofer vids under the bus ...

 

You're FOS as usual Shiner.

1. If I didn't want to address the evidence I would have never posted the video that addresses the evidence. This thread I created begins with a discussion of both sides of the Pentagon issue and continues with that with the latest set of videos. I will always post all sides as long as I feel they are genuine and relevant.

2. Addressing evidence AND the lack of evidence IS addressing ALL the evidence. It's actually YOU who wants to address only the evidence that you believe supports the OCT and as always, dismisses the lack of evidence.

3. I have no preconceived notions as to what happened on 9/11 despite your false claims. The evidence, which includes the fake investigations, the massive amounts of classified documents/evidence is the preponderance of evidence that points to a coverup and that the OCT is a massive lie. That's not a preconceived notion, it's just plain common sense based on ALL the known evidence.

You keep saying that but you have yet to identify what you believe is the "elephant in the room".

You led me to believe you were willing to discuss the videos (ALL OF IT) but I see you really don't want to because you only want to focus on what you believe supports the OCT. If and when you want to address ALL the evidence without your usual "troofer" idiocy, perhaps an adult discussion with you can be had but I seriously doubt it based on your everyday posts on this subject. It's ok Shiner, I'm really no longer interested, you have no genuine interest and have never shown otherwise. Enjoy your idiotic "hobby".

 

There's one problem I see with the analysis of the security video analysis. At the 8:47 time mark of the video* it shows the "Plane" behind the gate-lifting mechanism. A 757 would be longer than that. The studies I used to have on this have all disappeared from the internet. Here's one I found that's a little unclear.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_20c.htm

Here's an old thread of mine on this from 2010.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208678

Most of the hotlinks are dead.

If we use the height of the Pentagon as a reference, we can calculate the space a 757 would take up behind the gate-lifting mechanism. A 757 would protrude much further than what your video shows. Do you have a link to anything on that?

There are also witnesses such as April Gallop who was quite close the the "Crash".
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/#post-1066780302

She said there was no plane crash but an explosion. I'll have to watch more of this series but right now I'm wondering if this was put together by professional sophists and David Chandler was gotten to. Has he changed his stand on building 7?


edit 30 minutes later
-----------------------------------

Here's some more info I just found. I haven't looked at all of it but what I've looked at so far seems objective.
https://www.sott.net/article/124500...Pentagon-on-9-11-and-Neither-Did-a-Boeing-757


another edit
---------------------------

Here's another video.

the 9/11 video that was aired once and never aired again




*

 

so you completely dismiss Costes analysis without even watching the the entire vid and cling to what? ... I guess April Gallop is the linchpin in all of this ...

please watch the whole of what Bob posted and ... ??? never mind ... troofers are extremely afraid of actual physical evidence ...

watch the Coste presentation and tell me with a straight face that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon ...

 

Here's what I was looking for.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/top-ten-911-cons-fraud-vitiates.html
(excerpt)
--------------------------------
When the image of a Boeing 757 is sized to the tail of “the plane”, it turns out to be more than twice as long as what the frame shows, which means it cannot possibly be a Boeing 757. But, as Dennis Cimino has observed, it could have been a Global Hawk, which may have fired a missile into the building, where the white plume is not from the exhaust of any jet engine but from the solid-propellant engine of a Maverick. The fragile composition of the Global Hawk would have made it an ideal delivery system, since it would have been obliterated into tiny parts upon impact with the Pentagon.
--------------------------------

Check out the pictures. This will settle the whole issue. We need some good overhead pictures so we can do the math. I did it before but all of the pictures I used in that thread I posted have disappeared.

 

A Global Hawk is not capable of carrying tons of 757 parts, and all those human bodies.

 

Hey Shinebox

You've watched the whole series. Is this issue dealt with?

9/11 - The Impossible Case of Flight 175?



If so, could you link to it? If not, could you comment on it? I'm referring to the first issue dealt with, the issue of the wrong engine being planted on the street.

 

I dealt with all of this on page #1 of this thread. Go look at the posts.

 

Chandler is a straight shooter, no one got to him from what I can gather. I posted some of my thoughts on Chandler's objective at Post #784. He has not at all changed his mind about the towers on 9/11. This is in fact his website and it's full of detail about his research on the subject.

http://911speakout.org/

I also posted his Free Fall article not long ago. You can find that link at the top of the first page on his website. Here's the thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/free-fall-by-david-chandler-discussion.531942/

To expand a bit on my viewpoint on the Pentagon, the videos have caused me to lean more on the side of the possibility that a large airliner may have impacted the Pentagon on 9/11 although I'm still having a hard time believing it because of many other factors. But again, even if that did happen, it doesn't settle many other issues by any means. For example:

1. There's no conclusive physical evidence that it was AA77 and the fact that there was no parts match or that there was and they refused to open it up on 2 FOIA requests tells me they're hiding the results for very good reason.

2. The fact that there were no serial numbers on the FDRs/VCRs makes no sense unless they are not authentic and that's being covered up.

3. There's not a chance in hell Hani executed the maneuver according to the OCT claim. If a terrorist truly wanted to crash into the Pentagon, much more damage and loss of life could have been achieved by simply diving into the center of the Pentagon instead of executing the crazy maneuver as claimed. That tells me there is some specific reason for what was done. Perhaps because of the audit (with regard to the missing $trillions), perhaps to minimize damage and loss of life or some other reason we don't know about.

4. The entire OCT is one massive lie and coverup so there's no reason to believe anything officially claimed with regard to the Pentagon.

These are just some major issues off the top of my head, there's plenty more.

 

His original intent was probably to hit the center, but could not recover from where he was.
He would have been going too fast.
And was already too low.

 

Yeah of course, why didn't I think of that? Yeah the only "simulater" I ever touched was MS Flight Simulator back in the day, so what do I know? Hani must have told you that, right? Or perhaps you were his co-pilot? I remember about a year ago discussing 9/11 with a guy who swears he saw Muslims piloting the planes on 9/11 on TV. No, not Shiner lol.

For every detail of the OCT, there's always an apologist excuse for the thousands of convenient coincidences/anomalies that occurred that day.

 

Perhaps you can come up with another reason he hit the outside wall.

He also could have been aiming for it, much easier than hitting the center.

We'll probably never learn of his intentions, unless someone from the Saud royal family turns traitor.

 

What do you mean? "he" didn't consult you? I should come up with a reason? It's not my job, that's what real criminal investigations are for.

The center? The Pentagon is a bulls eye from the air. In your Red Baron expert opinion it's much easier to hit a 77 ft. wall just off the ground from a precision spiral descent than diving anywhere into a 33.5 acre target? Some of these apologist excuses are more insane than UFOs brought down the towers.

But you figured it out, including who "he" is because they told you who "he" is.

 

actually it is much easier to hit the wall than to dive into the center.
and he was not in a precision spiral decent.
Though a spiral decent is standard procedure to lose altitude.
He first learned that in a Cessna.

 

You keep repeating that as if the dive had to be directly into the center and not just anywhere within a 33.5 acre target. Excuses, excuses.

Sure. Excuses, excuses.

 

Obviously you're not understanding what you read.
A center hit might be what he wanted, maybe not, we'll never know.
A center hit would have been more difficult.

And BTW, he has the same turn and bank indicator he had in a Cessna.
In fact, all of the main instruments are the same.

 

Obviously you're creating a red herring with your center hit BS. "He" had a 33.5 acre target to hit, period. A center hit would not only have been difficult but would have caused less damage since there's 5 acres of open space in the center. The greatest amount of damage would have been a hit ANYWHERE off center.