The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

And YOU seem to have an a priori incredulity when you look at skeptic info and a naive willingness to believe when you look at truther info.

I can play this same game too Scott.

When are you going to refute things with actual information instead of opinions?

 

Saying the parts are interchangable is pretty lame and doesn't make this go away.

(posts #913 and #914)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-46#post-1069601368


Your attitude doesn't fit the situation.


edit
----------------------

I showed that the part on the street didn't come from a 767. You people didn't deny that but you said the parts were interchangeable and linked to a site on which someone said that. Why are you so satisfied that this guy wasn't a sophist?

 

You post a link as proof, and it has dead links?!

You're kidding right?

 

Sorry, I posted pictures of what you say didn't exist and your refutation is simply "they can't be trusted"?!

That's REALLY lame Sott.

 

A sophist can post a picture of an engine and say it's a 767 engine. Only a technician would know without doing research. I did research and it became clear that the part on the plane on the street was not a 767 engine part. I'm no technician but I used to work on cars. Do you really think that two parts that look totally different could be interchangeable?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-46#post-1069601345

That sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

You're really getting desperate now. All we have to do is find a good overhead picture that shows the whole area and we can do the math again. I made that clear. You're being deliberately obtuse.

 

Scott, explain something.

Fetzer makes this claim from the link above:

When I measure the 757 in his photo and compare it to the actual plane shown, I only get 1.36 times bigger, not "double" like he claims. Why the lie?

 

Please, let's do. Address the quote from Fetzer's site as to how much bigger the plane is.

 

How come he didn't use a 757 shown at the angle the plane came in on? I did. Uh oh!

 

He's probably allowing for the angle. Anyway, it can all be proven once we find an overhead photo that shows the whole area. I'm googling around but I can't find one that shows the trees in the background of this picture.
https://256stuff.com/cgi-bin/pix?/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/pictures/pentagon/000_m.jpg&nc&nb

We find the point at which the corners of the gate-lifting mechanism touch the trees in the overhead photo and connect them with the gate-lifting mechanism with lines. Then we use the length of the side of the Pentagon as a reference point to calculate the length between the two points that represent the front and back of the craft. This has been done and it shows that whatever that is behind the gate-lifting mechanism is way to short to be a 757.

 

No he's not!! He got it completely wrong as I have just proven! He lied about the size and then he used the wrong photo and didn't allow for the angle the plane came in at!

You need to address this and not just handwave it away like you just tried to do.

 

You need to first address the Fetzer screw up before we move on. Funny how quickly to are trying to move beyond this.

 

Why not, every time they are busted, all they do is move on to another preposterous claim.

 

You made that post as I was working on the reply to the other post and I didn't see it until I'd made my post.

It's hard to tell what the angle is from the side. An overhead picture is needed. For all we know his plane is at twenty degrees and yours is at forty five degrees. Anyway, with an overhead picture we can draw the correct angle and simply do the math.


edit
----------------

I've got to leave soon and I won't have time to do any posting tomorrow unless some of my work cancels.

 

Twenty degrees!? You think Fetzer's image shows a plane at 20 degrees?!

The photo that Fetzer used is a SIDE PHOTO of the plane. Are you blind? Here, I'll post it again.

 

If it were a side photo, the engines would be almost parallel.

 

I think this will be my last post today.

Here's something I found while googling around.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Pentagon.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------
The Pentagon was attacked by bomb(s) at or around 9:32 am, possibly followed by an impact from an airborne object significantly smaller than Flight 77, a Boeing 757. . . .

Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack that morning, and that his pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. The fighter jet - not flight 77 - is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller's screen making a steep, high-speed 270-degree descent before disappearing from the radar. . . .

Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon's anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building.--Barbara Honegger, "The Pentagon Attack Papers," physics911.net, September 6, 2006]

 

Speaking of “dodging”, you claimed that what I posted that every person who dies from a gunshot is automatically autopsied and there’s a pathology report that follows is “patently false”.

I asked you to post ONE (1) example where that wasn’t done and you have yet to do so Shiner Dodger.

 

I didn't dodge anything bob as it is hard to prove negatives which troofers constantly try to do ... there is nothing on the books for "when not to do an autopsy" ...you try to run with the most preposterous lies ... face the facts and quit lying bob ... you made the claim about gunshot victims ... now back it up or shut the **** up ...

 

Your phoniness knows no bounds Shiner. You can’t even acknowledge the simplest of truths if it has to do with a 9/11 investigation analogy you don’t like.

When you say something is “patently false” you’re in fact saying it is easily demonstrably false. Yet you can’t provide even one single example of how it’s remotely false, never mind demonstrably. As already stated just google “no autopsy performed in a gunshot death” and not one single link provides an example, it’s just the exact opposite, ALL of them refer to autopsies performed in gunshot deaths. And the reason is that none exists, obviously. There’s even one that verifies my claim. You made a PATENTLY FALSE claim and I proved to you it was patently false.

Not that it matters but I’m even willing to concede it’s quite possible there is an exception (although I can’t find one), anything is possible more or less, but it would have to be a very rare and very unique exception. Definitely not what can be described as patently false.

And the same is true for airplane crash investigations. While a parts match could possibly have been skipped in a NTSB investigation for an airliner crash where parts were recovered, it would be extremely rare and I doubt anyone could find such a case. For an event such as 9/11 though with 4 claimed crashes it would be so egregious as to rise to the level of criminality. And indeed according to the Chairman of the NTSB she claims it was done. And that alone contradicts all these false claims that it wasn’t required.

So you can rant all you want about me lying and not facing the facts but you’re in fact describing yourself. According to you you’re a troofer.

 

quit trying psych 101 on me bob ... you made the claim about gunshot victims ... back it up ...

sucks getting caught in a lie huh bob? ...

 

Uh Bob.

I have already pointed out the simplest of truths to you, and you continue to avoid them.

 

When it comes to 9/11 anything you think is the truth is most likely a lie and vice versa. So you’re rarely posting anything that has any basis in validity. But if you truly believe in your convoluted world far be it for me to try to change your world view, enjoy it “troofer”.

 

Hey Shinebox, Gamolon and yasureoktoo...


Does this make you even a little bit suspicious of the official story?

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Pentagon.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------

Does it make you wonder even a little bit?

 

The only way that the official story can be believed is by ignoring the facts, denying reality.

 

Not at all.

And you know why?

1. How come there wasn't an outcry from the employees at the Pentagon about why the missile batteries didn't work that day? Let me guess. "Someone" got to them? They're sophists who read/follow the Metabunk website?
2. Do you have any proof of missile batteries being present at the Pentagon prior to 9/11? Photos? Articles? Anything? Construction photos/discussion?
3. If it did exist as explained by Barbara, how did this work for the Ronald Reagan Washington national airport which is about 4,000 feet away? Makes no sense whatsoever.

How about you provide some hard evidence to support her claim instead of just blindly believing it. How come you try and provide all this evidence against the claims made be the so-called "OCT", but don't do the same thing for YOUR claims?