The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

No Bob, you repeat your rather distorted opinions. Thanks for the advice, I pretty much do that already to avoid the tedium.

Meh, quite obviously you are afflicted with that problem.

Total nonsense. Kindly show me which parts on any aircraft have serial numbers logged per plane.

Which is nothing to do with identification or correlation with the actual plane the part came from.

I never claimed such expertise, nor do I need any to identify clear and major differences between this crash and the ones that the Colonel is referring to.

I agree with his claim. I pointed out why it is not relevant to the Pentagon crash.

Is English your first language? Quite clearly, the claim, in context, refers to why there are major differences between what was left after the crash, compared to what the colonel would normally expect. How on Earth you attribute this to a reference to plane identification is absurd.

You have a real problem with reading it seems. You claim it is the burden of proof of the US government to prove it is a plane. THAT is a lie. It is not.

The recovered and photographed parts show what plane it is. The dna from the bodies from the passenger manifest show what flight it was. It's not rocket science Bob. I struggle to see why you "truthers" make up such nonsensical side shows like no planes!

Kindly explain what happened to the actual planes and why they couldn't just say they found bits from it? The question of providing bits from planes that struck the target is the ridiculous proof claims from hopeless individuals. If there were reports correlating every found part and released, you and others would simply claim they were fabricated. What possible reason is there to establish that the plane that hit was the plane that was claimed to have hit? Just to placate the mad hordes who say there weren't planes? Meh!

This ridiculous back and forth is pathetic. The burden of proof lies with those making the extraordinary claim. Witnesses saw planes striking the towers and the Pentagon. The damage is consistent with such impacts. The dna recovered matches said flights.

Absurd response. I pointed out that you are aware of the burden of proof and where it lies. Your insistence that it lies with identifying the planes from serial numbers of parts is made up crap.

You have been spouting this crap too long. You've lost direction totally. If no planes are suggested, the location and disposal of the real plane needs to be proven. It is so obvious it leaps up and smacks you in the face.

Hey, good for you Bob, keep going. You may actually get somebody in official circles to laugh at you for your over the top complaints.

 

Thankfully I have no need to be "taken seriously" by the likes of you! The airPLANE was identified by the dna matching passengers who boarded the aircraft. I am aware of no process apart from a very few major parts and the tail ID, that enable the airframe to be identified. Got any links that explain it all?

Good lord man, you are repeating a 911 myth at me.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=No_hijackers_on_the_passenger_manifests

CNN published a victims list. They did not include the SOBs who did it.

I'm sure lots of very substantial things convince you of this. In your mind.

A rather idiotic claim that ignores witness testimony, impact size and damage and makes no explanation for why they wouldn't use the actual plane or what happened to it.

 

You're ignoring this witness.

National Security Alert - Part 6/9 - Sensitive Information

(5:10 time mark)

It continues here.
National Security Alert - Part 7/9 - Sensitive Information



In a fraud the size of this one, there are going to be planted bogus witnesses. There are also witnesses who say they saw a smaller plane.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

This is consistent with real witnesses seeing a smaller plane hit the Pentagon and a bunch of planted fake witnesses saying they saw a 757 hit the Pentagon.

You know there are plausible explanations for this.
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-pentagon.html

 

Yes.
someone is bat sh-t crazy

 

This is ridiculous Scott.

Why is it you can discount the witness testimony I by suggesting they can by lying, mistaken, or whatever, but you turn around and expect the witnesses YOU provide to believed?

 

Explain to everyone here how you determined the witnesses that SUPPORT YOUR BELIEFS as "real witnesses" while the witnesses that "DON'T SUPPORT YOUR BELIEFS as "planted fake witnesses.

I'd love to hear your reasoning.

 

That's not what I'm saying. If there are a bunch of witnesses who say contradictory things, we can't just choose the ones who say what we want to be true and ignore the rest which is what Betamax seems to be doing. I'm saying that witness testimony isn't absolute proof and we have to rely on physical evidence such as the lack of plane parts with serial numbers and the fact that the crash site isn't consistent with a 757's having crashed there.


Tell us what you think of the lack of plane parts with serial numbers.

 

Only certain parts would have numbers.
An N-number on the tail. which burnt up
An N-number on the dashboard, which burnt up.
Some of the avionics, which may or may not be recorded.

They don't have serial numbers, they have part numbers.
They tell you what kinds of planes that part fit, who made it,
and what batch it was in..

 

There is no contradictory testimony. The only thing we need to establish is that it was a plane. Done.

Do something amazing and keep your conjecture and hopeless opinion to yourself. The whole approach and impact is 100% consistent with a plane. The internal damage resulted in 1/5 of the building being rebuilt. The DNA examined identified most of the plane passengers. Case closed.

Serial numbers on parts for planes are not logged according to registration. Explain why you require this information, especially as you are the exact kind of person who would claim it was false!

 

He says he saw a passenger aircraft!

Moronic circular logic. Increasing the number of people in the know.

These are witnesses from a long distance away.

Bullcrap organisation specialising in distorting facts.

Idiotic claim. This is consistent with people far away assuming it was small and people nearby correctly identifying it.

You don't know what the word plausible means. You think it is any bullcrap that supports your madness.

I asked why use anything other than a plane, when it entailed disposing invisibly of the actual plane and involving a whole host of extras. I didn't ask for one of your idiot links where some random troofah talks out of his butt.

 

You ignored this.

(post #172) (seventeen twenty eight) (How do you make these smiles go away?)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-87#post-1069996982

Take another look at this...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

...and the top of post #1730.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-87#post-1069997111

Viewers:

Start watching this video at the 30:25 time mark.

9/11 Painful Deceptions - 2005 (full length)

All I know is what this guy said.

http://www.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.
----------------------------------------------------------------


He seems to be an expert and he says it's not normal. This would make an objective truth-seeker suspicious. You don't seem to be an objective truth-seeker.

 

Oh really? Seems to be EXACTLY what you're saying according to your quote below.

"REAL WITNESSES" supporting a smaller plane which supports your claim that the government is lying versus "A BUNCH OF PLANTED FAKE WITNESSES" supporting a 757.

 

LOLOLOL

Thousands, of real witnesses saw a big plane, some even identified it, over 137 recorded, overkill, they don't need that many.

 

You pathetic person. You put up a video where a YouTube moron speculates that flight 77 landed and they shipped the bodies to Dover?

PROVE IT! I ignore speculation from imbeciles. I did not see any evidence.

No. Once was enough. Airplane.

His testimony transcribed here:-

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

He said it was a passenger jet. He also says it occurred after the explosion. His testimony sounds very suspect. He claims he heard an explosion then ran out and saw the passenger jet. Makes zero sense.

Moronic speculation and preposterous comparison. The shuttle didn't impact anything and didn't burn unabated in an enclosed space!

You shameless spammer. You totally ignored my response!

He isn't an expert and his observation is irrelevant.

The plane was deliberately NOT slowed down, no fuel dump was performed to limit fire, it was an enclosed space and the objective was to destroy the craft. NONE of the crashes the colonel referred to had any of those criteria. Which part of your brain fails to get that?

 

I don't need to show you anything, the burden of proof is not on me (or you for that matter). Airplane parts identification is SOP for any airplane crash investigation per NTSB protocol, never mind for an event such as 9/11. There is a video of a NTSB guy at the Pentagon site claiming a recovered part with a visible serial number will be used to identify the airplane. Furthermore, the director of the NTSB testified that the parts identification was completed by the FBI with the assistance of the NTSB (only for the alleged AA77 and not for the other 3 claimed airplanes). Your denying and apologist position doesn't change the facts or the history. The only controversy here is what exactly was the result and the details of the alleged forensic parts match procedure since the FBI denied 2 FOIA requests for the documentation. If and when and ONLY if and when that gets resolved will we ever get to begin to uncover what really happened at the Pentagon. Until that happens, there will be all sorts of claims made by all sorts of people and these can only be regarded as speculative. As to the official claims, they can ALL be discounted as unreliable since no legitimate official investigation has ever been conducted and much of it makes no sense, is improbable if not impossible and is known to be filled with lies and distortions, not mention that a huge amount of it is still classified to this day under false pretext.

The rest of your post is worthless garbage that has nothing to do with the FACTS or this particular issue.

 

LOLOL

You're the one making the stupid claims about serial numbers,
even after you were corrected countless times.

In fact, I see you posting the same sh-t, over and over,
after people corrected you

How long did you fly Bobbie.

You ever build anything on an aircraft.

Parts have part numbers, not serial numbers, big difference.

 

Wrong Bob. You can repeat, rinse, repeat this crap until you are blue in the face(and I fully expect you will), but the fact of the matter is that the visible evidence and the recovered parts, together with passenger DNA, shows quite clearly that the plane hit the Pentagon. It is up to the mad claimants who say otherwise to provide proof of their claim.

Correct. Nobody disagrees with that. With you so far.

Yes. He will use the part number to identify the part and batch, then check this part against the aircraft. The vas majority of part numbers are not logged against the actual plane it is fitted to, just the type. There are over a million parts on an aircraft like this, do you think they have someone with a clipboard writing them down?! Major components yes, engine yes, but the millions of smaller stuff - no.

I have no problem with that whatsoever. I know nothing about tractors, but if you gave me a part, a number and a list of things that used that part, I or anyone could do this. Same with an aircraft.

Bullcrap. There is nothing controversial about the results. As for FOIA requests, you get idiots like this screwing things up:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...cuments-to-just-shut-up-go-away-forever.shtml

Explain why they could not just make it up and give that to the requestor?

Hogwash. A plane hit the Pentagon. Anyone who says otherwise needs to offer more than hot air and speculation.

How obtuse of you Bob. If fact-less tripe was the yardstick for worthless garbage, virtually your whole repertoire could be consigned to the trash can! You're lucky that people can be bothered to respond to you.

 

No I'm 100% correct, the burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the claimant, that is a universally accepted fact. And in this case (9/11 and the Pentagon issue) the claimant is the US government. This isn't even arguable, except perhaps for you.

None of that has anything to do with burden of proof. The burden of proof is still and always will be with the US government. No one needs to prove anything for the US government as OCT grovelers always seem to try to do or prove a negative.

None of your conjectures have anything to do with the facts nor am I interested in an internet jockey, especially an OCT apologist attempting to explain something you know nothing about as evidenced by your posts. All airplane parts for any major airliner are logged regardless of how many there are and these, when recovered, are always forensically analyzed and matched to the logs in airplane crashes, NTSB SOP.

For YOU there's nothing controversial about anything with respect to the OCT, it is what you were fed to believe it is. Fortunately, you are no one who means anything and for millions of others (including myself) we are not as easy or as gullible. We do not readily buy unsupported fairy tale explanations by the US government as fact or truth. EVERYTHING is controversial and up for scrutiny, including and especially anything with respect to 9/11. That's why many experts have studied the OCT in meticulous detail and questioned every single official conclusion. That's why there's an ongoing effort for a grand jury investigation into certain aspects of the OCT which will likely be greatly expanded depending on what can of worms are exposed (and that can is already open).

Non sequitur. If you don't accept FOIA as a valid instrument to hold the US government accountable, that's your problem, others do. How others use or misuse FOIA is irrelevant.

Anyone can say anything, who cares? What matters (with respect to 9/11) is what the US government claims and whether it's true or false. What matters are all the unanswered challenges to what the US government claims.

If your worthless garbage is obtuse to you then I'm quite ok with that, it's still worthless garbage to me.

 

Used to identify what planes used that part.
If it's a tail, it is the planes number.

 

No Bob, as I said, you can bleat and restate the same error over and over, it will never be correct. The evidence shows a plane struck the Pentagon. Those claiming this to be wrong need to prove their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Wrong again Bob. It is everything to do with the burden of proof. DNA provides proof it was THE actual plane. Witnesses saw the plane. The hole is plane shaped. The damage is consistent with this. Parts photographed are from a plane. Which parts of that are you proving were wrong? Oh, that would be none of them.

You can repeat, rinse, repeat this crap until you are blue in the face(and I fully expect you will), but the fact of the matter is that the visible evidence and the recovered parts, together with passenger DNA, shows quite clearly that the plane hit the Pentagon. It is up to the mad claimants who say otherwise to provide proof of their claim.

Bob, try not to come across as embittered old fool who nobody cares about. Nothing in that excerpt was conjecture and you referring to "facts" is not consistent with the actual facts you fail to acknowledge.

No Bob. Hopelessly wrong. Are you suggesting all the screws, washers, rubber parts, fabric etc are logged? Wow, you really are stuck in your rubber room.

I don't take anything on face value. But unlike you, I don't bitch and whine about something because I don't understand it.

Millions? If that is true, there are an awful lot of very gullible easily led people around. YOU are the gullible ones.

Yes, and what if it doesn't find what nonsense you expect it to? You will just dismiss it.

It shows how mad the people asking for the FOIA's are. It also shows how backlogged the system can get, when idiots misuse it. It is also not evidence of foul play that no data has been released.

This thread is about whether a plane hit the Pentagon isn't it? The evidence says yes. Anything else said, need evidence to back it up.

Don't manipulate my quotes. I've fixed it for you!

 

Something probably flew into the pentagon, but it was not AA77.

 

Sorry but there's nothing in your post I'm interested in responding to because I've already made my points and I'm not going to repeat myself or go around in circles with you. Except for this new misconception which I will correct you on:

Not exactly, it's called "The Pentagon on 9/11" and if you read the very first post in this thread, it's really about all the controversy regarding the Pentagon on 9/11 with respect to those who don't buy the OCT. Your posts strongly imply there is no controversy at all because whatever you were fed by the US government is absolutely true and in your world anyone who believes otherwise has the burden of proof (another idiotic fallacy) to prove a negative. So if you read the last sentence of the first post, you would know this thread is not really for you. And IMO you have nothing interesting to post in this thread as shown by your posts. It's the same old regurgitated OCT bible that you pray to each day. Posters such as yourself only need to post the links to the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports and say amen, it's what they post 24/7 anyway.

 

Or if it was AA77, that would require incontrovertible proof from the claimant, the US government. But even if that was provided (and to be sure it never was or the "evidence" is all suspect), that still would not account for what really happened (the official story makes no sense). In other words, who or (more likely) what flew that plane? How is it that it was capable of approaching the Pentagon unmolested? What really happened between loading at the airport and crash? Why was the chain of command AWOL? etc.

 

Your sleuthing skills are a little lacking. Your carefully thought out opinion is free from any evidence and direct from the troofah's bible. Not much use even to Bob.