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. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Scott you're digging a big hole for yourself...
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're leaving out answering a whole swathe of quotes from him.

    Technically it isn't a jet is what he said. And his whole testimony is a touch mixed up.

    I think his interview has been manipulated by CIT and/or he is misinterpreting what they are asking him. See below for observations confirming this.

    Here's the official interview(without loaded questions!) and it is really contradictive to his CIT interview. He is NOT talking about the Pentagon impact for the explosion immediately before he ran out. It is also some 25 minutes before the Pentagon is actually hit! It makes no sense at all. He is talking about the SECOND plane in New York. He talks about the TV saying a second plane hits and he goes outside and sees a commercial aircraft over the South Parking lot at 9.11/9.12 am.

    Go to 1min 10 seconds!
    https://www.loc.gov/item/afc911000155/

    Don't dare accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting anything, this whole issue is one huge confusing account. It makes no sense in terms of time, position, direction and does NOT refer to the impact of the Pentagon since he quite specifically says he saw the "silver commercial aircraft" a full 25 mins before anything hit the Pentagon.

    HERE, your own video 1:22, he hangs up the phone after seeing the New York crash on TV! He saw "another plane" - and that of course can't mean in addition to the ones he just saw on TV? Then dust from the ceilings? How he's outside?! People screaming? Could it be because of the second plane hitting the WTC? It CANNOT be the Pentagon impact, at 9.11/9.12 in his own words 25 minutes early.



    You want to know my position? I have no idea what this guy is talking about.

    I think the "truthers" have deliberately manipulated his interview with loaded questions or failed to look at it objectively and accurately. I can't find the full interview and I have no idea what edits they may or may not have made to it!

    I dare you just for once to discuss this properly and with no pre-loaded conclusions.

    Where is the full audio for the CIT interview?

    Some questions:

    1. Does he or does he not say the aircraft is going EXTREMELY FAST?

    2. Does he say he failed to count the TWO engines that he said were JETS?

    3. How can anybody see a plane long enough to notice they were jets but fail to count them when there are only 2?!


    4. Does he say it is doing a U-TURN?

    5. Does he say he saw it at 9.11/9.12 am?

    6. Does he say he witnesses the WTC second crash on the TV then goes outside IMMEDIATELY after?

    7. How is THAT even possible, since the WTC second crash is at 9.03?

    8. How could he possibly be referring to the Pentagon impact a full 25 minutes before it occurs?
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2019
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NOW, further to his own timings, he talks about getting people out of the building and helping them away.

    https://www.loc.gov/item/afc911000155/

    More consistent with the ACTUAL PENTAGON crash at 4:32 in that interview he receives intel about another aircraft coming in, in 15 minutes time! This would be a few minutes after he left at 9.11/12

    All this jumbled up between the rescue of people out of the building, where he suddenly jumps to 3pm.

    Makes no sense at all.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Scott,

    Please explain your contradiction noted above. You said you believe a 757 performed the flyover and that Roberts saw that same 757 over the south parking lot. Now your saying it was a small executive jet or fighter plane he saw?

    Which is it?
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Scott,

    Below is the view of the south parking, the east dock, the explosion location, and the direction of the supposed flyover 757.
    overheadwhite2.jpg

    Explain to me how the 757 that supposedly flew over the Pentagon could be over the south parking lot 10 seconds after the explosion, no matter WHICH direction it was headed? 10 seconds flying at 530 mph in the supposed direction it was headed at the time it flew over, puts that plane out over the Potomac.
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roflol:

    That had to be the most convoluted/ridiculous explanation to get out of screwing something up that I've ever heard.

    In the past, when you specifically meant the "wing of an airplane", you would refer to that object as an "AIRplane wing." When you were referring to a "plane (flat surface) in the shape of a wing", but NOT on an airplane, you referred to that object as a "plane wing"?

    :roflol:

    That's just awesome!
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So when you said this statement below located at...
    https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...a-11.html?highlight=plane+wing#post1064274638

    ...you were actually talking about a "flat surface in the shape of a wing" filled with fuel, but not an actual "airplane wing".

    What a joke.
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can clear this up. I actually mixed my two quotes up, looks like he did too.

    When he said this:
    "He said it was a jet as opposed to a large commercial aircraft. It's pretty clear that when he said "Jet", he was referring to a small executive jet or a fighter."

    What he meant was this:
    "He said it wasn't a jet as opposed to a large commercial aircraft. It's pretty clear that when he said it wasn't a "Jet", he was referring to a small executive jet or a fighter."

    It's pretty clear. Like a bucket of mud.
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    One has to wonder why Koko used only a portion of the full image.
    39270431_1024215034427169_3121549700650500096_n.jpg

    Could it be that the full image gives an idea of the diameter of the pole, what it's made of, and who it's anchored to the ground? I mean that pole in the photo above is SOOOO similar to a lightpole's
    characteristics towards the top isn't it?
     
  11. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    was the leading edge of the wing making contact? ...

    the entire nose clip of an F1 car, which include the "wings", weighs about 8 lbs ... deduce the weight of a single wing from the nosecone, the other wing, fairings and connection hardware and you come up with a very lightweight piece of nothing compared to a rigid pole ... why would he even use this as an analogy? ...

     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Because Koko thought (or lied about it) the FEA gif he used was of a "plane wing" and used it to make his point of how weak a "plane wing" would be against a pole. I did a little research into that FEA gif he used and found out it was actually a Formula 1 front end and called him out on it. That's when Koko came up with his "When I said "plane wing" I meant that it was a flat surface in the shape of a wing and not an AIRplane wing" gobbledygook.

    Here is the gif he posted with "plane wing" in the caption. He wants everyone to believe he meant a "flat surface in the shape of a wing" and not an "airplane wing" that was being discussed forever.
    planewing.PNG
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was just a typographical error. I think all of the viewers can see that he meant that it wasn't a small jet such as a fighter or exectutive model, but a large airliner which is consistent with its having been a 757.

    Where the plane went after it flew over the Pentagon is not clear but he saw it flying over the Pentagon after the explosion on the other side. This would make an objective truth-seeker wonder. You people are not wondering. You're trying to muddy the waters to mislead those viewers who don't watch all the video. Once they've watched it, there's nothing you can do. What he says is clear enough. The only rational argument you could use would be that he's lying.

    Hey viewers:

    Here's where you can see the important stuff without having to watch two hours of video.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...estigation-team.548562/page-4#post-1070076404

    Do a you tube search on...

    "The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2"

    ...and start watching at the 41:50 time mark.
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why are you not answering question Scott?

    Regardless of what direction Roberts saw the plane going, he supposedly saw, according to you, the same 757 that flew over the pentagon OVER THE SOUTH PARKING LOT.

    10 seconds after the explosion happened.

    I want you to explain to me how a 757 could be over the SOUTH PARKING LOT 10 seconds after the explosion.

    It's impossible and the reason why you won't discuss. It destroys your claims.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Scott, see image below. Roberts was standing at the east loading dock, marked with the yellow dot. He arrived there 10 seconds after the explosion. He saw a plane over the south parking lot (marked on the image below with the red hatching).

    Explain how a 757 went from the red circle, indicating the point of the explosion /flyover, to being over the red hatched area indicating the south parking lot, in ten seconds.

    Impossible.
    imageproxy.jpg
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is incorrect as usual.

    It was not "over the Pentagon on the other side". It was over the south parking lot.

    Let's do some math Scott. The distance from the point of explosion/flyover at the west wall of the Pentagon to the furthest, eastern point of the south parking lot is about 2,300 feet per Google maps. Tell me how fast the 757 would have to be going in order to be at that furthest, eastern point. That would be 2,300 feet from the west wall in ten seconds.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I talked about that back in post #2135.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-107#post-1070093418

    I thought it would be feasible if the plane did about an eighty degree turn to the right and continued south as it could have flown over the east corner of the South Parking lot.
    If a plane is traveling at landing speed, ten seconds seems about right if he saw the plane after it had flown a few hundred yards past the Pentagon.

    Watch the video from the 44:40 time mark to the 45:23 time mark. Then watch it again from the 52:25 time mark until the 59:35 time mark.

    He says it looked like it had gone over the Mall entrance side (see video at the 56:26 time mark) and then flew around and flew over the Lane one Area of the South parking lot.
    http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/850333cb31ee.jpg

    I didn't notice that part before.

    That would mean that it did a big u-turn to the right and came back as he said it flew over Highway 27. Ten seconds does sound a little short for that much maneuvering. The maneuver sounds possible in more than ten seconds; he might have gotten the time wrong. The important thing is that he saw a big jetliner with jet engines after the big explosion. His not being clear on where it went or the time is important but not important enough to ignore the fact that he saw a big jetliner after the explosion.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No Scott.

    I', not saying he didn't see a large commercial jet. I'm telling you it was not the same 757 that you propose flew over the Pentagon. It's impossible. He saw A DIFFERENT AIRCRAFT. That's the only explanation. He never says the plane he saw was the same one that flew over. That's what YOU'RE saying.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
     
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course the math doesn't add up but he seemed confused at the time of the interview and was just having trouble remembering times. He was going to draw the route for the CIT but the goons got to him before he could do it and he later backed out on that.

    All of the other witnesses only saw one plane so it's plausible that he saw the same plane but was confused as he was driving when he gave the interview.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right. Different plane as the maneuvering you imply had to be made was impossible to get it back over the south parking lot in the ten seconds.

    Talk about cherry picking Roberts testimony to suit your own agenda...
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So at this point you think he was confused about:
    1. Times
    2. Location of the plane he saw
    3. Direction it was traveling

    Yet you are POSITIVE he saw the type of plane he said he saw and wasn't confused. Why do you claim all his testimony that proves your claim wrong as being unreliable because he was confused, yet the testimony you use from him IS reliable?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  23. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the goons got to him? ... really Scott? ... the same goons who were in on this ridiculous plot? ... did Roberts mention any "goons"? ...
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Scott,

    Math shows you to be 100% wrong on your claim. Until you can produce the math that shows the plane being over the south parking lot in the timeframe specified, you're done here. Math HAS been provided that shows your claim to be IMPOSSIBLE and you can't refute it one bit. That's why you keep linking videos instead of actually refuting things.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're not using the scientific method. He says he saw a large jetliner doing impossible maneuvers. What we have to do is make a list of all the plausible scenarios. One is that he's simply lying. Another is that he remembered the time the maneuver took wrong as he was driving when he gave the interview and it was some time later (several years I think). Another might be that some goons from the government made him an offer he couldn't refuse and gave him a scenario that he had better describe to the CIT. They do stuff like this.

    Sammy Davis Jr - The Kid in the Middle . Documentary

    (30:45 time mark)


    You're just choosing the scenario that fits your foregone conclusion. I'm not entirely sure what happened. I don't rule out the idea that he's lying and didn't see a plane but I'm not going to rule out the idea that he saw a plane either.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page