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
    Right!!

    Logic and scientific method dictates it could not have been the same plane! What are you not getting? Scientific method does not give YOU the authority to pick and choose which pieces are reliable based on when YOU think he was confused
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Delete
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

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

    He is NOT saying that. He says he saw a jetliner. over the south parking lot.

    THAT'S IT!!!!!

    You want to shoehorn this into him seeing the same 757 that you propose flew over the Pentagon. You have no evidence whatsoever to make that leap in logic.Everything points to him seeing a DIFFERENT PLANE. That's a mathematical fact because the flyover plane could NOT have made the maneuvers to be where he saw the plane.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    He did see a plane. I'm not denying that. What you continue to fail to understand is that it was a DIFFERENT plane!
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Let's make this easy Scott.

    Roberts saw a plane over the south parking lot/lane one/395/27. Do you agree with that?
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Scott":

    You have made a number of reassertions but have ignored two posts I made on the previous page. If you are going to play inept and clumsy detective, the least you can do is use some damn logic and look at what he said in context. We can judge quite clearly quite what kind of a "truther" you are from your responses to the following.

    Here are your claims and why they are ALL wrong!

    Number 1: "He was driving when he made the interview."

    No he was NOT! He quite specifically pauses to pull his car over. He said " Uh...hold on one second, uh... you caught me driving, uhm..".

    Number 2: "he saw it flying over the Pentagon after the explosion on the other side." and "What he says is clear enough."

    NOT true, he says he saw the SECOND plane hit the WTC. THEN he ran outside!

    Number 3: "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"

    He says it was doing a U-turn!!

    Number 4: If a plane is traveling at landing speed, ten seconds seems about right

    He said it was going "extremely fast"!

    I have made 3 posts on this now, kindly respond honestly to them all. This and these 2:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-109#post-1070102348
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-109#post-1070102429
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm busy today. I'll get back to you. For now the viewers can check this out in case they missed it.

    http://thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------
    Roosevelt says that the plane was 50 to less than 100 feet above the light poles in the south parking lot and was banking around. His exact direction of the bank is a bit unclear from the interview but it sounds as though he has it banking around to the north since he says towards the "mall entrance side" which is on the north side of the Pentagon.

    He says "southwest" but we think his directions were confused at that moment since it sounds like he is struggling to visualize and verbalize the proper cardinal direction which is to be expected from eyewitness recollection. He does clarify further when he says it was not banking towards the airport meaning it wasn't banking southwest after all.
    -------------------------------
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Can you point out where this "mall entrance" is exactly? Here's what I have.
    PentagonMall.PNG

    ALDO: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?
    ROOSEVELT: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.
    ALDO: Sou-southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?
    ROOSEVELT: Right.
    ALDO: Okay. Okay.
    ROOSEVELT: 'Cause it banked out, and it was like U-turning and coming around and coming out. It looked like, uh. . . for those brief seconds it looked like it- it- it, um. . . uh, how do I want to say this, uh. . . it missed the wrong target, and it was going, like. . . out of the way, like back to the airport, or something like that.
    ALDO: Oh, like- so it was headed towards the airport, it looked like.
    ROOSEVELT: Well, no, not heading towards the airport; it's almost like if a. . . if a pilot misses good he'll try to do a banking and come around, because he missed the target: he missed the landing zone.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sorry too lazy but could you pin North? ...
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    North is up.
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He saw what he said was a large jetliner with jet engines after flight 77 supposedly crashed into the Pentagon which was also a large jetliner. According to your scenario there were two large jetliners. Tell us about the second one you say was there. Your scenario is the only one I've heard in which there were two large jetliners.


    I'd better post this again.

    (post #2119)
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-106#post-1070089634
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------
    Do a YouTube search on "National Security Alert - Part 7/9 - Sensitive Information" and start listening at the 2:09 time mark. Erik Dihle said people were saying that a bomb went off in the Pentagon and a jet kept on going.

    This would make an objective truth-seeker suspicious and he would want answers. He wouldn't be playing it down.
    -------------------------------

    As I said in the above post, your ignoring this shows that you're not being objective in this debate. You seem to be trying to bury stuff to keep the viewers from seeing it so what I'm basically doing here is reposting it to thwart you. You're right. I'm not paying that much attention to what you're saying as it seems to be a waste of time. Stop playing down important stuff such as the above and I'll take you more seriously.


    Roosevelt Robert's description is so confusing that what he described might be totally different from what he'd actually seen.

    (Another experpt from post #2119)
    -------------------------------
    Do a YouTube search on this video, "The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2"

    Start watching at the 57:30 time mark. He says he saw a comercial aircraft. At the 58:30 time mark he says the plane he saw came from the direction of where the explosion was on the other side of the Pentagon.
    -------------------------------

    He said the plane was coming from the direction of the explosion. From his vantage point that would mean he saw the plane flying away from he Pentagon after having flown over it. That's where I get the idea that he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. I know he didn't actually say it had flown over the Pentagon.


    If you continue maintaining that what Erik Dihle said isn't important, you're obviously not a serious poster even though you seem to have the attitude that you're a serious poster and all the viewers can see that.


    edit 25 minutes later.
    -----------------------------------

    The location of he mall entrance can be seen here. It's at the top.
    http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/850333cb31ee.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looks pretty accurate to me, if you believe the response is any different than an airplane wing feel free to provide your unsupported opinion since I have already proven airplane wings slice off like butter, 'exactly' as shown in the fea.

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    towing, couple mph destroyed that wing and would have cut it clean off had the ground crew not reacted in time!

    Further more every aircraft has walk zones drawn on the wings because if you step outside the walk zones you will put your foot right through the wing.

    [​IMG]

    Its beyond hilarious to listen to the uninformed carry on about their invincible kryptonite shielded quadruple reinforced light pole mowers of 911, but please dont let reality stop anyone.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    to everyone reading the thread I wish to demonstrate the clear unequivocal fraud at hand, since not only have I proven that wings are sliced clean off by poles in the above gif in addition everything being demanded has been fully explained and ignored and said same poster is spamming the thread with its pretense wings do not get cut off by poles. :bored:
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    MEH!!!

    The same type of small plane you cited as having its wings sliced off, also managed to break two WOODEN telegraph poles! You ignored that. Notwithstanding that the comparison between your smaller plane hitting poles, lower down, held up with concrete foundations and a 757 hitting light poles much higher up, held up by bolts is not even remotely valid. Your gif has been answered every one of the half dozen times you have spammed it. NOT ONCE have you answered any of the points raised.

    You have been well and truly owned.
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I dont give a damn if scotty beamed the poles to alpha centauri, the ****ing WINGS WERE CUT OFF. WTF is your problem? you couldnt own me even if I had 99.99% of my brain tied behind my head.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113

    There seems to be a rather profound gap in your ability to understand and a rather unintelligent need to respond with hogwash.

    Your plane is hitting lower, less leverage and torque. Your plane is striking a wooden pole. Your plane is striking a pole held in place by solid foundation.
    The 757 is hitting higher more leverage and torque. The 757 is striking a hollow pole. The 757 is striking a pole held in place by 1 inch bolts. The 757 has a far stronger wing and is striking the pole nearer the engine with more reinforcement.

    All in all your comparison is so dumb, the word dumb doesn't do it justice.


    Your gif is not the only example, the one you continue to run away from, time and time again shows a similar plane slicing through two wooden poles.

    So many things it beggars belief:

    Your failure to acknowledge your copious errors, the examples that show your absurd errors, your deceptive gifs. And more.



    That would appear to already be the case. You have been owned numerous times and not just by me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of which prevents the wings from being cut off. (Except of course in your imagination)
    Just more of the same ridiculous pointless rhetoric you spew out here.
    Come back when you have a 'fact'.
    People can see the wing getting sliced off like a hot knife through butter.
    I posted facts you post imaginary bullshit.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
    Bob0627 likes this.
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have a problem with the quote function? What are even talking about?

    You run away from them.

    They can also understand the massive differences that you fail to even consider.

    Like this? You are afraid to respond to it.

     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please try to read for comprehension and stop posting inapplicable strawman bullshit.
    Stop spamming the thread with that strawman bullshit.
    your strawman fantasies and trash rhetoric do nothing to show wings will not be cut off when striking a pole.
    No one wants to waste their time reading about your fantasies after seeing the reality that I posted proving that wings get sliced off when striking a pole.

    When you have a single 'fact' to post please come back.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "So an 8 inch hollow pole can cut a reinforced 757 wing, but the edge of a reinforced concrete wall can't slice off the top of a tail fin!? EXPLAIN THIS!"

    Detail exactly why this is a strawman.

    Detail why more torque, a different pole strength, a different support for it, a heavier more reinforced wing etc. is a strawman.

    I just showed you a video doing exactly that. You ran away from it. I even made some pictures for those who are afraid to watch the video.

    You aren't the spokesperson for others. When you get owned in so many ways you either man up or do what you are doing and blow air out your butt.

    You ignore them. I don't recall ever kicking somebody's ass so badly as this that they failed to even notice.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thats all you got to post is bogus rhetoric, I asked for facts, please rty again and try to post just one 'fact' this time.

    FACT: Poles cut off airplane wings, that is a PROVEN FACT, we all seen the clip.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is some sort of comedy routine I'm not accustomed to. Is this the one where the actor places his head up his butt and says he can't see anything?

    What is your explanation for this clip and the two pictures from it:



    So, video picture 1, pole sliced through wing still intact:

    [​IMG]

    Second pole and wing still attached!

    [​IMG]
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you know that there is a difference between a wooden pole anchored in the ground and an aluminum one anchored by 1 inch bolts?

    Yes or no?

    Do you know that hitting a pole higher up creates more torque?

    Yes or no?

    Do you know that a 757 wing is by necessity much bigger and stronger than the plane in your video?

    Yes or no?
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Prove it lets see the specs. FACTS PLEASE!


    That is your clip, this is my clip, I explained it, POLES CUT OFF WINGS.

    [​IMG]

    Its beyond hilarious to listen to the uninformed carry on about their invincible kryptonite shielded quadruple reinforced light pole mowers of 911, but please dont let reality ruin a good fantasy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So you are indirectly claiming that a solid wooden pole anchored in the ground is of equal strength to a pole held up by 1 inch bolts? Really?

    You post nothing but hot air and avoid anything that contradicts your mad claim.

    You have been shown cars knocking over poles, particularly the one you deceptively put in your gif.
    You have been shown a pickup on the freeway mowing down numerous poles.
    You have been shown a similar plane to yours knocking over two far stronger wooden poles.
    You have had basic physics explained to you about torque and leverage.
    You have had all the differences explained to you.

    YOU IGNORE IT ALL and that is seriously pathetic. Owned.

    Post #2225 ignored as well.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page