If the government (and Cheney) have nothing to hide, why are they hiding so much? If the case for 757 is so solid, why can't proof of it be announced to the public? Why much Cheney's comments be in secret?
They don't and they aren't. For future reference that is called circular reasoning. What proof? People saw it in their dozens, heard it, picked up bits from it, tracked it on radar, followed it in another plane, filmed it (albeit blurry). The dead bodies from the people on board were identified by DNA, none of them are alive anymore. What damn proof are you even talking about! How do you know they are in secret?
how much proof do you need? … Beta has laid out the facts here in astonishing detail … numerous times … why not address those and then we can see what you have … ???
You two can pretend all you want. The proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon is crushing. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11con-the-pentagon.598106/page-16#post-1074307600 You know it's crushing so you're trying to bury it.
What would be expected is at least some rebuttal towards the massive proof of a plane - let alone offering irrefutable counter-evidence!, Once again it goes back to the idiot-list where the "evil-perps" get together and come out with a series of some of the dumbest goals possible. Just disposing of the plane and passengers with nobody noticing, then planting body parts/DNA and plane pieces etc. is an utterly ludicrous suggestion. No-planers are the flat-earth equivalent of "911-truthers", no wonder they distance themselves from these people.
You have to wonder how anyone can claim "crushing proof" bullshit, when they disregard EVERY witness save one who altered their story to say the plane was North of Citgo! This is called cherry picking and it is a very deceptive thing to do. I listed a substantial number of witnesses who gave the path of the plane exactly as recorded and exactly consistent with every single piece of external evidence, but the batshit story is that these witnesses have been "got at" and the one who changed his mind after being grilled by "911-truthers"(!) is telling the truth. Also, the image of the building "before it collapsed" is a composite image put together by a '911-truther"! This awful collection of "crushing" evidence includes a CNN reporter, where his "testimony" is very deceptively misrepresented by removing the question asked of him! https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-911-pentagon-attack-footage-415983695442 "CLAIM: A CNN report from Sept. 11, 2001, is evidence that no airplane debris was found at the site of the Pentagon attack. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The CNN report was deceptively recut to make it seem as though a correspondent at the scene, Jamie McIntyre, said debris from an airplane had not been found. In the real footage, McIntyre says that debris had not been found anywhere except the Pentagon, and describes in detail the parts of the plane that he did see. There is also photographic evidence of airplane debris found at the crash site. THE FACTS: On the 21st anniversary of 9/11 on Sunday, an old, false claim that no airplane debris was found at the Pentagon after the building was attacked reemerged in an Instagram post. The post includes a short clip from CNN’s Sept. 11, 2001, coverage. Text above the clip reads, “THIS FOOTAGE AIRED ONCE AFTER 9/11 AND WAS NEVER ON TV AGAIN,” while the post’s caption claims that “every article or photo will show you ZERO debris at the alleged crash site at the pentagon.” In the clip, then-CNN anchor Judy Woodruff says: “Jamie, you got very close to where that plane went down,” and McIntyre, at the time the network’s military affairs correspondent, responds: “That’s right Judy, a short while ago I walked right up next to the building as firefighters were still trying to put out the blaze that — the fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon — and I took a look at the huge, gaping hole that’s in the side.” In the real footage, after McIntyre mentions the “huge, gaping hole,” he continues: “I can see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building — very small pieces of the plane — on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three-feet long. It was silver and it had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass that appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.” After more description of the scene from McIntyre, Woodruff cites an eyewitness report CNN covered earlier in the day that American Airlines Flight 77 may have “landed short of the Pentagon,” and asks McIntyre, “Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?” That's seriously pathetic! Mcintyre was interviewed about this and shares his frustration at the utter insanity he faces with "911-truthers" doctoring his statements! We had the retired pilot telling us about the "impossible" manoeuvres but once again we never see the question being asked by the '911-truther"! Notwithstanding that very accurate flight software shows this to be a piece of cake! Crushing proof? MEH!
"Pretend"? Are you calling us liars? The need to "pretend" there was a plane at the Pentagon would be somewhat insane. Most of my efforts on this idiotic dead-in-the-water sub-forum involve proving that there were damn planes on 911! I've just uncrushed some of your spam just above. I suggest you pick a better position. Being a no-planer on any of the buildings is the flat-earth of 911. The real crushing thing is my basic list that not one person has addressed honestly. NO THEY ARE NOT! Do you understand what the word "addressed" means? You are "pretending" that you have answered them. It is extremely easy to respond to one or two questions with very simple answers but you make this claim that you "addressed" them when you clearly have not! What a ludicrous claim. By posting rebuttal that never gets answered and hundreds of evidence-based posts that get arm-waved away!
@Scott You appear to be "gaslighting" the viewers by "pretending" not to see huge posts! http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11con-the-pentagon.598106/page-16#post-1074307142
Yeah viewers, let's look at how the "CIT truthers" bagged one of their witnesses! THIS is from a "911 truther" who rightfully sees the "no-planers" as deliberate disinformation purveyors. Interview of Sgt. William Lagasse | 911SpeakOut.org "Sgt. William Lagasse: Witness to the Official Flight Path and Plane Impact Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down, it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is…well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. And later in the exchange, The aircraft struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC [Arlington National Cemetary] and Columbia pike. and was approx 100-150ft agl [above ground level] when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground. He is adamant that the plane hit the building and did the observed damage along the way. What he was describing was the “official” flight path, which passed south of the CITGO station, which is consistent with his being on the “Lagasse-starboard” (i.e. “left”) side of the plane. It had to be clear to Aldo, that Lagasse was describing the “official path” of the plane, so the fact that he seized on the erroneous “starboard side” comment shows that he saw this as an opportunity to manipulate Lagasse into supporting a false account. In Aldo’s words, Lagasse’s “Starboard side of the plane” comment “is what drove me to fly out to Arlington with the Loose Change crew and confirm or refute what he saw.”" FLYOVER BATSHIT! "One passing comment by Lagasse is how he knew it was an actual airplane impacting the building rather than any kind of a missile or bomb or Global Hawk. [PentaCon, 1:04:20 – 1:04:52] (Both he and Brooks are very dismissive of these explanations.) He said the explosion he saw and heard was a “deflagration,” not a “detonation.” He said he had explosives expertise and knew the difference. A deflagration is like a fireball, such as what we saw when the planes hit the World Trade Center towers. A deflagration without the physical impact of the plane could not have cut the hole in the Pentagon wall. A detonation from high explosives, however, propagates supersonically, creating a powerful shock wave that can do real damage, and has a distinctive sound. This is an interesting comment because CIT’s flyover theory depends on explosives in the building to create the giant blast to carve out the wall and create a smoke cloud to hide the overflying plane to enable it to escape undetected. [See Jim Hoffman’s Critiquing PentaCon (Smoking Crack Version) to shed light on the utter implausibility of the flyover hypothesis.] With his assertion of deflagration not detonation, Lagasse, who did not support or even know about CIT’s real agenda, inadvertently contradicted one of the key elements of CIT’s theory."
Not enough proof - MEH! Here's something for the "independent thinkers": Every eyewitness account 9-11 Research: Eyewitnesses Accounts (wtc7.net) More selective accounts 9-11 Research: Large Jetliner (wtc7.net) The two accounts that describe a commuter jet were both by observers who were at considerable distances from the scene. Large Jetliner Alan Wallace -- firefighter with safety crew at Pentagon's heliport We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus. Albert Hemphill -- from inside the Naval Annex Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex James S. Robbins -- Robbins, a national-security analyst and 'nationalreviewonline' contributor, watched from his 6th story office window in Arlington The Pentagon is about a mile and half distant in the center of the tableau. I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck. The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory, ... Tim Timmerman -- ... said it had been an American Airways 757. Tim Timmerman -- from 16th floor apartment near National Airport It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question. Mike Dobbs -- observed from upper level of outer ring of Pentagon ... looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building. Terry Morin -- watched from 5th wing of BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn't be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Jim Sutherland -- from his car ... saw ... a white 737 twin-engine plane with multicolored trim fly 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon. Noel Sepulveda -- ... saw a commercial airliner coming from the direction of Henderson Hall the Marine Corps headquarters. Madelyn Zakhem -- ... she heard what she thought was a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. Joel Sucherman -- Do you know how many engines? - I did not see the engines, I saw the body and the tail; it was a silver jet with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an American Airlines jet, it was not a commercial, excuse me, a business jet, it was not a Lear jet, ... it was a bigger plane than that. Dave Winslow -- Winslow is an AP reporter I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It ploughed right into the Pentagon. Small Jet Steve Patterson -- watched from 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City ... it appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery and headed for the Pentagon ... Don Wright -- watched from the 12th floor, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, in Rosslyn I watched this ...it looked like a commuter plane, two engined ... come down from the south real low ...
You're cherry picking from the big witness list. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/witnesses-list-broken-down-t82.html
Some people allegedly saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion. Start watching this at the 51:05 time mark. National Security Alert (2009) https://odysee.com/@whitleyblaine:0/9-11-National-Security-Alert:7?src=embed&t=4299.763391
The unbelievable twisted irony! There is absolutely zero point in discussing this further. You refuse to answer major, major posts. You ignore them completely! BIG players in the "911-truther" community, sick of the utter stupidity about no-planes, put together a comprehensive video showing all the evidence. It was pretty much irrefutable and you said it was friction' DAMAGE CONTROL! You have been asked to explain why "911-truthers" are performing damage control, but I suspect that you didn't know it was from your own team and are completely embarrassed about shooting yourself in the foot. The C130 probably.
Why are you so afraid to answer this? You completely evaded this entire post! Explain why the retired pilot would be expert in Pentagon engine holes! 9/11 Conspiracy Theories | Debunking Pentagon Plane Crash Myths (popularmechanics.com) "Why wasn’t the hole as wide as a 757’s nearly 125-foot wingspan? A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University." "In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building,” Sozen tells Popular Mechanics, “it didn’t happen.”" "Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC in Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”" That's 2 structural engineers telling you it was a plane and I put it to you that they know more than some pilot! Damage control on the "911-truther" video? Please explain…. truthers are now engaging in damage control? Your credibility is on the line here! @Scott - Are you gonna answer this!? "No Planers" NEVER provide the numbers to quantify their ridiculous claims. Now we have to involve countless numbers of people to dispose , of the actual plane! Burn it up and distribute parts all around the lawn and building! HEY, why don't they just PRETEND to corroborate the serial numbers!? We have to fabricate the ATC involvement. We have to coerce all the eye-witnesses. We have to have explosions to knock out lamp posts etc. We have to fabricate the National Guard plane witness accounts. We have to involve a team to blow up the building/launch the missile/other plane whichever batshit alternative is suggested! Now we have to dispose / murder all the passengers, dismember some of them and scatter their DNA all over the crash site! How many to get all the luggage and scatter this around the area? Now we have to get actual passengers to fabricate(really!) their audio transcripts and phone calls! We have to fabricate the black box data and/or coerce the analysts who view it. @Scott - Are you ever gonna answer this!? Kindly don't "pretend" you've answered it by posting links to links where you most certainly haven't! Why are you not able to see how ridiculous this no-plane batshit is, but strangely you can see how ludicrous it is for WTC1/2? How come you never argue against no-planers for New York!? Edit: @Scott I know why you posted this about WTC1/2, even if the person you directed it at doesn't! So how come you don't fall into this category with your no-plane-at-the-Pentagon batshit?
@Betamax101 All your questions are dealt with in post #380. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11con-the-pentagon.598106/page-16#post-1074307600 Here's some more stuff. https://physics-911.com/missingwings/ Start watching this at the 1:55:25 time mark. September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) As far as I'm concerned the case is closed. The viewers can look at everything and come to their own conclusions.
why do you refuse to look at any evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative but spam A New Pearl Harbor yet again? … be honest for once in your life … you’re tedious man …
None of them are. Utterly pathetic - you dump a wall of batshittery on the forum then "pretend" that your batshit answers huge posts. Nobody cares. It was a plane and this sub-forum is a ridiculous joke. It's now exclusively about the insane no-plane batshit.
The people have a right to know. Such a 'testimony' proves they're hiding something. Lies lies and more lies. That's been common knowledge to truthers since the early days.
Never mind. You'll get over it. The craziest of crazy circular reasoning and boy, did you fail miserably to answer the damn question! Explain what possible batshit reason this indicates it wasn't a 757. Haha. Common knowledge, are you serious? Read my signature. I asked you how you knew the secret and it's a "truther" thing.
Firstly, have you watched the vid here? http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11con-the-pentagon.598106/page-11#post-1074269324 Admittedly, that covers a lot more ground than just the 757. Secondly, have you seen the vid at this site? http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/ Some witness testimony given here, which contradicts the OCT: Sgt. Lagasse has been made aware of the implications of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station. He still stands by his account, and has said that he would testify to the plane flying on the north side of the station in a court of law. A plane on the north side of the gas station cannot hit the light poles; the two claims are mutually exclusive. He cleared up this discrepancy for us in person, on camera and on location, admitting that he did not see the plane hit the light poles, as it was quite clear that the light poles were not even visible to him from that distance. Our complete independent interview with Sgt. Brooks, filmed in 2006, can be viewed in The PentaCon: Smoking Gun Version. Sgt. Brooks has seen this video, and told us that it was an "eye-opener," and that "anything is possible" in terms of him being fooled about the impact. He still stands by his account of the plane flying on the north side of the station, and has said that he would testify to this in a court of law. Roosevelt Roberts, Jr. Roosevelt's is one of the most important accounts presented since he actually witnessed the plane flying away from the building immediately after the explosion. In this official interview, recorded only a few weeks after the event, you can hear Roosevelt describe it as what he thought was a "second plane." The pertinent details regarding timing, altitude, and description were confirmed in our independent audio interview recorded in 2008, which can be heard in Part 2 of our presentation The North Side Flyover. Excerpts of this interview are also featured in our video National Security Alert. We now know for a fact that the only explanation for the "commercial aircraft" that he describes at about "50 feet" altitude banking and flying away from the building immediately after the explosion could only have been the same attack jet that everyone else witnessed banking on the north side flight path seconds earlier on its approach toward the Pentagon. https://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/official-interviews
I'm not even going to bother with this latest "undodge" that basically says hey look my few witnesses are right and yours, that had a clear view of the plane, carrier and model plus direction, must all be wrong because of reasons, with literally dozens of DODGED posts detailing them all! Numerous dodged posts above. Plus this one quoted that had one of the most moronic arm-waving responses saying some horseshit like "But meh black ops".
So some blogger believes the OCT. Wow, wonders will never cease There you go again - rejecting anything that doesn't fit in with your view. 'Numerous dodged posts' - Yeah sure...what, do you expect me to reply to every single thing? That's almost a fulltime job.
Some blogger who has assembled colossal reams of evidence, that of course you dodged. There you go again - rejecting everything that doesn't fit in with your view. Wrong. Rejecting something that doesn't fit with dozens and dozens of eye witnesses who have a very strong line of contradictory connectivity is just sensible detective work. Besides, do you seriously think you have stumbled on new data? This batshit was being thrown out 13 years ago. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/pumpitout/sgt-william-lagasse-pentagon-witness-t2956.html What is it you are trying to achieve here!? I just listed a huge post above showing how utterly ridiculous this no plane stupidity is and you ignore it totally! Pathetic. You damn well brought this crap up! If you evade all the evidence then what the hell are you even doing?
