No matter the topic, many people fiercely defend the many lies of government and mainstream media. 911, Scamdemic and so many more. Sadly, defending the reputations of known liars is part of the human condition.
No matter the topic, the same people fiercely defend the many lies of appalling batshit disinformation sites and ridiculously useless media. The 911 Al Qaeda terrorist attacks have been turned into a frighteningly dumb plethora of "theories": Planes and the joos did it. Planes and the US ebil gubment did it. No planes - up there with flat Earth for facepalming ignorance. Some planes - technically just as dumb as no planes. Planes and space weapons - one day the internet will have AI sound effects so that every time that phrase is typed a large fat raspberry accompanies it. Planes and atomic weapons - so dumb it is actually hard to believe people think it. The pandemic has equally been turned into a comedy of batshit proportions: It was all faked and caused by 5g. It was all faked and something or other - undefined. It was all planned to kill off the human race. Which as numbers go, wasn't that great. It was all planned to create the vaccine to kill off the human race. Still waiting for people to start dropping. It was an ebil virus that escaped from a lab. Deliberately or by mistake, take your pick - these theories don't require much thought. In terms of conspiracies, these people believe virtually every single thing that flies off the "batshit typewriter" - there are just so, so many of them!. If there's a theory, they will defend it no matter what. No matter how utterly absurd the numbers of people involved would have to be (that is something never discussed by these people). These theories have ALL been proven to be lies. Every one of them. Yet all these people continue defending them no matter what! Sadly, defending the reputations of known liars is part of the human condition. It's also the only mechanism that enables a group of uneducated, under-achievers to feel important.
oh look! … another troofer who hasn’t and refuses to watch the Wayne Coste/David Chandler presentation on the Pentagon … amateur psychologist?
It's not a question of dodging. When there's conflicting eyewitness testimony it should be investigated. That hasn't happened. You're just repeating the OCT. Nothing new there. You're just repeating the OCT and you continually evade the evidence and testimony which contradicts the OCT.
I'll ask again, seen this vid? https://www.corbettreport.com/james...seeking-the-truth-conference-in-kuala-lumpur/ And then try to address his closing statement, "To what end would two of the highest ranking officials in the US govt deliberately hinder, interfere or stand down the air defenses that morning?"
How exactly does this guy's testimony "conflict" dozens and dozens of people who saw a large passenger plane on the correct flight path! You are doing what every conspiracy theorist does. Cherry picking! How the hell can YOU ignore all that testimony of a passenger plane? Really? This below is "the OCT"!? You're just evading major points. Nothing new here. In science there is a level of evidence that is acceptable as proof, in some things it's hard to come by. In life experiences, it takes the form of a number of things: Witness testimony - for the Pentagon crash there is a considerable number of accounts confirming a plane, a 757 and the provider American Airlines. Air Traffic Control - monitored the take-off of the flight and noted its later activity prior to crashing. National Guard - a plane spotted the inbound flight and subsequent crash. Security camera footage - though blurred, significant factors in the image demonstrate the exact shape expected. Lamp posts - knocked over during the approach, including an impact with a taxi on the highway prior to crash. Passengers and staff - DNA identified many onboard. Black boxes - recovered. Phone calls - 2 calls received from the plane. Plane pieces - strewn all over the Pentagon lawn, mangled and burnt deep into the building. This was a scheduled flight that strayed off course, pilot contact lost. observed into its target after a hijack. To say there is no proof of this is basically ridiculous. Now, what would NO PLANE entail, previously posted and no serious response made: 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! 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. I like logic, I like critical thinking, I like simplicity. What I don't like is insane claims requiring ludicrous numbers of people and tasks, when you just need to crash the damn plane! The hilarious irony here. Are you familiar with the search function on this forum! 9/11 Pentagon Evidence -- Wayne Coste (bitchute.com) These videos are from "911 truthers" btw. Yes, a long time ago. They didn't deliberately hinder or interfere with the air defenses. There was no stand down order given! A “stand down” order was issued, not to shoot down the planes | 911facts.dk
It is very unrealistic and extremely disingenuous to cherry pick very specific eyewitness accounts and then treat them as some kind of absolute fact which overrides all others, especially with a specific detail as inconsequential as "which side of a specific building did you see the jet fly past" - asking many many years later, about something very specific which they very likely did not even make a mental note of at the time, in the split few seconds they had to spot the jet before it crashed, is extremely favourable to the people asking the question if they hope to retrieve truly accurate information. Human memory is extremely fallible. There is a massive field of study devoted to how memories can be altered totally unintentionally and unconscious of the person, as they begin to learn more specific facts and details about an event. The longer time goes on after an event, the more corrupt the memory often becomes. Often it does not take much suggestion, to lead the person into believing something is a memory when in fact it's not. With that in mind, it is no surprise to anyone that in this circumstance you will find a number of witnesses who recall details which differ in minor ways to one another. This is not a contradiction, but rather it's expected. Any real investigator worth their salt knows how the brain/memory works and would attempt to minimise discrepancies and errors instead of compounding them. But unfortunately this is not what 9/11 Truth does - it refuses to corroborate information with known and established facts, and thus amplifies the errors instead of minimising them. The actions of 9/11 Truthers then focuses on defending those accumulating errors against all facts and logic, creating a massively incorrect narrative which runs almost entirely counter to what actually happened.
Edit "is extremely unfavourable to the people asking the question if they hope to retrieve truly accurate information."
Look at it again. Pointing out testimony that does not support the OCT is not cherry picking. Like I said, it's not a matter of ignoring. From a psychological perspective, if an event happens so quickly that a person’s senses are unable to capture all its details, to make their perception more complete and coherent their brain might replace a poorly received sensation with another from acquired memory. So, if Pentagon witnesses heard on the news about planes hitting the WTC and later heard that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, they might then report that they did indeed see Flight 77 there, when in fact what they saw occurred too fast for them to say with certainty that it was a Boeing rather than a smaller aircraft. Then how do you explain Rumsfeld's puzzling behavior? As Secretary of Defense, he was second in the military chain-of-command behind the president. Yet he did nothing in response to the crisis until it was too late to make a difference. The last few seconds of that vid are: MR. HAMILTON: The flight you’re referring to is the — MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon. MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah. Yet that site continues with an exchange between Hamilton and Mineta: MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president... That vid ends before that part. So where is that exchange between Hamilton and Mineta from?
All available facts and evidence contradict the Official Conspiracy Theory. When everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts. Casey was so right. So many of the people who actually believe the shots to be safe and effective also believe the Official Conspiracy Theory of 911.
Did you "miss" that link!? Can we get an honest response? Or are these lauded "911 truthers" all hopelessly wrong!? No. Logoff and find another hobby. Yes it is. That is exactly what it is. See below and following post* Yes it is, that is exactly what you are doing. It's only "puzzling" to "no-planers" and "911 truthers". What should he have done? Shot them down? I find it pathetic beyond words that conspiracy theorists conflate everything to create anything other than the vast confusion and hesitancy actually shown. And what has this latest off topic crap got to do with there being no plane! I couldn't care less where it is. Twenty odd years ago I couldn't care less, so not much has changed. What does this testimony assessment determine? Well here are the two lines of reasoning: Line 1: In this line we take the massive majority of testimony that does a number of key thigs. It establishes a large passenger plane, it establishes markings and carrier, it establishes position, it establishes the target. It further has the plane striking objects in its path on the freeway, 5 lamp posts and a generator. Though lo-resolution video it shows an object on approach that with subtracting changed pixels (between frames) matches the size and shape of a 757. We then have the whole Pentagon lawn littered with small pieces of 757, the area within (after fire has been doused) showing major parts such as the engine and landing gear. After DNA analysis, many of the plane occupants were identified. To supplement this line we have a chain of identification beginning with a scheduled flight taking off, boarding passengers and subsequently recording being hijacked. From this we have the plane transponder being turned off. Two passengers managed to contact their relatives and tell them what was happening. Intermittent radar tracking and a final visual from a National Guard plane. Line 2: In this line we basically ignore everything, almost to the point of insanity, in favor of the plane being identified in a different place. We ignore every witness that says it hit the Pentagon, or what the plane was. We ignore that the lamp posts and generator impacts supplemented all the other witnesses. We ignore all the plane parts and all the DNA. We ignore the testimony of the National Guard. We ignore the video and what modern software shows us. We then create a ridiculous narrative that needs to dispose of the plane and passengers, no mean feat! It involves all the items above (and soon to be below) in red that have been ignored! This narrative now needs to arrange all the lamp post/generator destruction, convince all the eye witnesses, create something that sprinkles 757 parts on the lawn without anyone seeing it! It needs to explain the actual explosion! THAT is what is meant by cherry picking! Where you take one item of evidence and build a totally insane claim around it and dismiss everything that shows it to be insane.
Some established facts about Mineta's testimony that conspiracy theorists choose to ignore. 1. Mineta's testimony at the 9/11 Commission was in response to Lee Hamilton's question about a "shoot down" order which we know was given after 10am that morning. Mineta replies he was not there when the order was given, but was made aware of it's existence as he overheard a conversation between Cheney and a military aide. 2. Mineta's statement that this was in reference to AAL77's approach to WDC is an error. We know this for many reasons, allow me to point some out; 3. According to Secrete Service logs and Washington ARTCC's audio recordings, AAL77 was first detected approaching WDC at 9:24 when it was 30 miles out. According to Mineta this moment would have been mid-conversation between Cheney and the military aide. Problem is we have several of the White House photographers photo's showing Cheney was still in his office right up until 9:36, not in the PEOC with Mineta. 4. In the tunnel on the way to the PEOC, before going in, Cheney took a call from President Bush on Air Force One. Bush did not get to Air Force One until 9:42 - five minutes after the Pentagon was hit. Again, this was before Cheney reached the PEOC. Meaning Cheney was not in the PEOC for the approach of AAL77. Neither was Mineta. 5. Mineta's interview to MSNBC he states he arrived at the White House after it had begun evacuating. "As we went in West Executive Drive, people pouring out of the Executive Office Building, people running out of the White House.. and I said... is there something wrong with this picture, we're driving in and everyone else is running away" The White House evacuation was not ordered until after the Pentagon was hit. Again, this means Mineta was not in the PEOC during the approach of AAL77. 6. In Mineta's video interview to '9/11 Truth Seattle' he states Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney, was already in the PEOC when he arrived. According to the shelter logs and sources with Lynne Cheney that morning she did not arrive until 9:50. This puts Mineta's arrive to the PEOC after 9:50, after the Pentagon was hit, and a long time after AAL77 was spotted heading towards WDC. 7. The Shelter log puts Mineta's arrival at the PEOC at 10:07am. 8. Monte Belger from the FAA, who Mineta was on the phone to while in the PEOC, states he never talked to Mineta that morning about AAL77, and in fact didn't talk to him until after UAL93 had crashed at 10:03. 9. In another interview, Mineta repeats several geographical points that were given to him by Monte Belger during the approach of the 'target' which the military aide was reporting to Cheney as "50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out" etc. Those points are Great Falls, Rosslyn, and the 'DRA' ; Reagan National's 'Down River Approach' visual approach procedure. None of those points, match or resemble AAL77's approach from the West. However, all of those points reflect exactly the projected arrival of UAL93 from the North West. This projected arrival was placed into the air traffic control system by Linda Justice, an air traffic controller working at the Cleveland ARTCC. She changed UAL93's projected flight path based on where the last known RADAR tracks had it going, and set a projected arrival to WDC to assist with tracking after they lost RADAR contract with it. This projected location goes off nothing more than projected heading and last known speed, and shows on the 'Traffic Situation Display' (TSD) screen similar to how a RADAR target displays. The reason this caused the staff in the PEOC to think it was another inbound aircraft, was because the PEOC did not have a RADAR screen to look at. The location of the 'target' the military aide was sharing with Cheney was actually being given to them by the FAA. But the FAA as well, also did not have a RADAR screen to look at. The FAA were using TSD. Not RADAR. They are looking at the Traffic Situation Display and relaying the projected arrival of UAL93's new target. Of course what they are unaware of, is that UAL93 had already crashed at 10:03. Mineta's testimony was actually in reference to a shoot down order given by Cheney for this projected UAL93 about 10:15 that morning. It was not for the arrival of AAL77 at 9:15 because no one who was a part of this conversation was in the PEOC at that time. Mineta's statement that it was for AAL77, is simply a mistake. He has his timeline off by an hour. Nothing more.
Tim Russert, Dick Cheney, and 9/11 https://www.globalresearch.ca/tim-russert-dick-cheney-and-9-11/9368
That's a really smart post - good work. The problem as you can see, is it is completely ignored. Since his line of argument is the moronic no plane at the Pentagon, one wonders how the hell any of this is proving it!
@undertheradar Why are you ignoring large posts that have inconvenient rebuttal? Oh wait, it's inconvenient huh? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11con-the-pentagon.598106/page-18#post-1074558923 http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11con-the-pentagon.598106/page-18#post-1074558928
Can anyone explain Rumsfeld's puzzling behavior that morning? ' “We still don’t have a full accounting of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11,” Gorelick acknowledged after the commission’s final public hearing. “We don’t have answers to the questions that you’re asking. But I’m going to make sure it’s nailed down,” she promised. Yet the final published report offers no further details on Rumsfeld’s inactions or the reason he was “out of the loop” (as the secretary himself put it) that morning.' ... “We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions,” said Hamilton. “He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out.” “He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade centers were hit and the country was under attack,” I suggested. 'Was the commission comfortable with the fact that the country’s Secretary of Defense was not in the chain of command or present in the Pentagon’s command center until all four suicide hijacked planes were down? “I’m not going to answer that question,” said Hamilton, and turned away.' .. “The president apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00”--more than an hour after the first World Trade Center tower was hit, 20 minutes after the Pentagon was attacked, and moments before Flight 93 was wrestled to the ground by passengers." https://web.archive.org/web/2004072...therjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html Actually, it wasn't just him. "General Myers was acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff then and claims he was at Sen. Max Cleland’s office at 8:40 EDT. He sees on TV that the first plane has hit the WTC. He claims on Armed Services Radio that at that point he went in and met with Cleland for an hour. Nobody called him and told him that a second plane had hit, that the air corridor had been closed between Washington and Cleveland, that a plane had been hijacked in Ohio and was flying back to the Pentagon. Then he also claims that when he walked out of Cleland’s office, he was handed a portable phone and it was the head of NORAD telling him the Pentagon had been hit." "Now these are unbelievable assertions. Doesn't the man have a beeper? Doesn't the man have a cell phone? Doesn't the man have a secretary who knows where he is? General Myers was, after all, acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military. Wouldn't anybody inform him that planes were being hijacked and flying into buildings? "And you know what Myers said he talked to Max Cleland about? He claims he sat there and they discussed the danger of terrorism. Now this is like a satire. It seems unbelievable." https://web.archive.org/web/20041009180420/http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/radio-1.htm
Dude, let it go. This was over 20 years ago. His behavior is being measured by "conspiracy batshit" standards. It wasn't even him! Pathetic.
Memory recollection does not trump physical evidence. Refer to my previous post about memory fallibility. We literally have multiple White House photo's showing Cheney in his office at these times. Here he is in his office watching President Bush's speech which did not start until 9:30. Another at 9:34 And another at 9:36 On a chaotic morning like 9/11, to ignore physical evidence because someone, when asked some time later to recall a specific memory, said an event occurred "just after 9am..." is extremely foolish. This is yet another error of Norman Mineta's. He didn't make either of these orders. Both the order to ground-stop all aircraft, and the later order to land all planes, came from Ben Sliney at the ATCSCC in Herdon, Va. Again Mineta's own words when speaking to '9/11 Truth Seattle' was that Lynne Cheney was already in the bunker when he arrived. Here is her timeline that morning; Not to mention, Mineta's own timeline that morning could not possibly have happened within such a short time frame. For example, starting at 9:03am; was at his DOT office several blocks away from the White House at or after 9:03 when UA175 crashed He then cancelled a meeting with the Belgian minister He was then briefed by his staff After, he called the American Airlines CEO on the phone After that, he called the United Airlines CEO on the phone After that, he then talked with White House staffers on the phone He then; - packed his briefcase - went downstairs to his car - rode across WDC from the DOT to the White House (approx 15 to 20 minutes depending on traffic) - was led to the Situation Room - talked there with Clarke for several minutes - was then escorted away many stairs down to PEOC - set up office there (establishing a couple of phone lines) For someone to believe Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20 with Cheney, all of the above would have to happen within 17 minutes. Literally impossible.
A totally meaningless, evedence-less and very pathetic post. Just above this is clearly a thoroughly well researched ON TOPIC post that destroys the current claims. Instead of dumping these useless bare-assertion conspiracy-junk posts, why don't you try and do the same! Demonstrating the value of proper detective work, not steeped in deception and with the goal to arrive at the truth. As opposed to cut-and-paste batshit that does the opposite.
have you watched the Coste/Chandler vids yet that I mentioned and Beta linked? … why do truthers avoid this? .. answer: it destroys your Pentagon nonsense … your move …
what false narratives? we are talking about the Pentagon here but please feel free to go off topic … what has been proven false?
Nope. I don't think you know what "proved false" means. It's not where a group of trufers come up with a dozen conflicting theories that make no sense, provide no evidence for any of them and end up being laughed at. So they say, but your version would be what is called circular reasoning. The real false narratives, like yours and other fellow "peas" trufers, are obviously allowed in the conspiracy section.
