Can I convince PF's resident no-planers that AAL77 hit the Pentagon - #3

That's not true either, I don't care about you or him, I care about the 9/11 pretend investigations. Lying still doesn't change the facts. It just so happens YOU are trying YOUR damnedest to derail the point, often by lying. So I am correcting you and trying to bring it back to the point of discussion.

Another lie. I never said I would not watch it, I said I watched many videos. Why lie?

Another lie. What would be my "preferred videos"? You have a list?

Another lie. I don't want anyone to join me in anything. I post what I want to post and I don't control anyone.

Yes, it included EVIDENCE, including airplane parts, all tagged with serial numbers that could be matched to the logs of the planes they claim they come from.

And there's a section in the manual that discusses all that, the dead, the survivors, DNA, etc. But there's also a section in the manual that discusses the parts. And that's what I'm talking about. IMO if they faked the investigation, which they OBVIOUSLY did, nothing they claim has any credibility.

 

I know, that's what I'm talking about, there never was any, at least not a legitimate one.

It sounds like you first figured it out, I've been posting all about that for some time now.

That's true, but I did find what I wanted to find, it is in the manual. I wasn't looking for something that I didn't find.

 

Let me try this for Bob.

I am partial to Bob given my friends call me Bob.

Bob

!. Did you watch the video documentary I presented to the forum?
2.If you did, what do you believe is wrong?
3. You call me a liar when I read what you claim and try to be accurate what you mean. Why call me a liar over what I believe you actually mean?
4. Said video goes a long ways to not rely just on the Feds, but people who saw the crash. So why would you reject that?
5. My argument is since you can't be satisfied by your parts issue, why not then jump to the human element? We know more about them than parts.
6. Besides forums, where most have far less knowledge about aircraft than I or Hoosier have, have you contacted the FBI? The NTSB? Your congressman or woman? Besides a forum what has been your action? Also apply this to your angst over the WT7 issue?

When those left behind due to death of passengers are handed proof from the crash site, as shown in the documentary I p resented, why not look at their words and see the actual photographic evidence?

I spent a great deal of time looking at engineering reports on the two WTC tallest buildings and won't be roped into yammering about WTC7.

Been there, done that with other angry posters.

 

Still haven't figured out it was an act of terrorism and not an accident.

 

Really silly don't you think? It's even sillier when you consider two things:

1. The topic is not about me.
2. It's irrelevant to the NTSB airplane crash investigation protocol, posting a silly claim doesn't change any of the facts.

 

I'm not sure why. You never stick to the point. I'll skip the irrelevant as usual.

Another fallacy (it's also irrelevant but I chose to respond for a reason), I have never rejected anything. For example, I never rejected the 9/11 Commission Reports or the NIST reports. In fact they are perfect examples of what I'm talking about, the same fakery as all the pretend investigations.

That may be your "argument" but it's irrelevant too. We don't know anything about the parts, which is what I'm talking about. Again trying to change the subject.

Because they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

You have to taunt or insult just to talk to you.

 

I think it's pretty taunting and insulting that you keep making up lies just so you could change the subject and make it about be.

I explained to you why your claim (about me as usual) is fallacious and why what you posted is irrelevant to the subject. How is that taunting or insulting to you?

 

By now, i am onto your game. I tried hard to be respectful. Then you call me a liar. And no matter what you are told, you call what i say or others say non relevant. This means this is your topic. You want to make posters toe your line then you call them out.

 

Well if you make things up about me that aren't true, what else would you call it?

I call what's irrelevant to the topic irrelevant. It is what it is. When and if you stick to the topic it won't be irrelevant. For example, anything about me is irrelevant and that always seems to be what you want to post about.

Of course it is, I brought it up. Your option is to discuss it or not.

Again, I have no control over anyone, that's a silly claim and all the above is still irrelevant to the topic.

 

Good. For what it's worth, I studied this a lot. You are no longer relevant on this topic.

 

So have I, and his 7WTC mythology bears no relationship to actual historical events. Perhaps if we both stop feeding it, it might shut up?

 

(from post #161)

(from post #169)

The guy in the video I posted was a 757 pilot and he says it was impossible to fly a 757 in the manner that they tell us flight 77 was flown. Please tell us your view on that.

I didn't see anything in your video that proved anything. If you think there's something there that constitutes proof that the official story is true, link to the time mark and we can talk about it.

 

And what did you come up with? So far, the only things it seems most of what you came up with have to do with me and is irrelevant, as I keep telling you. The rest that has nothing to do with me or the topic is usually about the people who allegedly died in the crashes. When it comes to the recovered airplane parts and the investigation with reference to the parts, which is the actual topic, you always want to change the subject.

See what I mean? Nearly every single response you post is about me. Of course I'm not relevant to the topic, I never was, neither are you, I said that many times.

 

It is quite possible to fly the plane beyond it's 'design' envelope. Other aircraft have and survived. The pilot in the video never tried or he wouldn't be allowed in the cockpit again. Just because he is a pilot does not mean he is not nuts.

 

There is a huge difference between "the aircraft survived" and the aircraft was controllable to the extent that the pilot could hit a target such as was supposed to have been done 3 times on 9/11.

 

Dude, the pilot said it was impossible to fly the plane beyond it's design envelope. That is wrong. It is not impossible to control the aircraft beyond that and they were not doing aerobatics.

 

The pilot in your video is or was a professional skilled to fly that aircraft with concerns for the passenger.
The terrorists had skill enough to aim the airplane and it is doubtful they could successfully make a landing, so the path they took was bent on destruction.

That is my final word.

If you watched the video I posted, you saw the proof it was that flight and of that there is no doubt. And I am not one that puts too much trust in the Feds. But when it comes to aviation safety, they are awesome promoting this and they send to active pilots a lot of accident details.

We have one serial number happy poster that chats as if he can't get it that once you ID all passengers, they become very easy to trace to the crash site. All data ends at the crash site.

 

Not all the data ends at the crash site but the physical data sure should. And included in that physical data, besides biological evidence, are the parts with identifying serial numbers, at least those that were claimed to have been recovered for the alleged 4 planes that crashed on 9/11. So if a forensic investigation is allegedly conducted on the biological evidence recovered from the crash site as required by NTSB protocol then a forensic investigation should also be conducted on the remains of the aircraft itself and its parts as also required by NTSB protocol. But we know that was never done.

So getting back to the thread's topic ("Can I convince PF's resident no-planers that AAL77 hit the Pentagon"), how can anyone convince anyone that AA77 hit the Pentagon without the physical proof of the plane itself (i.e. the recovered parts matched to the logs for AA77)? The answer is that it's simply not possible.

 

Poisoning the well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

 

Was not an accident that needed to be figured out what happened. You still can't comprehend.

 

Well stated. LMAO

I am done with the stuff about parts. My video documentary takes care of this so well, I can't think of more to add to the video.

 

Most of airplanes does not have serial numbers. Those parts with serial numbers could be very fragile, such as cockpit instruments. The flight recorder was found and shown as evidence. Even the data on the recorder has been made available to the public.

I am no Aircraft mechanic so can't be too specific as to what has SN vs most of the airplane that has no SN.

Reports of the accident conclusively prove the remnants were for the most part, very small. It was an enormous collision.

 

Still selling the same snake oil. There is nothing in the NTSB manual that suggests any part of it should be skipped under any circumstance, if that's supposed to be your point. No one "figures out" anything without a thorough detailed forensic investigation in accordance with standard protocol.

That's correct I still don't comprehend what YOUR point is that you are trying to peddle.

 

A manual is not law. You still haven't figured out this was not an accident investigation when they need to determine what happened. They already knew what happened.