No poles fell that weren't in the flight path stop telling that lie And light poles are designed to shear off easily if hit by say,a car,as to not be an immediate stop if hit,ensuring survivability..
That aluminum sure is some tough stuff, that's all I can say. I don't know why we don't use it in our armored vehicles.
Actually, the M113 had an aluminum hull. The poles are usually aluninum, BTW. Now, how about some proof that any of the downed poles were not in the flight path?
Oh yeah...I started working on that one night but, got distracted somehow. Be glad to. See ya in a bit.
The files on the black boxes do not all up-date immediately. By the time it was low enough to take out lamp poles, it probably didn't have time to update every parameter. Control inputs and positioning data cannot be recorded simultaneously on most electronic devices. Whatever hit the Pentagon WAS at an altitude to hit the poles as obvious by the video ond the eyewitness accounts and the fact that there was a nasty great hole in the building at ground level. BTW, PfffT is not an objective site.
Balsamo and friends have to keep clutching at straws to support their contentions, whereas we begin with the physical facts that the DNA of the passengers, the aircraft's FDR and aircraft parts consistent with AA77's type were all found within the Pentagon, indicating that indeed it hit the structure. Minor anomalies in the FDR are then examined from that standpoint. If there were a major anomoly it would be of great interest to ICAO, the NTSB, the pilot's unions and the aircraft manufacturers. Rob begins with a ingrained mistrust of all governent agencies and works backwards from that standpoint. (This mistrust only extends so far though as he is quite willing to take the NTSB sim of the flight at face value.) Of course he has to invent complicated and patently ridiculous scenarios to explain away the DNA (planted or faked during the chaos of the events or afterwards in transit or the lab itself), the FDR (planted during the chaos following the events of the day, or taken from a different aircraft that actually overflew the Pentagon and manipulated to indicate it was on AA77, i.e. faked) and the aircraft parts (planted and/or faked in the immediate aftermath of the event on 9/11/01). He then examines minor anomalies and claims them major. Does he create a full and technical treatment of this and submit it to the NTSB, ICAO, the pilot's unions, or the aircraft manufacturers? NO Does he submit such a technical paper to aerospace and flight magazines? NO To science based magazines? NO Instead he produces a short non-technical news release. A 'news release' rife with innuendo or down right accusation of government malfeasance. He produces videos designed for viewing by the general populace in which he passionately implies wrong doing and points to these in the news releases. He submits a short non-technical few paragraphs attached to a lawsuit in which the complainant claims the plane did not hit the Pentagon. Does he bring this suit? NO Does he imply that attaching his opinion to the suit means its being looked at by the courts? YES, but it isn't. Finally of course, he argues incessantly on the internet and clamors for face to face debates which again would not be discussions of the highly technical matters at hand but would make for good viewing by others of his political bent. He and his followers are a collection of sad, somewhat deranged, individuals chomping at the bit for attention. Now what? Answer this, truth seekers: Why have Rob Balsamo and PfT not created a full and technical treatment of this and submitted it to the NTSB, ICAO, the pilot's unions, the FBI or the aircraft manufacturers?
There are plausible scenarios that would explain the light pole so they don't prove anything. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632 What happened at the Pentagon alone proves that 9/11 was an inside job. I discussed that on pages one and two of this thread below. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links.html#post1061950663
Yes, I know. Only "official" sites and sources are objective. Like I've said many times before, there's no point in debating because anything that differs from the official playbook is considered invalid by the players so...just another example.
I've been busy with work. I just addressed that in this post on another thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...erican-77-hit-pentagon-72.html#post1062400647
Yawn, no you don't and I'm not trying to mislead anything. Considering that it's been 11 years and the Woo troop haven't made any progress, I'd say it's fairly apparent who's trying to mislead who.
- - - Updated - - - The mocking and dismissing of statements that challenge the official government stories as a “conspiracy theories” is a very effective time-tested technique that came into vogue during the mid-1960s, as a response to those who dared challenge the Warren Commission’s findings that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy. One advantage 9/11 Truth advocates have that Warren Commission critics did not is that the official story of 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory. In very general terms, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a crime. Obviously, agreeing to willfully destroy property and take the lives of innocent people is a crime. Thus, if two or more people agreed to damage the World Trade Center buildings and bring about the murder of innocents on 9/11, there had to have been a conspiracy. According to the official conspiracy theory, that’s exactly what happened, and the perpetrators were terrorists from the Middle East. The official story is just a theory, as it has never been proven to be true in a court of law or anywhere else. It is just a story that has been sold by the U.S. government’s public relations experts who masquerade as members of a free press. So, one way to respond to the charge that you are a conspiracy nut is to remind your attacker that anyone who believes the official story is in fact a conspiracy theorist. I like to put it this way: “You realize of course that what you believe in is also a conspiracy theory, and actually the wildest conspiracy theory of all…that nineteen Muslims, armed with box cutters, could outwit the most sophisticated military defense system the world has even known – four times in one day. That’s what you believe in, right?” I find that this kind of response usually defuses the charge that I am a conspiracy theorist.
Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html http://www.thetakeaway.org/2013/jan/28/pre-trial-hearings-begin-gitmo/ And you wonder why your conspiracy theories are dismissed. You cannot even get the basics right.
Nobody trusts governments, but eveyone except right-wing nutters trusts elected people more than unelected capitalist thieves, surely?
Moussaoui admitted his involvement with al-Qaeda, but claimed he was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Rather, he claimed that he was preparing for a separate attack. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had earlier told investigators that Moussaoui met with him prior to September 11, but that he, Mohammed, chose not to use him. No evidence directly linking Moussaoui to the 9/11 attacks has yet been released.
This was not your claim. You claim was that the official story had never been proven in a court of law. The second source I linked proved you wrong. It contains an abundance of information supporting the official story, and it was used in a court of law.
The facts of my post that I retreived from your Wikipedia link of: Zacarias Moussaoui, under, Court proceedings ,paragraph 3, debunks all the mumbo jumbo in your 2nd link............. The 3rd link of: Khalid Sheik Mohammed,has never made it to trial,nearing 10 years now......... I wonder what the mysterious hold up is.......................
hehehe, you call an entire list of prosecution exhibits "mumbo jumbo" lol. No wonder no body takes 9/11 conspiracy theorist seriously. That "mumbo jumbo" proves you wrong.
The truther glossary: Evidence that refutes a truther claim is "mumbo jumbo," Math that undermines their high school understanding of physics is "meaningless," Anyone that takes a moment to think about their half baked conclusions is "a shill"
What part of: "No evidence directly linking Moussaoui to the 9/11 attacks has yet been released" do you 2 scholars not understand?.
Except this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this; Source. and much, much more. So, we have several wire transfers of tens of thousands of dollars from Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a key member of the Hamburg Cell, transferring money to Zac Moussaoui, we have enrollments at the same flight schools as some of the hijackers, the same airline simulator course as the hijackers, and Zac's signed confession as an al-Qaeda member. But no, no, there's no evidence at all, right PPP?
You guys want to talk about the swaps trades? Truther here wants to talk about the swaps trades. Want to play? Oh, look at that. These 9-11 debunkers got quiet like church mice didn't they!
No. It does not prove anything unless you have names and how much money they made and who they were in bed with at the White House. Might not mean much even at that.
Why doesn't proof of prior knowledge of the 9-11 attacks demand further investigation, as it was never identified?
