Everything you wanted to know about the 9/11 official conspiracy theory in 5 minutes.

Your source please?

 

I've already responded to this.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/227028-pentagon-punchout-hole-ii.html#post4969184
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/227028-pentagon-punchout-hole-ii-2.html#post4969249

You're just ignoring my replies to try to make the viewers think I haven't.

The Pentagon strike happened almost an hour after the tower strikes so they had time to clear area with a potential strike as the excuse. It was still early in the morning so there wouldn't have been that many people there.

Let's not forget how you pro-official version people destroyed your credibility.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...onspiracy-theory-5-minutes-5.html#post4976475

Also, we were talking about whether the press told us the truth which is relevant to this discussion. I asked you all whether you thought the info in post #1 of this thread reflected reality.
http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/149071-american-imperialism.html

You all managed to tap dance around the issue without responding to it. Which version of the role of the US government in the world do you think is true–the one in the above link, or the official one they tell us on the news and mainstream newspapers?

 

This is supposed to be more credible than OBL and Dr. Aziz? The sum total of the 'evidence' is this line:

That's it for your evidence? Ok. Compare the two side by side and make up your mind which is more credible.

 

It was what they call "common knowledge". You know, and I know (as does probably everybody here), that our intelligence officials, visited Bin Laden abroad while he was indeed in a hospital getting dialysis. It's not that difficult to source. Why are you cornering yourself? Seriously?

 

Then do so. Show us a credible source that OBL was in a hospital receiving dialysis treatments.

 

The Washington Times, January 3, 2006

 

No, what happened is you posted bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and pretended it was gold. Do you have a single witness that says the NATIONAL MALL was closed that day? No.

And we've already trashed your theory of complete media black out so bad you ended up dropping it. Apparently you have once again forgotten that the INTERNET would be the perfect outlet for at least ONE of the hundreds to thousands of people that would have seen the low flying plane zooming over the mall.

You can dream up all kinds of scenarios, but none of them fit the facts or are even believable when explored.

It wasn't early morning. It was past 9. And again, if you're going to make the claim, prove it. Who cleared the National Mall? Why don't we have any of the park rangers who were on the job since 8 wondering why the mall was closed right before the strike? The mall is 146 acres. How do you clear that out? And then you have the issue that the national mall is just the biggest thing Flight 77 would fly over. Source

I did no such thing. I said it was irrelevant and then proved its irrelevancy. You couldn't respond to that either, so you just pretend someone claiming something is irrelevant is somehow far more damaging to someone's credibility than what you do which is make claims you can't even come close to explaining as shown above.

Your anti-American rants are irrelevant. The TRUTH of the matter is that what the press reported is backed up by the evidence and none of the people you claim would have seen something different have EVER stepped forward despite NUMEROUS avenues to do so. This is something you have not been able to explain. If you're going to try and pretend the internet is controlled, how do you explain your ability to post your crap here?

No, that is what YOU do.

Your anti-American views are irrelevant as has already been explained. I asked you to explain how the US is excercising imperialism when we haven't expanded which is the very definition of imperialism. You must HATE the truth because it keeps exposing your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lies as just that.

 

yeah they ignored what many eyewitnesses reported.NIST caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

 

Which 'cookie jar' would that be?

 

Patriot, first off the fact that you defend the mainstream media in America exposes you a great deal. There is no longer any doubt that the mainstream media has successfully monopolized the news industry and has been broadcasting filtered and selective news. They have also successfully censored out third party candidates in every election. Seriously, watch some of the Fox News anchors and their childish stupidity should be self evident.

Secondly, this countries foreign policy may not be the textbook definition of imperialism in the sense that we conquer and colonize foreign land. BUT our policy has imperialistic tendencies. Did you forget the western expansion? Spanish American War? How about the Korean War? Vietnam? The Middle-East? Fact of the matter is, currently, our country has the most aggressive foreign policy.

 

see this is the kind of poster that Happy Dude should reply to if he is going to discuss 9/11 with people Unlike all these paid shills here that post lies and propaganda and KNOW it was an inside job,this poster actually is open minded and has logic and common sense and is objective.something the OCTA's lack major big time in spades.I hope he comes back to this thread.he is the kind of poster i want to discuss this with.

 

Just using firewood, I've softened steel to the point of structural collapse. So heck yes, the jet fuel would have done so.

Yes. Gravity pulls down, not sideways. It fell exactly as expected.

Which is exactly what you can see happening as the fall begins.

Because after it tilted sideways a little, the supports holding the chunk together broke, and it no longer acted as a single object. It was now pieces. Gravity pulled those separate pieces straight down.

Because gravity was constantly accelerating the mass, which makes it completely unlike your car scenario.

 

Why do you find it necessary to lie about who I defend? I am not defending the MSM here. I am saying people have outlets outside the MSM to get their voices heard. Are you debating that point?

So you're butthurt over Ron Paul's treatment and wish to use this as proof the media is hiding the truth about 9/11? That's funny!

So have we made ANY of them a state? Cuba? Vietnam? Korea? ANYWHERE in the Middle East?

And what does an aggressive foreign policy have to do with Scott's claim that Flight 77 overflew the Pentagon despite the fact not one person reported seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon and the National Mall? Would you care to explain how nobody in Washington DC noticed an extremely low flying 757 screaming past four bridges, the National Mall and over a heavily populated area? We have all the witnesses who heard the plane coming in. Not one hearing the plane coming out. Do you honestly think the media would be able to contain that kind of information? Seriously?

 

I posted something about that on another thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/226501-standard-evidense-3.html#post4967866 If you keep playing dumb and trying to bury stuff that's already been addressed, we can thwart you by reposting it.

The evidence shows that a 757 flew over the Pentagon and there are plausible scenarios that would explain why we don't read about many people who saw it afterwards. One is the media blackout. The other is the intimidation and elimination of witnesses. Those people were probably so used to seeing planes flying overhead that they didn't think anything of it at the time. The government had the whole morning to clear the area anyway as they knew it was going to happen. They didn't necessarily start clearing the area only after the first tower strike.

You can pretend and tap dance around all you want but you all got caught telling some untruths on another thread. It's explained here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...onspiracy-theory-5-minutes-5.html#post4976475

I know you people are going to duly play dumb and tap dance around the issue to at least reduce the number of people who know that so what I have to do is post it from time to time to thwart you. You can pretend all you want but you have no credibility and anyone who takes the time to read the part of the debate in which you lied will know so.

 

Posting a page of this forum where you haven't even posted doesn't do much, does it. Try posting a link to the pertinent post.

All you've done so far is come up with lameassed and UNBELIEVABLE excuses as to why nobody saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. Plenty of people saw it. Nobody saw it leave. You claim they closed the National Mall, but have no proof. You have no excuse for why nobody PAST the mall didn't see the low flying plane either. You claimed the media has 100% blocked each and every witness, yet fail to account for the fact ANYONE who has internet access has direct access to the world.

So you can pretend you've addressed it all you want, Scott. Truth of the matter is you haven't. Not even close. You want people to believe you? Explain how nobody would have seen the plane in a believable way.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The evidence shows overwhelmingly that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Your OPINION is that this evidence is lacking, so you come up with a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) scenario that has more holes than all the swiss cheese ever made.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We BOTH know there is no way the media can black out something this big. Try again and pretend you're dealing with people who aren't nearly as dumb as you wish they were.

Yeah right. Once again you've come up with a completely unworkable and bull(*)(*)(*)(*) excuse. How are they suppose to identify all these people? How are they going to hire the hundreds of goons to go do the dirty work? The only way they're going to identify the people who saw something is if they tried to say something in the first place, yet you have been unable to show A SINGLE EXAMPLE of someone saying they saw a plane roaring across the Potomac.

Yet the people who saw / heard the approach on the other side KNEW something was seriously wrong. More bull(*)(*)(*)(*) excuses from you that don't hold up to even casual scrutiny.

Yet that would have been noted. Can you find ANYONE who says the National Mall was closed and evacuated? And what about past the Mall? Did they clear out all those homes?

Fine. So it should be real easy for you to find someone who has remarked that the Mall was closed, right? I've looked. Nobody has ever said word one about the Mall being closed and evacuated.

Wrong yet again. I said the witnesses were irrelevant. I never lied. You just have. Are you going to pretend every witness saw the impact of Flight 77? I don't know if Hannibal was right or not in how many saw the impact. Given where the witnesses claimed to be, it would be hard for them to see it.

More silly, sorry excuses from you. When are you going to man up and admit your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theory is unworkable?

Funny how you have to pretend we lied, yet can't address in any real way the massive holes in your own theories without coming up with some bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that people wouldn't even believe in the x-files.

 

Scott, are you seriously suggesting that people would not notice a low flying Pasenger plane on the morning of September 11, 2001??

Talk about obtuse ...

 

I would imagine if they had seen another low flying jet,the witnesses would be freaking out!

 

9/11 EXPOSED, Researched facts and analysis- Full Documentary.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFx1WaK54Vo&feature=related"]9/11 EXPOSED, Researched facts and analysis- Full Documentary. - YouTube[/ame]

 

OOOH! LOOKIE! Yet another truther video chock full of lies and bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! Spare us the video, CH. How about you just tell us the points you think you can actually defend and then we'll rip your points to shred. Quite frankly, your video isn't worth wasting an hour and 45 minutes on when you don't know what the video is about and you can't defend it even if you did.

 

Wow! That is so topical, and so overwhelming with its evidence that I'm sure it'll run George Bush right out of the White House.

Any day now.

 

I feel like there was an enormous amount of friction, the kind of friction like the ABS in cars, to decelerate the building collapsing on itself, at most, a distance of about a dozen floors to the point where it would have taken longer than ten seconds to fall straight down to the ground.

 

I did not comment on any matter pertaining to Scott's Flight 77 claims. But an aggressive foreign policy is morally wrong and will only create more enemies. We as a country have failed horribly to uphold the same virtues as our founding fathers.

 

That's my point. Why are you whining about foreign policy in a thread about 9/11 especially when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

 

Another attempt to bury this video-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbT9r-6IPQ"]New Documentary-The Pentagon Witnesses 6 of 9 - YouTube[/ame]

As I said before, we can thwart your attempts to play dumb about this video and try to bury it to reduce the number of people who see it by reposting it. There it is again so ha ha.

 

Why are you trying to thwart the attempts of your witnesses? They say the plane hit the Pentagon. Are they lying to you, Scott? Did big brother 'get' to them?