Keep running skippy. Keep running. You've been owned yet again. You post links you claim are proof but only ask questions that have already been answered and provide no other explanation. Amateur.
Here, Scott. Since you ran from it before, how about trying to defend it now since you seem to be so sure of yourself. It has been proposed by Scott that Flight 77 didn't fly into the Pentagon despite all the evidence Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon including physical evidence, DNA evidence, eyewitnesses, and the fact Flight 77 didn't turn up anywhere else. Here are the facts nobody denies: A plane approached the Pentagon at a high rate of speed. Something damaged the Pentagon with a big explosion with fire and smoke. Flight 77 is missing. So what does Scott claim happened? Well, he is not real sure, but here is the explanations he has given us so far: It could be explosives set up outside the Pentagon, but then it is impossible to explain the damage inside the Pentagon that is well documented and completely unlike anything explosives would do. It could be another plane following right behind Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon right after firing missiles. But not one person reports two planes, radar images only show one plane, and the debris inside the Pentagon is from a 757, the FDR was from Flight 77, and all the bodies found were from Flight 77. No matter which explanation Scott uses, one fact remains clear in his mind; Flight 77 overflew the Pentagon. IF Flight 77 or any other plane flew OVER the Pentagon, especially at the speeds everyone agrees on, any explosion either before, during or after Flight 77 went over the pentagon would have the smoke follow wake of the departing plane. The wake left behind an airliner causes a huge amount of turbulence in the air and would have made the smoke from the explosion deform. Does any witness see this? No. Is it evident from any of the video footage? No. This is the first piece of hard evidence that no plane flew over the Pentagon as per Scott's claim. If Flight 77 or any other plane flew OVER the Pentagon, that plane would have flow over the following places which are usually full of people, yet NOT ONE WITNESS has ever stepped forward saying they saw anything unusual which would most definitely include a plane flying over the Pentagon. I am listing these in the order from closest to the Pentagon to the furthest away. The center of the Pentagon which is an open space with walkways and many visitors. Apparently on 9/11 it was completely abandoned. The plane would have flown in clear, unobstructed view of five different Pentagon parking lots. What are the odds not a single person was walking to or from their car on the morning of 9/11? The plane would have flown over one six lane highway, North Jefferson Davis Highway, and one major steet, North Boundary Channel Drive. Apparently no cars were present or they were all plants as Scott has tried to pretend. The plane would have flown over Columbia Island Marina, home to several hundred boats. Apparently nobody wanted to go boating on a fine September morning. The plane would have flown over another four lane highway, the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The plane would have flown over the Mount Vernon Trail. Obviously nobody would be outside walking on a clear September morning. The plane would have flown over the Potomac River in clear view of every boat currently on the river. The plane would have flown in clear view of three major bridges: the six lane Arlington Memorial Bridge, the 9 lane 395 / George Mason Memorial Bridge, and the four lane Arland D Williams Memorial Bridge. The plane would have flown over West Potomac park and it's eight baseball diamonds. The plane would have flown in clear view of the East Potomac Golf Course. Surely nobody would be out playing golf on a clear September morning right? The plane would have flown over the National Mall including the Lincoln memorial, the Reflecting Pool, the Vietnam War Veteran's Memorial, the Korean War Veteran's Memorial, the World War II Memorial, the Washington Monument, and the Smithsonian complex. Of course, Scott claims they closed down the National Mall on 9/11, but has absolutely zero evidence that this event happened even though it would take HOURS to clear out the park and all its attractions. The plane would have flown in clear view, if not over, the south lawn of the Whitehouse. At 500 miles an hour, the plane would have been over the Whitehouse in just over fourteen seconds. Assuming a ridiculous climb rate of 4500 FPM, the plane would be just over a thousand feet off the deck and screaming like a banshee. Think anyone WOULDN'T notice that? So what proof is there a plane flew over the Pentagon? So far, not one piece of evidence has been presented. Not ONE. We have Scott's opinion that the crash site doesn't look like what would happen if a 757 hit the Pentagon. Is Scott an expert in crash impact analysis? Not even close. But we're suppose to believe him over all the other evidence including the evidence his claims Flight 77 overflew the Pentagon are impossible. I await your reply.
This thread is going to be a good study of sophistry. When disinfo agents are cornered, they can never admit it. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 (excerpt) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Even when they're caught in a blatant lie, they continue posting unashamedly. They are totally detached from the fact that they look silly. As it says above, it's just a job. When cornered, they tap dance around and say lame things until the issue blows over, and then go on as if nothing had happened. I guess that attracts less attention than admitting they'd lied.
Keep running skippy! Every step you take only proves your claims are (*)(*)(*)(*), you know they are full of (*)(*)(*)(*), and now everyone else knows they are full of (*)(*)(*)(*). Couldn't answer the questions your supposedly true theories raise then. Can't answer the questions now. No big surprise. Nothing has changed except the incessant whining quality of your threads.
I have repeatedly encouraged people to read for themselves, have I not? I showed you what I agreed with. Try and comprehend. Perhaps have an adult read it to you.
Actually, what's at issue here is that after almost 11 years, no one has come up with any credible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Yet certain people keep trying and continue to present speculation and opinion and call it evidence.
Hey Scott, may I ask you a question please.. Assuming flight 77 flew over the pentagon, what do you think caused the damage to the pentagon. PLEASE do not post links and PLEASE do not use copy and paste. PLEASE in just your ordinary, everyday words, tell me what it is. Like two people at the pub having a normal conversation. I'm not convinced you're not a bot. And if you're not, it looks like you send people on wild goose chases to where there are no answers instead of just providing answers. So please just tell me straight up. Thank you.
(from post #130) This is your response to this? In post #88... http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...lane-flew-over-pentagon-9.html#post1061620179 ...you said this. Both of the articles say nothing of the sort and nowhere in the video does it say that. You seem to have been caught in a blatant lie because you were trying to mislead those viewers who don't have time to click on the links and read the info. The ones who have looked at the info know you were lying and the ones who don't have time to look at it think you were probably lying as you refuse to show us where it says that in the info. The way you people maintain the attitude that you have the upper hand in this debate the whole time you look silly is really amusing. Now, if you maintain the info in those links says that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, please show us exactly where it says that. This is a perfectly reasonable request as I saw it nowhere. If you and your friends keep tap dancing around and trying to change the subject, it will be obvious to everybody that you have been caught in a lie which means that you don't even believe your own arguments.
See the part with the quotation marks? That's my cut and paste, as you requested. Do you not have the time to read your own links? Shame. Say - you're not making such a fuss because you can't answer the questions posed to you, are you? We call that "Clutching at Straws".
The problem is that it's nowhere to be seen in the info in these two links. http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_15.htm http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_16.htm I've read both of them and I did a page search on both of them. It's not there. Tell us which link it is and tell us how many lines down from the top it is.
Of course you did. Have you transcribed the video, too? Word for word? If not, you had best get busy. Your research is not complete.
You forgot this part of my post. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your friends are between a rock and a hard place because one of them got caught in a blatant lie and you are trying to help them by trying to distract me by changing the subject. Tell us whether you think Hannibal should show us where the quote is. If you don't know my postion on how the damage to the Pentagon was caused after seeing this... http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746 ...you're playing dumb. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 (excerpt) ------------------------------------- 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
You forgot this part of my post: You certainly are a master at playing dumb, eh? I answered your question - now it's your turn.
No, I haven't but you can show us the time mark where that is said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ (good Pentagon analysis at 29:00 time mark) The whole idea of that section of the video about the Pentagon is that the evidence leads to a 757's not having hit the Pentagon.
Best get to typing, then. "American Airlines 77 crashed into the Pentagon." I agree with this sentence from your links.
If that's really said in the video, why don't you simply show us the time mark? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ (good Pentagon analysis at 29:00 time mark) You pro-official version posters can pretend all you want. Hannibal lied and the rest of you tried to cover for him. Your credibility is shot. All you can do now is try to bury this issue to reduce the number of people who see it. It's pretty clear that you all know that 9/11 was an inside job as well as the truthers do.
I'm not 'burying' anything. Type it up. See for yourself. "American Airlines 77 crashed into the Pentagon."
I am still laughing my ass off at a truther demanding evidence and throwing a tantrum when he gets treated like he treats others.
Sure it is. At this link http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_13.htm third and fourth lines down from the top is the quote "American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon". Isn't this fun?? It's called "quote mining". Truther sites are full of it. Now, would you please answer HFD's question and quit posting links to delusional horse crap?
Scott getting his panties in a twist because people aren't giving him the information he is demanding.
I'm sorry, to be honest I didn't catch that. I have more or less resorted to skimming over his posts or even ignoring them as it's all just the same links and copy and paste. Of course I see now and you're right.. : )
