The actual planning of the Pentagon attack from a truther's POV...

Discussion in '9/11' started by Gamolon, Dec 19, 2018.

  1. wist43

    wist43 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, as much as I would like to while away the hours discussing this topic - unfortunately it's back to work for me.

    So Bob, keep fighting the good fight. The rest of you... wake up.
     
  2. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    Nice to assume isn't it, especially when its from the safety of anonymity.
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
  5. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    Yes, post from the dead site since 2014 regarding a group oif people who claim to behold the following position:

    That no Boeing crashed into the Pentagon, instead the plane every one saw was a drone and that it flew direcly over the Pentagon while the damage caused to the building was from planted explosives.

    This is of course, blatantly false and highly amusing. I must add, Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke are frauds. Nothing they claimed about what happened at the pentagon is even remotely true. Nothing,
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Color me surprised...
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Here's the whole interview.
    http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts

    Explain what he meant when he said this starting at the timestamp shown below.

    Timestamp: 2:56
    Interviewer: "And it was.. was he moving fast?"
    Roberts: "Oh it was moving extremely fast. It was like ah... maybe saw that aircraft maybe for like uh... a quick five seconds."
    Interviewer: "For a quick five seconds. But you definitely... and you saw it over the south parking lot? Over lane one..."
    Roberts: "In the south... was in the south parking lot over lane one."
    Interviewer: "Ok. Do... do you remember which direction it was headed?"
    Roberts: "Uh... coming from the uh... 27 side... 27 heading uh... uh... east towards DC coming from that area. Uh... it was the highway. If you were to come up 395 uh... north headed towards the Pentagon then you got off in south parking, you were like right there 'cause 395 went right into 27."
    Interviewer: "So from where... from when it headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?"
    Roberts: "From the... uh... can you repeat that one more time please?"
    Interviewer: "Yeah. When it was heading away from the Pentagon, this... this second plane... Do you remember...
    Roberts: "...Right..."
    Interviewer: "...which direction it was heading?"
    Roberts: "It was uh... it was heading um... back across 27 and it looks like... it appeared to me, I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... southwest coming out."

    According to the above interview, Roberts supposedly came outside 10 seconds AFTER the explosion and saw the aircraft flying FROM the 27 side where 395 went into 27 for about 5 seconds. It was HEADING EAST TOWARDS DC. He said a second plane was heading back southwest.
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As are policemen according to you. But only the ones who appear to back up your mad claims. If I created a site and called it Levelheadedthruthers.com does that mean it's full of level headed truthers!?

    They BOTH were far away from the event. Explained to you many times. Nothing makes it go away, but your failure to acknowledge maybe does in your head!

    Post reported for spamming. Not because you are "winning the debate" or because anyone is "cornered" or to "hide your evidence". Nobody is attempting to "thwart" you.

    It is simply disgraceful that you position yourself as a truth seeker, whilst ignoring detailed response after detailed response to identical posts that you make time and time again!

    The plane smashed into the side of the Pentagon.

    Or, the bare bones:
    1. Setup fake explosions of poles, small buildings etc.
    2. Distribute plane parts all over the place.
    3. Do something to the real plane.
    4. Kill, dismember and burn all on board.
    5. Send body parts to Dover or deposit it at the Pentagon crash scene.
    6. Create false witnesses who will never admit their lies.
    7. Create fake DRONE and all the people it involves. Then it needs to look like a plane impact.
    8. Make sure nobody talks and it is all timed to perfection.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I meant all these government agencies obviously, not everyone employed by them. But you knew that right? I pointed you to the proper thread where much of this is detailed and sourced.

    Whether there were mistaken or not wasn't my point obviously. But you knew that right?

    Absolutely not, there's not one thing I can say that I feel that has any sense of legitimacy about the 9/11 Commission and their report. But you also knew that from all your alleged research, right? This is also made evident in detail within the thread I pointed you to (in case you really haven't done the research as you claim).

    I started a thread on the 9/11 Commission and their report and pointed you to it, feel free to add anything you like to it. But if you'd rather, start your own, that's your prerogative.

    All you're doing is confirming my assessment of you as just another run of the mill OCT defender despite your claims denying to be one. But that's ok, you're just another of many in this forum.
     
  10. wist43

    wist43 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Since most of you guys live in your moms basement you have unlimited time.

    As for me, I have 3 kids to raise and a business to run... have to pay those taxes so you guys can get your food stamps ;)

    Ciao
     
  11. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
     
  12. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    Since you are merely trolling and cannot hold a reasonable discussion without insulting, i will be putting you on ignore.
     
  13. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    #1. "I meant all these government agencies obviously, not everyone employed by them. But you knew that right? I pointed you to the proper thread where much of this is detailed and sourced."

    Well you were quite "vague" regarding who you thought is in the know, but i understand your point now and would agree to an extent."

    #2. "Absolutely not, there's not one thing I can say that I feel that has any sense of legitimacy about the 9/11 Commission and their report. But you also knew that from all your alleged research, right? This is also made evident in detail within the thread I pointed you to (in case you really haven't done the research as you claim)."

    But thats perfectly fine as well. You simply dont believe anything but your own beliefs which are quite vague at times.

    #3. "I started a thread on the 9/11 Commission and their report and pointed you to it, feel free to add anything you like to it. But if you'd rather, start your own, that's your prerogative."

    I will read it when i get home, as im on the road now.

    #4. "All you're doing is confirming my assessment of you as just another run of the mill OCT defender despite your claims denying to be one. But that's ok, you're just another of many in this forum."

    You stated this numerous times so far, its irrelevant actually.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The same can be said for anyone, including YOU.

    Yes and no. It's irrelevant from a 9/11 perspective but it is relevant from the perspective of any discussion about 9/11. And that is what we are doing here, discussing 9/11. I find most posters in this section of the forum either defend the official narrative or dispute/question it. It's very rare to find a poster who is neutral on the subject.
     
  15. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    #1. "The same can be said for anyone, including YOU."

    Exactly, however to refute any point i made regarding the Pentagon; All one needs to do is simply present conflicting evidence, not merely state ones disagreement.

    #2. "Yes and no. It's irrelevant from a 9/11 perspective but it is relevant from the perspective of any discussion about 9/11. And that is what we are doing here, discussing 9/11. I find most posters in this section of the forum either defend the official narrative or dispute/question it. It's very rare to find a poster who is neutral on the subject."

    Im a skeptic. Im not a truther nor debunker,. I dont adhere to the official account of the 9/11 commission....the plane impacts of 9/11 are just one very small area of the 9/11....i deal with the geo-political. Areas pre-9/11. So far most of these OP threads are basics arguments regarding WTC and Pentagon. Small potatoes.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Conflicting evidence" can come in many different flavors, it doesn't have to be hard evidence, it can be a logical argument or it can just be that the point is unsupported or not fully supported. Some of your points are merely unsupported claims of having provided proof, even sometimes described as irrefutable. That is quite audacious on your part. No one in this forum owns any 9/11 proof or evidence of any kind. As participants in 9/11 discussions we can only source what we each believe supports our opinions on the subject. For a poster to conclude that he/she has proven anything about 9/11 is dishonest, especially given the fact that the source of our knowledge comes from what we were fed by the US government and particularly because the US government publicly admits that an incredible amount of documents/evidence is classified. None of us actually knows the extent of the evidence that is missing because of the deliberate wholesale destruction and extreme over-classification, not to mention outright lies and distortions. Half a story is a LIE, plain and simple, it is not truth.

    Yet all your posts and the tone of your posts on the subject of 9/11 so far tell a different story, one that is quite familiar to me and aligns very well with the official narrative and derisively of posters who disagree with the officially narrative and you. For you it seems there are only two labels, "truther" (as applied in derogatory terms) and "debunker". "Skeptic" is just a word you claim for yourself that does not describe your position at all. "Skeptic" would be a more appropriate description of my position since I question the entire official 9/11 narrative from start to finish. It doesn't mean for example that I believe no planes were involved (or even half-planes as you describe it), it just means I question everything and accept nothing from the US government as fact. This is after all an entity that has a long illustrious record of pathologically lying. Governments are made up of self-serving politicians who will say and do anything to attain their positions of power. To trust the US government is as foolish as it gets.
     
  17. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    #1. If you dont have "hard" evidence, then you havent any evidence at all. Tell you what lets make it easy, you tell me what point you disagree with regarding the Pentagon that i stated....and we will go from there.

    #2. Im not the only skeptic however, there are a few others. That doesnt mean i fully entrust the official narrative. There are many things incomplete and flat out incorrect but as much as i state this, this point seems to stand out more than the physical evidence of the day. lets not make this about me. Lets make this about the points which you disagree with.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that describes the official 9/11 narrative just perfectly.

    I disagree with your claim that anything about the Pentagon with respect to the official narrative has been proven.
     
  19. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    #1. That describes the difference between belief and knowledge.
    #2. Great, then explain what happened at the Pentagon. You disagree that American Airlines Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, so you must have an explanation for what happened.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    agreed! That great we agree on something.

    So how about it Adam.... you litigate on behalf of the oct, so when are you going to give me the hard evidence that I have asked you to provide? Remember?

    8 - wheels
    2 - main landing gear
    2 - 6 ton engines

    There is more but thats a good start, you dont want everyone to think you dont have the main course of evidence do you?
    read what he said again, this time for comprehension, instead of posting strawman arguments. He does not need to offer anyone an alternative theory, much less a comprehensive alternative investigation, a strawman you seem to believe is legitimate, its not. He only needs to point out with reason you have not sufficiently proven your case, thats the way it works in debates and in courts as well for that matter. The burden lies on the claimant, the kleptocracy claims a 757 went in, its their burden to prove it and yours if you try to litigate their position.

    Btw so far I havent seen any parts that remotely resemble anything larger than a drone.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
    wist43 and Bob0627 like this.

Share This Page