The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Nov 1, 2016.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Really Scott?

    He distinctly said it was TWO PLANES. It's funny how you try and bend what people say in order to fit your fantasies. He's a great witness when he supposedly supports your claims, but an unreliable witness when he goes against your claims.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah here goes Gamo making **** up as usual. No Gamo, I "liked" it because of this below which I agree with 100%:

    If you read the very first post in this thread you would know exactly why I started it because I explain it quite explicitly in the post. I don't know if a plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 or not and before I saw the Coste videos I was highly skeptical that a plane did crash into the Pentagon, especially that it was a large commercial airplane. Since then I'm leaning toward that possibility and if you note I can only use the word POSSIBILITY. There are far too many questions for me to agree 100% that a large airplane did indeed impact the Pentagon on 9/11 (and several posters here have brought up many of those questions) so I remain a skeptic. What I do know is that the US government has never proven beyond doubt that any of the recovered debris actually belongs to any of the 4 claimed 9/11 airplanes and instead has either not investigated it as they absolutely should have and had the obligation to or they did but they're deliberately hiding the results. And by the lack of transparency, they're only strongly implying there is something wrong with their claim, especially given their long history of pathological lies.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Riiiigghhhhtttt...

    So you think it's bullcrap that Koko lied when he presented the Formula 1 FEA gif as a PLANE WING right?
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again Gamo, stop making crap up about me, you have no clue what I think. I think Koko brings up many excellent points that need to be analyzed. I think you bring up anything you possibly can invent to defend the OCT and question none of it. You have never ever acknowledged any of the thousands of technical questions/issues that contradict the OCT, always trying to come up with apologist excuses for these hundreds (thousands?) of incredible and very convenient anomalies.
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I asked you a question Bobby. What do you think about Koko lying when he posted a gif of a Formula 1 front end and claimed it was a PLANE WING?
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You mean like when you lied about the NTSB person holding a plane part and claiming he said they were going to use it to identify the plane? Which you eventually admitted was wrong?
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If I admitted it was wrong then I never lied in the first place. I'm not you Gamo, I don't invent things to defend the OCT, such your claim that what the NTSB guy meant was they were going to use the recovered part to figure out where on the plane the part came from. Why on earth would that be important in such a circumstance? You don't even make sense with your apologist inventions. He obviously meant they were going to use the serial number on the recovered part to identify the airplane and I misworded what he actually said on the video.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    There is no "if". You admitted that he never said what you claimed. Should I quote you?

    No, you admitted you were wrong because you got caught in a lie. You obviously watched the video and then twisted his words to get it to support your claim. That's a lie in my book.
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Riiigghhhtttt.

    "Misworded". Whatever you say Bobby.

    And no, he didn't "obviously mean that". That's not what he's quoted as saying. Quit trying to twist words to fit your needs.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would be your M.O. not mine. I have no "need" to twist anything. YOU have some kind of need to defend the OCT, every minutia of it and question none of it. I already know and have long ago known the OCT is a fairy tale made for children. I don't need to defend my position, I do need to expose it in as much detail as I can find. There's more than enough here that makes this particular point just one drop in the bucket and wouldn't change a thing if it didn't even exist.
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Because you can't Especially when you post "evidence" that isn't true.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You don't know anything about the flight data? Then why, when I asked you if you thought there was an actual 757 involved AND if the flight data was faked, you said "Yes" and also posted a link to the PFT forum?
    scott.PNG
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't post evidence that isn't true, there's no such thing. Evidence stands on its own, it either is evidence or it isn't on its own accord. I don't fabricate 9/11 evidence, I have nothing to do with 9/11 much less its evidence.
     
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Wow, that is seriously deceptive. It doesn't surprise me though, he did the same thing with the car hitting the post animation, cut just before the pole falls over!
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yup.

    Quite a bit of that here lately from the truther side.
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you're going to try to mislead the viewers, I'll have to link to the info.

    Viewers:
    Do a YouTube search on this video and start watching at the 41:50 time mark.
    The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2

    Do a YouTube search on this video and start watching at the 5:10 time mark.

    National Security Alert - Part 6/9 - Sensitive Information


    You're trying to play down the fact that this guy saw a large jet liner from where he was on the other side of the Pentagon. If you don't recognize the importance of this, you're simply not a sincere truth-seeker.


    Anyone who watches the videos can see that you're just playing games and not debating seriously. This means you're cornered and won't recognize it.


     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Directly from the interview..

     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're not showing the complete context to mislead the viewers. You want the viewers who haven't watched the videos to think that he saw two planes. He only saw one plane. He assumed the explosion was caused by another plane that he couldn't see as he was on the other side of the Pentagon. That's why he said there were two planes. Anyone who takes the time to watch the videos can see that and you've lost credibility with those people.

    So what do you think of his saying that he saw a plane flying away from the other side of the Pentagon after the explosion?
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    This coming from the guy who screwed up measuring pictures on his computer screen and blames it on caffeine.
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Tell me something Scott.

    Do you think a 757 traveling at about 530 mph would be able to turn completely around and end up almost exactly where it came from in 10 seconds tops?

    Tell you what. Go here:
    https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8012/what-does-it-take-to-turn-a-747-around-180-degrees

    Go to where the formulas start to flow and figure it out.

    According to this, a 747 flying at 490 knots and a 25 degree bank angle, would take 2 minutes and 53 seconds to make a 180 degree turn.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019

Share This Page