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
    There HAD to be two planes based on the impossible maneuver that the supposed 757 flyover plane would had to have made in 10 seconds to get back to the point it came in from. The fact that you are waffling about this speaks volumes.
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why do you keep leaking out the part where the people said "no, no, no, it struck the building"?
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I've addressed this several times. Here's one of the posts.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-106#post-1070081043

    Anyone who goes back and reads my posts can see that I'm not waffling. You're playing dumb about my answers.

    Maybe those people heard the explosion and saw the smoke but were out of sight of the supposed impact zone and just assumed the plane had hit the Pentagon. Why are you ignoring the fact that the guy says that some people were yelling that a bomb had gone off and a plane kept on going? This is not the behavior of an objective truth-seeker. Why are you ruling it out? What is your basis for ruling it out?
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You didn't explain anything!

    In order for the 757 that supposedly flew over the Pentagon to be the same plane that Roosevelt Roberts saw flying away over 390/27/south parking lot, it would have HAD TO HAVE MADE a complete 180 in 10 seconds WHICH YOU ADMITTED WAS IMPOSSIBLE!

    How are you not understanding this?
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I gave a rebuttal to this. Here it is.

    (from post #2108) 8) (Ignore the smilies. I don't know how to make them go away.)
    (post number two thousand one hundred and eight)
    Now you're supposed to give a counter-rebuttal. You're not supposed to reiterate. This has happened several times now. I give a rebuttal and you give a reiteration instead of a counter-rebuttal and act as if it were a rebuttal and that I were causing the problem. Give a rebuttal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

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

    Are you saying that the plane that flew over the Pentagon is the same plane the Roberts saw flying away over the south parking lot?

    Yes or no?
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is a presumptuous question. When he said, "South parking lot", he might have been confused. The important issue here is that he said he saw a big jetliner with jet engines. This is a gigantic red flag and an objective truth-seeker would not be behaving the way you're behaving.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    He saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon headed southwest over 395/27/south parking lot.
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    This means absolutely nothing. For Roberts to see the plane from his vantage point it would have to be south of the Pentagon. He said it was heading southwest. No matter how you slice it, the plane had to have made a complete 180 to be heading SOUTHWEST after flying NORTHEAST over the Pentagon. In 10 seconds!
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're still playing the same game. The important thing is that he said he saw a plane. Maybe he was having trouble putting he thoughts into words when he was describing the direction the plane took as he was driving when he was talking.

    Do a YouTube search on this and go to the 52:08 time mark.
    The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2


    What do you think of the possibility that he really saw the plane and he was just having trouble talking about the direction?


    I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Let me ask you a question Scott.

    When Roberts came outside and saw the plane, do you think it was over the parking lot he was facing or was he confused and meant somewhere else?
     
  12. saltydancin

    saltydancin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Probably saw an airplane as it was most likely before all planes were grounded.
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No game is being played, you are "checkmated" and would be "laughed out of the debating hall".

    Which is a jet, or not and flying in the wrong direction!

    Translation: My unreliable witness is totally wrong about the direction so I'll say any old crap to try and make it fit my bullshit claim.



    Not much.

    Why?
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    we all saw the e4b on tv at precisely the time it blew and it was so obvious they removed the time stamp, but many people have the original clip.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well, there's no way to have a productive discussion with the pro-official version posters here as they all seem to have a foregone conclusion and won't debate seriously.

    I don't rule out the possibility that Roosevelt Roberts is wrong or lying but I want to see a real reason for it – not just someone's strong conviction.


    Here's an overhead view of the whole area including the Ronald Reagan airport where the jet that supposedly flew over the Pentagon might have landed (click on the picture to enlarge it).
    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a...washington-national-airport-and-63599219.html

    The red line in this picture looks like the path that the Citizen Investigation Team maintains the big airliner that people saw took.
    http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/850333cb31ee.jpg

    Look where it says RR steps out (RR is in the red circle at the bottom). It looks to me like a plane following that path could have turned to the right and landed at the airport. That would have been on Roosevelt Roberts' left. He would have been able to see it after it had flown a few hundred yards in that direction. It might have flown over or just past the east side of the south parking lot which would explain why Roosevelt Roberts said it flew over the south parking lot.

    At the 8:10 time mark of this video the witness says the plane was flying slowly.

    (Do a YouTube search)
    National Security Alert - Part 4/9 - Sensitive Information

    The planes I've seen coming in for landings at airports are going slow enough to make that turn. I don't see any reason to rule out the possibility that Roosevelt Roberts really saw a large airliner flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm sure you have noticed that all they got is to reconstruct your points with their strawmen then argue their strawman bullshit was really your argument therefore you are lying as they have done to me. They have nothing, nothing but their strawmen since they fail to address any point in their favor now days. They do this with any issue that has more than one part. For instance the point under discussion is 'fast and green', they will misrepresent your point by leaving out one or the other, then calling you a liar, or review the matter at an imbecile level and again call you a liar. Its all they have left, and its designed to implant well into the minds of the unthinking skimmers and the over the deep end over thinking loons.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yeah, and that's not the way objective truth-seekers debate. That's the way that obfuscators debate.
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You post exactly as you accuse others of doing. You have been shown that this so called witness, has a plane going the wrong way and says it DOESN'T have jet engines.

    Luckily though, you have an excuse. He was "confused" because he was driving! You have the audacity to claim you have "checkmated" people, but quite clearly you are way beyond stretching any credibility this witness has to support the extremely foolish "no plane theory".

    You do NOTHING BUT rule out that possibility. Clearly he cannot be talking about a 757!


    Spare us your "might have" bullshit. Prove it.

    The CIT are appallingly deceptive about this. They have completely distorted the testimony and accuracy of where they observed the planes.

    A breathtakingly absurd claim. The aircraft was travelling at 500mph+ and could not possibly make a 90 degree turn in a few seconds! How can you sit there and make such a ridiculous claim?

    An airplane needs a suitable amount of altitude to perform a safe bank. At observed altitudes, if you banked a 757 at 40 degrees, which is EXTREME, you would crash way before you completed a 90 degree turn.

    To turn 180 degrees
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_rate_turn#Angle_of_bank_formula[3]

    Lets take a ridiculous speed of say 250 miles an hour if it's even possible to do an extreme bank at such a slow speed!

    Tan of 40 degrees is 0.84

    Radius of turn in FEET = Velocity squared / 11.29 × tan(bank) = 62500 / 9.84 = 6351ft = 2.12 Nautical miles.

    To turn 90 degrees at 250mph and a crazy dangerous 40 degree bank at low altitude would take 1.06 Nautical miles / 2.200 yards.


    Total bullshit!
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You've lost all credibility when you posted the FEA of a Formula 1 front end and claimed it was a plane wing. Just one of the recent examples of how you lie in order to support your idiotic claims.
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Like everything else you 'wish' were true, dream on!
    I did not say it was an 'air'-plane wing, I said it was a 'plane wing', not my problem if you fail to comprehend what you read since how many times have I told you and the gubmint crew to read for 'comprehension'. The only person, (as usual) who continues to confirm they have no credibility is you and the gubmint crew.

    English
    Pronunciation
    • IPA(key): /pleɪn/
    • Audio - 'a plane' (UK)
    Etymology 1
    From Latin planum (“flat surface”), a noun use of the neuter of planus (“plain”). The word was introduced in the 17th century to distinguish the geometrical senses from the other senses of plain.

    Adjective
    plane (comparative planer, superlative planest)
    1. Of a surface: flat or level.
    Translations
    ±show ▼of a surface: flat or level.

    combining plane and wing we have a flat surface that looks like a wing, and of course gets destroyed by a pole just like an AIRplane wing.

    Now this:



    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Plane 0
    Pole 1

    ripped that wing to shreds, pole with minor scratches, but then thats not one of betas concrete reinforced invincible light pole mowers I suppose.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019

Share This Page