The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

This is ridiculous. The aircraft didn't "fail"..

 

Just to sum up; the light poles are not in the purview of the Commission Report; the same way WTC 7 wasn't in the purview of the Report. WTC 3 was also destroyed (It was a Marriott Hotel as I recall)...for some reason the twoofers seem to not know this. It is not mentioned in the the report either TTBOMK. Since everyone knows that AA77 hit the Pentagon, there was little reason for the commission to mention the poles, the generator, or the edge of the heliopad that were all hit by the airliner; just as it was not important to mention WTC 3.

As for the investigation, what is often not referred to by the twoofers is that the FBI did their investigation (the NTSB gave technical assistance). The 9/11 Commission's mandate was to tell the story of the attacks pretty much. The actual mandate from the Preface of the 9/11 Commission Report is listed:

Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001," including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.​

Probably too broad for any report to get too deep into all of the "relative" areas but they did an admirable job none the less. In terms of relating the facts and circumstances; they batted 1,000.00%.
The NTSB listing of the airplane crash (on AA 77) has it plowing into the earth; not a building. To the Commission, it made little difference given the audience since we know it hit the Pentagon and that was the most important fact other than the hijacking itself. https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....?queryId=671eea86-b0b5-489a-98c1-07dcd1de3c73

I suppose the twoofers think that Lee Hamilton and other 70+ y/o commission members should be walking around rubble and wearing lab coats to match DNA...LOL. Its farcical on it's surface much less a non-starter. They're the product of watching way too much television and having a skewed version on how investigations are conducted.

 

And no logic presented in the link accounts for the poles no matter how many times its posted.

 

I am tired of birthers and truthers.

 

You seem to be trying to bury this to keep the viewers from seeing it.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632&st=0&start=0

 

For the dozenth time the link is horse ****. There is no logical explanation for why the poles would be included in the “plot”; why the conspirators would include the poles.

But just for the sake of argument, lets say they did, they paid people to needlessly plant light poles. Why would they include a taxi cab getting hit by one of them and put yet another person on the payroll? And since the damage the planted pole would have had to have done to the planted taxi cab was so extensive…they would have had to have delivered the cab to the place where it was to be staged….

 

Ah, a post I can respond to. Skipping the irrelevant ...

Everyone on the planet except those involved.

You're confirming exactly what I said and you quoted.

and

No physical forensic serial number match to AA77 = no confirmation that the debris belonged to AA77 and no physical identification, period.

(see above quoted theory, that's all there is)

 

That's 100% false as you quoted below from the 9/11 Commission Report itself, you are contradicting yourself:

​

 

PS - Your post has been reported. If you want to discuss this topic, keep the insults to yourself.

 

Off topic and irrelevant. If you don't want to discuss this topic, stay out of this thread.

 

Off topic and irrelevant. If you don't want to discuss this topic, stay out of this thread.

 

Do you know that the pilots were trained? They could fly. The reason they couldn't get a ticket was because their English was terrible and English is the international language of aviation.

 

If you're referring to the alleged hijackers, it is a part of the official conspiracy theory which is an unverified/unreliable/illegitimately investigated account of what happened on 9/11. Sorry, but I'm not gullible enough to believe that (according to the official myth), any of these alleged hijackers were capable of flying those alleged airplanes in the manner officially stated.

 

Of course they were trained pilots..

 

You're just repeating yourself. It doesn't change what I posted. IMO (based on much expert opinion) even if these alleged hijackers were ace pilots, the probability of any of them piloting one plane, never mind 3 of them, as described by the official story (performing maneuvers at well beyond the design limitations of the alleged aircraft and near perfect direct hits) is nearly impossible. But that they never flew these types of aircraft and were far from ace pilots makes the story believable only to the most gullible or uninformed. In order to swallow the official myth, one has to also swallow that there were literally hundreds of convenient and almost all improbable (read unscientific) coincidences, all favorable to the complete success of the 9/11 event and all occurring on the same day. The mathematical odds of that happening are beyond reason. Reality and logic just don't support the official fairy tale.

 

Any pilot could perform those maneuvers if they didn't intend to recover... Do you understand what I just said?

 

That's just your opinion, experts disagree and so do I. It makes no sense at all. It's one thing to crash a plane into a random place, it's quite another to perform expert maneuvers well beyond manufacturer design limitations and hit a target with uncanny precision as intended, not just once, but 3 times and all on the same day. That's even more true for anyone untrained in flying a particular airplane. For me this is a fairy tale made for children, as most of the official 9/11 story is.

My English is at least as good as yours, there's no need for silliness.

 

Not if you don't intend to correct and pull out of the maneuver.

 

That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the outcome is suicide or not, the attempt and resounding success is just not possible.

 

Of course its possible.. They did it, didn't they? You are up to your ears in crackpots and conspiracy buffs.

 

Repeating your opinion doesn't make it true.

There is no evidence they did, only a mostly unsupported report based on an illegitimate investigation.

Please keep your insults and irrelevant opinions out of this thread.

 

Are you claiming the Planes did not hit the World Trade Towers or the Pentagon?

 

It's very logical. It can be said that the 757 hit the poles. It reenforces the lie.

It's not needless at all. It reenforces the lie.

Because it make the lie even more convincing.

Are you saying it was impossible to do? It was very possible. It could have been hidden under a green tarp.

The light poles and cab can easlily be explained. They in no way prove that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

 

I am not, I am merely stating what's impossible and what is unsupported by the official story. I saw 2 planes crash into the towers on 9/11 on video so I'm not in a position to claim that didn't happen. I did not see any plane crash into the Pentagon, there no recording of that publicly available if it even exists. So I am not in any position to claim a plane crashed into the Pentagon or something else happened. Either way, there is no physical evidence that any of the claimed airplanes were involved despite that there exists physical evidence according to the official story that could have easily confirmed or contradicted the official claims.

 

Actually there is (if that's what really happened), they just failed to prove it. By the same token, they also failed to prove it was AA77.