The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm guessing yes, they destroyed most of the physical evidence so I'm sure they didn't forget the light poles.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When one piece of evidence indicates a stand down it doesn't necessarily mean there was a stand down. When there is a pattern of evidence indicating a stand down, it is extremely difficult to imagine there wasn't a stand down. It's not conclusive but it's virtually improbable there was not a stand down. And certainly, it merits a detailed criminal investigation not a sweeping under the rug. Thanks to a true investigative journalist, as opposed to mainstream government presstitutes, the pattern of evidence is exposed.

     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  3. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I've shown you this before Bob, it is my video that explains Mineta's time line.



    There was no stand down.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah I'm sure you noticed how convincing you were.

    Not for you obviously. So I take it you're back trying to convince me once again? Do you think it's going to work this time?
     
  5. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    lol you misunderstand. I am not here to convince you, I'm here so that anyone who looks at your post, and then immediately sees mine below it, knows you are not trust worthy and that the information you post has very real explanations that don't involve grand conspiracies.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2017
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that's obviously not true since you specifically said "I've shown you this before Bob".

    You're contradicting yourself. So the truth is that you want to try to convince me and other readers then that every single fact I post that contradicts the official narrative has a "very real explanation that don't involve grand conspiracies", I see. How is that working so far? How many have you convinced that have changed their minds because of your posts?
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2017
  7. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Quite a few actually.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. Can you point to just one poster who didn't buy the official narrative but was convinced by your post(s) to buy it? Point to any discussion in any forum.
     
  9. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That's going to take me far longer than I care to invest to first find, and then dig through 10 years of posts on half a dozen forums and dozens of YouTube videos.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course, what was I thinking, there were so many you can't find one. LMFAO
     
  11. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    There's a difference between cant find and can't be assed.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's also a difference between lying and being truthful. I'm not sure why you would lie, perhaps it's to claim "victory"? That seems to be your agenda in this non game site.
     
  13. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Here are some of the many many questions that need to be answered regarding the alleged aircraft and the pentagon
    -how did an amateu pilot fly a 757 in a descending 270 degree turn at 400 or 500 MPH and hit the pentagon...it's impossible according to Professional fighter pilots and commercial pilots..
    -how did this large aircraft fly just above the ground at that speed without "ground effect"...if impossible according to the same professional pilots
    -How did the pentagon had no wing or engine marks on the building...just a relatively small hole 16 feet in diameter?
    -Where did the whole aircraft go..no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no engines, nothing to identify and support the government"s conspiracy theory
    -Why were the cameras and SAM:s on the roof of the pentagon turned OFF at that time?
    I would be interested and amused to hear anyone answer any these questions.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  14. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,651
    Likes Received:
    13,763
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They weren't amateur pilots.. The reason they couldn't qualify for a commercial ticket is because of their English. English is the international language for pilots.

    There was plenty of debris and body parts at the pentagon.. and the hole was much larger than 16 feet in diameter.

    Any pilot could have pulled off that maneuver as long as they didn't intend to RECOVER from the maneuver.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a good thing you have all the answers and no questions, even though you weren't there, had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11, never investigated anything, is not an expert in anything relevant about 9/11, and not to mention you're just another anonymous nobody in a discussion forum who defends everything officially spewed about 9/11. For the rest of us, we ask questions because we know we were lied to, we don't accept their obviously nonsensical story on faith and there's not one thing about the official story we don't question, not to mention we don't look for answers from any anonymous poster in a discussion forum who believes he/she has all the answers about 9/11, religiously parroted from the official story.

    I personally have many similar questions as well as hundreds more.
     
  16. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,651
    Likes Received:
    13,763
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Asking questions that discount facts is waste of time. Where do you think the airplane debris was stored? Who do you think trucked it to the Pentagon and spread it around on the site? Where did they get the body parts from?
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for confirming my point. Why are you asking me those questions? Why haven't you asked one single significant question about the official narrative that I'm aware of in all the years I've read your posts on 9/11? Do you see what I mean?

    Despite your false claim, I ask questions directly related to the facts and it's far from a "waste of time". When I look at the claimed "evidence", the majority of which was quickly, deliberately and ILLEGALLY removed and destroyed before any investigation was undertaken (there was never any legitimate investigation either), the totality of the allegedly recovered airplane parts from ALL 4 alleged airliners would not even fill the back of a small pickup truck. That makes NO SENSE. There was never any known attempt to forensically identify the parts of any of the alleged airplanes via their serial numbers to the actual claimed airplanes' logs. This is unprecedented (and counter to NTSB protocol) in airplane crash investigations where debris was recovered and that makes NO SENSE either. I ask why is that, of the officials tasked with the "investigation", not of YOU, because YOU don't have any answers and I would never expect you to have any answers. You don't ask that of them though, you're asking ME irrelevant questions in an attempt to try to shift the burden of proof. You and I are meaningless in terms of 9/11 other than that we can and SHOULD ask questions. But you're not directing any questions at the officials, you're falsely and deliberately directing your questions to me. And that makes NO SENSE either intellectually speaking.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  18. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,651
    Likes Received:
    13,763
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pictures of the aircraft debris at the Pentagon were published.. Where did that debris come from if some group of people didn't truck it in and spread it around the site?

    This question doesn't require much critical thinking.
     
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    6,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your entire post is a series of grossly inaccurate statements.

    Hanjour DID in fact have a commercial license. Though he had only 300 hours and met only the minimum requirements, he did have a commercial license. Horrible skills according to his flight instructors, and flew only Cessnas and Pipers, but he did have a commercial license. And that means they met the requirements for English language, for whatever that may be worth to you.

    There was no debris at the pentagon CONSISTENT WITH a 757 airliner. There was some debris, yes, but it was not what one would have seen if it had been AA77.

    A handful of pilots who fly that airplane for a living are on the record as saying they could not have flown that maneuver, so who am I to believe Margot, you or guys who fly the machine for a living?
     
  20. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,651
    Likes Received:
    13,763
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The handful of pilots said they could NOT perform that maneuver and RECOVER. Huge difference, but typically .. conspiracy crackpots edit to support crackpot claims.
     
  21. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    6,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you Margot for the fine display of ignorance being bliss!! You completely reject the knowledge and statements of men who fly the plane for a living, and embrace a story told by your government. You completely reject the facts, and embrace an absurd fairy tale. You clearly demonstrate how and why we have the government we deserve.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly, and that's why I asked those questions and YOU didn't, instead you're once again asking me yet another irrelevant question and still haven't asked one single relevant question about the official narrative. There's also a video of a NTSB guy at the Pentagon site who picked up a part with a serial number on it and said they were going to use to identify the aircraft (a standard procedure). What happened to that forensic identification??? Why aren't YOU asking that question and instead trying to shift the burden of proof to me?

    Exactly, it has nothing to do with questioning the official narrative, it's an absolutely useless question stemming from wholesale faith and acceptance that the US government's conspiracy THEORY is fact. Anyone can ask any question of those who don't buy the official narrative, it takes real critical thinking to ask questions about the official narrative, especially based on the LIMITED evidence they left for us to examine.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just found an interesting blog that questions what may have hit the Pentagon and suggests it was a missile. I will caution the reader that it is a blog and that the Pentagon issue is still highly controversial mostly because it has never been legitimately investigated. The blog is followed by supporting footnotes.

    Media Business Middleman Was Shown an Unreleased Video, Which Revealed That 'Something Other Than a 757 Hit the Pentagon on 9/11'

    Larry Garrison, a leading "story broker" whose job is to deliver tabloid stories to television news programs, was sent a video in the months after 9/11, which clearly showed that the Pentagon was hit by something much smaller than a commercial airliner--perhaps a missile--on September 11, 2001. However, when he passed copies of this video on to news organizations, they refused to broadcast the footage and instead sternly warned him to cease trying to get it released.

    While a few videos showing the attack on the Pentagon have been released in the years since Garrison received this footage, they appear to be different to what Garrison was sent. Furthermore, none of them have been of sufficient quality to determine conclusively what hit the Pentagon on September 11. The type of aircraft involved in the attack has therefore remained a subject of controversy.

    If Garrison's account is accurate, though, and the video Garrison was sent was authentic, the implications could be huge. If the Pentagon was hit by something other than a Boeing 757--the kind of aircraft that, according to the official narrative of 9/11, crashed into it--this video could reveal that the public has been seriously deceived. And if the footage was made public, its release could lead to a complete reassessment of the 9/11 attacks.

    Skipping ...

    After researching the attack on the Pentagon and noting various anomalies that had been highlighted by commentators on the Internet, Garrison wanted to get hold of the video that Carl said he possessed. Although he was unable to persuade Carl to meet up in person, Carl did e-mail him a copy of the video. It turned out to be devastating.

    Although the footage was less clear than the story broker would have liked, Garrison recalled, "it left no doubt whatsoever that what hit the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't a 757." While the quality of the image made it impossible to determine for sure what crashed into the Pentagon, the object in the video "looked like a smaller plane or [a] cruise missile."

    Upon consideration, Garrison decided it was more likely a missile, since he felt there had been greater damage to the reinforced walls of the Pentagon than a small plane could have caused. He concluded: "When I look at some of the news archives and compare the damage to the Pentagon to other concrete buildings that have been hit with a cruise missile, I have no doubt in my mind that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11." [11]


    http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2018/03/media-business-middleman-was-shown.html
     
    Mr_Truth and Eleuthera like this.
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    14,112
    Likes Received:
    6,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have long thought that something hit the pentagon, but it was clearly NOT a 757. Even the government provided frames from the parking lot camera show that. Whatever flew across that lawn and was caught by the camera was much too small to be an airliner.

    That is corroborated by other facts and evidence, notably the flight data recorder information which was counterfeit.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  25. Charles Rice

    Charles Rice Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Why aren't you answering them? If you're going to say a plane didn't hit the building, you have to explain the airplane wreckage being all around the building, inside the building, the passenger DNA, how the lightpoles got hit. Margot is simply asking you to explain the physical evidence. Since you cannot, deflates your entire premise.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page