The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

ask me questions directly ... I have no use for your constant spam ... don't let youtube think for you

 

quit spamming with your youtube bullshit and grow a pair of balls and engage in a discussion FFS! ...

I actually admire you Scott ... youtube must be paying you well as I can see you don't even believe your own BS ... you have no axe to grind like the bunker crowd ... you are just here to make a buck off of scam videos .. kudos ...

 

Says the guy who lets the government do the thinking for him.

 

Don't airliners have lots of seats, like approximately 201 connected in sets of 3? So wouldn't that mean lots of pictures of burned up airliner seats?

I have not seen those pix! Was that a standing room only flight?

 

You mean like this Boeing 757-200? Probably the seats evaporated into thin air.

 

You know some people are just too picky with their explication of details!

I see seats were mentioned before on pages 15 and 22 though not the number. But this is one of the ridiculous things about 9/11. The obvious can just be swept under the rug and some people can ignore the lump. Lobotomies must be really cheap and stylish in America.

 

Details and science are unnecessary when one has faith that the government is telling them the truth.

 

sorry Bob, but you would be wrong on that accusation ... I read the facts as presented and come to logical conclusions ... not hair brained conspiracies ... your movement is dead ... but have fun with it ...

 

they are there if you look for them ... just don't expect intact seats ...

 

Oh yeah? Give us a link. [Pretending to hold breath]

psik

 

Nope, you bought the whole shebang and question none of it, I'm 100% correct.

You read the story and came to the "logical conclusion" that fairy tales must be true.

That is a hair brained conspiracy.

Yeah I hope so, that's why it gets flushed down the toilet. Yours is still alive? Check out the show "Monsters Inside Me", perhaps you're a candidate for the next episode.

 

Prove it.

 

Feel free to tell us your own "non-outlandish story" in that case. Oh yeah, you're too scared to do so.

 

It was an inside job, and many things were accomplished, not the least of which was the next day invocation of SEC rules allowing anonymous cashing in of certain US securities related to Project Hammer. It was the foundation of The Global War On Terror, which is still going on today.

 

that's a flat out lie ... you KNOW I don't buy 100% ... amazing how troofers are such amazing liars ... yeah, but whatever ... enjoy your delusions ...

 

I don't have the burden of proof ... you claim a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon when one clearly did ... where's your evidence something else did ... come on nuke boy ...

 

So what .00001% didn't you buy?

 

You're contracting yourself. If you're claiming a 757 "clearly" hit the Pentagon the BOP is yours.

 

I assure you that you look pretty silly when you play dumb about the truther version of this instead of giving a rebuttal to it. It's been shown to you several times. Start watching this at the 1:55:25 time mark.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)



You'll see that neither nukes, nor the "No plane theory" are mentioned. Those theories are started by infiltrator shills who are trying to discredit the truthers by associating wacky theories with the legitimate ones.

provocateurs,shills and disinfo agents

(7:20 time mark)

 

wrong again Bob ... it is clearly accepted by the vast majority as to what happened by the overwhelming evidence ... just because a few fringers have an axe to grind doesn't shift the burden of proof ... I'm not going to list said overwhelming evidence yet again ...

 

How many times do I have to tell you I've seen it Scott??? ... want don't you watch it again and take note of all the evidence they clearly ignore??? ... you suffer from confirmation bias ...

 

Give us an example of that evidence.

 

I just came across this.
http://slideplayer.com/slide/5908801/

I've only had time to scan it but it looked objective.

Whatever was behind the gate-lifting mechanism in this picture was too small to be a 757.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe1.jpg
https://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hunt-the-boeing/
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-reveal-aftermath-9-11-attack-Pentagon.html
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4354

 

About what? That the BOP rests with the claimant? No that's a universally accepted standard, do a Google search if you're truly interested in accuracy. You made the claim you prove it. To be fair, those who claim a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 also have the BOP. I personally make neither claim. I have no idea what really hit the Pentagon on 9/11 but I simply don't believe it was a 757, that doesn't make sense to me for many reasons. Certainly if it was a 757 or better yet AA77, I need to see the forensic evidence which over 16 years later, has never been shown and is being deliberately withheld despite FOIA requests. That tells me it either doesn't exist or it's being covered up likely because it doesn't match AA77.

If that's your proof, you have no clue what proof is. It was clearly accepted by the vast majority back in the day that the Earth was flat and that the Universe revolved around Earth, by the "overwhelming evidence". Sorry consensus is not proof, it never was and never will be. Below is a scientific consensus and it's still not proof nor does it claim to be, but it's certainly a hell of a lot better than the "consensus" you're trying to peddle as proof:

The Practice of Evidence-Based Research

We define the practice of evidence-based research as the judicious use of current best evidence in evaluating the issue at hand. This practice means integrating individual professional expertise with the best available documentary and scientific evidence. To integrate professional expertise into Consensus Points, the Panel employs a simplified Delphi methodology. The Delphi approach is often used in contexts “where published information is inadequate or non-existent,” providing “a means of harnessing the insights of appropriate experts to enable decisions to be made.” The 9/11 Consensus Panel is dedicated to using the “best evidence” available in its quest to shed light upon the world-changing events of September 11, 2001.

The Scope of “Best Evidence” for the Purposes of the 9/11 Consensus Panel

The Panel uses the term in the very narrow sense of the “best evidence” available with regard to any specific claim of the 9/11 official story that the Panel challenges. It does not mean the strongest evidence against the official story in general. It is simply the best evidence against each particular claim that the Panel addresses. “Best evidence”, as used by the 9/11 Consensus Panel, is not evidence in support of alternative theories of what happened on 9/11.

http://www.consensus911.org/what-is-best-evidence/

And some of the reasons why it's a much more honest version of consensus is because it uses a panel of experts and questions the official claims based on all the available evidence, rather than use consensus by faith.

Correct (despite the childish labeling), the BOP always rests with the claimant. That would still be you in this case.

Again? You have yet to show any conclusive (or "overwhelming" as you want to call it) evidence. Somehow, I'm only overwhelmed by the obvious lack of any legitimate investigation.

I guess it is 100% after all, not even 99.99999%. I knew that.