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. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That is your personal belief. There is no objective evidence to support it.

    OTOH there is objective evidence to support this statement of mine you have quoted:
    "In addition, after looking through old Int'l Sceptics threads, they went out of their way to target an elderly black man as an agent for attacks from an internet mob who, just to be clear, is heavily composed of Alt right loons, many of whom are racist."


    Even if that is true, it in no way justified your handwaving of the so called "research" of two marketing frauds that targeting an elderly black man as an agent to be attacked by an internet mob from a conspiracy community that includes racists.


    For someone who can see conspiracies in the semi colons of the official documents, this is a very odd blind spot for you to have.
     
  2. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,130
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    sorry Bob ... just posting facts which you are incapable of ...


    incapable



    [in-key-puh-buh l]
    Spell Syllables
    Synonyms Examples Word Origin
    See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
    adjective
    1.
    not capable.
    2.
    not having the necessary ability, qualification, or strength to perform some specified act or function:
    As an administrator, he is simply incapable.
    3.
    without ordinary capability; incompetent.
    noun
    4.
    a thoroughly incompetent person, especially one of defective mentality.
    Idioms
    5.
    incapable of,
    not having the ability, qualification, or strength for (a specified act or function).
    not open to; not susceptible to or admitting:
    These materials are incapable of exact measurement.
    legally unqualified for.
     
  3. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    He seems to be particularly upset when people try to engage him. He still doesn't understand this is kinda the point of posting on a forum.
     
  4. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    But, but, but....this is an official source. I'm not trying to be snarky(though you make it easy), but the National Transportation Safety Board is part of the Federal Government you distrust so much and think is behind the 9/11 attacks!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safety_Board

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent U.S. government investigative agency responsible for civil transportation accident investigation.

    Christ, man, get your conspiracy straight.
     
  5. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Nice dodge.

    Reference me where the NTSB must use aircraft parts serial numbers for the purposes of identifying which aircraft crashed.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no reason to and you're not obviously interested and it's also obvious you haven't read any of it. But I already did post the reference(s) anyway. Appendix J. Appendix H is also quite informative. Links were already provided. It's SOP for the NTSB but not the FBI. Like I said, I'm not here to convince you, you're already convinced. But OTOH it sounds like you're either here to try to convince me or you're just a pathological contrarian shill who insists on diverting the discussion.
     
  7. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Your claim, the onus of proof is on you.

    I've read your links, I've seen it before when other truthers make similar claims of bull(*)(*)(*)(*)tery. There is nothing in either Appendix J or H which helps your claim.

    Appendix J:
    [​IMG]

    Nope, no suspicion of material failure causing crash, and no desire to required a detailed examination. Therefore Appendix J does not apply to this event.

    Appendix H:
    [​IMG]

    Okay let's go see what it says about it:

    [​IMG]

    So this part deals with the aircraft engine operations. If they were operating on impact then there was nothing wrong with them, further documentation is not required. If the aircraft engines failed, collect serial numbers and trace back the components to see why the failure occurred. No engines failed on 9/11. Engine failure or material failure was not the cause of the aircraft impacts, therefore no serial number tracking required by either Appendix J or Appendix H.

    Further down appendix H the checklist includes only the aircraft registration and aircraft serial number be logged. As I said, this information can be found online easy enough for any aircraft, including all 4 on 9/11.

    But again, in all the sources you linked not a single part talked about the requirement to use serials number for the purpose of identifying what aircraft had crashed at that site.

    You won't find one either, because it is not SOP for the NTSB to track back serial numbers for the purpose of identifying the aircraft.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what all OCT supporters/defenders claim, that the BOP for 9/11 is on anonymous posters in a forum, not the US government. It's not a new claim. It isn't just the NTSB manual that details parts matching as SOP, it's also expert pilots and an NTSB agent at the Pentagon on or about 9/11. You highlighted the part of the sentence that says: In the event that ... detailed examinations of a part are desired and don't even understand the sentence. I personally would not think that in an event such as 9/11, assuming a legitimate forensic investigation, that parts matching would not be desired. That would be either incompetence or deliberate. It's the same fakery as NIST in their "investigation". If they would have conducted a legitimate investigation, they would have followed NFPA protocol and investigated for explosives and exotic accelerants. They did not and concocted a contrived excuse for failing to do so.

    You don't want to believe it or you want to put your personal interpretation into a standard airplane crash investigation? I certainly don't care, that's your problem, not mine. Then again you also believe the OCT is true, so much for your beliefs. It doesn't matter anyway, the FBI claimed jurisdiction from the NTSB so the fact remains, NO evidence exists that parts matching was ever conducted for any parts allegedly recovered from any of the 4 alleged airplanes. As such, no evidence exists that any of the planes was physically/forensically identified and FOIA requests for such were categorically denied, which of course means COVERUP as with everything about 9/11. Like I said, I don't care what you want to believe or not, or whether your agenda is to try to convince me of anything, it's your personal mindset (or agenda). And like I said for the umpteenth time, if you're convinced the OCT is true, this thread is not for you. I believe everyone who reads this section of the forum regularly are fully aware of your mindset about 9/11 as they are mine. You really don't need to trumpet your beliefs, I'm sure we all got it.

    Now back to the discussion.
     
  9. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Again, you realize the National Transportation Safety Board is part of the Federal Government you distrust so much and think is behind the 9/11 attacks:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safety_Board

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent U.S. government investigative agency responsible for civil transportation accident investigation.


    I know you'd prefer the gish gallop quagmire of appearing to debate cjnewson, but we both know you're stringing him along. You have no intention of arguing evidence in good faith. You've actually admitted it, claiming to be only interested in "discussing" 9/11 conspiracies with other truthers. Frankly, I'm not sure what cjn is giving you the time of day. there is nothing he can say that will make you admit you have no idea what your talking about and your conspiracy interest has risen to the level of a religion.

    However, if I'm wrong, you can demonstrate this by reading his excellent blog with an open mind. You might learn something.
     
  10. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why would it be desired? They knew what plane had crashed, they had RADAR, Debris, DNA, and Flight Data Recorders for that. They knew what caused the crash; it was suicide. What desire would they have to chase serial numbers?

    So you're basing this on a personal thought of yours, not on fact. Understood. So much for 'NTSB Protocol and SOP'....

    How do you know? When did you ask the FBI or the NTSB? What was their response to your request?

    Or let me guess, you can't find it on google or youtube, so it never happened, right?

    Conspiracy theorists are the laziest people in the world.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last comment on this subject then I'm done with it because I'm interested in this thread, not in OCT supporters/defenders silliness.

    Just the fact that you even ask that question shows you're full of it. A genuine person would ask why was it not done and where are the documents that show that it was done, rather than always giving the OCT a pass and criticizing those who ask questions about 9/11 and resorting to name calling.

    It's done routinely with every airplane crash to confirm the identity of the aircraft (according to experts in a position to know). In fact, it's such a ridiculously minor thing to do as part of any forensic investigation (in comparison to much more complicated investigative criteria) that it would be jaw dropping for an NTSB airplane crash investigation to fail to do that, much less in an event such as 9/11 and for all 4 airplanes yet. Not to mention that the NTSB at the Pentagon site already stated on video that a recovered part's serial number would be used to confirm the identity of the aircraft. But the NTSB was prevented from investigating by the FBI.

    The FIOA requests on this subject were denied for contrived reasons (links were provided). But feel free to research that the parts match was conducted. As with everything about 9/11, none of the official "investigations" were legitimate, there is no reason to believe an exception was made by the FBI with regard to the parts match, especially when it's obvious to any intelligent person they wanted to cover that up. The same FBI that hid over 80,000 pages from their PENTBOM investigation from Congress and the 9/11 Commission and lied and claimed they turned over everything. NIST also denied FOIA requests for routine issues. This was a blatant pattern of fraud.

    I understand defending the fraudulent "investigation" and "investigators" is part of your mindset/agenda/hobby/whatever floats your boat, but it's not mine.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So to review. So far, only 3 OCT skeptics (including myself) posted opinions in this thread. The consensus of opinion is that the Pentagon matter is not settled contrary to other OCT skeptics who claim it's a "distraction".

    The usual OCT supporters/defenders in this forum claim it's a settled matter but I knew that before I started the thread so that's why this thread does not apply to them. I would like to hear from other OCT skeptics though.
     
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,099
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is my personal belief? That the pentagon routinely tells lies? That is not a personal belief, it is a fact. If you don't understand the mendacity of the pentagon, then you must have been deliberately avoiding reading the news over 4 decades. Start with the Pentagon Papers and move up to the attack on the hospital in Kunduz, read about how they portrayed Pat Tillman's death, and read up on the lies they tell daily regarding events in Syria.

    I don't know what an old black man and racism has to do with the subject at hand, but I'm not surprised a person defending the official story about 911 would try to interject the subject and thereby change the subject.
     
  14. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,314
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113

    There is a saying (in Germany) that if you lie 3 times, no one will trust you again ... and we all know seriously that Pentagon is well-known to be a center of lies, black ops and conspiracy too. But this does not automatically mean that 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy. :smile:
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,099
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct, by itself it does not mean that 911 was some sort of conspiracy or that the pentagon was complicit,

    However, in context, and with the luxury of 15 years of hindsight, and considering the preponderance of all the facts and evidence learned in that time, it is painfully clear that the pentagon was heavily involved in the planning and execution of the events of the day.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Pentagon IS the heart of the MIC. They can't ("won't" is more accurate) account for over $16 trillion. Lying is daily routine for these racketeers.
     
  17. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,314
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure ... much went wrong and for much things Pentagon is and was responsible too ... but there was no conspiracy or inside job.

    As previously and so often told, the simple question in matter of Pentagon is: If it was no not the Boing 757 of Flight 77, what was it then?

    this question MUST be answered with a serious, in all aspects workable and fitting alternative to the airliner, before anything else of the issue is becoming "important". Until now, it is not done ...
     
  18. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,130
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    citation(s) needed ...
     
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,099
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would say to you that unless one was involved in the planning and execution, that question you properly pose cannot be answered.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    9/11 was a conspiracy no matter what else you want to believe about that event. The stand down and ensuing coverup were also conspiracies or part of the same conspiracy.

    It certainly could have been a large aircraft and it certainly could have even been AA 77. I personally will never say it's impossible unless and until it's proven to be impossible. The problem is we only have the official story on that, absent anything legitimate (forensically) that would conclusively make their story true. And so the case is not closed, far from it. It isn't within the jurisdiction of anyone other than the US government to prove what it was that destroyed part of the Pentagon (they have all the evidence) and the proof is just not there, especially given that the US government is a known pathological liar with an agenda based on lies. Partial evidence (i.e. alleged recovered parts with no parts match via serial numbers) is a lie by omission. Anyone can claim a part belonged to a specific plane when no proof is shown. You can tell part of a story and it can be plausible, even true, but the rest of the story can change everything.

    It must be answered, period, not with theory but with fact and evidence (or realistic best case theory when the facts and evidence are absent and the theory does not contradict other fact and evidence). That has not happened.

    Exactly.
     
  21. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Well durr, I wasn't arguing that. And they did confirm the identity of the aircraft, using RADAR, DNA, and the Flight Data Recorder.

    Never does it say they have to trace serial numbers from aircraft debris 'just to make sure' they have the right aircraft. Complete and utter bollocks and you have been caught in a lie. Time to come clean.
     
  22. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What stand down? New thread?
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already addressed in detail, in multiple posts, fully sourced. Don't buy it? I don't give a ****.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The more than obvious one on 9/11.

    I'm not starting one. It's an old subject already addressed many times.
     
  25. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No it is not, at least not your conspiracy meaning.

    I didn't bring up the subject of CIT and their past research. Truthers did, and should have expected by bringing the work of Aldo and Ranke back to prominence, that questions about their unsavoury actions and associates would be asked.

    Truthers did that. Agree it was an ill thought move. You should ask the truther who revived CIT's dedunked research from their dead forum why they did it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page