The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

I'm not speaking of a nose dive.

But yes, maybe there would be more damage, we don't know.
The building was built to withstand a nuclear blast, but the energy would be from the outside and not the center.

LIke the OK. bombing, the blast blew upward, and dislodged all the floors, where if it came downward, it might not have caused so much damage.

 

I know, you're inventing idiotic excuses.

Another red herring. It doesn't matter what you think you know. You're deliberately avoiding the obvious, that a 33.5 acre target that requires little precision is infinitely easier to hit ANYWHERE, even for a guy who couldn't fly a paper airplane, than a 77 foot wall that requires precision flying from a seasoned pilot.

 

Looks to me like you are trying to create an argument where none exists.
We don't know what he was aiming at, there is no way of knowing.
and hitting the wall doesn't require any precision, it wouldn't be that hard.
Now putting it down in the center would be a little harder.
He was off center anyways, but the elevation would be a little easier to control.

 

I’m not creating any argument you are. I’m stating a fact. That there’s no question it’s easier to hit a 33.5 acre target than a 77 foot wall.

That has nothing to do with the above fact. You don’t need to know the aim to know It’s easier to hit a huge target vs a much smaller one and cause potentially more damage, that’s elementary common sense.

Expert pilots disagree so does the logic.

But that’s not practical and makes zero sense.

 

LOLOL

Dude, you have no concept of flight.
That's why it is so easy to snow you.
At this point he is not using alerions any more.
Just rudder and elevator.
The center of the Pentagon is not 33 acres.
The building may be, but he missed the center.
He hit left of center. But a hard aim at the speed he was going.
The elevation is a much easier aim.
He was further off center, than the 77 feet you are crying about.
and BTW, he is not after a 77 foot wall
He is after the 40 or so, feet on the bottom.
He pointed it on target from a distance off,
And at this point he has very little vertical axis and mostly lateral.

 

Now I think I understand your confusion because I can't believe anyone is that dense. The entire Pentagon takes up 33.5 acres of geographical territory, that means there's 33.5 acres of target to hit anywhere from nearly anywhere to try to cause the highest level of damage. The wall is only 77+ feet high and can only be hit head on at an altitude lower than 77 feet without hitting the ground first. The differences in the size of the target areas are enormous. For a non-pilot it would be substantially easier to go for a 33.5 acre target than a 77+ feet wall. No one needs to understand the concept of flight to understand the massive difference in target areas. If you can't or won't understand such simplistic common sense you are either FOS or totally absent.

 

LOLOL

Are you saying he should have hit the roof.

Naturally he went for a wall. He was also so low, he had no choice.
The aircraft was probably beyond recovery anyways.

There are only two ideal target spots.
The wall, which he hit, Or to get into the open center, and hit a wall from there.
That, however would be difficult.

 

I guess you really are that seriously dense. The point was the target chosen to begin with was obviously the wall as evidenced by the OCT claimed trajectory of the alleged plane. So the choice for the alleged non-pilot was a tiny target with a tiny margin of error requiring seasoned piloting skills to execute in comparison to a massive target with a huge margin of error requiring much less skill to accomplish. And you bought that OCT fairy tale without question. And you claim I'm being snowed. The only question you have (which is amazingly baffling) is you don't really know what target was being aimed at despite the trajectory.

Do you need box of crayons to figure this complex problem out?

 

Very little skill was needed

So you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

We knew that.

 

You need to keep your day job, comedy just isn't going to pay your bills.

 

stop asking me to watch more of your vids until you have finished watching the Coste vids ...

 

Translation: This is such a clear anomaly that I'll just end up looking like a horse's a-s if I try to obfuscate it so I'd better avoid addressing it altogether with a lame excuse.

 

Look at where they purport to show a plane at the 8:18 time mark of this video.



I'm no expert in photography but I've never seen a picture of a fast-moving plane that wasn't clear.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_20c.htm
(excerpt)
--------------------------
Next time you are at an airport, take five minutes and go and look at some planes on the runway. Pick out a large passenger jet that is approximately 750 feet away, preferably one in the process of taking off or landing. Take a picture of it. Then look at this image from the Pentagon Security camera again and ask yourself. Where is that Boeing 757?!

The fact is that if a Boeing 757 really did hit the Pentagon, it would stick out like, well… like a Boeing 757 in this footage, but the simple and obvious fact is that there is no Boeing 757 there. In fact, there is no plane of any description in the footage released by the Pentagon.
--------------------------

https://www.google.es/search?q=supe...yabdAhVEWBoKHe6RDiYQ_AUICygC&biw=1024&bih=675

 

There's a very good reason why they never conducted a parts match for any of the 4 claimed airliners (or did but refused to release the results) despite standard NTSB crash investigation protocol. And it has nothing to do with "national security". When there's nothing to hide why do they hide everything?

 

So you invent an investigation protocol, and than keep harping on it as though it is real.

I asked you to show me that protocol several times,
Naturally you didn't, because it does not exist.

 

Sorry for your incredible confusion but I’m not the NTSB and I invented nothing for them. I posted the link to Appendix J numerous times. If you refuse to read it for yourself or insist on denying its existence and wish to remain ignorant that’s not my problem. It’s not my job to take you by the hand and educate you nor am I inclined to do so. I also posted an article from Air Force Colonel George Nelson confirming such protocol. So please do me a favor and keep your head deep in the sand. You don’t want to know the facts, that’s quite obvious.

 

I've corrected you on your mistaken interpretation of Appendix J many times Bob, if you continue to misrepresent and misunderstand its intention then that is your problem.

 

My “interpretation” of Appendix J is corroborated by experts. You’re not one of those and have no standing to “correct” anyone, much less experts on the subject. But you certainly have the right to keep peddling your fallacy as often as you feel it helps.

 

1. I don’t have any “pentagon conspiracy dungheap” (whatever drivel that’s supposed to be).

2. I actually went through your website and even posted a video from it. The video shows a NTSB guy at the Pentagon claiming a part with a serial number on it will be used to identify the aircraft. So much for your fallacy. Your website contains quite a bit of information albeit heavily biased in favor of the OCT. However despite your claim there’s nothing on your website that conclusively proves AA77 hit the Pentagon. Only a legitimate serial number parts match using the PHYSICAL evidence can do that. And that is missing from your website because it either doesn’t exist or if it does the result is being concealed despite 2 FOIA requests for it. In fact, a letter from the head of the NTSB claims a parts match was conducted. But that letter is missing from your website. I suggest you add it along with the aforementioned article from Air Force Colonel George Nelson. That’s IF you want to maintain an honest website.

 

For those who want to know, Bob and his "experts" are trying to say the NTSB should have matched serial numbers of the crashed airliners, and are referring to Appendix J in this document which has a sentence which states:

"This includes part numbers and component names, maintenance history (last overhaul, inspection, rework, modification, etc.) and total (and since overhaul) time and cycles of service."

What this procedure is for is stated immediately above it:

"When a component is found to have separated and caused or contributed to the accident, much background information is needed to do a complete failure analysis."

Matching of serial numbers is not a normal procedural part of an investigation, nor is it something which must be done. It is only done when they are either unsure which aircraft a particular component came from (like they did for the aircraft part found in New York in 2013), or they suspect a specific components separation or failure is responsible for the accident, in which case an identification of that part and a full background history of that component is absolutely necessary. We know what caused the crashes on 9/11, and we know which of the 4 airliners crashed at their respective crash sites. There was no need for the NTSB to match serial numbers to "check", nor were they required to by Appendix J.

Once again, this has been explained to bob several times, however it doesn't surprise me him and his "experts" are illiterate. Or perhaps they're just liars?

 

what a cop out ... I'm not obfuscating anything ... I have seen your silly vids plenty ... the Coste vids are new ... don't be a petulant child ... watch the vids ...

sorry that your troofer tactics don't work with me ...

I will no longer comment on your vids until you man up and actually look at other evidence that is not in your well catalogued vids that have been dissected over and over ...

it's a two way street ... man up or shut up ...

 

What surprises me most, is that Bob continues to use the same story, knowing it is wrong.

 

It's so obvious you're so incredibly desperate to make apologist excuses for the catastrophic failure of the US government to legitimately investigate 9/11 that you're resorting to a multitude of hyperbole and false information. There is so much incorrect here but I'll just start at the beginning of your post.

The only thing you got right is your copy and paste of a portion of Appendix J. So first, I don't own any experts, all experts referenced are such by their own merit. I have nothing to do with their backgrounds nor do I personally know any one of them. Second, the serial number match should have been conducted not only because it's part of the procedure described in Appendix J (Materials Laboratory Examinations) and not only because it is standard procedure that's done with nearly ALL airline crash investigations but most importantly because this is 9/11 we're talking about, not just any event. Third, experts who contradict your fallacy not only include Air Force Colonel George Nelson but also the testimony of Marion C. Blakey, Chairman of the NTSB (at the time) before the Senate where she claimed "it is indicated that the NTSB assisted the FBI with the process of aircraft parts identification regarding the said aircraft" (sorry the link no longer works but here it is anyway - http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/blakey/mcb020625.htm).

All the above emphasized claims have zero merit in any legitimate forensic criminal investigation. If "we know" and "there was no need" was the starting point of any investigation, there would never be a need for an investigation, all that one would need to say is "we know" and "there's no need" and accept that on faith. And that's exactly what NIST did for their "investigations". This is atrocious nonsense, you are peddling some serious snake oil. Do you really believe anyone is that ignorant? (I take that back there are a few posters here that will swear by your claims). That is NOT science, that's political propaganda. Here's an opinion article you may want to read (or not, I don't really care).

http://salem-news.com/articles/march182010/911-planes-al.php

You can explain your silliness to me as often as you want but if your objective is to try to convince me that your nonsense has any merit you are truly delusional. We've discussed your fallacies before in this thread.

So you Mr. Nobody posting in a discussion forum as a nobody are claiming you not only know more than the experts but you're going so far as to call them illiterate and/or liars. How desperate are you to defend the failure to properly investigate 9/11?

Sorry you are so grossly misinformed but I never post anything that I know is wrong. I don't have any reason to do that. I am not desperate to defend the OCT unlike several posters here. Of course that is not to say I am never wrong or misinformed. But if and when I am I will post an appropriate correction. For example, I posted a series of Coste videos narrated by Chandler to enlighten those who have misconceptions about the Pentagon evidence, including myself. I would have never done that if I wanted to deceive readers about the Pentagon. And BTW, I also posted both sides of Pentagon claims in the very first post in this thread.

 

Except it's not. Appendix J is specific instructions on how to preserve and submit debris for examination if it is suspected that the debris is the cause or contributed to the cause of the crash. No aircraft component caused or contributed to 4 hijacked airliners deliberately crashing, therefore Appendix J does not apply.

It's done with other airline crash investigations for the reasons stated above. Because nearly ALL airline crashes are not the result of hijackers deliberate crashing, and therefore there are components which do need to be examined and investigated in accordance with Appendix J.

So give me one out of four of the airliners crash on 9/11 where a component failure caused or contributed to the crash? If the answer is none, then Appendix J does not apply.

As already proven there was no requirement to do it, nor do we have any evidence that it was actually done.

Absolute horse ****. We know what aircraft crashed at each location because each location has an abundance of evidence of which aircraft crashed there as well as witnesses who saw them crash, air traffic controllers who talked to and watched their radar targets move to those crash areas, and of course the multiple radar sites which tracked every single aircraft to their crash location. We have an abundance of evidence to tell us which aircraft crashed where, and we know the exact cause of the crash, therefore we do know. Matching serial numbers just to ID the aircraft is an absolutely pointless exercise, nor is it a requirement under Appendix J.

 

I love that bob continues to reference a document that refutes his claim. He shows he is either too lazy to read the information he is linking, or is too thick to understand the words in front of him.