The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

It takes a lot of flight training, in class, and behind the yoke, to get commercial.

 

I think it's a form of Munchausens by proxy.

 

Refusing to address a clear issue would get you laughed out of the debating hall. The issue of the engine on the street not being a 767 engine has you checkmated.

9/11 - The Impossible Case of Flight 175?



You can pretend all you want. Your behavior is that of a checkmated sophist. An objecctive truth-seeker would simply address the issue.

 

Hmmm, that's a funny comment coming out of you people.
But hey, lets run with it.
I have to go to work now, but I have a lot of questions that need to be answered.

 

What "investigation" did I refuse to look at exactly?

Was it this one?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/

1. The Bush administration is directly responsible for the wholesale destruction of 9/11 evidence, in violation of federal and local law, thus hampering/corrupting any investigation.
2. The Bush administration did not want to investigate 9/11, in fact they (or more specifically Cheney) asked Sen. Tom Daschle not to investigate 9/11 on several occasions.
3. The Bush administration reluctantly yielded to investigating 9/11 due to pressure from the 9/11 families, specifically the Jersey Girls but wanted the investigation to only focus on intelligence failures.
4. The Bush administration appointed Henry Kissinger as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission who was subsequently forced to resign due to conflicts of interest.
5. The Bush administration stocked the 9/11 Commission with cronies, especially Philip Zelikow.
6. All members of the 9/11 Commission had conflicts of interest and were covering for someone.
7. The 9/11 Commission cut a deal with the Bush administration essentially allowing them to dictate who on the 9/11 Commission could see what evidence and also limited the evidence the 9/11 Commission had access to.
8. According to the 9/11 Commission, there are 570 cubic feet of textual records, a large percentage of it classified, presumably inaccessible to the 9/11 Commission itself (see #7).
9. Sen. Max Cleland resigned as a result of #7, labeling the 9/11 investigation a scam and obstruction.
10. The 9/11 families or more specifically the Family Steering Committee sent over 400 questions to the 9/11 Commission and the vast majority of the questions were either unanswered or insufficiently answered.
11. Philip Zelikow created an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report prior to the first meeting of the 9/11 Commission.
12. Philip Zelikow admitted that most if not all of the 9/11 Commission Report relied on 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
13. The source of over 25% of the Commission Report's footnotes is 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
14. The 9/11 Commission were lied to by the CIA who told them they gave them everything they asked for but withheld torture tapes which they never revealed their existence to the 9/11 Commission.
15. The torture tapes were deliberately destroyed by the CIA despite a federal court order to preserve them.
16. The Senate Intelligence Committee on Torture report claims that the CIA's torture methods yielded NO USEFUL INTELLIGENCE (see #12 and #13).
17. The FBI lied to the 9/11 Commission (and Congress) when they told them they gave them everything. They were discovered a decade later to be holding over 80,000 pages of documents from their PENTBBOM "investigation" that they never revealed existed.
18. NORAD and other key Pentagon officials told the 9/11 Commission different stories that were in conflict with each other or outright lies.
19. The 9/11 Commission agreed to interview Bush and Cheney together unsworn and unrecorded.
20. There is no evidence that the 9/11 Commission conducted any criminal/scientific/forensic investigation in accordance with universally accepted standards appropriate for such an investigation. Especially within the vast scope required by a major historical event such as 9/11. Much of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report is unvetted and/or unsupported by legitimate evidence (any evidence obtained via the use of torture is illegitimate/unreliable - see #16).
21. The 9/11 Commission claimed in their report that "their aim has not been to assign individual blame", thus making a mockery of the "investigation".
22. Eyewitnesses who were to testify to the 9/11 Commission were coached by Soviet style government "minders" prior to their testimonies, thus tampering with, biasing and corrupting the "investigation".
23. Many potential crucial eyewitnesses were never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Potential whistleblowers were not granted immunity and therefore many did not testify as a result.
24. Some key eyewitness testimonies were excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report.
25. The 9/11 Commission failed to investigate key events and issues, such as the destruction of WTC7 (unmentioned) and the financing of 9/11, deeming it of "little practical significance" (in direct contradiction to all criminal investigation standards).
26. The 9/11 Commission co-chairs admitted they were set up to fail, starved of funds, denied access to the truth, misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the FAA, did not examine key evidence, claimed the report was incomplete and flawed and that many questions remain unanswered.
27. Philip Zelikow had complete control over the final edit of the 9/11 Commission Report and was responsible for keeping the classified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow fired an aide who wanted to bring the 28 pages to the attention of the 9/11 Commission.
28. The published version of the 9/11 Commission Report in general is similar to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory disseminated as fact by the Bush administration prior to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
29. The 9/11 Commission Report was severely criticized by many, especially the Jersey Girls, who were responsible for pressuring the Bush administration for an investigation. "we knew it was a farce, we wanted their words, their lies down on paper" - Patty Casazza.

Or perhaps this one?:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/

All assumptions below, which were used in the NIST WTC7 report, have been shown to be erroneous, and correction of these assumptions invalidate the report's conclusions.

1. A girder bearing seat width of 12 inches not 11 inches at column 79 would prevent girder walk off.

2. The omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 at column 79 would have prevented the flange from folding and eliminated any chance of walk off.

3. The thermally expanded girder A2001 could not move past the column 79 side plate.

4. There were shear studs on girder A2001 and this would cause the beams to buckle before pushing the girder off its seat.

5. All west and south girder connections to column 79 were not broken down to the 6th floor.

6. A northeast corner floor failure could not cascade down eight floors so there is not enough energy to break through the girder connection on the next floor down.

7. There were lateral support beams framing G3005 and they would have prevented it from buckling.

8. Beam and girder notching to simulate their buckling due to the fire in the model is not consistent with the time phased weakening fire would produce.

9. Evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel as documented by FEMA was ignored.

10. The NIST model shows radical deformation of the upper exterior as the east side interior collapses but this is not observed in actual footage of the video collapse.

11. A simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roofline does have implications.

Summary of problems with the NIST WTC Tower Report

1. The claim that the upper part of the towers crushed the lower part of the towers violates the laws of conservation of momentum and the law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As shown by the measured smooth uninterrupted descent of the upper portion of the North Tower.

2. NIST claims that the floor trusses in the aircraft impact zone push outward on the perimeter columns with a force of about 80 KIPS before starting to sag and pull the columns inward to cause the building to collapse. Yet there is no evidence to support this claim. Extensive photos and videos of the towers show no outward bowing of the perimeter columns at any time during the fires before the collapse.

3. NIST imposed unrealistic artificial 5 KIP forces on each floor truss to column connection over the 5 stories of the damage zone on the south face of the North Tower in order to make their collapse initiation model work. This amounts to a lateral force of about 750 KIPS applied artificially to that face of the building which cannot be justified by any rationale.

4. NIST does not investigate or explain the global collapse which occurred after the collapse initiation was supposedly initiated by the column failures in the impact zone. NIST simply states, “global collapse ensued”.

5. The NIST collapse sequence is initiated by the failure of the floor trusses in the impact zone and subsequent pulling in of the perimeter column. But the sequence ignores the fact that the core columns failed first, as evidenced by the video of the North Tower collapse showing that the antenna and hat truss resting on the core column began their descent well before the outer perimeter of the building began to fall. This fact invalidates the NIST collapse initiation theory.

6. The NIST report fails to provide any information suggesting that the load capacity of the core and perimeter columns was exceeded at any time during the collapse sequence. NIST ignored the fact that the factor of safety of 3 in the core columns and 5 in the perimeter columns would have prevented the failure mechanism that is theorized in their collapse initiation model.

7. The NIST global collapse theory depends upon the ASCE-published progressive collapse theory by Zdenek Bazant. His theory has been shown to have erroneous input data rendering it non-viable as an explanation for the observed behavior of the vertical propagation. ASCE refuses to acknowledge the errors in the input data of Bazant’s theory.

Deficiency Categories in the NIST WTC Reports and ASCE published Theories

First – Defective collapse initiation theories in the NIST twin tower and WTC7 reports

Second – Unjustified assumptions and errors in the NIST twin tower and WTC7 reports

Third – Omissions and alterations of construction details in the NIST WTC7 report

Fourth – Errors in the calculations of the ASCE published theories

Fifth – Internal contradictions in the NIST WTC7 report

Sixth – NIST ignores FEMA evidence of high temperature exposure of structural steel from WTC7

Seventh – NIST and the ASCE refuse to respond to peer criticism

Or was it the NTSB "investigation" of which there is NO report and no document detailing that any of the allegedly recovered airplane debris matched any of the claimed designated airplanes as mandated by Appendix J of the NTSB investigation manual and all airplane crash investigations? So there is NO EVIDENCE that ANY of the 4 claimed planes are in fact the ones claimed by the OCT.

Or was it the FBI's PENTBOM "investigation" of which there is NO report and where the FBI lied to Congress and the 9/11 Commission when they told them they gave them everything they had and were discovered a decade later to have hidden over 80,000 pages of documents from them?

Or was it the CIA "investigation" of which there is NO report and the CIA lied to the 9/11 Commission when they told them they gave them everything they had, never told them they had a slew of torture tapes and destroyed them before anyone else got to see them despite a court order to preserve them?

Or was it the Bush administration that did everything in their power to corrupt every 9/11 "investigation" and made sure to keep the OCT intact from day 1 of their fairy tale claim?

Which of these investigations did I refuse to look at exactly and how did I manage to create at least 2 heavily detailed threads about these "investigations" if I refused to look at them?

Which of these investigations did YOU bother to look at? Oh yeah the YouTube CIA's CYA "investigation" you said (no link though).

But you can always call me a liar and claim they didn't have to investigate because they knew. That will always help defend the OCT like a good little stooge and make people like me go away. Right fake one?

 

so you still haven't watched the videos ... please watch the Coste vids and compare it with your juvenile videos ... quit playing games Scott ... just watch the ****ing videos ... how many times do I have to ask you after addressing all the bullshit you post ... please do not respond to me until you have watched the ****ing Coste videos ... they clearly address the Pent videos which you continue to ignore ...

 

[QUOTE="Bob0627, post: 1069587001, member: 70195"
When a person is shot and it's visually obvious that he/she was shot, there is always an autopsy and a pathology report that meticulously details the damage caused to the body that identifies the cause of death. [/QUOTE]this is patently false ... quit making sh!t up Bob ...

 

Because you said so? Please provide any supporting link and preferably a legitimate example where what I posted is "patently false".

 

We can start with how many people were involved in the coverup.

Then we can ask why you lied about the pilots abilities, for how long now, 14 years.

Then you can tell us all about this regulation you invented,
The one you refuse to post.

 

None of that garbage has anything to do with any "investigation" that I allegedly refused to look at, which was the claim. Always trying to change the subject with your incessant ad hominems.

 

Sorry Bob.

You claimed several times that guy could not fly .
You claim you were doing this for 14 years, and you never looked into the pilots classification.
What the Hell kind of investigation were you doing, if you never looked into the status of the person in question.
You lied about it.
You sat here and lied about it over and over.

 

Not interested

 

Of course you're not.

Do you have any idea what it takes to become a commercial pilot.
Just a quick run through.
First he has to learn to read and write the English language.
Then he needs private, ground school, plus flight time.
20 hours dual, 20 hours solo,
Then you have to pass the FAA test, ground and flight
The average people get it in is 70 hours.

Then he needs his instrument rating.
20 hours dual, 20 hours solo, some can be done on a simulator.
Then you have to pass the FAA test. ground and flight.

He's flying full IFR, so he has some pretty cool planes he is flying.
I think he needs his multi rating, retractable, over 200 hp. turbo.

Then he can go for his commercial, and I am not sure what the requirements are for that today.
But it is not easy, lots of math, weather, navigation.

And you said over and over, this guy did not know how to fly.

During his training he probably flew many different types of aircraft, so he was checked out and cleared on whatever he flew.

You would think in 14 years, you would have googled his name.

 

You're regurgitating the Hani fairy tale from the 9/11 Commission Report which has been proven to be a blatant fraud. I'm not interested in discussing fairy tales made for children, I'm interested in discussing the "investigations" that the other poster claims I "refused to look at". It's quite obvious you're only interested in defending the official fairy tale regardless of the documented summary of highlights posted about these fraudulent "investigations". Those are not within the scope of anything you want discussed, you've ignored every single one them in favor of maintaining this idiotic fairy tale promoted by these fraudulent "investigations". You also continue to excuse and defend every failure to legitimately investigate 9/11, even calling 9/11 a joke and insist on attacking me in the process. If and when you want to have an intelligent adult discussion about 9/11 perhaps I might participate, otherwise this is just a waste of time for me.

 

I simply asked my nephew who is a trauma surgeon here in Miami ... his mother was an OR nurse for 35 years ...

if they die on the table, damage from the gunshot is notated, and then they are usually just sewn up and sent to the morgue ... autopsies have to be ordered ... the ME will just sign off on the cause of death ...

now show me evidence that shows that all gunshot victims undergo a detailed forensic analysis ...

 

Apples and oranges, if they die on the table undergoing surgery there's no need for an autopsy because the surgery report IS the account of the cause of death.

That's a dumb request, I don't have access to every pathology report under the sun where a victim died from a gunshot wound. I do have one on my desk though (unfortunately). Anytime someone is found dead from a gunshot wound there's suspicion that a crime was committed and an autopsy is mandated and conducted to determine the cause of death, followed by a pathology report. Ask any cop if you don't believe it.

So you can't find an example where there's an exception eh? You won't, at least not in the US.

 

Bob,
an autopsy is not always done, there are different circumstances, on a case by case death.

I'm sure if you really wanted to know it would be all over google.

It seems you are comfortable making up anything, regardless of the subject.

 

Responding to your nonsense is against my better judgment, so I’ll just respond for the purposes of making a statement. And for sure I will be making statements about 9/11 until I can no longer do so.

I was talking specifically about a gunshot death. If you know of any legitimate exception, feel free to post the link. Otherwise you’re just contradicting the facts just because this anology has to do with the 9/11 investigation. The reason there’s always a pathology report in such a case is because if a crime has been committed (and that is often the case when someone is shot) the court absolutely requires detailed evidence and expert testimony.

Perhaps you should follow your own suggestion if YOU really wanted to know. For the hell of it I did google “no autopsy performed in a gunshot death” and the ONLY things that came up were autopsies performed in gunshot deaths.

It seems YOU are comfortable making up anything as long as you believe it helps defend the OCT and the fraudulent 9/11 investigations.

9/11 was a crime that had no parallel in US history. It should have been investigated down to the nano-level sparing no expense and leaving no stone unturned. Excuses such as “we knew” and therefore “we didn’t have to investigate” are egregious crimes unto themselves. These are not legitimate excuses, they are strictly coverup and therefore complicity, not to mention treason.

There is not one iota of an excuse for failing to conduct a detailed forensic examination of every single piece of debris allegedly recovered and meticulously matching it to the log listing each part of each of the 4 claimed 9/11 airliners. This should have been done as detailed in Appendix J of the NTSB manual and in even more detail if necessary. Furthermore, there is not one iota of an excuse why the entirety of such a forensic examination should not have been made publicly available.

Again the ONLY excuse is to coverup the crime known as 9/11. And everywhere you turn when you investigate the 9/11 investigations, all you find is every coverup imaginable and every failure to investigate imaginable.

 

Dude.

You are inventing your own regulation again.
It has already been proven wrong.
You have been asked to post it, and you won't.

 

So I won't since I've already posted my relevant statement, that's the only value your posts have. Then again the same is true for all OCT worshiPPers.

 

No you have not,
You posted a book and a chapter, that does not contain the information you claim it does.

Just copy/paste the particular one you are speaking of.

 

Shinebox destroyed his credibility by refusing to address the issue of a 747 engine being found on the street instead of a 767 engine because he's checkmated by it.

9/11 - The Impossible Case of Flight 175?



Let's see how you deal with this yasureoktoo. Tell us what you think about this.

 

The fact you keep linking this shows how lazy you truly are.

So the video starts by saying the cooling duct assembly (PN 769316) is not part of the JT9D-7R4D engine on UAL175. And yet when I took 2 seconds to google image "JT9D-7R4D engine disassembly" I see this, this, and this. Seems like those cooling ducts are there. Oops, there goes your silly little theory. Not to mention the idea of covertly dumping a lump of metal that weighs almost a ton, in broad day light, on the side of a busy intersection in lower Manhattan, and nobody sees this, is farking laughable. The stuff you must believe just boggles the mind.

I also found this which is an old service bulletin on how to modify PN 769316 on JT9D-7R4D engines.

So the engines of UAL175 did have those features. The video is wrong. John Lear is wrong. No surprises there, this is the guy who also thinks there are cities on Mars and secrete bases on the moon.

To talk about the rest of the video, the clip from 9/11 Intercepted is dumb as hell and it is why, as a commercial pilot myself, I find "pilots for truth" the most embarrassing bunch of idiots ever. To believe what they show about UAL175 and UAL93 switching because P4T's grossly oversized radar targets got close to each other, you would also have to accept that airspace is a flat 2D environment. It's not. United 175 and United 93 passed 15,000ft vertically and over 15 miles horizontally. JREF user BCR already put together the radar data for this pass. The rest of the P4T stuff doesn't get much better as far as accuracy goes and it's why any pilot who has the misfortune of seeing their material facepalms and groans in embarrassment that these frauds even call themselves pilots.

The rest is just crap from youtube user Xendrius which I already did a debunking for years ago.

Checkmate?

 

Why are truthers the only people I know of who are so incapable of even doing basic research? You've probably been following that theory for years Scott, and yet it took me a few seconds on google to find an answer. What's been stopping you from doing that for all these years? Is it because you don't actually want the answer?

 

Why are YOU incapable of doing basic research?

See post #880, I asked you a direct question.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-44