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. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Your sources did nothing to support your claim. You have not provided a single source of evidence to back your claim that the NTSB must track debris serial numbers for the sole purpose of identifying what aircraft had crashed. If you are right, prove it.


    So many rubbish conspiracy claims it's hard to keep track of them all. Which stand down lie are you referring to now?
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For you they never will. Not my problem.

    You described the OCT perfectly.

    The one on 9/11, pay attention, you quoted me.
     
  3. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You're forgetting I linked your sources as pictures earlier in this thread. There was nothing in them that supported your claim. Admit you are wrong, be a man for once.



    I'm guessing your evidence for your stand down is as nonexistent as the rest of your rubbish claims.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For you I wouldn't think so. You don't have a clue of what you posted or you pretend not to.

    I don't have any evidence of anything about 9/11, I had nothing to do with it. The evidence speaks for itself, your understanding of the evidence is quite another matter and quite irrelevant to me.
     
  5. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    At last, some honesty.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Always, unlike you.
     
  7. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Oh, you do want to have a discussion, if only on a junior high school level.

    Well, here's a question: if the two CIT marketing guys who made a spectacle of themselves on the Internet moaning about how their "lives are at risk"(forget their exact words) because of their "research", do you agree they should probably tell mom not to post vacation photos of them on her public photo account? For years?

    It undercuts the "government is after them" narrative. Either they were charlatans or delusional. Or both.
     
  8. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So not willing to present evidence of a stand down or NTSB SOP, usual conspiracy theory bollocks
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I believe I already explained why.

    I'm not interested in going down to your level, see above.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What didn't you understand about that I have no evidence for you with regard to 9/11? Never mind, the question is rhetorical, you don't understand, let's just leave it at that.
     
  11. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    And yet you come on here talking about stand downs and NTSB SOP, with what to back your claims up?

    This is why truther's are a religion, not a conspiracy group. They believe what they want to believe on faith and not evidence. When shown evidence that goes against their faith, they wave it away and make excuses, in the same way a creationist makes excuses when you show them evidence of evolution.
     
  12. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,869
    Likes Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well ... But at least is right this question of me the internal core of what anything else is milling around then, or not?

    Point is that Truthers tell that it was a fake and no Airliner what crashed into Pentagon ... and then comes the rest of this and that point around it.

    So it is essential to name what it was then, if no airliner was as they tell... and here the complete construction of conspiracy fail totally to name anything what works and fits as alternative issue to the airliner!
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah I do, just like you come here to praise and defend the OCT and the storytellers and try to attack/ridicule those who don't buy the lies and the liars. You don't like it? Leave the forum or ignore my posts. I believe I'm free to state anything I want to state just as you are. You don't like what I post? I don't care much for what you post but I will defend your right to post anything you like. In some cases, I use your posts for the purpose of discussing what I would like to discuss if the topic you bring up is of interest to me. So you and other posters like you serve my personal purpose.

    The OCT vs reality? I back it up with whatever I feel is correct just as you back up the OCT with whatever you feel is correct. That includes personal opinion.

    What a load of silliness. There's no such thing as a "truther" as a group-think class unless you mean the opposite of LIAR. It's a weaponized term (as liberally used by OCT supporters/defenders) just like "conspiracy theory/ists", weaponized to try to ridicule and silence those who question the US government about 9/11 and other US government crimes. There are just individual people who want the truth about 9/11, as opposed to the lies. Each person is an individual with an independent mindset just like you. Flailing at your personal demons doesn't make you sound more intelligent or help your credibility. Neither does the silly "religion" theory of yours. It's not a conspiracy to demand the truth about 9/11 but there is a conspiracy to coverup the truth about it. This is made evident by all the lies, the tons of hidden/destroyed evidence/documents under pretext of "national security". For example, the 28 pages that were "classified" (i.e. COVERED UP) for 14 years under pretext of "national security", once declassified, it was exposed as a LIE (which many already knew it was) that had nothing do to with national security and everything to do with covering up 9/11 criminals, including those criminals who covered it up.
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,595
    Likes Received:
    2,327
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a horrible class of citizens, eh, those who seek the truth.

    What does that make that class of citizens who suppress the truth?
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,595
    Likes Received:
    2,327
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, no.

    In traditional logic and debate, it is incumbent upon the person making a claim to prove and defend his claim. Or is that incorrect in your book?

    If the official story claims UA77 struck the pentagon, isn't it necessary that it be proved? Or do you give the bully pulpit the benefit of the doubt?

    Nothing proves, and everything contradicts, the claim that an airliner struck the pentagon. The government cannot prove it, and you cannot prove.

    So please accept my apologies, but I'm most skeptical of virtually ANY story told by the pentagon. Maybe I've just been around on this planet for too damn long, and I've seen too many lies and deceptions promoted by that group, but I'm skeptical as hell. There is nothing at all to suggest an airliner crashed there. Indeed, all the knowledge and evidence gained in 15 years of study and investigation show no Boeing airliner crashed at the pentagon that day.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely. They claim 4 specific commercial airliners crashed on 9/11, AA77, UA175, UA93 and AA11. They also claim they recovered wreckage and RFDs, barely enough parts to fill a small pickup truck (for all 4 planes combined). Almost all airplane parts, whatever type or size have unique identifying serial numbers. All these parts are logged to the specific plane. It would have been a nothing task (based on the small number of parts allegedly recovered) to match the serial numbers from each part (especially the recovered RFDs) to the actual 4 planes, which is SOP with every airplane crash and certainly "desired" (to use the term in the NTSB manual) for an event such as 9/11. But the FBI seized jurisdiction from the NTSB (although claiming the NTSB "assisted") and there is no evidence any parts match (again, a very simple and basic procedure) was ever conducted and FIOA requests for such were categorically denied for contrived reasons (which of course has the stench of a coverup all over it).

    Without a forensic/physical parts match, there conveniently is no way to know if any of the physical parts actually came from any of the 4 claimed physical planes and all we have is their word for that. For an event such as 9/11, this is absolutely critical (ahem "desired") procedure.

    FOIA Appeal Denied: FBI Again Refuses To Confirm Identity Of 9/11 Planes

    http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/fbi-refuses-to-confirm-identity-of-911-planes/1875/
     
  17. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    What are you even talking about? You implied I was dragging stuff up without a good reason and I wrote :

    "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."

    And anyone really interested in the "truth" would not look to the CIT marketing frauds from SoCal who abandoned the "Movement" years ago.
     
  18. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    At least he agrees you're an independent person. As opposed to an 'agent' or 'shill'. baby steps...

    Bob actually has a couple of good points here, aside from the cultish buzzwards like "group-think".

    Rank and file "truthers" can come from any background. They broadly fall into two catagories:

    1. People have stumbled across a theory that matches their current political biases.

    2. People prone to conspiracy thinking, ie Aliens, UFOs, chemtrails

    The first group is the most unreliable for the "movement"; as soon as the political climate changes(Bush left office) or the theories conflict with existing values(discovering Anti-semites are major truther leaders), they're gone. This is why Alex Jones keeps changing his schtick. There's a time limit on how long you can keep the "activist" truthers with any one conspiracy before losing them. I'd say Loose Change was the most successful at getting activist types involved for the longest. But even they lost momentum after 3 to 4 years. I would guess the truther leaders were as surprised as anyone else it lasted that long.

    The second group have a pre existing bias to a paranoid world view. And they don't have solid critical thinking skills to check this bias.

    For instance, some believe aliens abduct people for experiments to learn about humans. But this is absurd on the face. Any aliens with FTL drive have the technology to scan our radio waves and hack our Internets to learn everything they can without setting foot on the planet.
    Others believe in secret alien bases under mountains. So... who takes out the trash?

    This group has trouble sighting the most obvious logical holes. If they do it with UFOs, it doesn't surprise me they do it with the 9/11 attacks. The no planes theories make perfect sense here; they are the UFO/Bigfoot of the 9/11 Truth.

    The first group of "truthers" appear to have long since fled the "movement". The second group identify with it as a subculture and have internalized it as an identity. This is why they are unlikely to change, no matter how much evidence is presented.

    This is part of the reason I don't bother arguing about the details of theories any more. Theories are not why they remain "truthers". Its identify. If you want to get a truther to question themselves, show them the roots of the truth movement in alt-right politics. Anyone with a strong identity outside of "trutherism" will start to drift away.

    None of this touches on the leaders and inventors of the 9/11 conspiracies Theories. Those people are all either conmen(Steven Jones, Gage, Fetzer) or proxies for conmen(Judy Wood, Webfairy).
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone interested in the truth would look at everything. One can't find the truth if one fails to look everywhere. For example, for 9/11, one has to look at the official reports, the "debunking" sites and the myriad theories out there, everything related to 9/11, whether they believe these to be credible or not. Otherwise there is no point of reference. One cannot know truth unless one also knows lies.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There no reason why he can't be both. There is no reason why I can't be both (to you that is). Everyone is an independent person, even an agent and a shill.
     
  21. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So, to find the truth, you need to look at the fake evidence of known frauds, liars and cyberbullies. Okay. Now I understand your state of mind...
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, absolutely, I don't remember saying anything about exclusions. It's always up to each individual to discern truth from lies.

    I doubt it.
     
  23. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18

    That is completely ridiculous. It has been known for years that CIT were charlatans. Therefore there is no reason to look at their fake "research" again.

    No one in the real world thinks like this. The only reason to dredge it up is to see if it still works on the current very small crop of truthers.


    Your state of mind isn't hard to figure out. Your inability to recognize the obvious, that no one has to review false information to find facts, is a sign you feel compelled to defend this world view even as the evidence to support it crumbles. You can't escape the fact there are few new truthers being convinced of these theories and you're avoiding the reason for that for as long as possible: the "movement" has failed to prove its case to the public.

    Now you feel anxiety that your identity is not supported by objective evidence. Instead of stepping back and questioning why you've become so entangled in a time wasting unproductive world view, you double down to defend it. If there is someone actually encouraging your involvement but at the same time remaining on the sidelines, you should question their motives.
    After all, if its so damn important to them, they can speak for themselves.

    I only bring this up because that's a common dynamic in long cons and other frauds. I have no personal knowledge of your life except for the parts where you're online wasting time promoting long debunked conspiracies.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never mentioned CIT, pay attention. That's your demon, not mine.

    Is that a fact? Yes I think it is. You're absolutely right Sherlock, no one in the world thinks like you do, I do, or anyone else. You're so quick it's amazing.

    Yeah it's not yours. See that was simple.

    The rest is the usual worthless drivel not worth addressing (not that the above has a whole lot of value either).

    And about the Pentagon? ...... Oh wait, you're not here for that, you're here for me. I knew that from well before I started this thread. That's why I explained .... never mind.
     
  25. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No, Scott brought it up. Now both you and Eleuth are trying to shift blame. All you have to do is review the thread to know who brought it up. The real question is why you haven't peppered Scott with critical questions about CIT. I assume you know their history if you've been involved as long as you say.

    Why are you so angry, Bob?

    Don't flatter yourself. I only post in conspiracy forums to highlight the fraudulent nature. Knowing people who have been briefly involved in this kinda thing(Trutherism, Tea Party, Oathkeepers), I know it helps to have people posting links and references to legit sources. That's 95% of why non conspiracy people fall for this stuff, not knowing its been debunked before. The good news is they snap out of it pretty quick because they don;t get too involved.

    Sorry, Bob, the future of the "Truth" movement is the chemtrail, bigfoot UFO crowd. 911 Truth will never again look like a credible thing to the mainstream public like it did in the Bush years.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page