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. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
  2. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,341
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, it is proofed that it was an Airliner at least, even Truthers ignore all the evidences and come always only with this and that point to counter it. Even the evidences against their points are evidences given, but ... as should it be otherwise ... ignored or marked to irrelevant and being a fake.
    At least we have the usual case that if someone wants to believe the issue was a fake, then nothing can convince him. But again ... it is essential that if someone claims that it was not Flight 77 / a Boing 757, then he has to deliver the alternative. If not, everything else is only a ridiculous, worthless claim ...

    And when I look closer on that ... sorry ... BS what Truther claimed in matter of Pentagon, it is only a bad comedy! When for example it is told that there were no rests of the plane visible, they were dis-proofed by their own pictures, when for example one shows a landing gear! and then came the BS that this was put to it later after the issue happened. Really? how many media was close looking on the scene and where was the truck who delivered for example the tons weighting landing gear, aside the other parts?
    I can go on with every single point which named, for example - too - that this and that pilot tells that it was impossible for them to do. OK, but what is about this and that pilot telling it is possible? Normal reaction on this point is ignoring and disputing these pilots to be serious!

    Also, the crash point is too small for the Boing... really? No, fitting like a finger print of the dimension of the Boing 757! Why this BS telling then? Aside the ridiculous photo given who shoed an exit hole in inner ring and sold to be outside ring, they miss the complete length of impact area and / or take photo after the impact area collapsed only.

    After 15 years of personal investigation it is clear that nothing else is possible as the Boing 757 named in official report and everything fits to it.
     
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,122
    Likes Received:
    2,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was proofed? By whom? Are you able to proof it was AA77? No, you are not. But don't feel like the Lone Ranger, because neither can the government.

    Anybody older than 21 years knows that if indeed there had been AA77 at the pentagon that day, at least several of the many cameras at that location would have captured it.

    Let Occam rule: the reason the pentagon has offered no video proof of their claim AA77 was there is because THERE IS NO VIDEO PROOF, because AA77 was NOT there. Very simple.

    5 years later, the government provided (NTSB) data from the flight data recorder proves to be completely fabricated.

    We were all fooled that day, but some of us have still not figured it out, 15 years later. Is that comical, or very sad indeed?
     
  4. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,341
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I can proof it ...
    - wreckage parts of this specific plane
    - all records of this plane of several companies and institutions
    - all the passengers, pilots and personal aboard are since then away
    - the impact hole fits 1:1 to an airliner of this type
    - Flight Recorders found
    - Many witnesses confirming it was an airliner
    - Nothing else is able to cause the huge destruction AND the huge fuel explosion!
    - number of persons, organizations and medias which must be involved to sell this as fake story!

    You come with the old over aged point of the cameras?
    Pure technically ... any camera at Pentagon at this time which recorded and monitored the area was technically not able to film the plane, simply due to speed of the plane + area they monitor + FRAPS of the cameras. It is pure mathematics only, because even if we suggest that there were the newest most modern observation cameras of these days installed ... what was for sure not the case, or does anyone seriously believe that every year or 2 are all cameras exchanged? ... they were not able to deliver more as a white streak if anything.

    No ... I'm not talking about this only video at the barrier which had very low FRAPS due to the duty the camera has (recording drivers and registration plates)!
    These cameras which were in the area had to monitor the security area of "xyz" hundreds yards in front of the building and also the surface, not the sky ... and for sure not monitoring the Panorama of Washington DC.
    So take your calculator, and then calculate with the issues of "FRAPS of best camera of this time, the minimum speed of "xyz" hundreds mph / knots of the plane and the distance in which any camera involved could record anything!

    If you are honest to yourself, you will see that the "camera question" is with this answered by pure technical facts!
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Several of the many cameras? You seem to have information regarding how many cameras were on the premises and how many of those were pointed in the direction of the plane trajectory. Is this true? Please point us to the information that leads you to making this claim.
     
  6. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    28,931
    Likes Received:
    9,719
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The plane also flew right over 3 of the largest highways in the country right before hitting the pentagon. Thousands saw it just from their cars. It was right where 66 and 395 meet. Literally right there
     
  7. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    doesn't matter to the twoofers ... all the witnesses were "plants" ...
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's 100% false. The BOP (burden of proof) is always on the claimant. If someone claims it was not Flight 77 or a Boeing 757, he only has to prove his claim that it was not. He does not have to provide any alternative. For example, if someone claims a convicted person (convicted via circumstantial evidence) is innocent and provides DNA evidence as proof that it doesn't match the convicted person, he does not have to show any alternative, he has satisfied the claim that the person is innocent. This exact scenario has happened in multiple cases.

    Applied to the US government's claim that it was AA 77, the US government has never provided conclusive evidence that it was AA 77. The US government only provided circumstantial evidence that it was AA 77. As with the above example, circumstantial evidence is not conclusive. As I've said many times, the serial numbers (i.e. the DNA) from the allegedly recovered debris must match the logs for the 4 planes in question, otherwise conclusive proof has not been provided, just circumstantial evidence. And circumstantial evidence is not reliable, especially given that it's the US government's circumstantial evidence and given the US government's track record for lying.

    And before anyone can make a claim that it was not AA 77 (unless that person does have such conclusive evidence), the US government must provide the conclusive evidence of its claim, since it was the US government's claim that it was AA 77.
     
  9. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    In this you are quite correct.

    If we are going with your prior example of a convicted person being proven innocent, then you should also know that a jury is not allowed to know the defendants prior conviction history. The reason for this is because if a person who has been convicted or even put on trial for murder before, goes on trial for another murder when the jury is aware of his past convictions and/or past trials, then it is very likely the person will not be judged fairly on the evidence presented, and that the jury will just convict him anyway because they already have it in their mind he is guilty no matter what.

    What I am saying is, just because the government has lied before (many, many times, I'm not debating that) does not mean you can draw a bias against the evidence which proves, in this case, they were not lying. You must come at it with a clean slate and base it sole on the evidence, not on personal opinion.

    Now more to the point, and as we have discussed, there is much, much evidence to show that AAL77 crashed into the Pentagon. Debris from landing gears, engines, multiple fuselage debris with American Airlines paint on it, DNA/bodies from the passengers on board, the Flight Data Recorder, Radar data, witnesses who saw an American Airlines 757 crash into the Pentagon including pilots in the air at the time, the damage to surrounding obstacles including trees, 5 light poles, ground structures, a massive generator hit by the engine, an almost 757 sized hole in the wall, massive internal damage that can only caused by a huge high speed object loaded with lots of jet fuel.... everything points to AAL77 crashing into the Pentagon. It has been proven. You have not provided anything which has disproved this event.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course.

    Irrelevant, the point has nothing to do with a jury, it's strictly about BOP and evidence (see above), circumstantial vs conclusive. You've already agreed I'm correct, now you're trying to muddy up the point.

    That's correct, however circumstantial evidence is heavily reliant on credibility, conclusive (physical/forensic) evidence relies on nothing. The source of the circumstantial evidence is the US government, no credibility. The US government has provided evidence it wants the public to know, it has withheld evidence it doesn't want the public to know. Half a story is a lie, the MO of the US government.

    Now you're contradicting your own claim that I'm "quite correct". If I'm quite correct, then it has not been conclusively proven as you agreed. You want it both ways because you're convinced by the circumstantial evidence (half the story).

    Once again, contradicting yourself. You claimed I'm quite correct about the BOP, now you're claiming I need to prove something (i.e. disproving a claim that has not been proven). You make no sense. Which is it, am I correct or not? Make up your mind.
     
  11. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You missed the point of what I said you were correct about.

    You are correct in saying you do no need to require an alternate explanation in order to disprove something.

    The BOP is with government. In this case they have provided plenty of proof, and therefore the claim stands.

    In order for you to disprove it, you are required to disprove all the evidence which the government provided.

    This you have not done. You have instead only said the government hasn't provided enough evidence. Hogwash.

    If you can provide an alternate explanation, with evidence, then even better, but as you correctly said, it is not required.

    As it stands, you have been unable to show any of the government evidence, which I link on my blog, is false.

    Therefore the evidence stands, and so does the claim.

    If you are serious about showing everyone why the government story is wrong, you need to take the government evidence and show us why it is wrong, not just sit here idle and say "well they haven't given me the evidence I want, therefore it didn't happen".
     
  12. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,341
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And where is the proof that it was not the Boing 757 please? No proof given by Truthers, only blabbering and nonsense claiming, as well putting things out of contents and ignoring all things and points which counter the own believe and claim. That's the point.

    So sorry to say ... there was no proof delivered at all until now, that it was not the Boing 757 of Flight 77 which smashed into Pentagon. So the BoP is not delivered and can only be delivered if someone is delivering a working alternative to the official story.
    Also ... it is the Truthers side which is attacking and making the accusation against the official story, so please don't twist the rules here reversed. Thruters accuse the US government to lie, so the Truthers have to deliver the evidences for the guilt and not the accused side to be "innocent", eh? :wink:
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't understand the point. It's not up to anyone to prove a negative, the BOP is on the US government. If they can't conclusively prove it was AA 77 and they haven't, that means they also haven't proven what it was that hit the Pentagon (if anything). Circumstantial evidence can be faked/planted/mistaken, conclusive evidence cannot. It could very well have been a Boeing and even AA 77 or a Boeing but not AA 77 or neither, there is no conclusive proof.
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,122
    Likes Received:
    2,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With all due respect sir, you have proved nothing. You have repeated the government story, but that is not proof of anything except the deception and cover up involved.

    Dennis Cimino, an expert in FDR and other avionics and radar issues, examined the FDR data for AA77 and found it to be a complete fabrication. There are so many things wrong with the official story that it's not funny anymore.

    The perps blew up that part of the pentagon to get rid of the records and congressional auditors there. Mission Accomplished. The pentagon is notorious for its wide mendacity, and even the members of the 911 Commission spoke of it.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,122
    Likes Received:
    2,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps you have not seen them, but there are many pictures of the building with surveillance cameras visible, AT LEAST on each corner of the pentagon.

    If you're suggesting that the pentagon has no surveillance cameras, and had none in 2001, all I can do is laugh.
     
  16. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,341
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand, but please explain me why the BoP is on the US government please? Why shall they send proofs out (what they still did) to convince people believing the evil and conspiracy is behind every corner ... means people who can't be convinced, no matter what you deliver and where they even distrust if the government tells that 1+1=2?

    Only reason for this silly demand is at least, that people are distrusting their government. That a distrusting is OK is clear ... but to create out of this a demand to disproof silly BS of claims and constructions is nonsense. These people accuse the US government to have created this conspiracy, so it is their job to give proof for it ... where they utterly failed until now to do!
     
  17. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,122
    Likes Received:
    2,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The burden of proof is on the government for the obvious reason that this story of AA77 and the pentagon is a government story. That is what the government 911 Commission found. Get it? It's their story, so the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
     
  18. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,341
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With all due respect Sir ...

    If someone wants to believe that it was conspiracy etc., then nothing will convince them that it wasn't.

    I do not deny that there are strange things existing, but I do not create or believe out of this or that strange thing is a complete conspiracy and follow this telling.
    I gave you example with the point of cameras, which is coming up again and again, but is still explained as point. So why the hack is it coming up again and again? Simply, because these people to not accept things and facts which are against their believing and even if you deliver detailed proofs, then they set this issue in context with something else which is an own point for its own if you have luck. But often they start to insult you to be a naïve troll, being bought by government if not being member of FBi, CIA etc. to make silent propaganda war against the real truth to fool the people and so on...

    Another point at WTC is for example the total BS of telling from Truthers that fire was not hot enough to melt the steel bars to cause collapse. Why the hack must the steel bars melt and why the hack was this suddenly told?
    Reason is in core that someone started to tell that the collapse was caused because the steel bars melted due to the fire to have base to tell that official story is BS. Reality is that this claim is nonsense, because of course was fire not enough for it. BUT ... it was hot enough to weak and soften the steel bars that they were not further able to hold the weight on them and then they bended and the collapse followed. This was proofed by a serious test experiment, which showed right this ... but was of course again denied to be relevant by the Truthers (what was in front clear to be happen from their side, if showing that they are wrong).

    And this is the complete story with all the stuff around 9/11 ... and so we are again back to the beginning: If someone wants to believe it was conspiracy, nothing can convince him that it wasn't ... no matter what you deliver him ... and the Truthers are coming again and again with the same old things which are still refuted, but of course not for them refuted.
     
  19. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,341
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So because it is in your opinion the government story, the government has to proof that they are not lying. So we have now the case that A (= US Government) is telling a story and B (Truthers) are telling this is all a lie ... and so B demands that A has to proof that they are not lying etc.

    Since when does a defendant have to prove his innocence in our general legal understanding please? :roll:

    Aside this ... it is not only the government story, it is also the story of thousands of peoples too.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you still don't understand. I already posted the answer to that question and you didn't get it then and you still don't get it.

    That makes no sense. Do you believe the US government should just make claims without proof and all Americans should just accept their claims on faith? It has nothing to do with conspiracy or no conspiracy, all claims must be supported by conclusive evidence/proof, especially when it's available. If it is not available that's a different story but when it isn't available, it's always possible (especially that it's the US government we're talking about) that they are lying and are hiding the evidence. The whole world got a very clear taste of the US government making claims about the WMDs in Iraq without proof. They were LYING. Another example is Obamacare, they produced no proof and obviously LIED when they made claims that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" and "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan", among many other LIES. Intelligent people don't accept the word of pathological liars on faith.

    It's not a silly demand, it's a fact of life. Not to mention there is a very good compelling reason to distrust the US government, it's based on history. When someone makes an accusation or a claim, it has to be supported by evidence, not hearsay or circumstantial evidence. You might trust a friend or a loved one and accept their claims without proof, but when it comes to others or the US government, you have to be an ignorant/gullible fool to just accept claims on faith. Almost ALL the claims and evidence from the US government with respect to 9/11 is circumstantial and a massive amount is being withheld from the public under fake claims of "national security". You may want to take their word for it but tens of millions of Americans, including myself don't and I never will.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Perhaps you can show me where my post conveyed the notion that I was suggesting that there were no surveillance cameras. here's my post again:
    How does asking you for a link proving how many of the cameras at the Pentagon were pointed at the flight path/impact point and how many of those were able to take a picture of the plane at the speed it traveled suggest that I thought there were no cameras?

    :roll:
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So providing serial numbers from the all powerful government, who has been capable of supposedly generating holograms of planes, creating faked flight trajectories within the black boxes, engineering bogus FEAs showing how some of the buildings collapsed, keeping thousands of folks who were involved in this massive conspiracy silent, faked photos and videos of the planes and hijackers, faked cell phone calls from some of the planes, is what you need as proof?

    And why is it that you wouldn't claim THOSE were faked also? Or is that something the evil, all powerful government wouldn't be able to fake?

    Tell you what Bob. Point me in the direction of an aircraft disaster where the serial numbers were shown to match the recovered debris. You seem to think this is freely available to the public.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's not just about providing serial numbers that match logs (to be more accurate), it's about providing conclusive forensic evidence/proof based on a legitimate investigation. It's also about transparency as opposed to hiding everything under false pretenses.

    When and IF it were provided, I (and all other individuals) reserve judgment on whether it's faked or not. However, conclusive forensic evidence/proof (along with independent peer review approval) cannot be faked. That's why they do forensic investigations, which were never done of course. The logs have to be proven to be genuine (one way is history/chain of custody) and the individual parts' serial numbers (along with their respective chain of custody) have to match, for ALL 4 planes. There was not one iota of any of that provided by the US government, never mind trying to fake it. Withholding evidence is the same as faking evidence, it's a lie by omission.

    I don't have to do any such thing, the BOP rests with the US government, not me. I already went through that. I'm also not here to try to convince you of anything. It's totally up to you to do your own research and reach your own conclusions. Whether the parts match via serial numbers is freely available to the public or not is irrelevant. That why FOIA was passed into law. There were 2 FOIA requests for that (that I'm aware of), both were categorically denied. It's not about other aircraft disasters, it's about the ones on 9/11.
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,122
    Likes Received:
    2,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If we may use proper definitions in any future discussion, I would like to point out to you that what happened on 911 was necessarily a conspiracy. The only question is just who the conspirators actually were. That is, a conspiracy is an agreement between 2 or more people to accomplish some nefarious goal. Would you agree with that?

    Either 19 arab hijackers with box cutters commandeered 4 different airplanes and did the dirty deed, or somebody else did the dirty deed. Most people refer to the first scenario as the official conspiracy theory, and to any other theories, simply CT. In general terms, the official theory was described by the report of the 911 Commission.

    The facts supporting the official theory are few and far between. Indeed, I cannot think of any detail of the official story that can be proved. For example, it cannot be proved that the flights in question were even hijacked, for a variety of reasons. Comically, the initial passenger lists did not include the offending hijackers. Yes, they were corrected, comically, after that little point was made in public.

    For example, and to your other point, there is no record ever of modern high rise buildings collapsing from fire, as alleged by the notorious NIST report. Why were people talking about melted steel? Because it was observed and photographed and described by many. Hot spots were recorded by US satellites overhead. Firemen described scenes of flowing iron looking like a foundry.

    If one is possessed of common sense, one knows office fires burning on the upper floors cannot cause molten metal to be running like a foundry. One knows that ALL the damage observed could not possibly have been caused by the official finding.

    One familiar with the design and limitations of cell phone technology in 2001 knows that the notorious cell phone calls which form the official theory were impossible. Further, if one bothers to read the text and context of those phone calls, one can conclude that they are stilted and unnatural.

    So if you're willing to use standard definitions, whatever happened indeed was a conspiracy. The only question is who the players were.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Who is the defendant, and where is court being held?
     
  25. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,122
    Likes Received:
    2,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where is the link? Deepest apologies, I did not just discover this information on the internet. Pictures of the building in question are available in many places, books and the internet. If you have not seen a picture of the building, I'm sorry about that.

    So if you accept that there were cameras there, let's imagine for a moment that we were designing the surveillance system for the HQ of the US Department of Defense. Would you, as a designer, include cameras that covered as much real estate as possible, or would you leave certain areas uncovered?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page