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. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    so you wish to throw away all the evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon and rely on some video analysis that you don't have any experience in? ... what is your field of expertise Scott? ...
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You've already been proven wrong on this.

    Again, you've already been proven wrong.
    depthcheck (2).jpg

    The plane the person used to show it was too big. You even admitted this previously. The person used a plane at an angle that is the same dimension lengthwise as a plane viewed from the side (plane insert above middle plane). The plane I inserted is correct (bottom plane).
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you look at the overhead picture which is the sixth one down on this page...
    https://web.archive.org/web/20111205224534/http://0911.voila.net:80/index4.htm

    ...you'll see the part of the Pentagon which is the same distance from the camera as the plane.

    Look at the top picture on this page.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20111205224530/http://0911.voila.net:80/index3.htm

    The part of the Pentagon wall that's the same distance from the camera is about where the corner of the protruding part is. If you take the space behind the gate-lifting mechanism and increase it by about twenty five percent to allow for the angle and compare it to the height of the Pentagon at that corner, it's obviously not twice the height of the side of the Pentagon. A 757 is twice as long as the Pentagon is high. The difference is so great that it doesn't even have to be precisely measured. Anyone can see this. You can jump up and down and scream that a 757 would fit in that space all you want. It's obvious that one wouldn't. The only thing that matters is your success rate at making the viewers agree with you and I think very few do. Your attitudes mean nothing.

    You'll never admit anything no matter how obvious it is that you're wrong so my goal is not to make you admit anyting. All I hope to do is make you say lame things by posting the clearest proof. That way everyone will know who you really are in spite of your attitudes.

    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
    http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------
    6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communicationsmedium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
    ------------------------------


    (post #1559)
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-78#post-1069916675
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How'd you come up with 25%?
    Nope. You're wrong. See link below.
    http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html
     
  5. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So true! David Chandler wrote the article I linked in post #1633 that PROVES a plane. Let's see how quick Scott says Chandler was paid to say these thing instead of arguing the facts within.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I find it very strange that an anomaly as important as this one wasn't analyzed in the Coste analysis.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-81#post-1069946192

    If Shinebox isn't lying...
    (from post #1609)
    ...it's in there somewhere. I couldn't find it. If it's there, somebody please post a link and a time mark. You weren't lying, were you Shinebox?

    I did this years ago.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7169966&postcount=38

    I measured it then.

    This is a doctored picture posted by someone whose intent was to deceive. Here's a clearer picture.

    (top picture)
    https://web.archive.org/web/20111205224530/http://0911.voila.net:80/index3.htm

    Post something from the Coste analysis that you consider to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we'll talk about whether it's really proof.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Called it!!!

    So know you think David Chandler is part of the lies eh Scott?
     
  10. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    why would I lie Scott? ...I'm thinking you are afraid of the truth ..

    he addressed many cameras including the one at the Citgo station ... just watch the ****ing videos ... I'm can't be bothered to go back and look for a timestamp ffs ... do your own homework ...
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And you did it wrong.

    http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Listen to what he says in the first twenty seconds of this video.


    Pictures of jet flybys at that distance are clear.
    https://www.google.es/search?q=figh...WLUhUIHdH9Di0Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1024&bih=677&dpr=1

    They're not blurry and ambiguous.


    If it's done from the overhead view, there's no distortion factor.

    (sixth picture)
    https://web.archive.org/web/20111205224534/http://0911.voila.net:80/index4.htm


    I'm starting to wonder about this guy.
    Pentagon 9/11 - Explanation of the Evidence - Wayne Coste



    At the 10:17 time mark he starts off with the presumption that the idea that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon is making the truth movement look bad and it looks like he didn't even address the fact that a 757 wouldn't fit in the space behind the gate-lifting mechanism. That's one of the most important aspects of the Pentagon issue and his avoiding it is very telling. If he didn't avoid it, somebody link to where it's addressed.


    People can be gotten to. Here's an example.

    This scientist gives a very logical talk on depleted uranium and how the government lies.

    Global Nuclear Coverup an interview with Leuren Moret



    A few years later she says some wacky things. Somewhere in this video (I watched it years ago and I don't remember where) she says that the CIA caused the earthquake in Japan.

    Scientist Leuren Moret - Japan earthquake and nuclear "accident" are tectonic nuclear warfare.m4v



    There are a lot of anti-establishment pundits who support the official story on 9/11.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...undits-who-support-the-official-story.514874/

    A lot of truthers think they are sleeper shills. I think the most likely explanation is that some thugs from the goverment paid them a visit and made them an offer they couldn't refuse. People will say anything the government tells them to say if they think their loved ones will have "Accidents" if they don't.


    Somebody post something from the Coste analysis that he or she thinks proves that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can talk about whether it's really proof.

     
    Shinebox likes this.
  13. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    just like Bob, you are stuck on the first of 17 chapters ... I can't watch the videos for you Scott ... you need to quit playing the clown and actually watch the Coste vids ... until then, we have nothing to discuss ...
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh boy...

    This just keeps getting better. You are using the HEIGHT of the building in the DISTORTED security camera screenshot and comparing it to the LENGTH of the plane in the DISTORTED security camera screenshot.

    Tell us Scott. How can you use the OVERHEAD view to compare the HEIGHT of the Pentagon to the LENGTH of the plane?

    This ought to be good.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    See the part of the quote in red above and tell us again Scott how you're NOT using the distorted security camera screenshots to make object comparisons.
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I was using the measurements that were in this link which is dead now.
    https://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf

    Here's a way to do it. Go to the sixth picture from the top in this link.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20111205224534/http://0911.voila.net:80/index4.htm

    The length of the side of the Pentagon can be used as a reference point. A small error in measurements can turn into a big difference so it has to be super precise. I don't claim to be able to to that but here's what I got.

    When I put my metric measuring stick on the screen, I got a length of .0016 meters for the length of the space behind the gate-lifting mechanism and and .0114 meters for the length of the side of the Pentagon. The length of the side of the Pentagon is 281 meters. .0016 times 281 divided by .0114 = 39.43 meters which is 96.55 feet according to this...
    https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/length/meter-to-feet.html

    According to this...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications

    ...a 757 is 155 feet long.

    I'm not saying I didn't make any mistakes. You people try it and see what you come up with.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Scott.

    Look at both of your quotes above, paying particular attention to the parts in red. In your first quote above, you refer to the sixth picture as containing the "space behind the gate-lifting mechanism". In your second quote above, you refer to the sixth picture as "the top down picture". The "space behind the gate-lifting mechanism" is shown in the photo AFTER the top down picture.

    Please clarify which photo you used when you placed your measuring stick on the screen.

    Is this the "sixth picture" you are using for measurements:
    topcheck2.jpg

    Or is this the "sixth picture" you used for measurements (top portion):
    aerialcheck2b.jpg
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's the top picture.

    Look at the white plane between the two lines. I measured the length of the red line between those two lines where the plane is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  19. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,341
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    .
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,116
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Besides trolling you’re always trying to peddle your bull feces. I’m not “stuck” on anything. If I wanted to I could have just posted the link to the first video but I did post all of them didn’t I fake one? If anything you’re the one who tried hard to avoid discussing the first video which includes many important points. I never had any issue with discussing any of these videos they are all quite informative. They may make a strong case for a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon but they don’t make any case that it was AA77 or who or what may have piloted it. In fact those issues are raised as questions by the first video. Again they don’t PROVE anything, that would require a legitimate forensic investigation which never happened.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah, you scaled something wrong. You either scaled the length of the Pentagon wrong or the length of the red line. According to what you came up with, you should be able to fit just over seven of your "red line, .0016 meter" lengths into your "Pentagon wall, .0114 meter lengths". I can only fit just over five of those lengths. Here are my measurements using the measuring tool in GIMP 2.
    topdownpentagon.PNG
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Would you mind doing it with a ruler too? I'd like to see what you come up with.
     
  23. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,341
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like Putin???
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,424
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    LOL no plane hit the pentagon, thats why the only debris found on scene fit neetly in to the back of a toyota pickup truck 8) and thats why there is no tail fin damage 8) and thats why there is no outerwing damage 8) and thats why rebar in the hole is all bent outward 8), just like the wtc.

    Furthermore photos show the internal damage perpendicular with the wall face. :winner:
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018
    Eleuthera likes this.
  25. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page