The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

And this is the kind of “proof” all truthers support when putting forth their conspiracy beliefs. What a crock. I wonder why posters like Bobby and Eleuthera don’t publicly denounce people like Scott like they do “OCT” supporters.

Kind of funny isn’t it?

 

Is it Bobby? Where’s your venomous retorts towards Scott regarding the truth? He lied. I guess that’s ok right? As long as it’s against the “OCT”?

What a joke.

 

You can have 10 troofers, with 10 accusations, ranging from, holograms, missiles, crisis witnesses, big planes, small planes, UFO's,
to anything, and they will all chat against the government agent who thinks it was really a friggin airplane that crashed like they say it did.

He must be lying.
He is paid by the government to laugh at us.

 

Because they have the stones to question, contradict and object to US government 9/11 fairy tales made for simpletons. Unlike 24/7 OCT boot licking grovelers who question nothing of any significance and who dismiss egregious official lies that have lethal consequences for hundreds of thousands of innocent people with a simplistic "so be it".

Absolutely, that's what I said.

He admitted his error, something I would never expect from the likes of you and your numerous errors (which are not errors, just creative inventions to try to defend the OCT). You usually just disappear for weeks and hope your lies are forgotten by the time you return.

If he did he wouldn't have admitted his error, unlike you.

Yes you are.

 

Go ahead and have your field day. This will teach me not to do math when I'm all caffeined up. Anyway, if I'd measured it right the first time, I still would have presented the finding. Now we're closer to what happened. I suppose we can add this to Coste's list.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111205224534/http://0911.voila.net:80/index4.htm

 

What rubbish. You blame your continued incompetence on coffee? You were forced to admit this one. The hundreds of other ridiculous claims will never be conceded because the value you attach to your useless uninformed opinion.

As for a field day, don't flatter yourself. I could not care less about you conceding one of your mad claims. I feel no sense of victory. You fumbling around on the internet is just the way it is. Having you concede some meaningless point is irrelevant.

 

An error in math is forgivable, especially when it's brought out in the open.

An error in judgment, believing the statements of professional liars, is quite another thing.

 

Let's hear Betamax's analysis of this.

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------------------------
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious, but small hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged.

----------------------------------------------------------------

April Gallup - Was there a bomb in the Pentagon?



It might turn out that the above is explainable but I wouldn't call these ridiculous claims. If you can prove they're wrong, I'll concede that they're wrong.

 

The problem is that the burden of proof is on the US government and the US government has not explained any of it to any level that could be considered satisfactory incontrovertible proof. And from the historical account, it seems the US government does not ever want to produce anything that could be considered proof unless compelled to do so via legal means. IMO if the current grand jury investigation opens up a can of worms on the WTC towers, there's every reason to believe all parts of the OCT narrative will eventually be up for grabs.

 

Analyse what exactly? A colonel in the air force says he has never seen an air crash where the plane could not be positively identified. It was. There were also bodies identified from the plane passengers.

How many passenger air crashes has the colonel been part of? In pretty much every case, the pilot is trying to avoid a collision and at as low a speed as possible and with as little fuel to combust as possible. On 911, the opposite was true. In addition, the plane entered an enclosed area with combustible materials and considerable jet fuel.

How can you possibly cite his testimony as accurate and expert. It is because you are not a seeker of any truth but go to absurd lengths to seek confirmation of your useless claims.

Passengers got on this flight and it took off. To suggest it didn't hit the Pentagon requires an explanation for the disposal of the actual plane. Only 911 troofahs invent such ridiculous crap.

No.

You have this back to front. I don't need to prove a plane hit the Pentagon. If I proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is no way in hell that you would concede it anyway! You are way more dishonest than those who you spam against.

 

A forensic analysis of the recovered parts as mandated by NTSB protocol. One that was claimed to have been conducted (for the alleged AA77 only) but the FBI refused to reveal the results, denying 2 FOIA requests.This is the same pattern of coverup as the NIST FOIA denials.

There's no evidence of it (see above).

Because he's the expert and you're not. Furthermore his statement matches NTSB airline crash investigation protocol and the claims by the NTSB director.

Correct, that is the domain of the US government and they have not done so. The burden of proof always rests with the claimant, but this is 9/11 we're talking about, the crime of the century.

 

They don't have to prove a damn thing to you.
who do you think you are.

 

Oh Bob, your soapbox is getting smaller every tedious year you spout from it. The plane was identified from the bodies of passengers on it. Most of the plane was burnt in the fire.

http://www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html

He is NOT an expert. He has no formal training on aircraft crash investigation.

I have already detailed exactly why no such previous crash would match his or anyone's expectations. Kindly address it:-

How many passenger air crashes has the colonel been part of? In pretty much every case, the pilot is trying to avoid a collision and at as low a speed as possible and with as little fuel to combust as possible. On 911, the opposite was true. In addition, the plane entered an enclosed area with combustible materials and considerable jet fuel.

A blatant lie. The overwhelming evidence points to a large object striking the Pentagon, fully consistent with a passenger airliner. Parts seen on the lawn match the plane. DNA from the bodies match the passengers. The plane took off and was never seen again.

Now those who suggest it wasn't a plane are the ones who have the burden of proof. But you know this Bob, you can't have failed to notice this being pointed out to the odd few times! So if you claim it wasn't a plane you need to prove it was something else and account for the plane's disappearance.

 

It was a hologram

 

Open mouth, insert foot. How's your foot taste Scott?

 

Depends, was he wearing boots.

 

The above is complete garbage.

http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html

 

How do you know Scott's not a "professional liar" sent here to post disinfo?

First, he claimed it was the height of the Pentagon in one of the photos that didn't match the length of the plane. When he was shown the errors for that, he switched gears and went with the top down photo garbage. We all know how THAT turned out.

He lied, plain and simple. He tried to keep the lie going until he painted himself into a corner.

"I read my rule wrong due to caffeine"...

That's hysterical. No wonder why truthers believe what they do.

 

Yeah, THAT'S the lesson you should take from this.

Unreal...

 

Insecurity, with their own lives, they can create a one where they are master.

 

Hey Scott. I thought you said FACTS trump testimony? People can lie, be mistaken, or remember things incorrectly remember?

 

I will continue to repeat the FACTS whether you like it or not. No one is forcing you to respond to my posts. If they're too "tedious" for you, ignore them.

Apparently you have no clue what a NTSB airplane crash investigation consists of. Airplanes can ONLY be physically identified by meticulously matching the serial numbers (or any other identifiable marking) of each and ALL the recovered parts to the logs of the parts for a particular plane. The procedure for preserving the recovered parts is detailed in the NTSB manual.

YOU are NOT an expert and YOU have no formal training on aircraft crash investigations. Anyone can read a manual and he's far more expert than you are.

Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with parts identification which was conducted according to the director of the NTSB and for which there is NO evidence as a result of the FBI's refusal to honor 2 FOIA requests in violation of the law.

No it's a FACT, see above.

Possibly. However given the obvious 9/11 coverups, everything is up for question and nothing can or should be accepted on faith. That a large airliner may have crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 does NOT identify what exactly it was.

There is not one part that has ever been publicly proven to match any of the 4 claimed planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11.

That's incorrect, those who suggest it wasn't a plane have no burden of proof. A suggestion is just an opinion based on a belief. Those who CLAIM it wasn't a plane have the burden of proof just as those who claim it was AA77 that crashed into the Pentagon absolutely carry the burden of proof that it was AA77.

What YOU point out to me is usually OCT groveling nonsense that YOU accept on faith. I'm not as easy as you are, I demand legitimate investigations and incontrovertible proof from appropriate/valid sources. YOU are not one of those.

That's also incorrect. One ONLY needs to prove what one claims, period. The above may be true only if one makes BOTH claims. The ONLY claim I've made with respect to the Pentagon are factual ones. These are (among other things):

1. That NO legitimate official investigation was ever conducted with respect to anything about 9/11, including of course, the Pentagon.

2. That NO legitimate official investigation forensically and incontrovertibly PROVES that any of the alleged recovered parts belong to any of the alleged designated airplanes that crashed on 9/11 as officially claimed.

 

With this post, you cannot be taken seriously. The airframe was identified by the bodies of the passengers?!?!

Good Lord man, the passenger manifests were jokes on that day. Cripes, they did not include the names of the bloody hijackers until they were "amended".

All the details of the story make the OCT absolutely impossible.

Something struck the pentagon, but it sure as hell was not AA77.

 

That is so stupid, and you know it.

How long you been flying Bobbie.

There are very few serial numbers on those plane parts.
N-number on the tail.
Engines got one,
a few radios
Not much else.

You believe anything if it fits your phony agenda.


and you've been told this, and keep repeating the same bullsh-t.

 

See that number Bobbie.

That's a part number, not a serial number.
There is an N number on the tail,
another on the dashboard

The E is probably a batch number, they have that on all parts.
The numbers identify what kind of part, where it was made, what batch it is in.