The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Really? The problem is I haven't avoided or ignored any evidence so that would be incorrect. If anything it's you who has avoided and ignored massive evidence of criminal fraud and merely dismissed it as hiding "incompetence".

You ask a lot of loaded questions but you're missing a key question:

What allegedly recovered airplane debris was forensically identified and matched to any of the 4 9/11 planes?

Last I heard not even the allegedly recovered FDRs and CVRs had identifying serial numbers so they would not physically match to any airplane.

If you know, please provide the official documentation that incontrovertibly proves any of the airplane parts belong to AA11, AA77, UA93 and/or UA175. I've been looking for it for years and I haven't found any such thing. And certainly FOIA requests are not very helpful when the FBI wants to cover up their findings. Note I'm not asking you to prove anything, the burden of proof is not on you. Just help me out on my research if you can because so far, all you want to do is try to convince me AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, a story you repeat from the OCT, and you haven't even come close. Thanks.

 

You're a fraud Bob. For all the noise you make you have no intent on getting to the truth.

The human DNA says it was flight 77. The aircraft parts come from a 757. You evaded my questions yet again. You fail to explain anything.

Simplify: Why do you fail to link the DNA from the passengers to flight 77. Are you saying they are lying?

The pieces of airplane are from a 757. Are you suggesting they planted them?

You make this big song and dance about all these requests then like a jackass reject two major lines of proof.

 

And here I thought I was a "troofah".

That's because I'm not the claimant, remember? As such I don't carry the burden of proof. The US government however, is the claimant and therefore carries the burden of proof and is tasked with the explanations. They tried that with the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports but as you already know and even acknowledge, those were complete disasters. But you know all this and tried your damnedest to get those who didn't buy what you bought to prove a negative. But that's ok, I don't need to convince you about who carries the burden of proof, you're already convinced it's everyone but the claimant. And that's quite ok with me given your next claim.

So you believe human DNA are physical airplane debris now and it talks too? And I'm the fraud? You have a serious delusional issue son. Better get some help, your desperate OCT groveling is causing a severe breakdown of your thinking process. You're mixing DNA with airplane parts and vocal chords. And to think I asked you for help, my bad. As my dear departed grandma used to say, oy vey.

Sorry but the question I asked was for a mentally healthy and balanced individual who actually thinks logically and understands that ONLY airplane parts can be physically matched to a specific airplane. That would not be you. A huge mistake on my part, I didn't mean to put you on the spot. My apologies.

 

Ah Bob, you can be more than one thing ya know!

The claim has been proven to any normal person's standard. Plane debris, signs of approach, witnesses to plane, DNA from passengers known to have boarded the plane.

I acknowledge no such thing and further, these reports are supplementary to proving anything.

You're being a jackass again Bob. I haven't even begun to get to my damnedest level and I have only been arguing about one single aspect. You are either lying or are cluelessly mistaken.

Liar Bob. The claimant is the person who says it wasn't a plane and nowhere have I said otherwise. They need to then take the available evidence and prove it was something other than what it says it was.

Pathetic Bob, once again, point scoring, out of context diversionary crap.

The people who boarded the plane are called the passengers. The passengers for flight 77 are recorded on the check-in system. Their boarding passes are checked against the flight and confirmed once they get on the plane. Flight 77 takes off, never seen again and neither are any of the people on board. At the crash scene of the Pentagon, body parts are recovered and the DNA matches all the passengers on board the plane that disappeared.

ONCE AGAIN: How is that not evidence it was a plane? Why do you fail to link the DNA from the passengers to flight 77. Are you saying they are lying?

You fraud Bob. You failed to answer properly and know it. You are tap dancing around and everybody can see it. From your underlined quote.

ONCE AGAIN: The pieces of airplane are from a 757. Are you suggesting they planted them? How come the airplane parts photographed don't count?

 

You haven't proven this didn't happen

9/11 Painful Deceptions - 2005 (full length)

(44:00 time mark)


If that's a plausible scenario, the DNA can't be used as proof.


edit 45 minutes later
---------------------------------------

I just came across this.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17853

 

He didn't. He was inside. He says he only saw a plane flying away after an explosion.

You don't seem to think the fact that a person says he saw a plane flying away means anything at all. At the 2:15 time mark of part 7...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-90#post-1070008216

...it says other people reported an explosion and a plane flying away.

This is an alarm bell. You obviously have a foregone conclusion. You're looking at all of this very important clear evidence and saying to yourself, "Let's see. How can I obfuscate this?" The same goes for the rest of you pro-official version posters. It's obvious that you're not sincere objective truth-seekers to say the least.

Where it went afterwards is not that clear. I might have jumped the gun when I say it landed at the airport but it looks like a big jetliner flew over the Pentagon without hitting it and kept going.

Yes.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632&st=0&start=0

 

You ridiculous person. You have no concept of what the word plausible means! You suggest that they landed/invisibly crashed/whatever the plane somewhere else, then what? They executed the passengers and crew, mashed them up, burnt them and sent their remains to Dover?

Go away, get a life, because if you believe that moronic claim is plausible you have no place on a debate forum.

 

His testimony is so full of holes it beggars belief. He is elevating his importance by attempting to claim himself as the number one eyewitness.

It means he was lying. Everyone else says they saw the plane hit the building. NOBODY else says the 757 flew off!

What "other people"?

Speaking of alarm bells, if this guy was presented as a witness to the crash with such obvious and glaring errors, YOU would be the first to dismiss it. You have no moral compass at all.

It smashed into the side of the Pentagon.

Or, the bare bones:
1. Setup fake explosions of poles, small buildings etc.
2. Distribute plane parts all over the place.
3. Do something to the real plane.
4. Kill, dismember and burn all on board.
5. Send body parts to Dover.
6. Create false witnesses who will never admit their lies.
7. Create fake explosion of Pentagon with invisible missile or whatever. It needs to look like a plane impact.
8. Make sure nobody talks and it is all timed to perfection.

An organisation of lying and delusional fools.

 

You need to get informed about what the US government is capable of doing. We've dealt with this before.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-78#post-1069894912
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Torture/Torture_page.html

There's no logic to your post. It's all emotional. Your post would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

I see what Bob means when he says he doesn't want go around in circles with you. You're ignoring what we've already said about the witnesses and I have to link to it again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-87#post-1069997111

You seem to be trying to mislead those viewers who haven't read the whole thread and are just tuning in. Your behavior is that of someone who doesn't even believe his own arguments*.


*
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
https://karmayogadaily.com/2012/09/...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/

 

More lies Scott? Maybe you missed this below.

http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts

Timestamp: 2:56
Interviewer: "And it was.. was he moving fast?"
Roberts: "Oh it was moving extremely fast. It was like ah... maybe saw that aircraft maybe for like uh... a quick five seconds."
Interviewer: "For a quick five seconds. But you definitely... and you saw it over the south parking lot? Over lane one..."
Roberts: "In the south... was in the south parking lot over lane one."
Interviewer: "Ok. Do... do you remember which direction it was headed?"
Roberts: "Uh... coming from the uh... 27 side... 27 heading uh... uh... east towards DC coming from that area. Uh... it was the highway. If you were to come up 395 uh... north headed towards the Pentagon then you got off in south parking, you were like right there 'cause 395 went right into 27."
Interviewer: "So from where... from when it headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?"
Roberts: "From the... uh... can you repeat that one more time please?"
Interviewer: "Yeah. When it was heading away from the Pentagon, this... this second plane... Do you remember...
Roberts: "...Right..."
Interviewer: "...which direction it was heading?"
Roberts: "It was uh... it was heading um... back across 27 and it looks like... it appeared to me, I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... southwest coming out."

According to the above interview, Roberts supposedly came outside 10 seconds AFTER the explosion and saw the aircraft flying FROM the 27 side where 395 went into 27 for about 5 seconds. It was HEADING EAST TOWARDS DC.

 

Engaging the serial forum spammer - an exercise in futility! Any idiot who thinks that it is easier to do what is listed and ignored above is delusional.

The serial forum spammer cherry picks witness testimony in favor of the major claim they all make. It was a plane.

If you jokers expect to be taken seriously whatever makes you think that denying there was a plane helps with your hopeless credibility!

 

Kind of like your ruler screw up eh?

No it doesn't. You need to reconcile Roberts interview first as you have no clue what he said. He saw a plane heading EAST TOWARDS DC coming from 27/395/south parking lot direction.

 

Can you point me to the actual witnesses who said they saw a 757 approach the Pentagon, pull up at the last minute, fly OVER the Pentagon, and then fly away?

 

Viewers...

To see what's going on here, start watching this video at the 5:10 time mark.

National Security Alert - Part 6/9 - Sensitive Information



It continues here and goes until the 4:30 time mark.

National Security Alert - Part 7/9 - Sensitive Information



This will address the above four posts. Those posters are trying to obfuscate what's said in the videos.

 

Let me get this straight so far. You think the government planned the following...

1. They planned for a real 757 to fly towards the Pentagon with the flight path taking it over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo
2. KNOWING that the 757 would fly over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo, they generated fake flight data that DIDN'T match the REAL 757 flight path they actually flew, but stuck with that fake flight data anyways
3. They staged light poles in the flight path KNOWING that they wouldn't match the planned flight path which went over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo.
4. They planned for that real 757 to pull up at the last second and fly over the Pentagon
5. They planned for a small plane or missile to come in from a the trajectory matching the trajectory of the faked flight data and hit the Pentagon right as the 757 pulled up and flew over the Pentagon

Question Scott. Do you think they generated the faked flight data AFTER 9/11 or BEFORE?

 

Viewers...

Listen to the WHOLE interview with Roberts here.
http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts

Below is what Roberts said in that interview. Scott is lying once again.

Timestamp: 2:56
Interviewer: "And it was.. was he moving fast?"
Roberts: "Oh it was moving extremely fast. It was like ah... maybe saw that aircraft maybe for like uh... a quick five seconds."
Interviewer: "For a quick five seconds. But you definitely... and you saw it over the south parking lot? Over lane one..."
Roberts: "In the south... was in the south parking lot over lane one."
Interviewer: "Ok. Do... do you remember which direction it was headed?"
Roberts: "Uh... coming from the uh... 27 side... 27 heading uh... uh... east towards DC coming from that area. Uh... it was the highway. If you were to come up 395 uh... north headed towards the Pentagon then you got off in south parking, you were like right there 'cause 395 went right into 27."
Interviewer: "So from where... from when it headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?"
Roberts: "From the... uh... can you repeat that one more time please?"
Interviewer: "Yeah. When it was heading away from the Pentagon, this... this second plane... Do you remember...
Roberts: "...Right..."
Interviewer: "...which direction it was heading?"
Roberts: "It was uh... it was heading um... back across 27 and it looks like... it appeared to me, I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... southwest coming out."

Scott, did Roberts say he saw a plane coming FROM the 27/395/south parking lot going east towards DC?

Yes or no? Or are you going to dodge around like Bobby does when confronted with his lies?

 

Yeah, when there were 2 FOIA requests for the parts identification results, the requesters were really asking if the DNA matched the airplane and what the DNA told them when it spoke to them. Stick to your day job, comedy just isn't your shtick. But then again you're not trying to be funny, you really believe it.

 

That's an interesting spin Scott. Given the fact that the video LIED about what Roberts actually said. No wonder they didn't incorporate the entire interview with Roberts. Especially the part about him seeing a plane going east towards Dc from 27/395/south parking lot.

 

I have the distinct impression that you just link to stuff without even researching it. As long as it seems to go against the "OCT", you're ok with it.

 

oops

 

I guess you're trying to bury this.

(post #1805)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-91#post-1070011905

 

your welcome for the pay per click Scott ... and thanks for wasting my time on more troofer bullshit ...

 

No you don't, you're not guessing at all. You just fail to respond and re-spam. This is standard modus operandi.

"You ridiculous person. You have no concept of what the word plausible means! You suggest that they landed/invisibly crashed/whatever the plane somewhere else, then what? They executed the passengers and crew, mashed them up, burnt them and sent their remains to Dover?

Go away, get a life, because if you believe that moronic claim is plausible you have no place on a debate forum."

The plane smashed into the side of the Pentagon.

Or, the bare bones:
1. Setup fake explosions of poles, small buildings etc.
2. Distribute plane parts all over the place.
3. Do something to the real plane.
4. Kill, dismember and burn all on board.
5. Send body parts to Dover.
6. Create false witnesses who will never admit their lies.
7. Create fake explosion of Pentagon with invisible missile or whatever. It needs to look like a plane impact.
8. Make sure nobody talks and it is all timed to perfection

Cosmored stinking up the internet for over a decade.

 

I guess you're ignoring this because you got caught lying yet again...

 

drama much?

I love that invincible plane on 911, hell in the real world the wings fall off without hitting anything! LOL



But the pentacon plane ate its spinach and was strong to the finich and mowed the poles all the way in, just like popeye would have done!
I drop down here instead of going to the comedy section when I want a good laugh