The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

You have no evidence to support any of the bullshit rhetoric you have been posting since your first strawman.

POLES CUT OFF WINGS.

stop claiming the poles are different because you have no supporting 'facts', only fantasies.

 

You have been shown cars knocking over poles, particularly the one you deceptively put in your gif.
You have been shown a pickup on the freeway mowing down numerous poles.
You have been shown a similar plane to yours knocking over two far stronger wooden poles.
You have had basic physics explained to you about torque and leverage.
You have had all the differences explained to you.

None of that is rhetoric, none of those are strawman arguments.

I don't deny some poles will cut off some wings in some circumstances. The problem is that you are painfully unable to grasp the breathtakingly obvious fact that circumstances change.

Stop claiming that wooden telegraph poles, anchored in the ground, on an older smaller plane are the same as larger winged planes hitting the poles higher on bolt anchored supports. Stop avoiding the FACT that sometimes even older weaker planes knock over these much harder to break wooden poles!

 

Still nothing but rhetoric and strawmen bullshit

Your rhetoric does not demonstrate a difference, please post a fact.

POLES CUT OFF WINGS, this is a proven fact.

NO WINGS WERE CUT OFF ON 911, this is a proven fact.

 

If ever an example was needed to show how it is impossible to reason with a conspiracy theorist, this is it.

• When presented with conflicting evidence, it is ignored.
• When deceptive practices have been shown, no admission, just evasion.
• When shown the basic physics of leverage and torque a highly significant factor, no understanding is exhibited.
• When numerous slower speed vehicles are shown to knock over similar posts to the Pentagon area, they are ignored.
• When a similar plane to the spammed example is used, displaying much stronger posts being severed, it is ignored.
• When the massive differences between their main spammed example are shown, they are completely disregarded.

As a means to prove their case, examples quoted are wholly different to the Pentagon issue.

• Example gif used has solid poles. Actual has hollow lightweight poles.
• Example gif used has poles held in place by ground support purposely to simulate a wooded area. Actual is held in place by base welds and vertical support 1 inch bolts.
• Example gif plane strikes a designed object before the poles to deliberately weaken the engine/wing and landing gear.
• Example plane DC-7 is from the 50s. The 757 has over 50 years of better and more advanced engineering on its wings.
• Example plane is hitting the solid wooden pole low down. Actual is striking the hollow pole much higher up.
• Example image references damage from a ground reinforced 50ft high thicker light pole.
• Example image shows the far edge of the wing.

Notwithstanding this monumental failed strawman, it defies belief that if this is not an airplane that the people who designed this scenario were too incompetent to work out the impact physics involved!

 

Your example is a DC-7 built in the 50s. How can you possibly have the gall to compare it to a modern jet airliner wing!

Define "proven fact".

 

(from post #2213)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-111#post-1070121990

They were talking about the Pentagon. They weren't talking about the WTC.
Betamax is trying to mislead the viewers who haven't taken the time to actually look at the info. I'll have to post the video and the transcript to thwart him.

Do a YouTube search on "The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2" and go to the 57:50 time mark.

Here's the transcript.
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts
(excerpt)
------------------------------
Craig Ranke:
Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

Roosevelt Roberts:
It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction.

Craig Ranke:
So from the same direction as as as the f..

Aldo Marquis:
From the impact side basically, from that direction?

Roosevelt Roberts:
Everyth....right..exactly.

Aldo Marquis:
Got it. Got it.
------------------------------

Betamax is not to be taken seriously.

 

I really think you need to actually listen to the full source of your material!

https://www.loc.gov/item/afc911000155/

0:56 RR: “I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap] and as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh… all of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed. And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents. So after I though about it, I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television. And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta. As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness. So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream. So what I did was I turned around, and I drew out my weapon, I didn’t know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn’t know what was happening. So I ran back into south loading and I start forcing people out of the building.”

SPAM! Nobody is misleading anyone here. You are ignoring his PROPER testimony.

He exited just after the impact of the second WTC plane, he saw on TV. There is no ambiguity here. He is also a full 25 minutes before the Pentagon impact!

I quoted him exactly correct and that is now 4 posts you have completely ignored.

 

Betamax used a different interview to muddy the waters. This is the first interview he gave on November of 2001.
https://www.loc.gov/item/afc911000155/
Betamax quoted from that interview in which he wasn't even talking about the direction the large jetliner he saw came from.


He said the large jetliner had come from the direction of the Pentagon impact in the interview to the CIT he gave in his car in May of 2008.

Do a YouTube search on "The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2" and start watching at the 41:55 time mark to hear both interviews.

 

FALSE I very kindly informed you by pointing out the obvious egregious blunders championed in your posts to show you the reason that anyone who actually took or has a background physics has you on ignore.

 

WHY have you ignored what he said and the times he quoted!?

Roberts does all the muddying himself. His testimony is all over the place. But quite clearly, he sees the second plane hit the WTC on TV and then comes outside.

He says it was 09:11-09:12 - that sounds very specific!

I don't care what direction it came from! The point is, this is not the 757 that crashed 25 minutes later.

No wonder you ignore all that.

Incorrect, what you hear is their INTERPRETATION. He seems to have made a false assumption and then fed it to Roberts.

CIT:
Aldo Marquis:
Jet engines, okay. So, how close were you to running outside, because this seemed to be pretty quick, at least from your account sounded like, it sounded like, literally, the explosion happened and then you ran outside, I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when, you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?

Roosevelt Roberts:
From the sound of the explosion hit till I ran outside(WTC second plane on TV!!)....it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the (inaudible) look out and look off. Then you see the flickering lights inside the area, and then real quick I realize it was some sort of attack and there was going to be a countermeasure with it.

NOW AGAIN!

https://www.loc.gov/item/afc911000155/

0:56 RR: “I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap] and as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh… all of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed. And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents. So after I though about it, I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television. And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta. As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness. So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream. So what I did was I turned around, and I drew out my weapon, I didn’t know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn’t know what was happening. So I ran back into south loading and I start forcing people out of the building.”

Quite clearly he is not talking about the Pentagon impact. It is TOO early and he's just seen the TV and talks about a second plane coming in to NY.

Fact: He says it is 9:11-12
Fact: That is 25 minutes too early for the Pentagon plane impact.
Fact: He says it is just after seeing impact of second plane on TV.
Fact: He says it is going extremely fast.
Fact: He says it is doing a U-turn.

If you dispute any of that explain why without spam.

 

Puhlease.....not with contradictions like that, again poles cut off wings, I have proven that countless times

 

Kindly point out the contradiction. Is this a word you need to look up?

You keep referring to Straw man statements. Is it at all possible that You could explain properly where they are and why? Would you like me to explain what it means?

You have proven that in your example ONCE that a DC7 can lose part of its wing when striking a tougher object lower down. Kindly explain without hot air, how that compares to a 757, higher up the lightweight pole.

If there are other instances to qualify as "countless times" point them out. If you mean you have spammed the same claim oh, about a dozen times, say so.

 

And here I wanted to start a discussion with those who do not support the OCT about the Pentagon on 9/11 because there is a faction who believe a large plane did indeed impact the Pentagon (see Coste videos) and want to put the subject to rest and another (probably much larger) faction who don't believe a large plane impacted the Pentagon on 9/11 (see Post #1). So because several posters who religiously defend the OCT nearly 24/7 posted their incessant defense of the OCT the thread got out of hand (something I wanted to avoid in the first place). I can't restrict anyone from participating in any topic of discussion but I did have a specific agenda in mind that does not include OCT believers.

So back to the topic at hand. Here's a summary of key issues from what I've been able to gather (strictly my opinion):

I will label those who do not support the OCT but believe a large plane impacted the Pentagon on 9/11 Group B (for Believers).

I will label those who do not support the OCT and do not believe a large plane impacted the Pentagon on 9/11 Group S (for Skeptics).

I will not include those who do support the OCT for obvious reasons.

1. Did Hani Hanjour pilot the plane that impacted the Pentagon?

Group B - Most likely not.
Group S - Absolutely not.

2. Was the large plane that impacted the Pentagon AA77?

Group B - Unknown.
Group S - Absolutely not.

3. Are the cell phone calls, the FDRs/CVRs and the surveillance videos for AA77 authentic?

Group B - Absolutely not but unknown for the FDRs/CVRs.
Group S - Absolutely not.

4. Was the 9/11 Pentagon issue adequately investigated?

Group B - Absolutely not.
Group S - Absolutely not.

5. Should the Pentagon controversy be put to rest (for now)?

Group B - Yes because it is a distraction from the WTC issue(s).
Group S - Absolutely not.

6. Who is more likely correct about the Pentagon in theory?

Group B - Wayne Coste/David Chandler.
Group S - Barbara Honegger/CIT or no one.

Please correct and/or add to this list. Thank you.

 

your posts, yes

yes

I have been, just cited your contradiction what more do you want?

your assumption, not mine, your failure to provide data for your assumption not mine.

your assumption, not mine, your failure to provide data for your assumption not mine.

Please refrain from asking me to explain your conclusions, they are your conclusions, you explain them.
You have and continue to fail to explain them, I asked for the data you used for your claims, you failed to post any data to support your claims.

Virtually everything you posted. Compounded errors leading to compounded blunders.

FALSE, correcting someones continual stream of physics blunders is not spam, but posting a continual stream of the same physics blunders is spamming the thread and on some boards considered trolling

it was this exact issue which prompted the creation of this simple test.

no one, that is NOT ONE of all those self proclaimed engineers, physics professors, genius's on your side of the argument on other boards have passed it to date





they couldnt even set the problem up correctly ffs! Despite that, they nonetheless jump up and down and beat their drums shouting blunder after blunder from every roof top.

 

You were asked to explain why they were strawman statements and have so far failed to even attempt to do that. Regarding a contradiction, did you look it up? It is where one statement opposes another one.

Statement one:
No material strength is needed to simply state that one was a solid wooden pole and the other a hollow light pole.

You asked me to supply material strength differences, when the original statement merely pointed out that one was wooden pole, the other a hollow light pole.

Statement 2:
some unknown conspiracy theorist, who specialises in failure, thinks that a telegraph pole is the same as a light pole near the pentagon.

States that the 2 poles are different and questions how anyone can fail to see this.

No contradictions here.

Create an argument that is not what your opponent is claiming and proceed to knock down the claim. NOW, point out any of my arguments that do that!

I want exactly what I asked and what you continually fail to do. Respond properly. Citing a contradiction is NOT a strawman, plus it wasn't a contradiction in the first place!

TRY AGAIN: Is it at all possible that You could explain properly where they(ANY STRAW MAN!) are and why?
Try AGAIN: Explain why it is a contradiction.

Since it is YOU who fails as always to quantify why your plane striking a wooden pole lower down anchored in the ground is a valid comparison to a light pole higher up anchored by bolts and welds - no such data is required by me. The laws of physics which appear to totally confuse you tell us that a higher strike point will result in higher torque.

The DC7 has its wing at a distance half way up the pole - both engines are almost on the ground . The 757 a larger airplane engine struck the top of the generator with the bottom of its starboard engine!

Must I explain every single simple to understand statement!? YOU said YOU had proven the wing is cut off by poles "countless times". Yet your response is aimed at MY posts???

Now try again: If there are other instances of you "proving poles cut wings" to qualify as "countless times" point them out.

And yet again you fail to grasp simple meaning. You said you have proved it "countless times", when you have just spammed the same claim a dozen times. Nowhere does posting the same thing qualify as "correcting" anything!

One of the most ridiculously inept "tests" it is possible to create.

 

Inept!
Yahtzee!
you got one right!
It is designed to be 'exactly' that!
'Very' simple indeed.

In fact its so easy for those WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING it can be done in their head without a calculator.

You know like 2+2 you instantly know the answer, same with the inept problem.

On the other hand those who get it wrong, or worse dodge answering it, PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT they DO NOT know what they are doing, have no physics education, and consequently lose all credibility, in which case I will no longer respond to their posts because they will have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that where physics and science is involved they are simply trolling and wasting mine and everyone elses time.

and the occasional cheater gets busted in round 2.

Your choice. Good luck.

 

Objective achieved then.

You fail to qualify by that criteria.

I chose to avoid the ridiculous inept challenge and claim my reward of never having you respond to any of my posts. May I have your guarantee of this by refusing to answer this one? In the meantime, unopposed by noise, I can just tear your bullshit to pieces. I bellow with laughter at you advising "truthers don't help them" as though they are any less bemused by this irrelevant hogwash.

Just to show how inept it really is:

1/ You have an average force when there is more than one force involved and you divide the total by the number involved. You have a total force when combining forces.
But you don't get an "average total force" unless there are multiple totals!

2/ A 1 square inch knife edge? Not very sharp is it! LMAO.

3/ An "inelastic" collision with wet spaghetti as the colliding object and a stationary object that cannot possibly stop the incoming kinetic energy? LMAO.

 

How in the world could he have seen a plane in that location, 50 to 100 feet above ground, when he was just outside the Pentagon at the loading dock?! Are you suggesting he could see through the Pentagon?

 

I dont know what scotts argument is but the e4b flew over at the exact time the pentagon blew. It was on cnn, and was so obvious they removed the time stamp from the archived video.

The facts are that:

no windows were broken by the alleged tail,
no marks on the walls for tail or outboard wing sections,
no main landing gear was ever found on the site,
no 757 engines were ever found on the site,
poles cut off wings at towing speeds much less high speed,
no sliced off wings were ever found on the site,
the visible damage was perpendicular to the impact wall
the building columns between the impact point and the alleged 'exit' hole are intact blocking any possible natural exit of material.

That is all that is needed to prove no '757' impacted the building.

 

Explain your two contradicting statements above Scott.

In your first explanation, you're saying Roberts says the plane is over the south parking lot banking north towards the mall entrance side of the Pentagon which means he saw it coming TOWARDS the pentagon. In your second explanation, you say the plane was coming FROM the direction of the explosion FLYING AWAY FROM THE PENTAGON.

So which is it Scott? The plane being over the south parking lot and Flying NORTH TOWARDS the Pentagon/Mall Entrance or flying SOUTHEAST AWAY from the Pentagon?

 

That's also reverse burden of proof. The fact that the Pentagon incident was never investigated and that the US government has never proven its story and has never genuinely and honestly taken steps to prove its story and instead has covered up the facts is proof that the official story is a lie.

 

It's very clear from this interview that he was referring the Pentagon crash.
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts

You can listen along with it in this video, "The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2" at the 51:44 time mark.

Here's the post where copied the exact part of the transcript where he says that.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arning-issued.482175/page-112#post-1070125578

There's no mention of the twin tower crash. He might have reported the wrong time in the first interview because he was remembering more than a month later. If you think that's enough to say he was referring to the Twin Tower attack explosion, you're really groping.

His interviews are confusing so they're open to a lot of interpretations. You're simply choosing the interpretation that fits your scenario. That's not the scientific method.

I won't be disappointed if it turns out that large airliner did hit the Pentagon as I'm just trying to figure out what happened. You on the other hand seem to have a foregone conclusion.


He's not very clear on the direcion the large airliner with jet engines that he saw was heading but it's pretty clear that he saw a large jetliner on the opposite side of the Pentagon "Impact" area a few seconds after the explosion. That sounds like a flyover to me. His not being clear on the direction it was going doesn't change this.

If the large airliner that he saw wasn't the one that the witnesses saw, what was it?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arning-issued.482175/page-111#post-1070113604

I've never heard of any witness saying that there were two large airliners.

 

That's a lie.

http://www.attivissimo.net/9-11/PentagonBuildingPerformanceReport.pdf

 

Another lie.
http://www.attivissimo.net/9-11/PentagonBuildingPerformanceReport.pdf