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. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The CIT "investigators" led the witness by loading their questions. His interpretation of what they asked is not what you claim, since he has already said he walked out straight after the WTC second plane impact. It is entirely unambiguous.

    False! He quite specifically talks about 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.

    And yet he quite specifically says 9.12/11. He also says the plane is going extremely fast - why do keep ignoring this!?

    No groping. He says quite specifically he saw it on TV and walked outside.

    Yours is the worst example in terms of accuracy!

    He says it was doing a U-turn, extremely fast, 25 minutes before the Pentagon crash and in a direction he could not possibly see.

    MEH! That is exactly what YOU are doing and very badly.

    Yes, it's called Occam's Razor. The DNA, the plane parts and the witnesses confirm a plane impact. Nothing about this scenario is inconsistent with reality.

    Whereas, plane part sprinkling gnomes, DNA/body dismembering/burning and redistribution, a whole host of on site personnel privy to the hoax, invisible disappearing actual flight 77, light pole explosion technicians et al. That is ridiculous!

    He's not clear on a whole host of things, but it's clear it was straight after the WTC second plane.

    It doing a U-turn, extremely fast and 25 minutes early says you are ignoring major points to create your bullshit scenario.

    My opinion is that he probably saw the actual plane a few minutes before it impacted doing a sweep around and got his bearings/height wrong. His testimony would be torn to shreds in a law court.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely, it's very easy to substantiate my claim (the FACT) that the Pentagon incident on 9/11 was never legitimately officially investigated.

    1. The 9/11 Commission and their report have been proven to be bogus so any claim about the Pentagon on 9/11 is unsupported and/or suspect and therefore faith based (unscientific).

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/

    (see post #342 for a bullet point summary)

    2. The NTSB never investigated the Pentagon by their own claim that the FBI took over the investigation. They do claim that the FBI investigated with the assistance of the NTSB. However there is no evidence to support this claim and/or that any of it was legitimately conducted.

    3. The FBI's PENTTBOM "investigation" (a name that suggests the Pentagon bombing) produced no detailed report with supporting evidence in support of their investigation of the Pentagon and the FBI hid over 80,000 pages from that investigation from Congress and the 9/11 Commission. These are still classified to this day.

    4. There is no evidence that any of the alleged recovered debris from any of the 4 claimed 9/11 planes was ever forensically examined and conclusively identified by any official investigation. In fact any evidence that this was done was denied/suppressed by the FBI despite 2 FOIA requests for such evidence.

    There's more but the above is key supporting evidence that there was no legitimate official investigation into the Pentagon incident on 9/11.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Goalposts shifted. You claimed facts were covered up. Identify them.

    No identified facts covered up and your claim their report is bogus is merely opinion and is not proof of anything

    No identified facts covered up once more. The problem here is that your expectations not being met do not constitute proof of anything.

    How do you know they "hid" this and where in this are covered up facts?

    No identified facts once again. Suppression of material from conspiracy theorists even if proven does not equate to coveted up facts.

    Your claim is just pure conjecture. You have nothing to support your claim that facts have been covered up. More importantly you attribute anything that doesn't meet your expectations to subterfuge.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Does not matter how they want to sing the tune, no amount of foias will change history and that these guys have never been able to produce critical airplane parts, that are found in every crash site except of course 911 crashsites.

    After all they couldnt fit the weight of a jumbo jet on their little toyota trucks.

     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
    Bob0627 likes this.
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your appeal to incredulity means nothing. The burnt out 747 shows what happens to an aircraft in fire. When one enters a building at high velocity it disintegrates and the fires just make it even worse.

    Citing other crashes is invalid, where predominantly the objective is to bring it down slow and safe!

    Spam comment. You have been asked a dozen times to substantiate it. Needless to say you avoided all requests.

    Btw: quoting your own post is not too impressive when it has been fully answered and ignored.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    its extremely impressive because it continues to point the FACTS you ignore because you have none of the major parts that I asked for because they do not exist and think that beer farts and belches is a substitute for an explanation. Not one judge on the planet would tolerate your explanations and fine you for contempt of court, well except of course a paid off judge.

    People are asking why those critical parts that do not burn do not exist in the debris recovered and you insult their intelligence by claiming it simply disintegrated when that has never happened before and you have no citation, and the f4 in the side of the wall does not count so spare us that rabbit hole strawman, the engines and landing gear still survive
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
    Bob0627 likes this.
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False claim.

    No one on earth can identify that which is being covered up. When there is no legitimate investigation as mandated by the Constitution the automatic default is that facts are being covered up. No proof of what exactly is being covered up (which is impossible in the first place) is required. This is especially true of an event of the magnitude of 9/11 which would legitimately require many years of unbiased, detailed scientific/forensic criminal investigation using universally accepted criminal investigation protocols, full transparency, peer review, full documentation with explicit supporting evidence (physical, forensic, photo, eyewitness testimony and expert witness testimony) with not one thing suppressed and/or otherwise compromised and all publicly available. When these are the facts as well as admissions and other proof of a coverup ...:

    There is approximately 570 cubic feet of textual records. A large percentage of the Commission's records are national security classified files.

    https://www.archives.gov/research/9-11

    We are, however, withholding 3,370 files (approximately 27% of all responsive records. The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety.

    http://www.governmentattic.org/4docs/NIST-Tracking-09-11_09-48_2008-2010.pdf

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-holds-80000-pages-of-secret-documents-on-saudi-911-links/5525176

    ... the default position is that 9/11 facts are officially being covered up.

    All of this has been posted in the link(s) I provided that you either have never read, admit you have never read (you claim to have stopped reading at post #2 of one thread) and/or just plain deny.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ok Bob, no problem. You should have made this clear.

    What you should have said is that in your OPINION facts have been covered up. But more importantly, you are totally guessing that such "covered up facts" are all incriminating to what you already believe.

    "......has covered up the facts is proof that the official story is a lie."

    In actual FACT it is not proof of anything of the sort, since you admit you have no idea what has been withheld.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said what I said and stand by it 100%, not what you want me to say, which I categorically dismiss as strictly apologist nonsense. The official 9/11 coverup is proof that the official 9/11 story is a lie. That is not just my opinion, a "guess" or even an opinion, it's prima facie overwhelming evidence that the official story is an invention. And it should be more than enough to be considered a slam dunk in any legitimate court of law. By contrast, many accused have been convicted with considerably less evidence.

    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/download/lc-doj-first-amended-petition/#

    (click on DOWNLOAD if you're interested)

    If for you personally you believe 9/11 was legitimately investigated and the official narrative they invented is not a lie, it's inconsequential and irrelevant to reality.

    The FACTS that prove 9/11 has never been legitimately investigated and that it's a lie has been presented to a grand jury by a team of attorneys armed with a ton of evidence. That IS reality and it will not be changed by your personal opinion or even mine (although I'm in full agreement). What has been presented to the grand jury is only the tip of the iceberg. If and when given the opportunity I'm 100% confident they will present an incredible volume of additional evidence fully supporting that the official 9/11 story is a lie and a coverup. How do I know that? Because I have created several threads detailing that FACT, all fully sourced to the best of my knowledge in support of the FACT that the official 9/11 story is a lie and coverup. The coverup began with the officially sanctioned deliberate destruction of physical evidence (FACTS), a major felony, especially considering this was the crime of the century.
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I said no problem Bob. No need to go over more of the same. You have no evidence that shows anything you believe.

    Your whole position is that it must be a lie because not everything is made public. I asked you for evidence of covered up facts. You haven't provided any that show the substantial narrative is anything but as claimed. Now, cover ups for incompetence? That would make more sense.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct I don't own any 9/11 evidence but incorrect it's not a belief, it's a proven fact supported by overwhelming evidence.

    That's incorrect, I have no "position" and it's not a lie strictly because not everything is made public, the evidence I posted and sourced makes it perfectly clear to anyone but a denier that there's far more to it than that.

    Let's face it, there is no evidence in your world that you will not deny is evidence if it proves the official 9/11 narrative is a lie and a coverup. And as already noted your opinions and beliefs about the official 9/11 narrative are irrelevant, they do not change the facts.

    If you already believe there are official 9/11 coverups for "incompetence" then you believe the official 9/11 narrative is a lie and you're contradicting yourself. Incompetence does not make a narrative true, in fact it's evidence that it's a lie. Were it not a lie, there would be no reason to cover up the facts. A coverup serves only one purpose, to protect the criminals. The belief/apologist excuse that ALL these officials suddenly became incompetent with respect to 9/11 is sheer fantasy. But if true, they should all have been prosecuted for dereliction of duty that led to, aided and abetted the murder of over 3,000 innocent people and massive destruction of property, both private and government. Instead, NO ONE was held accountable and several high ranking officials were given promotions for a job well done. Was that 9/11 bloodbath and other mayhem a job well done in your opinion?
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You don't have any evidence but it's supported by overwhelming evidence. Gotcha.

    In this thread I deny only the crazy claims that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Your position is that you insist there is some lie going on because you haven't seen all the evidence which you yourself claimed is "covered up facts". You don't have any evidence but somehow you know it proves a lie.

    That's rather personal of you Bob and not relevant to this exchange.

    False. I don't believe it, I don't have a problem with it being more likely than the nonsense about no plane!

    What weird and wonderful anti-logic. Incompetence doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means people didn't do their jobs correctly.

    Nonsense. If the facts are covered up, how do you know about them enough to know there was a lie. You just went around in a huge circular argument.

    You sneak this apologist label under the radar when you most certainly mean it as an insult. I prefer to think that incompetence, national security and irrelevance account for much of the problems. You prefer to posit that it means the whole thing was hoaxed.

    For the terrorists it served a purpose that showed us to be very vulnerable, where no such vulnerability should be. You don't get to crow about the carnage as though only conspiracy theorists have the righteous moral high ground!
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Irrelevant conjecture.
    FALSE: relevant fact

    Incorrect, you are not quoting facts.
    I most certainly did quote facts.

    The building collapse shows consistency with that very thing.
    making **** up again I see

    Conjecture.
    Wrong, Fact

    Parts were. The impact at high velocity smashed everything to pieces, including engines.
    Lets see the pieces, oh wait thats right you dont have them either! LOL

    False. Your claim is based on a bullshit comparison.
    Now if you could only figure out what that is and post it people might believe you.

    Conjecture and failed strawman.
    FACT and it is and remains the inconvenient 1100 pound gorilla point you want to sweep under the table that you cant make it go away.

    False. No it wasn't.
    True yes it was

    False claim and false conclusion.
    FACT accurate conclusion, love the way you cant defend not so much as one of your claims, but then ou need truth to do that.

    Inadequate and false.
    sufficient and true

    Um, functioning brains do that all the time.

    It means criminal negligence in this case.

    Again functioning brains with high spatial reasoning

    [​IMG]

    Hey beta, any plane parts yet?

    Anything?

    Anything at all?

    Still dodging the point?

    Still claiming the 1/2 baked propaganda you post are legitimate 'explanations' cough choke cough?

    Hows that working out for ya?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The rest of your post is not worth responding to. Again, (as you agree) 9/11 is not about you or me, it's partly about the topic of this thread and you are violating the rules once again. I stand by what I posted and I'm really not interested in what you believe, the facts as stated prompted a petition for a special grand jury investigation, complete with initial supporting evidence. No amount of denial on your part or posts about me changes that fact.

    Exactly and for the last time I'm ok with that. I really don't care what you think because fortunately you don't matter. What's on record about 9/11 is what matters. That includes the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports, among other official documentation and the evidence filed by the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry in the New York Southern District federal court. That matters.

    This Petition presents evidence heretofore ignored by federal authorities that the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) and WTC Building 7 (WTC7) collapsed on 9/11 due to the detonation of pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries. This Petition is intended to renew the investigation into these murders, raise awareness, bring truth to light and hold everyone responsible to account.

    Overwhelming evidence presented here demonstrates that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries – not just airplanes or fires – destroyed three steel-framed World Trade Center buildings that day in New York City and killed so many of these people. By law, the Department of Justice through the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York must present this evidence to a grand jury. Justice for these victims requires nothing less and the soul of our nation commands it.

    Pursuant to federal law, including the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C.§ 3332(a), the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc. (Lawyers’ Committee), a non-profit organization, and the additional signatories hereto which include some 9/11 family members and survivors, hereby petition the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to present the facts and evidence stated herein and attached hereto to a special federal grand jury or, in the alternative that presentation to a special grand jury is not feasible, to a federal grand jury. The facts and evidence presented here and in the accompanying exhibits concern federal crimes committed within the Southern District of New York on September 11, 2001 (9/11), and in the months leading up to 9/11, related to the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC).

    This Petition is presented to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) because the victims of 9/11, their families, the people of the City of New York, and our nation deserve that every crime related to the 9/11 attacks be investigated to the fullest, and that every person who was responsible face justice. The DOJ has a duty to present the information contained in this Petition to a special grand jury pursuant to federal statute. A special grand jury or, in the alternative, a grand jury, once convened, has the power and duty to investigate the facts and evidence presented herein, wherever the evidence may lead. This is the least that the people we lost that day deserve. The most worthy memorial we can provide for those who died on 9/11, and for those who died as a result of the events of 9/11, including many First Responders, is discovery and public disclosure of the full truth.


    (please note the above does not violate rule 15 as it is public record - see post #2289)
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually on second thought this one is also worth responding to.

    As a human being exercising my constitutionally protected right to free speech I get to post any damn thing I want within the rules of this forum regardless of your labels or your own personal morals. And exposing mass murder, war crimes and other human rights atrocities is what I often post about and will continue to do so as long as I can. 9/11 and its aftermath were all that and more.

    As I believe I already explained to you, if you believe what you believe, you have the right to file an Amicus Curiae brief with the Southern District of New York in defense of the official 9/11 narrative and those whom you believe properly investigated 9/11 (i.e. did NOT ignore evidence as the petition claims or did so because they are incompetent). Preferably include with it as much evidence ("exhibits") as you can put together. You also need to fully support your standing as an expert witness. If you don't or can't, the court will not take you seriously and you will not likely be subpoenaed or invited to testify. In the US, you have the ability to do this regardless of your current location or citizenship. Please post your brief here if you decide to take this route, it will become public record anyway. Thank you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    (from post #2203)

    (from post #2204)


    I'm still waiting for someone to respond to this.

    (from post #2211)
    (from post #2250)
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You know what - I apologise, but just for you unintentionally taking my statement out of context.

    I paraphrase to make the meaning clearer. Just because you think the mass murder was inflicted by the US government THAT does not give you exclusive rights to be horrified about the results.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then your original statement AND your apology statement are BOTH misguided. I don't have any "exclusive rights" to any such thing no matter what you believe I think nor does your 2nd statement make any sense.

    EDIT: Actually neither the 1st or 2nd statement make any sense to be accurate.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Really? REALLY?

    Your beliefs about who did it and why are no more relevant to being appalled by the whole thing. You more than strongly indicated that your "exposure" of the government gives YOU exclusive rights to be damning about the events.
     
  20. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I thought it was just one Toyota truck? ...
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Off topic posts about me will not be responded to unless they have some significant relevance to the topic of this thread, they are a violation of rule 5.
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is about what you posted!
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You missed this Scott:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arning-issued.482175/page-113#post-1070129348
    How are you going to reconcile the two contradicting statements you made?
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How is it a ludicrous question? I am asking why you think different poles in different scenarios will yield the same results.

    How can you use this pole and wing:
    39270431_1024215034427169_3121549700650500096_n.jpg

    This pole and Formula 1 front end wing:
    planewing.PNG

    And this pole and wing:
    2iuor47.gif

    Why are you using completely different poles and "wings" to prove an end result? You must think that all three poles will react the same exact way regardless of their differences. Which is why you balked at the question in the first place.
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arning-issued.482175/page-115#post-1070134707
    Both statements are from what Roosevelt roberts said so I'm confused too. He said contradictory things. He was having trouble putting what he had seen into words. If he had been willing to draw the route, it would have been clear. He was going to draw it but he changed his mind. There are several plausible scenarios that would explain this. He might have been lying about the whole thing. It's also possible that some government goons paid him a visit and told him not to talk about it any more.

    My position on this is I don't know what he saw but if he said the plane was flying away from the explosion, that supports the flyover. He was probably confused when he said it flew over the Mall area as he couldn't have seen that from the loading dock.
    http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/850333cb31ee.jpg

    Please respond to post #2292.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arning-issued.482175/page-115#post-1070133785
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page