The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

The problem is this is nearly all reverse burden of proof (RBOP) mentality. The very first post in this thread links to a paper that supports parts of the official narrative. The part that maintains a large plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. It makes no claims about AA77 or any theory about who or what piloted the plane. Now on to your claims that parrot the official theory but provides no supporting evidence.

RBOP. There is no proof of the cause of damage.

Conjecture. Odors are subjective, including eyewitness claims of the smell of cordite.

The alleged "aircraft debris" has never been conclusively identified, much less that it "clearly" came from an AA Boeing 757 and certainly never proven.

RBOP. Once again, there is no proof that the downed light poles had anything to do with a 757.

RBOP. There is no proof of the cause of damage.

The scores of eyewitness reports are in conflict and some contradict each other. You deliberately failed to account for those that do not support the official narrative.

There is no proof of Flight 77 and the identifications are all suspect.

Non sequitur. There is no proof of Flight 77 and the identifications are all suspect.

RBOP. To believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon requires proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, of which there is none.

RBOP. To believe the Pentagon was hit by a jetliner requires incontrovertible proof, of which there is none. If there was incontrovertible proof, this thread and many other platforms that question the official narrative would not exist.

Same issue as above.

 

RBOP all the remodeling construction that took place to rebuild those rings of the building & surrounding areas damaged & RBOP all the airline & Pentagon fatalities to bring them back to life......which would certainly be RBOP that a fabricated misnomer of an immaculate conception of a virgin birth & death some 2000+ years ago was as factual as flying carpets......

 

According to the links above, once an incident is shown to be criminal in nature, it becomes the the FBI's investigation and the NTSB lends technical support.

 

And?

 

What do you mean "and?"

Once the scene is determined to be a crime scene, the FBI takes over and the NTSB only does as requested by the FBI. They don't follow their protocol anymore. They don't investigate criminal activity. Are you having reading comprehension issues again?

 

Correct, and?

And you know this because you hope it’s true or as a die hard apologist you're just making up any convenient excuse out of thin air? So you claim they invent a new protocol, ignore all precedent or just play poker (or any combination) when the FBI requests their expertise?

I already went through this silly fallacy you’re peddling in the other thread. Read it or don’t, it’s not my concern.

No shyt sherlock, they investigate airplane crashes but you knew that right?

Are you?

 

Please explain how that happened with TWA800?

When Clinton came on TV there was no suspicion of criminal activity. Maybe you can explain what about an airliner crashing into the ocean provides determination that it was a criminal act?

 

Here's a couple links.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/14/us/twa-flight-800-five-things/index.html
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0003.pdf

Figure it out for yourself.

 

It's in the manual Bob. Are you blind? I've quoted it numerous times here already.

When the FBI takes over, THE NTSB ceases to investigate and DO WHAT THE FBI REQUESTS them to do. They take orders from the FBI. It's there in black and white Bob. Your continued effort to try and change the meaning of the printed words is hysterical. Why do you think the NTSB report says to contact the FBI regarding things?

Are you 100% positive the FBI requested the NTSB to collect parts and match them to the planes? As you've said, you weren't there.

 

Are you?

And you can quote it 100 more times if it makes you feel better. It's irrelevant in this context.

I already explained it to you so even a grade school child should be able to understand it. This discussion is in 2 different threads because my guess is you're trying your damnedest to confuse the issue. I'm not going to repeat myself. Go to the other thread where I've already gone through this.

Exactly. I wasn't there and I have no clue if the FBI ALLOWED the NTSB to investigate any of the 4 claimed airplane crashes in full accordance with its protocol or PREVENTED them from doing so. What I do know is that there were 2 FOIA requests for the parts match that were denied. I also know that there was a claim by the NTSB that a parts match was actually done. That tells me there is something very wrong with that picture because there is no reason for such a denial. Get it yet or do you need a set of crayons and a coloring book?

 

How do you know that when the FBI took over the CRIMINAL investigation that they told the NTSB folks that they knew which plane impacted the Pentagon and didn't need verification of plane parts. Maybe they just told them to gather debris and set it aside while everyone cleaned up and looked for survivors. The point is you have no clue what was asked of them and if they needed to follow ANY protocol or procedures.

Get your head out of your behind for once will you?

You've got no evidence whatsoever of what the NTSB was asked to do and your trust issues with the government clouds your thought process. Everything you've provided is speculation. That's it.

 

Terrific response!! It demonstrates how weak and pathetic your position is. You are unable to form a coherent sentence or two to defend your position, and so you provide a link to CNN. The veil has fallen Gamolan, a long time ago. Thank you.

 

Speaking of weak and pathetic: You asked about TWA800, he provides two factual links then you have an emotional reaction complete with the usual insults. Sad. It's not something I'd expect from someone who claims to be a sane American veteran.

 

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

That has nothing to do with what I posted. You really have severe reading comprehension issues. What I posted has nothing to do with what may have or may not have happened, I'm not a psychic. What I posted has to do with the plain and simple logic of what SHOULD have happened in a legitimate investigation conducted by the NTSB and taken over by the FBI.

Because you have neurological issues that prevent you from understanding what I post?

See above dense one.

Everything? So the links that I post that source much of what I post are "speculation"? Your song and dance routine is wearing me out, I'm not sure if I'm interested in carrying out any further discussion with you. It's either twist, spin or just silly nonsense on your part and that goes on and on ad nauseum.

 

As long as you consider swapping posts with conspiracy theorists as entertainment or a mild intellectual exercise on your part to present facts, you'll be fine. Don't ever expect to be able to reason with unreasonable people.

As for TWA800, it's an excellent example of why the FBI would takeover an aircraft accident investigation, but it would still be the NTSB doing the actual legwork of the investigation. Same goes for other groups such as the aircraft manufacturer, the pilot union and the airline itself. All have a vested interested in determining the facts and finding the truth.

 

Yup. You weren't there at the Pentagon and have no idea what the NTSB was asked to do and if it required them to use their protocol.

That's a fact.

So for you to claim ANYTHING regarding the above is purely speculation. Period.

 

What does being a veteran have to do with analyzing an aircraft accident?

I have been following TWA800 since it happened. I was watching TV when Clinton came on to announce it, when normal evening programming was interrupted to announce an aircraft accident.

The links to mainstream media might be useful to you, but I've read all the propaganda. Because I follow the NTSB I already know it was a political cover-up, and I already know that years later a few conscientious members of NTSB tried to reopen the examination, to no avail. Too hot, politically.

So I appreciate your negative remarks about me. It reveals that you have nothing to say that means anything regarding the accident.

 

WOW!

That's some proof/evidence you've got there!

 

LOL, not nearly as impressive as the facts and evidence you choose to deny.

 

What evidence? You've provided none! You admitted you don't have any because the story "is so old".

Pure comedy!

 

Veterans are a cut above in my experience because they've been screened.

Everyone comes to a text forum equally. While they can claim a lot of things, their reputation is mainly made. It doesn't matter if they are a millionaire or a minimum wage worker, it's the quality of their posts that matter. It's easy for a smart, educated person to play stupid but not as easy for a dimwitted and/or low-educated person to play smart. The same goes for a sane person playing mentally ill person and vice-versa.

 

What evidence?

Oh, the absence of airliners claimed by the official story. The witness tampering done by the FBI. The destruction at WTC that was not explained by the NIST report. The Commission that was "set up to fail". The Commission that noted 63 times that "we found no evidence" to support various elements of the lie you defend. The CD and late collapse of WTC7.

Stuff like that. The stuff you have ignored for 16 years.

 

All troops are screened in a variety of ways, and they are also indoctrinated into the ways of the military and its groupthink.

I though we were talking about analysis of events at the pentagon?

 

It's not hard, especially when people admit their laziness and make up excuses when asked to provide evidence of their claims.

Agreed.