The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Like you're evidence of a modified 767? Or evidence of a drone?

What hit the Pentagon in your opinion? Let me guess. A missile?

 

The whole "Military people are stupid, brainwashed killer robots" meme is straight out of the LW, anti-American playbook. Notice they never claim Russian soldiers are "indoctrinated into the ways of the military and its groupthink".

We were. The investigation was completed by the FBI, the NTSB, the military, the airlines, the pilot's union, the aircraft manufacturer and other groups. A person who says all are corrupt, lying, malicious, stupid and/or traitors is a person who, IMO, doesn't have a full grip on reality.

The subject of TWA 800, one also with conspiracy theorists, was brought up because it was the same groups investigating it as AA 77. The same conspiracy theorists denounced that investigation too for exactly the same reasons as they denounce the Pentagon investigation. There is no reasoning with such people because they are unreasonable.

 

There was evidence of planes.

Explain how this disproves that planes were used as weapons, how the twin towers collapsed, or how WTC7 collapse.

There hasn't been an explanation? You're not serious are you?

Explain how this disproves that planes were used as weapons, how the twin towers collapsed, or how WTC7 collapsed.

Explain how this disproves that planes were used as weapons, how the twin towers collapsed, or how WTC7 collapsed. We discussed this and you even doged one of the questions I asked. How does the fact that there was "no evidence found that a hijacker used a certain seat in the plane" amount to the government covering up something nefarious or prove drones and modified 767s were used?

You've provided no evidence that it was a CD. And what does "late collapse" suggest?

Then, tell me how all the above proves a modified drone was used or a corporate jet was used like you claim.

 

When dealing with irrational minds, I do not consider them to be lazy. It's what they really believe. It's important to discuss topics with people to see how their mind works even if it's a conspiracy theory. After awhile, say a few dozen to several hundred posts, the nature of a conspiracy theorist becomes clear such as whether or not they are delusional (which could range from slightly to completely), immature, demented (dementia), simply ignorant, low IQ or just gullible.

When I was in my teens I ate up all the information on UFOs and Ancient Aliens. After awhile, some of the "facts" didn't make sense. In fact, they produced even more questions. Recognizing the problems in such claims is part of reasoning out such mysteries. Completely accepting the claims and denouncing the incongruities or ignoring common sense is the sign of an irrational mind be it from youth and/or ignorance or mental illness.

A claim that there was no evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon would be an example of the latter.

 

so now you are backpedaling on the lie as what in your opinion "should have happened" ...

I challenge you to put those quotes into context with the full interviews of what was actually said ... quit cherry picking ...

 

Not unlike there were probably more than enough English speaking US government officials present for Federal Lynching churchstate of hate cops attempt at baptizing thine eyes by urinations while trying to talk Washington, D.C. sports waiting for lunch to be served prior to 9/11 while protecting & serving Arab terrorists that threatened POTUS & to nuke Temple Mount, but for a Canuck higher than the supreme swastika up Uranus court super ego as those Federal Lynching churchstate KKK cops who as their West Nazi Germany Virginia cohorts which baptized thine eyes before & after their assassination of JFK in a Papal contingent of thieving old testament - JFK bereavement memorial arson, as those baptized thine eyes Byrd KKK thieving old testament - Eisenhower old glory arsonists which further stole a US Constitution from a navy hospital to burn on a cross & baptized thine eyes that they, in all statistical probability would again baptize thine eyes by urinations after their 9/11 second coming certainly excels in competent malfeasance as it's Islam Christiananality pedophile mentality religion.

 

No that's 100% false. Unlike many posters who haven't swallowed the OCT, I try to avoid speculation (unless it's clearly obvious given the facts) and try to deal only with the facts which I regularly support with links to videos, photos, documents, articles, etc. Of course I will always provide my personal opinion on the subject matter just like every poster here does.

I never said I was, in fact I specifically said I have no idea what really happened. My opinion of what SHOULD have logically happened for a legitimate investigation to take place has nothing to do with what really happened. Spin, spin, spin.

Really? Duh!

See above.

 

The genius who believes an opinion based on incontrovertible logic is a lie posts the same fallacy and keeps hoping his shyt sticks. I can't backpedal on YOUR false claim.

Why aren't calling Max a liar? His opinion is similar to mine:

Could it be because he bought the OCT just like you did and defends it regularly?

 

Sorry, dude, but that's obviously untrue. By disclaiming the factual reports of several investigative agencies and hundreds, if not thousands of Americans, and replacing them with the speculations of a few people, you are definitely not avoiding "speculation".

 

An excellent example of my previous post. No, posting the official report completed and verified by several groups, both private and government, along with the hundreds of people actively involved in those investigations, is not the same or even similar to your theories that it's a vast conspiracy by an all-powerful, unseen hand to dupe the public.

My POV:


Your POV:

They are not similar.

 

Except that's not true. First, none of the official reports are factual, they are all proven to be fraudulent using the reports themselves and quotes from the authors as supporting evidence. Second, the reports are not authored by hundreds or thousands of Americans, the authors of the reports are contained within the reports and they involve very few characters. Third, there is nothing speculative about using science to prove that the reports are frauds.

You're not making any sense with all that nonsense.

1. None of the official reports have been verified in any scientific sense by anyone. None were peer reviewed and the heart of these reports are still based in secrecy by the authors' own admissions. In fact the NIST report on WTC7 is contradicted by 2 engineering groups, Weidlinger and ARUP.

2. What I posted as an opinion is similar to what you posted in that there is no legitimate reason why the NTSB should deviate from their published investigation manual to perform its investigation just because the FBI took over. There is nothing theoretical or conspiratorial about that, it's just plain common sense, the same common sense I quoted from your post. Like I keep repeating, the only things the FBI can do is allow the NTSB to do their job as their standard procedure dictates or prevent them from doing their job or cause them to deviate from their standard procedure but that's the same thing as preventing them from doing their job.

 

Disagreed, but you are free to believe anything you like.

 

On what basis? Do you have incontrovertible proof that the entirety of the official conspiracy theory is fact or you just hope and pray it's all true? Also there is a ton of classified information publicly unavailable to this day so how do you know what's contained in that?

Thanks for your kind permission but what I believe is irrelevant to the fact that there is a massive amount of evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy theory or at the very least brings it into serious question. For example, the members of the 9/11 Commission don't believe it's true and they recommended a permanent 9/11 Commission. So how can you believe it's fact if they don't and they know there's so much missing? After all, they're the ones responsible for publishing a major portion of the official conspiracy theory, which incorporates several major disclaimers.

Also I noticed you conveniently failed to address #2. Why is that? Could it be because you know my opinion is 100% valid and you just don't want to acknowledge it?

 

There's an old saying "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out". I know several of the people who worked on both the TWA 800 and 9/11 investigations. I trust them a lot more than I trust conspiracy theorists who obtain all of their information by cherry-picking sketchy websites and Youtube videos.

 

Good for you, I don't personally know anyone connected with 9/11. I am hoping to speak with former Senator Max Cleland next weekend though if possible. That's about as close as I'll get if it happens. As for "conspiracy theorists", everyone who works with criminal investigations is fully trained in and has experience with???? Right conspiracy theory and they all have careers as conspiracy theorists. It's really not a voodoo term, despite your indoctrination. Everyone who investigated 9/11 was/is a conspiracy theorist and the 9/11 Commission Report is all about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. There are several federal statutes that are specifically targeted to criminal conspiracies (the RICO Act for example). Many attorneys and prosecutors are conspiracy theorists and are usually quite well paid for dealing with conspiracy theories throughout their careers. In some cases they even use sketchy websites and YouTube videos as courtroom evidence. For example, when dealing with child pornography, which is BTW, most often a criminal conspiracy. So whoever you claim you know that worked on the 9/11 "investigation" is a conspiracy theorist, so you are full of contradictions (and something else too). Did I frighten you with all that?

Unfortunately Max, having explained all that to you, you still keep avoiding what I posted and what I asked you. Nothing I posted has anything to do with cherry-picking websites. What I posted about the 9/11 Commission, the disclaimers published in the 9/11 Commission Report, the vast amount of classified 9/11 documents/evidence and a hell of a lot more are all fact, not conjecture, not theory or conspiracy theory, not websites (never mind sketchy) and not YouTube videos. What you're saying is you trust others to do the thinking for you regardless of the facts and evidence. So please don't let your brains fall out, it may be needed on the rare occasion there's no one available to do the thinking for you and even perhaps to be able to read and understand this post.

 

I'm sure he'll be fascinated with your theories, Bob.

 

I challenge you to inform yourself. Kean and Hamilton said that years ago, on TV and elsewhere. I have no duty to lead you by the hand. Wilfull ignorance is common among the dissonant. If you want to become informed you must take the first step yourself.

 

...and the mentally ill.

 

Sorry but IF I meet up with him I will not be discussing any theories, just the FACTS. What I want is more detail about his resignation from the 9/11 Commission, publicly calling it a scam and obstruction if he's willing to speak about it. I would also like to find out if he knows anything more than what is widely known or point me to where I might be able to find such information. My #1 concern and focus is about the facts about 9/11, preferably those facts that are yet unknown, not 9/11 theory. If you actually read and understood most of my posts you would know that. The knee jerk reaction by OCT grovelers to anything that questions or contradicts the OCT is to call it a "conspiracy theory" and them "conspiracy theorists", it's an all purpose tool to try to end the discussion. And that's exactly what you're doing here.

So once again, you continue to fail to address anything I posted that has any significance and any basis in FACT. You try to cover up your avoidance by focusing on (my) THEORY of which my posts have nothing to do with that nor did I mention any theory of mine. This is your way of trying to end the discussion. Why are you so terrified of discussing inconvenient facts?

 

Awesome! Let everyone know how it goes.

 

You really are terrified of discussing any fact that doesn't fit your worldview, I'm sorry to hear that Max. You're far from the only one.

 

You can make all the false accusations you like, Bob, but that doesn't change the fact you are claiming thousands of Americans are engaged in a massive treasonous conspiracy while only you know "the truth".

 

There's nothing false about accusing you of failing to address my posts with respect to anything significant. Your are responding but all you're doing is playing diversion games so I'm assuming you are terrified of discussing these issues. That assumption may be false but you have not given any other reason for failing to address them.

Except you're not stating a fact, you're stating contrived nonsense. I've made no such claim ever and I challenge you to quote any post of mine where you believe I made such a claim. So now not only are you failing to address facts and legitimate opinions but you are inventing whole cloth to avoid addressing the facts. And if you're prone to making up idiotic nonsense about me why should I believe you know anyone who had any part in investigating TWA 800 and 9/11? (not that I bought that anyway)

You see all that indicates to me you are terrified because you go to all sorts of lengths to avoid discussing real issues by inventing nonsense. It is symptomatic of a cognitive dissonant person, one you describe as "mentally ill". Note I disagree with your description. I believe a cognitive dissonant person is just plain scared of facing the truth, not necessarily mentally ill. But that's strictly my opinion.

 

Yes, there is. I've addressed your points weeks ago, but you refused to consider them and kept pushing your conspiracy theory while avoiding the awkward questions I asked of you. Obviously there wasn't anything to discuss.

If a kid tells me the reason the sky is blue is because of a great dragon living in the deep blue sea spits water into the sky, I can try to explain that isn't true and explain the science to them. When they complain that I'm weak and just accepting the view of those in charge, how am I supposed to argue with what I consider to be an insane point of view? It's impossible to rationalize with irrational people. Total waste of time.

 

1. I have no idea what points were discussed weeks ago.

2. I have no idea what “conspiracy theory” of mine you’re referring to but the most recent claim of yours is fabricated nonsense. My focus of discussion is always the official conspiracy theory but it certainly isn’t mine.

3. You’re correct there’s nothing to discuss because you refuse to discuss anything I recently pointed out and instead you invent idiotic claims I never made.

I agree completely, especially those who invent false claims about me in order to avoid discussing legitimate 9/11 issues.