The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Nov 1, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The vid series you posted was the most scientific vid I have seen from the 9/11 truth movement ... Coste must have spent thousands of hours producing this ... I have to admit, that I was waiting for the "Rabbit Hole" that never came ... having said that, why include a brief little lecture from Ms Margulis in the preface and no comments from her in the conclusions(s)??? ...

    Both Coste, Margulis and Chandler believe that 9/11 was a false flag event ... why not make a detailed series of scientific fact showing this to be true? ... why did Coste make such a detailed vid concerning the Pentagon which, if I am to agree with his methods clearly show that AA77 hit the Pentagon ... why doesn't he harp on about serial numbers like you? ...
     
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think some people read a little bit too much into what a false flag actually is.

    It is simply an event staged to make it look like somebody else did it. In the case of 911, the events were staged to blame muslims with box cutters. The trouble is that there is no evidence to support that. Indeed, all the known facts contradict that version. No airplanes in certain places, the wrong airplanes in other places, and the whole thing was done to commence the war on terror, entering its 17th year soon.

    Deception is an essential part of traditional military strategy and tactics.
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you didn't watch any of the Coste vids did you? ... they would totally conflict with your delusions ... what are you so afraid of? ...

    why don't you man up and source your claims? ... you can't right? ...

    you have claimed no plane at the Pentagon ... surely you can take some time away from your video games to watch a few (actually quite a few) hours of Coste's vid and give an honest review? ...

    Suck it up and start playing honest with us here ...
     
  4. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reality is a very severe diversion from la la land.
     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I claimed no airliner at the Pentagon, no AA77. Do you see the difference between "no plane at the Pentagon" and "no AA77 at the Pentagon"?
     
  6. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, at what point did they take all the people off AA77, and put them on whatever hit the pentagon.
     
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cannot prove that happened. Childish questions based on fantasies are not really legitimate questions for an adult conversation.
     
  8. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm looking for your alternative, maybe you can help me.
    If AA77 did not hit the building, what did, and how did the bodies of the AA77 passengers get there.
     
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    do you see how contradictory you are in two short sentences? ... or are you trying to say a dummy 757 flew into the Pentagon ...

    damn, I hate to give you the easy out ...
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FYI Shiner, I just started Chapter 13 so it will be a bit before I can discuss the findings in these videos. Based on what I've seen so far, they are amazingly thorough and well detailed. I do disagree with some of the comments you've posted but I will refrain from the discussion until I've finished all the videos.
     
  11. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They pulled tons of 757 parts out of there,

    The maneuvers were not impossible,
    Insane to try to duplicate, beyond the envelope, unrecoverable, But obviously not impossible.

    Anything is plant able, but bringing in lots of truckfulls of parts and nobody seeing it is ludacris.
    Stuffing them in a flaming building, scattering them on the lawn, mixing in dead bodies.
    And none of the police or fire department saw it.
     
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There were no passenger bodies there. The only bodies were from people working there, mostly a congressional audit team and the records they were auditing.

    What evidence was shown on TV suggests that something with a single turbine engine and landing gear common in the 60's. Nobody was allowed to examine it, except of course the DoD.
     
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, if I wanted to say that I would have said it. Instead YOU said it.

    When it happened the early photos showed damaged aircraft parts that appeared to have flown in there, maybe on the same trajectory as the light pole damage observed, but those parts were clearly NOT consistent with what would have been seen if an actual Boeing had crashed there. Recall the photos from San Francisco a few years back when a Korean 777 came up just a little bit short at SFO. The landing gear struts on those big airplanes are way taller than men, as we saw at SFO.

    There was nothing like that at the Pentagon, nothing at all. Landing gear and engines were absent at the Pentagon, except for a much smaller aircraft.
     
  14. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There were passenger bodies, and parts of bodies all over.
    BTW, people who worked there would be inside.
    And you expect TV to show you what you want to show,
    do you own stock in the channel.
     
  15. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No they were not, pictures were shown
    Besides they knew what plane it was before it hit.

    [​IMG]
    They can tell exactly what kind of plane used that gear.
    Maybe there are a few different ones, but they already know what plane it was.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2018
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is typical of his M.O., regularly filled with ad hominems. He posts outrageous claims and tries to attribute them to the poster he's arguing with in order to try to discredit that poster. It's very difficult to sustain an intelligent adult discussion with him without him digging into his snake oil bag of tricks.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bob, It is you and your buddy selling the snake oil.
    Just your refusal to address important questions,
    to change subjects,
    to flood the page with unrelated BS, just so you can avoid the one on the table.
    is admission to a phony situation.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just finished watching all the videos myself. Of course the above is false, the videos don't PROVE anything. Proof requires a legitimate forensic investigation that has never been done. One can use deductive reasoning to believe that the evidence strongly suggests it was a large airliner and that anything else is extremely unlikely. For example, one can also deduce it was 3 controlled demolitions based on the evidence but that is also not proof.

    Furthermore, they don't invalidate anything in its totality either. It does serve to scientifically correct many conceptions and misconceptions about the evidence that is publicly available. What it does do is serve to explain how the evidence supports that a large airliner, possibly a 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. The evidence also supports that it may have been an American Airlines plane, perhaps even AA77. However Coste also explains that there is no list of serial numbers available and that it is incredulous that Hani Hanjour made those maneuvers. The Addendum (on peer review) claims the probability that it was a drone outweighs the probability that it was Hani Hanjour. The video I provided the link to that shows the NTSB guy claiming they will use the serial number on a recovered part to identify the aircraft is included.

    Chandler first impressed me when he took NIST to task over the WTC7 free fall issue. There have been numerous articles and videos published by Chandler and they are all brilliant. His contribution to those who question the OCT (and everyone in fact) is immeasurable. You agreed recently that NIST is bad science, yet you see what good science looks like and acknowledge it. Stop contradicting yourself, you're reverse engineering your mentality. You arrived at a conclusion and accept only that which supports the conclusion and reject anything else even if it comes from the same sources. Just a suggestion, or you could remain confused. That's your call.

    So people can understand the premise of science. It was a brilliant introduction and very necessary for the science impaired community. Not everyone is an Einstein or pretends to be one.

    That's their call. What they've already contributed is invaluable. It's difficult for anyone who knows what's going on to believe it wasn't a false flag event. When legitimate official criminal investigations are not conducted and evidence is deliberately destroyed ahead of illegitimate investigations and a large portion over-classified, what conclusion can one honestly arrive at?

    If you paid attention to the videos, he explained that he set out to prove the Pentagon was not hit by large airliner and scientifically concluded that it was, effectively changing his mind. By the same token Chandler's mind change as well.

    1. He's not me.
    2. He mentions it at least 3 times throughout the videos.

    EDIT:

    A very important point. As stated throughout the videos, Coste has submitted his set of videos to the 9/11 Consensus Panel for their review.

    http://www.consensus911.org/
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2018
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Check out this info.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632&st=0&start=0


    Let's listen to a guy who knows what he's talking about.

    Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out!




    edit 20 minutes later
    ------------------------------------

    Start watching this at the 1:55:30 time mark.

    The New Pearl Harbor ~ full

     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2018
    Eleuthera likes this.
  20. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    did either of you even watch the videos that Bob posted? ...
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While the videos provide theoretical answers to the state of the known evidence, it doesn't mean the issue is settled nor does it mean that it answers all questions about the Pentagon event on 9/11.

    At about 3:00 in the Preface, it states:

    FEMA analyses and subsequent NIST analyses abandoned accepted methods of investigation

    Scientific inquiry clearly shows the Twin Towers and WTC7 were not "gravity only" collapses subsequent to structural trauma and fire


    At about 0:25 in Chapter 1, it states:

    Nothing should have hit the Pentagon

    Fighter jets should have been

    - Sent to intercept an incoming plane
    - Not sent in the opposite direction of incoming Flight 77 - over the Atlantic Ocean

    Honi Hanjour, who couldn't fly a Cessna, was most certainly not a pilot capable of the manoeuvers that were observed

    Serial numbers of the aircraft parts should have been released

    The call by Barbara Olsen to her husband, Ted, could not have happened as reported

    Evidence that should have been produced

    - Has been withheld
    - Should be released

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) should have had access to the crash sites of 9/11 - but were not

    The FBI should not have cleared lawn of debris

    - Without documenting the location of major pieces
    - Making those records available to the public

    Recovery workers inside describe

    - FBI/military photographers documenting damage
    - That documentation not released

    Authenticity of Flight Data Recorder

    - The FDR was reported to have been found in two locations at different times
    - Serial numbers have never been released

    How was aircraft "controlled?"

    - Improbable that Honi Hanjour could have been the pilot
    - Some other pilot, or piloting process, needs to be considered

    Have no opinion about

    - Was the aircraft actually AA Flight 77
    - Were there passengers actually on board


    etc.

    If a large airliner did indeed impact the Pentagon and knock down the light poles as theorized, I question how is it possible that the wings clipped the poles without exploding (the fuel tanks are in the wings) and/or shearing off the wings so the flight path of the plane would be radically altered?

    Not discussed is Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission which is of extreme importance (and glaringly absent from the 9/11 Commission Report).

    So in short, the above are some major issues (there are many more) that remain unanswered/unaccounted for even if the theory presented by the videos is near fact.

    Pretending that these videos settle all or most issues about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 is ludicrous.
     
  22. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pot meet Kettle ... obviously the vid does not support your narrative except for a couple short quips from the preface and chapter 1 and other lingering doubts you have due to your overt bias ...

    Having watched the vids (for many hours), it is quite obvious TO ME that a 757 hit the Pentagon and was also AA77 without any evidence proving otherwise ... although at times valid, I do not believe in this case that absence of evidence applies concerning all the direct evidence that does ...

    It is extremely difficult for me to account for what it would have taken for the "conspirators" to make any other 757 disappear, with passengers and plant evidence ... buy off air traffic control and all the other cover ups that would have had to happen if it were not AA77 ...

    you posted up the videos ... I watched and have been positing my thoughts ...
     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Start watching this at the 2:13:42 time mark and tell us what you think of the security video analysis.

    The New Pearl Harbor ~ full
     
  24. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like where they state Honi Hanjour couldn't fly a Cessna.

    Actually he could fly a Cessna, and spent time in a 757 simulater,
    however do you know what flying a plane is.
    Preflight, checklist, start up, set altimeter, contact ground control, taxi to threshold, contact tower, await takeoff instructions, runup.
    Take off properly, set trim, exit control zone, many airports have certain elevation to exit.
    set heading indicator, obtain desired altitude,Navigate to objective, use VOR if needed, crab, if necessary,
    Contact tower, enter pattern at ordered point, ( Your radio will say something like, "enter a left downwind for 32"), land, contact ground control.
    Taxi to objective, checklist, shutdown.

    any mistakes and you will not be certified, which is probably what he did.

    when he got behind the controls of the 757, he didn't fly the plane.
    All he did was steer it into a visible target.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2018
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have a "narrative" though, what are you talking about? Regardless, I agree fully with what I posted from the video which you quoted so I don't understand your confusion. I also added my own thoughts missing from the video(s). And speaking of confusion, you haven't addressed a single thing I posted previously.

    Ok, you should have your own thoughts, like everyone else. In your case though they match the OCT (the official narrative) to a tee. So they don't sound very much like your own thoughts.

    Exactly.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page