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. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not into alternative theories so much. I'm into the facts. Call me Joe Friday if you like.

    The facts show no airliner at all struck the building, much less a 757
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So is your support for truthers who lie through their teeth. What a hypocrite.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2018
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You keep talking about these "facts", but every time you're asked to provide them, you dodge and evade. I suppose facts like Scott's "math" and more recently, Bobby's lie about the NTSB gentleman and what he said? Those "facts"?

    :roflol:
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Eleuthera and Koko do not need to provide facts ... they are enlightened ...
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I haven't ignored anyone's testimony, where do you get this from?

    If I didn't acknowledge these I wouldn't be questioning why there's no forensically identified physical evidence at all that any of the alleged recovered airplane parts belong to any of the 4 claimed 9/11 airplanes. Again, when 2 FOIA requests are categorically denied by the FBI for the results of parts identification claimed to have been done by the NTSB director for no valid reason, something stinks a putrid stink. And again, it's the same pattern of coverup we get when NIST denied FOIA requests for their data, models and methods. And it's the same pattern of coverup we get when tens of thousands of 9/11 documents and evidence are classified for no valid reason. 9/11 was officially COVERED UP and there's only one reason for a coverup of this (or any) magnitude, it's to protect the criminals.
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

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

    Do you think there was a physical 757 involved in any capacity at the Pentagon on 9/11?
     
  7. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    great question ...
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure you read my response to you previously. I really don't have the slightest care to what you think. Your rather hopeless and uninformed responses are akin to a small lap dog yapping as a ball goes past.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are saying you are not convinced a plane struck the Pentagon, sounds like you don't believe him!

    Yada yada yada, diversion. There WERE photographed parts from a 757, there WERE bodies identified from the flight. We have witnesses of significant quantity who saw the plane and we have experts on site who confirm it was a plane. Your request for the "physical evidence" is just bullcrap. If you were given full detailed reports, your soapbox tenancy wouldn't allow you to step off to concede. You are a point scorer not a debater. You label anyone who takes an opposing position in the same way and refuse to budge on anything. Your insistence on attributing guilt because you don't get what are unreasonable demands is quite pathetic.

    Direct questions:
    Does the evidence say it was a 757?
    What evidence says it wasn't?
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's correct, the US government has not convinced me of anything they claimed about 9/11, that's a big zero. The only thing I'm convinced about is that the US government LIED, of that there is no question, it has been proven beyond doubt. It's quite possible a plane struck the Pentagon, even perhaps AA77, I already posted that. But even if that's true, there are still way too many unanswered questions about the Pentagon (as also posted). What is true is that the US government covered up everything except what they want gullible fools to buy and there are plenty of those.

    He's an eyewitness, that's all. There were many conflicting eyewitness stories and many corroborating eyewitness stories. Proof is a whole other matter. For example, there are many corroborating eyewitness accounts of hearing, seeing, feeling and being injured and killed by explosions at the World Trade Center as well as many corroborating eyewitness accounts of seeing molten steel or metal, do you believe those accounts?

    Yeah, that's about the extent of most of your garbage.

    No. The physical evidence has not been forensically identified to any of the 4 claimed airplanes, so that's a big fat NO. In fact, it's been deliberately covered up. That doesn't mean it wasn't a 757, it just means there is NO incontrovertible evidence that it was or what it was, certainly no proof it was AA77.

    No one needs to prove a negative, the burden of proof is still and always will be on the claimant, regardless of your burden of proof denials. In this case the US government.

    The bottom line is you bought this whole OCT nonsense on faith and you're trying your damnedest to defend it and ask no questions. I'm not that gullible.
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Usual conspiracy garbage. Governments lie all the time, but for you or anyone to suggest that they could keep such a monumental secret involving a cast of *insert crazy number*, is absurd. The reason we know governments lie is because they always get found out - even the most trivial things come out.

    That is true is it? Only people like you know that huh Bob? Internet nobodies who make lots of noise, what a crock.

    Well gee Bob, we had you a few pages ago, going all starry eyed over a USAF Colonel who had somehow acquired expert status in crash investigation and his testimony is mega important, but somehow an ACTUAL full on expert in structural engineering is "just an eyewitness". Bullcrap, his statement is expert testimony.

    Hey Bob, don't go all New York on me, we're discussing a plane at the Pentagon.

    http://www.scientificmethod911.org/reviewpages/wyndham_debate.html

    Fairly unanimous agreement across the board. One disagreement, all his claims dissected.

    Sad point scoring Bob. Yada yada yada refers to your insistence on repeating the same diatribe and ignoring, oh yes Bob, ignoring evidence.

    How delightful, a head in the sand(or somewhere worse) troofah. How exactly should human DNA forensically be identified, that was wrong according to you? How exactly do photographed plane parts matching a 757 get discarded? How do you forensically identify the vast majority of tiny disintegrated fragments and present them to your satisfaction. Don't answer, you are the dishonest one here. If you were given a guided tour of the entire thing, you would say it was all contrived.

    You can repeat this bullcrap over and over, it will never be correct. The evidence says a plane struck the Pentagon. Those who say otherwise have the burden of proof.

    Bob, you are full of it. I looked at the evidence, none of it is glaringly wrong. I'm not doing my damnedest at all, I am arguing with a soap box hero over one issue, namely that a plane struck the Pentagon. I got all my questions answered. The ones you want answered are ridiculously unreasonable and you would not accept the answers anyway. YOU are the one defending this crazy, implausible hoax 24x7. How many threads have you made? Dozens it seems!

    You are in the upper echelons of delusion and gullibility.
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More perceptive, would be a better description.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly, that's what I said. In this case about 9/11, that's been proven over and over again.

    Of course.

    Yes you do a lot of that.

    Where? In what investigation? Can he (or anyone) testify he actually saw AA77 and Hani Hanjour at the controls?

    Ah back to your best response.

    Of course, let's invoke the usual demons when you can't defend the FACT that the physical debris was never forensically identified to belong to any of the 4 claimed 9/11 planes.

    Of course, there is a Santa and Tooth Fairy, this is absolutely true, now if you claim otherwise it's on you to prove otherwise.

    Except for all this evidence and much, much, more:

    The 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Commission Report

    1. The Bush administration is directly responsible for the wholesale destruction of 9/11 evidence, in violation of federal and local law, thus hampering/corrupting any investigation.
    2. The Bush administration did not want to investigate 9/11, in fact they (or more specifically Cheney) asked Sen. Tom Daschle not to investigate 9/11 on several occasions.
    3. The Bush administration reluctantly yielded to investigating 9/11 due to pressure from the 9/11 families, specifically the Jersey Girls but wanted the investigation to only focus on intelligence failures.
    4. The Bush administration appointed Henry Kissinger as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission who was subsequently forced to resign due to conflicts of interest.
    5. The Bush administration stocked the 9/11 Commission with cronies, especially Philip Zelikow.
    6. All members of the 9/11 Commission had conflicts of interest and were covering for someone.
    7. The 9/11 Commission cut a deal with the Bush administration essentially allowing them to dictate who on the 9/11 Commission could see what evidence and also limited the evidence the 9/11 Commission had access to.
    8. According to the 9/11 Commission, there are 570 cubic feet of textual records, a large percentage of it classified, presumably inaccessible to the 9/11 Commission itself (see #7).
    9. Sen. Max Cleland resigned as a result of #7, labeling the 9/11 investigation a scam and obstruction.
    10. The 9/11 families or more specifically the Family Steering Committee sent over 400 questions to the 9/11 Commission and the vast majority of the questions were either unanswered or insufficiently answered.
    11. Philip Zelikow created an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report prior to the first meeting of the 9/11 Commission.
    12. Philip Zelikow admitted that most if not all of the 9/11 Commission Report relied on 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    13. The source of over 25% of the Commission Report's footnotes is 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    14. The 9/11 Commission were lied to by the CIA who told them they gave them everything they asked for but withheld torture tapes which they never revealed their existence to the 9/11 Commission.
    15. The torture tapes were deliberately destroyed by the CIA despite a federal court order to preserve them.
    16. The Senate Intelligence Committee on Torture report claims that the CIA's torture methods yielded NO USEFUL INTELLIGENCE (see #12 and #13).
    17. The FBI lied to the 9/11 Commission (and Congress) when they told them they gave them everything. They were discovered a decade later to be holding over 80,000 pages of documents from their PENTBBOM "investigation" that they never revealed existed.
    18. NORAD and other key Pentagon officials told the 9/11 Commission different stories that were in conflict with each other or outright lies.
    19. The 9/11 Commission agreed to interview Bush and Cheney together unsworn and unrecorded.
    20. There is no evidence that the 9/11 Commission conducted any criminal/scientific/forensic investigation in accordance with universally accepted standards appropriate for such an investigation. Especially within the vast scope required by a major historical event such as 9/11. Much of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report is unvetted and/or unsupported by legitimate evidence (any evidence obtained via the use of torture is illegitimate/unreliable - see #16).
    21. The 9/11 Commission claimed in their report that "their aim has not been to assign individual blame", thus making a mockery of the "investigation".
    22. Eyewitnesses who were to testify to the 9/11 Commission were coached by Soviet style government "minders" prior to their testimonies, thus tampering with, biasing and corrupting the "investigation".
    23. Many potential crucial eyewitnesses were never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Potential whistleblowers were not granted immunity and therefore many did not testify as a result.
    24. Some key eyewitness testimonies were excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report.
    25. The 9/11 Commission failed to investigate key events and issues, such as the destruction of WTC7 (unmentioned) and the financing of 9/11, deeming it of "little practical significance" (in direct contradiction to all criminal investigation standards).
    26. The 9/11 Commission co-chairs admitted they were set up to fail, starved of funds, denied access to the truth, misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the FAA, did not examine key evidence, claimed the report was incomplete and flawed and that many questions remain unanswered.
    27. Philip Zelikow had complete control over the final edit of the 9/11 Commission Report and was responsible for keeping the classified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow fired an aide who wanted to bring the 28 pages to the attention of the 9/11 Commission.
    28. The published version of the 9/11 Commission Report in general is similar to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory disseminated as fact by the Bush administration prior to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
    29. The 9/11 Commission Report was severely criticized by many, especially the Jersey Girls, who were responsible for pressuring the Bush administration for an investigation. "we knew it was a farce, we wanted their words, their lies down on paper" - Patty Casazza.

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

    NIST and the NIST reports

    All assumptions below, which were used in the NIST WTC7 report, have been shown to be erroneous, and correction of these assumptions invalidate the report's conclusions.

    1. A girder bearing seat width of 12 inches not 11 inches at column 79 would prevent girder walk off.
    2. The omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 at column 79 would have prevented the flange from folding and eliminated any chance of walk off.
    3. The thermally expanded girder A2001 could not move past the column 79 side plate.
    4. There were shear studs on girder A2001 and this would cause the beams to buckle before pushing the girder off its seat.
    5. All west and south girder connections to column 79 were not broken down to the 6th floor.
    6. A northeast corner floor failure could not cascade down eight floors so there is not enough energy to break through the girder connection on the next floor down.
    7. There were lateral support beams framing G3005 and they would have prevented it from buckling.
    8. Beam and girder notching to simulate their buckling due to the fire in the model is not consistent with the time phased weakening fire would produce.
    9. Evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel as documented by FEMA was ignored.
    10. The NIST model shows radical deformation of the upper exterior as the east side interior collapses but this is not observed in actual footage of the video collapse.
    11. A simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roofline does have implications.

    Summary of problems with the NIST WTC Tower Report

    1. The claim that the upper part of the towers crushed the lower part of the towers violates the laws of conservation of momentum and the law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As shown by the measured smooth uninterrupted descent of the upper portion of the North Tower.
    2. NIST claims that the floor trusses in the aircraft impact zone push outward on the perimeter columns with a force of about 80 KIPS before starting to sag and pull the columns inward to cause the building to collapse. Yet there is no evidence to support this claim. Extensive photos and videos of the towers show no outward bowing of the perimeter columns at any time during the fires before the collapse.
    3. NIST imposed unrealistic artificial 5 KIP forces on each floor truss to column connection over the 5 stories of the damage zone on the south face of the North Tower in order to make their collapse initiation model work. This amounts to a lateral force of about 750 KIPS applied artificially to that face of the building which cannot be justified by any rationale.
    4. NIST does not investigate or explain the global collapse which occurred after the collapse initiation was supposedly initiated by the column failures in the impact zone. NIST simply states, “global collapse ensued”.
    5. The NIST collapse sequence is initiated by the failure of the floor trusses in the impact zone and subsequent pulling in of the perimeter column. But the sequence ignores the fact that the core columns failed first, as evidenced by the video of the North Tower collapse showing that the antenna and hat truss resting on the core column began their descent well before the outer perimeter of the building began to fall. This fact invalidates the NIST collapse initiation theory.
    6. The NIST report fails to provide any information suggesting that the load capacity of the core and perimeter columns was exceeded at any time during the collapse sequence. NIST ignored the fact that the factor of safety of 3 in the core columns and 5 in the perimeter columns would have prevented the failure mechanism that is theorized in their collapse initiation model.
    7. The NIST global collapse theory depends upon the ASCE-published progressive collapse theory by Zdenek Bazant. His theory has been shown to have erroneous input data rendering it non-viable as an explanation for the observed behavior of the vertical propagation. ASCE refuses to acknowledge the errors in the input data of Bazant’s theory.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/


    But there's nothing for you to see here, nothing "glaringly wrong" at all. Thanks for confirming you bought the OCT lock, stock and barrel, ask no questions and defend it 24/7 like I said. Stick to "conspiracy garbage", "yada, yada, yada" and "troofer" (or "troofah" a better spelling for you), that's about the extent of your intellect.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ok.

    You also believe something smaller, smaller plane or missile, is what impacted the Pentagon and caused the explosion correct?
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And you also think the light poles were staged and NOT hit by the 757 correct? And that the flight data was faked?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

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

    Starting at the 5:10 mark of the video you linked above, they start to discuss the flyover/flyaway evidence. They play a recording of Roosevelt Roberts saying he saw a silver commercial plane flying over the south Pentagon parking lot. Are you under the impression that the commercial jet Roosevelt saw was the same one that flew over the Pentagon and eventually landed at the Ronald Reagan national airport?
     
  18. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    still posting your useless facts bobby? ... how many times do I have to destroy #1???
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explain something to me Scott. Here is a screenshot from the video above. It claims that Roosevelt Roberts DID NOT SEE THE PLANE APPROACH.
    screenshot1.PNG

    Here is an audio clip of an interview with Roosevelt Roberts.
    http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts

    Here are some transcripts from that interview with the timestamps.

    Timestamp: 2:12
    Interviewer: "So you... you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and able to see that plane?"
    Roberts: "Correct."

    Timestamp: 2:56
    Interviewer: "And it was.. was he moving fast?"
    Roberts" Oh it was moving extremely fast. It was like ah... maybe saw that aircraft maybe for like uh... a quick five seconds."
    Interviewer: "For a quick five seconds. But you definitely... and you saw it over the south parking lot? Over lane one..."
    Roberts: "In the south... was in the south parking lot over lane one."
    Interviewer: "Ok. Do... do you remember which direction it was headed?"
    Roberts: "Uh... coming from the uh... 27 side... 27 heading uh... uh... east towards DC coming from that area. Uh... it was the highway. If you were to come up 395 uh... north headed towards the Pentagon then you got off in south parking, you were like right there 'cause 395 went right into 27."
    Interviewer: "So from where... from when it headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?"
    Roberts: "From the... uh... can you repeat that one more time please?"
    Interviewer: "Yeah. When it was heading away from the Pentagon, this... this second plane... Do you remember...
    Roberts: "...Right..."
    Interviewer: "...which direction it was heading?"
    Roberts: "It was uh... it was heading um... back across 27 and it looks like... it appeared to me, I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... southwest coming out."

    So tell me Scott. I thought Roberts didn't see the plane approach the Pentagon. He says he saw a plane going east towards DC over 395/27/south parking lot.

    Care to explain?
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again for the hopelessly dense, they're NOT MY facts, they are simply facts, I don't own any of these. And they're far from useless except to OCT worshippers such as yourself. They show an OBVIOUS pattern of criminal fraud perpetrated by the US government with respect to 9/11. I will continue to post all these FACTS and more every single time I feel it's necessary to expose the US government for its complicit role in 9/11 and the war crimes and other crimes against humanity it has committed under pretext of 9/11. I'm quite confident more facts will be revealed shortly, stay tuned Mr. pretend engineer.

    You can't destroy facts Shiner no matter how many times you try. Furthermore, there are at least 28 more facts listed about the 9/11 Commission and their report even if your apologist defense of the first listed monstrous Bush administration crime was effective. And not to mention the overwhelming negative facts about NIST and their reports that you can't make go away no matter how much you pray these aren't true (or out of context or twisted).

    But I do appreciate that you quoted ALL these facts, you too can be very helpful in pursuit of my objective. Feel free to deny these as often as it makes you feel comfortable to try to relieve your absolute terror that 9/11 was not what you were fed it was.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like the thoroughly useless point scorer you are you part quote and remove context!

    "but for you or anyone to suggest that they could keep such a monumental secret involving a cast of *insert crazy number*, is absurd. The reason we know governments lie is because they always get found out - even the most trivial things come out."

    Sad point scorer. Effectively, your bare assertion does not hold any water but only you can see it from up on top of your disintegrating soap box.

    Irrelevant Bob and I assume that you are not too dumb to realise this. He stated it WAS a plane. The bodies of passengers on flight 77 were positively identified. Your diversions are pathetic. Your responses are just so predictable it is painful. ANYTHING but admit the actual evidence. You also failed to address the context of that quote!

    "Well gee Bob, we had you a few pages ago, going all starry eyed over a USAF Colonel who had somehow acquired expert status in crash investigation and his testimony is mega important, but somehow an ACTUAL full on expert in structural engineering is "just an eyewitness". Bullcrap, his statement is expert testimony."

    Is he an expert, and does his logged quote count as testimony? If not, why not? And why does Colonel Confirmation count?

    Like the thoroughly useless point scorer you are you part quote and remove context! Ironically:

    "Sad point scoring Bob. Yada yada yada refers to your insistence on repeating the same diatribe and ignoring, oh yes Bob, ignoring evidence."

    If all else fails, Bob repeats his mantra. You part quoted again and avoided the point. Real deceptive, hoping I would let it go or that nobody would notice. You do that a real lot of the time.

    "How exactly should human DNA forensically be identified, that was wrong according to you? How exactly do photographed plane parts matching a 757 get discarded? How do you forensically identify the vast majority of tiny disintegrated fragments and present them to your satisfaction."

    Bob, you're starting to sound really dumb now. There is no evidence for your primary claim.

    We are discussing whether a plane hit the Pentagon!

    "Bob, you are full of it. I looked at the evidence, none of it is glaringly wrong. I'm not doing my damnedest at all, I am arguing with a soap box hero over one issue, namely that a plane struck the Pentagon. I got all my questions answered. The ones you want answered are ridiculously unreasonable and you would not accept the answers anyway. YOU are the one defending this crazy, implausible hoax 24x7. How many threads have you made? Dozens it seems!"

    I am not here to debate your spam list. I simply don't care whether the Bush administration wants to hide their incompetence, which is the most likely reason for that list. I don't care whether NIST made errors. The buildings both CLEARLY gave way at the impact areas. As for your "violates the laws of conservation of momentum" - you are talking out of your butt! So when I refuse to engage you on your big blue list of nonsense, it isn't cowardice, it is the knowledge(reinforced from just this simple proven point that it was a plane) that to do so is futile and a colossal waste of time(as evidenced from just this painfully tedious exchange with you).

     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are not discussing anything, sorry you're misinformed. There's nothing interesting for me to discuss with you. But I appreciate the opportunity your posts have led me to post the FACTS about 9/11.

    Agreed, you don't care about anything with respect to 9/11 unless it fits your world view, that's what I said. "Incompetence", the all purpose apologist excuse for OCT lovers, however everything about 9/11 is exactly what all those incompetents claim it is, they suddenly became extremely competent when they published their 9/11 fairy tale. Stick to "yada, yada, yada" and "troofah", it's your most intellectual argument.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Evasive tap dancing. You are one sad person Bob. You have simply no capacity to take in information if it doesn't fit your conspiracy crap.

    You just basically avoided a whole battery of solid points yet again. What possible reason could anyone think you would honestly assimilate any response to your list!

    Cowardly Bob. Not very honest are you.

    Once again you show no originality, pure diversionary ad hominem with no substance. You are a point scoring self aggrandizing soap box hero.

    I gave you a huge webpage of concise testimony and you totalky ignored it. You deserve to be called a troofah. You don't seem truth you bypass it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There ya go Beta, keep up the good work. Was there something you wanted to discuss? Sorry I missed it.
     
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not work. I wanted to discuss why you keep avoiding evidence that you say you don't ignore.

    1.Is he an expert, and does his logged quote count as testimony? If not, why not? And why does Colonel Confirmation count?

    2. How exactly should human DNA forensically be identified, that was wrong according to you? How exactly do photographed plane parts matching a 757 get discarded? How do you forensically identify the vast majority of tiny disintegrated fragments and present them to your satisfaction.

    3. We have positive DNA from flight 77 on all passengers. How can that not confirm that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Be very specific.

    Plane parts found:

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Pentagon_evidence

    4. Are you suggesting it is possible, somebody sprinkled all the plane parts around the crash site?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page