The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

No you haven't gotten one thing I posted straight and you're desperately trying to create a red herring (not to mention lie), then insult me with YOUR phony claim. I have never claimed I have ever denied any evidence, you made that up and keep insisting that I deny 9/11 evidence. There are all sorts of eyewitnesses as I already made the point. There are eyewitnesses who support the OCT and there are eyewitnesses who contradict the OCT, some corroborate each other, some do not, some are supported by evidence some are not. There were those who were murdered on 9/11 and perhaps DNA was analyzed from the victims (perhaps not, we don't have any irrefutable evidence that this is true), we don't have any chain of custody and we only have the US government's word for where and how it originated. The same entity one can only accept on faith.

No one has, not just me. Any legitimate investigation would have accurate published results based on extreme thoroughness and using all universally accepted criminal investigation protocol. There were 2 illegitimate 9/11 investigations (if one can stretch really hard and call these "investigations") and both were published (the 9/11 Commission and NIST).

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/

There was a 3rd claimed investigation (PENTBOM) that was never published and the full results were deliberately hidden from Congress and the 9/11 Commission so it cannot be considered legitimate either (the full results are still classified as of today). So I know from the HISTORICAL RECORD there was no legitimate official investigation into 9/11, including of course the Pentagon for which there is no record. Even the alleged airplane parts identification is still classified as of today.

There was no incompetence, you invent that to try to dismiss a blatant and deliberate coverup. This is strictly apologist mentality on your part. But even if there was incompetence, it's just one more reason why there never was any legitimate official investigation into 9/11. YOU are not discussing the destruction of the towers and the subsequent DESTRUCTION of the evidence (you're afraid to even call it what it is) because YOU want to avoid it. It is all part of the same picture, deliberate destruction of 9/11 evidence, including the Pentagon (where is all the alleged airplane debris today?) and phony investigations meant to support a phony story for the gullible.

 

Neither does yours. Where are those landing gear and tires? Where are those engine parts? Why did April Gallop not see anything resembling an airliner when she walked out through the rubble? Why did she not see any rows of seats, no baggage?

Let Occam apply: there are no parts, no seats, no passengers because AA77 did not crash there.

 

why are you afraid to look at the evidence? ... did you know that a wing piece photographed many times was found on the lawn? ... a troofer vid claims it probably sheared off and tumbled after a hitting a light pole ...

there's half your Toyota pick up right there ...

 

Some were photographed in a decidedly degraded condition after impact and fire. What brainless idea makes you think baggage and seats survive such an impact and subsequent fire!

There were photographed parts, that is a lie. The seats and passengers were burnt to mainly ashes. The DNA was analysed to match them. A plane disappeared. The parts match the plane. Witnesses say it was a plane.

You dare to invoke Occam by dismissing the very evidence used to apply it.

 

Thanks for your wafflespam Bob. I love the way you deny dismissing evidence as you detail why you dismiss it. Not very intelligent.

You wish to encompass other parts of the day but fail to apply them to the Pentagon.

Now explain what evidence was destroyed at the PENTAGON and prove it. The witnesses say it was a plane. Very dishonest truthers cherry pick parts of testimony and deliberately spin it deceptively. Now of course that's testimony that is believable in Bobworld!

Answer these honestly:

What presentation of the DNA could possibly suffice given that you dismiss the source as blanket liars?

Why do you disregard the numbers and logistics involved in planting parts, whilst denying that the parts come from a 757!?

What crazy world do you think it easier to do all the necessary with flight 77 to fake its Pentagon crash?

It's not just slightly more difficult it is way beyond ludicrous. The fact that you can't even recognise that let alone understand it is appalling.

You are a point scoring soapbox hero who doesn't care about the evidence or truth. You play the carefully worded wind up game with weasel words.

 

You're trying to mislead those viewers who haven't read the whole thing.

Viewers read the bottom of this page...
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm

...and start watching this video a the 41:50 time mark.
The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2


He was driving during that interview and might have been a little confused because he was thinking about two things at once.

National Security Alert - Part 6/9 - Sensitive Information

(5:10 time mark)

The important thing is that he said the plane flew over after the explosion. He said the plane flew over the Pentagon. This is an alarm bell that would no objective truth-seeker would just ignore. It may or may not be true but you're simply ruling it out because it doesn't fit your foregone conclusion. That behavior pretty much destroys your credibility.

 

Am I Scott?

I'll ask you again. Did he say that he saw a plane GOING EAST TOWARDS DC from 27/395/south parking lot? Yes or no?

 

Give me the exact timestamp where he said "The plane flew over the Pentagon".

 

No, what's an "alarm bell" is you saying he said "the plane flew over the Pentagon". How can that be true when he distinctly tells Aldo it was two aircraft?:

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts

 

I not ruling anything out. What I am ruling out is you using his testimony to conclusively prove a flyover. You try and discount the fact that he saw a plane heading east towards DC by implying he was confused. You're trying to discount the fact that he says he saw TWO aircraft. How do you know he wasn't confused about seeing a plane flying AWAY from the Pentagon? How do you know he didn't see two different aircraft?

 

Show us some of those photographed parts Betamax. Show us some of that evidence you claim to have seen.

FYI, there are federal standards for airliner seats and what they will survive.. I would not expect you to know this, because your posts on this issue demonstrate if anybody is brainless here, it is yourself.

Show us the debris from AA77.

 

Head in the sand.









Video showing masses of debris!


https://www.businessinsider.com/the-fbi-pentagon-on-911-2017-5?r=US&IR=T
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/debrispiles.html

Ludicrous. Here is an outside plane crash, not full speed, not straight into a reinforced brick wall. Point me out the intact seats!



Here's another, point me out the seats!


Owned.

 

So when are you going to cite 757 debris?

8- wheels,
2- 6 ton engines
2- 4 ton main landing gear,

You know the **** thats too big for the toyota pickup they hauled it in with!

Oh and you aint foolin anyone, any mo ron can see that the aluminum was simply shoveled into a pile in those pics.

How did they get that one piece that was found on my lawn anyway?

Still no explanation how the tail can impact the windows and disintegrate without a scratch after mowing down all those poles?

I love the way more fake evidence dribbles out over time as they figure out how badly they ****ed up.

 

See post above.

The pictures of the 3 wheel from the Pentagon show enormous damage, what makes you think they would all survive intact? What makes you think the others weren't buried under rubble and not photographed?

They were working at maximum speed and had momentum of their own, striking any solid wall would absolutely disintegrate them. Explain why you think they would survive like cartoon engines!

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Smashed, disfigured and buried. What makes you think they photographed every piece?

I asked you what you were referring to about the Toyota. I gave you evidence of debris massively more than this moronic claim. How come you didn't answer? Are you afraid?

I asked you to show why the pole would leave the plane NOT intact. How come you avoided that? Are you afraid?

If the shoe fits.

No idea what you are asking.

The tail didn't mow down any poles! I explained above about the tail.

The leading edge of the tail went through the impact hole, the upper part is almost certainly sheared off as it strikes the upper edge of the impact hole.

The only new pictures were from the FBI. So on the one hand we have the "truthers" screaming for the evidence, then when some is provided they scream about how it is faked.

I asked you to point me out the seats in the two non nose impact crashes, kindly do so.

Regarding the scratch free window - Prove the tail is alleged to have struck it. Explain with diagrams and physics why the plane tail would hit a window.

 

Betamax

You are as much into planted evidence as Bush & Co were. You fell for the ruse, those familiar with aircraft and accidents did not.

 

what a freakin' cop out ... a truly sad and desperate response ... I won't even ask you to provide evidence of planted evidence as I know you do not have any ... childish troofer nonsense ...

 

I am guilty of one thing - getting confused between the 2 supporting acts. It was you who told me all about your insight into passenger airline seats.

So, go back to the previous page and tell me what happened to them in 2 accidents that are not remotely comparable to the Pentagon.

You will not because you were wrong.

I bellow with disdain at you positioning yourself as "familiar" with anything related to an airplane. Seats burn. That is something kindergarten children understand.

 

I guess the seats on this plane weren't up to "federal standards" eh? Should've survived the crash and fire according to you...

 

Everybody start listening here at the 5:25 time mark.

National Security Alert - Part 7/9 - Sensitive Information



Let's hear the analyses of the pro-official version posters.

 

You have dozens of posts to respond to. You seem to be trying to divert attention from more of your incompetent mistakes.

 

Translation:

If I try to discredit this person, I'll just end up looking silly so I'd better avoid addressing it.

--------------------
I'll get to the other stuff. Your responses here will be part of my answers.

 

I have an inquiries of you... if you dont mind

Lets suppose that i wanted to crash an airliner into the pentagon as alleged to have happened
How could i do this and have no one see it happen?
I mean how doci arrange that no one will be in this very public place and not noticec
A large airliner flying low over the parking lot?

You see, i think there were lots of people around the building that morning
As is the case this and every other morning
And those people noticed that a large airliner flew low over their heads and crashed into the pentagon
It is the sort of thing that people notice, and remember

 

Listen here from the 57:50 time mark to the 58:48 time mark.

The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2



He says the plane came from the direction of the impact. This should answer Gamolon's question.

 

Right. So you you made up the fact that he said "The plane flew over the Pentagon"?

 

He didn't say it with those words but if he said it had come from the direction of the impact zone, he meant that the plane had flown over the Pentagon. This is mere nitpicking on your part. An objective truth-seeker wouldn't be behaving this way. This guy was a policeman and policemen are generally level-headed people. This is some serious evidence that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon and someone who didn't have a foregone conclusion and simply wanted to find out what happened wouldn't be playing this down and trying to discredit it.

What's your analysis of this?