The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Thank you. That's all I needed.

 

So now you're reading his mind and trying to twist what he said to fit your beliefs? How did he mean that when he DISTINCTLY tells them that he saw TWO AIRCRAFT?

 

Anyone who listens to the whole thing can see that he actually only saw one aircraft. He assumed the one he saw was the second one because he believed the explosion was the impact of the first one. Show us where he actually said he'd seen two aircraft.

I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow.

 

This will be the third time I've posted this now.

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

 

No translation is needed. The post said exactly what it needed to. You are failing as a truther and your blatant avoidance of posts is evidence that you don't want to make yourself look even "sillier"(the business with you blundering away with a ruler was just one in a long line of such incompetence).

It will just be more implausible "plausible" bullshit.

 

Ok?

See post #1954 and what Roberts is quoted as saying. Then come back.

 

Well apparently there were eyewitnesses who claim to have seen an airliner approach and crash into the Pentagon. The problem is the FBI confiscated every single video and never showed one that may have captured that event. Worse, they refuse to release ALL the videos so for me that automatically means a coverup, as with everything else about 9/11. One would think that if the US government wanted to convince everyone that a plane crashed into the Pentagon they would be eager to show every single video.

For me the bigger controversy is not so much whether a large plane actually crashed into the Pentagon or not (although there are far too many conflicts with the story to convince me), it's what was actually used to destroy several Pentagon rings and the coverup automatically points to something other than AA77. Transparency goes a long way to establish trust and there was none when comes to 9/11 and therefore not one thing to be trusted.

 

only the fabric. That too is something kindergarten children understand.

So you think the resolution of that pic is good enough that you tell us for a fact there are no seats there? More of the same typical bullshit I see around here substituted for reason

The e4b few over at the exact time the pentagon was blown, it was on cnn with a time stamp that they eventually removed (the time stamp that is) from their archives because smart truthers noticed that it was the same time the pentacon blew. It was sold to the public back then as just another one of those strange coincidences of 911. Truthers are the good guys they tell the gubmint how they need to change the story make it more plausible to fool the double digit genius iq's in this constitutional idiocracy.

Bob, the whole 911 'story' is a farce top down. The people the gubmint is using to support their story line now days are nothing more than posers that will say any damn thing regardless how ridiculous it is.

Brilliant! Puhlease! Thats not 3 wheels, its 3 pictures of the same tonka truck wheel! LMAO

 

Correct, earn one merit point and add it to the available evidence.

That is completely untrue and basically the conspiracy theorists bible. Maybe we need a dramatic noise.

http://www.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle/85-pentagon-area-surveillance-cameras

"The FBI said they identified 85 video recordings that might show the plane impact into the Pentagon, but this number was the result of an initial search that included (for example) all videos obtained by the Washington Field Office.

From that starting point, the numbers of useful recordings regarding the Pentagon event begin to fall dramatically:

• Very nearly 2/3rds of the 85 recordings, specifically 56 “of these video recordings did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11.”
• Of the remaining 29 video recordings, 16 did show some part of the Pentagon, but “did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.”
• Of the 13 remaining recordings, 11 “only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77.” An example is the video that was released from the Doubletree Hotel. That camera was initially pointed away from the Pentagon, then repositioned minutes after the crash to point towards the smoke cloud rising from the Pentagon crash site.
• The two remaining recordings, from the Pentagon’s two security cameras both clearly showed the Pentagon impact fireball. One of those two recordings seems to show only the fin of the plane, due to a foreground obstruction. The other recording seems to show the entire plane, but also at low resolution."

So physics not your strong point then. Large mass travelling very fast hits a not immoveable object - that's all you need to know.

 

I pointed out that the seats were burnt to ashes. The claim was :-

Now will either of you two kindly tell me where these magical seats are in the Boeing 747 picture burnt to a crisp at the top of this page.

Head in the sand. There is nothing left and you just demonstrated why nobody should take you seriously.

I concede it is the same wheel - clearly from the landing gear of a 757. Not a tonka truck. Now kindly respond properly to the points raised.

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?

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.

 

It is mine and Bob is correct.

I pointed out that the seat frames do not burn, so your claim is bullshit, there would in fact be seats.

The frames are at the bottom of the pile DUH!

Brilliant! Nothing left? If thats the best you can do may want to consider looking for another job.

now you know why your pal ozeco41 and katdorkman loves me. can you feel his pain yet?

You heard me, tonka truck wheels, now kindly correct and clean up your infinitely growing trail of BS posts.

Oh thats right, I forgot, there was no 757, no 757 no tail!

I'm still waiting for you to post all that evidence of a 757.

You have nothing, but an official fairy 'tail'.

 

I made a mistake in post #1944.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-98#post-1070036809

I said to start watching at the 5:25 time mark. I wanted to say to start watching at the 2:25 time mark.

 

Just totally pathetic!

No translation is needed. The post said exactly what it needed to. You are failing as a truther and your blatant avoidance of posts is evidence that you don't want to make yourself look even "sillier"(the business with you blundering away with a ruler was just one in a long line of such incompetence).

You have numerous posts and major points to address.

 

Please go to the 2:25 time mark of that video and listen to what it says and give us your analysis of it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-98#post-1070036809

Then, check out the other one and give us your analysis.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-98#post-1070037271

 

My analysis is that you are avoiding dozens of tabled responses and are posting gish gallup hogwash as diversion.

 

This guy says he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon after the explosion which he thought was a plane hitting the Pentagon. What do you think happened?

 

You seem to be checkmated. Objective truth-seekers don't get checkmated. They simply modify their stands when they see that they're wrong.

This is serious evidence that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Let's hear you give a serious analysis.

 

Your comedy spam yet again. Nobody is checkmated, but you are playing your usual pigeon chess again. You have dozens of unanswered points.

Address them all!

 

Show me something I haven't addressed and give us your analysis of this evidence that a 757 flew over the Pentagon after the explosion.

 

Go find it yourself! I do not believe you don't know all the things you have deliberately avoided!

 

In other words, I haven't avoided anything.
Let's hear your analysis of this serious evidence that a 757 flew over the Pentagon after the explosion. If there was only one plane, that means a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. Do you think the guy lied? Tell us what you think and why.

 

No other words are needed. You evade by posting ludicrous responses then use the word "plausible" as a catch-all for some of the most stupid claims possible.

Answer this properly!

You don't know what plausible means. You are the least logical person I have ever come across.

You have untold personnel manufacturing plane evidence and planting it - which involves doing it in front of anybody watching. You have a team killing the entire passenger list and crew, burning them cutting them up and delivering their body parts. You have a team disposing of the actual plane. You have a team planting charges to blow poles and out buildings. You have a whole barrage of fake witnesses including on site experts. You have somehow to scorch either side of the impact hole to make it look like wings. You have something to actually hit the building and make sure nobody sees it. The least this would require is a facility or ship capable of launching such an object and the team who do this.

What sane person thinks doing all that and having no evidence whatsoever for any of it - is plausible? What crazy number of people do you think is needed to invisibly accomplish it?

Regarding the witness you have had major problems pointed out to you! Of course you basically ignore them.

 

Gamolon has been tearing you a new one and you have been wriggling like a trapped fly!

Roosevelt Roberts:
Yes sir, that's not what I think I saw it, it was two aircraft that's for sure.

This is a website of a "truther"!
http://www.911review.com/articles/ashley/tocon.html#search

Fairly damning of your bullshit checkmate witnesses. More on Roberts:

"Anyone familiar with the attack will recognize the Mr. Roberts is describing: not AA77, which had already hit the building by then, but the C-130 that flew over the area, diving and low enough to scare people on the ground into thinking it was a second attack. While his specific descriptions of the plane suggest AA77, the movements he describes are those of the C-130, consistently described by numerous witnesses -- a sharp dive and a banking turn. Robert's description of the banking turn and timing of just after AA77 fits closely to many other accounts of the C-130:

Scott P. Cook --
As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don't go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.
Cloth Monkey scottpcook.com
http://www.clothmonkey.com
John O'Keefe --
The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head.… Then the plane—it looked like a C-130 cargo plane—started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.
[New York Law Journal, 9/12/2001]
At the Pentagon:Airplane as a Bomb New York Law Journal; September 12, 2001
http://web.archive.org
Keith Wheelhouse says the second plane is a C-130; two other witnesses are not certain. [Daily Press (Newport News), 9/15/2001] . . . As Flight 77 descends toward the Pentagon, the second plane veers off west.[Daily Press (Newport News), 9/14/2001]
9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Witnesses See Military Cargo Plane near Flight 77; Pilot Later Implies He Is Far Away HistoryCommons.org
http://www.historycommons.org

Robert's account is even similar to CIT's own interview of their other "flyover" witness, Erik Dihle, describing the C-130:

And then as we're talking, the first few seconds, another plane is coming in, very steep kind of dive-bombing, right down just to this, the South end of the cemetery . . . I recognized it as being the 4-engine overhead wing Turbo-prop plane, and I even called on the radio and I said, this may - "Here comes another one!”, 'cause we thought it was another terrorist jet or something . . .
neit426.mp3 ThePentacon.com
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3
Other accounts, like Roberts', also describe the C-130 as arriving "seconds” after AA77:

Kelly Knowles says that seconds after seeing Flight 77 pass, she sees a "second plane that seemed to be chasing the first [pass] over at a slightly different angle.”
9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Witnesses See Military Cargo Plane near Flight 77; Pilot Later Implies He Is Far Away
[Daily Press (Newport News), 9/15/2001]
9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Witnesses See Military Cargo Plane near Flight 77; Pilot Later Implies He Is Far Away HistoryCommons.org
http://www.historycommons.org
Additionally, Roosevelt Roberts Jr., like Erik Dihle and everyone else, said nothing to indicate a flyover in his statement describing what he saw, taken in an interview just a couple of months after the event:

So after I thought about it, I looked again, and they said that there was another plane coming on the television, and then my Sargent, Sargent Woolrich, Woody, he called and he said, "Hey Rob, listen, we're going to Threat Con Delta.” As I hang up the phone, the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time. Watching the TV, it's like it was almost timed for preciseness. So, as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the South Parking lot, about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning, and then there was dust and stuff coming from the ceilings, and you could hear people screaming, so what I did was I turned around I drew out my weapon, I didn't know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn't know what was happening.
September 11, 2001,Documentary Project
Interview with Roosevelt Roberts Jr., Waldorf, Maryland Library of Congress; November 30, 2001
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.afc/afc2001015.sr348a01

 

I don't ignore them. You just don't like my answers.

When different witnesses say different things...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

...we can't just cherry pick the ones that support what we would like to be true. That's not the scientific method. The government can find enough people to be bogus witnesses in a case such as this. Actual physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

Let's hear what you say about the witness who says he saw a plane fly away from the other side of the Pentagon after the explosion.

All plausible.

I didn't use those words but I think it's plausible that the light poles were staged in advance.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632&st=0&start=0

I think it's plausible that a bomb exploded in the Pentagon as there are reports of people smelling cordite.

This sentence doesn't make sense. Please link to what I actually said.

This doesn't make sense either. Please find what I actually said.


Now stop stalling and give your analysis of what that guy says about the plane flying away after flying over the Pentagon coming from the direction of the explosion after the explosion.

 

You must have made your post about five seconds before I hit the post reply button.

He says he only saw one aircraft. He assumed there were two because he thought the explosion was a plane hitting the Pentagon.

http://www.911review.com/articles/ashley/tocon.html#search
(excerpt)
---------------------------
The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn't even tell . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the jet kept on going, somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building . . . the smoke was so black, we couldn't really see the hole or anything.
---------------------------

Maybe that's what those people actually saw. We can't rule this out just because it doesn't fit what you want to be true. I don't take it as final proof; I just don't want to ignore it.

Another excerpt
------------------------------
Anyone familiar with the attack will recognize the Mr. Roberts is describing: not AA77, which had already hit the building by then, but the C-130 that flew over the area, diving and low enough to scare people on the ground into thinking it was a second attack. While his specific descriptions of the plane suggest AA77, the movements he describes are those of the C-130, consistently described by numerous witnesses -- a sharp dive and a banking turn. Robert's description of the banking turn and timing of just after AA77 fits closely to many other accounts of the C-130:
------------------------------

This is a misrepresentation of what he said. He says the plane he saw was a commercial aircraft with jet engines. Listen here at the 52:40 time mark.

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