37 FACTS that contradict the "official" BS story

Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo"

Mike Walter: "...it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there. It was an American Airlines jet."

Wrong again, Andelusion.

 

No, you go to 'letsroll' and other 'no planes' sites. You aren't looking for truth.

 

What I can't understand is where such conspiracy people think where the people on the planes that took off from Logan went to?

I mean they had relatives drop them off at the airports and watch them board the planes.

It's ridiculous.

AboveAlpha

 

They have stated that no one died at all, that it was all made up. The very sites that 'Fraud links to go in depth about that, he denies it, but keeps linking to them.

 

Because I've already considered the evidence, the stories, the claims, the changing timelines, and on and on, and yes I've made my determinations. So, again, why would I got to your site where I know that angle is slanted away from the truth, and I further know that by your posts here.

 

The Pentagon video showed nothing, certainly not a jet. You could make an argument that it looked like a missile but, that too, is suspect, at best.

 

Because I guarantee I have evidence on my blog which you would never have seen before. It is a common feedback I get a lot from people who visit it, a I have had several people just like you, visit it, and come away thinking that perhaps an airliner did hit the Pentagon. In fact a truther did just last week on facebook. My point is, what have you got to lose by paying it a visit?

 

There was no video that showed the crash of American Airlines flight 587 on 11/12/2001 that crashed in queens,NYC either

Are you saying because of that,there is no evidence an Airbus A300-600 crashed?...after all,we'd be using the same criteria...

 

Truthers are the first and only people I have ever come across that run the logic that if something isn't on camera, then it never happened. Therefore the Titanic never sank, and 99% of all air crashes never happened either.

As it happens, the Pentagon event was caught on camera. So they're wrong on all parts. Whether or not they want to see the object as a plane or a very large missile, the fire ball it makes in the video points only to a very large amount of jet fuel exploding. So the videos speak for themselves. But no planers just keep on ignoring it.

 

Obviously, considering the sites you link to.

 

You're misrepresenting the truther position to mislead the viewers.

Truthers have shown from the photo that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

The nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon was too pointed to be the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

There are witnesses that put the 757 flying at an angle that's inconsistent with the angle of the craft that crashed...
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

...supporting the theory that a 757 flew over the Pentagon and landed at the airport behind it and a smaller craft came in at a different angle.

The crash site is inconsistent with a 757's having hit and is consistent with a smaller plane's having hit.
http://physics911.net/missingwings/

They had control over the whole area. They knew it was going to happen so they could have easily made the preparations.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

This looks suspicious too.
http://letsrollforums.com/barbara-olson-9-11-t20525.html?&highlight=barbara+olsen

Start watching this video at the 36:20 time mark to see some experts talk about the Pentagon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwThcdIoufc

If the link goes dead, do a YouTube search on, "9-11 Ripple Effect - FULL".


You pro-official version posters have authoritative patronizing attitudes but what you're not putting forth anything that would convince an objective thinking person. A few pages back one of you put forth the plantable black boxes as proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. That would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

 

Here's a video to show to friends who are having trouble being objective about the proof that 9/11 was an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xzmprkpxac

Here's a forum on which you can see how objective people look at the evidence.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

They don't say lame things such as, "The black boxes are proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon".

These are the kinds of people who would say the plantable black boxes are proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
http://aquariusparadigm.com/2012/09...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/


There might be some young teenagers reading this thread so this is for them. They should be warned that internet forums are full of professional sophists who don't even believe their own arguments.

Sophism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e. raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques. An
Ad Hominem argument is an example of Sophistry.
A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.
----------------------------------------------------------------

sophism - Wiktionary
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A flawed argument superficially correct in its reasoning, usually designed to deceive. An intentional fallacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------

sophism - definition of sophism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
In ancient Greece, one of a group of 5th-century BC itinerant lecturers on culture, rhetoric, and politics. Sceptical about the possibility of achieving genuine knowledge, they applied bogus reasoning and were concerned with winning arguments rather than establishing the truth. Plato regarded them as dishonest and sophistry came to mean fallacious reasoning. In the 2nd century AD the term was linked to the art of public speaking.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Specious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
having a false look of truth or genuineness
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sophism - Debatepedia
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determine whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

sophism, sophisms- WordWeb dictionary definition
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
----------------------------------------------------------------

sophism - definition and examples of sophism
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Because of their developed ability to argue either side of a case, the Sophists' students were powerful contestants in the popular debating contests of their day, and also were highly successful advocates in court. The dialectical method was employed in part because the Sophists accepted the notion of dissoi logoi, or contradictory arguments. That is, Sophists believed that strong arguments could be produced for or against any claim. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------

sophism - definition and meaning
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A false argumentation devised for the exercise of one's ingenuity or for the purpose of deceit; sometimes, a logically false argumentation; a fallacy. The word is especially applied to certain ancient tricks of reasoning, which before the systematization of logic and grammar had a real value, and were treated as important secrets.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of sophism, carcass, vista, impertinence
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
a false argument understood to be such by the reasoner himself and intentionally used to deceive
------------------------------------------------------------------

Sophistry - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Another post filled with nothing....

 

Who said we denied that?

 

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7591&st=0&start=0

Only those people in the US government who planned and carried out the attacks know exactly what happened. There are a few plausible scenarios. One is put forth here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wkyEDIxTk
"9/11 - Painful Deceptions - (Full Length)."
(44:00 time mark)

Our not knowing what they did with the passengers doesn't make the proof that the US government planned and carried out the attacks go away.

 

Steel does not have to melt to loose integrity. The claimed absence of molten steel therefore is not proof of any conspiracy or pre-set demolition charges. The plane also added not only mass but accelerant in the form of burning fuel.

The claim by truthers that the floors in the buildings could not collapse due to collapsing floors (above) based on inadequate acceleration is false. The fact is, when one floor collapsed on the one below it, the combined floors increased more than double in mass which would have caused an immediate collapse in the floors below as they experienced a mass load multiple times their own.

As the collapse proceeded, load mass hitting each floor below it would have multiplied. For example, the fourth floor below the initial floor collapse would receive an accelerating mass 3 times it's own and the fifth floor below the initial collapse would receive and accelerated mass 4 times its own and so forth until the ground floor would have basically been smashed by most of the mass of the whole building.

 

I'm no expert but these people are.
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear....11.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.6qDhyaAaEfs

(If the link stops working, do a YouTube search on, "architects and engineers for 911 truth".)


One doesn't have to be an expert to know that explosives would be necessary to make the buildings fall at near freefall speed though.

 

Scott doesn't read posts or click links we provide. He expects us, however, to click all his links and watch all his videos. Nope. I'll make you a deal Scott, the day you visit my blog, will be the day I click your links.

 

The first thing you see when you click on this is a lame attempt at obfuscation of some very clear proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757.
http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com.es/

There's no shadow on the ground under the place where you say the plane is.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

The trees can be seen in the background. If the plane were where you say it is, the trees couldn't be seen.

The object at the right is the nose of a plane that's not the shape of a 757 nose.

The length of your bogus plane is too short to be a 757.


You couldn't convince a ten-year-old that there's a plane where you say one is. Your blog is obviously a work of sophistry.

 

Dodge, copy paste. Same old. You are a Basking shark in a sea of ignorance. On ignore you go Scott.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c71_1252508574

look here than tell me these guys are experts

 

Your conclusions are faulty. I don't want to see faulty information.

 

What have you got to lose?

 

Why is his conclusions faulty?

You need to provide PROOF

 

Yet you constantly link to no planes sites.