Please stop using "we". It was a Boeing 757. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11con-the-pentagon.598106/page-11#post-1074251384 That is a ridiculous need-to-do list as opposed to point and crash.
Actually we dont know if anything at all hit it not only because we have no visual evidence also cuz the rebar was bent outward, but we definitely know it was not a 757, there were no broken windows where the tail had to hit but that does give the believers pause! LOL
I accept your use of "we'. You two don't "know". The people who saw it, tracked it on radar, cleared up bits of passenger, bits of plane....they all knew. Boeing 757. /Thread
I believe there are a few things. Confirmation bias, Dunning Kruger and a desperate need to save face by not admitting failure,
After 22 years, neither you nor the government can prove it was a 757 at the Pentagon. Endless, 22 years worth of repetition, does not make a false claim become true.
MEH! https://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com/ In science there is a level of evidence that is acceptable as proof, in some things it's hard to come by. In life experiences, it takes the form of a number of things: Witness testimony - for the Pentagon crash there is a considerable number of accounts confirming a plane, a 757 and the provider American Airlines. Air Traffic Control - monitored the take-off of the flight and noted its later activity prior to crashing. National Guard - a plane spotted the inbound flight and subsequent crash. Security camera footage - though blurred, significant factors in the image demonstrate the exact shape expected. Lamp posts - knocked over during the approach, including an impact with a taxi on the highway prior to crash. Passengers and staff - DNA identified many onboard. Black boxes - recovered. Phone calls - 2 calls received from the plane. Plane pieces - strewn all over the Pentagon lawn, mangled and burnt deep into the building. This was a scheduled flight that strayed off course, pilot contact lost. observed into its target after a hijack. To say there is no proof of this is basically ridiculous. Now, what would NO PLANE entail, previously posted and no serious response made: Now we have to involve countless numbers of people to dispose of the actual plane! Burn it up and distribute parts all around the lawn and building! We have to fabricate the ATC involvement. We have to coerce all the eye-witnesses. We have to have explosions to knock out lamp posts etc. We have to fabricate the National Guard plane witness accounts. We have to involve a team to blow up the building/launch the missile/other plane whichever batshit alternative is suggested! Now we have to dispose / murder all the passengers, dismember some of them and scatter their DNA all over the crash site! How many to get all the luggage and scatter this around the area? Now we have to get actual passengers to fabricate(really!) their audio transcripts and phone calls! We have to fabricate the black box data and/or coerce the analysts who view it. I like logic, I like critical thinking, I like simplicity. What I don't like is insane claims requiring ludicrous numbers of people and tasks, when you just need to crash the damn plane!
True. It would appear to be easier to plant a bomb but then maybe it wouldn't leave the same hole to create the deception of an aircraft. Whereas perhaps a missile would. Like I said, that vid of Rumsfeld saying, 'and the missile that hit' appears nowhere to be found on the internet. Probably been well and truly scrubbed.
Why do that? Quote a fellow "non-believer" and ignore jaw-dropping logic? Spam, addressed already. He misspoke. "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building"" If you want to believe Rumsfeld saying AND a missile he also said using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens - doesn't come any better than that! Why do you ignore my statement? Doesn't it make more logical sense that he misspoke or it was misquoted? Logic - using something as a "xxxx" is what you would say.
Why should I watch government propaganda? 20 years ago I studied this subject in great deal. The only logical conclusion to be reached is that all the facts and evidence available contradict the official narrative, the narrative you've been offering for years. Repeating government lies does not make them become true.
Hilarious! The video in question is a so called "911 truther" video! 9/11 Pentagon Evidence -- Wayne Coste (bitchute.com)
looks like you made an assumption … not a government video series but rather study conducted by Wayne Coste and narrated by David Chandler.
yeh that was a great Freudian slip! Thats mafia style indoctrination btw..... same thing for what hisw face, gross proudly standing on steel that was mearly completely melted then saying he didnt see any melting. Much the same as people saying someone misspoke, thats what a Freudian slip is, they accidentally tell the truth. lol
Nope. Haha, nope. Nope. Addressed spam. Nope. It goes to the very bottom of barrel-scraping batshit when somebody has to use an obvious error as some sort of moronic "truf". When the quote says they used an American Airlines plane with passengers, how come the "truf" conveniently ignores this? I can't ever imagine stooping to this low-level to try and prove something. That should be enough for anyone with any sense.
just keep changing the subject … this thread is about the Pentagon … why won’t tou watch the videos? …
Hmmm, no he didn't. There's a word for that kind of statement, it's very economical with the truth. Here is the quote: "They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it’s physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, "and a" missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." He is referring to "using a passenger jet" which logic denotes that he means AS something. Ergo a missile. Simple. I highlighted something that maybe you should pay attention to!
