Bob, you simply must report any insults. Be that upstanding member. No Bob. Were you to believe the actual EYE winesses you would not even entertain the idea there was no plane. And were you to actually think it possible that it wasn't AA77 well then you have a whole lot of ludicrous explaining to do about the real plane being disposed of, passengers, conversations, air traffic control etc, that you think is 99% not relevant, when it is 100% totally relevant. Well Bob, I just explained it to you. Was it confusing? "Eye witnesses that "hear" things as in the ones at Wtc1/2 are EAR winesses. They heard something and speculated. The ones who "saw" molten stuff assumed what it was, absent of testing. It's all so very painfully obvious, yet here we are. For some bizarre reason you choose to ignore all the 100% salient observations concerning this. I'm sure they did hear explosions. I have no reason to doubt them. Though the problem as pointed out to you is that they were very close by, did not know what was exploding, be it any number of volatile things within a burning building, breaking supports etc. And for what is an exhaustive number of times NONE of this was recorded on any video or heard by anyone a small distance away, They said it was a plane Bob! What do say, go on, agree they saw a damn plane huh?
I could say the same about you. Were you to believe all the eyewitnesses you would not even entertain the idea that the 3 towers were not controlled demolished. There's nothing I need to explain with respect to AA77. The burden of proof is on the claimant, the US government and they have not produced any forensic evidence proving anything about AA77. In fact they deliberately refused to produce the forensic evidence despite 2 FOIA requests. That should cause anyone who employs logic and critical thinking to question why they would deliberately hide the evidence if they have nothing to hide. There's nothing you need to explain to me about anything. There's nothing about your explanations that has much relevance to me. I could care less what you think. You haven't shown that any of your posts about 9/11 raises any questions about the official 9/11 narrative when everything should be questioned so there is very little I find worth discussing with you. I'm not interested in entertaining your made up fantasies.
Nope. Saying the same thing about me suggests that ear witnesses "know" what they are hearing! And eye-witnesses who saw molten stuff have an amazingly acquired ability to determine what it was purely on sight! Yes Bob. Really there is. If you are oddly disposed to claim that AA77 wasn't there, then you MUST explain what happened to it and how DNA and plane parts arrived at the Pentagon. Please don't deceptively foreshorten my quote to change context! I said this: Well Bob, I just explained it to you. Was it confusing? "Eye witnesses that "hear" things as in the ones at Wtc1/2 are EAR winesses. They heard something and speculated. The ones who "saw" molten stuff assumed what it was, absent of testing. It's all so very painfully obvious, yet here we are. For some bizarre reason you choose to ignore all the 100% salient observations concerning this. Now please try and give an honest answer to the FULL quote! And again. Deliberately and deceptively foreshortening my quote to remove context! I said: I'm sure they did hear explosions. I have no reason to doubt them. Though the problem as pointed out to you is that they were very close by, did not know what was exploding, be it any number of volatile things within a burning building, breaking supports etc. And for what is an exhaustive number of times NONE of this was recorded on any video or heard by anyone a small distance away, Once again, may I have an honest response to the FULL quote?
You are thoroughly confused. It has nothing to do with DNA and plane parts that has to be accepted on faith with no documented chain of custody. Whether there was or wasn't a plane is one issue. If there was a plane, whether it actually was AA77 or not is a whole separate issue. Again, I don't need to explain anything to you, it's not my job. The burden of proof is on the US government to explain. They need to 1) Prove it was a plane and 2) If they can manage #1, prove it was AA77. And they need to do it FORENSICALLY and publicly. Showing 5 bullshit frames of video footage that no one can make out and denying FOIA requests is a COVERUP, not proof. Everything you think you have to explain to me is irrelevant. You are not anyone I would ever take seriously. Furthermore, I don't give a rat's ass about you think eyewitnesses saw, heard, felt and were injured by on 9/11. I told you I'm not going to entertain your fantasies about you think 9/11 eyewitness claims mean to you personally or what kind of scenario(s) you dream up that you claim you can't believe it could be anything else. For me, when there are over 150 documented eyewitness claims of seeing, hearing, feeling and being injured by explosions and the video, scientific and multitude of other evidence, including but not limited to multiple corroborating claims of seeing large pools of molten steel/metal, there's just no other reasonable explanation no matter how much you try to sing and dance. The evidence overwhelmingly points to 3 controlled demolitions. And as an extra added feature, NIST commits well detailed and documented (by at least 90 experts) scientific fraud that serves to coverup the facts and 3 other major engineering studies contradict NIST. This is not rocket science, attorneys called such evidence dispositive, or a no-brainer. And if that's not enough, there's the litany of lies, half-truths and deliberate wholesale destruction of evidence. I could go on and on and I actually have throughout this section of the forum. Everything about the official 9/11 narrative permeates like an incredibly putrid cesspool. You bought this mountain of garbage? Good for you, enjoy.
Interested viewers should visit this site, it analyzes the entire witness accounts for the AA77 Pentagon crash - the person writing it is a "911-truther": Analysis Of Eyewitness Stmts on 9/11 AA F77 Crash into Pentagon, by Penny Schoner, 12/03-2/04 (ratical.org) "Hemphill, Albert A Ballistic Missile Defense Organization staff member watched from the Navy Annex.] This office, with two nice windows and a great view of the monuments, the Capitol and the Pentagon was "good digs" by any Pentagon standard. . . . I walked in the office and stood peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon. . . . As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike -- an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate [sic] as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom. The yellow fireball rose quickly as black smoke engulfed the entire Westside of the Pentagon, obscuring the whole of the heliport. I could feel the concussion and felt the shockwave of the blast impact the window of the Annex, knocking me against the desk. Benedetto, Richard [Richard Benedetto, a USA TODAY reporter, was on his way to work, driving on the Highway parrallel to the Pentagon.] "I was on my way to work and driving on the highway that runs parallel to the Pentagon. Traffic was pretty heavy. I heard an airplane, a very loud airplane . . . come from behind me . . . It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly. . . ." Campo, Omar Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."
Ibid. "Fortunato, Don "Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think." There were a lot of people with severe burns, severe contusions, severe lacerations, in shock and emotional distress . . .""
So, we've got quite a number of witnesses to seeing a plane on course to crash into the Pentagon. Some have identified it as a probable 757, some have identified it as an American Airlines plane. A couple saw lamp posts being knocked over and one talks about bits of what looks like the wing, strewn on the highway. We've got bits of AA77 scattered all around the Pentagon lawn, landing gear, bits of engine, body parts. The DNA was sent off and identified numerous people onboard. More sharper and contrast boosted: Steve Anderson I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke. It was a plane folks. Flight AA77.
there was no fire on the hiway You claim there were wing parts so post a pic of these alleged wing parts
Not the alleged flight path, so now you post a witness that claims the plane took a path that could not have downed any poles
Bull First you need to prove a plane exited, you failed to do so and dodge the point the way it works is you need a plane before you can have people in a plane so is that a 727 or a 757?
your eye witness just said the plane flew over the navy annex, and you insist we believe your witnesses, then the imaginary plane you posted could NOT have hit those poles SO which is it? The poles or the Navy annex? How about you fix this latest CONTRADICTION?
nothing in the witnesses statement referred to a flight path … so all the witnesses are metallurgists? still haven’t watched the Coste videos have you ? Why so scared?
If "over his shoulder" while standing in the annex means an out of sight plane knocking down poles 3 blocks away then I guess you are right.
we have forensic evidence, video + knowledge, works every time, well except for believers of course. believers gonna believe!
That's just it. There are conflicting eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon. He just picks and chooses the ones that he thinks support the official 9/11 account.
so all the witnesses were metallurgists? it’s all about x plainer in the videos (made by fellow troofers) that you refuse to watch …
A FEMA investigator said he saw the melting of girders at the World Trade Center. Do you think he needs to be a metallurgist to know girders are made of steel?
how many times do I have to tell you that is is all explained in the videos??? and sorry … autocorrect … why won’t you watch the videos? Please explain
you have not made a case. you told me there were facts in there somewhere. Im sure I have heard it all before. If you dont state your case about what facts I am supposed to get out of that forget it. Im not wasting my time. You wanted my reason there is the 5th time I am giving it to you
Keep in mind that as far as debunkers are concerned you need 5 PhD's and 25 peer reviewed papers to claim you know how to boil water. On the other hand they think their 'opinions' are all fact no education what so ever is required. Yes a qualified witness from FEMA! It will be ignored if not in this thread concurrent threads. They throw any jo shmo at us with max drama and ignore qualified witnesses to the contrary. Now that presents a HUGE problem for anyone with a logical mind. Which is why the only possible method to get a 'correct' picture of what happened is to go with forensic evidence.....and forensic evidence so far has proven that the qholw 911 gig is a fraud from start to finish. Forensic evidence incidentally is something the debunker crowd never posts. Just Drama! All we get from them is joe shmo said this joe shmo said that DRAMA. Ok brace yourself more debunker drama coming.
