The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Nov 1, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Clarify something.

    Are you saying that the plane that flew over the Pentagon is the same plane the Roberts saw flying away over the south parking lot?

    Yes or no?
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,830
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a presumptuous question. When he said, "South parking lot", he might have been confused. The important issue here is that he said he saw a big jetliner with jet engines. This is a gigantic red flag and an objective truth-seeker would not be behaving the way you're behaving.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    He saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon headed southwest over 395/27/south parking lot.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This means absolutely nothing. For Roberts to see the plane from his vantage point it would have to be south of the Pentagon. He said it was heading southwest. No matter how you slice it, the plane had to have made a complete 180 to be heading SOUTHWEST after flying NORTHEAST over the Pentagon. In 10 seconds!
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,830
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're still playing the same game. The important thing is that he said he saw a plane. Maybe he was having trouble putting he thoughts into words when he was describing the direction the plane took as he was driving when he was talking.

    Do a YouTube search on this and go to the 52:08 time mark.
    The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2


    What do you think of the possibility that he really saw the plane and he was just having trouble talking about the direction?


    I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Let me ask you a question Scott.

    When Roberts came outside and saw the plane, do you think it was over the parking lot he was facing or was he confused and meant somewhere else?
     
  7. saltydancin

    saltydancin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Probably saw an airplane as it was most likely before all planes were grounded.
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    1,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No game is being played, you are "checkmated" and would be "laughed out of the debating hall".

    Which is a jet, or not and flying in the wrong direction!

    Translation: My unreliable witness is totally wrong about the direction so I'll say any old crap to try and make it fit my bullshit claim.



    Not much.

    Why?
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,957
    Likes Received:
    1,904
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we all saw the e4b on tv at precisely the time it blew and it was so obvious they removed the time stamp, but many people have the original clip.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,830
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, there's no way to have a productive discussion with the pro-official version posters here as they all seem to have a foregone conclusion and won't debate seriously.

    I don't rule out the possibility that Roosevelt Roberts is wrong or lying but I want to see a real reason for it – not just someone's strong conviction.


    Here's an overhead view of the whole area including the Ronald Reagan airport where the jet that supposedly flew over the Pentagon might have landed (click on the picture to enlarge it).
    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a...washington-national-airport-and-63599219.html

    The red line in this picture looks like the path that the Citizen Investigation Team maintains the big airliner that people saw took.
    http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/850333cb31ee.jpg

    Look where it says RR steps out (RR is in the red circle at the bottom). It looks to me like a plane following that path could have turned to the right and landed at the airport. That would have been on Roosevelt Roberts' left. He would have been able to see it after it had flown a few hundred yards in that direction. It might have flown over or just past the east side of the south parking lot which would explain why Roosevelt Roberts said it flew over the south parking lot.

    At the 8:10 time mark of this video the witness says the plane was flying slowly.

    (Do a YouTube search)
    National Security Alert - Part 4/9 - Sensitive Information

    The planes I've seen coming in for landings at airports are going slow enough to make that turn. I don't see any reason to rule out the possibility that Roosevelt Roberts really saw a large airliner flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,957
    Likes Received:
    1,904
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sure you have noticed that all they got is to reconstruct your points with their strawmen then argue their strawman bullshit was really your argument therefore you are lying as they have done to me. They have nothing, nothing but their strawmen since they fail to address any point in their favor now days. They do this with any issue that has more than one part. For instance the point under discussion is 'fast and green', they will misrepresent your point by leaving out one or the other, then calling you a liar, or review the matter at an imbecile level and again call you a liar. Its all they have left, and its designed to implant well into the minds of the unthinking skimmers and the over the deep end over thinking loons.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,830
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, and that's not the way objective truth-seekers debate. That's the way that obfuscators debate.
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    1,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You post exactly as you accuse others of doing. You have been shown that this so called witness, has a plane going the wrong way and says it DOESN'T have jet engines.

    Luckily though, you have an excuse. He was "confused" because he was driving! You have the audacity to claim you have "checkmated" people, but quite clearly you are way beyond stretching any credibility this witness has to support the extremely foolish "no plane theory".

    You do NOTHING BUT rule out that possibility. Clearly he cannot be talking about a 757!


    Spare us your "might have" bullshit. Prove it.

    The CIT are appallingly deceptive about this. They have completely distorted the testimony and accuracy of where they observed the planes.

    A breathtakingly absurd claim. The aircraft was travelling at 500mph+ and could not possibly make a 90 degree turn in a few seconds! How can you sit there and make such a ridiculous claim?

    An airplane needs a suitable amount of altitude to perform a safe bank. At observed altitudes, if you banked a 757 at 40 degrees, which is EXTREME, you would crash way before you completed a 90 degree turn.

    To turn 180 degrees
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_rate_turn#Angle_of_bank_formula[3]

    Lets take a ridiculous speed of say 250 miles an hour if it's even possible to do an extreme bank at such a slow speed!

    Tan of 40 degrees is 0.84

    Radius of turn in FEET = Velocity squared / 11.29 × tan(bank) = 62500 / 9.84 = 6351ft = 2.12 Nautical miles.

    To turn 90 degrees at 250mph and a crazy dangerous 40 degree bank at low altitude would take 1.06 Nautical miles / 2.200 yards.


    Total bullshit!
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You've lost all credibility when you posted the FEA of a Formula 1 front end and claimed it was a plane wing. Just one of the recent examples of how you lie in order to support your idiotic claims.
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,957
    Likes Received:
    1,904
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like everything else you 'wish' were true, dream on!
    I did not say it was an 'air'-plane wing, I said it was a 'plane wing', not my problem if you fail to comprehend what you read since how many times have I told you and the gubmint crew to read for 'comprehension'. The only person, (as usual) who continues to confirm they have no credibility is you and the gubmint crew.

    English
    Pronunciation
    • IPA(key): /pleɪn/
    • Audio - 'a plane' (UK)
    Etymology 1
    From Latin planum (“flat surface”), a noun use of the neuter of planus (“plain”). The word was introduced in the 17th century to distinguish the geometrical senses from the other senses of plain.

    Adjective
    plane (comparative planer, superlative planest)
    1. Of a surface: flat or level.
    Translations
    ±show ▼of a surface: flat or level.

    combining plane and wing we have a flat surface that looks like a wing, and of course gets destroyed by a pole just like an AIRplane wing.

    Now this:



    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Plane 0
    Pole 1

    ripped that wing to shreds, pole with minor scratches, but then thats not one of betas concrete reinforced invincible light pole mowers I suppose.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    1,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow. What a complete crock of ****!

    You said it was a plane wing and there is no ambiguity whatsover. You lack the balls to own up to at best a mistake and probably at worst deliberate deception. Not impressive.

    I'll put up the other obvious deception later on, where you cut the animation just before the light post fell over. Either you own up and start answering things that frighten you, or every time you post people can see how appalling your behaviour is.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,957
    Likes Received:
    1,904
    Trophy Points:
    113
    please do since you have made it perfectly clear that you have no clue what that was intended to show in the first place. lol

    gam if you knew what that meant you have not have posted it :lol:


    [​IMG]

    Gam I asked you to help beta not confuse the living **** out of it! That was drawn up for a real engineer and for anyone who understands what it really means it proves that no plane hit any poles. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    1,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, right after I address the extra spam you added to your post above about the 50ft high concrete reinforced airport lighting:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-104#post-1070071149

    Actually it proves you have no idea what you are doing - you are making a laughing stock of your "team", you're not a plant by the perps are you? That F1 front wing was represented as an airplane wing by you. On reflection however, I don't think you did it deceptively(in this case), I think you read it as an F1 and thought it was from a Mirage F1 without checking. That was kinda dumb.

    Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting you were pointing out the damage. If the car hits that pole at the top, far less damage, more leverage, the pole breaks off MUCH easier.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,830
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll start with this.

    He says very cleary that it had jet engines. Go to the 52:55 time mark of this video to hear him say that.

    (Do a YouTube search on this title)
    The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2


    You're not reading my posts. Here's what I said.
    I've read that the landing speed is about one hundred and fifty miles per hour. I've seen jets flying slowly with their flaps all the way down. I saw one that was lined up with the runway several miles away move the right and back to the left. Everyone around saw it. Somebody said it must have gotten too close to the plane that was landing ahead of it.

    First of all I didn't say it had made a ninety degree turn. If you look at the photo in my last post, you'll see that to line up with the runway it would take a turn that was less than ninety degrees. Second of all, as I said above, they can make turns at low speeds if the flaps are down.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_(aeronautics)



     
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,830
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the post with this video above...
    National Security Alert - Part 4/9 - Sensitive Information

    ...I forgot to copy and paste this part.

    "At the 8:10 time mark of this video the witness says the plane was flying slowly."
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    1,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe I should address my reply to a brick wall.

    YES he said it had jet engines. Point me to anywhere, anyone has denied him saying that!
    He also said this:

    "it wasn't a jet"

    You keep ignoring this.


    So you claim it was banking flaps down at 50 to 100 feet. Utterly clueless claim. Besides here's what your witness said:

    1. Had to been no more than, had to been no more than 50 feet less than a 100 feet.

    2. Couldn't count for the engines.

    3. It was moving extremely fast. It was like maybe you saw that aircraft maybe for like a quick five seconds.

    4. In the south, in the south parking lot over lane one.

    5. I was in south parking, and I was at the [east?] loading dock, when I ran outside and saw the low flying aircraft above the parking lot.

    6. Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh... uh east towards DC, coming from that area ..uh.. was the highway. If you would have come out 395 North heading towards the Pentagon you got off in south parking. You were like right there, except 395 went right into 27.

    7. It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... south west.. coming out.

    To save time, he claims it was doing a sort of U-turn.

    Your witness says you are talking crap. He says it was heading out in the direction you keep denying, because he was "confused" whilst driving.

    The quotes above from CIT that noble organisation were from a phone interview and confirm that which you deny.


    It doesnt concern me what hogwash you say. You claim impossible maneuvers.



    Please spare us your blundering observations from Google. You are taking complete hogwash. Your own witness contradicts you on speed, maneuver and direction. He was also not in a car and confused.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    1,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He was actually led into his response by the deceptive interviewer loading the question.

    Your witness Roosevelt Roberts said it was going fast. WHAT do you say to that?
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
  23. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have an acquaintance, retired military, living near DC. He has many military friends, who have friends, etc. fwiw, he is VERY convinced that a plane impacted the pentagon.... not because of the government story.... but because of what his friends tell him about first hand experiences on this day

    First, it all happened so quickly, i doubt ther were a lot of people who had the time to take a video. That said, videos are not actual film these days.... many people usd digital media. Which gets virally spread around... and there is no way to confiscate it.
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    1,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you refer to cell phone cameras? They were not around for this event, first one was in 2002. I can't imagine anyone having a portable camera ready to shoot in that location.
     
  25. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Btw, here is an interesting video about the subject of conspiracy theories


     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page