The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Lol
good point. It seems like smart phones have become a defacto reality.... it is easy to forget they are only little more than 10 years old!

 

I don't know what his friends told him and you haven't posted it so what you're saying amounts to 3rd party hearsay.

The videos that were confiscated by the FBI are from surrounding area video cameras, not from random people filming the event. As already explained there were no cell phone video cameras available in 2001.

And as I explained it's quite possible a plane, even a large commercial airplane and perhaps even AA77 impacted the Pentagon on 2001. But there is no incontrovertible evidence and an awful lot of coverup. And all the actions and non-actions by the US government only serve to help convince me it's all a lie and a coverup. Furthermore, the Hani story is just plain FOS nonsense made for gullible children. So even if for argument's sake AA77 impacted the Pentagon, there's not a chance in hell Hani, whose background story amounts to a guy who couldn't fly a paper airplane could have executed such an intricate, precise maneuver in order to specifically hit a wall of the Pentagon when he could have just dove into the heart of that complex, a much easier accomplishment for a non-pilot (which is exactly what he was by description regardless of any alleged piece of paper billed as a "license").

 

The official 9/11 government story IS a conspiracy theory.

 

Without even watching this video on conspiracy theories, since it seems if there was this much input with that Air Florida crash into the Potomac January 1982; there would probably be a great conspiracy theory of that crash being a training run since 9/11 terrorists hijackers were trained in Florida in something other than their flying carpets !

 

There are degrees of hearsay
If someone says i heard xyz from an un named source, it is different from that same person saying my wife saw xyz

In this case, the incident was reported to me by a trusted identified person who got his information from a chain of known trusted people. I dont pretend this is iron clad proof for you. But it is convincing for ne

 

Correct. The problem however, is that the testimony from people who are not 3rd party hearsay is treated the same way. You wave it away.

Have you ever thought about this with anything approaching logic? Your reason and a truther bible claim, for Hani not doing what he claims - crashing a plane - involves a massive plot whereby they didn't bother to fabricate a trained pilot as part of the plan. What crazy world do they leave that boulder sized stone unturned?

 

be nice if these guys took the time to use facts instead drawing their conclusions to beer farts and belches.


Look! Betas reinforced wing shredded by a pole while being TOWED!




Plane 0
Pole 1

Plane being towed at approx 7 miles per hour a weak little pole ripped that wing to shreds, pole with minor scratches, but then thats not one of betas concrete triple reinforced invincible ninja light pole mowers used on 911 I suppose,

Proves yet another failed beta theory. yawn...

 

When it comes to anything the US government claims, I need iron clad proof, not just faith based claims. Not only has the US government lied, misled, covered up, destroyed evidence, failed to legitimately investigate, stood down, facilitated and deliberately classified tons of documents/evidence about 9/11 but it has a long history of doing many of those things outside of 9/11. As such I do absolutely require incontrovertible proof for any claims about 9/11. My starting position with respect to any US government claims is that they're LYING unless and until they prove otherwise beyond any doubt. Accepting anything on faith from this criminal unconstitutional enterprise is absurd and dangerous.

 

I'll tell you what Beta, when and if you have anything to post that interests me enough to respond to it, you will know by the contents of my response.

 

You've been owned. You lost and not even your peers are coming to your rescue. Deceptive gifs and rather unintelligent conclusions from irrelevant comparisons, all used to deflect on your abject failure.

Just above, I reconsidered whether you deliberately misrepresented the F1 wing as being on an airplane. Clearly you are still being deliberately deceptive.

The Cathay Pacific plane struck a 50 foot light pole, anchored in concrete. Your dishonest suggestion that it is a weak little pole is just pathetic.

I wonder what mentality is needed for you to deny things that prove you are woefully wrong, whilst you continue to post with such embarrassing incompetence.

 

Have you ever thought about this with anything approaching logic? Your reason and a truther bible claim, for Hani not doing what he claims - crashing a plane - involves a massive plot whereby they didn't bother to fabricate a trained pilot as part of the plan. What crazy world do they leave that boulder sized stone unturned?

It wasn't rhetorical, but you are afraid to answer yet again. Whilst this massive conspiracy spirals upwards, involving ever increasing numbers of people who remain quiet and loyal to this supposed act of enormous, treason, murder and sabotage, we have the absurd elephant in the room showing the conspirators of this event to be incompetent in the extreme.

I can envisage them discussing who to "plant as a hijacker" and considering "useless" Hani as ok for the role as patsy pilot, then discussing the invisible and seamless planting of DNA, plane parts, pole explosives etc.

Yeah, no wonder you didn't answer this, that's the kind of thing you do isn't it!

 

My opinion is not based upon us govt sources
My opinion is not based upon media sources
My opinion is based upon a trusted chain of infividuals
... real people, known to people that i know
Not hearsay
Real people, people with names and reputations
People who are not just partisans, or media hacks
Or government pr spokesmen

Obviously... none of that matters to you
But I am not concerned about convincing you
Nor proving anything to you

 

I understand but in the real world and in any courtroom your opinion is still based on hearsay evidence. The fact that they are real people with names and reputations and you trust them doesn't change the fact that you're basing your opinion (which is in a fact a belief) on hearsay evidence. So when you say it's not hearsay that would be incorrect. A good portion of my personal opinion on 9/11 is also based on hearsay evidence (e.g. eyewitness accounts of explosions and molten steel) as well as fact.

And the feeling is mutual. I am not interested in convincing or proving to anyone anything about 9/11. I also understand that it doesn't really matter what anyone believes, what matters are the facts and the truth about what happened on 9/11.

I'm interested in educating those who are not aware of many 9/11 issues that have been and are being suppressed by the US government (e.g. the destruction of WTC7, the technical/factual details that contradict NIST's hypotheses, the factual details that show the 9/11 Commission and their report to be based on dubious and false research, and even the current grand jury investigation is being suppressed by the US government and the MSM, etc.). I'm also interested in engaging in mature and intelligent discussions on various 9/11 topics.

That said, I'm ok with the possibility that a large airliner may have impacted the Pentagon on 9/11, it is possible but I'm still skeptical. What is not believable because it defies logic is that a guy named Hani Hanjour whose piloting background and "skills" have been well described was able to maneuver a large commercial airliner in such an intricate manner and at a velocity over VMO specifically such that he could crash into the Pentagon wall as described. I can't say it's impossible but I can say it's nearly impossible and that it makes zero sense. What is not possible to me because it is scientifically impossible is that the twin towers and WTC7 were totally destroyed in the manner seen on multiple videos from airplanes, damage, fire or any combination. What is also not possible is NIST's "probable collapse initiation" hypothesis for WTC7. And what is true is that NIST never investigated the destruction of the twin towers by their own admission.

There is a lot more to it than the above but the sum total of what I've researched over the last 14+ years leads me to the conclusion that the official 9/11 narrative is a huge scam and a coverup. And a coverup has only one purpose, to protect the criminals involved. And that's the very definition of treason as described in Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution.

 

You are not qualified to determine what is and isn't possible when flying a 757. Why do you quote VMO? This is a CERTIFIED maximum speed! Do you seriously think a diving plane is not going to get up to way beyond maximum safe operating? Do you seriously think anyone intent on wrecking it, gives a damn?

You keep banging on about logic whilst ignoring a fundamental point, twice now. If he wasn't qualified, why the hell did they consider using him as a patsy!? THAT makes no sense, THAT is impossible to conceive.

How well have his piloting skills been "described"?



http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Flight_School_Dropouts

 

Since Bob is so fond of experts:

http://www.911myths.com/images/7/73/Another_Expert.pdf

And Good Old Mick West, an inexperienced pilot, shows us how its done:

 

Your picture spam has been reported. It wasn't an imaginary plane and using a sharp turn and fast descent increases speed. Your correction describing this as a "dive" is noted.

 

stop dodging the facts so I dont have to repeat the points. ra ra
more of the same blanket bs nonsense we see in your posts, not if the flaps are down and air brakes up it goes much slower, try again.

 

I don't need to try again. That is what an aircraft does to slow it for landing. I'm assuming you knew they weren't trying to slow it down or trying to land it.

 

I love this Koko diversion of explaining all about his airplane google education. Meanwhile, we have the deceptive F1 picture passed of as a plane wing and this whole post above completely ignored. Apparently it's a "straw man" to show how many ways Koko can screw up and fail!

 

Exactly, nothing worth anything here. He's going to try to defend the OCT 24/7 and never, ever question any of it. Even invent his own theories along the way. The only person he's trying hard to convince is himself and can't wrap his head around the fact that he's convincing no one who is already convinced. Desperation city.

 

Hey Bob, what's with the trembly knees? Surely you want to get to the truth?

"DISCUSS":

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-109#post-1070100463
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-109#post-1070100505

You are making a real habit of avoiding things that show your "research" to be inept.

Edit: It seems that Bob has well and truly shut up shop. Evidence showing Hani was more than qualified - ignored. A testimony from an expert flight instructor explaining that it was easily possible - ignored. Mick West showing how easy it is to crash a plane into a target - ignored.

The major elephant in the room about setting up a patsy not competent to do the task - ignored.

 

You denied it in post #2138.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-107#post-1070094159

You're trying to mislead the viewers who haven't listened to the videos by not showing the whole context. Here's the transcript.

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------
Roosevelt Roberts:
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.

Aldo Marquis:
Okay, was it a, was it a....a... jet, or was it a... do you remember what kind of plane it was?

Roosevelt Roberts:
Looked like to me at that time....a large aircraft liner, it wasn't a jet, it was a commercial aircraft.

Aldo Marquis:
Okay, did it have propellers or did it have jet engines?

Roosevelt Roberts:
It looked like jet engines at that time

Aldo Marquis:
Jet engines, okay.
-----------------------------------------------

He said it was a jet as opposed to a large commercial aircraft. It's pretty clear that when he said "Jet", he was referring to a small executive jet or a fighter.


Anyone who watches all of the videos can see that you're playing games.

 

No, simple quote mixup

No, I am actually showing bits you deliberately left out. Like the part where he pulls his car over!

That is part of the interview

Can you even understand what you are typing!? He specifically said it WASN'T a jet! And you have the audacity to say I am the one doing the misleading? You have deliberately omitted things

I agree that he said it had jet engines though it was going too fast for him to count the damn things( you know 1, 2 finished!) and that he actually denied that it was a jet. There, he totally makes sense!

Now answer all the other parts of my post where he completely shows you are full of crap.

He stopped his car, no confusion, he confirmed the direction. He said it was going extremely fast and doing a sort of U-turn. Your hopeless claims taken to pieces by your own witness. Cue bluster and obfuscation

 

You're being simplistic. You're leaving out the part where he says, "Looked like to me at that time....a large aircraft liner, it wasn't a jet, it was a commercial aircraft."

Technically a large commercial aircraft liner is a jet. But he's making a distiction between a large aircraft liner and something else but he does say it was a large aircraft liner. The fact that he says he saw it after the explosion is the important part. If he saw it after the explosion on the other side of the Pentagon coming from the direction of the explosion, the craft that people saw flying toward the Pentagon flew over it. This is the important part of the scenario. A little mixup of words doesn't change this.

Do you think he's lying about the whole thing, or what? Your position is a little vague.