Pentagon debunking

For those who wish to criticise the 9/11 truth movement & key peace campaigners

Moderator: Moderators

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Pentagon debunking

Post by sam »

Easily the best debunking of Pentagon "planted evidence" CT (especially relevant to the North of Citgo theory) comes from a CTist, Russel Pickering.

It's here:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Chang ... opic=15013

Well worth a read before that particular forum shuts down. The images still open if clicked. Here's a sample, where he's considering the (subtle) damage to the VDOT (traffic monitoring camera) mast :

Image

Image

"WHO projected the dimensions of a 757 from up on the hill or back at the Pentagon into the mass of poles and trees and decided what would be "hit" and what would not?

WHO actually scuffed the pole, removed the climbing peg and broke the glass?

WHY did they decide to do such a subtle damage that was actually never noticed or discussed until 5 years after 9/11 here in this forum? It was never used to convince the general public of the validity of a plane impact.

HOW did they do it? Did black ops VDOT workers bring in a lift bucket? Did a guy take sandpaper or a grinder to rough the metal up? Did they use a hammer to smash one of the alternating climbing pegs off? If the bucket wasn't tall enough did they climb up the pole anticipating that this would somehow be more authentic if the camera glass was also shattered emulating the vibration of the strike?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE OPERATION?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE A HUMAN BEING CREATED THIS SCUFF ON PURPOSE TO FAKE YOU OUT?

WHY DIDN'T THEY FLY THE PLANE OVER THIS DAMAGE?

Scuff a pole with hand tools but miss the damage path with a highly sophisticated plane and navigation systems? "
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

All very interesting although not very much new there. The alleged damage to the tree looks brown which suggests it isn't new damage. Would be interesting to see the film from that traffic camera also .....

It is very far-fetched to believe that the whole flightpath was faked but so many witnesses believe an alternative flightpath - and there are no witnesses from the road to back up the taxi driver's tale - despite it supposedly being a busy road. The taxi driver's tale is still not believable. Not to mention the odd scene where the car and the driver are left alone on the highway without a single car in sight - which enables some striking photos of the car with the burning Pentagon behind. It seems an odd way to deal with a major incident.

Besides the 6 people interviewed who give the north of Citgo flightpath, there are many other accounts of the plane flying over the Navy Annex/Sheraton Hotel. If it flies that path it cannot hit the lightpoles and the impact point, so do you propose that we ignore all of these accounts?
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

KP50 wrote:All very interesting although not very much new there. The alleged damage to the tree looks brown which suggests it isn't new damage. Would be interesting to see the film from that traffic camera also .....
My bolding

Then why are there leaves and twigs all over the road? Pickering's point stands. If that wasn't caused by an aircraft hitting the tree the only alternative is CT operatives scattering them to give the impression the tree was hit.
Ditto glass from the VDOT tower, the scuff mark and the missing peg.
Ditto pre-arranging the lightpole damage and placing the poles into impossible-to-reach-without being-seen locations.
Ditto every last scrap of metal.
etc etc
And that's without even considering his points about the directional nature of the damage, something that cannot be explained by postulating explosives.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
User avatar
pepik
Banned
Banned
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: The Square Mile

Post by pepik »

Every once in a while its worth mentioning that the entire concept of going to so much trouble to fake a plane crash into the Pentagon, rather than just crashing a plane into the Pentagon, is beyond ridiculous. There is no conceivable logic to explain it.

Anyway, back to the truthers' selective quotations and flippant evidence dismissal.
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

pepik wrote:Every once in a while its worth mentioning that the entire concept of going to so much trouble to fake a plane crash into the Pentagon, rather than just crashing a plane into the Pentagon, is beyond ridiculous. There is no conceivable logic to explain it.
Especially as we're also led to believe (on this very forum) that "they" had sophisticated remote-guidance systems capable of guiding an airliner at full speed into WTC with an accuracy of one floor or better.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

KP50 wrote:
It is very far-fetched to believe that the whole flightpath was faked but so many witnesses believe an alternative flightpath -
So, are you saying that "they" just screwed up the approach along the exquisitely well-prepared intended flightpath? They just kind of missed it?

Or are you saying the "official" flightpath was prepared and intended to deceive by the plane deliberately missing it and taking the supposed NoC path (with a monstrously high-G bank that nobody saw)? .. to confuse people several years in the future? ... when they could just as easily have flown a plane down the OT path all along? ... or something ..? What??

wtf is your actual narrative vis-a-vis 9/11 Pentagon happenings?? Please explain in detail. So far you are just waving your hands around and saying "woo! woo! it all looks a bit fishy to me!".
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

sam wrote:
KP50 wrote:All very interesting although not very much new there. The alleged damage to the tree looks brown which suggests it isn't new damage. Would be interesting to see the film from that traffic camera also .....
My bolding

Then why are there leaves and twigs all over the road? Pickering's point stands. If that wasn't caused by an aircraft hitting the tree the only alternative is CT operatives scattering them to give the impression the tree was hit.
Ditto glass from the VDOT tower, the scuff mark and the missing peg.
Ditto pre-arranging the lightpole damage and placing the poles into impossible-to-reach-without being-seen locations.
Ditto every last scrap of metal.
etc etc
And that's without even considering his points about the directional nature of the damage, something that cannot be explained by postulating explosives.
Like I said, it is nothing much new. If the lightpoles were planted, you would assume they would spend some time making sure the scene was convincing. Just because Pickering adds extra layers of incredulity, doesn't make it any more likely or unlikely.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

sam wrote:
KP50 wrote:
It is very far-fetched to believe that the whole flightpath was faked but so many witnesses believe an alternative flightpath -
So, are you saying that "they" just screwed up the approach along the exquisitely well-prepared intended flightpath? They just kind of missed it?

Or are you saying the "official" flightpath was prepared and intended to deceive by the plane deliberately missing it and taking the supposed NoC path (with a monstrously high-G bank that nobody saw)? .. to confuse people several years in the future? ... when they could just as easily have flown a plane down the OT path all along? ... or something ..? What??

wtf is your actual narrative vis-a-vis 9/11 Pentagon happenings?? Please explain in detail. So far you are just waving your hands around and saying "woo! woo! it all looks a bit fishy to me!".
You're back onto the "why" questions which can only be speculation. It is however perfectly logical not to fly the exact flightpath (only a little higher) as then you would have all these witnesses who would be able to state that it was too high to hit the lightpoles. By flying close to it, all witnesses placed the plane "sort of in the right place" - leading to the mass of contradictory witness statements which we all know about.

Does it matter that I supply a complete narrative? I just look at all the evidence and witness statements and try to work out something which makes sense. It seems beyond reasonable doubt that a plane flew over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo station at the same time as there was an explosion at the Pentagon. That fact enough blows the official story out of the water. The only witness from the road who claims a lightpole is struck is our friend the taxi driver (by the way you are still avoiding the details of that little incident) and there is nobody on that supposedly busy road who can confirm the event happened.

Think about this for a moment. Any search for Pentagon witnesses can easily find 100 accounts from all over the area. But not a single one from the road where the lightpole hit the taxi. Many, many witnesses travelling in the other direction (lots of them journalists) but not a single witness travelling the other way.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

pepik wrote:Every once in a while its worth mentioning that the entire concept of going to so much trouble to fake a plane crash into the Pentagon, rather than just crashing a plane into the Pentagon, is beyond ridiculous. There is no conceivable logic to explain it.
No conceivable logic? Supposedly 4 plane crashes and in the immediate aftermath there are no photos of plane wreckage. With the way the Pentagon is designed it is pretty hard to crash a plane into it without leaving visible plane wreckage.
User avatar
pepik
Banned
Banned
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: The Square Mile

Post by pepik »

This is the part where I ask you what you think happened - no planes crashed anywhere? - and then you absolutely refuse to answer.

Also, I wonder why you keep pretending that you have come up with a flightpath consistent with all the witnesses - yet the only way that can be true is because you ignore all the witnesses who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, and since that is the relevant fact we are trying to establish, it seems exceedingly dishonest to call your account consistent with eyewitness testimony.

Remember we have plenty of witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. We have zero witnesses who saw anything else hit the Pentagon, or who saw the plane miss the Pentagon. Based on this, you have concluded the witnesses prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. And you wonder why 911 truth is going nowhere?
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

pepik wrote:This is the part where I ask you what you think happened - no planes crashed anywhere? - and then you absolutely refuse to answer.

Also, I wonder why you keep pretending that you have come up with a flightpath consistent with all the witnesses - yet the only way that can be true is because you ignore all the witnesses who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, and since that is the relevant fact we are trying to establish, it seems exceedingly dishonest to call your account consistent with eyewitness testimony.

Remember we have plenty of witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. We have zero witnesses who saw anything else hit the Pentagon, or who saw the plane miss the Pentagon. Based on this, you have concluded the witnesses prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. And you wonder why 911 truth is going nowhere?
You are incorrect - and you are consistently incorrect because you keep using the same arguement. The eyewitnesses prove a flightpath inconsistent with hitting the lightpoles.
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

KP50 wrote: The only witness from the road who claims a lightpole is struck is our friend the taxi driver (by the way you are still avoiding the details of that little incident) and there is nobody on that supposedly busy road who can confirm the event happened.
So it requires specifically a witness actually on the road?

""The sound of the engines came so quickly I thought it was another helicopter landing. I looked left to see a large plane barely clear the I-395 overpass. Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. ... Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up. I could see office walls through the broken outer walls, then smoke and flames engulfed the west wall. Perhaps 10 seconds had passed since I first saw the plane. At first no one moved. Then debris began falling over the cars." *

Or is that the wrong road for you?

Wreckage?

"The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal"*

KP50 - your theory requires no aircraft impact, right? How come so many witnesses see the plane actually strike the Pentagon? Including at least some of the NoC witnesses?

"the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building"*


*just examples
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
User avatar
pepik
Banned
Banned
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: The Square Mile

Post by pepik »

How to translate comments by KP50:

The eyewitnesses say = some of the eyewitnesses say, and we have to ignore some of what even those select witnesses say

prove = depends on context. e.g. when eyewitnesses say the plane hit the pentagon and no eyewitnesses say it didn't, that doesn't prove anything. when some eyewitnesses (see above) say the plane approached from a certain angle, that proves the plane approached from that angle.

physically impossible = relevance depends on context. physically impossible is irrelevant for alternative theories, for example if some eyewitnesses (see above) prove (see above) something physically impossible, physically impossibility is irrelevant
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by SHERITON HOTEL »

I expect no-one has forgotten the organisation 'Judicial Watch' taking the US government to court in an effort to force them, under FOI, to release ALL the confiscated CCTV of whatever hitting the Pentagon 9/11 and the US authorities compromising by releasing one blurry fish eye lense film of, frankly, nothing conclusive. The 'lamestream' news media presented this story as ...conclusive proof(not that it was needed) of F77 B757 hitting the pentagon September 11 2001 (Though Paxo' did look a bit confused).I just wondered if any critics here concurred with the medias spin that this film release finally once and for all debunked all the CT's?
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:I just wondered if any critics here concurred with the medias spin that this film release finally once and for all debunked all the CT's?
If you believe the object entering low from the right is an airliner then, yes, it debunks all the guff.
If you're a dyed-in-the-wool "truther" you'll believe the film was faked in the intervening years.
Personally, I believe there is an overwhelming mass of positive evidence that confirms AA77 hit the Pentagon, even without that video -
DNA matching.
Aircraft debris at the scene.
Witness testimony.
A missing aircraft and passengers.
Radar tracking.
Damage consistent with a large incoming object.

And plenty of 'negative evidence' which destroys the CT's -
No flyover ever reported.
Impossible manoeuvres required for alternate flightpaths.
Damage inconsistent with explosives.
etc

What else could have done the damage except AA77 ?

Actually Sheriton, could you answer that last question?
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by SHERITON HOTEL »

But the facts remain they lied about there being no film of whatever hitting the Pentagon 9/11, the FBI were on the scene almost immediately confiscating this evidence, they won't release the salvaged alleged F77 plane evidence to square it with Boeing records (a bit like Mugabe and the election results) that shiny unscratched, unscorched piece of fuselage with 'C' (for coincidence theorist
?)that featured in all the propaganda is frankly an insult to our intelligence, the damage was not consistent with being hit by a B757 at 400MPH plus, Pentagon employees were seen being shepherded by FBI picking up and removing evidence among all that blood and body parts, the area was covered many feet deep in sand and the salvage workers were dressed in decontamination suits, was this protection from all that mystery DU contamination?

I'm tired of fruitlessly asking 'the monkeys' these questions, I want the 'organ grinder'!! :x
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Post by Micpsi »

Here is a scenario: the 9/11 perpetrators knew they could not remote control a Boeing 757 (hi-jacked or otherwise) into the only renovated part of the Pentagon exactly where they wanted to take out the ONI accountants searching into Rumsfeld's missing $trillions (the real motive for the crash). It was just too difficult a task to be so accurate. Therefore, they remote-controlled a smaller plane (as was originally reported by an Irish news agency
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/200 ... y23320.asp
and which afterwards reported a second plane has hit the Pentagon). This was an easier task because of its greater manoeuvrability and lower speed). This lighter plane did knock over the light poles. However, the perpetrators had to create reports of a large commercial jet being seen flying towards the Pentagon that people who spotted it would mistakenly assume was Flight 77. So they remote-controlled a similar one (seen by the Pentagon police officers) that flew at a different angle and which passed over the Pentagon to land secretly at Regan Airport next door. It was essential to the deception because, without it, no eyewitness reports apparently confirming the official scenario of a large commercial jet plane would have been created.

Discussion about what happened at the Pentagon has been polarised into two contradictory views: either a large jet plane hit the poles or the Pentacon people are right and the knocked-over poles were planted. I have never felt the latter possibility was plausible. However, there is an alternative that is consistent with BOTH accounts: a small plane hit the poles, then crashed into the Pentagon, its small size accounting for the small amount of wreckage and damage to the Pentagon, whilst a large jet flew in the vicinity of the Pentagon in order to provide bogus confirmation of the official story.
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

Micpsi wrote: -----
However, there is an alternative that is consistent with BOTH accounts: a small plane hit the poles, then crashed into the Pentagon, its small size accounting for the small amount of wreckage and damage to the Pentagon, whilst a large jet flew in the vicinity of the Pentagon in order to provide bogus confirmation of the official story.
Cunning, but no cigar. The lightpole damage would not be consistent with a smaller wing span. Rather than repeat what he said, I would invite you to read Pickering's analysis where he demonstrates that a 757 wingspan is required, no more and no less.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
User avatar
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Upstairs

Post by telecasterisation »

My understanding is that this question;
...do you believe AA77 hit the Pentagon with its stated passengers on board, piloted by terrorist hijackers?


Has been answered in the negative - I don't believe terrorist hijackers piloted AA77 into The Pentagon.

How exactly can anyone be sure that what hit The Pentagon (if anything) was AA77 piloted by hijackers? There are any number of scenarios where DNA can be matched post-event.
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:But the facts remain they lied about there being no film of whatever hitting the Pentagon 9/11, the FBI were on the scene almost immediately confiscating this evidence, they won't release the salvaged alleged F77 plane evidence to square it with Boeing records (a bit like Mugabe and the election results) that shiny unscratched, unscorched piece of fuselage with 'C' (for coincidence theorist
?)that featured in all the propaganda is frankly an insult to our intelligence, the damage was not consistent with being hit by a B757 at 400MPH plus, Pentagon employees were seen being shepherded by FBI picking up and removing evidence among all that blood and body parts, the area was covered many feet deep in sand and the salvage workers were dressed in decontamination suits, was this protection from all that mystery DU contamination?
You have nothing to prove anything of the above. That is just mindless specualtion. You claim people removed evidence because it fits your tiresome theory yet dont think for a second that they were collecting evidence. How does sand protect you against DU? Why woud they use DU? Decontamination suites? You mean forensic suites.
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

telecasterisation wrote: My understanding is that this question;
...do you believe AA77 hit the Pentagon with its stated passengers on board, piloted by terrorist hijackers?


Has been answered in the negative - I don't believe terrorist hijackers piloted AA77 into The Pentagon.
You also said this a few days ago, so it's well and truly noted now.
telecasterisation wrote: How exactly can anyone be sure that what hit The Pentagon (if anything) was AA77 piloted by hijackers?
Going from "How exactly can anyone be sure..." to "I don't believe .." is quite a leap. The "I don't believe" part surely requires evidence to cause the disbelief. What evidence do you see to justify the move from mere lack of certainty to positive disbelief?
telecasterisation wrote:
There are any number of scenarios where DNA can be matched post-event.
If you're saying it could be faked then of course you're right. It adds yet more players an already horribly bloated cast of conspirators though. At the Pentagon alone we have:
Aeronautic experts and surveyors to calculate the flight path.
Light pole removal and damage men.
Tree strimming, leaf-scattering and glass chucking operators.
Aircraft debris collectors and distributors (inside and outside)
DNA fakers and/or complicit forensic teams.
Assassins to kill the passengers.
At least one JCB driver
Explosives experts and fire setters.
Planted eye-witnesses.
Video faking team
ATC colluders.
FDR faking crew.

.. to name but a few that spring quickly to mind.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
User avatar
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Upstairs

Post by telecasterisation »

sam wrote:
telecasterisation wrote: How exactly can anyone be sure that what hit The Pentagon (if anything) was AA77 piloted by hijackers?
Going from "How exactly can anyone be sure..." to "I don't believe .." is quite a leap. The "I don't believe" part surely requires evidence to cause the disbelief. What evidence do you see to justify the move from mere lack of certainty to positive disbelief?

[Video faking team
ATC colluders.
FDR faking crew.

.. to name but a few that spring quickly to mind.
No, you misunderstand - I said I don't believe AA77 was flown by terrorists into The Pentagon. 'Something' happened on that day, in that location - 'something' appeared to hit poles etc - I am saying it wasn't AA77 flown by terrorists.

I asked;
How exactly can anyone be sure that what hit The Pentagon (if anything) was AA77 piloted by hijackers?
If you look at your response, instead of acknowledging the question, you answer it with another. This is the predictable 'you' all over.

It is the LACK of evidence of AA77 that causes the disbelief, nothing else.
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

telecasterisation wrote: It is the LACK of evidence of AA77 that causes the disbelief, nothing else.
What lack of evidence?

Evidence of another explanation to it all could cause disbelief but we have seen none.
User avatar
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Upstairs

Post by telecasterisation »

Wibble wrote:
telecasterisation wrote: It is the LACK of evidence of AA77 that causes the disbelief, nothing else.
What lack of evidence?

Evidence of another explanation to it all could cause disbelief but we have seen none.
What, lack of evidence that it was AA77 piloted by hijackers?

The most high profile military installation on the face of the planet and they had (on the day) a worse security system than the asian run supermarket that's within walking distance of my home? The shop had seven cameras on the day, two outside giving excellent quality footage.

I totally refute that a bunch of untrained herberts with penknives can take over a packed passenger jet, pilot it into the side of such a military establishment and it is not in any way identifiable on film - or, the ONLY film is what we are shown from military sources. We have both WTC impacts on film and all recorded by apparently random non-building related sources, yet the best The Pentagon can offer is what we see on YouTube = nah. These are the people who can take pictures of Madonna's cleavage from orbit!

We have been over this a gazillion times - forget gas stations, hotels - where is the footage from The Pentagon cameras? Turned off were they, swapping the tapes?

Poor loves.
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

telecasterisation wrote:
No, you misunderstand - I said I don't believe AA77 was flown by terrorists into The Pentagon. 'Something' happened on that day, in that location - 'something' appeared to hit poles etc - I am saying it wasn't AA77 flown by terrorists.
I understand perfectly what you are saying. You say AA77 flown by terrorists didn't hit the Pentagon.

This statement (taken literally) allows you several degrees of Twoofer freedom.
1. It might not have been AA77 (but the rest was true)
2. It might not have been piloted by terrorists (but the rest was true)
3. It might not have hit the Pentagon (but the rest was true)
4. Some combination of the above

In other words, it's Telecasterisation being very careful not to say anything specific, and trying to give himself an escape route from every counter-argument.
Telecasterisation wrote:How exactly can anyone be sure that what hit The Pentagon (if anything) was AA77 piloted by hijackers?

If you look at your response, instead of acknowledging the question, you answer it with another. This is the predictable 'you' all over.

It is the LACK of evidence of AA77 that causes the disbelief, nothing else.
There is a mountain of evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I listed it above and you have ignored it.
Eye witnesses.
DNA evidence
Plane debris
Missing plane and passengers
Video
Radar
FDR
etc

Meanwhile, you offer no evidence whatsoever for any alternative interpretation, an interpretation you have chosen to adopt nevertheless.
All you say in support of your CT belief is "how can anyone be sure?"

That's just weak.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
User avatar
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Upstairs

Post by telecasterisation »

sam wrote:I understand perfectly what you are saying. You say AA77 flown by terrorists didn't hit the Pentagon.

This statement (taken literally) allows you several degrees of Twoofer freedom.
1. It might not have been AA77 (but the rest was true)
2. It might not have been piloted by terrorists (but the rest was true)
3. It might not have hit the Pentagon (but the rest was true)
4. Some combination of the above

....... just weak.
Degrees of freedom? There is no 'might not have...' in didn't. It means did not.

Radar evidence? Link please?
Video evidence it was AA77? Link please?
Eye witnesses who identified AA77 as being AA77? Link please?
Positive identification of AA77 wreckage taken at scene? Link please?
Proof hijackers were at the controls? Link please?
Proof FDR was obtained at the scene and who located it? Link please?

I cannot be clearer on the point about The Pentagon - its military status - where is the footage taken by its many cameras - that would do it for me. You avoid this like the plague in favour of your usual attempted dissection - which of course you find immensely frustrating in my case as you lack footholds.

Yes, the lack of evidence it was AA77 piloted by hijackers. How do you know who was at the controls????

I don't believe the official version based on what we are told, is that so hard to accept??
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

The most high profile military installation on the face of the planet and they had (on the day) a worse security system than the asian run supermarket that's within walking distance of my home?
So your local supermarket has SAMs then? Please, please (I cant wait to hear this) explain just why/how the Pentagon was secure from aerial attack? Perhaps you can remind us of all of when the last time the US mainland was attacked from the air and the method used?
I totally refute that a bunch of untrained herberts with penknives can take over a packed passenger jet, pilot it into the side of such a military establishment
And here lies one of the fundamental issues of the Truthers. Despite claiming to fight for truth and despite claiming to take the moral high ground they are just a bunch of racists. How could a bunch of thick Arabs plan and execute such an attack? Al-Qaeda live in caves they could not do this it MUST be Bush and Co.

Do you want to know how you can hijack an aircraft with just pen knifes? The answer is in the name given to these people. Terrorist use terror. 2 men with pen knifes grab 2 children and immediately cut one of the children throat. They threaten to do the same to the other child if anyone stops them. Its sick, it's violent but it would work no civilised human could bare to cause a child's death. There were no cockpits security doors back then either. Just be thankful there are not many people in the world evil enough to do it in this and 19 of them died on 9/11.



The world is not a nice place so maybe it is just easier for you to image the most elaborate and overly complicated conspiracy ever. They even faked terrorists attacking an empty field with a hijacked aircraft!!!
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Post by paul wright »

just a bunch of racists
huh?
How are wobbles like wibble ever allowed to post here?
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

paul wright wrote:
just a bunch of racists
huh?
How are wobbles like wibble ever allowed to post here?
How else to you explain this statement?
I totally refute that a bunch of untrained herberts with penknives can take over a packed passenger jet
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Post by paul wright »

Wibble wrote:
paul wright wrote:
just a bunch of racists
huh?
How are wobbles like wibble ever allowed to post here?
How else to you explain this statement?
I totally refute that a bunch of untrained herberts with penknives can take over a packed passenger jet
Not they haven't got the capability, rather lack the ability, - lack of resources or something
The boxcutter story is plainly nonsense
I wont be drawn, btw
Post Reply