<psst> The body buried in JFK's grave is not JFK. Head x-ray would prove it. Moi Yes to second shooter, in front of JFK, on the grassy knoll.
The issue is that you have first PROVE the data you are talking about is significant enough to change a conclusion. Second, you have to PROVE that said data was INTENTIONALLY omitted or INTENTIONALLY falsified because said data would invalidate or prove the conclusion was incorrect. Third, you have to PROVE that “standard investigative protocol” was not followed. If you could PROVE all three of your accusations, or even the first two, I would have an issue with the conclusion. Anyone would Bob. Instead of asking such stupid questions and dancing around what you REALLY want to ask, why don’t you post your proof if intentionally falsified/omiited data? Data that would change the outcome or conclusion.
Since answering each other’s question one at a time seems to be the protocol you use to justify providing your own answers, it’s my turn. What are these “facts” you think are significant ithst are shown in the photo of the damaged Pentagon you referred to earlier in this thread?
It could be the remaining rebar of the reinforced concrete column. Regardless, the two points are these: 1. If it is what remains of the column, the first floor part of it is gone AND the remaining part on the second floor is bent inward. 2. If it's not part of the column and is indeed dangling debris of some sort, that mean the ENTIRE column is gone. Whichever above point is true, either proves that the claim that the "column remained vertical and was basically unharmed" is a bunch of crap. Bob believes that claim and even usd it to make a point. Talk about believing in falsified information...
Can you point me to your evidence/proof that the NTSB failed to record plane part numbers when found at the site?
Ok thanks, I don't know why it took you months to answer but you did answer. As promised, I'll follow up on this later.
The photo, if accurate, raises questions about how a massive airliner could have possibly caused that kind of damage. I originally posted this with the article: The article also says it's a photo released via a FIOA request. You said: So you're saying the picture was "doctored" and I agree to a degree. First, there is a large area shaded blue. Second, there are a couple of red arrows. And third it's possible it's a picture superimposed on another picture. Ok, so having said all that: 1. Do you have a link to the unretouched photo? 2. If you believe it's doctored in conjunction with the highlighted 3rd point above, do you have any evidence that it's a deliberate fabrication and a real photo would show something very different (see #1 above)? To be sure, AE911T (Chandler and Wyndham in particular) and Honegger have been at odds on the Pentagon issue theoretically speaking. See post #1: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/ For me, I'm not inclined to put anything to rest with regard to 9/11 since none of it was legitimately investigated. But that's just me.
I can only point to what I've researched, see post #283. As already explained, a parts match would be impossible for the FDRs/CVRs when the FDRs/CVRs have no serial numbers. That they don't have serial raises extreme skepticism that these are authentic and belong the aircraft in question. And it would not be physical PROOF that they do. Furthermore, there's NO evidence that a parts match was actually conducted since there is no document available detailing any parts match for any of the 4 claimed airliners. And still further, 2 FOIA requests for such a match were denied, that makes no sense if such a match was indeed conducted.
How did you determine that "no documents detailing any parts matches for the 4 claimed airliners" is not normal? The only way this could be is that there is a repository of data for every flight incident investigated by the NTSB and that every flight incident in that repository has a "matched parts" list included and that you found that the 4 airliners from 9/11 were missing. Is that how you determined that "missing documentation" is not normal?
Not to forget, they already know which planes they are, they don't need serial numbers, which aren't even on most of the parts, that melted in the oven anyways. They have part numbers, which determines the kind of planes that use those parts.
It's not normal for an event such as 9/11 or for virtually any airplane crash event, especially where's there's loss of life. Based on all your past posts I'm presuming you deem it "normal" because everything you post about 9/11 is strictly apologist material and nothing of the questioning variety. Missing documentation (mountains of it) with regard to 9/11 is admitted fact via extreme over-classification. The parts match documents denied via FOIA still make no sense. As a rabid 9/11 apologist, everything might make sense to you as long you believe it supports/defends the official narrative but it doesn't make sense to those who question everything and are not inclined to just bend over and accept everything on faith. And that pretty much describes the vast difference between you and I. You haven't addressed anything in post #334.
No, it's a fact. That picture was created by a couple different photos. The background portion is linked here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...scue_operations_post-September_11_attack.JPEG I'm looking for the photo used for the inner portion that was placed over the background photo above. You also claimed that it was a photo before the collapse. How can it be a photo before the collapse when the background was from AFTER the collapse? Why did you fail to mention that piece of information.
So "normally", the NTSB puts data regarding marked plane pieces that matches their respective plane, for ALL incidents, into a repository where the public can view it? And that the fact that the 4 airliners are missing from that public repository is not normal? Can you point me to this repository of public data please.
So now that we've engaged in a discussion about the Pentagon, I can get back back to this: 1. With regard to the NIST "investigations" it's already been scientifically proven by many experts and more recently by Dr. Leroy Hulsey whose paper will hopefully soon be released for peer review. 2. For an event such as 9/11, accuracy to the highest extent possible, proper protocol and thoroughness is critical. So then you agree that the NIST "investigations" are bogus. No question about 9/11 is "stupid", what's stupid and derelict is the failure to ask any questions. All (or most of) the known NIST omissions/falsifications have been thoroughly analyzed and documented with presumably more to come when Hulsey's paper is released.
If a plane was found on the side of a mountain, they use the N-number for identification. Like your car, there are some parts in the plane, Some planes, that have a part that reflects on a particular plane. This procedure is not important if they already know which plane it was. They may have some of those parts, probably not, but not important. The black boxes were damaged, but one yielded some info.
Oh I DO question everything Bob. I've followed you and others like you down your conspiracy rabbit holes and found out that when each claim that is made is researched, there is no evidence to support it. When that happens, the folks making the claims either disappear, state they are just asking questions, start insulting and name calling, just refuse to answer questions at all, or a combination.
Read what you just wrote Bob. Also read the Hulsey update you posted recently. How can you say he "proved" anything what he admitted there are obstacles to overcome when such a complicated scenario is involved? You even said the paper hasn;t been released yet?!
Nope. As per my explanation, which you obviously didn't read, you haven't proved the data would have changed the conclusion reached. And THEN if the data would have changed the conclusion reached, you have to prove it was intentionally falsified or intentionally omitted because it would have changed the conclusion. You have done nothing of the sort as of yet.
Ok I'll wait. Nope, I didn't make that claim, Honegger did. So you claim. Produce the overlaid photo if you can. I'm open, I like to verify claims when possible of course. I mentioned what I found, I can't mention what I don't know about.
I pointed to the articles I researched, I can't point to things I have no access to. It's up to YOU to determine what you want to determine or just continue to be a fanatical apologist.
You didn't? I'll bold the important part of your quote so you can't miss it: I don't see you attributing that to Honegger. Anyways, so you took what she said on faith instead of researching it? Practice what you preach Bob.
