The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Let's use the same logic and scrutiny that you truthers do for this "mountain of evidence", shall we?

Let's look at the north side of the Citgo flight paths shown below. In particular the one flight path pointed out with the two red arrows. How can a 757 go from a gradual right bank while over the Navy Annex into a sharp, tight radius, left turn as shown, and then immediately start a right bank turn around the Citgo and then towards the pentagon? That's first issue.


Next, let's compare some other North of the Citgo flight paths to one another. In the picture below, how come some of the witnesses saw the plane directly over the Navy Annex as shown by the four flight paths within the red oval, yet some witnesses saw the plane to the North of the Navy Annex as shown by the five red arrows? Which witnesses are lying? Or is it CIT that is lying? Funny how they cut the flight paths that were north of the Navy Annex short so as to not bring attention to the discrepancies.

 

I just love this one.

He based his claim in INCORRECT INFORMATION!!!! He doesn't even have the details right!

 

That one was flushed a long time ago.

But you see the troofers still bring it up.

 

What YOU are going with still has nothing to do with the 2 Coste articles, one of which you embrace and the other you dismiss. You are exhibiting YOUR confirmation bias because they have both been scientifically analyzed in detail and you have nothing of any substance to support your dismissal of either of these other than wishful thinking.

The difference in my case is that I accept both as valid science and logic, contradicting your false labeling of my mindset.

 

you don't even understand the science never mind the logic ... you're just grasping at straws that are out of your reach ...

 

Coming from someone who embraces a faith based belief that has no supporting evidence and no rationale, it's understandable that you would make such a claim to try to defend your wishful thinking. What do you feel are the "straws" I'm "grasping at"? That the NIST report is whole cloth? Experts have proven in intricate scientific detail that it's exactly that, so what standing do you have to contradict them other than wishful thinking (i.e. hope and prayer)? I've gone through Hulsey's preliminary analysis in detail (along with Coste's review) and challenged anyone to discuss it and your excuse was always the copout "I'm waiting for the final report". What kind of science and logic is that?

I'm the one who posted Coste's Pentagon videos and based on that science and logic, I'm now leaning into the idea that a large airplane may indeed have crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. It doesn't mean of course that it was AA77 or that Hani had anything to do with it, even Coste makes no such claim. It certainly may have been all of that but no one has provided any confirming/convincing evidence and all the US government has provided is coverup.

 

It was the Spruce Goose, piloted by Howard Hughes.
He was pissed when he found out it was made from birch.

 

You're nothing but a hypocrite Bobby. Here you are chastising someone for not sticking to the topic of the thread you created and actually TELLING them what it is about and that they need to basically stick to the topic yet the quote below from Scott, you actually clicked the "Like" link for it.

Like I've said about you and the majority of truther's like you. You approve of anything that is said as long as it's against what you consider to be the "OCT". Your bias shows every day. Every time you bring up the fact that I always defend the "OCT" and never question anything, I just laugh at you. The bias and hypocrisy you show on a daily basis is hysterical.

How about you look in the mirror once in awhile...

So tell me Bobby, why didn't you admonish Scott for not sticking to the topic and actually LIKE what he said? I don't expect an honest answer from you.

 

Is this the preliminary report you are talking about?

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

 

Let's all remember what Bobby posted above regarding "confirmation bias".

Now let's look at his post below.

All this talk about experts proving whatever and using science and logic and here are you are using a PRELIMINARY report as part of your proof for what you believe and then questioning someone as to what kind of science and logic THEY use? Below is a statement from Hulsey from March 27th, 2018

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92355/wtc7_hulseystatement_20180327.pdf

Here is a screenshot from his progress report from Septmeber of 2017.
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf


So tell us all here Bobby. How can you question someone's "science and logic" when they want to wait for Hulsey's FINAL report when YOU believe a preliminary report, which is STILL being worked on, is proof of anything? Especially when he has made the statements above proving the report is still being worked on.

How on earth can someone state that WTC7 was shown to NOT have collapsed from fire and the on the same page say that the studies are NEARLY COMPLETE. Then a few months later say that they want to be sure about what could and couldn't have happened and admit the work is more complicated than they originally thought.

 

Did you want to discuss something with me Gamo? I don't think so since you skipped out on this:

 

Nope, don't really need you to discuss anything with me Bobby. You can stay silent if you choose. Makes no difference to me. I don't t need you to say anything as I point out your inane claims and hypocrisy.

Like you do with others, I'm just going to use your posts for others to see what you're all about.

 

That's what I thought.

Ah, the personal attacks angle. The difference for me is that I use posts from rabid OCT defenders such as yourself to help others understand what 9/11 (and the OCT) is really all about. I don't give 2 ****s about you, you are a nobody with respect to 9/11. We each have our personal agenda, you're all about attacking me, I'm all about exposing 9/11 for what it really was. As to my questions, you didn't answer them because any answer opens up a huge can of worms you don't want to face, I understand. It's like that for the cognitive dissonant.

When I get a chance I will go through your nonsense to see what I can use, so stay tuned (or not).

 

And you never personally attack anyone in this forum right Bobby? Take your martyr baloney elsewhere unless you really want me to quote some of your personal attacks on people here.

 

How about when you get the chance, address your hypocrisy regarding Scott's off-topic post that you said nothing about and even liked yet attack "OCT supporters" and their off-topic posts.

How about when you have the chance, address the fact that you pass off Hulsey's PRELIMINARY report as fact when it's not even finished and he ADMITS it's still being worked on.

 

Not only, the fact that you never answer direct questions.

 

Took me all of a couple of minutes to expose your hypocrisy yet again. Your post below sure is all about exposing 9/11 for what it really was.

As I said. Take your martyr baloney elsewhere and come off your pedestal.

 

no cop out Bobby ... quote from Hulsey:

This is why I am waiting for the final report ... like I said in my post, absent of any other mechanism, I have to accept damage and fire as the cause of the collapse ...

try using rationale and science instead of emotion and bias Bobby ...

 

Really? Then you must have missed this from Hulsey:

On Slide 12, Professor Hulsey posits: "So did WTC7 collapse from fires? Our study shows the fire is not the cause. I'm not going to tell you about what did it– I'm just going to tell you that it wasn't that.

https://www.911tap.org/557-news-rel...y-s-interim-report-undercuts-nist-wtc-7-study

Says the guy who uses emotion and bias to cherry pick what he hopes and prays is true rather than rationale and science. What do you expect to find in Hulsey's final report that will significantly change his findings from his preliminary report? Do you really believe his findings will drastically be altered such that he will then claim fire was really the cause as you determined despite the science and rationale? Is this why you're waiting for the final report and refuse to discuss his preliminary report which is quite conclusive in many aspects, especially about NIST's concoctions?

 

The facts in Hulsey's preliminary report speak for themselves for anyone who has reviewed it objectively as I did. I asked you, Shiner and anyone to discuss his preliminary report because if you actually read my comments you would know I questioned his conclusion that fire was not the cause (see post #245):

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/page-13

So I wanted to know if any of those who studied his preliminary findings can explain where and what caused Hulsey to arrive at that conclusion. I personally didn't see it but maybe I missed something. No one took me up on it, not even OCT defenders, 2 of whom copped out at discussing it for similar silly reasons.

 

That quote was from September 16th, 2017 Bobby.

Then on March 27th, 2018, he made this statement:


See the part Hulsey says:

What "unexpected turns" is he referring to Bobby? How do you know his conclusion hasn't/won't change? What if he comes out and says fire indeed caused the collapse, but not exactly as NIST states? How do you know he didn't find a mistake in in his original presentation? I want to see his ENTIRE, COMPLETED report and see EVERYTHING he used to come up with his conclusions, whatever they are.

For you to sit here and imply that he has proven fires didn't cause the collapse, especially after the statement released above, is just idiotic.

So no, it isn't a cop out. I personally want to see the FINAL study.

 

How do you know those "facts" haven't changed? Again, look at his released statement I provided above. How do you know he didn't make a mistake and corrected it in his final report?

 

Isn't that what you're doing? Have you checked Hulsey's calculations and methods to make sure he got everything right or are you just taking his word for it? Again, his statement from 2018, released after his preliminary report, is enough to make me want to wait to see what these "unexpected turns" from his research mean.

That's rational and science based. Not relying on a statement released prior to him admitting there were unexpected turns based on research".

 

Either you have an extreme reading comprehension issue or you just don't read. What is it you didn't understand or missed about this?:

I do too, but what is a cop out on your part is your failure to discuss the FACTS he exposed in his preliminary report. His conclusion that fire did not cause the "collapse" of WTC7 is NOT one of the facts I'm referring to. It isn't a fact until proven otherwise.

The facts he exposed with respect to NIST will never change, they are the historical record. Facts (if they are that) never change, only lies change.

I don't know with respect to parts of his analysis but there are no mistakes when it comes to exposing NIST's concoctions, many were already exposed long before I ever heard of Hulsey. Hulsey merely confirmed many of these NIST shenanigans and how they affected NIST's theory.

Not at all. Again, I questioned one of his major findings, that fire did not cause the "collapse" of WTC7. I don't see anywhere in his preliminary report where and how he came to that conclusion. It doesn't mean I believe fire did cause the "collapse", it only means I don't see it in his preliminary report and I wanted to discuss that aspect as well as other findings from his preliminary report and no one wants to discuss it. This particular discussion with you (albeit your perception is way off target) is the closest thing to that so far.

Do you get it now?

 

If you are honestly questioning Hulsey's statement that fire WAS NOT THE CAUSE, then why did you throw Hulsey's statement (in blue), that fire WAS THE NOT CAUSE, into Shinebox's face when he said he chose to believe that damage and fire WAS THE CAUSE?

You can't question or have doubts about the validity of someone's conclusion and then use that same conclusion as refutation to someone else's claim. That's just stupid.

Your logic for example:
Person 1: I'm questioning Harrit's conclusion that thermite was used because I don't see it proven in his paper that he found thermite.
Person 2: I believe explosives were used.
Person 1: How can you believe explosives were used when Harrit says thermite was used?!