The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

"Hero" pilot? Come on Eleuthera... That's just a stupid comment on your part.

 

Why do you claim someone needed "super hero" status to do what he did? Does the turn and descent shown below look like something performed by a "super hero" pilot, experienced pilot, or remote controlled?

 

Looks sloppy, probably exceeding the envelope in a couple places,
Dangerous, certainly nothing a "Hero" would do, but he doesn't care.

 

I'm just curious as to why people think the maneuvers of that day would need an experienced/"hero" pilot? As shown by the graphic above, the maneuvers were crappy at best.

 

I don't lie. I may have some things incorrect but I don't lie. I have zero incentive to lie, especially not to a bunch of OCT grovelers. There's not one thing genuine about them. All they know how to do is defend the OCT 24/7, question none of it and ridicule anyone and everyone who questions the OCT and the storytellers.

The 9/11 Commission Report clearly states they were sent in the wrong direction at Page 27 in the chapter titled "We have some planes".

"The Langley fighters were heading east, not north ..."

I didn't make this up, this is DOCUMENTED, read the 9/11 Commission Report sometime instead of accusing me of lying. Furthermore, it's irrelevant anyway because they sure never prevented whatever hit the Pentagon from hitting the Pentagon so they FAILED to do their job. And you're being an apologist for this catastrophic failure.

The guy never flew a 757 according to the narrative, was criticized by his trainers, experts have made claims that his alleged maneuvers were highly unlikely to impossible, he was never conclusively proven to have flown any plane into Pentagon and the story simply sounds like something out of a fairy tale like just about everything about the OCT. Furthermore, as already stated several times, it's a hell of a lot easier to dive into a 33.5 acre target than precisely maneuver an airliner into a 77 foot wall at 110 knots over VMO without hitting the ground first. That in itself makes no sense that such a NON-PILOT would try something like that for which there's NO INCENTIVE and NO LOGICAL REASON.

If you bought that lunacy, good for you, who cares? I require a hell of lot more evidence than faith. That doesn't make me a liar, it makes me a hell of lot more sensible than you.

See above, same libelous drivel.

Mineta's testimony stands on its own. You can twist it any which way you want, I don't care. If it had no value, he wouldn't have testified about that in front of the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Commission deliberately omitted his testimony from their report for good reason, because it doesn't fit the official narrative.

If you're so confident the official fairy tale is for real, why do you need to defend it on a regular basis?

You are also in violation of the forum rules by accusing me of lying (multiple times).

 

LOLOL

Same crap huh.
No Bob, flying into a wall, is no different than setting up final approach, and a wall is easier to hit than the threshold.
Diving is out of the question, and he knows it.

And there is plenty of incentive and logical reason, the main one being.
He has no intention of recovery. Please tell us what happens when you hit overspeed in a dive.

 

ok ... many valid points and others that are not so valid ...

Hanjour was on the plane ... at least according to the manifest ... what was he doing on the plane? ... where did the plane go? ... I believe the available evidence is very strong that it crashed into the Pentagon ...

I don't know all the technology regarding Barbara Olsen's phone call ...

I don't know why the govt has never released any parts matches ...

ready to move on to other chapters of the vids or do we just want to focus on things that have been discussed ad nauseam? ... the rest of the videos are very detailed about whatever kinetic forces were at play on that fateful day ...

 

Your statement above is a lie. He was a pilot as evidence has shown. He may not have been a very good pilot, but he was a pilot nonetheless.

 

Delete

 

Because there are no parts matches.
They exist only in Bob's head.

 

Does this look like an experienced pilot was flying the plane Bobby?

 

You can see where he slowed down, probably intentional, then everything is "seat of the pants" in panic mode.

 

I believe that parts matches should be released ... I'm going to file a FOIA request asking if parts are still available and identified and released to the public ...

 

How do you know Hani was aiming for that wall?

 

It makes the most sense.
Easier to hit, and probably makes the most damage.
The building is a cold war era, and built to withstand a nuclear blast.
They might have bounced off the top.

 

LOLOL

Even if they still had a part, all they could tell you is what types of planes that part was made for.

 

I understand that but it might destroy some truther's beliefs (even though they will spin a it as false to keep the truther narrative flowing) ... please note how bob won't discuss the Coste vids past chapter 1 ...

 

And as he is proven wrong, he won't admit, he may be wrong, he just switches to another phony aspect, and later on brings up the same thing that was proven wrong.

 

When a person refuses to admit it when he is wrong, it pretty much destroys any credibility he thinks he might have.

 

In what respect?

That's highly disputed even according to the manifest.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/04/05/911-hijackers-not-on-flight-manifests/

So there is no conclusive evidence that Hani was on the plane. The video evidence presented by the OCT is also highly suspect and most likely a fake.

http://www.consensus911.org/point-video-2/

Non sequitur, it first has to be conclusively proven that Hani was on the "plane".

What plane are you talking about?

What is "it" and what is the "very strong" available evidence? So far the "evidence" (all of it) from the 9/11 Commission Report is disputed and/or suspect.

The best evidence shows that the technology alleged by the 9/11 Commission Report didn't exist and the FBI claims there was no phone call lasting more than 1 second.

I don't claim to know either but there was no valid reason given and there is none. So by default, it points to a coverup. And because this is 9/11 we're talking about, it's an egregious criminal coverup. An event such as 9/11 requires full transparency and the most detailed meticulous investigation possible. It's not out of the question that the physical parts might match all 4 (or some) of the claimed designated airliners but it's also not out of the question by any means that they won't match. An honest and valid explanation is absolutely required for why the FDRs/CVRs had no serial numbers on them according to the OCT. That is extremely suspect and cannot be ignored for any reason.

I told you several times you are free to pick anything from any of the videos.

What "kinetic forces" are you talking about?

 

.Bob.

The parts don't have serial numbers on them.
How many aircraft parts have you handled.
I have handled quite a few, and they do not have serial numbers on them.

 

Already been over multiple times. You can repeat your apologist claim all you want but experts and common sense dispute your claim. Why are you even trying to convince me? I'm not trying to convince you, I don't care what kind of nonsense you believe and you sure pretend you believe in an awful lot of nonsense about the OCT.

 

I don't, I don't even know he was involved in 9/11 at all. I'm using the OCT as basis of the claim. Accordingly, the trajectory strongly indicates a deliberate aim.

 

Yes Bob. Just like final approach. Something he has done countless hundreds of times before.
BTW, the pentagon lawn is a lot larger than the threshold he is so used to aiming at.

 

Followed that link. Here's what it says:

"The claim that no Arab names appeared on the flight manifests for the planes hijacked on the morning of September 11, 2001 arose shortly after the terrorist attacks, and variations on the theme have persisted to this day. The claim initially arose when lists of passengers published by CNN, The Guardian, and the Associated Press contained no names of hijack suspects.

But to draw the conclusion from this that therefore no Arab names were on the manifest was a clear example of misinformation, as these lists were clearly reported as lists of victims, and partial lists at that. Furthermore, none of those lists were sourced to the manifests themselves. The Associated Press, for instance, noted that its lists were compiled not from any of the manifests, but from information obtained from “family members, friends, co-workers and law enforcement.”

It then ends up stating it view all 4 aircraft manifests and names the 19 hijackers off all of them.

Thanks for the self debunking.