Pentagon punchout hole?

The press is controlled so the testimony of a witness wouldn't be published. Here's the info I've posted several times on this forum that addresses this argument.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/220412-9-11-truth-movements-credibility-gap.html#post4799198

I keep posting it and you people bringing up the same lame argument over and over–"The press would have reported it". It's clear that you people don't even believe your own arguments.

These pictures supposedly show the killer plane that came in from another angle.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
(top picture)

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

I didn't say they were pictures of the 757 that flew over the Pentagon. This is pretty clear; you people are using some pretty desperate tactics.



This picture shows the kind a damage that the wings of an airliner would do to a wall.
http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi

The fourth picture from the top of this page shows the side of the Pentagon before the collapse.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

That damage isn't consistent with wings having hit the walls.

The picture of the craft makes it clear that it wasn't a 757 and the crash site isn't consistent with a 757 having hit so we have several plausible scenarios. I think the most plausible one is that the craft that hit the Pentagon was a fighter-sized craft which fired a missile just before impacting.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

There's a lot more circumstantial evidence too.

At the 3:55 time mark of this video it's pointed out that there were lots of cameras at the Pentagon.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNsSn6D3CP4"]9/11 Truth vs Mainstream Media - YouTube[/ame]

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-pentagon.html
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/theories.html#5
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/where-pentagon-was-hit.html
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/claim.html

The Pentagon crash site and the pictures close the whole case by themselves. 9/11 was an inside job.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The very fact you are typing your crap proves that there IS no control of the media. Truthers have NEVER had a hard time getting their message out. Why should we think real witnesses wouldn't be able to? If I had witnessed the Pentagon crash and it wasn't reported as I saw it, I would make it heard. I can't be the only one and it is irrationally ignorant to pretend that ALL true witnesses have been suppressed by your boogieman press.

I never said the press would report it. I've said not one witness has stepped forward to back your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) up. We see it time and time again where people who have seen something can get heard even if the press ignores them. Truthers are a prime example. So your excuse of a controlled press holds as much water as a sieve.

Wrong again. If your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) were true, witnesses would have seen TWO planes coming in and one going out. Radar would have shown TWO planes going in and one plane going out. Employees at RIA would have seen Flight 77 leaving the area AT A MINIMUM. Yet none of this happened and you can't refute these simple facts.

Only an ignorant fool pretends things like construction, materials and circumstance don't make any difference. And didn't you JUST CLAIM that it was a "killer plane" that came in AFTER flight 77 that hit the Pentagon? If so, where is the wing marks from the killer plane? You CLAIM they have to be there....

Pretending one example MUST be true for all other examples is pure ignorance. Does steel behave the same way as steel reinforced concrete? No, it does not.

No, the most plausible scenario is you're making all this up and don't know what you are talking about. You pretending to be some kind of expert on whether or not a 757 crashed there is a sure sign of paranoid delusions, especially considering you ignore all the other evidence.

Quoting killtown's crap just blew any credibility you had left right out of the water.

First off, IF there was evidence of serial numbers etc., you would just ignore that information like you ignore the rest of the evidence. Preteding "missing" evidence would convince you when you ignore all other evidence just isn't convincing.

They positively identified all the passengers on board through DNA testing. If you know the passengers and know the were on a specific flight, wouldn't that positively identify the flight? And why wouldn't they just plant pieces with the correct serial numbers and then "find" them if this was all a setup?

No, you're bull(*)(*)(*)(*) interpretation of the pictures while ignoring all other evidence simply shows how desperate truthers are to try and get something.... ANYTHING.... to be believed.

Nice try, but epic fail.

 

What about April Gallup? The press published her story didn't they?

Of course the fact that her story was full of crap like all the other truthers didn't help much.

But it kind of disproves your "the press is controlled" theory.

 

They can only get their message out on the internet. Most people who only watch the mainstream media don't even know that building seven collapsed. The mainstream media also misprepresent the truther position with plants to make people think they're a bunch of loonies. This video is an example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_5seOxK3kk
(1:10 time mark)

This bogus truther say that 767's didn't hit the towers. He's a plant who works for the government.

We have to make a clear distinction between the mainstream press and the alternative press. Have you taken a look at the info here?
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/220412-9-11-truth-movements-credibility-gap.html#post4799198

Do you think the US government is intervening in other countries to promote freedom and democracy like the mainstream press says it is?
http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/149071-american-imperialism.html

To get good info and analyses on that we have to go to websites such as these.
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

You're playing dumb...
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...about the witnesses in this eight-part video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk

There's a short summary of it here.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

They all put the 757 in a very different part of the sky than what the official version says.

We have the testimony of the workers who saw the plane coming in from a different angle than what the official story says. That angle is not consistent with the crash site. There are plausible scenarios that would explain why there could be two planes and only witnesses for one of them. This video show one of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

There could have been agents all around keeping people from walking in that direction and there could have been lots of plants in that part of the traffic. Anyone who wasn't a plant who they knew had seen what really happened could have been followed.

Maybe radar did show just that and it's not being reported. Maybe those particular controlers were in on the plan. All we know is what we read. It's all second-hand information. Maybe the craft came in so low it was under radar.

The photo made public by the government closes the whole case as a 757 wouldn't fit in the space behind the box....
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

...so this debate isn't about whether the government planned the attacks and carried them out. It's about how the government planned the attacks and carried them out. There are several plausible scenarios and which one is the correct one isn't clear yet. If a flaw is found in one scenario, it doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong. It just means that's not the scenario.
Another theory is that it was some kind of cruise missile–not a fighter-sized plane. If that scenario is the correct one, it may have been too small to be detected by radar.
Another theory is that a bomb had been planted the night before just outside the impact point or just inside the building and was detonated just after the 757 flew over. That would explain a lot.

Some truthers think this might be a bogus picture.
http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm
(top picture)

That is plausible. A 757 in the picture would look like this...
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/pentagon/pentacamscam.jpg

...so, if that's not a bogus picture, a small craft hit the Pentagon. If that's a bogus picture, a bomb had been planted the night before. I tend to think that the government would make a bogus picture look like a 757. That's why I've been putting forth the small killer-plane theory. That may turn out to be the wrong scenario though.

You're being pretty simplistic here. Even a layman can see that the wings would have left some kind of mark on the wall of the Pentagon if they can go right through steel beams. Look at the third and fifth pictures from the top here.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

Even a layman can see that the wings of a 757 didn't hit the walls of the Pentagon.

I wouldn't ignore it. I would point out that parts with serial numbers can be made and planted and that it wouldn't make the proof shown in this picture go away.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm


What that expert points out is mere circumstantial evidence but it sounds like the guy knows what he's talking about and it's something to seriously consider. Your playing it down shows that you have a foregone conclusion and you only want to see what points in that direction. There doesn't seem to be much of that and there's a mountain of evidence that points to an inside job.

Evidently, they didn't think of that until it was too late or just didn't take the trouble. The bottom line is that there are lots of parts with serial numbers in the wreckage after a crash according to that expert. Are you saying he's wrong? I'm no expert. I just want to here your opinion.

continued...

 

...continued

There you go playing dumb again. I don't know how many times I've addressed that issue with this video. Here's the video again so you can't bury it deep in the thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_q6j6BZkHQ
(32:00 time mark)

You seem to be trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to click on links and look at evidence.
I'll post this too. Read it very carefully.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November of 2001, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) completed a massive study of the DNA of Pentagon victims (Kelly 2001), finding matches between remains and DNA samples allegedly retrieved from victims’ homes (gleaned from hairbrushes and other articles of personal use). Although it may well have been the case that matches were expertly made, the weak link in the chain of evidence lies in the collection of samples. DNA technicians would have no way of knowing where all the samples came from. That would be the job of army and FBI personnel that did most of the collecting.
Few people realize how simple it is to obtain tissue samples or body parts clandestinely from morgues, medical school cadaver rooms, any place that dead bodies may be found. Such venues are easily entered by persons who identify the,selves as officials of one kind or another.
A piece of liver or arm tissue complemented by a few hairs, all from the same corpse would be all that’s necessary to “identify” a particular person. Would DNA from these different sources match? Of course they would, since they’re from the same individual. Hypnotized by the word “match,” media types would probably not even realize that “match” does not mean “identify,” unless there were independent verification of the source of the samples.
Other problems with the DNA identification process involve contradictions with other claims made by the White House and/or Pentagon about the attack. One claim, that the aircraft was “completely vaporized” makes it doubtful that any of the DNA survived the holocaust. Another claim, that the aircraft was blown into little bits by the initial explosion, would imply that body parts would have been scattered all over the Pentagon grounds - which they weren’t.
Given the poor track record of the US government and military in providing accurate information about its military and “antiterrorism” activities, any counterfactual claims must be taken with a large grain of salt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you keep playing dumb and trying to bury the evidence I post, I'll just keep reposting it to thwart you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24557

Here's a mainstream article on the issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ns-skeptical/2011/08/10/gIQAUtQDGK_story.html

Compared to her testimony it's pretty vague. Can you post anything mainstream that shows her testimony? Sometimes something is getting so much attention that they can't ignore it so they cover it and water it down.

 

Spamming videos of idle speculation does not in any way equal evidence.

 

Then where are they? Come on. You've now admitted they have an outlet, so where are they? Are you trying to say not ONE of the thousands who would know your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) "truth" are either capable of getting on the internet or are too scared?

And? What's your point? Are you trying to claim it was never reported by the MSM? Well, once again you're so wrong it's hilarous! People don't know and don't care about WTC 7 because it was just collateral damage. Truthers don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the people who died on 9/11, but to everyone else, they were the focus of 9/11, not some building that collapsed with no loss of life.

The MSM doesn't have to do plants. Truthers ARE a bunch of loonies. The MSM doesn't even have to get involved. Truthers make complete fools of themselves all the time on youtube.

Really? There are several truthers on this board who claim 767s didn't hit the towers. Are THEY plants? If so, why aren't you speaking out against them?

Yet there are NO WITNESSES to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) stories. You're doing a wonderful job poking your own theories full of holes.

Well, it sure isn't to get to the oil like the retarded truthers claim. Last time I checked they STILL haven't discovered oil in Afghanistan, and Iraq is now a sovreign country without US troops and they control their own oil. You lose. Again.

You mean websites that tell you what you want to hear. Well, go for it. Feed your paranoid delusions. The facts are the facts and you continue to run from the facts.

Wrong yet again. Produce a witness that can back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Come on. We both know your claims would have thousands of witnesses that KNOW the official story is wrong, yet not ONE has come forward. You try and claim the MSM has suppressed it, yet you also admit there are other outlets. STILL not one witness. So what is your excuse now? Are you going to hide behind more inane claims that don't address the facts?

Yet not ONE of them says the 757 OVERFLEW the pentagon and ANOTHER plane was right on it's tail, fired a missile into the Pentagon before impact, and then hit the Pentagon. Witnesses can get the minor details wrong. It happens. It is part of the human condition. That is why you merge the witness testimony with the rest of the facts to get the whole story.

Wrong yet again. Not only do NONE of the witnesses claim the plane overflew the Pentagon, but NONE of them saw two planes.

Seriously? Your paranoia knows no bounds! Do you drive? Have you ever driven in rush hour traffic? How many thousands of plants would you need to make sure the right people and ONLY the right people are in the right position? Hundreds of cars a minute pass by on that route and the speed is not constant. Seriously. Are you trying to pretend this is actually possible?

That is an awful lot of ifs and maybes. The problem is you now have tens of thousands of people in on the conspiracy. A conspiracy of that size has no chance of staying secret. BTW, once again you've forgotten RIA is less than a mile from the Pentagon. Low altitude radar is a requirement at airports. You've also forgotten that if you're going to try and approach the Pentagon completely "under the radar", you're going to have to start from a long way off and generate tens of thousands more witnesses as very low flying planes go roaring overhead.

Retarded claims made by truthers are just that. Retarded. When a professional investigative firm checks it out, guess what. The facts fit the video. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8"]911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 - YouTube[/ame]

No, this debate is about just how full of (*)(*)(*)(*) your theories are and how you have to run away from the debate.

Yet you insist on presenting them all as true when NONE of them fit the facts and ALL of them have flaws. You still lose.

Wrong. Cruise missiles are easily detectable by radar and not one witness saw a missile. Also, missile damage doesn't fit the damage seen in the Pentagon. A missile can explode like everyone saw and cause superficial damage, or it can penetrate and cause massive damage further in. It can't do both. It doesn't have the mass for it.

Except for the fact NOT ONE person saw a 757 flying away from the scene even though every eye in the area is now focused on the Pentagon. You also insist on forgetting about the airport within visual distance along with all the planes in the air in the pattern for landing that would see a 757 flying away.

 

So some jackass with an opinion and photoshop wants to pretend they know what it would look like? I don't think so. Funny how truthers like to pretend a low resolution surveillance camera with a fisheye lens focused close is going to have the ability to show the logo on a plane. That's just stupid.

Assumptions based on bull(*)(*)(*)(*) assumptions are generally going to be bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Guaranteed since all you have is a bunch of paranoid delusions with NOTHING to back them up.

Really? So you are an expert on what kind of impact damage a plane going over 500 miles an hour would leave? What are your credentials?

So who are you to say the wings of a 757 are strong enough to survive the impact with steel reinforced concrete to the point where even the wingtips make a mark? Seems to me the planes wings aren't going to be that strong, but apparently you know more than I do about the super strong properties of a wing that make it penetrate steel reinforced concrete. Please enlighten us how the wings were so strong.

So this is proof that reality paints a different picture than a government working as hard as it can to cover up a conspiracy.

OR the jackass is working on the leaked video that was not released by the government. The government released the correct video later on and it has no missing frames.

Really? An attack that would take years of preparation and planning makes such a major mistake? Wow. And you're right. There are tons of parts with serial numbers. How do you know nobody looked up the serial numbers? BTW, all the parts recovered from the Pentagon were returned to American Airlines. Why haven't they claimed the parts are not from Flight 77 or from a 757?

 

I only have time for a quickie post.

I have spoken out against them. Here are two posts of mine.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...fake-footage-rare-south-view.html#post4779241
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/218373-psy-opera-correct-evidence-no-planes.html#post4747174

You're obviously playing the devil's advocate and trying to sway those viewers who haven't taken the time to watch the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(eight parts)

http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

Those witnesses didn't have a wide enough view to see the actual crash or the section of the sky where the killer-plane is supposed to have flown. All of those witnesses believe the 757 they saw hit the Pentagon although they just saw it fly overhead and couldn't see the actual impact.

You're obviously trying to muddy the waters here which shows you don't even believe your own arguments. You're not here to to seek the truth. You're here to obfuscate the facts and confuse people. Anyone who takes the time to look at the info I post can see that. You're using rhetoric to sway those viewers who don't take the time to look at the info as that's about all you can do.

 

Yet they didn't see a 757 flying away. They may not have been able to see the actual impact, but a 757 isn't just going to sneak away now, is it. And these guys weren't the only witnesses.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I am asking real, straightforward questions that show your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories are just that; bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You can't address the issues with your theories so you take the chicken(*)(*)(*)(*) route out and pretend I'm just trying to "muddy" the waters. News flash. When you're dealing with lies, it is the truth that "muddies" the waters of the lie. The fact you don't have a single witness out of the thousands of people who would see the event no matter WHICH scenario you're trying to describe says it all. Over ten years later and not one person has stepped forward and claimed they saw two planes, a plane and a bomb, a plane overflying the Pentagon, or any other piece o crap you come up with.

Evidence is the key. Real hard evidence. All you have is opinion you try and pass off as evidence. You try to pretend you're some kind of expert. You try to pretend the retarded truther sites are honest and credible when they lie through their teeth repeatedly. It doesn't work. Facts are facts. Evidence is evidence. I don't have to ignore any evidence. You have to ignore almost ALL the evidence and hide behind ridiculous, unworkable theories you can't even defend.

So if that is muddying the waters, welcome to reality, Scott. Get use to it because reality doesn't go away just because you THINK it should be different because of your delusions.

 

You're not going to make this evidence go away with rhetoric.
National Security Alert - Sensitive Information Part 1/8 - YouTube
(eight parts)

http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

If you put so much faith in what witnesses say, those witnesses in the above video all put the 757 at an angle that is very inconsistent with what the official version says. There are plausible scenarios that would explain why we don't hear of any witnesses who saw two planes. The government has ways of getting rid of the most important witnesses.
Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses (MUST SEE) - YouTube

The fact that you people are tap dancing around the testimony of those witnesses who put the plane in a different part of the sky than what the official version says is very telling. You seem to have a foregone conclusion and you sidestep serious evidence that doesn't go in the direction of that conclusion. None of the thinking people reading this thread need to have what's here happening explained to them.

You people have really discredited yourselves by ignoring this important piece of evidence. That won't stop you though.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpts)
-----------------------------------------------
6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive.
-----------------------------------------------
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game
-----------------------------------------------

If you can't explain those witnesses satisfactorily, this debate is pretty much over.

 

All the witnesses in your video say 'north' and point south. Interesting.

Here are a few more eyewitnesses:
Pentagon Witness Accounts

Opinion is not evidence. Can you present evidence?

 

All those witnesses put the angle of the 757 at an angle that's inconsistent with the official version.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

This is an example of the way pro-official version debaters tap dance around the evidence that goes against their foregone conclusion. You are a pretty good sophist but you're not going to fool any thinking people with that tactic. You haven't explained what those witnesses say.

I know there are others who say different things but they may be plants. I notice the mainstream press didn't publish the testimony of the witnesses in the video.

 

If the eyewitness testimony disagrees with the physical evidence, then the eyewitness is wrong. People get stuff wrong. You have only two eyewitnesses who put the plane at the wrong angle, and they both agree that the plane impacted the Pentagon.

Calling names won't help make your case. Are you saying that the hundred plus eyewitnesses I linked you to are all plants, and that only your two are reliable? All you have is opinion, based on weak logic.

 

Where did you get the figure "Two"?
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

Are you trying to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to watch the video and read the articles?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(eight parts)

There were thirteen witnesses who put the 757 at the angle that's different from the official story.

Or maybe the theory that a 757 merely overflew the Pentagon and something else caused the explosion is true.

You have a foregone conclusion and you're torturing the evidence to make it fit your conclusion.

 

Only two were in a position to actually see the plane. Did you read your own link? By the way, relying on CIT is almost as bad as linking to Killtown.

The CIT takes the single most convergent point made by eyewitnesses and says "they were all fooled". Yes, a 'magic trick' is the path by which the CIT choose to discount and dismiss the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Odd since the CIT also claim that eyewitness testimony is tantamount to smoking gun evidence when they claim a path other than that shown by the physical evidence .... oh never mind that several of their "NoC" witnesses can be shown to actually be describing a path that would take the plane "SoC" and that others describe a path(Middleton) that would put the aircraft on a path that other witnesses simply could not have seen at all, never mind that they so utterly twist and manipulate Paik's testimony(he could not see the Annex, he points south, he was actually inside his shop when he saw the plane)

Not only were they fooled into thinking the plane hit the Pentagon they were also somehow fooled into believing that it hit low down on the structure when indeed it was 70+ feet above the building. Right.

Oh, and not only did they fool the people who watched the plane they also managed to not have anyone anywhere else witness the supposed flyover. Shades of Star Wars,,, "this is not the plane you are looking at" Then again Lucas writes better fiction than the CiT.

There are exactly zero witnesses for a flyover. You are making speculation based on absolutely nothing but your own forgone conclusion.

Can you refute any of the hundred plus witnesses I linked to?

 

Anyone who actually reads the article and watches the videos will see that you are simply lying.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(eight parts)

Everybody please don't just listen to this guy. Watch the video and read the article.

This is what you pro-official version people do when you're cornered–you post BS and tap dance around to try to bury that part of the discussion. Then you go on as if nothing had happened.

Anyone who actually takes the time to read the article and watch the video will see you're playing games here. You know that 9/11 was an inside job as well as the rest of us do; you're tactics make it obvious.

You ignored my reply to this. Watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

The government has ways to get rid of important witnesses.

Planting witnesses would be part of a plan as big as this. The problem with that is that there are going to be real witnesses who saw what really happened and will contradict the plants.

 

Fine: link to one witness of a flyover. Just one person who saw a plane fly over the Pentagon instead of slamming into it. Show me "what really happened".

 

Just because we haven't heard of any witnesses doesn't mean the 757 didn't fly over the Pentagon. There are plausible scenarios that would explain it. They would have foreseen the problem of witnesses and cleared the area. As post #1 of this thead explains...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

...they had control over the whole area. You also ignored this video again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

Any witnesses would have been seen by them and, knowing who they were, they would have done whatever was necessary to keep them quiet.

You seem to be trying to make the witnesses who saw the 757 in a different place in the sky from the official version go away instead of being objective about the issue and just seeing where the evidence leads. You aren't just following the evidence to see where it leads the way an objective truth-seeker would do. You have a foregone conclusion and you are torturing the evidence to fit that conclusion–just like a creation scientist.

 

That's pretty much your answer to anything you can't explain, isn't it?

You mean just because no one saw it happen and there is no evidence to indicate that it did actually happen doesn't mean it didn't happen because we can make up a story, er, excuse me, a plausible scenario, to explain the lack of eyewitnesses and lack of evidence away.

You're paranoid delusions know no bounds, do they.

Really. You mean like this?

Doesn't sound very objective to me. It is entertaining though.

 

Rather than forcing people to watch your retarded videos, why don't you lay out the evidence yourself?

Listen to what I say instead of what you want to hear. Witnesses often times get things wrong. That is why investigators get EVERYONE'S testimony and then compare that to the evidence to get the right story.

Have you found a single witness that actually backs up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories yet?

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If that were true, every truthtard on the net would be gone. Do we see that? Nope.

Yet not even any of those witnesses claim what you need them to claim for your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to be true.

Newsflash, skippy.... witnesses can get facts wrong. You compare witness testimony with the facts and then you get the truth. So we're suppose to believe witnesses that were far away from the Pentagon over the people who watched the plane fly right over their cars? Come on. Are you really going to pretend to be this dense?

I don't sidestep ANY evidence. That is your job.

That explains why you have to have this (*)(*)(*)(*) explained to you time and time again.

We're not ignoring it. You're pretending every witness HAS to be 100% correct. That isn't realistic. I know it. You know it. Everyone ELSE knows it. When a witness's testimony conflicts with the known facts, the witness is considered incorrect. It is NOT unusual for a witness to remember things wrong. This is a fact YOU choose to ignore. That and the FACT not one witness has EVER come forward to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories.

Talking about yourself again?

Why is it you run away from the fact you have zero witnesses to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) by claiming the MSM is repressing them, yet the witnesses who saw different angles are supposed proof of the official story being wrong? Why weren't they repressed, and if they are real in your delusional opinion, why not any of the HUNDREDS to THOUSANDS that would have had to see what you claim happened?

They have been explained at great length. The fact you can't handle the truth isn't the fault of me or any other poster. You'll have to seek help for that on your own.

 

This question is for DDave and Patriot911.

This is what Hannibal said in post #41.

Here's the info.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
(eight parts)

Do you agree with him?

 

There are NO PLAUSIBLE scenarios for a 757 flying over the Pentagon. NONE. You have zero witnesses even though Flight 77 would have had to go right through a landing pattern for a major metropolitan airport AND overfly the other side of the Potomac going over one major roadway, past two major bridges, and then overflying one of the major attractions in Washington; the National Mall including the reflecting pool, the Smithsonian, the War Memorials, the Lincoln Memorial, and a major golf course. Are you going to try and convince everyone that on a sunny, beautiful September morning EVERYONE would be inside?

So go ahead and keep pretending NONE of the thousands of people outside that day would have seen or heard a 757 flying at full throttle only a hundred feet or so off the deck or are ALL keeping silent about a flagrant lie by the government. So far your lameassed excuse that the MSM is covering it up has been thoroughly exposed as just so much garbage.

 

Hey Patriot911

I asked you a question relevant to this thread in post #47 and you ignored it. Please answer the question.

 

Perhaps you could list exactly who in your link was in a position to see what they claim they saw.

Couldn't be to hard, if you've watched it, right?