The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

And BOB, No matter how many times you say "serial numbers", they are just not going to materialize for you.

They are "Parts" numbers, not serial numbers.

And all they can identify is the types of planes they are installed on.

 

Fortunately what really doesn't apply is your personal opinion. The purpose of all airplane crash investigations is to determine the cause of the crash. An investigation never starts with the premise that "we know", this is as ludicrous as it gets.

It's done at all times because no investigation ASSumes the cause of any airplane crash, hijackers or no hijackers. If that were the case there would never be a requirement for any airplane crash investigation. Furthermore no investigation ASSumes the identity of the aircraft, they ALL verify the identity of the aircraft when any debris is recovered even when they have reason to believe it is the aircraft they suspect it is. This is why the NTSB guy in the video on YOUR website claims they will use the recovered part's serial number to identify the aircraft. This is known as a forensic examination of the PHYSICAL evidence for which the careful preservation of the evidence is detailed in Appendix J. You have no clue what you're talking about and you're basing all your false ASSumptions on faith and prayer that the OCT is fact.

There is NO physical evidence via any forensic examination that conclusively verifies that any of the 4 claimed designated airplanes are in fact the ones claimed. Not even the allegedly recovered FDRs and CVRs which very suspiciously and conveniently did not contain serial numbers. There are serious allegations based on the OCT itself and video evidence as well as other physical evidence that the 4 claimed airplanes were NOT the ones officially claimed. Furthermore, the FBI denied the release of the parts identification match claimed to have been conducted by the head of the NTSB (which by itself contradicts your false claims). That raises additional suspicion that there was a coverup with respect to the recovered parts. You readily ignore or dismiss any suspicion in favor of hope and prayer. That is not very intelligent especially given the source.

Unfortunately in the case of 9/11 nothing was ever proven because there never was any legitimate investigation and a mountain of documents/evidence was either deliberately destroyed or hidden from the public. For you "proof" is strictly faith based, for me I have a much higher standard of proof that matches universally settled criminal investigation procedure and especially the scientific method which both ASSume nothing.

Non sequitur red herring. What you "love" is as immaterial as it is intellectually insulting garbage. What it seems you really love is being an apologist for the catastrophic failure of the US government to investigate 9/11. I'm not as easy as you are to accept anything they claim on faith. Unlike you, I question EVERYTHING.

 

Bob, quit the BS and just copy/paste, the part that says what you claim it says.

 

it's not an assumption Bob ... it's backed by overwhelming evidence which you choose to ignore ...

 

"overwhelming evidence" to you is anything you're fed that you're ready and willing to swallow. Like I said my standard of proof is equal to what is universally accepted in legitimate forensic criminal investigations and the scientific method, nothing less.

Please provide the link to the detailed forensic physical evidence report that conclusively identifies the alleged recovered airplane debris to each of the 4 claimed designated airliners, complete with the chain of custody. If you have that and it comes from a legitimate identifiable source, then I will accept that as evidence, anything else is faith based and doesn't scratch the surface of "overwhelming evidence".

When a person is shot and it's visually obvious that he/she was shot, there is always an autopsy and a pathology report that meticulously details the damage caused to the body that identifies the cause of death. There is never any excuse to fail to forensically examine the physical evidence and produce a detailed report in any criminal case. But this was not just any ordinary criminal case, this was 9/11 we're talking about. You're satisfied with what you're simply told, I am not and never will be. Please don't try to explain to me your personal opinion of "overwhelming evidence", it's on the same level as "troofer".

Funny thing but I just read an article recently that parallels the very kind of "investigation" to the 9/11 "investigations". I know it will mean zero to you but others might want to take a look.

From Widgery to Washington: A Bloody Sunday Family Member’s Perspective on 9/11

Award-winning author of Setting the Truth Free: The Inside Story of the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign and former Chair of the Bloody Sunday Trust in Derry, Ireland, Julieann currently works as Heritage & Programmes Coordinator for the Museum of Free Derry. All views expressed are personal.

Bereaved families should never have to fight for answers, yet they do the world over.

One would think that an atrocity on the scale of the attacks of September 11, 2001 – events which caused the deaths of almost 3,000 men, women and children in the most brutal way imaginable – would demand the most meticulous, wide-ranging investigation in US history. On the contrary. Few were satisfied with the 9/11 Commission proceedings or its subsequent 2004 report. Almost fifteen years after the report’s release, calls for a new, scientific investigation into 9/11 are growing louder and louder.

Read the rest ...

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/478...dy-sunday-family-member-s-perspective-on-9-11

 

Sorry Bob, but they know the cause of the crash.

Anyways, please post this reg. you are ranting about.

 

You are not the only poster who makes that unsupported claim. Who is "they"? And whether "they" know or not doesn't mean squat since "they" are not producing any proof of what YOU think they know. But you certainly can produce it yourself if you believe it exists. The same challenge applies to you or anyone else:

Since I don't "rant" I have no "rant" to post for you.

 

A guy who believes it's easier for a non-pilot to fly in a precision path at 100+ knots over VMO into a 77 foot wall without hitting the ground first than dive into a 33.5 acre target shouldn't be accusing anyone of ranting. You are also in violation of the rules of the forum. I suggest you be more careful with your choice of personal attacks.

Yet not one person out of "everybody involved" (definitely not you) can provide a stitch of the incontrovertible physical proof I asked for, not the NTSB, not the FBI and not the 9/11 Commission, among the major players involved. Sorry but vaporware is all you know how to post, you don't have any credibility, you proved that even before you claimed you're a pilot but can't spell "simulator", something every hopeful pilot learns in lesson #1.

 

It would be much easier, that plane would self destruct in a dive, that wasn't even a consideration. If you put that aircraft into a dive, you would lose all control, and it would self-destruct.
Of course you know nothing about flying, so they can feed you all that crap and you believe it. You ever look at a runway.
Right at the beginning is what is called the threshold.
This is where the plane touches ground. All planes.
a 50 foot, or so, area with stripes painted on it.
and it is harder to hit this, than a wall in front of it.

and nobody is interested in giving you, what you call incontrovertible physical proof of anything.
None such exists, because you would deny it anyways.
They have more important things to do.

You have been asked over and over, to provide proof for what you claim, and none has been posted.

 

Right but at 100+ knots over VMO there would be no problems, the plane would be easily controllable by a non-pilot. And the guy told you what was under consideration or not because you were his co-pilot and planned it with him? You are truly delusional, talk about rant.

Sure, like it "self-destructed" before it hit the ground diving into a hole at Shanksville. Do you make this crap up for your personal amusement or what? After all 9/11 is one big joke you claim.

And you know even less, obviously.

Says the guy who bought the OCT lock, stock and barrel. It was a "failure of imagination", right Einstein? When one has none, you can feed him/her anything.

Exactly. Maybe now you understand why I don't buy fairy tales on faith, unlike you.

Exactly, like explaining fairy tales to people like you without any supporting evidence and you suck it up like a sponge.

That's because I already posted what you keep asking for and I could care less about educating you about anything you regard as a joke.

 

Prime example of a rant.

Unlike a car, where they crash test it.
They do not crash test aircraft.
and now you are saying it was easily under control by a non-pilot.
can't have it both ways, Bob.
Nobody knows at exactly what speed it will self destruct.
and Diving it, will far exceed that speed.
And you will lose all control long before that.

and nothing was conclusive in Shanksville either.
There was no target, and it may have been shot down.

And NO, you have not posted the regulation you claim existed.
several people have asked for it, and you have no posted it.

 

Bob asks for things he knows doesn't exist based on an appendix in a document he can't understand.

Answer me this Bob,

Radar shows where each plane crashed, so what need is there to do a "forensic examination" using serial numbers?

The investigators knew all 4 aircraft were hijacked and knew all 4 deliberately crashed, so what need is there to do a parts investigation using serial numbers?

And no, saying "because it's what they always do" is not an answer Bob. Every investigation is different, and as we have shown Appendix J does not apply here.

 

And Bob.

when did your witness say he couldn't fly a Cessna.

He had a license and an instrument rating.

 

Sure Einstein.



LMFAO. Your research is impeccable.

 

LOLOLOL

No. BoB they do not crash test aircraft.
They did that one, to check a number of things,
It was actually used in the "Airplane" movie.
If I remember correctly it was used for gas explosions.
BTW, it was certified long before that test.

But all cars have to be crashed for certification
No planes have to be crash tested.

 

For my entertainment pleasure. It doesn't matter what you think. I don't care, I already explained it so even a grade school child should be able to understand it. I am not interested in trying to convince someone who created a website strictly to defend the OCT and has never questioned one single thing about it. And now rabidly tries to defend the indefensible. You're convinced, I'm quite ok with it. You're trying to convince me the investigations that never investigated anything were for real, good luck.

If the OCT was proven why would anyone meticulously create a website attempting to prove the OCT and claim it's proven? That makes sense only to someone who's desperate.

 

I'm guessing he was the same ace pilot you are.

 

It should also be pointed out to Bob that because these crashes were part of an attack, the FBI were the ones who investigated it, not the NTSB, therefore another reason why Appendix J does not apply.

 

Actually he had more training than I did.
I was just private.

 

lol I have a video on youtube which contains how the CIA lied to everyone from the White House to the 9/11 Commission and covered up their asses, but apparently I've never questioned anything... what a cop out.

 

From Wiki

Hanjour first came to the United States in 1991, enrolling at the University of Arizona, where he studied English for a few months before returning to Saudi Arabia early the next year. He came back to the United States in 1996, studying English in California before he began taking flying lessons in Arizona.[1] He received his commercial pilot certificate in 1999, and went back to his native Saudi Arabia to find a job as a commercial pilot. Hanjour applied to civil aviation school in Jeddah, but was turned down. Hanjour left his family in late 1999, telling them that he would be traveling to the United Arab Emirates to find work. According to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama bin Laden or Mohammed Atef identified Hanjour at an Afghanistan training camp as a trained pilot and selected him to participate in the September 11 attacks.

 

Sounds like you're the one who's desperate here Bob.

You are avoiding everything.

 

It's not a cop out, you did create the website strictly to defend the OCT by your own admission and I went through it. That you have a YouTube video about the CIA lies does not mean you question the OCT. It only means you agree the CIA lied to the 9/11 Commission strictly for CYA purposes. It's the same mentality as another resident OCT defender in this forum. If you have questioned the OCT, please provide the link to the post, I've never seen it. All I see from you is a cult like defense of the OCT and wholesale apologist material. What I question is why on earth you spend so much time trying to defend the US government's deliberate failure to legitimately investigate 9/11. It's not really a question, it's strictly rhetorical.

 

In before "but that's wikipedia anyone can write anything there" cop out

 

Says the guy who refuses to look at the investigation and uses a non-applicable appendix to justify his stance..