He's just making sure there's no doubt that he has absolutely no idea of the subject matter at hand. It's almost like a finely honed skill to be this willfully ignorant, and to ignore someone on this thread who seems to have seen the actual event take place.Old Army Ghost said:lol you still here despite being proven wrong time and time again? quite braveAggiEE said:
Ha! I mean, it's not like our government would ever stage a false flag that killed innocent citizens.
Even though we know definitively that they have had a similar plan drafted up as Operation Northwoods and only needed presidential approval decades before 9/11
And then we have foreign governments like the Israelis attacking the US in false flags to catalyze their agenda
9/11 Pentagon Attack Question
27,345 Views |
623 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by PA24
Ok, so tell me where they specifically linked engine parts found at the scene to the exact aircraft that was alleged to have crashed
You keep bringing up your experience as if that's the way the investigation was largely conducted
It's sort of like assuming NIST would logically try and figure out what caused total collapse. Any engineer would obviously attempt to do that, right? But no, NIST only investigated the initiation of collapse because they considered total collapse to be the obvious result.
Well Duh, we already know the AA aircraft that hit the pentagon. No need to dig much further because we all know it's true by looking at some ridiculous camera footage slideshow and because that's what ur government and media told us so it must be true
You keep bringing up your experience as if that's the way the investigation was largely conducted
It's sort of like assuming NIST would logically try and figure out what caused total collapse. Any engineer would obviously attempt to do that, right? But no, NIST only investigated the initiation of collapse because they considered total collapse to be the obvious result.
Well Duh, we already know the AA aircraft that hit the pentagon. No need to dig much further because we all know it's true by looking at some ridiculous camera footage slideshow and because that's what ur government and media told us so it must be true
Can you address the eyewitnesses element? As if this was an event in 1895 and we don't have any video to clutter understanding and we have to rely on the witnesses?
Put very bluntly -- are you saying all those witnesses were paid to lie about seeing a two engine aircraft slam into the Pentagon? Some apparently either known to posters on the board (BigRob, others) or posting even? There are more than one that say that.
What might be said is no adequate verification of the remains *within* the building of the airframe happened the way the forensic team would want, because it had been removed before they got to inspect everything. There are pictures though.
AggiEE said:
Ok, so tell me where they specifically linked engine parts found at the scene to the exact aircraft that was alleged to have crashed
You keep bringing up your experience as if that's the way the investigation was largely conducted
It's sort of like assuming NIST would logically try and figure out what caused total collapse. Any engineer would obviously attempt to do that, right? But no, NIST only investigated the initiation of collapse because they considered total collapse to be the obvious result.
Well Duh, we already know the AA aircraft that hit the pentagon. No need to dig much further because we all know it's true by looking at some ridiculous camera footage slideshow and because that's what ur government and media told us so it must be true
Show us or point us to your evidence to support your theory that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. Where did that 757 go? What happened to the passengers and crew? Not a theory, please. Some evidence, any evidence, that supports your theory. Something beyond "I don't trust the government".
New World Ag said:
Props for owning up to that
I know zero about aircraft. Thought it was like weaponry (and almost everything else, from engines to tool sizes), where bigger number meant bigger size. Pretty stupid, oh well.
My current stance is I don't know what hit the Pentagon. The physical evidence that's available does not appear consistent with a 757 impact and resulting debris. The penetration of the fuselage into inner sections of the pentagon is not consistent with a 757
And if it is a 757, why won't the government disclose clear and convincing camera footage that they most assuredly have?
And if it is a 757, why won't the government disclose clear and convincing camera footage that they most assuredly have?
I think that eye witnesses can be unreliable. More so when dealing with a quickly moving event like this.
1. Just because they saw a plane doesn't mean they saw a 757
2. After the official narrative has been announced, psychologically they are more likely to admit to the official narrative even if they don't truly recall the exact aircraft details that would suggest a 757
3. Some are probably straight up government disinfo
1. Just because they saw a plane doesn't mean they saw a 757
2. After the official narrative has been announced, psychologically they are more likely to admit to the official narrative even if they don't truly recall the exact aircraft details that would suggest a 757
3. Some are probably straight up government disinfo
Objection: Whatever else, those facts are not in evidence. We have no real indication of "good coverage" with camera stream video there that day. Just the assumption "it must be so" because of the building. But that doesn't reliably follow. And its certainly not evidence.AggiEE said:
My current stance is I don't know what hit the Pentagon. The physical evidence that's available does not appear consistent with a 757 impact and resulting debris. The penetration of the fuselage into inner sections of the pentagon is not consistent with a 757
And if it is a 757, why won't the government disclose clear and convincing camera footage that they most assuredly have?
Again, what of the eyewitnesses--- how do you account for them? Conceivably a different type of 2-engine plane can't be ruled out, a fair number seem to confirm that at least.
Edit: just saw your follow-up, where you did address the above. I didn't say 757 -- I said two-engine plane--much harder to mistake or not. But an important detail.
Conversely, the govt couldn't guarantee someone would NOT shoot good camera footage, perhaps from a car, as a tourist-- purely by chance. What would hiding the view of the plane hitting be hiding?
AggiEE said:
Not even remotely comparable
How so? It's a fast moving object constructed of mostly the same materials as the 757, both traveling at close to the same speeds, both impacting a concrete wall. The result isn't exactly the same because the mass of the two aircraft and the density of the walls are different, but the video demonstrates that large components of the aircraft are reduced to tiny pieces of debris. The point being, such an event is capable of completely obliterating the materials from the enormous energy release. You wouldn't have very large pieces of the plane still intact after impact.
Never mind the fact that in order to pull off the kind of complex, coordinated sleight of hand at the magnitude you suggest, there'd have to be hundreds if not thousands of people directly or indirectly involved. All would have to keep their mouths shut forever, and that simply isn't happening. That goes against human nature, especially when this would mean 2977 people were summarily murdered by the government. Someone always leaks.
Of course the government lies all the time. It's not a matter of "trusting the government," it's common sense, Occam's Razor.
All possible. But if they saw a plane what is it hiding to conceal that fact? In other words, why would it matter --- a staged attack is going to make sure the plane looks like the one alleged. Drill down --- what is the goal, reason, that the type of plane hitting the Pentagon may matter so much? (Never mind that it means the official story is wrong--what would have been the reason for not saying a smaller plane (if that is what getting at?) was hijacked instead? Remember we are talking about a scenario where the ramming a false-flag.AggiEE said:
I think that eye witnesses can be unreliable. More so when dealing with a quickly moving event like this.
1. Just because they saw a plane doesn't mean they saw a 757
2. After the official narrative has been announced, psychologically they are more likely to admit to the official narrative even if they don't truly recall the exact aircraft details that would suggest a 757
3. Some are probably straight up government disinfo
Is this a contorted kind of way of trying to say a smaller plane than a 757 hit, and if so, what does that really mean, in terms of different result? Is it even necessary to posit such?
Rapier108 said:Most of them believe they were killed by the government shortly after being taken off the planes, or, my personal favorite because it is the most whacked out one, they were willing sacrifices for the cause, whether that is the New World Order or the Zionist World Conspiracy.Quote:
or that hijacked airline passengers were not brought to a secluded island where they still live today.
And by "personal favorite" I mean the one I find to be the absolutely most ludicrous one out there.
It would help if our government wasn't evil and didn't lie all the time. Everyone knows the cia has done heinous things, but thankfully mostly to non-Americans. Probably some domestic ops against Americans we don't even know about. If America was a solid, upright institution, I think a lot of the more loony types wouldn't exist.
Our government feeds ridiculous conspiracy theories because other "ridiculous conspiracy theories" keep turning out to be true and it's apparent we are all expendable.
Power and money is their only objective. Have a little sympathy on those who don't know what to believe anymore.
If you believe the government isn't evil and corrupt, you are an absolute loon imo.
To me, the truthers are no worse than those who think the American government is good and just.
My belief is it was a smaller plane and perhaps fired something to cause a bigger explosion/spectacle which would be more consistent with the inner portion of the pentagon being penetrated, and the lack of considerable engine impact areas and resulting engine debris
There are also eye witnesses that claim something similar if I recall
There are also eye witnesses that claim something similar if I recall
Thaddeus Beauregard said:AggiEE said:
Not even remotely comparable
How so? It's a fast moving object constructed of mostly the same materials as the 757, both traveling at close to the same speeds, both impacting a concrete wall. The result isn't exactly the same because the mass of the two aircraft and the density of the walls are different, but the video demonstrates that large components of the aircraft are reduced to tiny pieces of debris. The point being, such an event is capable of completely obliterating the materials from the enormous energy release. You wouldn't have very large pieces of the plane still intact after impact.
Never mind the fact that in order to pull off the kind of complex, coordinated sleight of hand at the magnitude you suggest, there'd have to be hundreds if not thousands of people directly or indirectly involved. All would have to keep their mouths shut forever, and that simply isn't happening. That goes against human nature, especially when this would mean 2977 people were summarily murdered by the government. Someone always leaks.
Of course the government lies all the time. It's not a matter of "trusting the government," it's common sense, Occam's Razor.
Why do some people believe someone always has to talk? Completely false. Covert ops happen and are declassified and nobody talked
There are many known false flags where nobody talked
Thinking it's impossible to keep a secret just plays into the fictitious lie that conspiracies never happen, especially when those in power believe the ends justify the means
Brittmoore Car Club said:
If you believe the government isn't evil and corrupt, you are an absolute loon imo.
To me, the truthers are no worse than those who think the American government is good and just.
Complete strawman. Nobody in this thread even remotely suggested such.
The "truther" arguments simply involve an implausibly complex, mind numbingly ridiculous hodgepodge of fantasies that defy logic and ignore simple facts and numerous eye witness accounts. Not to mention failing to explain the disappearance of the planes and their passengers.
And even if there isn't crystal clear, HD video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, there are countless clear videos of the planes hitting the towers, as well as incontrovertible wreckage from the Flight 93 crash site In Pennsylvania.
AggiEE said:
Why do some people believe someone always has to talk? Completely false. Covert ops happen and are declassified and nobody talked
There are many known false flags where nobody talked
Thinking it's impossible to keep a secret just plays into the fictitious lie that conspiracies never happen, especially when those in power believe the ends justify the means
Because covert ops always involve a very limited number of people and never involve the murder of nearly 3000 innocent Americans. What you suggest would require a monumental scheme requiring hundreds of people to coordinate, all on board with the murder of 3000 fellow Americans, all executing this complex plan to perfection with no mistakes, all never leaking a word to anyone, all in densely populated urban areas with countless eye witnesses. The government isn't that competent. It can't even reliably deliver the mail.
Most "truthers" base the foundation of their beliefs in the physical impossibility of the collapses, including WTC7.
The rest of the events surrounding 9/11 are extremely suspicious with plenty of unknowns. Everything from the flight paths, the hijackers themselves, the apparent discovery of a hijacker's passport in NYC, the lack of evidence at shanksville or the pentagon, to the numerous drills conducted by Norad that were extremely timely and beneficial to the alleged hijackings.
You can believe the 9/11 truther theories require so much complexity that they are implausible, but the government's narrative and the collapse of three buildings is impossible.
The rest of the events surrounding 9/11 are extremely suspicious with plenty of unknowns. Everything from the flight paths, the hijackers themselves, the apparent discovery of a hijacker's passport in NYC, the lack of evidence at shanksville or the pentagon, to the numerous drills conducted by Norad that were extremely timely and beneficial to the alleged hijackings.
You can believe the 9/11 truther theories require so much complexity that they are implausible, but the government's narrative and the collapse of three buildings is impossible.
The amount of people that willingly knew would not need to be as high as claimed. These ops are highly compartmentalized and can be conducted under benign orders collectively being orchestrated by those actually in the know at the top chain of command.
AggiEE said:
My belief is it was a smaller plane and perhaps fired something to cause a bigger explosion/spectacle which would be more consistent with the inner portion of the pentagon being penetrated, and the lack of considerable engine impact areas and resulting engine debris
There are also eye witnesses that claim something similar if I recall
The conspiracy actually crashed two 767's into the WTC, and a 757 into a field.
Another 757 disappeared along with everyone onboard. It was videoed crashing into the pentagon. The remains of the flights passengers were identified in the pentagon. Pieces of the 757 were scattered in and around the pentagon. Numerous eyewitnesses saw it hit the pentagon. ATC tracked it to the pentagon. The NTSB verified its flight path through the flight data recorder that was recovered in the pentagon.
So naturally the most likely answer is that the 757 in question vanished, the government crashed a smaller plane into the pentagon, then planted all of the bodies and debris, and faked everything else. This was necessary because they only crashed real 767's and 757's elsewhere because reasons.
Even among crackpot theories this one is just utterly ludicrous. At least add some intrigue or a motive for why it would be necessary or even advantageous to NOT use a 757/767 like the three other instances. That anyone capable of living on their own is dumb enough to come to buy this idiotic theory is just depressing.
AggiEE said:
the government's narrative and the collapse of three buildings is impossible.
Yes, that's what we've been told happened. Doesn't make it so.
Where's the big engine damage? Why did the inner portion of the pentagon get so deeply penetrated by one of the relatively lightest parts of the aircraft? Why are eyewitness reports not consistent? Why is it that the claimed flight path is impossible to replicate by highly experienced 757 pilots? Why isn't there more discernible wreckage? Why won't they release all the camera footage?
You act like none of this stuff is easily spoofed. In fact, swapping planes, faking ATC data, and so forth was part of Operation Northwoods. An officially drafted military plan to stage a terrorist attack like 9/11
Where's the big engine damage? Why did the inner portion of the pentagon get so deeply penetrated by one of the relatively lightest parts of the aircraft? Why are eyewitness reports not consistent? Why is it that the claimed flight path is impossible to replicate by highly experienced 757 pilots? Why isn't there more discernible wreckage? Why won't they release all the camera footage?
You act like none of this stuff is easily spoofed. In fact, swapping planes, faking ATC data, and so forth was part of Operation Northwoods. An officially drafted military plan to stage a terrorist attack like 9/11
AggiEE said:
Yes, that's what we've been told happened. Doesn't make it so.
Where's the big engine damage? Why did the inner portion of the pentagon get so deeply penetrated by one of the relatively lightest parts of the aircraft? Why are eyewitness reports not consistent? Why is it that the claimed flight path is impossible to replicate by highly experienced 757 pilots? Why isn't there more discernible wreckage? Why won't they release all the camera footage?
Literally every one of those has been addressed in this thread, and you've been clubbed with facts. You've crawfished full circle back to the beginning. There's a reason 9/11 truthers are so widely regarded as morons.
GAC06 said:AggiEE said:
Yes, that's what we've been told happened. Doesn't make it so.
Where's the big engine damage? Why did the inner portion of the pentagon get so deeply penetrated by one of the relatively lightest parts of the aircraft? Why are eyewitness reports not consistent? Why is it that the claimed flight path is impossible to replicate by highly experienced 757 pilots? Why isn't there more discernible wreckage? Why won't they release all the camera footage?
Literally every one of those has been addressed in this thread, and you've been clubbed with facts. You've crawfished full circle back to the beginning. There's a reason 9/11 truthers are so widely regarded as morons.
No it hasn't, you just continue to hand waive glaring inconsistencies
What's funny is how you claim it's so crazy that the government would ever swap planes, fake radar data, etc…when we have the blueprint officially drafted to the highest levels of government against its own citizens doing exactly those things! Operation Northwoods, look it up.
How do you reconcile this huge revelation with your idea that the government could never stage or fake a false flag attack? It was just waiting for the president to sign off, ffs.
Here is the evidence you have presented to justify claiming it was not AA77: nothing. Zero evidence. None.
Every bit of evidence points to AA77.
You can't even come up with a reason why it might even make sense to not use AA77 as had been used in the other three attacks.
So based on zero motive or explanation why a supposed mastermind might even want to use a different plane, and absolutely zero evidence, you decided it must be something else because it makes you feel important.
Every bit of evidence points to AA77.
You can't even come up with a reason why it might even make sense to not use AA77 as had been used in the other three attacks.
So based on zero motive or explanation why a supposed mastermind might even want to use a different plane, and absolutely zero evidence, you decided it must be something else because it makes you feel important.
I am not totally dismissing the potential for it to be a 757, I'm just not overwhelmingly convinced it was
May have opted for a local drone aircraft instead if it was believed that increased air defense at pentagon could potentially jeopardize the outside 757 from a direct pentagon hit.
May have opted for a local drone aircraft instead if it was believed that increased air defense at pentagon could potentially jeopardize the outside 757 from a direct pentagon hit.
Oh yeah. One of those local drone aircraft. That makes perfect sense. Good lord.
That your theory is supported by absolutely zero evidence, and refuted by a ****load doesn't seem to phase you, as usual.
That your theory is supported by absolutely zero evidence, and refuted by a ****load doesn't seem to phase you, as usual.
Same ridiculous rhetoric.
Ask question
Get answer
Get angry, swear, ****, insult because you don't like answer
Ask question
Get answer
Get angry, swear, ****, insult because you don't like answer
You are making claims based on pure conjecture. You have nothing at all to suggest a "local drone" hit the pentagon and AA77 and its passengers all disappeared. Nothing.
But there's a mountain of evidence saying that's not what happened. Yet here you are, making up claims.
Maybe it was a unicorn. Maybe it was an asteroid. There is the same amount of evidence to support those claims as yours, but the same mountain of evidence refuting them.
But there's a mountain of evidence saying that's not what happened. Yet here you are, making up claims.
Maybe it was a unicorn. Maybe it was an asteroid. There is the same amount of evidence to support those claims as yours, but the same mountain of evidence refuting them.
Doesn't one realize the forensics would show on AA reservation the history of who bought tickets and would ID all of the folks on that plane. I am pretty sure all of the passengers names were listed at one time. Then there is documentation of checking in, checking luggage and boarding the AA. Followed by all of the control tower communication and radar data generated from the moment the plane started to take off. Then you could take that list and cross reference it against all of the funerals of those passengers after the plane crashesp. I remember funerals being shown on TV.
……does one need to further to prove AA did not have a flight go down that day?
……does one need to further to prove AA did not have a flight go down that day?
AggiEE said:
The amount of people that willingly knew would not need to be as high as claimed. These ops are highly compartmentalized and can be conducted under benign orders collectively being orchestrated by those actually in the know at the top chain of command.
Are you capable of chewing your own food without assistance?
In his defense (can't believe I'm doing this), you can't prove a negative - ERGO the conspiracy theories live since no one can definitively prove they AREN'T true.GAC06 said:
Here is the evidence you have presented to justify claiming it was not AA77: nothing. Zero evidence. None.
It's a form of insanity, really.
Guys, I have some news to reveal. Although I received a large sum of money not to disclose this, AggiEE has convinced me that it's time to tell the real story.
On 9/11, I was in the section of the Pentagon that got "hit". I was making a cheesy pita in the microwave, it caught fire, and things quickly spiraled out of control. This is what created the fireball you see on the video. As this would have been my fifth time that month with a microwave-related incident in the office (I like my popcorn and lunch fish filets cooked well-done), I was on thin ice with the higher ups.
To save himself the embarrassment of hiring such a colossal screw up, and me being the only one in the office who had deferred my computer upgrade to Windows ME from Windows 98 SE, Donald Rumsfeld ("Donny", as I called him) made Cingular a fortune that day in text fees, and instructed me to edit some photos and videos to make it look as though it was part of the broader 9/11 attack. Paying off the numerous eyewitnesses, university professors, actual experts, and buying destroyed plane parts to scatter around the exterior was quite expensive, but worth it to get all of you sheeple to believe our story.
It feels so good to get this off my chest after nearly 22 years. Obviously, after this incident, I was shuffled around the federal government, and now work alongside AggiEE for a four-letter space-related agency primarily responsible for convincing everyone that the world is spherical instead of it's actual shape, which I am sworn to secrecy about. I'll just say this: there is a reason my transition from the "Pentagon" to my new agency went so smoothly.
On 9/11, I was in the section of the Pentagon that got "hit". I was making a cheesy pita in the microwave, it caught fire, and things quickly spiraled out of control. This is what created the fireball you see on the video. As this would have been my fifth time that month with a microwave-related incident in the office (I like my popcorn and lunch fish filets cooked well-done), I was on thin ice with the higher ups.
To save himself the embarrassment of hiring such a colossal screw up, and me being the only one in the office who had deferred my computer upgrade to Windows ME from Windows 98 SE, Donald Rumsfeld ("Donny", as I called him) made Cingular a fortune that day in text fees, and instructed me to edit some photos and videos to make it look as though it was part of the broader 9/11 attack. Paying off the numerous eyewitnesses, university professors, actual experts, and buying destroyed plane parts to scatter around the exterior was quite expensive, but worth it to get all of you sheeple to believe our story.
It feels so good to get this off my chest after nearly 22 years. Obviously, after this incident, I was shuffled around the federal government, and now work alongside AggiEE for a four-letter space-related agency primarily responsible for convincing everyone that the world is spherical instead of it's actual shape, which I am sworn to secrecy about. I'll just say this: there is a reason my transition from the "Pentagon" to my new agency went so smoothly.
Why are you so fixated on engine components while ignoring the mountain of other parts of that specific 757? You're looking for a way out of using common sense. The engine cores, which a couple of discs from have already been shown matter no more than LRUs, the gear, or floor beams. All of them do the same thing when it comes to traceability but you think you have some kind of gotcha.AggiEE said:
Ok, so tell me where they specifically linked engine parts found at the scene to the exact aircraft that was alleged to have crashed
You keep bringing up your experience as if that's the way the investigation was largely conducted
It's sort of like assuming NIST would logically try and figure out what caused total collapse. Any engineer would obviously attempt to do that, right? But no, NIST only investigated the initiation of collapse because they considered total collapse to be the obvious result.
Well Duh, we already know the AA aircraft that hit the pentagon. No need to dig much further because we all know it's true by looking at some ridiculous camera footage slideshow and because that's what ur government and media told us so it must be true
Experience is brought up as in, I'm not talking out of my ass when it comes to how to trace parts to a specific plane. You've been ignoring reality while I speak about how it's done from a position of authority. You're latching on to some points that are flat out wrong when it comes to how commercial aircraft are documented and continued to use what amounts to an argument of "nuh-uh!" when presented the reality of how things work.
You're also intentionally ignoring the testimony of all the people who saw the event happen, or are they in on the conspiracy along with Boeing, AA, their MROs, and a global supply chain?
So I guess government operatives also held guns to Renee May's and Barbara Olson's heads, forced them to call their loved ones to tell them Flight 77 was hijacked by terrorists and that they were all herded into the rear of the plane, before they were summarily executed.
The government also managed to recruit the pilots of the other 3 planes to willingly sacrifice their lives for the cause and fly into the towers and a field in Pennsylvania. But it was unsuccessful in recruiting that 4th suicide pilot for Operation Dumb@ss, so a missile played the role of AA77.
The government also managed to recruit the pilots of the other 3 planes to willingly sacrifice their lives for the cause and fly into the towers and a field in Pennsylvania. But it was unsuccessful in recruiting that 4th suicide pilot for Operation Dumb@ss, so a missile played the role of AA77.
AggiEE said:
My current stance is I don't know what hit the Pentagon. The physical evidence that's available does not appear consistent with a 757 impact and resulting debris. The penetration of the fuselage into inner sections of the pentagon is not consistent with a 757
And if it is a 757, why won't the government disclose clear and convincing camera footage that they most assuredly have?
Thanks. Now you show you not only have no evidence, you don't even have a theory to try to support with evidence.
The Fife said:
You're also intentionally ignoring the testimony of all the people who saw the event happen, or are they in on the conspiracy along with Boeing, AA, their MROs, and a global supply chain?
Nah brother, all of those parties were kept completely in the dark by a "highly compartmentalized" op "conducted under benign orders collectively being orchestrated by those actually in the know at the top chain of command."
It was pretty simple really.
Fat Black Swan
Dude appears on Yankees Stadium Jumbotron with "Schloss Sucks" message on his phone
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
36
Here4Beer
Dude appears on Yankees Stadium Jumbotron with "Schloss Sucks" message on his phone
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
11
theeyetest
Dude appears on Yankees Stadium Jumbotron with "Schloss Sucks" message on his phone
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
11
GigEmADED
Dude appears on Yankees Stadium Jumbotron with "Schloss Sucks" message on his phone
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
11
bonfarr
Dude appears on Yankees Stadium Jumbotron with "Schloss Sucks" message on his phone
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
9