So no plane hit the Pentagon?

[Liability]

No plane crashed into the Pentagon.

No plane crashed in that field in PA (and the plane parts which were recovered from that hole in the ground, where the plane didn't crash, weren't actually there).

And not only did no planes crash into the Twin Towers in Manhattan, but both Towers are still standing perfectly intact.

No lives were lost, either, on 9/11/2001.

There. That settles that.

 

[CurveLight]

Yeah, but any defense lawyer will tell you that it is much harder to try a case without a body. When someone is convicted of murder when the body of the victim has never been recovered, there has to be a plausible explanation of what happened on the night of the murder. There has to be some plausible explanation of what happened to the body, even if it is not found. You have to have a plausible explanation of what happened to all those passengers on the plane, and how personal effects were found at the Pentagon?

You want to tell us what such a plausible scenario might be?

In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew on board American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers on board American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims. These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. In addition, rescue and recovery personnel at the Pentagon reported seeing the bodies of airline passengers. The September 14, 2001, edition of USA Today reported, “When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats.”

Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site

People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory Web site that debunks the conspiracy theory claims. The e-mail also contains photographs of airplane landing gear, tires, and fuselage fragments, which were taken at the Pentagon crash site. Moreover, the “black boxes” — the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder — for American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site. For more photographs of debris from the airliner, including the crumpled "C" from "American Airlines," see portions 4:57 to 6:00 of the "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" video.

Read more: Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?

So CurveLight

What is the plausible explanation for this? Are all the eyewitnesses lying? I can provide a list of a few hundred documented eyewitnesses. There were over 100 forensic scientists. Are they all lying? Rescuers saw the bodies. How did the bodies get there? Were those not parts of the airline on the ground?

The first step is separate the bullshit from the actual facts. Example: eyewitnesses of the plane. The OCT said it hit the Pent at 500+ miles per hour. How reliable can eyewitness testimony be on an object moving that fast that low to the ground? Why is it eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon is acceptable as proof it was 77 but eyewitness testimony for explosions in NY is disregarded? I'm not saying explosives were used.....I'm only pointing out the double standards for examining evidence.

 

[Liability]

In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew on board American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers on board American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims. These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. In addition, rescue and recovery personnel at the Pentagon reported seeing the bodies of airline passengers. The September 14, 2001, edition of USA Today reported, “When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats.”

Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site

People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory Web site that debunks the conspiracy theory claims. The e-mail also contains photographs of airplane landing gear, tires, and fuselage fragments, which were taken at the Pentagon crash site. Moreover, the “black boxes” — the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder — for American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site. For more photographs of debris from the airliner, including the crumpled "C" from "American Airlines," see portions 4:57 to 6:00 of the "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" video.

Read more: Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?

So CurveLight

What is the plausible explanation for this? Are all the eyewitnesses lying? I can provide a list of a few hundred documented eyewitnesses. There were over 100 forensic scientists. Are they all lying? Rescuers saw the bodies. How did the bodies get there? Were those not parts of the airline on the ground?

The first step is separate the bullshit from the actual facts. Example: eyewitnesses of the plane. The OCT said it hit the Pent at 500+ miles per hour. How reliable can eyewitness testimony be on an object moving that fast that low to the ground? Why is it eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon is acceptable as proof it was 77 but eyewitness testimony for explosions in NY is disregarded? I'm not saying explosives were used.....I'm only pointing out the double standards for examining evidence.

Bullshit, bent tight.

There are videotapes of the first Tower to fall on 9/11/2001 taken from a fucking close distance and with sound. They have been shared right here, already, on this very Board. There is no evidence of the use of explosives in that video. None. It was even juxtaposed with a tape of another tall building which had been explosively imploded. The series of detonations were fucking totally clear both visually AND aurally in the example of the latter building being taken down. Not a HINT of explosives is found in the former videotape, however.

You are pretending that you are only "asking questions," but everybody and his Dutch uncle knows what you are really saying. Yes, you are just that transparent.

As to the "question" of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon observing a plane moving at 500 mph (estimated speed), SOME of the witnesses are experienced with planes and jets. And if you view a videotape of the side of the Pentagon at the intant just before it was struck and the instant when it was struck, the plane cannot actually be made out -- not even in a single frame. But so what? If you were there and looking in the general area and heard the plane coming in, you would have more time to make out what the "object" was. In light of the fact that the parts of the hijacked plane were recoverd and identified from that crash site, the eyewitness accounts are more than sufficiently corroborated. In fact, there is no rational basis to even be "asking" your faux "questions."

 

[CurveLight]

So CurveLight

What is the plausible explanation for this? Are all the eyewitnesses lying? I can provide a list of a few hundred documented eyewitnesses. There were over 100 forensic scientists. Are they all lying? Rescuers saw the bodies. How did the bodies get there? Were those not parts of the airline on the ground?

The first step is separate the bullshit from the actual facts. Example: eyewitnesses of the plane. The OCT said it hit the Pent at 500+ miles per hour. How reliable can eyewitness testimony be on an object moving that fast that low to the ground? Why is it eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon is acceptable as proof it was 77 but eyewitness testimony for explosions in NY is disregarded? I'm not saying explosives were used.....I'm only pointing out the double standards for examining evidence.

Bullshit, bent tight.

There are videotapes of the first Tower to fall on 9/11/2001 taken from a fucking close distance and with sound. They have been shared right here, already, on this very Board. There is no evidence of the use of explosives in that video. None. It was even juxtaposed with a tape of another tall building which had been explosively imploded. The series of detonations were fucking totally clear both visually AND aurally in the example of the latter building being taken down. Not a HINT of explosives is found in the former videotape, however.

You are pretending that you are only "asking questions," but everybody and his Dutch uncle knows what you are really saying. Yes, you are just that transparent.

As to the "question" of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon observing a plane moving at 500 mph (estimated speed), SOME of the witnesses are experienced with planes and jets. And if you view a videotape of the side of the Pentagon at the intant just before it was struck and the instant when it was struck, the plane cannot actually be made out -- not even in a single frame. But so what? If you were there and looking in the general area and heard the plane coming in, you would have more time to make out what the "object" was. In light of the fact that the parts of the hijacked plane were recoverd and identified from that crash site, the eyewitness accounts are more than sufficiently corroborated. In fact, there is no rational basis to even be "asking" your faux "questions."

You're a fucking idiot. Did you not see where I clearly said I don't claim explosives were used? I've even posted videos arguing against an OP that stated it had evidence explosives were used you useless cry baby. I was simply pointing out how OCTAs will use one set of evidence (eyewitnesses) in one case and ignore them altogether depending on the issue. Goodness you have to be one of the dumbest fucks with internet access.

 

[Liability]

The first step is separate the bullshit from the actual facts. Example: eyewitnesses of the plane. The OCT said it hit the Pent at 500+ miles per hour. How reliable can eyewitness testimony be on an object moving that fast that low to the ground? Why is it eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon is acceptable as proof it was 77 but eyewitness testimony for explosions in NY is disregarded? I'm not saying explosives were used.....I'm only pointing out the double standards for examining evidence.

Bullshit, bent tight.

There are videotapes of the first Tower to fall on 9/11/2001 taken from a fucking close distance and with sound. They have been shared right here, already, on this very Board. There is no evidence of the use of explosives in that video. None. It was even juxtaposed with a tape of another tall building which had been explosively imploded. The series of detonations were fucking totally clear both visually AND aurally in the example of the latter building being taken down. Not a HINT of explosives is found in the former videotape, however.

You are pretending that you are only "asking questions," but everybody and his Dutch uncle knows what you are really saying. Yes, you are just that transparent.

As to the "question" of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon observing a plane moving at 500 mph (estimated speed), SOME of the witnesses are experienced with planes and jets. And if you view a videotape of the side of the Pentagon at the intant just before it was struck and the instant when it was struck, the plane cannot actually be made out -- not even in a single frame. But so what? If you were there and looking in the general area and heard the plane coming in, you would have more time to make out what the "object" was. In light of the fact that the parts of the hijacked plane were recoverd and identified from that crash site, the eyewitness accounts are more than sufficiently corroborated. In fact, there is no rational basis to even be "asking" your faux "questions."

You're a fucking idiot. Did you not see where I clearly said I don't claim explosives were used? I've even posted videos arguing against an OP that stated it had evidence explosives were used you useless cry baby. I was simply pointing out how OCTAs will use one set of evidence (eyewitnesses) in one case and ignore them altogether depending on the issue. Goodness you have to be one of the dumbest fucks with internet access.

You are a fucking idiot and dissembler. As I clearly stated, we all see that YOU are "just" supposedly "asking questions."

Your questions are fraudulent as are you.

You fucking imbecile liar.

My post disproved YOUR moronic contention.

Sometimes (and under some circumstances, you retard) it is perfectly legitimate to rely on eyewitness observations.

At other times (and under other circumstances) it isn't a good idea at all. It all depends on the circumstances, really.l

You can pretend otherwise, but that's only becausee you are incredibly stupid and wholly dishonest, ya shithead.

 

[CurveLight]

Bullshit, bent tight.

There are videotapes of the first Tower to fall on 9/11/2001 taken from a fucking close distance and with sound. They have been shared right here, already, on this very Board. There is no evidence of the use of explosives in that video. None. It was even juxtaposed with a tape of another tall building which had been explosively imploded. The series of detonations were fucking totally clear both visually AND aurally in the example of the latter building being taken down. Not a HINT of explosives is found in the former videotape, however.

You are pretending that you are only "asking questions," but everybody and his Dutch uncle knows what you are really saying. Yes, you are just that transparent.

As to the "question" of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon observing a plane moving at 500 mph (estimated speed), SOME of the witnesses are experienced with planes and jets. And if you view a videotape of the side of the Pentagon at the intant just before it was struck and the instant when it was struck, the plane cannot actually be made out -- not even in a single frame. But so what? If you were there and looking in the general area and heard the plane coming in, you would have more time to make out what the "object" was. In light of the fact that the parts of the hijacked plane were recoverd and identified from that crash site, the eyewitness accounts are more than sufficiently corroborated. In fact, there is no rational basis to even be "asking" your faux "questions."

You're a fucking idiot. Did you not see where I clearly said I don't claim explosives were used? I've even posted videos arguing against an OP that stated it had evidence explosives were used you useless cry baby. I was simply pointing out how OCTAs will use one set of evidence (eyewitnesses) in one case and ignore them altogether depending on the issue. Goodness you have to be one of the dumbest fucks with internet access.

You are a fucking idiot and dissembler. As I clearly stated, we all see that YOU are "just" supposedly "asking questions."

Your questions are fraudulent as are you.

You fucking imbecile liar.

My post disproved YOUR moronic contention.

Sometimes (and under some circumstances, you retard) it is perfectly legitimate to rely on eyewitness observations.

At other times (and under other circumstances) it isn't a good idea at all. It all depends on the circumstances, really.l

You can pretend otherwise, but that's only becausee you are incredibly stupid and wholly dishonest, ya shithead.

I see the season has impacted you. It was very generous of you to further reinforce the last line of my last post.

 

[Liability]

You're a fucking idiot. Did you not see where I clearly said I don't claim explosives were used? I've even posted videos arguing against an OP that stated it had evidence explosives were used you useless cry baby. I was simply pointing out how OCTAs will use one set of evidence (eyewitnesses) in one case and ignore them altogether depending on the issue. Goodness you have to be one of the dumbest fucks with internet access.

You are a fucking idiot and dissembler. As I clearly stated, we all see that YOU are "just" supposedly "asking questions."

Your questions are fraudulent as are you.

You fucking imbecile liar.

My post disproved YOUR moronic contention.

Sometimes (and under some circumstances, you retard) it is perfectly legitimate to rely on eyewitness observations.

At other times (and under other circumstances) it isn't a good idea at all. It all depends on the circumstances, really.l

You can pretend otherwise, but that's only becausee you are incredibly stupid and wholly dishonest, ya shithead.

I see the season has impacted you. It was very generous of you to further reinforce the last line of my last post.

Nah. You are merely persisting in proving that my assessment of you is entirely correct. You are nothing but a liar and a fucking imbecile.

And you are far too stupid and dishonest to see it or admit it.

 

[CurveLight]

You are a fucking idiot and dissembler. As I clearly stated, we all see that YOU are "just" supposedly "asking questions."

Your questions are fraudulent as are you.

You fucking imbecile liar.

My post disproved YOUR moronic contention.

Sometimes (and under some circumstances, you retard) it is perfectly legitimate to rely on eyewitness observations.

At other times (and under other circumstances) it isn't a good idea at all. It all depends on the circumstances, really.l

You can pretend otherwise, but that's only becausee you are incredibly stupid and wholly dishonest, ya shithead.

I see the season has impacted you. It was very generous of you to further reinforce the last line of my last post.

Nah. You are merely persisting in proving that my assessment of you is entirely correct. You are nothing but a liar and a fucking imbecile.

And you are far too stupid and dishonest to see it or admit it.

Hahahahahahaha.........fucking turds like you truly believe your personal views about others carry weight. Wake up you fucking ****.

 

[Liability]

I see the season has impacted you. It was very generous of you to further reinforce the last line of my last post.

Nah. You are merely persisting in proving that my assessment of you is entirely correct. You are nothing but a liar and a fucking imbecile.

And you are far too stupid and dishonest to see it or admit it.

Hahahahahahaha.........fucking turds like you truly believe your personal views about others carry weight. Wake up you fucking ****.

But smelly assholes like you don't believe your personal views about others carry weight? You just write asshole posts (like the quoted one) for no particular reason whatsoever?



You truly are one of the dumbest pieces of lying shit to infest the USMB, you lying rancid diseased twat.

Go visit Contumacious or Yukon and claim to be 12 years old. They'll be more than happy to satisfy your urge to have some more dick crammed up your asshole, you pathetic fucktard.

 

[CurveLight]

Nah. You are merely persisting in proving that my assessment of you is entirely correct. You are nothing but a liar and a fucking imbecile.

And you are far too stupid and dishonest to see it or admit it.

Hahahahahahaha.........fucking turds like you truly believe your personal views about others carry weight. Wake up you fucking ****.

But smelly assholes like you don't believe your personal views about others carry weight? You just write asshole posts (like the quoted one) for no particular reason whatsoever?



You truly are one of the dumbest pieces of lying shit to infest the USMB, you lying rancid diseased twat.

Go visit Contumacious or Yukon and claim to be 12 years old. They'll be more than happy to satisfy your urge to have some more dick crammed up your asshole, you pathetic fucktard.

Do you have flood insurance or are you confident of always having enough kleenex on hand to mop your crying tears?

 

[rdean]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE[/ame]

You see, people keep wondering why there are no pieces of plane visible.

 

[Liability]

Hahahahahahaha.........fucking turds like you truly believe your personal views about others carry weight. Wake up you fucking ****.

But smelly assholes like you don't believe your personal views about others carry weight? You just write asshole posts (like the quoted one) for no particular reason whatsoever?



You truly are one of the dumbest pieces of lying shit to infest the USMB, you lying rancid diseased twat.

Go visit Contumacious or Yukon and claim to be 12 years old. They'll be more than happy to satisfy your urge to have some more dick crammed up your asshole, you pathetic fucktard.

Do you have flood insurance or are you confident of always having enough kleenex on hand to mop your crying tears?

Awww. Poor widdle poo poo. Now you are reduced to projecting. Dry your eyes, ya ignorant, arrogant, dishonest, stupid candyass pussy-boi.

 

[CurveLight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE

You see, people keep wondering why there are no pieces of plane visible.

Are you serious? Do you know what the size differences are between an F4 and 757? The tail section of a 757 is about three times higher than the F4. The wingspan of an F4 is 38 feet. The length of an F4 is 63 feet. The F4 seats 2 people. The 757 seats about TWO HUNDRED people. The wingspan of the 757 is about 125 feet. The length is about 155 feet. You just tried to compare a BB to the moon as evidence the OCT is true.

 

[CurveLight]

But smelly assholes like you don't believe your personal views about others carry weight? You just write asshole posts (like the quoted one) for no particular reason whatsoever?



You truly are one of the dumbest pieces of lying shit to infest the USMB, you lying rancid diseased twat.

Go visit Contumacious or Yukon and claim to be 12 years old. They'll be more than happy to satisfy your urge to have some more dick crammed up your asshole, you pathetic fucktard.

Do you have flood insurance or are you confident of always having enough kleenex on hand to mop your crying tears?

Awww. Poor widdle poo poo. Now you are reduced to projecting. Dry your eyes, ya ignorant, arrogant, dishonest, stupid candyass pussy-boi.

Wow. ***** like you do repeat whatever you hear. Why don't you impress us all again with your investigative skills like you did with Operation Northwoods? You know, explain how four words were sufficient evidence the whole thing was bogus and how conspirators inside the Pentagon planted all the documents to try and give the Truther movement a boost. It must have really embarrassed the hell out of you when it was shown the ON documents were declassified long before 9E happened. Oh yes, using ON as an example, it's perfectly clear where your expertise and keen mind play vital roles in assessing information.

ROTFL! Fucking ***** like you forget you make dumbass claims like that then call others wacko? ROTFL!

 

[rdean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE

You see, people keep wondering why there are no pieces of plane visible.

Are you serious? Do you know what the size differences are between an F4 and 757? The tail section of a 757 is about three times higher than the F4. The wingspan of an F4 is 38 feet. The length of an F4 is 63 feet. The F4 seats 2 people. The 757 seats about TWO HUNDRED people. The wingspan of the 757 is about 125 feet. The length is about 155 feet. You just tried to compare a BB to the moon as evidence the OCT is true.

Not only was the 757 going hundreds of miles per hour, but it was going down, meaning it was going even faster. The F4 is build to handle 10 times the stress because of it's speed and manuverability meaning it would be a much more difficult plane to smash into tiny pieces. Just because a 757 is "bigger" doesn't mean the pieces would be "bigger"?
Think about it.

 

[Toro]

The first step is separate the bullshit from the actual facts. Example: eyewitnesses of the plane. The OCT said it hit the Pent at 500+ miles per hour. How reliable can eyewitness testimony be on an object moving that fast that low to the ground? Why is it eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon is acceptable as proof it was 77 but eyewitness testimony for explosions in NY is disregarded? I'm not saying explosives were used.....I'm only pointing out the double standards for examining evidence.

We all saw the planes fly in the WTC. Many people in the vicinity saw the planes fly into the Pentagon. Why wouldn't people see planes flying into the Pentagon? At a distance, it is not difficult to see a fast moving object.

There are hundreds of people who saw a plane flying low and into the Pentagon. Not 10 or 20. Hundreds.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Wow. ***** like you do repeat whatever you hear.

Twat did you say, assbite? You **** be understood. You must have an infuckshun in your vocal cords. Probably comes from sucking too much Yukon dick.

Try again to say something intelligent -- for once.

* * * *

I took the liberty of snipping the balance of your irrational vile blathering banter.

 

[HUGGY]

The first step is separate the bullshit from the actual facts. Example: eyewitnesses of the plane. The OCT said it hit the Pent at 500+ miles per hour. How reliable can eyewitness testimony be on an object moving that fast that low to the ground? Why is it eyewitness testimony on the Pentagon is acceptable as proof it was 77 but eyewitness testimony for explosions in NY is disregarded? I'm not saying explosives were used.....I'm only pointing out the double standards for examining evidence.

We all saw the planes fly in the WTC. Many people in the vicinity saw the planes fly into the Pentagon. Why wouldn't people see planes flying into the Pentagon? At a distance, it is not difficult to see a fast moving object.

There are hundreds of people who saw a plane flying low and into the Pentagon. Not 10 or 20. Hundreds.

Was this one of your witnesses?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFK1rvL2NoQ[/ame]

 

[Fizz]

this guy did

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=related[/ame]

and this one...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMBS9xoctQ&NR=1[/ame]

and this guy

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjJxxrCxMpk&feature=related[/ame]

 

[CurveLight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE

You see, people keep wondering why there are no pieces of plane visible.

Are you serious? Do you know what the size differences are between an F4 and 757? The tail section of a 757 is about three times higher than the F4. The wingspan of an F4 is 38 feet. The length of an F4 is 63 feet. The F4 seats 2 people. The 757 seats about TWO HUNDRED people. The wingspan of the 757 is about 125 feet. The length is about 155 feet. You just tried to compare a BB to the moon as evidence the OCT is true.

Not only was the 757 going hundreds of miles per hour, but it was going down, meaning it was going even faster. The F4 is build to handle 10 times the stress because of it's speed and manuverability meaning it would be a much more difficult plane to smash into tiny pieces. Just because a 757 is "bigger" doesn't mean the pieces would be "bigger"?
Think about it.

Okay. Clearly you are special. Go to any aviation site or anywhere else where pilots and experts talk about plane crashes. I'm not capable of the patience necessary for explaining why it's ridiculous to compare an f4 to a fucking 757 crash.