911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[Wyld Kard]

Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?

Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.

After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.

Feel free to account for the physical evidence if you can.

How did the wreckage get there?
How did the ATC's track AA77 into Pentagon Airspace but not out of it
How did the light poles get knocked down by a "cruise missile" as alleged in title of the thread.

Feel free tough guy. Or sit there and continue to call people names like a punk that you are.

 

[phoenyx]

Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof?

Well you did behave exactly as candycorn predicted you would.

And how is that, exactly? Also, would you mind answering the questions above this time?

Well candycorn said, "it also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything," and that is precisely what you've done.

No, that's exactly what -candycorn- has done. She has determined that the evidence I have provided isn't plausible, and therefore I'm wrong . You, atleast, are seeing the videos I've provided and commenting on specific witnesses, such as Terry Morin. You may have not really understood the implications of what he said in the video, but I can help make such implications clear in followup.

I'm still waiting to hear your response to the wheel hub found at the crash site. I showed you a photo of that piece of wreckage alongside that of how it would have looked prior to the crash. You didn't respond.

I hadn't yet responded to that post because I hadn't yet gotten to it. I almost always respond to posts chronologically. This post of mine you were responding to was post 257. In post 257, I was responding to post 245. The post you're referring to was 248. I got to it in post 262. If I haven't yet responded to a particular post of yours, see what post I was responding to in my last post. If it's before the one you're awaiting a response for, you'll know the probable reason why.

As far as your question ... I have yet to see evidence the official account is false.

In other words, you believe that the evidence against the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof, no?

All I see from your side is conjecture

I could say the same for much of the official narrative.

and questions.

Do you not have any questions concerning the official narrative?

Conjecture which doesn't add up

According to you...

and questions designed to inject doubt into the official story.

When responding to you, I generally design my questions to get you to ponder whether the official narrative is actually true, yes. I think it's the most effective approach to use; to ponder Mark Twain's old line:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Even worse for you... there are some certifiable nuts on your side who make twoofers look absolutely batshit insane. I'm not saying that of you, but folks like 7forever, 9/11 inside job, Dale Smith, et al., aren't doing folks like you any favors.

Judging from Dale's response to this post of yours, as well as other responses to various posts of yours and others from your side of the fence, it seems that the feeling is mutual. I try my best to steer clear of the name calling and insults; I don't see how it helps anything, and enough of it can paralyze any meaningful discussion.

Meanwhile, I see the official story as far more plausible than any other account I've heard.

Ofcourse, which is why you believe it . I believe alternative narratives because I believe -they- are more plausible. What a person believes concerning 9/11 is just one more set of beliefs, along other sets such as political affiliation and religion (or lack thereof). I don't know about others, but I come to forums to try to explain why I believe what I believe, learn why others believe other things, and see if there's a way that we can come to agreements on these differing beliefs.

 

[candycorn]

Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?

Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.

After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.

Feel free to account for the physical evidence if you can.

How did the wreckage get there?
How did the ATC's track AA77 into Pentagon Airspace but not out of it
How did the light poles get knocked down by a "cruise missile" as alleged in title of the thread.

Feel free tough guy. Or sit there and continue to call people names like a punk that you are.

As long as you guys continue to produce bullshit theories, I suppose the stupid will continue. Or you could try to prove the thesis. But we both know you can't. Being so overwhelmingly powerless must suck for you.

 

[candycorn]

Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof?

Well you did behave exactly as candycorn predicted you would.

And how is that, exactly? Also, would you mind answering the questions above this time?

Well candycorn said, "it also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything," and that is precisely what you've done.

No, that's exactly what -candycorn- has done. She has determined that the evidence I have provided isn't plausible, and therefore I'm wrong .

Nice try.

You're not wrong. There is a difference between simply committing an error and being wrong.

This is committing an error:

2 + 5 = 8.
You added 2 & 5 and ended up with 8 instead of the correct answer of 7.

Being wrong is this:

2 + 5 = How do you know there are only 2 units and 5 units being added?
And I don't trust that plus sign...

You're not deemed wrong because you've analyzed the physical evidence and came to a conclusion different than ours.

You're deemed wrong because you refuse to accept the superiority of physical evidence in most cases and assume the physical evidence is corrupted somehow while not being able to back it up.

Basically, you're being stupid. And you obviously know this.

I will explain it yet again:

If your finger prints are found at the scene of a crime, you have some explaining to do. It's that simple. They had to have gotten there somehow. Lets say there is a murder of a woman at her home and the murder instrument is a heavy glass vase with your finger prints on them. Maybe you delivered flowers to the woman at her office and later in the day, she took the flowers home and was murdered with it when when she interrupted an intruder. There can be multiple plausible expainations for physical evidence.

I've found that with all 9/11 twoofers, the rubber hits the road when you have them try to explain physical evidence. Since there are so few plausible theories that account for wreckage, ATC tracking, and the lightpoles...they end up like you, frustrated and having to come up with some bullshit narrative about their intent.

 

[Indofred]

Actual news report......

That's the winner.
That report was before the official story was set up to the press, so the reporter had to play it by ear, actually telling the truth about what he saw.

The rest is science as the pre collapse hole and general damage simply isn't big enough for a larger aircraft to have hit it.

If one part of the story is extremely questionable, that begs questions about the rest of it.

 

[Indofred]

As long as you guys continue to produce bullshit theories,

Prove a plane did hit the pentagon.
Pictures will do very nicely.

 

[Faun]

Oh, like the bullshit that the so-called Official Story of 9/11 is comprised of makes a lick of sense?

Like I said before, enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid and remaining ignorant.

After all, it's what gullible idiots like yourself do best.

Feel free to account for the physical evidence if you can.

How did the wreckage get there?
How did the ATC's track AA77 into Pentagon Airspace but not out of it
How did the light poles get knocked down by a "cruise missile" as alleged in title of the thread.

Feel free tough guy. Or sit there and continue to call people names like a punk that you are.

As long as you guys continue to produce bullshit theories, I suppose the stupid will continue. Or you could try to prove the thesis. But we both know you can't. Being so overwhelmingly powerless must suck for you.

Well then go ahead and explain the wheel hub found.

 

[Faun]

As long as you guys continue to produce bullshit theories,

Prove a plane did hit the pentagon.
Pictures will do very nicely.

 

[Faun]

And now, just for fun ... for our reality-deprived friends...

cc: Indofred; phoenyx; Wildcard

 

[LaDexter]

Well then go ahead and explain the wheel hub found.

CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING

 

[phoenyx]

I’m quite surprised that you agree on the proper spelling of the word “conspiracy”. After all, nobody has proven to you that the word “conspiracy” is spelled “c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y”, have they?

Fortunately for us, we have dictionaries that tend to spell and define words fairly uniformly. Let's get back to the actual topic now, shall we?

This is the actual topic.

Well, yes, I suppose, in a broad sense, but then so does every other thread in this sub forum. The subject of this -thread-, however, tends to focus on the explosion at the Pentagon during 9/11, mainly because the thread of this title references this event.

We have dictionaries?

Indeed -.-

And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. It's just too dull -.-

 

[phoenyx]

Of course you dismissed it. candycorn presented you with parts of the plane which were recovered at the scene and later introduced as evidence at trial.

There you go, assuming that what we are told by government officials must be the truth. Surely you understand that if 9/11 truly was an inside job, those involved would have a vested interest in doctoring the evidence?

And how does that differ from the litany of "Truther experts" whose opinions you assume are honest?

You may find that I don't assume a whole lot. For starters, if I did, I would write posts that are an awful lot shorter -.- But addressing your point regarding truthers, I don't assume what someone says is true based on whether or not that someone is labelled a "truther".

Considering the gov't report is based on the findings of independent experts whose reps are staked on the quality and integrity of their work, isn't it possible - even probable - that your "experts" have another, less honest agenda?

I'm sorry, but what independent experts are you referring to? Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Or perhaps Pilots for 9/11 Truth? Citizen Investigation Team? Firefighters for 9/11 Truth? Another group of experts mentioned in Patriots for 9/11 Truth?

I allude, of course, to your attempt to diminish the significance of the Moussaoui conviction by claiming he was "tortured."

Admittedly, I hadn't heard that, unlike Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times, Moussaoui apparently wasn't waterboarded at all. Or atleast, that's what we've been told.

Not only was he convicted on far more evidence than his confession...

I'm not saying that there weren't some patsies lined up to take the fall for 9/11, and I can easily imagine that Moussaoui was a backup patsy, or was atleast led to believe that he could possibly be a 'martyr for the cause' in a 'second wave' or whatever. This doesn't mean that any of the actual alleged hijackers actually hijacked anything, let alone that there was ever going to be a 'second wave'.

 

[Faun]

Well then go ahead and explain the wheel hub found.

CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING

Well that should be easy enough for you to prove. That photo is from the Pentagon crash site. Prove your claim by showing that photo before the wheel hub was photoshopped in....

 

[candycorn]

I’m quite surprised that you agree on the proper spelling of the word “conspiracy”. After all, nobody has proven to you that the word “conspiracy” is spelled “c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y”, have they?

Fortunately for us, we have dictionaries that tend to spell and define words fairly uniformly. Let's get back to the actual topic now, shall we?

This is the actual topic.

Well, yes, I suppose, in a broad sense, but then so does every other thread in this sub forum. The subject of this -thread-, however, tends to focus on the explosion at the Pentagon during 9/11, mainly because the thread of this title references this event.

We have dictionaries?

Indeed -.-

And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. It's just too dull -.-

And now you recognize why nobody follows you into your "rabbit hole" where pictures are falsified, prosecutorial misconduct and "I heard"

 

[LaDexter]

 

[phoenyx]

I'm willing to try to persuade [Candy] that 9/11 was an inside regardless of whether or not [Candy] believes that Oswald killed JFK alone. Furthermore, Candy isn't the only person in this thread who believes in the OCT concerning 9/11. There is, for instance, Faun. And while you have said that he, too, believes JFK was killed by Oswald alone, judging from his 3 posts contradicting you on that point, it would appear that he isn't .

I guess I had Faun mixed up with another agent like candyass. He is one of those much more clever shills than candyass. Some of these agents like him are much more clever than him and won't not deny that the CIA killed JFK,but will make up lie after lie about 9/11 and ignore the facts on that.

Well, I'm glad you've realized that Faun doesn't believe the OCT regarding JFK. As to your views on shills in this forum, I find it ironic that I'm reciting the same lines to both sides of the fence. To whit:
"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so"

I can only ask that you consider the possibility that all these people who you consider agents are in fact just people who believe in the OCT.

Well I see that despite my advise,that you clearly are going to be ignorant and keep feeding these paid shills such as candyass,faun,and sayit giving them the attention they seek and making their handlers happy in the process that you take their bait. That being said,I am going to exit this thread for good now.

I see. Well, thanks for being the first to respond to me in this forum. I find it unfortunate that we couldn't come to an agreement regarding some things, but that's the way life goes sometimes.

 

[phoenyx]

Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did.

And -I'm- the one accused of dismissing evidence -.-?? Despite your blind faith in your OCT religion, I'm here to inform you that yes, things can be proven even if you don't think they can be.

Ok.... if you think it can be proven that the pole could not have pierced the windshield without hitting the hood -- prove it.

I never said that I could personally prove it. I'm just saying that your notion that "no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen" depends on 2 premises which -you- have certainly not proven:
1- That things the light poles were knocked down as narrated by the official story and
2- Assuming they were not knocked down as narrated by the official story, that there is no research done or that will be done in the future that could prove that this was the case.

If you can prove either of these, you'll have a case. Otherwise, you're simply speculating and passing it off as fact.

 

[phoenyx]

Yes, yes, I understand: you have has stated that the the alternatives offered for the wreckage, light poles and ATC tracking are not plausible and you are always right as to what is plausible, nothing to see here folks

Well, thanks for the capitulation.

You're welcome. Now if you would just go away to celebrate your "victory", perhaps I could actually get some serious discussion done here...

Just because I'm batting 1.000% against twoofers doesn't mean I can't be struck out. You just ain't got the stuff.

Fine by me. Why don't you wait for someone who has the "stuff" and just let me carry on with people who are actually willing to discuss the evidence?

 

[hadit]

Well then go ahead and explain the wheel hub found.

CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING

So you declare suppositions supporting your position to be authoritative while evidence destroying it is falsified? Seriously, you can make yourself believe anything if you do that. "The earth is flat". "Here is a buttload of evidence that it is round". "That's all faked, it's flat".

 

[phoenyx]

Let me get this straight.... you don't trust the government ...

That's right. Do you?

but when you're presented with evidence of a plane crash from a site where a plane crashed,

What evidence do you have that that picture of a wheel hub actually came from the Pentagon?

So you won't accept evidence from the government

I won't -blindly- accept evidence from the government, no. But I will certainly examine it. After all, if it's coming from the government, it's an entity that can be held to account for lying. How are you going to hold some anonymous photographer to account? You don't even know who they are.