The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: facedye

Yes, I am paying attention...thanks for the emphasis though. I really needed that little nudge to pay more attention to the ridiculousness that's being spewed about here...


If you want to insist the rope was "planted"...then I have to say that it could just as easily be planted by the supporters of the proposed 13-story Islamic cultural center who so conveniently found the damn thing. Not only did they find it, but they're the ones who came to the conclusion that it was planted there...Then what did they do? Well obviously, they filed suit. Looks like a classic PR stunt...

A2D

a reply to: neutronflux

Ok, prove the 757 wreckage on the pentagon lawn after flight 77s crash was planted.

Prove that the evidence was not planted. See how that works.

Prove the eyewitness accounts verifying the crash of flight 77 and backing the physical evidence are false.

Prove the eyewitness accounts that do not support the OS narratives of the Pentagon alleged crash false. See how that works.

There is no win in this debate, if you want to call it a debate.

So the unanswered questions will continue.

a reply to: facedye

If you are making allegations the pentagon 757 wreckage was fabricated, the eyewitness accounts false, the radar data false, and a inflight pilot watched a jet liner crash into the pentagon was false, please provide evidence!

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Reagan Airport controllers asked a passing Air National Guard Lockheed C-130 Hercules to identify and follow the aircraft. The pilot, Lt. Col. Steven O'Brien, told them it was a Boeing 757 or 767, and its silver fuselage meant that it was probably an American Airlines jet. He had difficulty picking out the airplane in the "East Coast haze", but then saw a "huge" fireball, and initially assumed it had hit the ground. Approaching the Pentagon, he saw the impact site on the building's west side and reported to Reagan control, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir."[22][36]

You are saying physical evidence backed by eyewitness accounts is wrong how?

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: facedye

Yes, I am paying attention...thanks for the emphasis though. I really needed that little nudge to pay more attention to the ridiculousness that's being spewed about here...


If you want to insist the rope was "planted"...then I have to say that it could just as easily be planted by the supporters of the proposed 13-story Islamic cultural center who so conveniently found the damn thing. Not only did they find it, but they're the ones who came to the conclusion that it was planted there...Then what did they do? Well obviously, they filed suit. Looks like a classic PR stunt...

A2D

you're totally entitled to your opinion. got any actual proof that this was a PR stunt? i doubt it. let me know if i'm completely wrong about that. until then, your assertion is more ridiculous than mine.

how's that? because it's not my assertion. the NYPD suspected that this item was planted. as far as i'm aware, they never suspected this to be a part of a PR stunt - this was treated like a crime scene, through and through. got something that says otherwise? no? then you're just guessing.

and heyyyy, how about that passport? was that a PR stunt too?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: neutronflux

I am claiming it was never proven by any legal cross examination and nobody under oath backed up any piece of evidence collected.

I guess we were dropping bombs over Bagdad before any investigation could conclude.... I don't think anyone wants to investigate if anything that was believed was actually true or not after we killed over a million "insurgents" in 2 countries due to what we believed but didn't take the time to prove.

"War never changes" - Fallout 4

You are making implied allegations the physical evidence and eyewitness accounts are what?

And what proof of "what" do you have?

Oh Geeze. You must think your some kind of master manipulator by thinking you can rope me into stating something that I cannot produce evidence to prove.

Your not very good. Some people are not meant for that. Don't feel bad.

I think I will remain in my position where the only thing I have stated is that YOU have no proven evidence to support YOUR theory.

Maybe you should join a movement to demand an investigating if you want facts. I personally don't give a snip. Even if it was proven to be inside job I would be glad we did it. Good. F£ck Terrorists....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

If you are making allegations the pentagon 757 wreckage was fabricated, the eyewitness accounts false, the radar data false, and a inflight pilot watched a jet liner crash into the pentagon was false, please provide evidence!

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Reagan Airport controllers asked a passing Air National Guard Lockheed C-130 Hercules to identify and follow the aircraft. The pilot, Lt. Col. Steven O'Brien, told them it was a Boeing 757 or 767, and its silver fuselage meant that it was probably an American Airlines jet. He had difficulty picking out the airplane in the "East Coast haze", but then saw a "huge" fireball, and initially assumed it had hit the ground. Approaching the Pentagon, he saw the impact site on the building's west side and reported to Reagan control, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir."[22][36]

You are saying physical evidence backed by eyewitness accounts is wrong how?

let's bring this little dance to a screeching hault: show me a plane hitting the pentagon and i'll concede to everything you're saying, no questions asked.

in b4 "BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ENTIRELY ON YOU!"

a reply to: facedye

Yes, the NYPD suspected it could have been planted, but they don't state by who. I'm saying, if you want to assume it was planted, then you have to assume that it could have been planted by ANYONE. Not just those who want you to believe it was an airplane, but by those who want you to believe that it wasn't an airplane also...

The simple fact of the matter is, they found landing gear and they found passports. The most logical conclusion to come to is that those items are debris from an aircraft crashing into those buildings...not that they were planted....

A2D

a reply to: neutronflux

If you are making allegations the pentagon 757 wreckage was fabricated, the eyewitness accounts false, the radar data false, and a inflight pilot watched a jet liner crash into the pentagon was false, please provide evidence!

Yet you ignored credible eyewitness that do not support the OS narratives of the Pentagon alleged crash.

You also have ignored credible FOIA documents that tell a complete different story about the radar evidence.

I am assuming for one to support the OS, one must cherry pick who is credibal, and what documents that fit one's beliefs.

Little emotion rants are sad and pitiful.

You guys are the ones making allegations of a crime and lies. The burden of proof is on you.

If you have proof the 757 wreckage on the pentagon lawn after the crash was fabricated, provide it!

If you have proof the documented 757 wreckage in the pentagon was fabricated, provide it.

If there is no radar proof flight 757 crashed into the pentagon, then prove it.

If an experienced inflight pilot did not visually verify a jet liner in the air and watch the jet liner hit the pentagon during radio communications, prove it.


If eyewitness accounts do not back and verify the physical evidence, prove it!

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Were the passports in pristine condition? Just curious. Got a pic?

originally posted by: neutronflux

You guys are the ones making allegations of a crime and lies. The burden of proof lies with you!

Disagree, the official story about the whole affair is the farthest thing from "self evident".

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

List a fact for debate?

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: facedye

Yes, the NYPD suspected it could have been planted, but they don't state by who. I'm saying, if you want to assume it was planted, then you have to assume that it could have been planted by ANYONE. Not just those who want you to believe it was an airplane, but by those who want you to believe that it wasn't an airplane also...

The simple fact of the matter is, they found landing gear and they found passports. The most logical conclusion to come to is that those items are debris from an aircraft crashing into those buildings...not that they were planted....

A2D

no. for me, that is not the most logical conclusion to come to. the passport was reportedly found *prior to impact.* as you can very well see, it's in near perfect condition.

please don't avoid the details. this is not as black and white as you're painting it out to be.

at this point it's neither here nor there if they don't state "by who." the fact of the matter is that there's a very good chance some of the 9/11 "evidence" we're seeing is in fact planted. you yourself just said so. how about we digest that for a moment and consider what kind of plausible deniability that creates?

if it was planted in one area, and we don't know by who, what else was planted by parties we don't know about?

this is how it logically works in my mind.

a reply to: Informer1958

If the eyewitness account does not correlate with physical evidence, then there is no context for the account.

Let's start with the pilot that verified the inflight jet liner hitting the pentagon if you got proof of falsehoods.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Were the passports in pristine condition? Just curious. Got a pic?

here you go.



Satam's Visa

originally posted by: neutronflux
Little emotion rants are sad and pitiful.

You guys are the ones making allegations of a crime and lies. The burden of proof is on you.

If you have proof the 757 wreckage on the pentagon lawn after the crash was fabricated, provide it!

If you have proof the documented 757 wreckage in the pentagon was fabricated, provide it.

If there is no radar proof flight 757 crashed into the pentagon, then prove it.

If an experienced inflight pilot did not visually verify a jet liner in the air and watch the jet liner hit the pentagon during radio communications, prove it.


If eyewitness accounts do not back and verify the physical evidence, prove it!

what's emotional, sad or pitiful about me asking you to show me a plane hitting the pentagon?

funny how you did exactly what i thought you were going to do.

The burden of proof is on you.

a reply to: facedye

Then if you got evidence/ proof the documentation of wreckage is false, the radar data was false, the eyewitness accounts are lies, and there was no proof an inflight pilot watched a jet liner crash into the pentagon, this would be a good time to reply with your evidence?

a reply to: neutronflux

Then if you got evidence/ proof the documentation of wreckage is false, the radar data was false, the eyewitness accounts are lies, and there was no proof an inflight pilot watched a jet liner crash into the pentagon, this would be a good time to reply with your evidence?

again, not very intellectually honest on your part.

And if you don't have the capacity to learn from and remember information from other threads you are active in, that is sad.

Pot calling kettle. funny how one is able to demonstrate doing the same.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

Then if you got evidence/ proof the documentation of wreckage is false, the radar data was false, the eyewitness accounts are lies, and there was no proof an inflight pilot watched a jet liner crash into the pentagon, this would be a good time to reply with your evidence?

this would be a good time for you to show me a plane hitting the pentagon.

i have sourced and cited numerous items here that introduce more than enough plausible deniability to outright deny and criticize the official story into submission. it's 100% blatant at this point, and countless members in this very thread have contributed amazingly accurate information to support this criticism.

what's funny is, with all this citing and sourcing that *i've* personally been doing, i have yet to see anything from you outside of the realm of the 9/11 commission report.

i repeat: show me something that blatantly shows a plane hitting the pentagon, and i will concede to you without hesitation. i've presented more than enough here to introduce plausible deniability. have you?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Interesting observations.

There's still the problem of the what hit the lightpoles? I can tell you first hand, that subject was beaten to death back in the day. I'm no "Skeptic", and for the longest time remained on the fence, but eventually (when CIT was stomping around) helped lead the charge in bringing Pentagon No Planer noise to a collective close.

My old thread:
First things first: What Hit the Lightpoles?!

I doubt many of the images from that era still work, but the arguments should hold true.

We had many other threads in those days that went on for eternity. I got a pretty good taste for much of them.