Newly Released FBI Docs Shed Light on Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

So you admit you falsely used collapse photos as flight path photos. And you were conducting a intellectually dishonest argument.

what the hell are you talking about? LOL

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

So you admit you falsely used collapse photos as flight path photos. And you were conducting a intellectually dishonest argument.

what the hell are you talking about? LOL

You posted this.

You

what's your theory on why the "massive fireball" caused from flight 77 crashing into the pentagon left at least one stool, open book and computer unit completely intact and undamaged?

must have been some fire! I think I can maybe see a spec of ash on that open page? what's your take on that?

So I replied

Were those items not in the path of flight path damage? But in the areas where the structure collapsed several minutes after the jet impact?

Do tell how your random pictures with no context takes away from flight 77 hit the pentagon, and supports/adds to the fantasies columns at the pentagon were taken out by an exploding missile or bomb?

You didn’t think that one through did ya.......

You replied

thanks. i needed a good laugh today.

they were directly in the path of the flight damage if you assume that a massive fireball exploded upon collision - which you do.

they're not random pictures either. you know where and when those are from. this is unfortunate, i expected you to at least have a better rebuttal. **shrug**

So I then replied

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

You

they were directly in the path of the flight damage if you assume that a massive fireball exploded upon collision - which you do.

Is a blatant falsehood.

These pictures with no description with what location they were taken, and no cited source how close they where from the flight path damage?







With the top two not being part of the flight path damage. But at the boundary of the outer ring collapse. The real question is why are they their after the building collapse.

The top two are above the first floor of the pentagon right.

Structure of Pentagon helped contain 9/11 damage, engineers say
AMELIA GRUBER | JANUARY 23, 2003

www.govexec.com...

It destroyed about 50 structural columns on the first floor and burst into a fire that weakened the building and caused a small area above the point of impact to collapse about 20 minutes after the crash.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

This is the picture of the flight path damage.



Notice most of the damage was to the first floor, and not much damage to the areas that were not exposed until the outer ring collapse about twenty minutes later.


You then tried to change the argument/goal post.

So I replied with

So you admit you falsely used collapse photos as flight path photos. And you were conducting a intellectually dishonest argument.

That brings us to

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

So you admit you falsely used collapse photos as flight path photos. And you were conducting a intellectually dishonest argument.

what the hell are you talking about? LOL

a reply to: neutronflux

do you actually believe the drivel you just typed up?

let me make this real simple for you: i find it deplorable that you expect anyone with common sense to accept the notion that the book and computer were untouched because the crash and explosion weren't within their vicinity (when it was directly above the impact), while at the same time accepting the notion that the same type of crash was able to burn through 20+ floors for both twin towers and cause complete structural failure.

what you're engaging in is pure sophism. maybe it might confuse someone who's intellectually on the fence, however this approach doesn't do well if someone's actually thinking about what you're saying. anyone well versed in logic can see right through these semantics.

a reply to: facedye

You

do you actually believe the drivel you just typed up?

If you don’t think my cited sources are credible like

Always remember: Suzanne Calley of San Martin died when terrorists flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon

gilroydispatch.com...
gilroydispatch.com...

Two years after that fateful day when Calley, 42, perished Sept. 11 alongside 183 other victims at the Pentagon site, Jensen cremated his wife’s body. Her remains were first pulled by rescue crews from the twisted wreckage of Flight 77, and later scattered by Jensen into the Pacific Ocean near Monterey. This is where the couple frequently taught classes together as master scuba instructors.

Then provide proof that the crew and and passengers of flight 77 did not end up dead at the pentagon, their bodies were not recovered, that remains were not received by the coroner, that the issued death certificates were fraudulent, and explain what remains were released to families.

You

let me make this real simple for you: i find it deplorable that you expect anyone with common sense to accept the notion that the book and computer were untouched because the crash and explosion weren't within their vicinity (when it was directly above the impact),

You narrative is false.

One: the pictures you posted with no description/context, no reference of location where they were taken, and no cited source how close they where from the flight path damage?

Two: this is the outer ring flight path damage.


The picture you posted


With this being a false statement “when it was directly above the impact”.

The picture you posted was not directly above the flight path. It was in an area beside the flight path with no indication of distance by you, not in the flight path.

The pictures posted by you are not the flight path damage. The pictures you posted are at the boundary of where the building collapsed. Is that false. The real question is why are the objects there as pictured after the building collapse. Is that false.

You

while at the same time accepting the notion that the same type of crash was able to burn through 20+ floors for both twin towers and cause complete structural failure.

False argument by you. The initial damage and fires at the twin towers was limited to a limited amount of floors.



The jet impacts did not cause enough damage to cause collapse. The fires caused floor tresses to bow. Upon cooling, the floor trusses contacted causing failures, and vertical columns to bow inward and buckle to initiate collapse.




You

what you're engaging in is pure sophism. maybe it might confuse someone who's intellectually on the fence, however this approach doesn't do well if someone's actually thinking about what you're saying. anyone well versed in logic can see right through these semantics

Ok? For the twin towers.

If my account is soooo wrong, then outline what detailed conspiracy theory you believe is more credible. Then argument those points. What are the truth movement choices after 18 years?

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?


Did I miss any?

So which one are going going to champion?

a reply to: neutronflux

OMG, did I miss it? Neutronflux, did you show proof of the plane hitting the Pentagon?

Darn, after review I realized you forgot...

Hurry up so I can see.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

OMG

You haven’t cited any evidence the radar data was fake.

You haven’t cited any evidence the flight recorder data was fake.

You haven’t cited the pentagon photos show somewhere other than a large jet.



You haven’t shown the 30 to 100 witness that attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon saw something else.

You haven’t discredited the flight path damage.

You haven’t discredited the DNA testing of flight 77 victims.

You haven’t discredited the pentagon damage.

You haven’t discredited the isdued death certificates.

You haven’t discredited the remains of flight 77 victims retuned to families.

You haven’t discredited families that attest to losing loved ones on flight 77 when it crashed into the pentagon.

You haven’t discredited the aircraft wreckage at the pentagon.

And you have cited a more credible explanation for the damage at the pentagon caused by flight 77.

a reply to: neutronflux
Yeah, you missed one and... it’s CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

a reply to: openedeyesandears

Do you have proof to discredit those that attest to:

-a large jet hitting the pentagon
-the DNA testings of flight 77 victims showed their remains were recovered from the pentagon.
-issued death certificates are authentic.
-receiving remains for burial or cremation.

If your making accusations, the burden of proof is on you.

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux
Yeah, you missed one and... it’s CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

For the pentagon?

Bombs?

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The Bombs (Pre-planted Explosives) Hypothesis
Those who hypothesize that there was no plane impact attribute all damage and deaths to pre-planted explosives or bombs. These researchers include Barbara Honegger in her “Behind the Smoke Curtain” presentation and the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). Their assumption is that the approaching plane seen by many flew over the Pentagon. Honegger has modified her hypothesis in the last several years to postulate that a white plane was destroyed with some sort of explosives outside the Pentagon near the Heliport area without any debris hitting the Pentagon wall. For these “no plane impact” hypotheses, the next step in the scientific method, Test with an Experiment, raises immediate problems.

The first major problem is the scores of eyewitnesses who saw the plane impact the Pentagon west wall. To solve this problem, many critics simply ignore or attempt to discredit the witnesses, claiming they are lying, incoherent, or manipulated by insiders to tell a false story. These criticisms fail for lack of proof. The witnesses cannot be explained away in any credible fashion.

The second major problem is how to explain the plane debris seen by witnesses and in photographs. No credible explanation has been offered as to how the large volume of plane debris was planted and distributed outside the Pentagon, inside the Pentagon, and in the AE Drive, except by a plane crash. Honegger’s “white plane destroyed” hypothesis appears to be an attempt to explain the plane debris near the Heliport, but it does not explain the plane debris found inside the Pentagon building or in the AE Drive.

The third major problem is a failure to explain, using bombs, the observed damage. This damage includes the clipped tree, the five downed light poles, the generator-trailer that was damaged and rotated toward the Pentagon, the gouge in the low concrete wall, the shape and nature of the façade damage, the internal bowed and abraded columns, the sudden appearance of internal plane debris, the C ring hole and the debris strewn in the AE Drive.

There is no credible evidence for Honegger’s “white plane.” The plane’s supposed destruction without its fragmented parts hitting the Pentagon west wall violates laws of physics, specifically the law of the conservation of momentum. The center of gravity of the combined fragments would still be moving toward the wall at the plane’s pre-explosion speed. There is nowhere near enough plane debris outside the wall near the heliport to account for an entire plane.

The bombs-only hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method in major ways, and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false. However, although the evidence is scant or nonexistent, it is still possible that there were some internal bombs timed to explode at the same time as large plane impact.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

For the pentagon?

A missile

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The Missile Hypothesis
The missile hypothesis cannot explain the spatial characteristics of the physical damage. The light poles were effectively 100 feet apart, and the generator-trailer and low concrete wall were effectively 43 feet apart. These objects could not all have been impacted by a missile. The shape and size of the impact hole precludes a missile, the damaged internal columns were spaced apart over a wide area, and the bowed and abraded columns could not have been rendered in such a condition by a missile. A missile could possibly have created the C ring hole, but only plane parts were found in the debris in the AE Drive.

Donald Rumsfeld alluded to a missile, and eyewitness Mike Walter spoke of a missile, but in the metaphorical sense of a plane acting as a missile. These comments fueled the missile hypothesis. But no witnesses claimed to have seen a missile. Witnesses overwhelmingly described a large plane. The missile hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false.

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux
Yeah, you missed one and... it’s CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

If it wasn’t flight 77 that hit the pentagon, then what you going to champion?

Planted bombs?

Or a missile? I think the going missile fantasy was a missile was stolen from the sunken submarine Kursk?

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm not making accusations, I'm telling the truth and if you don't like it, I really don't care.
As if what Neutronflux said was bible. It's too bad your parents did not raise you to be a better person.
What a waste of time and energy.

a reply to: neutronflux

i don't have a narrative, and i don't endorse any "conspiracy theories." you must be mistaking me for somebody else.

False argument by you. The initial damage and fires at the twin towers was limited to a limited amount of floors.

how many floors were burning in the twin towers before and after the initial damage?

The picture you posted was not directly above the flight path. It was in an area beside the flight path with no indication of distance by you, not in the flight path.

The pictures posted by you are not the flight path damage. The pictures you posted are at the boundary of where the building collapsed. Is that false. The real question is why are the objects there as pictured after the building collapse. Is that false.

is this a question or a statement? LOL

"the pictures you posted are at the boundary of where the building collapsed."

how many floors were burning in the pentagon?

a reply to: openedeyesandears

I'm not making accusations, I'm telling the truth and if you don't like it, I really don't care.

The problem is your not telling anything.

If flight 77 didn’t cause the damage at the pentagon, what did? Missile? Bomb?

If flight 77 didn’t crash into the pentagon, where did the remains of the flight crew and passengers come from? What remains were released to families?

If flight 77 didn’t fly to the pentagon, what was tracked by radar. What did the C-130 pilot see?

If the witness didn’t see a large jet hit the pentagon, what did they see?

What caused the damage to the low concrete wall that was hit by the engine of flight 77?

a reply to: neutronflux

What caused the damage to the low concrete wall that was hit by the engine of flight 77?

why don't you go ahead and show everyone here the engine? the stage is all yours.

a reply to: facedye

You

how many floors were burning in the pentagon?

You tell me?



You

is this a question or a statement? LOL

The pictures posted by you are not the flight path damage. The pictures you posted are at the boundary of where the building collapsed. Is that false? The real question is why are the objects there as pictured after the building collapse. Is that false?

Why are you posting pictures of the pentagon collapse boundary of the floors above where flight 77 did the most damage? Areas not only above the flight path damage, but off to the side of the flight path damage?


Are these pictures showing something other than building collapse damage that was beyond the boundaries of the flight path damage?







If it was indicative of something other than a collapse boundary vs a fire bomb, bombs, or a missile, why would it “left at least one stool, open book and computer unit completely intact and undamaged? “

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know what caused the damage on the Pentagon and I've asked you to show me proof on a video that it was flight 77 and YOU could not prove it. You only go by what you are told to say.

As far as the remains, YOU go with what is published , not evidence which is BS. AGAIN, I asked YOU for proof of remains and for some reasons there's no remains to be found.

As far as the radar goes, that is child play if you only knew what the CIA could do over 30 years ago and a C30 pilot is who again?

Which government agent said they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?. The same one who saw the tower collapse and interviewed at the very moment and said: " It collapsed because of the heat, causing the beams to buckle and collapse"?

a reply to: openedeyesandears

I don't know what caused the damage on the Pentagon and I've asked you to show me proof on a video that it was flight 77 and YOU could not prove it. You only go by what you are told to say.

Prove what? You will not state what is more credible than flight 77 causing the damage supported with evidence?

You have offered no explanation to discredit those that witnessed a large jet hitting the pentagon.

As far as the remains, YOU go with what is published , not evidence which is BS. AGAIN, I asked YOU for proof of remains and for some reasons there's no remains to be found.

People attest to the radar data, the flight recorder data, that a jet hit the pentagon, recovering bodies and wreckage of a passenger jet, DNA testing confirming the victims of flight 77 were aboard the jet that hit the pentagon, the issuing of authentic death certificates, and families receiving remains. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF TO DISCREDIT THESE INDIVIDUALS. The burden of proof is on you if you are making allegations of lying

As far as the radar goes, that is child play if you only knew what the CIA could do over 30 years ago and a C30 pilot is who again?

Radar. Do you have proof it is fraudulent? Or just faith in innuendo and mythology.

The C-130 pilot is someone with rights that gave their account. Do you have any proof they are lying?

Which government agent said they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?.

Wtf? Numerous individuals from civilians to maintenance works witnessed a jet hit the pentagon. State coroner’s office issued the death certificates.

The same one who saw the tower collapse and interviewed at the very moment and said:

Everyone from civilians, to city, county, state first responders. Contractors, engineers, and construction workers.

You

It collapsed because of the heat, causing the beams to buckle and collapse"?

It’s right in the video evidence


Again...

Again. The floor tresses at the areas of impact had their insulation damage and stripped. The much thinner floor tresses that provided lateral strength to the vertical columns heated to around the temperature of office fires. About 1000 Celsius. Rising in temperature causes steel to expand and weaken. The thin floor tresses heated to the point they lost about 60 percent of their strength, and expanded. The floor tresses that could not expand in length were forced to bow downward under load. The misshapen floor tresses contracted upon cooling. The stress caused floor system failures, and columns to bow inward. When the bowing become great enough, the load of the upper building was not transferred to the foundation. The load was “caught” in the bowing of the vertical columns. The bowing became buckling, and the collapse was initiated.

If you have a more credible explanation based on cited evidence, then by all means argue a theory I should believe.

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?

I gave my theory what brought down the twin towers, but you will not lay anything on the line? Why?

a reply to: openedeyesandears

So? Essentially your saying everyone is lying with no evidence to prove they are lying while you cannot argue a more credible explanation?

Nice.