9/11: The Pentagon - Jesse Ventura Speaks With Pilots For 9/11 Truth

reply to post by GoodOlDave
Thank God there are others out there that beleive the same as I do, there were no missiles or planned implosions that did 9/11. It was the Terrorists who did this to us. This forum is gonna go on forever IM afraid. The people who hate America and Americas Government are behind all this controversy, probably more terroist doing this.. so that when they do it again they wont be blamed, they are using America against America strategys ,and they are falling into their trap. Their are all kinds of terroist out their not only the Muslims. Just needed to post this to you.

The episode was done is poor taste. It almost seemed like a sitcom when they were discussing the possible scenarios at the table. Nobody is going to take that show seriously. they should have filmed it as a documentary. Another thing is they should have kept rob balsamo out of it. he is the biggest loser of the truth movement and doesn't even hold a job in the airline industry. For crying out loud, at least use Kolstand or aimer as the spokesperson. You don't need balsamo messing things up. he gives the truth movement a bad image with his death threats and lack of employment as a pilot. why would you want some guy leading a bunch of qualified pilots who doesn't evevn fly himself? all he does is pose a women on this forum and make death threats. a clear loser.

Originally posted by TopsecCin616
...so that when they do it again they wont be blamed...

Huh?

What's the point of a terrorist attack if the terrorists blame someone else?

Terrorists don't hide their acts, governments and those that control our economy do.

Terrorists acts are designed to make you fear the terrorist, so they get what they want. How are you going to fear them if they don't tell you who they are?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DIDtm

 

Havent you noticed that all of us roll our eyes every time we see your name come up on a post.
Its not because we dont like you, or are afraid your going to finally make a point that is logical.
Its because of this. The same spit being spewed over and over by you and your catch phrase words, descriptions and phrases. Its the same in every post. Its the same in every thread. You provide little facts, just spew. And its repeated out of context so much, you breath smells real bad.

And don't forget he is very good at going off line when asked a serious question,
which he rarely answers...

Like where's the 75' wide hole in this pic, which I've asked a few times.

Oh, I get it. Out of all the blizzard of available photos of the damage to the Pentagon, you pick the one photo obscured enough that you can't make out the damage and then you ask, "where's the damage". Like THAT stunt has never been done before.

Sorry, but I'm immune to innuendo dropping. For you to ignore the fact that flight 77 hit the Pentagon you necessarily need to ignore the hundred or so eyewitnesses who specifially saw the plane hit the Pentagon, not to mention the photos of wreckage lying all over the Pentagon lawn, not to mention the recovery of the black box, so it's blatantly obvious you're relying on faith based logic here. Before I continue, I just want to know where your position is- you are a no planer, correct?

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by backinblack

Like where's the 75' wide hole in this pic, which I've asked a few times.

I got a feeling that Dave will either quit responding to this thread or all together keep ignoring both your picture and your question.
I would like him to answer it too.
Ill ask him.

OR, it was getting close to Christmas and other people aren't as religiously devoted to these conspriacy claims as other people here are. The holidays must get pretty surreal at your house.

Let me answer your question with another question- there are plenty of OTHER photos showing that the Pentagon having been damaged is an established fact, so your relying on this one single photo where you can't make out any damage at all is being disingenuous on your part. Your gripe ISN'T that there was no damage to the pentagon, Your gripe is that the damage doesn't fit with what a passenger jet should have created. Correct?

So, here's the question- how much experience in aeronautical engineering, crash site forensics, or architectural engineering do you have that allows you to know what such a crash site would even look like to begin with? Up until now, all the self styled experts here have turned out to simply be swallowing the drivel being shoveled out by those damned fool conspiracy web sites. How much experience in aeronautical engineering, crash site forensics, or architectural engineering would some college kid making internet videos in his dorm room have, precisely?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NO, what we actually have are clowns like Jesse Ventura re-hashing years-old garbage "conspiracy" crap that has already been discussed and explained, and enticing new "recruits", apparently, who have about as much intellectual capacity to understand as he exhibits.

More of your character assassinations and name calling because you can't address the evidence or prove anything you claim?

YEP

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Any impact marks were only visible UP CLOSE....and NOT in photos taken from yards away. Furthermore, in many post-fire photos, the marks would be even harder to see, from fire and smoke and firefighting foam obscuration.

The lengths you continue to go and levels you sink to concoct excuses to explain away what has no logical explanation and defend the criminals is sickening.

the fact you rarely if ever question or find anything wrong with the OS, is more telling about your presence here than anything else... and its really all that needs to be pointed and exposed here for anyone questioning your motives and agenda.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The wings didn't "fold back", another commonly 'quoted' claim...ironically, from a witness who stated that, but really, as most witnesses do, was speaking in hyperbole. (It's like the witness to the "USAir on the Hudson" incident....on calling the 911 operator, he said he saw an "airplane on fire" flying low....USAir 1549 was NEVER on fire....witnesses have hysteria, sometimes, under stress of events).

The wing structure failing, breaking, disintegrating....THAT is how it would have happened:

Oh riggggggggght... of course!

So what pray tell then did "HE" mean if we apply your hyperbole-type terminology/language when he said the WINGS FOLDED BACK?

can't wait to hear this 10 page explanation...

i suspect it'll be something equal to Clintons parsing of words and changing the definition of "IS"

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building,

Oh, but a 767 CAN????

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains.

www.popularmechanics.com...

if one wing HIT the ground, wheres the SCAR and how would there be no sign of any such "GROUND CONTACT"?

if one wing hit the ground at the speeds claimed, you should know as a pilot the catastrophic tumbling or effect it would have had before it impacted, and WHERE or how it impacted... and no such damage is consistent with what should happen when the wing of a Jet of that size and speed, hits the ground.

Anyone ignoring the basic crash physics that should have resulted or been present and left, especially a real pilot, proves either denial, an intentional cover-up, or lack of basic common sense.

I will admit, I am making this post as much to display my own ignorance as I am to bring out
something which has bothered me but I have failed to ask before.

I was just on Google earth and looked at the Pentegon. I don't know when my broswser last
updated this site so it may have changed.

It struck me that I could find no roadway which lined up perpendicular to the wall of the building
which was struck by the plane.

If I saw the video released by the Defence Department correctly, the camera was facing across
a roadway gate and aligned looking along the face of the building wall. The camera could have
been located with in the parking lot, but that would have put it too close to the building for to be
aligned as it appears to be.

Could someone, even a debunking troll, point out where this camera could have been placed?

reply to post by hdutton


Yes it changed, there was a road there...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is an image composite, for scale and angle comparison...I assume from a "truther" source. Not sure if they have the scale accurate, or not...but at least it gives a visual :



Next, you can get an idea of the internal structural arrangement of the Boeing 757:

HOLD THE PHONE WEED... you forgot to address where the photo you've attached... show me where exactly you've addressed the questions asked about where the WING marks are, where the WINGS went, WHERE the HOLE is that matches the size of the plane and how it could have fit in the HOLE the OS claims was created by this magical plane of yours.

Oh and please point out where the damage is from where you claim the wing HIT THE GROUND and how the damage is consistent with such an events occurrence.

reply to post by TopsecCin616

Originally posted by TopsecCin616
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Thank God there are others out there that beleive the same as I do, there were no missiles or planned implosions that did 9/11.

We are in here to deny ignorance, not to embrace it.
Usually when discussion these issues most of us like to prove our point buy showing sources to back up our opinions and facts. Opinions are just opinions. Do you have ”evidence” that there were no missile fired into the Pentagon, or there was no planned implosion? If not, then why do you believe there were none?

It was the Terrorists who did this to us.

Which terrorist are you talking about? Are you talking about alleged terrorist in the Bush administration, where plenty of circumstantial evidence of a false flag operation was carried out and covered up?

Perhaps, you are talking about OBL, the alleged mastermind of 911?

Sibel Edmonds Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 PT1

www.youtube.com...

Perhaps, you are talking about the alleged hijackers that couldn’t be identified?

Hijackers Alive And Well
Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, has twice been forced to admit on CNN that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers". LATimes The Director of the FBI said on September 20 in response to the question: Do you still have a high level of confidence that you can accurately identify the hijackers?

911review.org...

9-11 "Hijackers" Identified by FBI: Seven Are Alive and Well
Seven of the men have subsequently been confirmed as being alive. None of the names listed are shown on the passenger manifests of the hijacked flights.

www.the7thfire.com...

See the problem with the OS is there are way too many lies, don’t you agree? The fact is people lie for all kinds of reason, including our government.

This forum is gonna go on forever IM afraid. The people who hate America and Americas Government are behind all this controversy, probably more terroist doing this.. so that when they do it again they wont be blamed, they are using America against America strategys ,and they are falling into their trap. Their are all kinds of terroist out their not only the Muslims. Just needed to post this to you.

That is completely nonsense, just because people have found evidence that the OS is a proven lie, doesn’t mean they hate America or our government most people are not that “gullible,” and do not take our government at their word. Because our government wants to be the authority of informing us about 911, it doesn’t mean they are telling us the truth, and that’s been proven many times.

Sure, there are people who hate America and our government, but I can assure you they are not Truthers.