NOOOOBBBBBB. this is about 250 to 260 knots. it looks fast but is well within parrimeters of designed max- Op -speed. the speeds that where recorded on flight 77(according to NTSB) would indicate it was the first boeing to break the sound barrier. did not hear a boom here did ya
Thanks for the numbers. Now, if my rusty aeronautical brain does not deceive me, mach 1 at sea level on a "standard day" is 761 mph or 661 knots. So 390 kts would be about mach 0.6 (390/661 * 100) . So a fair way off the speed of sound.
Now, this is what I mean by the ignorance, distortions and outright lies of the Conspiracy crowd. Of course, the rebuttal will be "how can you trust the NTSB?", just after they invoked the NTSB to support their argument. Sigh.
@EdgemanLL2 You are really fixed on 'winning', aren't you? Yet you still haven't formulated one sentence without grammar errors. Do all of us a favor, and go back to school. Although I am not English and, according to you, I have an IQ of 80, I am still doing better.
@Merlin5by5 Ok. For arguments sake, let's say that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon. Then I've got a couple of questions for you.
1) The first tower was hit at 8:46 am, the second at 9:03 am. The Pentagon got hit at 9:37. That's almost 1 hour after the initial first attack. The Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. If they are America's defense, why the hell did they not figure out, while being on high alert from the first two attacks, that they would get hit?
At what point, in the time line, would it have been obvious that the penty was the next target? At what point in time, before 77 hits, do they have enough information to conclude that further attacks are coming, and that the penty is the next target?
@Merlin5by5 I mean, the flight paths of planes are monitored and the sky above and around the Pentagon is of limits to any aircraft. Also, they are supposed to be the best in Military Intelligence in the world... I'm not seeing it.
2) The debris and the hole in the wall. And the clean grass field from all the photo's. You cannot deny this evidence. You should open your eyes and see governments for what they really are. Self interest. That is the only thing they care about.
I have no trouble understanding that governments only care about self-interest, and in the same way, I have no trouble understanding that you are a foaming kook.
@llanbo Then answer my questions. If you are able to that, with backed up evidence like videos and pictures, then I might be able to change my opinion.
I don't believe in the boogeyman, I don't believe in God or the Devil, so I will most definitely not be persuaded to believe some people on the internet claiming they have evidence and are not willing to show that evidence.
Videos and pictures can be faked. At the end of the day, loads of people say they saw something consistent with an American Airlines 757 crash into the Pentagon. Bits of wreckage consistent with a 757 were found after the event. American Airlines are down one 757 in their inventory. Several hundred people are still mourning their relatives who died on that 757. How do you propose that was faked without anyone involved coming forward?
@llanbo Uhm... there were only 59 people on that flight. Including the hijackers. So several hundred people is a bit much don't you think? And I'm not saying that the plane did not crash, I never said that. I said that I believe that it wasn't a plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I have formed my opinion from reading official statements, watching documentaries and reading Wikipedia e.o. sources. When someone disagrees, fine with me, but give solid arguments.
@llanbo Also, when a 757-223 crashes, you don't get some bits of wreckage. I don't know if you've seen a 757 crash once, but it leaves a hell of a lot more. The large parts of the plane, e.g. the wings, fuselage, tail etc. don't just vanish. They don't vaporize into small pieces. If you want an reasonably accurate example, see the first episode of lost. And that's not even the entire plane. Question everything you see, hear, read etc. Otherwise you become just a tool.
"Question everything you see, hear, read etc. Otherwise you become just a tool."
Oh, the deluded arrogance of the stupid truther. You haven't been very good at questioning the bullshit conspiracy nonsense you've hoovered up from the web and watching "Lost", have you tool?
@llanbo Lost was merely an example of how an airplane crash could look. I never said it was 100% accurate, in fact, I mentioned it was REASONABLY accurate. I never said it was a conspiracy either. I just said how there never was a plane that flew into the Pentagon. I am not a truther, because I could care less whether a plane crashed or not. I stated my opinion, and you seem to disagree. I backed up my opinion with solid numbers and with videos. This discussion is leading nowhere.
"I backed up my opinion with solid numbers and with videos"
Ermm... "Lost" isn't solid numbers or a relevant video, old chap. I showed you a crach (Roselawn) where an aircraft impacted the nice, soft ground at considerably lower speed and no debris from e.g. the wings bigger than a cigarette package was left.
Once again, if no aircraft hit the Pentagon, how do you explain the witness statements, 757 bits all over the lawn etc? Do you have a TV series that explains that?
@llanbo I was talking about the numbers I used. The times, the people that were on the plane etc.
And I've seen a plane crash with my own eyes. It leaves debris. It will cause the grass below it to be filled with debris. This plane collided with a building. There was a hole in the wall where a plane, especially one as big as a 757 did not fit. The windows around the hole, where normally the wings would've hit, were intact. When something with 500 mph hits a building, windows don't stay intact...
"I was talking about the numbers I used. The times, the people that were on the plane etc."
"And I've seen a plane crash with my own eyes."
..as did several hundred people near the Pentagon. Did you see an aircraft hit a building?
"There was a hole in the wall where a plane, especially one as big as a 757 did not fit. "
The hole in the Pentagon is perfectly consistent with a 757 impact. Are you going to reefer me to Roadrunner for an example of how it should have looked?
@llanbo Alright. This is going nowhere. You don't believe me, and try to conceal your stupidity by reflecting it onto me.
You win, alright?! Just because it's sooo important to you. I still don't believe it, but this is going to be the last I say about the subject, because you seem to have a grudge which you can't let go.
I bid you farewell and good luck in uncovering the truth. I don't mind being right or being wrong, because I don't have a stake in this.
Of course not, you can't answer simple questions like how did all those eyewitnesses manage to hallucinate the same thing or how did those 757 parts end up on the lawn. All you can come out with is "well, it didn't look like that in Lost", and then you have the nerve to call someone else stupid :-)
If you don't mind being wrong, why not have a shot at answering my questions instead of throwing a hissy fit?
Because the hole was created by the fuselage, which is less than 60 feet wide. Of course, the length of the aircraft is irrelevant to width of the hole, so I'm not sure why you mention it.
Now then, back to the questions I've asked you more than a few times now:
How did all the eyewitnesses manage to hallucinate the same thing?
@llanbo Don't you get it by now?! There was no wreckage. There was some debris which could have been planted there. About people seeing the plane. I cannot answer that. I am honest, and I am not crazy to think a high number of eyewitnesses are delusional. But did they see the plane or the explosion? And did you hear about this from the 'official report'? Because if it's in the report, I don't buy it. If you know someone who saw it, then I guess I could be wrong. I am not afraid to admit defeat.
"there was no wreckage. There was some debris which could have been planted there."
Ignoring the fact that you've just said there was no wreckage there, except for the wreckage which was there, how was it planted?
"About people seeing the plane. I cannot answer that. I am honest, and I am not crazy to think a high number of eyewitnesses are delusional. But did they see the plane or the explosion? "
You mean you haven't read the eyewitness reports?!
I am not saying that the witnesses are wrong, but look at this with an open mind and tell me you are absolutely 100% certain that that plane hit the Pentagon...
Actually, you are saying the witnesses are wrong. I've looked at lots of stuff claiming that flight 77 didn
t hit the Pentagon, and have yet to find anything that was compelling. Indeed, I had a
hard time finding anything that wasn't a distortion or an outright lie.I'm not 100% certain of anything, but on the balance of probability and evidence it's far more likely that invisible aliens caused the damage to the Pentagon than that Flight 77 didn't hit it.
@llanbo theres actually been a few ppl that said exactly what I'm saying and yes your right I don't have any knowledge on aviation, but anyone from the evidence at hand can see there are massive holes in the official story, the only massive hole that is missing here is the one in the side of the pentagon. That piece of evidence right there blows the official story apart.
...the way it did without tremendous planning - and, of course, explosives. It fell on its footprint. The central beans - and any footage shows it - are the first ones to go down. That is, undoubtedly, the main characteristic of a good, planned and successful controlled demolition. It is of course very strange that it happened that same afternoon. But who knows... Maybe you guys up there in America are geniuses and your engineers can plan something this big in a couple of hours. Right?
You see, I'm from Brazil. I have no motive to be passionate about this matter. I couldn't care less about you internal policy. If you americans want to vote for republicans, that's you choice. Not my business. But I have to tell you this: I'm a mechanical engineer. I've worked with controlled demolition for 4 years. From 2003 to 2007. It was then that I realized building 7 was, without a doubt, a controlled demolition. It is impossible that a steel frame would collapse... (goes on)
This maneuver was made by an experient pilot, with years and years of training. If you pay attention to this vid, you'll see that the plane, when passing the landing site, is at least at 12 meters high, wich is something like a 4 storey building. If you look at the images of the Pentagon after the alleged plane hit it - but before collapse - you'll see that the damage to the building was at 2 meters high - tops. The Pentagon story is, to say the least, very strange.
This isn't really proofing anything. This is obviously performed by a stuntman on some sort of event. Second, the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon was flying even lower than this and over a longer distance. Watch some simulation vids to know what I mean. Third, and this linked to the first one, the Pentagon plane was piloted by a normal pilot. Also, his plane was apparently hijacked. When you're under that kind of pressure, stunts like these are not easily performed...
@ViFFeX "the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon was flying even lower than this and over a longer distance."
And, just an FYI, when you dont give a shit ahout actually crashing the plane, it likely would be less stressful. Only reason a pilot stresses over ANYTHING is that he doesnt want to kill himself in a crash. Take the fear of dying away, the stress level collapses faster than the 911 Kook movment has.
@EdgemanLL2 Even if, let's say, the terrorist took over and flew the plane and didn't care about dying, it's not possible to fly lower than the plane you see flying in this video. It has been proven that due to air density and air pockets it is not possible to fly a plane that low over that distance.
Also, a normal pilot of course would not want to crash, but not only that, he is also responsible for all the people that fly with him in the plane. He will stress more over that than over dying.
@ViFFeX "it's not possible to fly lower than the plane you see flying in this video."
Well, this could come as a surprise to every pilot who has ever crashed. As that would require moments of flight even lower than what we see here. LMGDAOOOO.
@EdgemanLL2 I am not emberassed. I have read your previous comments to other people and think you are either crazy or delusional. But, I don't know you, so I cannot be certain.
Even so, I would like to advise you and everyone else to watch the following video. If YOU still think the same way as you do now, that's fine with me, but keep your opinion to yourself and don't go out picking fights with everyone who doesn't agree with you.
@EdgemanLL2 Fine. You have your opinion, I have mine. I don't feel like wasting time on someone who doesn't want to listen to what other people tell them and washes away any evidence that is put on the table.
Also, check your punctuation. I am not an English person myself, but your grammar hurts my eyes.
@ViFFeX Wrong. You have opinion, drien by an agenda. I have facts without any agenda. Facts are simple. 1) there is no magic cushion of air that follows the plane around, preventing it from flying low to the ground, and 2) Even if there were, it would be meaningless. Since no one ever claimed the plane was skimming along close to the ground (vice the split-second before impact).
@EdgemanLL2 Dude, seriously... Stop with the meaningless finger pointing that you are doing here. You're acting like a child who didn't get candy.
I don't have an agenda. I am merely pointing out what I feel on the subject. That you disagree is fine with me.
I mean, think about it for a while, if you can. What would my agenda be? I am not an American, merely a person sitting on the side enjoying the show. I don't care if the truth is already told or not, I just give my opinion. Freedom of speech
@Merlin5by5 Expressing my opinion, whether that is accusing anyone, is still an opinion. That the opinion is not shared by others is not my concern, as this is the way I feel and only I am able to change that opinion based on experiences and insights.
I always am skeptical towards governments because they are the ones with agenda's. They only care about themselves and how much money they can make. I've never seen an honest politician. I may not have any evidence, but neither do you.
@2Truth4Liberty Yeah, I hear ya. Stupid thing is that I don't really care whether he agrees with me or not, but he can't seem to let that pass...
Ah well, I just feel sorry for him and every lad that has the same boxed vision of this world. Glad I am not alone in this world who sees lies for what they are.
So of the plane didn't hit the pentagon, what did they do with the passengers aboard that plane? Cause they did hijacked it and then it disappeared so they could throw the missile to the pentagon making it se it was the plane.
Between ALPA, SWAPA, APA and other pilots unions, nearly 100k PROFESSIONAL AIRLINE PILOTS petition congress for better doors, and guns in the cockpit because they KNOW cockpit intrusions occurred on 911, resulting in terrorists crashing airplanes.
Morons on YT tell me those guys just dont know what they are talking about. And I should just listen to fuxing kookspiracy morons who can barely SPELL "flying" much less understand it.
"stick this in your pipe and smoke it:---Not by an amateur pilot who's only trained on a single engine cessna who's OWN instructor said that he could not even fly that jet, let alone strkie something so perfectly right after maneuvering in a descending corkscrew pattern that even the most talented pilots in the world would have a hard time pulling off. So there, I put it in my pipe, smoked it, and it tastes like moldy bull dung.
@deathprophet311 "he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it,"\
You might want to actually find out what the instructor said, before pretending it proved your point.
@EdgemanLL2 Very interesting. Put this in the searchbox and watch: " 9/11 Flight School Instructor: Neither He Nor Alleged Hijackers Could Fly Those Planes " He makes some great points as to why, but you basically answered it in your OWN statement. They DIDN'T JUST have to point it at a building. Like I said, even the "official story" shows the corkscrew descent as the approach. So you might want to analyze your OWN facts before pretending it proves your point. Just some free advice.
@EdgemanLL2 Tell me what part in your brainwashed mind omits all the facts to the event that he did not have to JUST point a plane at a building and had to do ariel acrobatics to do what they say he did? And tell me what part of "Neither He Nor Alleged Hijackers Could Fly Those Planes", YOU don't understand? Did you even WATCH the man say it on national television? Do you make it a habit to constantly divert from, and exclude all the facts of the case to prove your ludicrous point?
@deathprophet311 Tell me what part of your brain dead mind things "a turn to the right" is somehow "ariel acrobatics."
Planes make right turns every day. Left turns too. Its not all that difficult. Up-Down-Left-Right? Its the same on any plane. And you learn it with your first lesson.
Sorry son. But "there is no doubt in my mind" only means 1 thing. Youre an idiot. And there was no doubt in the instructors mind.
@EdgemanLL2 Nevermind. LOL! I see it now, you're a coward afraid to face reality. Becasue if you think doing it in a small single engine Cessna airplane is anything NEAR the same as doing it in a giant Jet powered airliner with hydaulic controls, well you are TRULY reaching the ludicrous when it comes to your "reasoning" (for lack of a better word). I understand it though. Some people are just cowards afraid to face reality and have to spin nonsense. That's ONE, and it's enough.
@deathprophet311 "LOL! I see it now, you're a coward afraid to face reality."
LMGDAOO. I just gave you the reality, and you run off like a pussified little bitch. Screaming "im not listening la la la la la la la!" with your fingers in your ears!
LMGDAOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! And these fuxtards wonder why no one ever took them seriously????
@EdgemanLL2 Wait, I'M the coward running off when it's YOU who wouldn't even watch the Owner of the flight school say it??? IT was YOU who ignored THAT, AND omiited some of the facts while adressing them with fallacies?? e.g. "run off like a pussified little bitch. Screaming "im not listening la la la la la la la!" with your fingers in your ears!" Wow, not only a coward, but a lying little hypocrite to boot. LOL! Your rationelle breaks down at even an elemntary school level.
@EdgemanLL2 And, I bet your SUCH a coward, you never put it in the searchbox and listened to the instructor say on national TV, that he, not the terrorists could do it. But that would make sense for a brainwashed coward. They avoid anything that might shatter their brainwashed minds. That's TWO. HAve fun in fantasy land. Always remember, the government is ALWAYS here to keep you safe. Follow their EVERY command and beleive EVERYTHING they tell you.
@EdgemanLL2 Becasue here, on planet NotBrainwashedNorAfraidToFaceTheFactsLikeASpinelessCowardWithJellyForBrains, we have a habit of incorporating ALL the facts into the equation. We also have a habit of listening to owners of the training schools who say that they, themselves couldn't fly that plane. So if he can't fly it (which is alot more than JUST pointing it at a building), he certainly can't do a 180 turn followed by a 360 degeree descending corkscrew, then bullseye his target
So, taking ALL the facts into the equation, the turn itself was a very lazy manuver, and had a pilot used the autopilot to fly it. the resutl would have been virtually identical.
Added to the fact that there was approx 40 secs after the turn completed, where the plane was nose-on to the pentagon, when it accelerated over 300kias, continuing tpostraight line accelration until impact.
ALL the facts together prove only a MORON would...
@EdgemanLL2 So a person who NEVER flew something that size, with those kind of controls, EXACTLY mimiced something as precise as autopilot would do? And I'M the moron??? LOL!
@EdgemanLL2 You're NEVER going to beleive otherwise until your gods in government tell you to think otherwise. You won't even TOUCH why the owner of the flight school said it can't be done, you won't TOUCH why there are over 80 videos of the Pentagon strike STILL not released as being labeled top secret and you won't even touch; how a jet, after it was already known attacks were happening, was allowed to hit the building unmolested in the most heavily defended airspace on the planet.
@EdgemanLL2 I'd never work for al-CIA-da. As a matter of fact, I think they should be abolished and outlawed. And it's funny how you always dismiss replies. i.e"1-4" Love how that guys was SO good to be able to mimic autopilot on his first flight. So I didn't ignore it, I refuted it. It was YOU who ignored what I presented. Just follow the government's EVERY command. They ARE always here to protect you. No matter what, always believe them. You really would be doing us all a favor.
@EdgemanLL2 So I'm not going to debate it with you. What's the point? Your going to beleive the government no matter what they say. So I will help you along. If the government ever orders you to do something, please do it. PLEASE, by all means, believe them in that case also. You'd be doing your country and the planet a GREAT service. They are ALWAYS here to protect you and NEVER forget that. No matter what else it might look like. Obey their orders. Fair enough?
@EdgemanLL2 How can you debate someone who lies and puts words in your mouth? Ignores your replies as if they never happened? Ignores facts they are too afraid to touch? What's the point? There's no debating you. You create your fantasy scenario in your head as you guy. Much like you embraced the fantasy of 911. So am I afraid of you?? Well, people as insanse as you do concern me. But I'm not afraid, there's just no point in it as you'll keep spinning fantasy as you go. Peace.
@EdgemanLL2 As I said, there's no debating someone who is ignoring replies like a coward, spinning replies into something else. And I'll have you know, I LOVE America. I took and oath to uphold and defend the constitution from ALL enemies foreign AND domestic. And I never stopped taking that oath seriously, even after I finished serving. And I never had any desire to serve in the CIA, they have no loyalty to America. But I did serve in Military Intelligence in the Army. Ironic, huh?
@deathprophet311 "Like siad, Im a pussy running away because I cant defend my comments about the turn earlier."
Understood, babe!
BTW, If youre going to shit on the dead, jerk off the terrorists who kill them, slander your country and side with terrorists who killed 3k people on 911 by pretending they didnt do it, dont try pretending to love your country
Truthers love their country like OK loved Nicole. =]
@EdgemanLL2 So peace. HAve a good life. Probably never served in your life and if you did, I doubt you ever took that oath seriously. Sorry, but some of us did. HAve a nice fantasy world man. Don't worry, there are those of who still love America, unlike cowards who blindly obey what they're told to think. Peace.
I can't believe ratards are still denying a plane hit the Pentagon. The government did their best to hide the plane, what flying it in broad daylight over a crowded city, during morning rush hour, in front of hundreds of people. That's like robbing a bank on payday during afternoon rush hour. Keep trying trooftards.
Actually, the view of the Pentagon from surrounding areas, including most of the highway, is rather obstructed.
A plane flying to the Pentagon and then over the Pentagon just as a missle explodes would fool almost everyone - that being fooled is part of human nature.
2 Pentagon police said the plane hit the building but testimony shows that one dove into his car, and other dropped to the floor.
That you can't see truth does not mean it is not truth
Not true. I have been there. The Pentagon is easily visible form the highway. As for eyewitness accounts. 136 saw a plane approach. 103 saw the plane hit of which 8 were pilots and one was an ATC at the Pentagon Heliport. 41 saw aircraft debris. 2 saw bodies still strapped into seats. ZERO saw a missile. Way to disgrace the victims with your agenda.
I have been there as well so we will have to disagree.
As for the Pentagon police who said the plane hit, there account of the location and there actions make it clear that they did not see the moment of impact.
And stop with your utter crap of --
"Way to disgrace the victims with your agenda."
Some victim family members are on the same agenda(seek truth) as I am on
and your comment is utter disrepect to those victims who are still alive today.
"Some victim family members are on the same agenda(seek truth) as I am on"
The victims are dead idiot!!! So all those victims that were on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, according to you, should be honored by accussing them of not being on the plane. Your logic is horribly flawed. Then again, some people can convince themselves of anything.
The Loose Change crew was forced, by victims families, to admit the victims were indeed real and on those planes.
Some victims were injured without dying, other victims are the family members and friends who were injured(pain and suffering of loss), first responder injuries, etc.
You then spew a strawman(ie, an argument that I never made) as to logic
for which then you can "claim" a flaw (though there was no flaw).
Fianlly you state a truth . . . some people can convince themselves of anything.
You are right by the very general definition "victims" are all those affected. I tend to think of the victims as those who sacrificed their lives. I tend to think of those who are alive as survivors.
So do you think all 103 eyewitnsses to the plane hitting the Pentagon are lying? Simple yes or no will suffice. I want to see just how much you honor the "victims" of 9/11.
#1 My search for truth shows more about how much I honor those harmed by 9/11
#2 As to your question, the answer is No with a BUT lying has to do with volition to falsify so stating what one believes to have seen happen even having been deceived into believing it does not constitute lying.
#3 Do I believe many were deceived? Yes.
If a plane flew to (and over) the Pentagon & explosion just as reaching Pentagon == could easily fool all
Irreducible Delusion is fundamentally an example of the rare existential fallacy, and the consequences thereof constitute (at best) a vacuous truth. In other words, were the Irreducible Delusion actually a true fact, the logical consequences would be plausible, but no logic based upon a false premise is ever valid. Since your premise is inherently flawed and unprovable, your logic ins invalid.
I am not sure you are even capable of rational, normal thought. Go back and reread what you have written. I have pointed out your flawed logic. Irreducible Delusion, I implore you to look this up as it is exactly the type of flawed logic you apply to your theory. It really doesn't matter. You only believe what you want to believe. You have your mind made up. Nothing else matters. That's the troofer way.
People who want to know the real truth, such as investigators, look at the evidence as a whole. Whereas someone with an agenda will cherry pick evidence, and either ignore or hand wave away anything that doesn't fit their theory. You should learn the difference. The eyewitness accounts is the perfect example.
BTW, the Loose Change kids were forced, by the victims families, to stop pushing the no planes hit the WTCs and Pentagon crap. What a disgrace!!
The "CIT" is just another troofer website with an agenda. They baltantly lie. For instance int heir inteview with Mr. Paik about the planes flight path, they claim he points North, when in fact he points parallel to Columbia Pike. He was one of the first eyewitnesses to the planes flight path. Why did they lie? I knwo why, do you? The same reason you make crap up, to support your agenda.
which makes you another of the ad hominem junk masters out here.
#2 I am not saying everythin "CIT" says is true.
#3 The witnesses close to where the plane banked near the Pentagon is the key part of of the flight path and all of the witnesses are credible about that part of the path including the Pentagon plolice
#4 What is your aganda?
Mine is to seek and point out truth, and you have not credibly refuted it.
"A plane flying to the Pentagon and then over the Pentagon just as a missle explodes would fool almost everyone "
That's made up. It's an argument from increduilty. Because you have NO evidence that the plane flew over or that a missile hit you imply a logical fallacy. Or, in lamans terms, you made it up. It's not based on anything, just a lack of immagination.
If you want to truth, you should stick with what has been observed and found. Fallacies have no place in truth.
More fallacy of logic from you about my making things up.
LOGIC of a plane flight path NORTH of CITGO means
(because it could not cause the damage) it DID NOT hit the Pentagon.
LOGIC of it heading at the Pentagon but not hitting means FLEW OVER.
I did not say a missle hit but that the evidence released so far of video of the impact does not rule out a missle. Regardless of missle, another airliners or whatever, something blew up and a plane flew OVER
"And ALL of those eyewitnesses who were in position to see the plane close to the Pentagon unanimously concur that the plane flew NORTH of CITGO"
Just answer this. Why do you have to lie?? Don't answer me. Just think for yourself why you have to create lies. Something is wrong in the noggin of yours. There is no justice in lying, no credence, no moral inclination.
Before I leave I'll go ahead and give you the lowdown. Do I think it will matter? Not one bit. You have been brainwashed and nothing anyone says will change your mind. But here goes.
Terry Morin and Edward Paik put the plane SoC, therefore not everyone put the plane NoC. Your beloved CIT website blatantly lies about Terry Morins testimony. Rather nice of them to slander an eyewitnees and of you to support them.
OF the folks who claim to have seen the aircraft......cont.
Do you understand what "preponderance of the evidence" means?
I asked you about this before and you never replied to it.
So I will expound -
It does not mean you have to have every single person in DC give a statement and place them on a map.
Now, if there were other eyewitnesses who were in position to see the plane as close to the Pentagon as the others then . . . But ALL unanimously concur that the plane flew NORTH of CITGO.
@2Truth4Liberty "Do you understand what "preponderance of the evidence" means?"
Yes. It means when 99.99% of all the evidence + witness testimony proves the plane was NOT NOC, you dont take the 00.01% evidence from a handful of cherry picked witnesses.
Edge wins
"It does not mean you have to have every single person in DC give a statement and place them on a map."
But you DO have to do that, if ur going to claim "the 8 closest witnesses" support your claims.
QUOTE "99.99% of all the evidence + witness testimony proves the plane was NOT NOC"
This is simply a false statment unless you have tons and tons of convincing evidence in your back pocket thqat we have not seen as yet.
If you have links to tons and tons of other evidence of witnesses that were close enough to see the plane banking and also said that it went South of CITGO, please present them now.
@2Truth4Liberty Its a 100% correct statement. mountiants of physical evidence, plus ALL the witness testimony, minus a handful of FALLIBLE witnesses who still say they saw the plane hit.
Not only a preponderance, and grossly overwhelming amount of evidence, beyond any doubt. Reasonable, or otherwise.
A plane flying to the Pentagon and then over the Pentagon just as a missle explodes would fool almost everyone - that being fooled is part of human nature.
2 Pentagon police said the plane hit the building but testimony shows that one dove into his car, and other dropped to the floor.
That you can't see this truth does not mean it is not truth.
LMGDAO. Sorry bitch. The FACTS are irrefutable. ALL of the physical evidence is consistent with AA hitting the pentagon, SOC. ALL of the witness testimony is also consistent.
you simply take a small 1% of the witnesses, and take 1% of their testimony that suits you, leaving you to imagine that 00.01% of the evidence (when that 01% of the evidence is, AS YOU ADMIT flawed and fallible) is somehow a preponderance?.
Thats not even "imagination." Its mental illness. LMGDAO
Once again, repeating with 5 million people in the DC Metro area, its simply not possible to shoot a missile over 5 million people during rush hour, and not have anyone notice it was a missile.
Nor, when you consider that 10s of thousands of people are within view of the penty, once a huge explosion goes off, you would have 10s of k's of people who would have seen the plane leave the area.
Being fooled is part of human nature. Being a fuxing idiot is part of your nature.
Comment removed
EterIronGen 3 days ago
Comment removed
EterIronGen 3 days ago
Comment removed
EterIronGen 3 days ago
ok add a few dozen telephone poles...street signs etc.
angrynhpatriot 3 days ago
NOOOOBBBBBB. this is about 250 to 260 knots. it looks fast but is well within parrimeters of designed max- Op -speed. the speeds that where recorded on flight 77(according to NTSB) would indicate it was the first boeing to break the sound barrier. did not hear a boom here did ya
dogsofwarclan 3 days ago
@dogsofwarclan
Please indicate where the NTSB has stated that Flight 77 broke the sound barrier.
llanbo 3 days ago
@dogsofwarclan
It's actually 390 knots, 450 mph. It looks fast because it is.
The speed claimed by NIST for the pentagon plane was 780
Feet per second, 540 mph. That's based on the estimate of
time provided by the camera frame rate (30 fps), and the
200 yards of green lawn at the pentagon, the FDR that
they recovered, and the Primary radar tracks.
Merlin5by5 3 days ago
@Merlin5by5
Thanks for the numbers. Now, if my rusty aeronautical brain does not deceive me, mach 1 at sea level on a "standard day" is 761 mph or 661 knots. So 390 kts would be about mach 0.6 (390/661 * 100) . So a fair way off the speed of sound.
Now, this is what I mean by the ignorance, distortions and outright lies of the Conspiracy crowd. Of course, the rebuttal will be "how can you trust the NTSB?", just after they invoked the NTSB to support their argument. Sigh.
llanbo 3 days ago
@Merlin5by5<<< Thinks Hexadecimal is base 60!!!???
whyohwhyfools 17 hours ago
@whyohwhyfools
Thinks Sexagesimal is base 60, but I DO work with computers, and
I say hexadecimal more often. Too bad for you.
If I wanted to speak in YOUR mathematics, I would say, fingers&toes,
agesimal.
Merlin5by5 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Those who perpetrated 9/11, OKC1995(see A Noble Lie), etc have also plotted to harm you, your family, and your friends.
Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex, they took it over.
Prior, they took over the monetary indutrial complex(inc. Gov)
Beyond, they took over the medical industrial complex
and have begun contamination of vaccine processes
The evidence is hidden in plane(plain) view
but many havenlt the time to even look.
Thank Dr Tenpenny & Dr Wakefield
infowars com
2Truth4Liberty 4 days ago
@2Truth4Liberty Now here's the truth about your system that'll fuck up your mind
They gave Al Queda 6 billion dollars in 1989 to 1992
ViFFeX 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html
Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support.
“Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993.
In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant:
“We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans."
Merlin5by5 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
Not sure how that is supposed to do something to my mind.
It is well known that Al-CIA-da (YES, CREATED AND RUN BY CIA)
is one of their favorite tools
in association with their never ending false flag attacks on Americans
Gulf of Tonkin, Waco, WTC 1993, OKC 1995, 9/11, underwear bomber,
etc., etc., etc.
2Truth4Liberty 3 days ago
@2Truth4Liberty YES, CREATED AND RUN BY CIA)
Id ask for proof. But giving her pisspoor showing with the NOC kookspiracy, Im sure she wont have any. =]
EdgemanLL2 3 days ago
@ViFFeX <--more crying. Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 5 days ago
@EdgemanLL2 You are really fixed on 'winning', aren't you? Yet you still haven't formulated one sentence without grammar errors. Do all of us a favor, and go back to school. Although I am not English and, according to you, I have an IQ of 80, I am still doing better.
ViFFeX 5 days ago
@ViFFeX
Anytime you want to explain how every major source of information
of the pentagon, and all the debris removal from both Truther web
sites, and Debunker websites, back the official flight path, and the
Flight 77 aircraft, we can stop bitch slapping you.
That's not going to happen, LOL.
Merlin5by5 5 days ago
@Merlin5by5 Ok. For arguments sake, let's say that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon. Then I've got a couple of questions for you.
1) The first tower was hit at 8:46 am, the second at 9:03 am. The Pentagon got hit at 9:37. That's almost 1 hour after the initial first attack. The Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. If they are America's defense, why the hell did they not figure out, while being on high alert from the first two attacks, that they would get hit?
ViFFeX 4 days ago
@ViFFeX "why the hell did they not figure out?"
At what point, in the time line, would it have been obvious that the penty was the next target? At what point in time, before 77 hits, do they have enough information to conclude that further attacks are coming, and that the penty is the next target?
EdgemanLL2 4 days ago
@Merlin5by5 I mean, the flight paths of planes are monitored and the sky above and around the Pentagon is of limits to any aircraft. Also, they are supposed to be the best in Military Intelligence in the world... I'm not seeing it.
2) The debris and the hole in the wall. And the clean grass field from all the photo's. You cannot deny this evidence. You should open your eyes and see governments for what they really are. Self interest. That is the only thing they care about.
ViFFeX 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
I have no trouble understanding that governments only care about self-interest, and in the same way, I have no trouble understanding that you are a foaming kook.
llanbo 4 days ago
@llanbo Then answer my questions. If you are able to that, with backed up evidence like videos and pictures, then I might be able to change my opinion.
I don't believe in the boogeyman, I don't believe in God or the Devil, so I will most definitely not be persuaded to believe some people on the internet claiming they have evidence and are not willing to show that evidence.
ViFFeX 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
Videos and pictures can be faked. At the end of the day, loads of people say they saw something consistent with an American Airlines 757 crash into the Pentagon. Bits of wreckage consistent with a 757 were found after the event. American Airlines are down one 757 in their inventory. Several hundred people are still mourning their relatives who died on that 757. How do you propose that was faked without anyone involved coming forward?
llanbo 4 days ago
@llanbo Uhm... there were only 59 people on that flight. Including the hijackers. So several hundred people is a bit much don't you think? And I'm not saying that the plane did not crash, I never said that. I said that I believe that it wasn't a plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I have formed my opinion from reading official statements, watching documentaries and reading Wikipedia e.o. sources. When someone disagrees, fine with me, but give solid arguments.
ViFFeX 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ViFFeX
"Uhm... there were only 59 people on that flight. Including the hijackers. So several hundred people is a bit much don't you think?"
You think they only had one relative each?
"I said that I believe that it wasn't a plane that crashed into the Pentagon"
So how come so many eyewitnesses saw exactly that?
How did they get the bits of 757 on to the lawn with nobody noticing?
llanbo 4 days ago
@llanbo Also, when a 757-223 crashes, you don't get some bits of wreckage. I don't know if you've seen a 757 crash once, but it leaves a hell of a lot more. The large parts of the plane, e.g. the wings, fuselage, tail etc. don't just vanish. They don't vaporize into small pieces. If you want an reasonably accurate example, see the first episode of lost. And that's not even the entire plane. Question everything you see, hear, read etc. Otherwise you become just a tool.
ViFFeX 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
The Pentagon 757 left 120 tons of wreckage. Including engine debris,
and complete wheel trucks, window fuselage sections, and seats.
PENTAGON, PLANE Wheel Truck DEBRIS in the PENTAGON
11-settembre. blogspot. co m/2007/04/ english-section. ht ml
Merlin5by5 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
"The large parts of the plane, e.g. the wings, fuselage, tail etc. don't just vanish. They don't vaporize into small pieces."
You are wrong. See e.g. Roselawn, which went in a lot slower than flight 77 ,and not into a reinforced concrete building either.
" If you want an reasonably accurate example, see the first episode of lost."
You are an idiot who can't relate to anything he hasn't seen on a fictional TV program. This is probably why you are wrong so often.
llanbo 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
"Question everything you see, hear, read etc. Otherwise you become just a tool."
Oh, the deluded arrogance of the stupid truther. You haven't been very good at questioning the bullshit conspiracy nonsense you've hoovered up from the web and watching "Lost", have you tool?
llanbo 4 days ago
@llanbo Lost was merely an example of how an airplane crash could look. I never said it was 100% accurate, in fact, I mentioned it was REASONABLY accurate. I never said it was a conspiracy either. I just said how there never was a plane that flew into the Pentagon. I am not a truther, because I could care less whether a plane crashed or not. I stated my opinion, and you seem to disagree. I backed up my opinion with solid numbers and with videos. This discussion is leading nowhere.
ViFFeX 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
"I backed up my opinion with solid numbers and with videos"
Ermm... "Lost" isn't solid numbers or a relevant video, old chap. I showed you a crach (Roselawn) where an aircraft impacted the nice, soft ground at considerably lower speed and no debris from e.g. the wings bigger than a cigarette package was left.
Once again, if no aircraft hit the Pentagon, how do you explain the witness statements, 757 bits all over the lawn etc? Do you have a TV series that explains that?
llanbo 4 days ago
@llanbo I was talking about the numbers I used. The times, the people that were on the plane etc.
And I've seen a plane crash with my own eyes. It leaves debris. It will cause the grass below it to be filled with debris. This plane collided with a building. There was a hole in the wall where a plane, especially one as big as a 757 did not fit. The windows around the hole, where normally the wings would've hit, were intact. When something with 500 mph hits a building, windows don't stay intact...
ViFFeX 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
"I was talking about the numbers I used. The times, the people that were on the plane etc."
"And I've seen a plane crash with my own eyes."
..as did several hundred people near the Pentagon. Did you see an aircraft hit a building?
"There was a hole in the wall where a plane, especially one as big as a 757 did not fit. "
The hole in the Pentagon is perfectly consistent with a 757 impact. Are you going to reefer me to Roadrunner for an example of how it should have looked?
llanbo 4 days ago
@llanbo Alright. This is going nowhere. You don't believe me, and try to conceal your stupidity by reflecting it onto me.
You win, alright?! Just because it's sooo important to you. I still don't believe it, but this is going to be the last I say about the subject, because you seem to have a grudge which you can't let go.
I bid you farewell and good luck in uncovering the truth. I don't mind being right or being wrong, because I don't have a stake in this.
ViFFeX 4 days ago
@ViFFeX
"Alright. This is going nowhere."
Of course not, you can't answer simple questions like how did all those eyewitnesses manage to hallucinate the same thing or how did those 757 parts end up on the lawn. All you can come out with is "well, it didn't look like that in Lost", and then you have the nerve to call someone else stupid :-)
If you don't mind being wrong, why not have a shot at answering my questions instead of throwing a hissy fit?
llanbo 3 days ago
@llanbo en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_of_the_Pentagon_during_rescue_operations_post-September_11_attack.JPEG
Does a plane fit there?! (Remove the () )
ViFFeX 3 days ago
@llanbo How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 60 ft. across?
ViFFeX 3 days ago
@ViFFeX
Because the hole was created by the fuselage, which is less than 60 feet wide. Of course, the length of the aircraft is irrelevant to width of the hole, so I'm not sure why you mention it.
Now then, back to the questions I've asked you more than a few times now:
How did all the eyewitnesses manage to hallucinate the same thing?
How did the 757 wreckage get there?
llanbo 3 days ago
@llanbo Don't you get it by now?! There was no wreckage. There was some debris which could have been planted there. About people seeing the plane. I cannot answer that. I am honest, and I am not crazy to think a high number of eyewitnesses are delusional. But did they see the plane or the explosion? And did you hear about this from the 'official report'? Because if it's in the report, I don't buy it. If you know someone who saw it, then I guess I could be wrong. I am not afraid to admit defeat.
ViFFeX 3 days ago
@ViFFeX
"there was no wreckage. There was some debris which could have been planted there."
Ignoring the fact that you've just said there was no wreckage there, except for the wreckage which was there, how was it planted?
"About people seeing the plane. I cannot answer that. I am honest, and I am not crazy to think a high number of eyewitnesses are delusional. But did they see the plane or the explosion? "
You mean you haven't read the eyewitness reports?!
llanbo 3 days ago
@ViFFeX
The eyewitness reports are from newspapers, police etc:
urbanlegends(.)about(.)com/library/blflight77w.htm
llanbo 3 days ago
@llanbo freedomfiles(.)org/war/pentagon.htm
I am not saying that the witnesses are wrong, but look at this with an open mind and tell me you are absolutely 100% certain that that plane hit the Pentagon...
ViFFeX 3 days ago
@ViFFeX
Actually, you are saying the witnesses are wrong. I've looked at lots of stuff claiming that flight 77 didn
t hit the Pentagon, and have yet to find anything that was compelling. Indeed, I had a
hard time finding anything that wasn't a distortion or an outright lie.I'm not 100% certain of anything, but on the balance of probability and evidence it's far more likely that invisible aliens caused the damage to the Pentagon than that Flight 77 didn't hit it.
llanbo 3 days ago
@llanbo
How about a 757 wheel truck being recovered from the Pentagon?
PENTAGON, PLANE DEBRIS in the PENTAGON
11-settembre. blogspot. co m/2007/04/ english-section. ht ml
Merlin5by5 3 days ago
@Merlin5by5
Eh? I think you're confused. I'm well aware plenty of 757 wreckage was found at the Pentagon after flight 77 hit it.
llanbo 3 days ago
@llanbo
Sorry about that, I think I was replying to viffex. hit the wrong post
Merlin5by5 3 days ago
@Merlin5by5
Nae bother, it's not exactly a coherent thread ;-)
llanbo 3 days ago
@ViFFeX
Once again - how come all those witnesses saw a 757 hit the Pentagon?
How come there were bits of 757 all over the lawn?
llanbo 4 days ago
@ViFFeX " I mean, the flight paths of planes are monitored and the sky above and around the Pentagon is of limits to any aircraft. "
Yeah. You might want to google "Washington National Airport" before pretending what you just said, was actually true.
EdgemanLL2 4 days ago
@llanbo theres actually been a few ppl that said exactly what I'm saying and yes your right I don't have any knowledge on aviation, but anyone from the evidence at hand can see there are massive holes in the official story, the only massive hole that is missing here is the one in the side of the pentagon. That piece of evidence right there blows the official story apart.
OldschoolLo 5 days ago
@OldschoolLo
The ONLY idiots who propose the Pentagon hole was too small,
are the idiots who claim there was no Boeing 757 there in the first place.
They haven't explained this photo, of a Boeing 757 Wheel Truck,
complete with 2 wheel rims, and the remains of tires.
PENTAGON, PLANE DEBRIS in the PENTAGON
11-settembre. blogspot. co m/2007/04/ english-section. ht ml
Explain to us how a non existent airliner, or a missile, left
a 757 wheel truck.
Merlin5by5 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...the way it did without tremendous planning - and, of course, explosives. It fell on its footprint. The central beans - and any footage shows it - are the first ones to go down. That is, undoubtedly, the main characteristic of a good, planned and successful controlled demolition. It is of course very strange that it happened that same afternoon. But who knows... Maybe you guys up there in America are geniuses and your engineers can plan something this big in a couple of hours. Right?
hatumahoe 1 week ago
Comment removed
hatumahoe 1 week ago
Comment removed
hatumahoe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You see, I'm from Brazil. I have no motive to be passionate about this matter. I couldn't care less about you internal policy. If you americans want to vote for republicans, that's you choice. Not my business. But I have to tell you this: I'm a mechanical engineer. I've worked with controlled demolition for 4 years. From 2003 to 2007. It was then that I realized building 7 was, without a doubt, a controlled demolition. It is impossible that a steel frame would collapse... (goes on)
hatumahoe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This maneuver was made by an experient pilot, with years and years of training. If you pay attention to this vid, you'll see that the plane, when passing the landing site, is at least at 12 meters high, wich is something like a 4 storey building. If you look at the images of the Pentagon after the alleged plane hit it - but before collapse - you'll see that the damage to the building was at 2 meters high - tops. The Pentagon story is, to say the least, very strange.
hatumahoe 1 week ago
Comment removed
hatumahoe 1 week ago
Comment removed
hatumahoe 1 week ago
Comment removed
hatumahoe 1 week ago
Comment removed
hatumahoe 1 week ago
This isn't really proofing anything. This is obviously performed by a stuntman on some sort of event. Second, the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon was flying even lower than this and over a longer distance. Watch some simulation vids to know what I mean. Third, and this linked to the first one, the Pentagon plane was piloted by a normal pilot. Also, his plane was apparently hijacked. When you're under that kind of pressure, stunts like these are not easily performed...
ViFFeX 1 week ago
@ViFFeX "the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon was flying even lower than this and over a longer distance."
And, just an FYI, when you dont give a shit ahout actually crashing the plane, it likely would be less stressful. Only reason a pilot stresses over ANYTHING is that he doesnt want to kill himself in a crash. Take the fear of dying away, the stress level collapses faster than the 911 Kook movment has.
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Even if, let's say, the terrorist took over and flew the plane and didn't care about dying, it's not possible to fly lower than the plane you see flying in this video. It has been proven that due to air density and air pockets it is not possible to fly a plane that low over that distance.
Also, a normal pilot of course would not want to crash, but not only that, he is also responsible for all the people that fly with him in the plane. He will stress more over that than over dying.
ViFFeX 6 days ago
@ViFFeX "it's not possible to fly lower than the plane you see flying in this video."
Well, this could come as a surprise to every pilot who has ever crashed. As that would require moments of flight even lower than what we see here. LMGDAOOOO.
::shakes head::: Amazing!
EdgemanLL2 6 days ago
@ViFFeX "It has been proven that due to air density and air pockets it is not possible to fly a plane that low over that distance."
1) Internet rumor, nothing more
2) No eviedence there was a level lfight, just above the ground,for any distance at all.
Try to confine your comments to only things that are actually TRUE. Saves time in the long run, and it will be less embarassing for you.
EdgemanLL2 6 days ago
@EdgemanLL2 I am not emberassed. I have read your previous comments to other people and think you are either crazy or delusional. But, I don't know you, so I cannot be certain.
Even so, I would like to advise you and everyone else to watch the following video. If YOU still think the same way as you do now, that's fine with me, but keep your opinion to yourself and don't go out picking fights with everyone who doesn't agree with you.
watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE
There you go.
ViFFeX 6 days ago
@ViFFeX If youre not embarassed, you should be.
"I dlike people to watch the following video."
Im sorry but "I saw it on a YT video, so its gotta be true" isnt research. its mental illness.
EdgemanLL2 6 days ago
@EdgemanLL2 Fine. You have your opinion, I have mine. I don't feel like wasting time on someone who doesn't want to listen to what other people tell them and washes away any evidence that is put on the table.
Also, check your punctuation. I am not an English person myself, but your grammar hurts my eyes.
ViFFeX 6 days ago
@ViFFeX Wrong. You have opinion, drien by an agenda. I have facts without any agenda. Facts are simple. 1) there is no magic cushion of air that follows the plane around, preventing it from flying low to the ground, and 2) Even if there were, it would be meaningless. Since no one ever claimed the plane was skimming along close to the ground (vice the split-second before impact).
I'm sorry that I hurt your vagina.
EdgemanLL2 6 days ago
@EdgemanLL2 Dude, seriously... Stop with the meaningless finger pointing that you are doing here. You're acting like a child who didn't get candy.
I don't have an agenda. I am merely pointing out what I feel on the subject. That you disagree is fine with me.
I mean, think about it for a while, if you can. What would my agenda be? I am not an American, merely a person sitting on the side enjoying the show. I don't care if the truth is already told or not, I just give my opinion. Freedom of speech
ViFFeX 6 days ago
@ViFFeX <--Weepy little bitch whines about me, because she has no facts. =]
"What would my agenda be?" <--Thats a question for YOU to answer.
But when you lie to support the agenda, and refuse all facts that oppose the agenda, its obvious you have one.
Whatever, or "why?" Only you can answer. But that the Agenda exists is clear, and clearly irrefutable.
EdgemanLL2 6 days ago
@ViFFeX
Since when did freedom of speech include the right to accuse the
US nation, and an entire generation of politicians, of a crime without
a single shred of evidence? I don't recall that ever being a right.
In fact, Defamation of character was a prison offense in George
Washington's day. It was a hanging offense in the UK.
Don't pretend that you have any more evidence, or are any more
intellectual, than the NEXT conspiracy screaming faggot.
You are saying the same crap.
Merlin5by5 6 days ago
@Merlin5by5 Expressing my opinion, whether that is accusing anyone, is still an opinion. That the opinion is not shared by others is not my concern, as this is the way I feel and only I am able to change that opinion based on experiences and insights.
I always am skeptical towards governments because they are the ones with agenda's. They only care about themselves and how much money they can make. I've never seen an honest politician. I may not have any evidence, but neither do you.
ViFFeX 6 days ago
@Merlin5by5
"and an entire generation of politicians, of a crime without
a single shred of evidence?"
You sound ridiculous. It was Mossad who did 911.
KombiPode 5 days ago
@ViFFeX
EdgemanLL2 is not to be reasoned with.
It has closed all faculties that can use facts and logic in any semlance of a reasonable manner.
It doesn't take very many posts below to see that.
2Truth4Liberty 5 days ago
@2Truth4Liberty Yeah, I hear ya. Stupid thing is that I don't really care whether he agrees with me or not, but he can't seem to let that pass...
Ah well, I just feel sorry for him and every lad that has the same boxed vision of this world. Glad I am not alone in this world who sees lies for what they are.
ViFFeX 5 days ago
@ViFFeX Im sorry that I hurt your vagina too.
But if there is one thing I love more than a crying kook, its when TWO kooks cry about how mean I was for debunking their bullshit.
Please continue. =]
EdgemanLL2 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2Truth4Liberty "EdgemanLL2 is not to be reasoned with."
Translation: "Edge is too smart. He wont fall for my 80IQ bullshit."
Another successful debunking. Another surrender accepted. =]
Keep crying bitches. Crying Kook is my favorite sound. =]
EdgemanLL2 5 days ago
So of the plane didn't hit the pentagon, what did they do with the passengers aboard that plane? Cause they did hijacked it and then it disappeared so they could throw the missile to the pentagon making it se it was the plane.
insanity23mike 1 week ago
911 Truthers <--Morons who think it takes an expert pilot to crash a plane.
LMGDAOOOOOOOOO
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2
Truth Deniers <-- Truth deniers.
2Truth4Liberty 5 days ago
Between ALPA, SWAPA, APA and other pilots unions, nearly 100k PROFESSIONAL AIRLINE PILOTS petition congress for better doors, and guns in the cockpit because they KNOW cockpit intrusions occurred on 911, resulting in terrorists crashing airplanes.
Morons on YT tell me those guys just dont know what they are talking about. And I should just listen to fuxing kookspiracy morons who can barely SPELL "flying" much less understand it.
OMFG. you cant make up comedy this good!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
Even if you accept all of the government's stories, you have to accept that the government hypes fear
watch?v=R4-QQAifRDc
You have a better chance of being killed by a honey bee than being killed by terrorism
And YET, Home Land security does not station armed guards around the bee hives.
Why? It's a physo control thing.
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
has anyone ever been on that airline its really scary espically landing at lisbon omg they fly so low its scary
JustaC00lGuy 1 week ago
"stick this in your pipe and smoke it:---Not by an amateur pilot who's only trained on a single engine cessna who's OWN instructor said that he could not even fly that jet, let alone strkie something so perfectly right after maneuvering in a descending corkscrew pattern that even the most talented pilots in the world would have a hard time pulling off. So there, I put it in my pipe, smoked it, and it tastes like moldy bull dung.
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 "he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it,"\
You might want to actually find out what the instructor said, before pretending it proved your point.
Just some free advice.
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Very interesting. Put this in the searchbox and watch: " 9/11 Flight School Instructor: Neither He Nor Alleged Hijackers Could Fly Those Planes " He makes some great points as to why, but you basically answered it in your OWN statement. They DIDN'T JUST have to point it at a building. Like I said, even the "official story" shows the corkscrew descent as the approach. So you might want to analyze your OWN facts before pretending it proves your point. Just some free advice.
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 Interesting. Please tell me what "there is no doubt in my mind he could point a plane at a building and hit it" means in your planet.
Cuz back here, on Planet Normalperson, its means "there is no doubt he could point a plane at a building and hit it."
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Tell me what part in your brainwashed mind omits all the facts to the event that he did not have to JUST point a plane at a building and had to do ariel acrobatics to do what they say he did? And tell me what part of "Neither He Nor Alleged Hijackers Could Fly Those Planes", YOU don't understand? Did you even WATCH the man say it on national television? Do you make it a habit to constantly divert from, and exclude all the facts of the case to prove your ludicrous point?
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 Tell me what part of your brain dead mind things "a turn to the right" is somehow "ariel acrobatics."
Planes make right turns every day. Left turns too. Its not all that difficult. Up-Down-Left-Right? Its the same on any plane. And you learn it with your first lesson.
Sorry son. But "there is no doubt in my mind" only means 1 thing. Youre an idiot. And there was no doubt in the instructors mind.
OK, that was TWO things. =]
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Nevermind. LOL! I see it now, you're a coward afraid to face reality. Becasue if you think doing it in a small single engine Cessna airplane is anything NEAR the same as doing it in a giant Jet powered airliner with hydaulic controls, well you are TRULY reaching the ludicrous when it comes to your "reasoning" (for lack of a better word). I understand it though. Some people are just cowards afraid to face reality and have to spin nonsense. That's ONE, and it's enough.
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 "LOL! I see it now, you're a coward afraid to face reality."
LMGDAOO. I just gave you the reality, and you run off like a pussified little bitch. Screaming "im not listening la la la la la la la!" with your fingers in your ears!
LMGDAOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! And these fuxtards wonder why no one ever took them seriously????
ROFLMGDAOOOOOO
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
"THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND......"
DeathPussy respons? "Im a cowardly little bitch, running away! La la la la la la la la la!!!"
ROFL!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Wait, I'M the coward running off when it's YOU who wouldn't even watch the Owner of the flight school say it??? IT was YOU who ignored THAT, AND omiited some of the facts while adressing them with fallacies?? e.g. "run off like a pussified little bitch. Screaming "im not listening la la la la la la la!" with your fingers in your ears!" Wow, not only a coward, but a lying little hypocrite to boot. LOL! Your rationelle breaks down at even an elemntary school level.
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 "youre right Edge, your explanation (1-4 list) was irrefutable. I cant defend my own bullshit."
I know man, I know. youre not the first Kookspiritard to go down in flames. You wont be the last. =]
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 And, I bet your SUCH a coward, you never put it in the searchbox and listened to the instructor say on national TV, that he, not the terrorists could do it. But that would make sense for a brainwashed coward. They avoid anything that might shatter their brainwashed minds. That's TWO. HAve fun in fantasy land. Always remember, the government is ALWAYS here to keep you safe. Follow their EVERY command and beleive EVERYTHING they tell you.
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 Becasue here, on planet NotBrainwashedNorAfraidToFaceTheFactsLikeASpinelessCowardWithJellyForBrains, we have a habit of incorporating ALL the facts into the equation. We also have a habit of listening to owners of the training schools who say that they, themselves couldn't fly that plane. So if he can't fly it (which is alot more than JUST pointing it at a building), he certainly can't do a 180 turn followed by a 360 degeree descending corkscrew, then bullseye his target
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 All the facts, huh? OK
Well, the FACTS as confirmed by the pilots for 911 truth are this:
1) Speed was less than 300 kias in the turn, vice a few seconds where it was a few knots over
2) Bank angle was never more than (AP standard) 30 degs, except fpt for a few brief secs where it was slightly steeper.
3) ROT was 1.57 degs / dec
4) Descent rate was 1837 fpm.
Given the FACT that a normal AP bank limit for a boeing is usually 30 degs, AP ROT is 1.5 degs/sec, and...
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
cont) and the normal AP descent rate is 1800 fpm.
So, taking ALL the facts into the equation, the turn itself was a very lazy manuver, and had a pilot used the autopilot to fly it. the resutl would have been virtually identical.
Added to the fact that there was approx 40 secs after the turn completed, where the plane was nose-on to the pentagon, when it accelerated over 300kias, continuing tpostraight line accelration until impact.
ALL the facts together prove only a MORON would...
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
cont-2) ...only a MORON would characterize this as some amazing feet of aerobatic derring-do.
All the facts together prove this was an extremely lazy manuver, that was no more aggressive than an autopilot would have been.
Coupled with the NO DOUBT in the instructors mind, only a MORON would pretend this was somehow not possible.
Youre not a moron? are you? =]
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 So a person who NEVER flew something that size, with those kind of controls, EXACTLY mimiced something as precise as autopilot would do? And I'M the moron??? LOL!
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 You're NEVER going to beleive otherwise until your gods in government tell you to think otherwise. You won't even TOUCH why the owner of the flight school said it can't be done, you won't TOUCH why there are over 80 videos of the Pentagon strike STILL not released as being labeled top secret and you won't even touch; how a jet, after it was already known attacks were happening, was allowed to hit the building unmolested in the most heavily defended airspace on the planet.
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathPussy <---calls 100k airline pilots liars.
LOLOLOLOL.
so much for the bullshit claim that she "takes all the facts into the equation."
BTW, Ben Arnold was offered a comission in the Brit Navy for his Treason. What did Alqaeda offer you?
Just asking questions/ =]
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 I'd never work for al-CIA-da. As a matter of fact, I think they should be abolished and outlawed. And it's funny how you always dismiss replies. i.e"1-4" Love how that guys was SO good to be able to mimic autopilot on his first flight. So I didn't ignore it, I refuted it. It was YOU who ignored what I presented. Just follow the government's EVERY command. They ARE always here to protect you. No matter what, always believe them. You really would be doing us all a favor.
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 "I'd never work for al-CIA-da."
Yeah. They dont hire traitors who hate this country.
But, Im sure youre right. Im sure the 100k airline pilots all are clueless about flying airliners. Im sure you know better.
LOLOLOL
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deathprophet311 "on his first flight"
He already had 600 hours, you fuxing idiot. Funny how THAT fact never got into your equation. LOLOLOLOLOL.
BTW,. No one said it was a perfect mimic to an AP turn. Only that the rates were very close, and such VERY LAZY.
So, do you refuse to take into account the FACT that this was a very lazy manvuver?
Pilots 4911 truth mock the manuver for its paziness. Were they lying?
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 So I'm not going to debate it with you. What's the point? Your going to beleive the government no matter what they say. So I will help you along. If the government ever orders you to do something, please do it. PLEASE, by all means, believe them in that case also. You'd be doing your country and the planet a GREAT service. They are ALWAYS here to protect you and NEVER forget that. No matter what else it might look like. Obey their orders. Fair enough?
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 "So I'm not going to debate it with you"
Of coruse you wont. youre a pussified little bitch, running away. When My 1-4 list nuked you, you ran off. =]
Hani had 600 hours <--another FACT the pussified cowards forget to take into their equation. =]
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 How can you debate someone who lies and puts words in your mouth? Ignores your replies as if they never happened? Ignores facts they are too afraid to touch? What's the point? There's no debating you. You create your fantasy scenario in your head as you guy. Much like you embraced the fantasy of 911. So am I afraid of you?? Well, people as insanse as you do concern me. But I'm not afraid, there's just no point in it as you'll keep spinning fantasy as you go. Peace.
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 <---Cries about me. Because he cant refute the irrefutable evidence.
Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 Comeon you fuxing idiot. just defend your bullshit.
Tell me how a turn under 300 knotts, that was less aggressive than an autopilot turn is some difficult aerobatic manuver.
Tell Me! 'Splain it Lucy!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 As I said, there's no debating someone who is ignoring replies like a coward, spinning replies into something else. And I'll have you know, I LOVE America. I took and oath to uphold and defend the constitution from ALL enemies foreign AND domestic. And I never stopped taking that oath seriously, even after I finished serving. And I never had any desire to serve in the CIA, they have no loyalty to America. But I did serve in Military Intelligence in the Army. Ironic, huh?
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 "Like siad, Im a pussy running away because I cant defend my comments about the turn earlier."
Understood, babe!
BTW, If youre going to shit on the dead, jerk off the terrorists who kill them, slander your country and side with terrorists who killed 3k people on 911 by pretending they didnt do it, dont try pretending to love your country
Truthers love their country like OK loved Nicole. =]
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 So peace. HAve a good life. Probably never served in your life and if you did, I doubt you ever took that oath seriously. Sorry, but some of us did. HAve a nice fantasy world man. Don't worry, there are those of who still love America, unlike cowards who blindly obey what they're told to think. Peace.
deathprophet311 1 week ago
@deathprophet311 Dont cry bitch.
Just tell me how an AP turn is some great aerobatic maniver.
we all want to hear this. =]
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
*manuver
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2 - Keep trying with your spelling project.
You're zero for two.
geoffreydlang 1 week ago
@geoffreydlang <--didnt have an answer.
Edge wins!
Hopefully Kookbot does better. =]
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
ht tp : // CitizenInvestigationTeam . com
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
I can't believe ratards are still denying a plane hit the Pentagon. The government did their best to hide the plane, what flying it in broad daylight over a crowded city, during morning rush hour, in front of hundreds of people. That's like robbing a bank on payday during afternoon rush hour. Keep trying trooftards.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
Actually, the view of the Pentagon from surrounding areas, including most of the highway, is rather obstructed.
A plane flying to the Pentagon and then over the Pentagon just as a missle explodes would fool almost everyone - that being fooled is part of human nature.
2 Pentagon police said the plane hit the building but testimony shows that one dove into his car, and other dropped to the floor.
That you can't see truth does not mean it is not truth
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
Not true. I have been there. The Pentagon is easily visible form the highway. As for eyewitness accounts. 136 saw a plane approach. 103 saw the plane hit of which 8 were pilots and one was an ATC at the Pentagon Heliport. 41 saw aircraft debris. 2 saw bodies still strapped into seats. ZERO saw a missile. Way to disgrace the victims with your agenda.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
I have been there as well so we will have to disagree.
As for the Pentagon police who said the plane hit, there account of the location and there actions make it clear that they did not see the moment of impact.
And stop with your utter crap of --
"Way to disgrace the victims with your agenda."
Some victim family members are on the same agenda(seek truth) as I am on
and your comment is utter disrepect to those victims who are still alive today.
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
"Some victim family members are on the same agenda(seek truth) as I am on"
The victims are dead idiot!!! So all those victims that were on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, according to you, should be honored by accussing them of not being on the plane. Your logic is horribly flawed. Then again, some people can convince themselves of anything.
The Loose Change crew was forced, by victims families, to admit the victims were indeed real and on those planes.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
"The victims are dead idiot!!! "
You are ignorant.
Some victims were injured without dying, other victims are the family members and friends who were injured(pain and suffering of loss), first responder injuries, etc.
You then spew a strawman(ie, an argument that I never made) as to logic
for which then you can "claim" a flaw (though there was no flaw).
Fianlly you state a truth . . . some people can convince themselves of anything.
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
You are right by the very general definition "victims" are all those affected. I tend to think of the victims as those who sacrificed their lives. I tend to think of those who are alive as survivors.
So do you think all 103 eyewitnsses to the plane hitting the Pentagon are lying? Simple yes or no will suffice. I want to see just how much you honor the "victims" of 9/11.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
#1 My search for truth shows more about how much I honor those harmed by 9/11
#2 As to your question, the answer is No with a BUT lying has to do with volition to falsify so stating what one believes to have seen happen even having been deceived into believing it does not constitute lying.
#3 Do I believe many were deceived? Yes.
If a plane flew to (and over) the Pentagon & explosion just as reaching Pentagon == could easily fool all
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
Two words for you "Irreducible Delusion"
Irreducible Delusion is fundamentally an example of the rare existential fallacy, and the consequences thereof constitute (at best) a vacuous truth. In other words, were the Irreducible Delusion actually a true fact, the logical consequences would be plausible, but no logic based upon a false premise is ever valid. Since your premise is inherently flawed and unprovable, your logic ins invalid.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
You have not cited any flaw in logic or cited what you believe was a false premise
so this is nothing but babble now.
Reason has left your building
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
"You have not cited any flaw in logic "
I am not sure you are even capable of rational, normal thought. Go back and reread what you have written. I have pointed out your flawed logic. Irreducible Delusion, I implore you to look this up as it is exactly the type of flawed logic you apply to your theory. It really doesn't matter. You only believe what you want to believe. You have your mind made up. Nothing else matters. That's the troofer way.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty There is a definate flaw in logic. you discard 99.99% of all the evidence, and insist a 00.01% witness testimony must be correct.
Thats not logic. Its an Agenda. =]
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
People who want to know the real truth, such as investigators, look at the evidence as a whole. Whereas someone with an agenda will cherry pick evidence, and either ignore or hand wave away anything that doesn't fit their theory. You should learn the difference. The eyewitness accounts is the perfect example.
BTW, the Loose Change kids were forced, by the victims families, to stop pushing the no planes hit the WTCs and Pentagon crap. What a disgrace!!
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
No theory since the conclusion is based on factual information gleaned from eyewitness accounts of the ACTUAL flight path
And no cherry picking. What has been ignored?
That the moment of explosion made many believe the plane that came from NORTH of CITGO actually hit the building?
If the plane that came from NORTH of CITGO hit the Pentagon the damage would be different - so it could NOT have hit the Pentagon.
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
The "CIT" is just another troofer website with an agenda. They baltantly lie. For instance int heir inteview with Mr. Paik about the planes flight path, they claim he points North, when in fact he points parallel to Columbia Pike. He was one of the first eyewitnesses to the planes flight path. Why did they lie? I knwo why, do you? The same reason you make crap up, to support your agenda.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
#1 you cannot show where I "make crap up"
which makes you another of the ad hominem junk masters out here.
#2 I am not saying everythin "CIT" says is true.
#3 The witnesses close to where the plane banked near the Pentagon is the key part of of the flight path and all of the witnesses are credible about that part of the path including the Pentagon plolice
#4 What is your aganda?
Mine is to seek and point out truth, and you have not credibly refuted it.
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
"A plane flying to the Pentagon and then over the Pentagon just as a missle explodes would fool almost everyone "
That's made up. It's an argument from increduilty. Because you have NO evidence that the plane flew over or that a missile hit you imply a logical fallacy. Or, in lamans terms, you made it up. It's not based on anything, just a lack of immagination.
If you want to truth, you should stick with what has been observed and found. Fallacies have no place in truth.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
More fallacy of logic from you about my making things up.
LOGIC of a plane flight path NORTH of CITGO means
(because it could not cause the damage) it DID NOT hit the Pentagon.
LOGIC of it heading at the Pentagon but not hitting means FLEW OVER.
I did not say a missle hit but that the evidence released so far of video of the impact does not rule out a missle. Regardless of missle, another airliners or whatever, something blew up and a plane flew OVER
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty Except there is no proof it WAS NOC.
And all the proof points to the opposite.
LOGIC says "Kooks are cherrypicking data."
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2
You are incorrect.
There is eyewitness proof of a plane flying North of CITGO
( CitizenInvestigationTeam . com )
And ALL of those eyewitnesses who were in position to see the plane close to the Pentagon unanimously concur that the plane flew NORTH of CITGO
You have to not know LOGIC in order to believe there is no proof.
That, or just be a biased :-)
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2Truth4Liberty
"And ALL of those eyewitnesses who were in position to see the plane close to the Pentagon unanimously concur that the plane flew NORTH of CITGO"
Just answer this. Why do you have to lie?? Don't answer me. Just think for yourself why you have to create lies. Something is wrong in the noggin of yours. There is no justice in lying, no credence, no moral inclination.
It's merely to serve your agenda.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty "There is eyewitness proof of a plane flying North of CITGO"
Do you believe eyewitness testimony in aircraft crashes is infallible?
Answer, or Ill simply ask again.
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2
I do not believe that anything human is infallible.
That said, infallibility is not required for proof.
Civil cases are based on PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt.
Criminal cases are based on PROOF by a preponderance of the evidence.
In the case of flight path near the Pentagon going North of CITGO
it well exceeds what is needed for criminal cases.
No please answer this -
Do you believe criminals should have a higher level of proof to be convicted?
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
"I do not believe that anything human is infallible."
So could these couple of NoC eyewitnesses be mistaken? Yes or No will suffice.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
Every infallible thing has a possibility.
But it is the amount of possibility that matters
hence my question to you about "reasonable doubt"
and "preponderance of the evidence"
If you don't agree with that you are simply not going to allow logic or reason.
The fact is that there were more than a couple.
There were many (preponderance) and ALL(every single one)
of the witnesses in the area near the Pentagon with view of the plane NORTH of CITGO agree
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty
Before I leave I'll go ahead and give you the lowdown. Do I think it will matter? Not one bit. You have been brainwashed and nothing anyone says will change your mind. But here goes.
Terry Morin and Edward Paik put the plane SoC, therefore not everyone put the plane NoC. Your beloved CIT website blatantly lies about Terry Morins testimony. Rather nice of them to slander an eyewitnees and of you to support them.
OF the folks who claim to have seen the aircraft......cont.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@ExposeTheTwooferCult
Again, those witnesses closest to the Pentagon are the critical witnesses.
The further away one is, the less relevant (due to less ability to have sight perspective) one is.
And as for the 2 witnesses you cite, are you simply wishing? - - you can watch these on U tube --
watch?v=cJKITI1gn4g
watch?v=-SeOa6AQyt0
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty "Again, those witnesses closest to the Pentagon are the critical witnesses."
And the closest one--Sean Boger--saw the plane hit.
Checkmate!
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2
Sean Boger? You have got to be kidding me?!
His testimony is that he "hit the deck and coverd his head" at the moment of near very approach.
He had the least opportunity to see the fly over and Scud missile(or whatever)
BUT he did have the best opportunity to see the flight path.
And guess what? He confirms North of CITGO and plane banking, an impossible flight path for creating the Pentagoin damage.
watch?v=7gKyUkJ10qc
And . . . Checkmate. Game over.
2Truth4Liberty 1 week ago
@2Truth4Liberty So, while the CLOSET witness saw the plane hit, youll need to map out the other witnesses too.
So, link to a map that shows everyone in DC that day, where they were when the penty was hit, and what their statements are regarding 77.
If you cant do that, you really cant say who was the closest, or what the closest witnesses actually testify to.
Ill check with you for that tomorrow.
EdgemanLL2 1 week ago
@EdgemanLL2
Do you understand what "preponderance of the evidence" means?
I asked you about this before and you never replied to it.
So I will expound -
It does not mean you have to have every single person in DC give a statement and place them on a map.
Now, if there were other eyewitnesses who were in position to see the plane as close to the Pentagon as the others then . . . But ALL unanimously concur that the plane flew NORTH of CITGO.
2Truth4Liberty 5 days ago
@2Truth4Liberty "Do you understand what "preponderance of the evidence" means?"
Yes. It means when 99.99% of all the evidence + witness testimony proves the plane was NOT NOC, you dont take the 00.01% evidence from a handful of cherry picked witnesses.
Edge wins
"It does not mean you have to have every single person in DC give a statement and place them on a map."
But you DO have to do that, if ur going to claim "the 8 closest witnesses" support your claims.
Checkmate! Again!
EdgemanLL2 5 days ago
@EdgemanLL2
QUOTE "99.99% of all the evidence + witness testimony proves the plane was NOT NOC"
This is simply a false statment unless you have tons and tons of convincing evidence in your back pocket thqat we have not seen as yet.
If you have links to tons and tons of other evidence of witnesses that were close enough to see the plane banking and also said that it went South of CITGO, please present them now.
Otherwise Edge lost, again.
2Truth4Liberty 5 days ago
@2Truth4Liberty
No, actually, Edgeman is absolutely correct. Pilots have pointed out
that North Of Citgo is actually Physically impossible to perform.
DEBUNK NORTH OF CITGO : 911myths. c om/ index. php/ NoC
The most obvious physical evidence, of course, is the exit hole at
the the AE drive of the Pentagon. It lines up with the official flightpath.
The radar tracks line up with the FDR flight path, the witness
descriptions line up with both. You lose again. Badly.
Merlin5by5 5 days ago
@2Truth4Liberty
No, actually, Edgeman is absolutely correct. Pilots have pointed out
that North Of Citgo is actually Physically impossible to perform.
DEBUNK NORTH OF CITGO : 911myths. c om/ index. php/ NoC
The most obvious physical evidence, of course, is the exit hole at
the the AE drive of the Pentagon. It lines up with the official flightpath.
The radar tracks line up with the FDR flight path, the witness
descriptions line up with both. You lose again. Badly.
Merlin5by5 5 days ago
@2Truth4Liberty Its a 100% correct statement. mountiants of physical evidence, plus ALL the witness testimony, minus a handful of FALLIBLE witnesses who still say they saw the plane hit.
Not only a preponderance, and grossly overwhelming amount of evidence, beyond any doubt. Reasonable, or otherwise.
Edge <--Still undefeated. =]
EdgemanLL2 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdgemanLL2
You are not cherry picking. You are imagining.
I will say you have a good imagination.
Once again (repeating)
A plane flying to the Pentagon and then over the Pentagon just as a missle explodes would fool almost everyone - that being fooled is part of human nature.
2 Pentagon police said the plane hit the building but testimony shows that one dove into his car, and other dropped to the floor.
That you can't see this truth does not mean it is not truth.
continued...
2Truth4Liberty 4 days ago
...continuing
The sooner you admit the truth to yourself,
the sooner you can better prepare yourself, your family, and your friends
For those who perpetrated 9/11,OKC1995(see A Noble Lie),etc
are plotting harm to you, your family, and your friends.
Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex.
Prior, they took over the monetary indutrial complex(inc. Gov)
Beyond, they took over the medical industrial complex
and have begun contamination of vaccine processes
infowars com
2Truth4Liberty 4 days ago
@2Kooks4Alqaeda
LMGDAO. Sorry bitch. The FACTS are irrefutable. ALL of the physical evidence is consistent with AA hitting the pentagon, SOC. ALL of the witness testimony is also consistent.
you simply take a small 1% of the witnesses, and take 1% of their testimony that suits you, leaving you to imagine that 00.01% of the evidence (when that 01% of the evidence is, AS YOU ADMIT flawed and fallible) is somehow a preponderance?.
Thats not even "imagination." Its mental illness. LMGDAO
EdgemanLL2 4 days ago
@Kook4Alqaeda
Once again, repeating with 5 million people in the DC Metro area, its simply not possible to shoot a missile over 5 million people during rush hour, and not have anyone notice it was a missile.
Nor, when you consider that 10s of thousands of people are within view of the penty, once a huge explosion goes off, you would have 10s of k's of people who would have seen the plane leave the area.
Being fooled is part of human nature. Being a fuxing idiot is part of your nature.
EdgemanLL2 4 days ago
@Kook Cont) So instead of worrying about the Mil industrial complex, you should worry about the MORON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
Its where guys like alex jones make money off selling stories to morons such as yourself.
Just some free advice.
Look on the bright side. When it comes to the Pentagon evidence, youre a 1%er. LMGDAOOOOOOO
EdgemanLL2 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdgemanLL2
QUOTE its simply not possible to shoot a missile over 5 million people during rush hour, and not have anyone notice it was a missile.
A: Such a claim does not use the slightest bit of common sense.
A missle goes so fast no one would see it could easily fly over 7,000,000,000 people
and none of them would see it.
QUOTE you would have 10s of k's of people who would have seen the plane leave the area.
A: While fixated on watching a burning building? You have no sense.
2Truth4Liberty 3 days ago
@EdgemanLL2
This is all a bunch of falsehoods and nonsense that has been disproven over and over again in the prior posts.
2Truth4Liberty 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2Truth4Liberty "This is all a bunch of falsehoods and nonsense that has been disproven over and over again in the prior posts."
And yet you continue to peddle what you admit is falsehoods and nonsense that Ihave already disporven over and over again in prior posts.
Ben Arnold was offered a commission in the Brit Navy for his treason. What did Alqaeda offer you?
just asking.
EdgemanLL2 3 days ago
@2Truth4Liberty So, Hows that map coming along?
EdgemanLL2 6 days ago