Fight 77 Never Crashed Into The Pentagon

[_Zap_]

And there is only one “Zap!” :0) How many years of military service do you have to stack up against the combined service of these 110 military witnesses? Here is another list (link) of people (professors, pilots, aviation professionals, architects, engineers, etc.)

Yes, and those people represent less then 1% of their respective professions.

So if you want to compare experts agreeing with us, I win.

 

[Btodd]

But so far, in this and all other threads, everyone who's suggesting that 9/11 is a conspiracy has failed to answer the very direct question:
What do you think happened?

I think that the reason for this is often that, when actually put down on paper the alternative theory is far more absurd and convoluted than the 'official story'

That's exactly why. The Truther Conspiracy won't survive two seconds of critical inquiry, so they've gone the way of Intelligent Design....frame the argument as an either/or, and then hammer away at the other side's actual explanation. Then hope for a default win in the public arena, so you can use it to circumvent the scientific one (where you will fail miserably and embarrasingly).

I actually have to hand it to Terral on this point; he will spell out how he thinks it happened. He won't produce any evidence (like his 'painted military plane' ) for it, but he will say enough to hang himself with. That's more than any Truther on these forums (and pretty much anywhere else) is willing to do after almost seven years of asking mindless questions.


Btodd

 

[Douger]

I must be missing something here.
Scientific and photographic evidence seems to indicate that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, yet everyone goes berserk and starts throwing vulgar insults when someone comes out and states with definity that "a plane did not crash into the Pentagon." Then these same people religously believe that a plane did hit the Pentagon contrary to the evidence presented.
So what's the deelio?
Is there something inherently wrong in the belief that an airplane has not crashed into the Pentagon?

 

[Vylo]

I must be missing something here.
Scientific and photographic evidence seems to indicate that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, yet everyone goes berserk and starts throwing vulgar insults when someone comes out and states with definity that "a plane did not crash into the Pentagon." Then these same people religously believe that a plane did hit the Pentagon contrary to the evidence presented.
So what's the deelio?
Is there something inherently wrong in the belief that an airplane has not crashed into the Pentagon?

There is when there is plenty of evidence there there was:

 

[Btodd]

I must be missing something here.
Scientific and photographic evidence seems to indicate that a plane did not hit the Pentagon

You are definitely missing something. There is nothing scientific in believing Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon. There are no valid scientific arguments to support such a notion, whatsoever.

yet everyone goes berserk and starts throwing vulgar insults when someone comes out and states with definity that "a plane did not crash into the Pentagon." Then these same people religously believe that a plane did hit the Pentagon contrary to the evidence presented.

Perhaps you've never checked out the evidences for Flight 77 crashing there. Have you seen the wreckage, all of which match a Boeing 757? Have you read the more than 100 eyewitness testimonies? Do you realize that all but 11 people were positively identified through DNA? There is plenty more than that to support it.

So what's the deelio?

Is there something inherently wrong in the belief that an airplane has not crashed into the Pentagon?

No, and there's nothing wrong with questioning what you're told by the Government or the media. But there is a limit in which honest questions turn into willful denial, and most of the Truthers here crossed that line a long time ago. If you believe Flight 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon because you've only seen Truther info and don't really know any better, then that's one thing.

But if you've seen the multiple pieces of wreckage and compared it to a Boeing 757, read the more than 100 eyewitness statements, read about the forensics investigation and know that all but 11 people were positively identified by DNA analysis (with help from the victims' familites), seen the light poles that were knocked down (and impaled an automobile on the highway), seen the airport video of the hijackers, read the hijackers histories, read about the flight path (including the loop to correct almost overshooting the Pentagon) and even thought for a few seconds on what faking such a scenario would entail......and you STILL believe a plane didn't hit the Pentagon?

Well, in that case, you deserve the harshest ridicule a person can withstand. And more.


Btodd

 

[Douger]

Ah yes, photo evidence supporting the plane theory. Thank you Vylo, that's what this thread has been lacking.
Although from that second picture I'd say it looks more like a missle. I mean, look at that shape and the angle.

 

[Douger]

And the one we've all been waiting for

 

[Btodd]

And the one we've all been waiting for

Ah, so you've already seen all the wreckage photos then? No need to post any more, because you won't believe it until you get this picture?


Btodd

 

[Douger]

Ah, so you've already seen all the wreckage photos then?

I've seen a few, and have heard some convincing arguments, but the impact pictures just don't seem like plane damage.

No need to post any more, because you won't believe it until you get this picture?

Erm? It was a joke.
Like, haha?

 

[Btodd]

I've seen a few, and have heard some convincing arguments, but the impact pictures just don't seem like plane damage.

Erm? It was a joke.
Like, haha?

Sorry, it's long-standing tradition for Truthers to enter a thread under the guise of not really being sure what to make about all these 9/11 arguments, act as if they haven't seen much, and then proceed to start throwing out 1000 points in a row from conspiracy sites. When shown hard evidence that they ask for or imply doesn't exist, it's common to move the bar to a request such as that one.....one they know cannot be fulfilled, and thus, they are implying that no matter what we do, they're not going to believe the official version, because they can always ask for more. It seemed like you were 'cutting to the chase'.

If I mistook you for that type of Truther, and you're not......then I apologize for the unfair characterization.

So, if I show you multiple parts of wreckage, some of which can be directly evidenced by comparison with Boeing schematics, and all of which is logically consistent with a 757 (some of it cannot be positively identified as anything but small debris, for obvious reasons).....would you say that bolsters the case that Flight 77 crashed there? What if multiple eyewitness testimonies also support that claim?

Would those things be evidences (even if not sufficient in and of themselves) that support the official explanation, in your opinion?


Btodd

 

[Douger]

Sorry, it's long-standing tradition for Truthers to enter a thread under the guise of not really being sure to make about all these 9/11 arguments, act as if they haven't seen much, and then proceed to start throwing out 1000 points in a row from conspiracy sites. When shown hard evidence that they ask for or imply doesn't exist, it's common to move the bar to a request such as that one.....one they know cannot be fulfilled, and thus are basically implying that no matter what we do, they're not going to believe the official version, because they can always ask for more. It seemed like you were 'cutting to the chase'.

I see you've been in a lot of these kind of discussions.

If I mistook you for that type of Truther, and you're not......then I apologize for the unfair characterization.

No problem. My bad perhaps for showing that picture.

So, if I show you multiple parts of wreckage, some of which can be directly evidenced by comparison with Boeing schematics, and all of which is logically consistent with a 757 (some of it cannot be positively identified as anything but small debris, for obvious reasons).....would you say that bolsters the case that Flight 77 crashed there? What if multiple eyewitness testimonies also support that claim?

Would those things be evidences (even if not sufficient in and of themselves) that support the official explanation, in your opinion?

Yes, I'd say the photos of plane wreckage are absoloutely evidence to a plane crash (I've seen the ones you put in your debate awhile back with Beast)
Still, there's that hole and the damage to the Pentagon.

If we put it this way you may understand where I'm coming from a bit better.

Let's say that the official version was that a baseball had crashed into the pentagon. There could be all kinds of pieces of baseball related debris lying around, but I'd be looking at that hole and the damage to the Pentagon thinking "that just doesn't look like something a baseball would do".

I don't know if that analogy helps, but it's kind of the way I see it with the plane theory.

 

[Btodd]

Yes, I'd say the photos of plane wreckage are absoloutely evidence to a plane crash (I've seen the ones you put in your debate awhile back with Beast)

So we have wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon, meaning either a plane crashed there, or the wreckage was planted. Is that a fair statement?

If it is, would you be prepared to go ahead and state that the eyewitness testimonies, combined with the wreckage, is enough to confirm that a plane (we still wouldn't have established that it's a 757 yet) crashed there? I'm seeing if we agree enough on it that we can dismiss planted evidence now and focus on whether or the plane that crashed there was a 757.

If you don't agree, I will search for agreement on what planted evidence means logically and logistically.

Still, there's that hole and the damage to the Pentagon.

If we put it this way you may understand where I'm coming from a bit better.

Let's say that the official version was that a baseball had crashed into the pentagon. There could be all kinds of pieces of baseball related debris lying around, but I'd be looking at that hole and the damage to the Pentagon thinking "that just doesn't look like something a baseball would do".

I don't know if that analogy helps, but it's kind of the way I see it with the plane theory.

OK, I understand where you're coming from, so thank you. I'm going to try to do things a little differently than usual, so I want to follow out this wreckage thing first, and try to go one step at a time, checking for agreement. Also up for agreement will be what would logically follow from that on the conspiracy side, if the official version's explanation for that point were not true. Does that sound fair? I'll make sure to discuss the hole as it progresses.


Btodd

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Perfect!!!! Steaming Troll Pile it is!!!

To all those who have nothing to offer but cheap ridicule, please post no longer. Your ridicule does not substitute for reason. If you dispute something with a claim of your own, substantiate it, but don't bother posting if your posts are nothing but cheap shots at people with different opinions.

 

[_Zap_]

And the one we've all been waiting for

I am absolutely convinced that it will take that sort of picture to satisfy Terral.


Actually, never mind. He'll just claim the plane was "planted"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The real secret is that the Pentagon is actually a hexagon... they just disguise the sixth side with shrubbery.

So technically nothing hit the Pentagon... because it's really a hexagon.

Wow. Now... anything important?

 

[_Zap_]

Wow. Now... anything important?

Because your post, accusing the prior post of not being important, is so very important.

What would we ever do without you?

 

[Terral]

Hi Ryal Kane:

Hmm. I'll concede that my post was a little too short tempered and snappy.

This recent post is very short, snappy and addresses nothing in the Opening Post of this thread one way or the other. If you have a picture of AA77 crashed anywhere, then please post that in your very next short and snappy reply . . .

But so far, in this and all other threads, everyone who's suggesting that 9/11 is a conspiracy has failed to answer the very direct question: What do you think happened?

You have got to be kidding!!! Kane completely ignores everything in the Opening Post proving beyond all doubt that Flight 77 NEVER CRASHED into the Pentagon, but in ‘his opinion’ my work does NOT even address WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11. Oh yea, this pic was for you. :0)

I think that the reason for this is often that, when actually put down on paper the alternative theory is far more absurd and convoluted than the 'official story'

That is perhaps the most ridiculous statement I have seen yet written on this thread and Kane does NOT know what he is talking about. The Official Story looks something like this and ANY interpretation of the evidence is going to be a little bit more complicated than Senor Bushie’s Official Cover Story LIE. The challenge for Kane and everyone here is to “quote >>” anything that appears WRONG in the Opening Post of this thread to THEN offer up ‘your’ pictures as evidence that Flight 77 crashed ANYWHERE. Bring it! We are all waiting . . .

Too many members are chit-chatting back and forth about NOTHING and without evidence for ANYTHING, which only serves to fill this thread up with nonsense and stupidity. If Kane really wants to prove that five Bearded Jihadist Radicals hijacked AA77 and crashed a real 100-Ton Jetliner into the Pentagon going 530 miles per hour, then this is his golden opportunity to show us how that happened using whatever he calls credible evidence.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Zap:

Yes, and those people represent less then 1% of their respective professions.

So if you want to compare experts agreeing with us, I win.

“Us” means the supporters of the Official Cover Story LIE! Right Zap? Of course. BTW, where is Zap’s evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon going 530 miles per hour like Senor Bush’s Official Story?

This picture was taken between 9:30 AM and 10:00 AM, because the E-Ring roof is still standing. Please point to the location of where your 100-Ton Jetliner is hiding. :0) Someone show us where the government moved the components of AA77 from this crime scene into any hanger part of any real investigation. Be sure to include those photographs in your next reply. GL, because nothing like that even exists! :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Avatar and Lisa

I like it! Can we add 'steaming' to that?

Lisa’s Reply >> Perfect!!!! Steaming Troll Pile it is!!!

Has this “Flight 77 NEVER Crashed Into The Pentagon” Thread become Avatar’s and Lisa’s new Chat Room location for today or what? Please go back up to the Opening Post to “quote >>” anything 'you' believe is WRONG to offer your opposing views using your own pictures for something else. If a real 100-Ton Jetliner really crashed into the Pentagon, then one of you MUST have pictures making that case. Right? :0)

This is a picture of the Wedge One E-Ring Pentagon Wall that ‘you’ say a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into going 530 miles per hour just minutes earlier! Good Luck . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Ampoliros]

Greetings to All:

Flight 77 never crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 or any other day. Everyone here is encouraged to produce just one picture of Flight 77 crashed outside the Pentagon<snip for brevity>

Terral

Hi Terral,

I have a couple questions:

1) What sort of damage should have arisen if a 757 crashed into the Pentagon? Should there have been more damage? Less damage? Why?

2) What exactly are you looking for in terms of "one picture of Flight 77 crashed outside the Pentagon"? The plane just prior to impact? The explosion after impact? The debris?