The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: firerescue

How about these pictures? They show turbine parts which are from much smaller engines.



911review.com...


Also, a jet liner can't go 500mph that low to the ground.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Ok? Please state which eyewitness accounts are wrong.

At first though from the get go.....
Why WTC 7 collapsed was a court case. The insurance companies saying WTC 7 was not properly designed vs Silverstein's group.

Are you still saying there was no eyewitness accounts given under oath. No evidence from the NIST submitted under oath?

None of them were cross examined in a court of law. Can't prove they are lying. Can't prove they are telling the truth.

You have your theory. Other people have theirs.

a reply to: neutronflux

I have documented and provided links to support my statements over and again in numerous threads that you are part of.

Yes you have: 911 myths.com your pirmary source

To act like you are ignorant of our activity on other threads is intellectually dishonest.

This thread Topic is not about me, or who you believe is intellectually dishonest.

In Fact, you attacking my character instead of providing any credible evidence to your claims speaks volumes to who is being intellectually dishonest don't you think.

Its the same arguments over and over again for 15 years. Well? Dr. Wood and Dustification is newer.

Yet, the fact is, after 15 years the OS narratives have never been proven true.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Again, please state how the pentagon 757 wreckage photos are fabricated. Especially the 9/11 photos that show the 757 wreckage after the pentagon strike.

And show how the eyewitness accounts of the documented 757 wreckage and a 757 hit the pentagon are false.

They have never been proven to be real or fake. There was never any evidence presented to a court by ANYONE under oath. 9/11 official story is a STORY. Nothing more.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Rrrr, this again?

Please state which fan disc you think it is.

Is it wrong a turbofan jet is made up of compression and expansion stages.

Is it wrong the turbofan jet has more than one fan disc. actually many fan discs.

Is it wrong the various fan discs in a turbofan engine are of different diameters? (Fan discs in a single turbofan engine are larger and smaller in relation to each other)

Please state which disc is pictured, if it was from a compression or expansion stage, and out of the various diameters of fan discs contained in a single engine, what should be the diameter.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I asked how the eyewitness accounts are false, how the material on the pentagon lawn on September 11th was fabricated?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I asked how the eyewitness accounts are false, how the material on the pentagon lawn on September 11th was fabricated?

You want me to give you a proven fact? How? Do you have any court documents?... didn't think so.

I don't push 9/11 theories. Have fun with that, with NO proven evidence to back up any theory or "story" you like to tell yourself. Which is super weird by the way.

My, my! Look at all the professional engineers, expert logistical analysts, explosive ordinance specialists, and jet turbine mechanics we have here at ATS... I never knew we were so loaded... /sarcasm

I've seen cruise missiles hit targets. I've seen what's left of humans after they've been hit by missiles, bombs, and other explosive ordinances. Hell, I had to pick up some of the body parts.... I've also seen what happens to concrete, brick, and steel when impacted... I can tell you, whatever it was that hit the pentagon, it was most certainly not any missile in service within the last 40 years....

A2D

a reply to: Informer1958

I have quoted from many sources just in this one thread. So how am I getting info from only the one site you claim.

again, not very intellectually honest on your part.

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

To act like every repeated debate you are involved in is the first time when injected into a new thread is also intellectually dishonest.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I asked how the eyewitness accounts are false, how the material on the pentagon lawn on September 11th was fabricated?

You want me to give you a proven fact? How? Do you have any court documents?... didn't think so.

I don't push 9/11 theories. Have fun with that, with NO proven evidence to back up any theory or "story" you like to tell yourself. Which is super weird by the way.

Are you claiming pentagon eyewitness accounts are false, the 757 wreckage fabricated, and the documentation of 757 wreckage false?

a reply to: Informer1958


Again, you premise was no evidence of 757 wreckage. No 757 wreckage identified.

That has been debunked.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Informer1958

You still stand by there was no identifiable jet wreckage inside the pentagon and no effort to identify the wreckage?

www.rense.com...
www.aerospaceweb.org...

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Comparison of the Pentagon wreckage to a Boeing 757-200 main gear wheel

This investigation indicates that the only wheel matching that found at the Pentagon is the main gear wheel of a Boeing 757-200, the same model as American Airlines Flight 77. The key features of the wreckage--including the number, size, and shape of the cutouts and bolt attachments--perfectly match those found in a main landing gear wheel of a Boeing 757-200, as illustrated in the above comparison. None of the wheels of the Global Hyawk, A-3, or 737 match the debris, which is not surprising since all of these aircraft weigh considerably less than the 757 and use correspondingly smaller wheels of differing design.

so i guess you just ignore requests when they don't serve your interests, right?

ok, well then let me butt in once again and show you why everything you just posted is inconsequential at best.

9/11 plane fragment wedged in between two buildings

Kelly said that mechanical part was wedged in narrow space measuring about 18 inches, and according to Kelly, a rope could be seen intertwined with the steel.

Recovered Terrorist Passport On 9/11

Suqami's passport was reportedly found by a passerby (identity unknown), reportedly in the vicinity of Vesey Street,[8] before the towers collapsed.[9] (This was mistakenly reported by many news outlets to be Mohamed Atta's passport.)[10] A columnist for the British newspaper The Guardian expressed incredulity about the authenticity of this report,[11] questioning whether a paper passport could survive the inferno unsinged when the plane's black boxes were never found. According to testimony before the 9/11 Commission by lead counsel Susan Ginsburg, his passport had been "manipulated in a fraudulent manner in ways that have been associated with al Qaeda."[9] Passports belonging to Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al-Ghamdi were found at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 as well as an airphone.[12]

TL ; DR - everything you just posted could have been planted at the site, and there would be absolutely no way for you to know if that was the case with certainty.

stop grasping at straws and start looking at the bigger picture.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Informer1958


Again, you premise was no evidence of 757 wreckage. No 757 wreckage identified.

That has been debunked.

Debunked by a blog. Good job. Do you have any evidence though? Proven evidence?

Tell me another story. I'm sleepy and want to go to bed. Your a good story teller.

a reply to: facedye

So instead of saying "hey, we found the landing gear! looks like a plane may have hit!"

You would come to the conclusion "hey, we found aircraft landing gear... wonder who put this here?"

Seems...a bit off...

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: facedye

So instead of saying "hey, we found the landing gear! looks like a plane may have hit!"

You would come to the conclusion "hey, we found aircraft landing gear... wonder who put this here?"

Seems...a bit off...

A2D

are you kidding? did you actually read the article where it claims that even the NYPD was suspicious about there being a ROPE TIED TO THE DAMN THING?

seriously, and i say this with all due respect: are you even paying attention?

EDIT: to be perfectly clear, the NYPD had ample suspicion that someone could have very well roped it down to the location where it was found.

why are you making it seem like these are MY assertions? stop playing games.

a reply to: neutronflux

To act like every repeated debate you are involved in is the first time when injected into a new thread is also intellectually dishonest.

This thread is not about me, or what you think of me.

I don't have to talk ill about ATS members to win a debate, and if that is all you have, then you have failed miserably to prove you alligations on this thread.

a reply to: neutronflux

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

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

"War never changes" - Fallout 4

a reply to: facedye

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

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

Huge difference between could have and evidence of Mr. Grasping at straws.

The go from innuendo to fact.

Is it wrong the 757 was tracked on radar.
Is it wrong a inflight pilot identified a passenger jet was on a crash course to the pentagon?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: neutronflux

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

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

"War never changes" - Fallout 4

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

And what proof of "what" do you have?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

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

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

Huge difference between could and evidence of Mr. Grasping at straws.

The use from innuendo to fact.

Is it wrong the 757 was tracked on radar.
Is it wrong a inflight pilot identified a passenger jet was on a crash course to the pentagon?

it's as if you read all of the words i wrote and articles i linked, but literally caught on to not one tangible piece of information that quite blatantly introduces plausible deniability to the official timeline of events.

you're officially a broken record. i can only bring you to the water, i sure as hell can't make you drink.