The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: Informer1958

And the information on conspiracy sites are more about sensationalism and a Consumer products than truth. And you want to talk about credibility and biased views.

Sorry law enforcement investigators are about actual evidence and where the evidence takes the investigation. Not your biased and predetermined causes.

a reply to: Informer1958

Simple question. Did a large jet strike the pentagon? If not, then what caused the damage?

a reply to: neutronflux

You too need to start what hit the pentagon, if anything did. Because of obfuscation by the pentagon, and withholding of video/photographic record, it cannot be proved what hit the building. Judging from crash debris, it appears it was something single engine, NOT a 757.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander

How long since DAY ONE reason being my job involves talking to and discussing STRUCTURES.

NOT one structrat engineer I have spoken to thinks the Towers were brought down by explosives? as for the hole in the Pentgon the main facsde had a collapse after the crash and how many truther sites have posted pictures of internal punch out holes caused by landing gear as the impact point.

Have YOU looked at the impact force calculator yet to work out possible load of a 1000 ton floor slab dropping in the tower collapse.

Not one structural engineer you know? Do you know no structural engineers? Do you live in a cave?

Have you heard of a group known as Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth? They have been around for about 10 years I'm guessing. More than 2000 architects and engineers say the official story cannot be.

Come out of your cave and become informed.

a reply to: Salander

and withholding of video/photographic record, it cannot be proved what hit the building.

They had video of the NYC impacts and you do not believe it either. So why is video in DC so important?

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Excellent find.

a reply to: Salander

Have you heard of a group known as Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth? They have been around for about 10 years I'm guessing. More than 2000 architects and engineers say the official story cannot be.

Name one of them that got the opportunity to examine the evidence first hand.

Besides most of them do not have the expertise in the correct fields to be believed.

After all these years it's just speculation by web warriors.

a reply to: samkent

The opportunity to inspect . . .was basically denied.

Speculation goes both ways. I'll lean towards 2000 educated opinions.

a reply to: SIEGE

The opportunity to inspect . . .was basically denied.

Speculation goes both ways. I'll lean towards 2000 educated opinions.

I agree with that.

The OS cannot stand up to serious debate, or scrutiny.

One reason is because everything written for the government, and by the government, is very carefully controlled. It's not debatable.

At lease with A&E there is debate, and the science is not controlled. A&E science does stand up to scrutiny, unlike the NIST Report that was proven a fraud.

a reply to: SIEGE

Speculation goes both ways. I'll lean towards 2000 educated opinions.

You might want to read a few bios before you put them on the pedestal.

BS Plastics Engineering Technology
B.S. Ceramics Engineering
BSc Agriculture Engineering
Waste Water Engineer
Financial Risk Manager
IT Engineer

Are these the experts you would call to the stand during a trial?

a reply to: Informer1958

The OS cannot stand up to serious debate, or scrutiny.

It has for 16 years.
That's why ATS has gained no traction at all.

Speaking of ae911 have you noticed that Gage no longer takes his dog and pony show on the road?

Even his website is down dramatically.
The average time spent on his site is just over 2 minutes.

burtonsgrill.com is ranked higher than ae911truth.org
But they are higher than joewoodworker.com

His site is truly a nothing site.

a reply to: Informer1958

A & E for 911 Truth is deceitful and dishonest.

Not a lot of structural engineers in their organization.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

You too need to start what hit the pentagon, if anything did. Because of obfuscation by the pentagon, and withholding of video/photographic record, it cannot be proved what hit the building. Judging from crash debris, it appears it was something single engine, NOT a 757.

Can a single engine plane really cause so much debris and destruction? Did you not see how far the plane/craft/thing went through the building? I highly doubt a single engine plane could have enough power to plow that hard and fast through the Pentagon (of all places! You would think it had extra reinforced bits too!) and cause the resulting massive fire/s.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

You too need to start what hit the pentagon, if anything did. Because of obfuscation by the pentagon, and withholding of video/photographic record, it cannot be proved what hit the building. Judging from crash debris, it appears it was something single engine, NOT a 757.

By the way, where are those quotes you claim exist from people at the pentagon saying the wreckage was wrong for a large jet strike?


After quoting and citing from articles written by members from Scientists for 9/11 debunking other pentagon theories and showing through the scientific method a large jet hit the pentagon?

After quoting a few of the 100 plus eyewitnesses and the air crew that watched a large commercial jet strike the pentagon.

After referencing/citing photos, death certificates, DNA tests, family burials, trial testimony, the Pentagon Performance Report you still deny a large jet struck the pentagon?

a reply to: auroraaus

Be careful, you will get a post about the smell of cordite.

Another source....

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

Conclusion
Clearly, the main theory, that a large plane such as a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, is by far the most plausible theory compared with the alternative theories. The main theory still has some unanswered questions, but it is much stronger than any of the alternative theories.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: SIEGE

The opportunity to inspect . . .was basically denied.

Speculation goes both ways. I'll lean towards 2000 educated opinions.

I agree with that.

The OS cannot stand up to serious debate, or scrutiny.

One reason is because everything written for the government, and by the government, is very carefully controlled. It's not debatable.

At lease with A&E there is debate, and the science is not controlled. A&E science does stand up to scrutiny, unlike the NIST Report that was proven a fraud.

Another straw man argument, most people here want more investigation into 9/11. But many of the same people are appalled that you cannot come to terms a large jet hit the pentagon.

Again, what hit the pentagon. You cannot even answer a simple question?

a reply to: Informer1958

Another false argument on the government controlling the narrative. How many conspiracy sites exist? Does the government control ATS? Scientists for 9/11 truth? Me?

Sorry. A little research and knowledge shows that conspiracists pushing something like no large jet strike at the pentagon use sensationalism and innuendo to create a consumer product for website traffic, not truth.

a reply to: Salander

I know a 25 years structural engineer a very good friend of mine. Works for a big company who;s headquarters are over sea's.

Several years ago I brought up about the WTC and the NIST Report and what A&E where reporting. My friend told me that he could not ever support anything outside the government narratives. I was shocked to say the lease.

I asked him why? he said I want to retire soon and I cannot afford to lose my job. My friend has been with the same engineering Company for over 20 years and travels the world for the company. His company has many government contracts.

However he wink at me and said, no I don't believe the government version to what the government said of how the WTC came down, in fact, most engineers don't.

a reply to: Informer1958

However he wink at me and said, no I don't believe the government version to what the government said of how the WTC came down, in fact, most engineers don't.

Where did you get this fact from?

You're always spouting off about facts but never will you provide proof.

You have zero credibility here.