Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
he does not say he didn't see an explosion, he simply didn't mention it....

reheat - you are a master of lies.

Thermo Klein: "he sees the plane go in, but doesn't see a fireball."
reheat: "he does not say he didn't see an explosion, he simply didn't mention it...."
The interview, page 6: "People have said they saw a fireball. I did not."

reheat you should be embarrassed man - you have NO INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER. Shame on you for trying to purposefully spread lies...

Only in truther world is a failure to read the 6th page of the Interview a lie. It wasn't merely a mistake, couldn't have been....

The difference is that I readily admit that I failed to read all the way to the 6th page of the interview and did not see that statement.

I made a statement that is true and accurate and you made up a sentence as an attempt to discredit the truth - that's called lying. The problem is you purposefully made a statement AS IF you had read the interview, saying something opposite of what's true. Trust me, it's very obvious you didn't read it.

The topic was whether this guy saw a fireball. The fireball went well above the Pentagon roof line. He also states he was in the South Parking Lot (which is in the southwest corner) perpendicular to the wall where the explosion was - that means he could see it, just as he said in his interview.



If you feel the need to re-read everything and compile some sort of list just make sure you get the quotes right. If you misquote me I will make every attempt to get you banned. Any quote you say is mine, but doesn't have a source I will consider a misquote. That's the rules.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Alfie1

 

your source is a 911 website with known bias toward the Original Story - the actual story you refer to is sourced to ONE website in the Netherlands which is not even operational any longer: 404 error.

a summation on some website, without sources, is worthless toward finding any proof in this.

This is the first I have heard that 9-11 Research has a bias towards the OS.

In any event, this list of Pentagon witnesses gives names and sources, so you could check out the sources and even contact some of the people if you were truly seeking the truth :-

911research.wtc7.net...

This list, and the analysis of it I posted to you, is of real people with real names. From where did you get your information that so many witnesses contradicted each other as to make their testimony worthless ? What was your source ?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by 911files

 

Just one more step in the possibilities (meaning I'm not stating this as fact, or that I have evidence, it is conjecture but definitely plausable) : if it were an inside job they would have put an electronic jammer of some sort and made the airplane invisible to radar. Remember I said conjecture - if they could plant explosives, they would have something as simple as jamming or blocking a radar signal.

Some theories are far-fetched and easily thrown out because they would take too many insiders, fantastical or ultra-complex ideas, mass projected-illusion, but adding an anti-radar device/method to a plane you would be using in a fly-by would not be a difficult thing for our military industrial insiders.

Conjecture and theorizing is a more valid attempt at reaching the truth than simply defending one original story without question.

I don't know of anyone who is defending a story without question. Most of us defending reality as opposed to fantasy have looked at ALL of the evidence and reached a supportable and logical conclusion based on the evidence.

You have shown that you don't know squat about radar jamming. Just throw it out like monkey's throwing poo against the wall to see if it will stick.

To be effective, jamming of any type would need to be on board the aircraft. That means electronic equipment, wiring, and ANTENNAS. Also, tests would have been required implicating those who conducted the testing. To even contemplate this as a possibility immediately implicates American Airlines maintenance personnel and ALL pilots who flew that aircraft during the days prior to 9/11. It would also implicate ALL Air Traffic Controllers in the DC area, both Civilian and Military who were tracking the aircraft all the way to the Pentagon area. There are always "tell tale" signs of jamming that are detectable on the affected radars, so all controllers at a radar scope would have noticed this. It's about as feasible as farmer Jones' cow jumping over a full moon on Halloween!

Conjecture and theorizing in an attempt to show an "inside job" is what is meant by "truth" by those who consider themselves a part of the TM. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the true meaning of the word truth. The vast amount of specious conjecture, lying, quote mining, logical fallacies and outright distortions are hallmarks of those who have accomplished absolutely nothing in over 9 years except polluting the Internet with mostly politically motivated crap.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
he does not say he didn't see an explosion, he simply didn't mention it....

reheat - you are a master of lies.

Thermo Klein: "he sees the plane go in, but doesn't see a fireball."
reheat: "he does not say he didn't see an explosion, he simply didn't mention it...."
The interview, page 6: "People have said they saw a fireball. I did not."

reheat you should be embarrassed man - you have NO INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER. Shame on you for trying to purposefully spread lies...

Only in truther world is a failure to read the 6th page of the Interview a lie. It wasn't merely a mistake, couldn't have been....

The difference is that I readily admit that I failed to read all the way to the 6th page of the interview and did not see that statement. I haven't evaded for multiple posts or pages in admitting that I misread the interview. Big difference.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I made a statement that is true and accurate and you made up a sentence as an attempt to discredit the truth - that's called lying. The problem is you purposefully made a statement AS IF you had read the interview, saying something opposite of what's true. Trust me, it's very obvious you didn't read it.

There is a significant difference between something "made up" and failing to notice a statement on page 6 of a lengthy interview. An example of something made up is stating that 500+ pilots support your opinion on how the aircraft flew. That is a prime example of something made up.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
The topic was whether this guy saw a fireball. The fireball went well above the Pentagon roof line. He also states he was in the South Parking Lot (which is in the southwest corner) perpendicular to the wall where the explosion was - that means he could see it, just as he said in his interview.

I thought your point was that he didn't see it, yet you just said he could see it and that he said he could in his interview. What you've written is quite confusing. Which is it? Is your point that there was no fireball? Is your point that he is lying about everything? Are you confused?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
If you feel the need to re-read everything and compile some sort of list just make sure you get the quotes right. If you misquote me I will make every attempt to get you banned. Any quote you say is mine, but doesn't have a source I will consider a misquote. That's the rules.

Thanks for the advice.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Conjecture and theorizing is a more valid attempt at reaching the truth than simply defending one original story without question.

Only if the "conjecture and theorizing" is based on all of the available evidence.

Better Quality Tyson
84 RADES with NEADS mix

Videos are still processing I guess, so here are the direct download links.

Better Quality Tyson
84 RADES with NEADS mix

reply to post by 911files


Here's an example of questionable video from an eyewitness at the WTC, and if fraudulent why would any single video be proven fraudulent, and why don't the OS faithful have any forensic evidence to tie the murder weapon to the crime scene?

We're left with fraudulent video, questionable eye witnesses, some fraudulent victims and some real. How can you not re evaluate your position?

Shameless plug to my thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted the ACPD dispatch audio earlier in the thread. On it is ACPD officer Foust calling in an American Airlines plane that passed his location at Columbia Pike and Walter Reed Drive. Here is another eyewitness that supports his account interviewed by me in 2008.

Ramon Navorio Interview Audio

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

Here's an example of questionable video from an eyewitness at the WTC, and if fraudulent why would any single video be proven fraudulent, and why don't the OS faithful have any forensic evidence to tie the murder weapon to the crime scene?

We're left with fraudulent video, questionable eye witnesses, some fraudulent victims and some real. How can you not re evaluate your position?

Shameless plug to my thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because that logic is the same thing that people who DO support the OS would use against you if you made a mistake in your argument. It's faulty logic. One questionable interview does not put all of them into question. If you worked in an office and somebody you worked with stole something from the office and didn't get caught for example. Then the next day all employees were interrogated and nobody admit to the theft, one person would be lying. That doesn't mean everybody in the office is lying and should be terminated.

reply to post by 911files


by the vary fact we have opposing scenarios, we have to speculate beyond only what the evidence shows.

let's say you come upon a car crash. One person says "they lost control of their car"... checking the road IN CASE there's black ice is not an ignorant thing to do, it is questioning something that is not already known to see IF you can get more info. Walking up the road to check doesn't imply belief there IS black ice, only that the possibility should be checked. To purposefully not check for black ice because you already know "they lost control of the car" is purposefully allowing some missed data. That data may turn up negative, but the possibility should be checked.

reply to post by vault13er


Okay then, if the eye witness accounts are to be taken with a grain of salt, can you provide the argument that the available evidence fits the OS?

The Pentagon Building Performance Report claims that after passing through a forest of columns, the alleged jet didn't damage the columns around the punchout hole more than a little cracking and spalling. No significant impairment is shown below.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/598e1fd1524b.jpg[/atsimg]

If the KE was at the point of not significantly damaging the surrounding columns, how can the jet have enough KE to punch a circular hole through the reinforced concrete wall, rebar and all?

Here are images of the columns and the round hole:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/691463487126.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's the hole:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a58caa041bd6.jpg[/atsimg]

Do you think you and the OSers are being honest in claiming a jet's tire tread, piece of nose cone and part of a wheel cut that hole, rebar and all?

(Reheat and 911files wouldn't answer this question because I referred to this report as the NIST report. Perhaps now that I got that hair in place, you can rationally address what they choose to avoid):

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

Here's an example of questionable video from an eyewitness at the WTC, and if fraudulent why would any single video be proven fraudulent, and why don't the OS faithful have any forensic evidence to tie the murder weapon to the crime scene?

We're left with fraudulent video, questionable eye witnesses, some fraudulent victims and some real. How can you not re evaluate your position?

Shameless plug to my thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a prime example of the thought process of a conspiratist. In the first sentence the video is questionable. In the second sentence there is still the qualifier "if", however in the second paragraph the video is suddenly FRAUDULENT. Now, exactly how does that work in a rational mind. It's questionable....then without further adoo it is fraudulent, there are questionable eyewitnesses, PLUS FRADULENT VICTIMS (what?).

How does a rational mind deal with this kind of thought process.....

There's more.......

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by vault13er

 

Okay then, if the eye witness accounts are to be taken with a grain of salt, can you provide the argument that the available evidence fits the OS?

The poster above neither said nor implied that eyewitness accounts "are to be taken with a grain of salt". In fact, he said the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Originally posted by Yankee451
(Reheat and 911files wouldn't answer this question because I referred to this report as the NIST report. Perhaps now that I got that hair in place, you can rationally address what they choose to avoid):

Read this and the post above and if you're smart enough to figure it out, you'll have the answer as to why 911Files and I wish to have no conversation or even association with you whether it's a valid issue or not.

Originally posted by Yankee451

(Reheat and 911files wouldn't answer this question because I referred to this report as the NIST report. Perhaps now that I got that hair in place, you can rationally address what they choose to avoid):

911files has already stated that he is not a structural or aeronautical engineer, so I do not comment on such topics when they are beyond my expertise. However, I did have some of the same common core engineering classes such as physics and strength of materials.

I have no issue with the punch-out hole and neither did those who examined the structural damage. The photographs you keep posting are misleading. The original hole was enlarged during rescue and fire-fighting efforts, to what extent, we do not know. But yeah, any remaining debris left in the main cylindrical mass that entered would certainly be expected to knock a hole in the last wall. This event was followed by a significant explosive event which blew out windows in the floors above it.

I don't know what you keep calling the OS. The only OS I know of is the Arlington County FD After-Action Report and PBPR. The PenRen structural engineers also concur. How you somehow think you know more than the professionals is beyond me. Darn, I am an engineer and I freely admit that I am not competent to comment authoritatively on it.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Yankee451

(Reheat and 911files wouldn't answer this question because I referred to this report as the NIST report. Perhaps now that I got that hair in place, you can rationally address what they choose to avoid):

911files has already stated that he is not a structural or aeronautical engineer, so I do not comment on such topics when they are beyond my expertise. However, I did have some of the same common core engineering classes such as physics and strength of materials.

I have no issue with the punch-out hole and neither did those who examined the structural damage. The photographs you keep posting are misleading. The original hole was enlarged during rescue and fire-fighting efforts, to what extent, we do not know. But yeah, any remaining debris left in the main cylindrical mass that entered would certainly be expected to knock a hole in the last wall. This event was followed by a significant explosive event which blew out windows in the floors above it.

I don't know what you keep calling the OS. The only OS I know of is the Arlington County FD After-Action Report and PBPR. The PenRen structural engineers also concur. How you somehow think you know more than the professionals is beyond me. Darn, I am an engineer and I freely admit that I am not competent to comment authoritatively on it.

I totally agree with the above comments % 100.

END OF STORY

reply to post by 911files


So if you're saying the eyewitness accounts don't carry all the weight you think they do, how does the OS fit with the other available evidence?

reply to post by Reheat


How can it be the end of the story when you've got fake victims, fake witnesses and no plane?

Without tangible evidence to support it, why do you not reconsider your position.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

So if you're saying the eyewitness accounts don't carry all the weight you think they do, how does the OS fit with the other available evidence?

It does. You've been basically refuted at every turn, yet you turn a blind eye to all criticism.

I understand that you want to believe in the conspiracy, but sometimes the conspiracy isn't where you want it to be. Trust me, there are plenty of other things to focus on, but this isn't one of them.

reply to post by Reheat




By avoiding direct questions or providing answers to questions not asked, do you feel you're contributing in a positive way to the conversation on this thread?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

So if you're saying the eyewitness accounts don't carry all the weight you think they do, how does the OS fit with the other available evidence?

Not sure how many times I have to say this, I don't know what OS you are talking about. The first part of your question also attributes a completely absurd premise that I have never said.

reply to post by Varemia


How so? No one has corrected their position about the Light well walls, certainly not you.

None of the OS faithful have bothered to offer an explanation of how the OS suits the evidence. Only we have offered explanations as to how they suit an alternative theory, but again, it is the person making the claim of a plane who has to prove it. That all you guys do is whine, evade, and point hypocritical fingers speaks volumes. Do you think you're fooling any readers?

The only ones convinced, are you. We'll let the readers decide. If Reheat spoke the truth, and it truly is the end of the story, then prove it.