emergency medical team at the pentagon

reply to post by ProudBird

The fact is the OS about the pentagon incident has been proven mostly lies.


I know "snowcrash" suggested not to feed the beasts, but the word "proven" was used up there. ^ ^ ^

That is patently false, and must be pointed out as such. It is a stated opinion only --- one that has NO corroboration nor sourcing attached to it.

Perhaps in your reality, however most people are not asleep as you want everyone to believe.
Post after post you make assumptions and excuses to why you believe an airplane hit the pentagon, yet you cannot back a single thing up with anything credible.

We can call this argument a standoff on both sides of the OS because neither have enough evidence to prove who, what, where, when, and how. You say my opinions are “patently false”, I laugh at you because everyone who uses their noodle does not buy the OS of a plane flying into the pentagon and leaving a tiny hole with no debris, perhaps you should try and sell your snake oil to people who don’t want to hear the truth, who are blinded by patriotic beliefs.
No weed, what you are defending is “patently false” and that is an obvious fact. Pushing blind faith doesn’t work here, most ATSer’s are not sheep and do not go along with the mainstream static quo.

When this is all said and done historians will write that 911 was indeed a false flag operation to wage illegals wars, to save Israel from future attacks and a grab to control power, opium and oil as evidences already proves this.

reply to post by impressme


Sorry, but if you think you're "awake" and then continue to write (and apparently believe) things like this?:

....OS of a plane flying into the pentagon and leaving a tiny hole with no debris...

When someone refers to the Pentagon crash site as having "no debris", and to an approximately ~95-foot wide entry damage area as a "tiny hole" then there is a cognitive disconnect occurring here, of the highest order.

And also, it is simply untrue to say "no debris" and "tiny hole". It is simply not true. Anyone who is truly "awake" can see this plainly, the evidence is overwhelming.

Even the crap "researchers" like the "CIT" who bang on about the "north of Citgo" idiocy cite their own cherry-picked witnesses who admit they saw the airplane hit the Pentagon!!

"CIT" fumbles like a bad comedy act, of course, trying to make a "case" for some magical "flyover"....yet, they even hand-picked witnesses (by trying to form the illusion of "north of Citgo") and ended up shooting themselves in the foot, while twisting in knots with witness statements that contradict one of their main "themes"!!

It is quite tragic, actually.

reply to post by ProudBird

Sorry, but if you think you're "awake" and then continue to write (and apparently believe) things like this?:

....OS of a plane flying into the pentagon and leaving a tiny hole with no debris...

When someone refers to the Pentagon crash site as having "no debris", and to an approximately ~95-foot wide entry damage area as a "tiny hole" then there is a cognitive disconnect occurring here, of the highest order.

95 feet wide In order for one to defend such baloney (OS) one has to make up canards. There was no 95 foot opening at the entry hole that is a fallacy. Now you can stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes tightly shut and scream la,la,la all you want, however early photos taken right after the explosions shows absolutely no airplane debris and firemen hosing foam on the small entry hole and the windows on each side and above the entry hole were not broken because the foam was running down the glass. These photos were taken earlier on before the pentagon collapsed. The hole depicted in the photos was no bigger than 20 feet across, and you know that because those photos are all over the internet, and they do not match up to the government lies that you are supporting.
You can’t have it both ways, if a plane crashed into the pentagon at the speed the government claims then every window in the impact zone would have been blasted to pieces. There would have been pitch black smoke burning for a while from jet fuel and rubber, there was very little to none, I don’t know who you are trying to appeal to by trying to force the OS on people who question the visual lies, and you want to call me asleep.

reply to post by ProudBird


thanks for your reply and very constructive, still trying to learn and need to learn more

reply to post by cydonia19.5


Am glad to see this.

I have another associate/friend who's bro was there and saw a big jet engine go sliding past his office. No other info as to what happened to the engine.

reply to post by impressme


Yup!!

......95 feet wide

Perhaps if I introduce you to the Pentagon Building Performance Report might make you get a bit more educated on the topic....eh??

reply to post by ProudBird

Yup!!

......95 feet wide

Perhaps if I introduce you to the Pentagon Building Performance Report might make you get a bit more educated on the topic....eh??

You can keep your government building performance report, it is as credible as the NIST Report, the 911 Commission Report, and every 911 report the government has presented, nothing but lies, cover-ups, and half-truths.
Photographs and videos taken by on lookers that morning prove the government lied and the entrance hole was very small, you can’t dispute the earlier photos and videos the truth was there all along.
No plane plowed into the pentagon, there is no physical evidence to verify it. I don’t know how the hole was created at the pentagon, but it sure wasn’t any airplane there wasn’t any debris field.

You should know by now it is impossible to prove a falsehood true, (the OS).

reply to post by impressme


To baldly state that "there is no physical evidence" of a plane at the Pentagon is simply to be in denial.

How do you account for so many witnesses to a plane ?

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Alfie1

To baldly state that "there is no physical evidence" of a plane at the Pentagon is simply to be in denial.

How do you account for so many witnesses to a plane ?
911research.wtc7.net...

[color=gold]Physical Damage to Pentagon Impossible Based on Witness Statements/Observations

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

You have your witness and I have mine, now whose witnesses are telling the truth?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by impressme

 

Yup!!

......95 feet wide

Perhaps if I introduce you to the Pentagon Building Performance Report might make you get a bit more educated on the topic....eh??

edit on Sat 7 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

thekeytoeternity.blogspot.com...
(Why is the most (light grey??) smoke coming from the highlighted area?)



911research.wtc7.net...

Where is the 100ft. entry hole, raging deep dark smoking inferno, tail, seats,
dead bodies, wings, debris etc. etc. etc.

Come off it proudB! What is your agenda, eh?
You are a pilot, right? You know intimitely how monstrous those machines are!

I believe the only reason you defend the idiotic 9/11 OS so doggedly in the face of
all rational is because you KNOW well that it is all a hoaxed/staged fraud.
I believe the same goes for waypastve, hooper, goodolddave etc. etc.
How and why Ye are motivated to defend such utter BS is another question.

reply to post by impressme


So you are one of the few remaining disciples of CIT. I am sure you must know that even Richard Gage has thrown them under the bus.

Surely you are also aware that all CIT's witnesses in a position to see say that the plane smacked right into the Pentagon ?

Originally posted by pshea38

thekeytoeternity.blogspot.com...
(Why is the most (light grey??) smoke coming from the highlighted area?)

Because that's where the diesel-fueled generator, which was hit by the starboard engine, is ablaze.

Originally posted by pshea38

911research.wtc7.net...

Where is the 100ft. entry hole, raging deep dark smoking inferno, tail, seats,
dead bodies, wings, debris etc. etc. etc.

Typical dishonest cherry picking of photographs. When you actually go to Gregg's/Vic's/Jim's site, the caption for that picture reads:

Photographs of the Pentagon's west side after the attack are remarkably free of crash debris. However, many of these photographs have deceptive foreshortening of large areas near the building. The fire trucks in this photograph are at least 80 feet from the building.

Do you ever get tired of lying to and deceiving people?

Originally posted by pshea38
Where is the 100ft. entry hole,

At the WTC, wouldn't you instead say that the hole is too big for a plane and that "aluminum can't penetrate steel", yada yada yada?

Originally posted by pshea38
raging deep dark smoking inferno, tail, seats,
dead bodies, wings, debris etc. etc. etc.

Where is all this stuff at the WTC?

There was lots at the Pentagon.



Tired, old, same debunked nonsense about flyovers, truck bombs, missiles, commuter planes, A3 skywarriors and global hawks, all of which are presented by rivaling factions as mutually exclusive, which means that at least all but one of those theories is a full-fledged lie.

Lesser minds still fall for it. It's an ongoing tragedy. At best, it's misinformation.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by pshea38
Where is the 100ft. entry hole,

At the WTC, wouldn't you instead say that the hole is too big for a plane and that "aluminum can't penetrate steel", yada yada yada?

Originally posted by pshea38
raging deep dark smoking inferno, tail, seats,
dead bodies, wings, debris etc. etc. etc.

Where is all this stuff at the WTC?

There was lots at the Pentagon.

Tired, old, same debunked nonsense about flyovers, truck bombs, missiles, commuter planes, A3 skywarriors and global hawks, all of which are presented by rivaling factions as mutually exclusive, which means that at least all but one of those theories is a full-fledged lie.

Lesser minds still fall for it. It's an ongoing tragedy. At best, it's misinformation.

Look at the prestine condition of most of the debris 'scraps' whose genuity you vouch for!
Come off it man! Everthing should be torched to the extreme.
This is a staged setting and your aggresive bullyboy insulting tactics won't sway anyone.

You are in the same boat as the rest listed above. You are fully aware of the nature of this
hoax/fraud but continually perpetuate the deception for reasons best known to yourself.
(although I have a fair inkling as to why you do so).

This is why there are 'co-incidental' drills or exercises associated with many of these
hoaxed and falsified events. They proceed with their exercises for the express purpose
of passing off the staged imagery and footage as genuine to a mostly unsuspecting public.




Where is the Damn Plane debris here (s)no(w)crash9/11. Here where
it damn well ought to be.
There's NOTHING!! And there is No way around it!

Anyway, why am I wasting my time with you, when I am fully aware that
you are just acting your own honourable part in the whole ridiculous theatrical
production that was 9/11?

Toodle-pip.

reply to post by Alfie1

So you are one of the few remaining disciples of CIT. I am sure you must know that even Richard Gage has thrown them under the bus.

Surely you are also aware that all CIT's witnesses in a position to see say that the plane smacked right into the Pentagon ?

Clearly you did not read my above post proving eyewitness at the pentagon rejecting the government fallacies and witness something different. Who are you to judge that these witness are all lairs just because it doesn’t support the fallacies of the government OS.

So now I am few remaining disciples of CIT? Perhaps in your reality, however in the real world of reality most people do not support the OS of 911 and really don’t need to come here to read how a few of you reject everything, except the governments’ word. I have to believe that is just one of the reasons why you see so few posters in here.

reply to post by impressme


impressme, I appreciate your desperate need to support anything declared by a truther that suggests government conspiracy but on this issue there has been a parting of the ways and I am afraid you are now actually faced with a choice.

Richard Gage has completely withdrawn any support for CIT for the reasons he gives here :-

911blogger.com...

You will see at para 4 that he says " I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses ) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon." You will also note that he goes on to refer to CIT's "improper investigative methods."

So there you have your dilemma. Time for you to stand up and be counted. Do you support CIT and their investigative methods or what Richard Gage has to say about them. Just uncritically swallowing everything that might be construed as "conspiracy" is not an option here, you actually need to make a decision.

reply to post by pshea38


To complement the pictures of aircraft wreckage outside the Pentagon here are some internal shots :-

www.rense.com...

This internal area was of course a blazing inferno for some time after the impact.

You suggest it was a staged hoax so you must of course have an explanation as to how all the physical damage was carried out and all the debris was planted, including pieces driven by great force into concrete structures, without a soul seeing anything. Lets hear it.

Originally posted by Alfie1

...... including pieces driven by great force into concrete structures, without a soul seeing anything. Lets hear it.

Oh you mean like the huge tail and wing sections!

Wait, let me have another look.


Nope. Nothing there, unless you are suggesting that the whole 'plane'
penetrated through the concrete into the building. In which case where
are the cut-through scars?
Although since 'planes' so seemlessly penetrated through the WTC steel, I suppose
concrete would present no obstacle whatsoever.
Still, this is not apparent in the picture.

What about the media eye-witness who claims to have witnessed the wings fold
back like a concertina and follow the main body into the building? He doesn't
mention the tail, but I am assuming he would claim the same for that.
What a joke, and what a blatant liar.
If you discount witnesses with connections to the military and the media
(who are prime suspects), we are left with precious little to go on indeed.

What a perfect opportunity to plant the necessary (but unconvincing for the OS)
explosives as the relevent section was undergoing renovations at the time.

All these liars willingly co-operated in the scheming because they knew the whole
thing was staged and they knew that NOBODY was really killed or injured.

Anyway Alfie, as I said to the others, I am pretty sure that you are
fully aware of the true nature of the hoax, and you too are simply acting
your part here.
So this is kind of a futile exercise for me.

Cheerio.

reply to post by pshea38


As I thought; you have no rational explanation as to how all this aircraft debris magically and spontaneously appeared, both externally and internally, without anyone seeing anything. Nor how lightpoles were chopped down, trees trimmed, generator and low wall struck, similarly unwitnessed.

And I suppose you handwave away the fact that AA 77 was radar tracked to the Pentagon, its flight data recorder was recovered there as were dna identified body parts of passengers and crew.

There were many witnesses to a plane impacting the Pentagon and to try and pretend they were all bought is pathetic.

Now this is a bit of lateral thinking, totally out of the box of course, but how about a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon ? Impossible and fanciful questions do not then arise.