• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace

****. Something tells me that the 4th floor men's room stall is going to be lacking a toilet seat for a while.....unless......

We'll just scare it right out of ya!!! WOOT!! 3 second bathroom trips!!!
 
Response to OT Requests

TruthersLie said:
when do you intend to do the due diligence for your slanders of the SEC, FBI and others? When will you figure out the Put orders, the missing 2.3 trillion or any of your other half dozen blatant slanderous claims?
Click to expand...
I'm happy to answer, when my sources are double checked, but please ask this in that Thread, so we stay on topic.

jaydeehess said:
Wonder if cicorp will get around to finding a reputable source for the 85 video claim?
Click to expand...
Also a bit off topic, and has been answered, but since I'm being asked again in this forum...
The FBI is a reputable source...usually. On Sept 9, 2005 Special Agent filed a Declaration and mentions 85 Pentagon videotapes are "potentially responsive" to a FOIA request. But on Oct 20, 2005, the DOJ claimed the material is exempt from the FOIA. How can any critical thinker not be suspicous?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Morin says that the plane DID NOT pass over the annex at any point that would make it possible for the a/c to then pass to the north of the Citgo which kinda negates the NOC.
Click to expand...
Listen to Terry Morin again. He clearly says he was between buildings of the Navy Annex, and looked up to see the jet for a split second.

Morin actually saw the a/c for a lot longer time than either Brooks or Lagasse
Click to expand...
I respectfully recommend you listen to Terry Morin again in his own words.
http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-ona.html

and who says he watched this aircraft go below his line of sight past some trees that are SOC.
Click to expand...
Please clarify who the "who" and "he" is in your sentence which includes 3 people, so I can best answer your question.

Then there is the fact that a 90 degree impact would travel farther through the structure than a 45 degree hit
Click to expand...
I agree that a plane would penetrate more at 90 degrees than with the OCT claim of 45 degrees. At 45 degrees wouldn't more of the plane bounce off the wall? How far in would a plane penetrate? Here is a video showing a test of a plane going in to a concrete wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

You guys, as critical thinkers, wouldn't waste your time here, unless you had even 1% suspicion about the Official Story. You're probably, and correctly, just waiting for a plausible explanation. You correctly debunk the missile, flyover, and hologram theories. But the theory, of explosives in a drone plane hitting the Pentagon, best explains the observed evidence and witness testimonies.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
You guys, as critical thinkers, wouldn't waste your time here, unless you had at least 1% suspicion about the Official Story.
Click to expand...

Not true. Many of us are just here to observe some of the more bizarre outliers on the psychological continuum that we classify as "normal".

cicorp said:
You're probably just waiting for a plausible explanation. You correctly debunk the missile, flyover, and hologram theories. But, explosives in a drone plane explain a lot.
Click to expand...

But not, unfortunately, anywhere near enough; like, for example, the fact that neither AA77 nor its passengers have turned up since, except as DNA samples and airliner debris, or the excellent agreement between modelling of the effects of an airliner hitting the Pentagon and the actual damage observed, or the absence of any evidence whatsoever infavour of a drone plane packed with explosives.

Don't get me wrong; the fact that you've formulated a hypothesis of explosives in a drone plane explains a lot about you and your fellow fundamentalist believers. It just doesn't explain anything about the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.

Dave
 
cicorp said:
I'm happy to answer, when my sources are double checked, but please ask this in that Thread, so we stay on topic.
Click to expand...
No no no.

This is fully on topic. You have a history of making completely idiotic statements, pulling ******** out of your ass, accusing hardworking (fairly) honest individuals of being complicit in the mass murder of 3000 citizens. You have consistently failed to provide ANY support for your assertions and then run away from them.

So until you answer for the **** you have been throwing, you will be called on your new crap at each and every turn.

So have you figured out the "missing" 85 tapes yet? You were given links to the ******** claims.

So have you figured our your SLANDER of the SEC and the put orders yet? you were given links to the ******** claims.

Have you figured out any of your ******** claims yet? Even having been given the links which show you are WRONG.

Until you figure out and admit you were slandering individuals it is fully ON TOPIC and RELEVANT to any discussion you are trying to slander other individuals in.


Also a bit off topic, and has been answered, but since I'm being asked again in this forum...
The FBI is a reputable source...usually. On Sept 9, 2005 Special Agent filed a Declaration and mentions 85 Pentagon videotapes are "potentially responsive" to a FOIA request. But on Oct 20, 2005, the DOJ claimed the material is exempt from the FOIA. How can any critical thinker not be suspicous?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html
Click to expand...

Because you have been GIVEN the links to what those "missing 85" tapes contain. Many of those videos have been hosted by BCR (from jref) and you can watch them yourself. So your claim of '85 missing" video tapes is at best disingenuous, at worst outright lying. It ranks up there with your LIE about there being 1400+ architects and engineers who have signed the AE petition. There are 1400+ 'architectural and engineering professionals' who have signed it (thought I doubt the numbers are that high but I'll give it to you). Architectural and engineering professionals ARE NOT ALL architects and ENGINEERS. you have people like draftsmen included, you have degreed but not licensed engineers. There is a VAST difference. Why do you keep telling that LIE?

ranks right up there with your LIE about the construction of the towers or wtc7 by stating that they were reinforced concrete when they WERE NOT.

But hey, what else is new... a truther LYING? No... I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
I agree that a plane would penetrate more at 90 degrees than with the OCT claim of 45 degrees. At 45 degrees wouldn't more of the plane bounce off the wall? How far in would a plane penetrate? Here is a video showing a test of a plane going in to a concrete wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
Click to expand...
argument from incredulity noted.

Tell us about that "concrete wall" that the plane is destroyed hitting. By all means. How think was it? How was it built? What was it built for?

Are you trying to compare the different structures and thicknesses of a wall built for a NUCLEAR REACTOR and the wall of the pentagon? Really?

You guys, as critical thinkers, wouldn't waste your time here, unless you had even 1% suspicion about the Official Story. You're probably, and correctly, just waiting for a plausible explanation. You correctly debunk the missile, flyover, and hologram theories. But the theory, of explosives in a drone plane hitting the Pentagon, best explains the observed evidence and witness testimonies.
Click to expand...

Except that the evidence doesn't add up. it isn't close.
I love how you use the "you guys as critical thinkers" but you don't seem to want to be a critical thinker. You make logical leaps, you take bs claims and then don't track them down.

The claim (not even a theory or even a hypothesis) of a drone plane is not supported by radar, fdr, dna and eyewitness accounts. Your inability to understand how radar works, or to understand something as simple as F=MA and how that would react to the pentagon vs a wall made for a nuclear reactor speaks volumes.

Again and again... your incredulity is showing. Just how big is this conspiracy you are touting? The SEC, the FBI and now any and all structural engineers in the world who have looked at the building reports... Wowsers.. I want to be on that payroll.... who next?
 
Oh ps... that wall was 2+ meters (8 feet IIRC) thick of concrete reinforced with steel... you know designed to withstand a jet impact at 800 kph.

Were the walls at the pentagon 2 meters thick?
 
cicorp said:
Listen to Terry Morin again. He clearly says he was between buildings of the Navy Annex, and looked up to see the jet for a split second.


I respectfully recommend you listen to Terry Morin again in his own words.
http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-ona.html


Please clarify who the "who" and "he" is in your sentence which includes 3 people, so I can best answer your question.


I agree that a plane would penetrate more at 90 degrees than with the OCT claim of 45 degrees. At 45 degrees wouldn't more of the plane bounce off the wall? How far in would a plane penetrate? Here is a video showing a test of a plane going in to a concrete wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

You guys, as critical thinkers, wouldn't waste your time here, unless you had even 1% suspicion about the Official Story. You're probably, and correctly, just waiting for a plausible explanation. You correctly debunk the missile, flyover, and hologram theories. But the theory, of explosives in a drone plane hitting the Pentagon, best explains the observed evidence and witness testimonies.
Click to expand...

Surely now you have enough to open a new investigation.
 
cicorp - how do you respond to the fact that the pilot of a c130 shadowed AA77 and reported it hitting the Pentagon? AA77 was in full view of that pilot for a long, long time.

Are you under the impression that the pilot is unable to differentiate between an unmanned drone and a massive 757 with AA markings on it, in the middle of a beautiful day with no clouds in sight?
 
cicorp said:
Listen to Terry Morin again. He clearly says he was between buildings of the Navy Annex, and looked up to see the jet for a split second.


I respectfully recommend you listen to Terry Morin again in his own words.
http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-ona.html


Please clarify who the "who" and "he" is in your sentence which includes 3 people, so I can best answer your question.


I agree that a plane would penetrate more at 90 degrees than with the OCT claim of 45 degrees. At 45 degrees wouldn't more of the plane bounce off the wall? How far in would a plane penetrate? Here is a video showing a test of a plane going in to a concrete wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

You guys, as critical thinkers, wouldn't waste your time here, unless you had even 1% suspicion about the Official Story. You're probably, and correctly, just waiting for a plausible explanation. You correctly debunk the missile, flyover, and hologram theories. But the theory, of explosives in a drone plane hitting the Pentagon, best explains the observed evidence and witness testimonies.
Click to expand...

The fact that we post proves you're right? :eye-poppi If no one posted that would prove you right also. Heads I win tails you lose.
 
DGM said:
Help me out here, So what again is wrong with the hijacked 757 flown by a licensed pilot?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Since there are no high resolution photographs or high definition videos of a middle-eastern man at the controls of the aircraft a moment before impact, we can't be 100% sure that's what really happened.

It's clear that there is more evidence of flight 77 flying NOC, instead of SOC and there were PPEs inside the EW of the P.


eh.. forget it. I can't even pretend to be that stupid. It physically hurts.
 
cicorp said:
But the theory, of explosives in a drone plane hitting the Pentagon, best explains the observed evidence and witness testimonies.
Click to expand...

No it does not. There is absolutely no evidence for explosives. There is a primary debris and damage pattern 100 percent in agreement with a 757 slamming into the building at high velocity. There is a secondary debris pattern in complete agreement with 'equal but opposite' Newtonian forces. There is no other debris or damage which would be expected from an explosive charge which would have been less descriminate.
 
cicorp said:
Listen to Terry Morin again. He clearly says he was between buildings of the Navy Annex, and looked up to see the jet for a split second.


I respectfully recommend you listen to Terry Morin again in his own words.
http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-ona.html


Please clarify who the "who" and "he" is in your sentence which includes 3 people, so I can best answer your question.


I agree that a plane would penetrate more at 90 degrees than with the OCT claim of 45 degrees. At 45 degrees wouldn't more of the plane bounce off the wall? How far in would a plane penetrate? Here is a video showing a test of a plane going in to a concrete wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

You guys, as critical thinkers, wouldn't waste your time here, unless you had even 1% suspicion about the Official Story. You're probably, and correctly, just waiting for a plausible explanation. You correctly debunk the missile, flyover, and hologram theories. But the theory, of explosives in a drone plane hitting the Pentagon, best explains the observed evidence and witness testimonies.
Click to expand...

So you have some explosive residue to show us then?
 
If it was a Drone filled wit hexplosives that did the damage, where is the plane, it's crew and passengers?
 
cicorp said:
Listen to Terry Morin again. He clearly says he was between buildings of the Navy Annex, and looked up to see the jet for a split second.
Click to expand...

I have, and Morin clearly stated that he was a few feet from coming out from between the Annex blocks and saw the aircraft above and over the outer edge of the structure, NOT behind him where the CIT/PFT say he said it was. He never indicates that he turned around to see the a/c and unless he did so(have to turn around 180 degrees to see the aircraft pass over) then the a/c WAS NOT going to ever be NOC!

He also clearly states that he ran forward and in the parking lot continued to view the aircraft. This indicates again that he was within a few feet of the parking lot when he first saw the aircraft as if he were farther back he would have had less time to reach the parking lot and still see the aircraft.
Seeing the a/c from his position in the parking lot also indicates that the a/c WAS NOT NOC since if it had been he COULD NOT have seen it from the parking lot as the other annex blocks would have been in the way. IIRC in order to see an a/c that passed NOC he would have had to run out into Columbia Pike.
Jeez why do we have to go over this again and again?

Shall we now bring Middleton into it? He said it was north of the Annex itself. Please tell me how Morin could have seen an aircraft over there?

Paik? Paik was inside his garage when he saw the plane pass over the annex/! (according to the CiT) Amazing that he could actually witness this since even in his front lot he would not have been able to see the Annex and here he is seeing it through the walls of his garage (according to the CIT). Of course it did this as well as have Paik wondering if it had also clipped the tower on the other side of Columbia Pike(which IS visible through his window).

Please clarify who the "who" and "he" is in your sentence which includes 3 people, so I can best answer your question.
Click to expand...
and who says he watched this aircraft go below his line of sight past some trees that are SOC
Click to expand...

Morin himself, as was pretty clear in the reference. I do not recall Lagasse or Brooks mentioning the aircraft go below their line of sight beyond a line of trees. Ummm, didn't Brooks say he witnessed impact? IIRC Lagasse would not have been able to see impact and was also inside his vehicle calling on the radio(no trees in his car I would assume)

I agree that a plane would penetrate more at 90 degrees than with the OCT claim of 45 degrees. At 45 degrees wouldn't more of the plane bounce off the wall? How far in would a plane penetrate? Here is a video showing a test of a plane going in to a concrete wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
Click to expand...

NO, why would a hundred ton aircraft 'bounce off'?

Ohhhh, I see, you assume that a 10 foot thick solid concrete block is the same as a 1-2 foor thick limestone and concrete wall containing window openings.
It isn't!
,,,,,and you assume that a 10 ton aircraft is equivalent to a 100 ton aircraft as well.
It isn't!
You guys, as critical thinkers, wouldn't waste your time here, unless you had even 1% suspicion about the Official Story. You're probably, and correctly, just waiting for a plausible explanation.
Click to expand...
People posting arguements against your POV proves that those people actually desire to believe your POV.

So you are as good at personal profiling as you are at math and physics.
That is to say, pretty bad at both.

That, or you are simply delusional.
Since I am a nice guy I will assume you are just bad at both.

You correctly debunk the missile, flyover, and hologram theories.
Click to expand...
Gee, thanks, means so much coming from the CIT.

But the theory, of explosives in a drone plane hitting the Pentagon, best explains the observed evidence and witness testimonies.
Click to expand...

Does it answer the question as to where the missing 100 feet of ground floor wall went if its not in front of the building?
NO!
Does it answer the question as to how the gen-set moves towards the wall rather than away from it?
NO!
Does it answer the question as to how such a huge explosive manages to destroy only two floors through several rings?
NO!
Does it explain the bodies in seats?
NO!
Does it explain the DFDR, including the data contained in partial frames?
NO!
(oh yeah, for those last two the CIT have an incredible spook operation. Incredibly good at not being seen at the myriad of things they had to do.)Does it explain the aircraft parts found in and out of the Pentagon?
NO! (oh yeah its the aircraft part slinging type explosive, funniest thing a 911 conspiracist has come up with in years, thanks for that)
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Over the weekend, I have listened again to PumpItOut/Shure's phone interviews with Pentagon witnesses. Pentagon Fire Department worker Allen Wallace sounds quite credible in his account of almost being hit by plane parts. Plus other interviews supporting a plane hitting the Pentagon.

I am re-evaluating witness statements in light of a new Unified Pentagon Explosion Theory (UPET). It is an eclectic theory, integrating the best of several others, which postulates PPE-NOC-SLP-PIP:

PPE - Pre Planted Explosives - putting bombs in key areas of the Pentagon, ready to explode upon command, done during the renovation.

NOC - North of Citgo - the plane passed over the Navy Annex then headed to the Pentagon, as the Pentagon Police Officers and others stated.

SLP - Staged Light Poles - popping them out of the ground via remote explosives, staging Lloyd England's taxi window crash. CIT proposes this.

PIP - Plane Impacted Pentagon at about a 90 degree angle, and penetrated just the E Ring. Pentagon Fireman Allen Wallace and other credible witnesses saw the plane hit.

The rest of the damage at the Official 45 degree angle (approximately) to the C Ring was caused by PPEs, supporting April Gallop's story.

So far, this theory accounts for many more witness statements than other theories. It rules out a Fly Over, however. There is no reason that NOC requires a FOP (Fly Over Pentagon).

A plane could go NOC, then slam right in to the Pentagon at a 90 degree angle, through the E Ring causing about 1/3 of the damage. Then the explosives took care of the diagonal damage through to the C Ring, the other 2/3 damage, making it look like all the damage was done at a 45 degree angle.

The PPEs made sure the accounting data was destroyed and provided a margin for error, in case the Plane did not hit the planned spot.

It is consistent with the pattern of the WTCs in NYC:
1. Plane hits building
2. Delay to allow evacuation
3. Pre Planted Explosives complete the collapse
4. Spin the Press so the Plane gets 100% of the blame.
Click to expand...

It would have been easier just to fly planes into the buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom