• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What I Think Really Happened on 9/11/2001 [W:460]

Jango said:
You're still looking at 9/11 in the simple way I.e. Just The Attacks On 9/11 when there is a Pre-9/11 & Post-9/11 part of the story I.e. the 'extremely complicated' part of 9/11.
Click to expand...

And to what part of the story if not the whole story do these childish conspiracy theories focus on?

Never mind, I actually wanted this thread to die, bye.
 
Luftwaffe said:
And to what part of the story if not the whole story do these childish conspiracy theories focus on?

Never mind, I actually wanted this thread to die, bye.
Click to expand...

Man I dont know, that dumb ass Bush has the corny idea that 19 cavemen fooled our 40 billion dollar defense system.

I agree what a ****ing loon.
 
Mark F said:
No. I go the point and as usual, you were wrong.

I am curious how you think people on this bit of highway couldn't see the impact.

http://earthsound.appspot.com/images/post-pentagon-attack-pano-2.jpg

Or people standing on the helipad.

Or people looking out their office windows as the plane flew at them.

Those are some of the people I quoted, the ones who you say couldn't have seen the impact yet did.
Click to expand...

It's just easier to say you are right.... It's not like you'd actually map out their positions and determine what they could have seen, or just heard and seen the aftermath...

And it's a moot point regardless.
 
The things Bman thinks he knows constantly astound me.
 
BmanMcfly said:
It's just easier to say you are right.... It's not like you'd actually map out their positions and determine what they could have seen, or just heard and seen the aftermath...

And it's a moot point regardless.
Click to expand...

It is moot only because you are shown to be (once again) talking ****.

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS **** FROM?
 
BmanMcfly said:
It's just easier to say you are right.... It's not like you'd actually map out their positions and determine what they could have seen, or just heard and seen the aftermath...

And it's a moot point regardless.
Click to expand...

It is factual to say I am right. People who have a direct line-of-sight to the impact zone can by definition see the impact zone. Please map the locations of the people I quoted and explain to us how they did not actually see the impact or STFU.

But you are right. It is a moot point anyway as the witness testimony merely confirms the radar, the FDR, the recovered debris, the recovered remains of passengers, crew and hijackers, and the admission by the airline and its insurers that Flight 77 indeed crashed into the Pentagon. If you have some other plausible explanation for what happened that explains that evidence then present it along with what happened at the other 3 sites just like requested in Post #1 or STFU.
 
Mark F said:
It is factual to say I am right. People who have a direct line-of-sight to the impact zone can by definition see the impact zone. Please map the locations of the people I quoted and explain to us how they did not actually see the impact or STFU.

But you are right. It is a moot point anyway as the witness testimony merely confirms the radar, the FDR, the recovered debris, the recovered remains of passengers, crew and hijackers, and the admission by the airline and its insurers that Flight 77 indeed crashed into the Pentagon. If you have some other plausible explanation for what happened that explains that evidence then present it along with what happened at the other 3 sites just like requested in Post #1 or STFU.
Click to expand...

*sigh*. Utterly missing it again.

I don't want to argue with you, so I'm not even going to bring up the six lies you've bought into in the second paragraph.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's every one remember that civility is a must.
 
BmanMcfly said:
*sigh*. Utterly missing it again.

I don't want to argue with you, so I'm not even going to bring up the six lies you've bought into in the second paragraph.
Click to expand...

You just did.

Now answer the OP or admit your failure and jog on.

Unlike you I can back up my claims.
 
Mark F said:
You just did.

Now answer the OP or admit your failure and jog on.

Unlike you I can back up my claims.
Click to expand...

I already have... And like I thought, I got useless and barely relevant responses, really the best debunkers have to offer.

But congrats on making your irrelevant point... I suppose that can be counted as improvement from the debunker camp, if only barely,
 
Luftwaffe said:
And to what part of the story if not the whole story do these childish conspiracy theories focus on?

Never mind, I actually wanted this thread to die, bye.
Click to expand...

The Attacks. The primary focus is upon "the day that changed the world." There's a miniscule amount of information from Pre-9/11 even today almost 13 years Post-9/11. That's all I wanted to tell you.
 
BmanMcfly said:
I already have... And like I thought, I got useless and barely relevant responses, really the best debunkers have to offer.

But congrats on making your irrelevant point... I suppose that can be counted as improvement from the debunker camp, if only barely,
Click to expand...

Bman, where do you get your "facts" (AKA BS) from?
 
BmanMcfly said:
I already have... And like I thought, I got useless and barely relevant responses, really the best debunkers have to offer.

But congrats on making your irrelevant point... I suppose that can be counted as improvement from the debunker camp, if only barely,
Click to expand...

If you are unhappy with the responses you got to your attempt to address the OP then you should look in the mirror for blame. The quality of the replies you got matches the quality of your response to the OP.

Now then, you have made several very bold claims which you have not only failed to support but seem eager to run away from supporting. That may work for others, it won't work with me.

I stepped in as a result of a claim you made in Post #396 where you said:

If you are so certain, go find the eyewitnesses, find out where they were and what they saw... You'll see that none had the perspective to actually see the collision.
Click to expand...

Later in Post #398 you singled out a specific witness, Frank Probst as not having line-of-sight on the impact site. You may or may not be right about that witness - I really don't know since I am not familiar with his account and you reversed the burden of proof instead of backing up your own claim. Therefore, no evidence presented to back your claim.

But overall this is of course a monumentally silly claim, a gross false generalization. No wonder you won't back it up. Consider for example that many of the witnesses had a view of the site rather like this, as they were in rush-hour traffic on S Washington Blvd:

022.jpg
light+poles+narrative+on+9+11+at+the+Pentagon.jpg

Then of course there were other witnesses on the Pentagon helicopter pad literally just yards away from the impact site. Then there are those who were in the Pentagon and saw the plane coming at them through the windows. And how about the MNANG C-130 crew overhead who shadowed 77 and watched it go in? Surely they had a commanding view.

I have provided you with some of their accounts and offered to provide more, an offer you declined.

I know where you are getting your information from - the Citizens Investigation Committee whose self-debunking work and dishonesty speaks for itself. We could devote an entire thread to their reality-distortions but even Truthers don't take them seriously anymore so it would be a waste of time.

Shame you didn't get the memo.

Then you claimed I made six lies in one paragraph. Problem with that is you did not and still have not identified what those alleged lies are nor have you explained how you determined I was lying - as in deliberately making statements I knew to be untrue.

So really, this entire derail discussing details of the Pentagon attack in a thread that is about the big picture is based on nothing more than unsupported claims and attempted evasions from you. So, would you care to back up any of your claims or will you actually man up and admit you are wrong?
 
KokomoJojo said:
I will if he didnt,

a 400 pound pole will slice through a wing like a hot knife through butter at 500 mph, it slices through a wing like a hot knife through butter at much lower speeds of only 100 mph

SLICE.gif



thats some pretty poor debunkerizing your pals are doing.
Click to expand...


As usual with anything 9/11 related, your interpretation of the situation is wrong. You, and others, confuse telephone poles installed to simulate trees with street lights designed to break away and NOT increase damage to whatever strikes them.
If you can't understand the difference, there is no point of further discussion.

gif comes from the following 1960s video of simulated DC-7 crash.

 
RogueWarrior said:
As usual with anything 9/11 related, your interpretation of the situation is wrong. You, and others, confuse telephone poles installed to simulate trees with street lights designed to break away and NOT increase damage to whatever strikes them.
If you can't understand the difference, there is no point of further discussion.
Click to expand...

He's been told numerous times and he knows the difference. This is why nothing Koko says can be taken seriously. It is unlikely he believes most of what he says.
 
Mark F said:
He's been told numerous times and he knows the difference. This is why nothing Koko says can be taken seriously. It is unlikely he believes most of what he says.
Click to expand...

Actually it is a near certainty that he doesnt believe what he says
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom