Evidence That 9/11 Pentagon Video Was Photo-shopped

[Walter]

Jul 18, 2017 14:00:53 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jul 18, 2017 13:34:06 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

     The Foreign Policy Journal is another mouthpiece of the PNAC guys who organized the 9/11 false flag as a "New Pearl Harbor" for their PNAC agenda in the Middle East.
  
LOL....see, Walter?  Told ya!   

Nailed it!

[daleko]

Jul 18, 2017 14:00:53 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jul 18, 2017 13:34:06 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

     The Foreign Policy Journal is another mouthpiece of the PNAC guys who organized the 9/11 false flag as a "New Pearl Harbor" for their PNAC agenda in the Middle East.
  
LOL....see, Walter?  Told ya!   

As predictable as the afternoon rain in Fl. 

[daleko]

Jul 18, 2017 14:18:34 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 18, 2017 1:17:29 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Interesting article.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

So ironic that these CIA phonies talk about the "scientific method" and studying "evidence" while systematically keeping the evidence from the public, and publishing utterly pseudo-scientific nonsense to "explain" their black ops.

This article is complete horseshit, from start to finish.

Go back and study the above hard evidence in my posts of Exhibits A through G.  Use the scientific method.

If you do, you will finally understand that most of the garbage readily available on-line is CIA funded horse manure.

It's like Gerald Posner's (Vincent Buliosi, and John McAdams') CIA funded horseshit about the JFK assassination.

Separate all of your other conspiracy events and for once, when you are presented with a strong, in this case very strong, opinion that casts a pall on your story, stay on point w/o commingling non event conjecture. In this case stay w the pentagon. With all of the people who viewed various sections of that flight path, and there were many, it wouldn't be beyond reason that you would end up conversing w someone who either was a first person credible witness or a very close relative of one.

For giggles, if you had a brother, cousin, dutch uncle or some other close relative, who you'd see often enough that you stayed close, who was a military fighter pilot and flew countless missions in 'Nam and later in the next gen fighter, then worked in intel both military & civilian, and finally had business at the Pentagon that day and saw the aircraft in some part of its late stage fight path, would you believe him if he told you that a Boeing 757 flew into the building?

[Walter]

Jul 18, 2017 16:27:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jul 18, 2017 14:18:34 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

So ironic that these CIA phonies talk about the "scientific method" and studying "evidence" while systematically keeping the evidence from the public, and publishing utterly pseudo-scientific nonsense to "explain" their black ops.

This article is complete horseshit, from start to finish.

Go back and study the above hard evidence in my posts of Exhibits A through G.  Use the scientific method.

If you do, you will finally understand that most of the garbage readily available on-line is CIA funded horse manure.

It's like Gerald Posner's (Vincent Buliosi, and John McAdams') CIA funded horseshit about the JFK assassination.

Separate all of your other conspiracy events and for once, when you are presented with a strong, in this case very strong, opinion that casts a pall on your story, stay on point w/o commingling non event conjecture. In this case stay w the pentagon. With all of the people who viewed various sections of that flight path, and there were many, it wouldn't be beyond reason that you would end up conversing w someone who either was a first person credible witness or a very close relative of one.

For giggles, if you had a brother, cousin, dutch uncle or some other close relative, who you'd see often enough that you stayed close, who was a military fighter pilot and flew countless missions in 'Nam and later in the next gen fighter, then worked in intel both military & civilian, and finally had business at the Pentagon that day and saw the aircraft in some part of its late stage fight path, would you believe him if he told you that a Boeing 757 flew into the building?

Uh.....The guy thinks it might have been a hologram.
I think the ship has sailed on what Willie would believe, no matter what was presented or who presented it.

[daleko]

Jul 18, 2017 16:45:18 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 18, 2017 16:27:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

Separate all of your other conspiracy events and for once, when you are presented with a strong, in this case very strong, opinion that casts a pall on your story, stay on point w/o commingling non event conjecture. In this case stay w the pentagon. With all of the people who viewed various sections of that flight path, and there were many, it wouldn't be beyond reason that you would end up conversing w someone who either was a first person credible witness or a very close relative of one.

For giggles, if you had a brother, cousin, dutch uncle or some other close relative, who you'd see often enough that you stayed close, who was a military fighter pilot and flew countless missions in 'Nam and later in the next gen fighter, then worked in intel both military & civilian, and finally had business at the Pentagon that day and saw the aircraft in some part of its late stage fight path, would you believe him if he told you that a Boeing 757 flew into the building?

Uh.....The guy thinks it might have been a hologram.
I think the ship has sailed on what Willie would believe, no matter what was presented or who presented it.

Somewhere in several of the articles they mention 180-200 witnesses, that are documented. Think of what was hit and the traffic on the flight path buildings. It was the Pentagon. There is at least another group as large who filed a report but we'll never know, publicly, who they were. Duh. AND then there are our "friends" around the world who have the building under surveillance 360, 24/7. Communication was made and delivered. But we'll never see it. They all saw a plane. This whole Pentagon thing, Willie supports, is just stupid and I for one don't, can't, believe Willie is stupid. So it's a game and a chapter in a book.

[oujour76]

Jul 18, 2017 16:45:18 GMT -5 Walter said:

Uh.....The guy thinks it might have been a hologram.
I think the ship has sailed on what Willie would believe, no matter what was presented or who presented it.

Guess you need an IQ of 160 to be as gullible as Willie.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2017 21:26:34 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

EXHIBIT B


9/11- Pentagon Missile Confirmed- 100% Case Closed

All right, Cheeseballs.  If you three blind mice want to use the "scientific method" to analyze the empirical data, go for it.

What do you see here?  Put down the CIA propaganda and try some basic empiricism for a change.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2017 21:42:51 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

EXHIBIT G


911 Pentagon Boeing 757 Flight 77 Debunked

Here's more empirical evidence for our three blind mice-- Walter, Daleko, and Harry.

Use the "scientific method," guys, rather than believing the CIA's mainstream media propaganda.


This CFB debate is being officiated by
 Walter, Harry, and Daleko.

[Walter]

Lol..
Still waiting for the explanation of the physical evidence of what was found...

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2017 22:28:29 GMT -5 Walter said:

Lol..
Still waiting for the explanation of the physical evidence of what was found...

Two things.

1)  The slender white object that hit the Pentagon is WAY to small to be a 757.  That is a no brainer.

2) It's obvious that the government photo-shopped the video. Why did they do that?

If the photo had shown a 757, there would have been no REASON for them to alter the evidence. Right?