This Is What Happened At The Pentagon On 9/11

[Mad Scientist]

I mean has anyone on these boards ever heard of the SOCRATIC METHOD?

"Socratic" around here means Terral calling us idiots for the entire thread.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Hi Joe:

So basically, what you are stating is I CANNOT challenge points made by other posters in this thread?

Sure! Go for it. Present 'your' thesis, claims and evidence, so somebody can begin formulating 'informed conclusions.' Questioning people to death confused is throwing effort after foolishness . . .

GL,

Terral

One challenges when it is believed that a presented statement and or presented evidence (data) is insufficient, or inadequate in it's SUPPORT of the stated claim. Therefore, a premise or premises, and or adequate support (proof and or sufficient evidence) must be provided. The conclusion rests solely on the premises.

Insufficient evidence or QUESTIONABLE evidence (data) will serve as the primary grounds for a CHALLENGE. This includes but is not limited to photographs, documented articles, eye witness testimony, opinion, hearsay, and videos that contain such. Basically, anything that can NOT provide CONCLUSIVE proof can be CHALLENGED.

If there is ANY doubt, then a stated claim can be challenged. If the CHALLENGE cannot be met, then the entire argument is rendered INVALID. But when the arguer claims that the inadequate premises provide adequate support for the stated claim, that is "Begging the Question." What the layman would call arguing is circles. It ALL invalidates the argument.

Based on the foundations of logic and argument analysis, a CHALLENGE does NOT require a thesis, a claim, or any evidence to be issued. All that is required for a challenge to be issued is insufficient or inadequate support for a stated claim, simple. This form of debate is from which the Socratic Method was developed.

Thank you,

jkp

 

[Terral]

Hi Mad:

"Socratic" around here means Terral calling us idiots for the entire thread.

No. Mad is numbered among Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES:

You guys fell for the 'stupid' Official Cover Story LIES long before hearing 'the' 911Truth from me . . .

Flight 93/Shanksville
Flight 77/Pentagon
WTC-7 Controlled Demolition

9:31
Pentagon Timeline
DoD Manipulated Fire And Firemen
Flight 77 Never Crashed Near The Pentagon
April Gallop Was Injured During 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike
9:31 AM Missile Strike: Answers To Bill Veale's Questions
"9/11 Press For Truth" Continues: The Video
Secret Bush-Clinton-FED Pakistani Accounts Linked To 9/11 Attacks
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove And Donald Rumsfeld Have Been Murdering Americans
Rebuttal To CIT Claims About What "Did Not" Hit The Pentagon
Poll: Who Supports The Official 9/11 Cover Stories

'Unbelievers' are also worthy of burning in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8), so keep on scoffing and mocking; because all that remains is the 'perishing' (Acts 13:41). It is one thing to be a Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE, but quite another to come out to this find USMB Conspiracy Theories Forum and run diversion for liars and murderers of innocent Americans. You refuse to enter into 'the 911Truth' AND you stand in the way of those who would enter in (Matt. 23:13), which makes you the personification of 9/11 deception and hypocrisy . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Joe:

One challenges when it is believed that a presented statement and or presented evidence (data) is insufficient, or inadequate in it's SUPPORT of the stated claim . . .

Thank you very much. In other words, Joe has no pictures of AA77 crashed ANYWHERE like everybody else, because that never happened . . .

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm_cnFoMHjA]One Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words[/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[candycorn]

Hi Joe:

Silly questions?

Yes for the umpteenth time!!! Start your own topic about "what happened at the Pentagon" and lay out all of your evidence like I did in the OP of this Thread. These readers are looking for 'answers' and not a long list of your silly questions confused . . .

If you are who you claim you are, then you are more wise than to say such a thing.

One of these days I will stumble upon a post from Joe that actually includes evidentiary support for what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 . . .

GL,

Terral

So basically, what you are stating is I CANNOT challenge points made by other posters in this thread?

I think what he is saying is that when you use concepts he's unfamiliar with such as "physical evidence" he is challenged by them.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Hi Joe:

One challenges when it is believed that a presented statement and or presented evidence (data) is insufficient, or inadequate in it's SUPPORT of the stated claim . . .

Thank you very much. In other words, Joe has no pictures of AA77 crashed ANYWHERE like everybody else, because that never happened . . .

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm_cnFoMHjA]One Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words[/ame]

GL,

Terral

Can you tell when someone agrees or disagrees with you?

BECAUSE, it CAN be LOGICALLY inferred that NO Boeing 757 hit the pentagon, EVER.

So, I would deeply appreciate if you would please refrain from accusing ME (Joe) of claiming such. I NEVER did and I NEVER will. Unless, the Federal Bureau of Investigation release those surveillance videos and the videos ALL show, CONCLUSIVELY without a shadow of doubt, a Boeing 757 commercial jet airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) did in fact hit the pentagon.

Now if you do believe this post is erroneous, then please link and show everyone who reads, MY claim that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Please excuse my tone, but I am passionate about logic.

But, now it MAY be inferred that your wisdom is questionable.

 

[Terral]

Hi Joe:

Can you tell when someone agrees or disagrees with you?

BECAUSE, it CAN be LOGICALLY inferred that NO Boeing 757 hit the pentagon, EVER.

Congratulations! Finally something in your posts is making sense . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Hi Joe:

Can you tell when someone agrees or disagrees with you?

BECAUSE, it CAN be LOGICALLY inferred that NO Boeing 757 hit the pentagon, EVER.

Congratulations! Finally something in your posts is making sense . . .

GL,

Terral

What do you mean by "finally?" See...

 

[Terral]

Hi Joe:

What do you mean by "finally?" See...

I was wrong. Now I am really confused about what you are trying to prove on this "What Happened At The Pentagon" Topic. Please help me out. :0)

Thanks in advance,

Terral

 

[Joe_Penalty]

I do not know what hit the pentagon, but it can obviously be inferred that it was definitely not a commercial jet air liner. A commercial jet air liner did NOT crash into the pentagon.

Anyone who claims such, is either deliberately dishonest, lacks cognition ability, or quite frankly stupid.

All of the parts found were from a Boeing 757--a commercial jet liner.
The bodies of the passengers were identified via DNA evidence.

You have your opinions. I have facts.

CHECK MATE BITCH

Unfortunately, I missed this post previously.

Sure, what you consider facts are inadequate. According to the photographs present, there is NOT substantial evidence to conclude that a commercial jet airliner crashed anywhere near the pentagon. Grant it, the photographs show evidence, but insufficient to establish beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that it was IN FACT a commercial jet airliner.

However, I do NOT presume to know what DID hit the pentagon, but I do KNOW it was NOT a commercial jet airliner. IF it was a commercial jet airliner, then the evidence at hand does NOT support that conclusion.

To conclude, if the evidence that you claim to have presented as fact is NOT the surveillance videos that the Federal Bureau of Investigation are withholding, then that said evidence must be rejected pending the release of those videos. Then the surveillance videos must ALL show conclusively without doubt a commercial jet airliner crashing into the pentagon.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Hi Joe:

What do you mean by "finally?" See...

I was wrong. Now I am really confused about what you are trying to prove on this "What Happened At The Pentagon" Topic. Please help me out. :0)

Thanks in advance,

Terral

There were points made and conclusions drawn with an effort to establish proof that there was a commercial jet airliner to crash into the pentagon. Instead of rejecting the conclusions drawn, I was making an attempt to allow those drawing the said conclusions to provide support for there claims. The only way to achieve this is to challenge, by asking for premises or support. This is basic argument analysis. However, no successful attempt was made to provide adequate premises, just attempted insults.

But as you well know, a poor Man's wisdom is despised, and his words are NOT heard.

 

[candycorn]

Unfortunately, I missed this post previously.

Sure, what you consider facts are inadequate. According to the photographs present, there is NOT substantial evidence to conclude that a commercial jet airliner crashed anywhere near the pentagon. Grant it, the photographs show evidence, but insufficient to establish beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that it was IN FACT a commercial jet airliner.

So you feel it is a reasonable assumption that the 300 pound wheel hub from a 757 landing gear, the landing gear axle itself from a Boeing 757 which looks like it may way over 100 pounds, the tires from a Boeing 757 which look like they too are quiet hefty were all planted by people running around inside the Pentagon or were put there prior to the attack on spec that the plane would hit there?

Call me when you get back from Fantasy Island; in the mean time say hello to Tattoo for me.

However, I do NOT presume to know what DID hit the pentagon, but I do KNOW it was NOT a commercial jet airliner. IF it was a commercial jet airliner, then the evidence at hand does NOT support that conclusion.

Okay, what does the evidence found at the scene suggest to you? Space Goats?

To conclude, if the evidence that you claim to have presented as fact is NOT the surveillance videos that the Federal Bureau of Investigation are withholding, then that said evidence must be rejected pending the release of those videos. Then the surveillance videos must ALL show conclusively without doubt a commercial jet airliner crashing into the pentagon.

So there is nothing that can be proven to you without surveillance footage? You're what defense attorneys call a "walking orgasm". You're neck and neck with Terral and Eots for dumbest person ever.

I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.

 

[eots]

So you feel it is a reasonable assumption that the 300 pound wheel hub from a 757 landing gear, the landing gear axle itself from a Boeing 757 which looks like it may way over 100 pounds, the tires from a Boeing 757 which look like they too are quiet hefty were all planted by people running around inside the Pentagon or were put there prior to the attack on spec that the plane would hit there?

Call me when you get back from Fantasy Island; in the mean time say hello to Tattoo for me.

you think it not possible for covert ops to stage such an event..and a few props ?
but have no problem believing bin laden and a handful of cohorts could not be stopped by u.s intelligence or intercepted by NORAD and that 3 buildings disintegrated and fell in secs
and that bin laden and his merry men have averted all the international and U.S intelligence for the last 8 years

Okay, what does the evidence found at the scene suggest to you? Space Goats

?

ya that's right the next alternative must be spacegoats..you dumb ****

So there is nothing that can be proven to you without surveillance footage? You're what defense attorneys call a "walking orgasm". You're neck and neck with Terral and Eots for dumbest person ever.

I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.

we are not the defence we are the prosecution and the perpetrators are withholding evidence...so cornhole you are saying your entire case rest on your the states ability to withhold evidence

 

[eots]

Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career.

Article 8/19/05: Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile." Jeff Rense Program


Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Unfortunately, I missed this post previously.

Sure, what you consider facts are inadequate. According to the photographs present, there is NOT substantial evidence to conclude that a commercial jet airliner crashed anywhere near the pentagon. Grant it, the photographs show evidence, but insufficient to establish beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that it was IN FACT a commercial jet airliner.

So you feel it is a reasonable assumption that the 300 pound wheel hub from a 757 landing gear, the landing gear axle itself from a Boeing 757 which looks like it may way over 100 pounds, the tires from a Boeing 757 which look like they too are quiet hefty were all planted by people running around inside the Pentagon or were put there prior to the attack on spec that the plane would hit there?

Call me when you get back from Fantasy Island; in the mean time say hello to Tattoo for me.

However, I do NOT presume to know what DID hit the pentagon, but I do KNOW it was NOT a commercial jet airliner. IF it was a commercial jet airliner, then the evidence at hand does NOT support that conclusion.

Okay, what does the evidence found at the scene suggest to you? Space Goats?

To conclude, if the evidence that you claim to have presented as fact is NOT the surveillance videos that the Federal Bureau of Investigation are withholding, then that said evidence must be rejected pending the release of those videos. Then the surveillance videos must ALL show conclusively without doubt a commercial jet airliner crashing into the pentagon.

So there is nothing that can be proven to you without surveillance footage? You're what defense attorneys call a "walking orgasm". You're neck and neck with Terral and Eots for dumbest person ever.

I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.

First of all, I do NOT speculate. I make LOGICAL inferences off the available evidence (premises).

According to YOUR evidence, just ONE wheel hub out of TEN virtually indestructible wheels from the technologically advanced Boeing 757 commercial jet airliner landing gear system. There should have been at least three wheel hubs at the alleged crash site. Just ONE landing gear axel out three virtually indestructible landing gear axels. Just ONE PIECE of two SIX TON Rolls Royce jet engines. Now, one ton is approximately two 2000 pounds. Multiply by six and you get roughly 12000 pounds of mostly titanium. 12000 pounds of mostly titanium traveling at more than two thirds the speed of sound (530 miles per hour) or (236.93 meters per second). Speed of sound is approximately 340.29 meters per second. So, two of these mammoth engines (projectiles) reduced to practically nothing?

What is your experience in Physics?

The pentagon is hollow, not solid. By virtue of Physics, how thick do the walls (concrete) have to be to stop such a force (titanium) moving at such a velocity?

It can be inferred, based on the Physics alone, IMPOSSIBLE for the hollow concrete pentagon, to absorb the entire 100 tons (200,000 pounds) of commercial jet moving more that two thirds the speed of sound. Leaving a single puncture hole, and the majority of the 200,000 pound commercial jet reduced to practically dust or a few thousand (estimated: 10,000) pounds, IMPOSSIBLE. That is a reduction of 95%.

What happened to NINE and a half wheels of the virtually indestructible landing gear system?

Furthermore, where is the rest of the evidence that you claim is sufficient?

Something definitely did hit the pentagon. I do NOT know what hit the pentagon. But it was not enough physical evidence to even begin to THINK it was a 200,000 pound commercial jet airliner.

SO AGAIN, it can be LOGICALLY inferred that NO commercial jet airliner crashed anywhere near the pentagon.

 

[Terral]

Hi Joe:

There were points made and conclusions drawn with an effort to establish proof that there was a commercial jet airliner to crash into the pentagon. Instead of rejecting the conclusions drawn, I was making an attempt to allow those drawing the said conclusions to provide support for there claims . . . But as you well know, a poor Man's wisdom is despised, and his words are NOT heard.

Hey Joe: Your mouth is moving, but Joe is not saying anything. Nobody has EVER produced a single picture of Flight 93 (my Topic) nor Flight 77 (this Topic) crashed ANYWHERE. Period. Nobody can produce ANY evidence that either of these flights crashed in the empty field and at the Pentagon, because nothing like that ever happened on 9/11 nor any other day. You are surrounded on every side by Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES:

These are reasons #7 and #8 that the USA 'is' worthy of utter destruction (my Topic), which these digbats confused: ) certify every damned day by their loyalty to Official Cover Story LIES.

It is what it is . . .

Terral

 

[Trojan]

Nobody can produce ANY evidence that either of these flights crashed in the empty field and at the Pentagon, because nothing like that ever happened on 9/11 nor any other day.

Just curious as to what theory of law do you think excludes witnesses? Because to claim their is no evidence is to claim there are no witnesses that contradict your conclusions. Therefore your statement is false.

Unless you can show witnesses are not considered evidence -- and to my knowledge every legal proceeding allows for the introduction of witness evidence.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Nobody can produce ANY evidence that either of these flights crashed in the empty field and at the Pentagon, because nothing like that ever happened on 9/11 nor any other day.

Just curious as to what theory of law do you think excludes witnesses? Because to claim their is no evidence is to claim there are no witnesses that contradict your conclusions. Therefore your statement is false.

Unless you can show witnesses are not considered evidence -- and to my knowledge every legal proceeding allows for the introduction of witness evidence.

Would you have liked to use inductive argument terminology?

Your conclusion should have been, Therefore your statement is PROBABLY false. Because that does not rule out the possibility that the statement is probably true. Just because a WITNESS contradicts a statement does NOT mean the statement is always false.

 

[Trojan]

Nobody can produce ANY evidence that either of these flights crashed in the empty field and at the Pentagon, because nothing like that ever happened on 9/11 nor any other day.

Just curious as to what theory of law do you think excludes witnesses? Because to claim their is no evidence is to claim there are no witnesses that contradict your conclusions. Therefore your statement is false.

Unless you can show witnesses are not considered evidence -- and to my knowledge every legal proceeding allows for the introduction of witness evidence.

Would you have liked to use inductive argument terminology?

Your conclusion should have been, Therefore your statement is PROBABLY false. Because that does not rule out the possibility that the statement is probably true. Just because a WITNESS contradicts a statement does NOT mean the statement is always false.

That would be true if the witness statements were not known. The poster makes an absolute unequivocal statement -- all evidence. Since there are witness statements to the contrary, and witness statements are evidence, his conclusion is false.

 

[kyzr]

As for evidence, they also have the plane remnants, the passenger remains, the security camera video of the crash, and eye-witness accounts. To dispute the obvious is nonsense.