What is your exact opinion!

It was hit by AA77. The preponderance of the evidence points to this, notwithstanding a few people who filed differing accounts.

rossgs,

please do not speak for our organization, thank you.

CrossDress,

Bottom line, we do not know what hit the pentagon, if anything, and neither does rossgs or anyone else. That is what we are trying to find out. So far, the information US Govt agencies have provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) does not support the govt story of AA77 impact with the pentagon. See our research in the pinned topics. These same US Govt agencies refuse to comment regarding the conflicts. They also give unlawful excuse in refusing to provide anything through FOIA that can establish positive identification. AA77 has never been positively identified. We are still trying to figure out what happened at the pentagon. We hit many brick walls in our research. The information we do uncover through official channels, does not support the govt story.

It also may help to review our mission statement on top of our home page at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Pay close attention to the underlined sentence...

Regards,
Rob

Opinions are a dime a dozen -- hell, they aren't even worth that. You ask anyone's opinion about anything and what you'll get 9.99% of the time is some pre-packaged sound bite someone heard on the TV or radio.

What has a bit more value is an informed opinion. I give these slightly more weight because at least in this instance (we hope) the person spouting the opinion has at least taken the time to look at information and evaluate it against their expertise, knowledge, training and experience. Still, you know how it goes, ask ten experts and expect ten different opinions. This is because people look at things differently depending upon their backgrounds and a whole host of influences of which the person may or may not even be conscious. Still, we look to 'experts' to tell us what to do, what to think, how to understand -- and this, to a degree, is necessary.

However, what is really needed is for people to inform themselves. You have to read, look at different sources, investigate for yourself.

In this instance, Pilots for 9/11 Truth went right to the 'horse's mouth' so to speak. The US GOVERNMENT says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Ok. Now a lot of people have looked at pictures of the scene and have been astounded because they find no obvious evidence of that SPECIFIC plane. Yeah, maybe something hit, but was it Flight 77? If so, what SPECIFIC evidence does the government have, besides their 'say so' that Fllight 77 caused the damage? One would think this would be easy enough. Planes can be positively identified from parts, for example. We can have positive visual identification, etc. However, in this instance, the government offers NOTHING of this type to identify that AA Flt 77 caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Instead, what they offer is a few seconds of very bad video which doesn't give us any clear detail on the one hand and flight data recorder data which does not support their own claim on the other.

Now, why would the government do this?

Don't ask us to speculate -- ask the government. Call the NTSB, the FBI, ask them -- "what's up with that?" See what kind of reaction you get.

You don't need an "opinion." What you need is the ability to ask questions and demand answers from those government employees whose job it is to provide them. Once provided (as in this instance) you don't just "accept" it at 'face value'. You analyze it. You cross examine it. If it doesn't make any sense -- and in this case it clearly doesn't -- you go back and say WOAH, what's up? Note their responses.

You see? They just want you to accept THEIR theory without question. After all, they GOVERN you right? Who are you to question THEM? Right?

Well said painter...

Rob

The way I read that email was that it was intended for members of this forum and not a request for an "official" PFT response. I am a member of this forum, and so I replied giving my view and a short explanation for that view. I wouldn't dream of speaking for your organization and I did not do so.

In my 12 years of using the internet - usegroups, forums, etc. the etiquette has always been the same - polite disagreement is encouraged. That is the American way.

Please let me know what rule I'm violating when I state that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of flight 77 having been what hit the Pentagon. If you want to debate the evidence I'd love the opportunity to do so. However, I want to be clear that this is my view and not that of PFT for the record.

Rgrds-Ross

rossgs,

Thanks for your reply. If you were in violation of a forum rule, your warning meter under your user ID would have risen. It hasnt. Unlike what others have told you (and as i have explained to you via PM), we do not ban members for "disagreements".

Next, although you may be a member of this forum, you are not a member of "PFNT" as the OP implies. Do you understand that the intent of the original question was directed at the organization? If i go to a forum known for spin, obfuscation and complete loyalty of anything the govt tells them, can i take any one members' reply as valid when i ask for the opinion of the originating organization?

Try not to spin too much. You know exactly the intent of the original question and you knew exactly what you were doing in replying the way you did. Also, please read the sentence at the very top of this forum. Its in bold. (more directed to the OP, however, i have a feeling english is a second language to the OP). Many here are very familiar with the sleazy tactics of the govt loyalist. What you did was borderline sleazy and now you're trying to backpedal.

Finally, if you are willing to provide aircraft maintenance logs and part numbers reportedly found at the pentagon, that would be a major help in starting to establish positive ID as the US Govt has given unlawful excuse refusing to provide such information, while refusing to comment regarding the conflicts with the govt story in what they claim is the FDR information from AA77. Anytime you would like to debate the information, you are more than welcome to start your own debate thread in our debate forum as outlined in our forum rules. Im actually surprised you havent started one already and rather choose to post your arguments in this forum section, which is in fact in violation of forums rules. Let me know if you need a link to find your way..

Also keep in mind, "preponderance of evidence" is only good for a civil trial. This is criminal. It needs to be "beyond reasonable doubt", which it is far from... I also beg to differ "preponderance of evidence" as do many aviation professionals, Aircraft Accident Investigators, and FDR Experts who are members of "PFNT".

Thanks again for your input...

1. The government has simply stated, as far as I can tell, that FOIA requests for aircraft parts will continue to be denied until the FBI has finished investigating this matter. There is an explicit exemption to the FOIA on these grounds. Personally, I think that they should release the information, but I don't really follow your "unlawful argument". Perhaps you'd care to comment on that.

Here's a url which explains the exemption:
http://www.osec.doc.gov/omo/FOIA/exemptions.htm.

2. Actually I didn't think that the original poster was asking YOU or anyone specific at PFT about what you thought. He simply asked for views and I gave one. I wasn't being cute, just responding as a member of the forum. Never claimed to be official.

3. As I've mentioned to you before, the time change parts argument isn't really probative of the matter. If there's a cover-up, then showing a few parts which match to aircraft records or changing data bases to match what was found is not very difficult when compared to fooling hundreds of first responders, for example.

4. Of course I don't have any records, but all "you" seem to have is one specific loose end that you want taken care of. This doesn't change the fact that most of the evidence points to AA77 as the culprit here. For example, the hundreds of people who saw a commercial airliner headed toward the Pentagon or the DNA matches to the people known to be on board.

5. I'm curious as to how "pilots" would be experts in structural engineering or anything directly related to the question of how much damage an aircraft would cause and under what circumstances.

Finally, what's "criminal"? I wasn't discussing trials, just the weight of the evidence. However, since you mention it, the Moussaoui trial convicted him of being part of a conspiracy which included the Pentagon incident. Apparently at least one jury was convinced that the evidence went beyond reasonable doubt.

An investigation is ongoing? I thought they already had their man. Isnt that why our soldiers and innocent civilians are dying overseas at alarming rates?



Aidan Monaghan is the primary person who has requested this information. A govt watchdog organization (i forget the name, but its not Judicial Watch) he has contacted has said the excuse the govt used to not provide information was unlawful and will pursue the issue under legal grounds if the govt continues to stonewall. Aidan has the details. I'll make him aware of this thread. However, with that said, the FBI/NTSB can release FDR data which they claim is from AA77, does not support the govt story, but withold the part numbers due to "ongoing investigation"? When do you raise your BS flag rossgs?



The title of this thread specifically references "PFNT". Sorry you missed it. You are not a member of "PFNT".



You mean these First Responders and Family Members/Victims? CIT has more, including written letters. Let me know if you would like more.

Time change parts would be a good start in trying to establish positive ID (as i have explained to you before when you brought up the argument, is your memory failing rossgs? This is the second time i had to remind you of something we spoke of). If you choose to accept anything you find on the net and what the govt tells you as gospel, you are certainly entitled. We are more skeptical of a govt known for lies and corruption.




The people who saw an airliner approach the pentagon do not provide positive ID. Unless of course you believe the Flight number was painted on the side of the aircraft. DNA chain of custody is in question. As is the FDR. It appears you need to do more research on the "witnesses". Start with the pinned topics in the pentagon section.




Who is talking about structures here? We are talking about what happened at the pentagon, not the WTC collapse. Pay attention. Specifically the FDR information provided by the US govt which does not support their theory. Did i mention they refuse to comment? Regardless of what you "believe", even if AA77 hit the pentagon, that means the FDR is flawed. If the FDR is flawed, this is a flight safety issue of the highest order. This doesnt seem to bother you too much.. why is that?



What happened on 9/11 was a criminal act, therefore it needs evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict (unlike weak "preponderance" as you claim). We didnt even have a trial. Our govt sent our boys over to die trying to "smoke him out" without so much as having OBL listed as a suspect for 9/11 due to "No Hard Evidence" It appears you also need to do more research on the Moussaoui trial instead of once again listening to what Fox News tells you.



Now you will receive your warning for not following Forum Rules. Please review them.

Note date, time of above posts...

rossgs, your spin is so unbecoming...

I notice you havent been around in awhile since the above bottom quote and changed your tune today... Did they have to send you back for another training event over the past month? I think you may need another...

This, to me, is the core of the matter.

rossgs apparently has no questions regarding the events of 9/11. The official explanation satisfies him to the point where he can espouse talking points as though they are verified facts. Did "hundreds" of witnesses see a "commercial airliner" heading toward the Pentagon? Did they all see the same thing and describe it the same way when interviewed by reporters or investigators? Could any ONE of them positively identify the aircraft as AA Flt 77? Not that they ASSUME it was because that is what they were told, but give a positive visual identification of the craft?

It is quite amazing how we are supposed to believe, on one hand, that Flight 77 essentially "vaporized" upon impact leaving virtually no trace of itself. No photographic evidence of hundreds of passenger seats or luggage, for example. Simultaneously we are to accept that there were sufficient human remains to identify most all the passengers. That the FDR data allegedly from Flt 77 ends one second before impact and, moreover, indicates heading and altitude at variance with the damage path out side of and into the Pentagon. We've not talked about the size of the entry hole or the lack of damage on the lawn or the curious fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't speak English or fly very well yet allegedly carried off a very tight and difficult (not to mention time wasting) maneuver. None of this, apparently, triggers a "say what?" moment for rossgs. He's just fine with all that.

And we haven't even gotten to the anomalies at the WTC or Shanksville.

So, regardless of how polite and rational he may seem, what are we to make of rossgs' critical thinking skills?

I always find it odd that these people call themselves "skeptics" or "critical thinkers", yet when anything comes along which seems to support the govt story, or if any govt official/document supports the govt story, critical thinking skills are most certainly checked at the door.

Also, a witness could never positively ID a flight number. They perhaps can ID type, but thats all over the board as well. The only witness there who perhaps had training in visual aircraft ID was Marine Aviator Terry Morin, and he ID'ed the plane as a 737. Pilots, especially military pilots trained in visual identification, do not mistake a 757 for a 737. Thats like mistaking a Ford truck with a Chevy Camaro. He also describes the sound as "absolutely deafening". RB211's, the type of engines reported, are actually relatively quiet at full power since they are large turbofans (pilots will appreciate this). However, the 737-200 is screaming loud with "straight pipes". Its unfortunate Terry Morin is not able to be contacted.

Precisely the point.

It doesn't matter whether an event is witnessed by one person or hundreds or thousands or millions. What matters is who controls the perception and whether or not the perception can be verified from multiple, preferably independent, sources.

Despite the "hundreds of witnesses," early reports on 9/11 were of an "explosion" at the Pentagon. Those of us who were tuned in that day noticed and have not forgotten that although we were repeatedly shown footage of the alleged second WTC plane impact and the subsequent tower demolitions (called "collapses"), close-up live video feed from the Pentagon was delayed for some time. We weren't shown impact video (even though the DoD had it). We weren't shown the near pristine lawn (prior to gravel and heavy equipment) or the phalanx of government employees doing a shoulder-to-shoulder search for slightly larger than confetti-sized debris. We were, instead, eventually shown a smoky, smoldering ruin and TOLD what had happened.

Our perceptions of reality are the foundation upon which we base our decisions in life. Consequently who ever controls these perceptions controls us. The more accurate our perceptions are, the more sound our personal decisions will be. However, the further our perceptions deviate from factuality, the riskier life becomes for us precisely because our ability to make sound decisions is negatively effected. How can I create accurate threat assessments and appropriate responses, for example, when I can not tell for a certainty who is friend and who is foe?

All strategic counterintelligence operates along these lines. If I can convince you that accurate data is false, or, conversely, that inaccurate data is true, I win. From that point all I have to do is sustain this deception such that you will continue to base your decisions upon it. A good trap is not only one you do not see, it is one you don't even suspect.

1. The government has simply stated, as far as I can tell, that FOIA requests for aircraft parts will continue to be denied until the FBI has finished investigating this matter. There is an explicit exemption to the FOIA on these grounds. Personally, I think that they should release the information, but I don't really follow your "unlawful argument". Perhaps you'd care to comment on that.

Here's a url which explains the exemption:
http://www.osec.doc.gov/omo/FOIA/exemptions.htm.

2. Actually I didn't think that the original poster was asking YOU or anyone specific at PFT about what you thought. He simply asked for views and I gave one. I wasn't being cute, just responding as a member of the forum. Never claimed to be official.

3. As I've mentioned to you before, the time change parts argument isn't really probative of the matter. If there's a cover-up, then showing a few parts which match to aircraft records or changing data bases to match what was found is not very difficult when compared to fooling hundreds of first responders, for example.

4. Of course I don't have any records, but all "you" seem to have is one specific loose end that you want taken care of. This doesn't change the fact that most of the evidence points to AA77 as the culprit here. For example, the hundreds of people who saw a commercial airliner headed toward the Pentagon or the DNA matches to the people known to be on board.

5. I'm curious as to how "pilots" would be experts in structural engineering or anything directly related to the question of how much damage an aircraft would cause and under what circumstances.

Finally, what's "criminal"? I wasn't discussing trials, just the weight of the evidence. However, since you mention it, the Moussaoui trial convicted him of being part of a conspiracy which included the Pentagon incident. Apparently at least one jury was convinced that the evidence went beyond reasonable doubt.


rb edit to add:


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...post&p=10703386

Ross

OK, I'll bite. Let's pretend we're on a civil jury studying this matter. You are the foreman of the jury.

Please explain to me, another juror, how the preponderance of the evidence supports the official version. B)

Please do it in the debate forum.

rossgs says he would love the "opportinuty" to present his case, however, the opportunity has always existed. Dont know why he wasnt able to find the debate forum. Then again, i dont know why he repeated his post when it was thoroughly addressed on the first page...

(although, i think i know why.. )

I am going to Trash this Topic because the Topic Starter never returned.

Aye! Another spoiler.

Seem to have had a few of them these last few days.

CrossDressingNazi eh?

Wasn't a visit by Ann Coulter buy any chance?

LOL

I guess he is just a rabble-rouser. If he were serious, he would show up in Debate to make his case. Sounds like sophistry to me.

i can't believe he even posted anything again after seeing that............



nice one!