RSSSpeaking of eyewitness evidence, how do you explain all the accounts listed on this webpage:
Nope. No airplane hit the Pentagon. The non-faked video evidence and eye-witness evidence is clear.
Replies: @NoseytheDuke, @PubliusMN
Below are excerpts from Pentagon eyewitness accounts. The highlighted accounts include a link to a page which contains an unsolicited phone call from Jeffrey Hill to the eyewitness in which he asks what they saw on 9/11. These people do not talk about hypotheticals based on the size of the hole in the Pentagon or the lack of aircraft debris, they relate what they saw on 9/11.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
And other eye-witnesses didn’t see a plane.
Which eye-witnesses are valid?
To you, only evidence or witnesses that confirm the story you supposedly believe are valid.
I no longer believe you are a real commentator in the sense of a person who actually engages in dialog. You are a perseverating disinfo agent of some kind.
You simply never concede a point.
Jonathan’s list of methods that people like you use was brilliant. I always saw through it intuitively, but he really made it into a concise description.
You set the bar impossibly high for everyone who doubts the official story.
You set the bar absurdly low for yourself.
It’s trivially easy to bribe people to give false testimony in regular court cases, let alone Deep State events.
Besides, Prof. James Fetzer and Dennis Cimino provide devastating and comprehensive evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon:

Ok, you don't trust eyewitness testimony. I referenced it only because you relied on it in the first place.
It’s trivially easy to bribe people to give false testimony in regular court cases, let alone Deep State events.
Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the following claims about the debris from the crash:
1. There was no aircraft debris.
2. There was insufficient aircraft debris for a jetliner crash.
3. There was an absence of aircraft wreckage that should have survived a jetliner crash, such as pieces of wings and tail.
4. The absence of signs of bodies, seats, and luggage in photographs of the crash site prove that the attack plane wasn't Flight 77.
Claim 1 is disproved by numerous post-attack photographs of the Pentagon.
Claim 2 is based on the unfounded assumptions that the quantities of debris can be established from public evidence.
Claim 3 is invalidated by a review of the debris fields of any number of jetliner crashes.
Claim 4 supposes that bodies, seats, and luggage should have survived in easily recognized forms, and that they would have ended up in places that were photographed. However, the impact holes would have admitted an entire fuselage of 757 into the building, and there is no complete photographic record of the interior wreckage available to the public.
Click on the following link for more details:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/
well Geo, perhaps because the "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
Why not call for an independent inquiry on the basis of the hard evidence that was presented in a 4 part series by Carl Cameron of Fox News and the video of the Dancing Israelis
:
Great comment. You need to write essays yourself. Perhaps you do.
I think the record is clear that you think that all 3 bldgs were brought down by CD on 9/11, right? Given that 3 out of the 4 airplanes struck their intended targets, most assume the intended target of flight 93 was bldg 7. I think Rurik is on record suggesting so. So here's my question: why would the planners use a top-down approach with the Twin Towers so as to not make it appear that it was a CD, but use a bottom-up approach with bldg 7, which would give things away? I mean why didn't they strategically plant and detonate the explosives beneath this bldg's predetermined impact zone. An speaking of impact zones, how did the planners know which floors the airplanes would impact? And if they could know this information, I guess this implies that they expected flight 93 to hit the first few floors of bldg 7, a very challenging endeavor given Manhattan's skyline.
The Twin Towers weren't conventional demolitions. They were "top down" demolitions, which are rare in the professional demolition industry. This was achieved by strategically planting and detonating explosives beneath each tower's predetermined impact zone. This was done to create the illusion that airliner impacts caused the towers to fall.
Building 7 was a classic demolition job -- bottom up -- the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko is qualified to give his professional opinion on.
Given that 3 out of the 4 airplanes struck their intended targets
Nope. No airplane hit the Pentagon. The non-faked video evidence and eye-witness evidence is clear.
Speaking of eyewitness evidence, how do you explain all the accounts listed on this webpage:
Nope. No airplane hit the Pentagon. The non-faked video evidence and eye-witness evidence is clear.
Replies: @NoseytheDuke, @PubliusMN
Below are excerpts from Pentagon eyewitness accounts. The highlighted accounts include a link to a page which contains an unsolicited phone call from Jeffrey Hill to the eyewitness in which he asks what they saw on 9/11. These people do not talk about hypotheticals based on the size of the hole in the Pentagon or the lack of aircraft debris, they relate what they saw on 9/11.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
No, Jonathan is right. You provide no evidence.
You are epistemologically crippled.
You give weight to theories because they are official or believed by the masses, when the entire point of the essay is to investigate why people do what you do.
Wow.
I’ve rarely encountered this level of stupidity in adults.
My 10 year old is more advanced than you by far.
That is not a theory which even begins to explain 9/11. I do believe you admit that later though.
Theory A, a.k.a. the theory that the orange actually is an orange, is that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. (I thought everybody knew that…)
Try proposing that theory. You will not be able to as it is absurd. You can neither explain the mechanism nor the motive for it.
But, in any case, the alternative theory to “blowback”, theory A, is that these are Deep State false flag operations. That is what 9/11, 7/7, and these recent events in Paris and Brussels pretty much certainly are.
This is pure sophism and it ends up in the solipsistic dead-end of 'I can only know myself.' All theories are imperfect therefore if perfection is your standard you will have no theories on anything, which means you believe nothing. That is stupid. To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.Replies: @PubliusMN
First of all, your basic argumentation is fallacious. My rejecting a given theory as false does not imply any obligation on my part to provide an alternative theory
This is pure sophism and it ends up in the solipsistic dead-end of ‘I can only know myself.’ All theories are imperfect therefore if perfection is your standard you will have no theories on anything, which means you believe nothing. That is stupid. To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.
Pure B.S.
Being able to reject a theory based on it’s absurdity, statistical improbability, or nonsensical nature is a key element of all knowledge.
Calling it “sophism” is, well, sophism.
Jonathan has never required “perfection” for a theory or explanation. It is actually the official accounts that require perfection, or rather, a perfect, unlikely sequence of events. And that is where the official explanation is simply impossible according to the laws of physics, engineering, or thermodynamics.
The laws of nature trump the psychological comfort derived from the so-called “normal” theory that you laud.
There is no reason to preference something called a “normal” theory. The word normal is completely meaninglessness in the way you use it, other than as a synonym for “conforms to mass opinion.” But as we all know, appealing to the opinion of the majority is a well-known informal fallacy.
This is truly a brilliant and fun essay. The best kind: insight, truth and bite.