Your belief about September, 11th, 2001

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by getbak

I don't believe I've ever seen any footage of the first plane hitting. Sure, once the first tower was hit, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of cameras pointing at the WTC to capture the second impact, but that's because everyone was looking at the smoke pouring out of the first tower.

There is effectively one film of this taken, ironically, by some New York Firemen who were filming, I assume, some kind of training film (they were checking sewer openings or the like with some kind of sensor) on street level, the plane flew right over them and the camera man had the sense or luck to pan up as the plane hit, they had realised there was something very wrong with its flying height.

There are absoloutly no security camera films of either crash in New York because all those thousands of cameras are all pointed down at the ground a few meters in front of them, as they were in the Pentagon and everywhere else on gods sweet earth.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The footage at the gas station and the hotel? That's going to compromise national security? Both of these are public areas. You could probably stand where the gas station camera is and see the same thing. How is that compromising national security? I think your argument is reaching too much . . .

The only reasons they wouldn't release the video is if it compromised national security - that is, if there's something on there that is important or of value.

Oh, see I thought you were talking about footage that hadn't been released. My mistake.

Since you are complaining about the footage that has been released,I will assume that your blinders are firmly in place, so I will not bother you with silly things to disrupt them.

Have a nice day.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Muta

Having additional footage doesn`t benefit me; I believe Flight 77 hit that Pentagon. Releasing additional footage would sure make alot of other people more at ease, however... you know, the ones sitting on the fence about this incident. If anything, it would shut all the Truthers up and end this debate once and for all.

If there`s additional footage, and it is a matter of security to release that footage, then fine. Someone should come out and say that then. Atleast people would know footage exists, but they can`t show it for security reasons. Its all the government can do at that point.

If footage exists and it doesn`t compromise national security, however, I don`t see why it shouldn`t be released. I think people should have a right to know.

National Geographic showed government video of the commandos storming Bin Laden`s compound right before they killed him in May. That`s a matter of national security; why were those released to the public?

If you can't see how releasing footage of something that happened in a foreign country is different than releasing video that reveals exact coverage of security camera at the Pentagon is different as it relates to national security, then I probably can't say anything to change your mind.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Oh, see I thought you were talking about footage that hadn't been released. My mistake.

Since you are complaining about the footage that has been released,I will assume that your blinders are firmly in place, so I will not bother you with silly things to disrupt them.

Have a nice day.

Haha, love the condescending tone.

My cats breath smells like cat food.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Lack of video evidense is only relevant to the missile arguement, in fact it would have appeared to have spawned the missile arguement, but personally I cannot see an iota of common sense in the idea the Pentagon was hit by a missile on so many levels, not least of which is that the missile or plane actually impacted the ground slightly in front of the building and effectively skipped into it, something laser guided missiles dont do, but an amauter flown plane would likely do.

Why make such an elaborate downswing with a huge airliner to hit the building from the side when Hanjour could have just brought it down on top of the Pentagon? He surely could have created far more damage that way. It's like instead of stomping on an empty box to collapse it from the top, you kick lower half of the bottom side to try to achieve the same results, which is infinitely harder. I'll never get it.

[VladtheImpaler]

I continue to be stunned by the seemingly unlimited capacity for human stupidity... Read AFC's posts again, donkeys (I have to resort to the poker term here I think) - why the fata would there be security cameras pointed at the building facade or at the sky?!!! To catch Spiderman in case he wanted to buttsex Donald Rumsfeld? You know they have these things called radars that do a pretty good job of telling them what's going on in the sky? They don't need a fataing camera to scan for planes. Security cameras have only 1 purpose - to catch people stealing crap or doing other criminal crap (mugging, vandalism, trespassing, etc.). So, if you want to watch people where would you point your security camera? (1) sky (2) building wall (3) ground)? I would suggest (3) - I am willing to risk a random individual on a spider web sneaking by...
Morons.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If you can't see how releasing footage of something that happened in a foreign country is different than releasing video that reveals exact coverage of security camera at the Pentagon is different as it relates to national security, then I probably can't say anything to change your mind.

What a smarmy response. Did you even bother to ask of the details of the video National Geographic showed?

It was night vision footage showing elite commandos storming the compound after disembarking from a Black Hawk helicopter. Tactics were clearly shown, especially for an elite military squad which is rare. Not even sure why this type of footage should be released.

Ask more questions before spewing off. If you can't see the conflict of interest here, then I'm afraid you're one of those people that will believe everything they see and hear, no questions asked.

You should really try to question things more, get more perspective. More evidence of Flight 77 will never, ever be a bad thing.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I continue to be stunned by the seemingly unlimited capacity for human stupidity... Read AFC's posts again, donkeys (I have to resort to the poker term here I think) - why the fata would there be security cameras pointed at the building facade or at the sky?!!! To catch Spiderman in case he wanted to buttsex Donald Rumsfeld? You know they have these things called radars that do a pretty good job of telling them what's going on in the sky? They don't need a fataing camera to scan for planes. Security cameras have only 1 purpose - to catch people stealing crap or doing other criminal crap (mugging, vandalism, trespassing, etc.). So, if you want to watch people where would you point your security camera? (1) sky (2) building wall (3) ground)? I would suggest (3) - I am willing to risk a random individual on a spider web sneaking by...
Morons.

Holy christ Vlad, calm yourself.

Nothing wrong with assuming the most important military installation in the world has cameras recording 100% of the facility. That would not be a stretch to assume.

And despite your verbal attacks in your post (which are highly, highly immature), I will not resort to your level. Seriously man, grow up.

[ken0042]

****** General Warning *****************

The personal attacks need to stop- that means everybody.

If you cannot make your point without insults, don't post in the thread. Period.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Muta

Holy christ Vlad, calm yourself.

Nothing wrong with assuming the most important military installation in the world has cameras recording 100% of the facility. That would not be a stretch to assume.

And despite your verbal attacks in your post (which are highly, highly immature), I will not resort to your level. Seriously man, grow up.

No. I am tired of stupidity. Security cameras watch people. People are on the ground. Let me say this again - "truthers" are stupid. It's a simple, undeniable truth. I've had enough of pointless arguments.

[Ozy_Flame]

I like how the call for more evidence makes people 'truthers' in vlads book.

I think George Carlin kind of said it best:

"if I can see something with my own eyes, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know?"

Again, nothing wrong with asking for more evidence if it exists. But none of us will ever know.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

No. I am tired of stupidity. Security cameras watch people. People are on the ground. Let me say this again - "truthers" are stupid. It's a simple, undeniable truth. I've had enough of pointless arguments.

Yes, seriously - calm yourself. I'm not a truther, never have been, and I've made that abiundantly clear. I'm not even asking if just Pentagon cameras are being witheld; I'm talking about applicable video regardless of where it was taken.

Any type of video would be interesting to see of there's more available.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Yikes.

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

No. I am tired of stupidity. Security cameras watch people. People are on the ground. Let me say this again - "truthers" are stupid. It's a simple, undeniable truth. I've had enough of pointless arguments.

Undeniable because you say so vlad?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by robocop

Being able to form an opinion and regurgitate someone elses words that supports that opinion is easy, paying attention and actually considering the merits of another persons opinions requires a level of intelligence a lot of people don't have.

There are informed and uninformed opinions. Anyone who believes in ridiculous things is clinging to an uninformed opinion despite the opportunity to become informed. THIS is what moves people to tooth-rattling rage - not the inability to consider the "merits of another person's opinions", but confronting deliberate ignorance in the face of logic and evidence.

What's especially annoying is the insistence by these ignoramuses that they are the ones who see the truth and that everyone else is a gullible idiot. Skepticism is NOT the same as incredulity - a true skeptic can be convinced, whereas the incredulous are unable to change their minds because they don't have a real opinion to change, just a belief that a countervailing explanation of events is somehow wrong because they can't understand how it could be true.

The world could use a little more interpersonal intolerance of stupid opinions, in my view. Free speech is great, as long as that right to free speech also includes the right to openly mock and deride the arguments of those whose public discourse lacks all relevance and worth. The marketplace of ideas must not be ruled by those who shout their simple slogans the loudest.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

Undeniable because you say so vlad?

I reached that conclusion after a thorough review of the available evidence. Others, whose opinion and reasoning ability I respect, have reached the same conclusion. There is no point in arguing with people incapable of logical thought. So... might as well call a spade a spade...

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I reached that conclusion after a thorough review of the available evidence. Others, whose opinion and reasoning ability I respect, have reached the same conclusion. There is no point in arguing with people incapable of logical thought. So... might as well call a spade a spade...

Did you write a paper or thesis or something similar? I wouldn't mind reading it if you have.

[photon]

Exactly jammies.

As well, a great number of people in the "truther" movement exhibit the exact same patterns of fallacious reasoning when trying to support their beliefs.. in my opinion that's not "stupid" because that flawed reasoning is a human trait, a result of how our minds have evolved, and something every human is vulnerable to despite the level of education or IQ or whatever.

Since the discussion isn't about the actual event and rather about the people discussing it, has this thread run its course?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Muta

What a smarmy response. Did you even bother to ask of the details of the video National Geographic showed?

It was night vision footage showing elite commandos storming the compound after disembarking from a Black Hawk helicopter. Tactics were clearly shown, especially for an elite military squad which is rare. Not even sure why this type of footage should be released.

Ask more questions before spewing off. If you can't see the conflict of interest here, then I'm afraid you're one of those people that will believe everything they see and hear, no questions asked.

You should really try to question things more, get more perspective. More evidence of Flight 77 will never, ever be a bad thing.

I ask questions. For example, I do realize that there is a 95% chance there is more footage available of the plane. However, I also asked myself what further information, on top of what I already have, would any additional footage give me?

Lets see what the possibilities are, shall we?

1) It would confirm that it was a plane and not a missile, it also might confirm that it was Flight 77
2) It would confirm many other minor details, that really are not in dispute, such as time of impact, place of impact and the physical effects of the impact.

So using my logic, I can obviously discard the 3rd result as pointless. We pretty much know all this stuff without question. So lets focus on the other one.

1) If it was in fact a missile, then where did the plane and its passengers go?

Options involve:

- The plane and it's passengers didn't actually exist, so they never had to get rid of anything. I think with the number of civilians on the plane, the fact that the plane did previously fly commercial flights we can safely assume that this isn't really possible.
- The government taking it somewhere else, and somehow getting rid of the people on board and any existence of them and the plane. This is technically a possibility so we won't discard it yet.

You then need to consider what anyone would have to gain from doing this - ie shooting a missile at the Pentagon while executing people on the plane to cover it up. You might claim that it would be to further increase the American public's opinion towards one that would support invading the Middle East and/or enacting laws to suppress freedoms (ie Patriot Act). Unfortunately it really doesn't do that any more than the previous events of the day did - the Pentagon and United Flight 73 are a mere afterthought when compared to the destruction at the WTC.

So while I have asked questions, I have also put together some answers for myself, something that many people in this thread seem unwilling to do.

I have no doubt that many of the United States Military/Government/Intelligence personnel should have done a better job in anticipating and preventing the 9/11 attacks. I also have no doubt that there exists testimony from some individuals that is skewed to make themselves look less foolish in light of the events of the day. That's how people are sometimes, and we can't change that selfish behavior in 100% of the population. I also have no doubt that when considering the big picture, any of these minor 'cover ups' have little or no effect on the thing I care about most - which is that 2 planes were hijacked and flown into the WTC by terroists and 2 other planes were flown into the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by photon

Exactly jammies.

As well, a great number of people in the "truther" movement exhibit the exact same patterns of fallacious reasoning when trying to support their beliefs.. in my opinion that's not "stupid" because that flawed reasoning is a human trait, a result of how our minds have evolved, and something every human is vulnerable to despite the level of education or IQ or whatever.

Since the discussion isn't about the actual event and rather about the people discussing it, has this thread run its course?

What's with the continual reference to truthers in this thread?

Being interested in additional evidence does not make one a truther. I'm stunned some of you can't separate one from the other.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Muta

What's with the continual reference to truthers in this thread?

Being interested in additional evidence does not make one a truther. I'm stunned some of you can't separate one from the other.

Don't forget - if you question anything about the official story or evidence or facts of the event, you're a tin-hat wearing redneck conspiracy theorist with an IQ slightly lower than Carrot Top and probably somewhere around Forrest Gump.