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.
That's what a "truther" means; current evidence doesn't give "the truth" so additional evidence (that supports the desired different conclusion, or "the truth" in the view of many seeking the additional evidence) is desired.
It's the behaviour that defines the term, not a specific belief. Because there is no common belief as to what happened among truthers. There are as many ideas as there are individuals it seems, and trying to get a truther to actually say what they think happened can be like pulling teeth sometimes... "I don't know what happened, I'm just asking these questions..."
That's one of the core behaviours; to find unanswered questions and use their own incredulity and the incredulity of others to support a disbelief, not to come to a conclusion based on evidence and form a belief from that.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
So to recap, if 'you guys' had a few videos of the plane hitting the pentagon it would clear up any misgivings you have about the event, so therefore you must have no misgivings about the attacks on WTC 1 and 2 with the subsequent destruction as that is all very clearly captured on thousands of hours of video with nothing on those videos that contradicts the official story.
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.
Commercial airliners are not designed to be used as dive bombers, their controls first lock up and make the plane impossible to control over a certain speed and then wings would rip off.
I assume the hijackers had enough sense to look this up, probably tested the various approachs on microsoft flight sims and realised that the slow approach gave them a chance to make last minute adjustments and actually hit the building, not the car park 40 feet off or the like (although even then he apparently missed the building and hit the grass in front then skipped in).
So to recap, if 'you guys' had a few videos of the plane hitting the pentagon it would clear up any misgivings you have about the event, so therefore you must have no misgivings about the attacks on WTC 1 and 2 with the subsequent destruction as that is all very clearly captured on thousands of hours of video with nothing on those videos that contradicts the official story.
So you believe a group of Saudi nutters attacked New York in hijacked planes but think that it is possible that about half an hour later the CIA or someone else shot a missile into the Pentagon totally seperatly from the New York attacks, talk about lucky timing, the spooks must have gobsmacked when they found out what was going on in New York and realised it would help cover up their attack!
So you believe a group of Saudi nutters attacked New York in hijacked planes but think that it is possible that about half an hour later the CIA or someone else shot a missile into the Pentagon totally seperatly from the New York attacks, talk about lucky timing, the spooks must have gobsmacked when they found out what was going on in New York and realised it would help cover up their attack!
No I don't think that's possible. I know a plane hit it. I think most of us here believe a plane hit it. I just want to see video of the actual plane if it exists. I would like to see with my own eyes. Helps the credibility along. I think most would agree with that. That's all that's being asked. I personally think there's footage that exists, but I'm just a civilian and who knows if I'm right.
Are you having fun though playing the slick journalist dying for a tidbit so you can call us 'truthers'?
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
No I don't think that's possible. I know a plane hit it. I think most of us here believe a plane hit it. I just want to see video of the actual plane if it exists. I would like to see with my own eyes. Helps the credibility along. I think most would agree with that. That's all that's being asked. I personally think there's footage that exists, but I'm just a civilian and who knows if I'm right.
Wasn't there footage released ~2 years ago that shows the plane hitting the Pentagon? I know the footage was a low frame rate so the plane is visible for only a couple of frames, but it seemed to be clear to me.
Wasn't there footage released ~2 years ago that shows the plane hitting the Pentagon? I know the footage was a low frame rate so the plane is visible for only a couple of frames, but it seemed to be clear to me.
If there is, I would love to see that. Do you know where the footage is from?
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
A Youtube search isn't finding it. All I'm getting are the CT's videos of the original footage that was released; which I have to admit is very inconclusive on its own.
I'll have to keep looking- I know I saw one that looked more like a plane than anything else. Meaning- it looked a lot more like a plane than a missile.
No I don't think that's possible. I know a plane hit it. I think most of us here believe a plane hit it. I just want to see video of the actual plane if it exists. I would like to see with my own eyes. Helps the credibility along. I think most would agree with that. That's all that's being asked. I personally think there's footage that exists, but I'm just a civilian and who knows if I'm right.
Are you having fun though playing the slick journalist dying for a tidbit so you can call us 'truthers'?
No, I am trying to understand what your logic is, and to be honest I see little logic to any of the arguements that have been presented for any of these issues. It seems utterly plausable to me that a plane flying over a cemetary, a freeway and a vast car park wouldn't be filmed by anything much, I think it is lucky we got the minimal film we did from the one camera, having worked in correctional settings I can see no reason to have any cameras outside the building at all.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 09-14-2011 at 10:14 AM.
No I don't think that's possible. I know a plane hit it. I think most of us here believe a plane hit it. I just want to see video of the actual plane if it exists. I would like to see with my own eyes. Helps the credibility along. I think most would agree with that. That's all that's being asked. I personally think there's footage that exists, but I'm just a civilian and who knows if I'm right.
Are you having fun though playing the slick journalist dying for a tidbit so you can call us 'truthers'?
Honestly what's the point? That footage will appear and all we'll hear is that it's been doctored. There's no winning with a certain small percentage of the population. The bar will always be moved.
Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree, chaps. I think the incessant name-calling by an obvious group of people who can't stand people challenging the commonly accepted norms has really put an end to this thread.
However, if any of the aforementioned want to forward me video evidence if you know where it is, I'll gladly watch it. Ken0042, send me a private link to the video if you can find it. I appreciate you being the most cordial of the bunch.
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...
so, your thoughts and beliefs are confirmed by people you respect, hence your stance on 9/11.
but, people who don't buy the 'official' 9/11 story, who's thoughts and beliefs align closely with people's opinions they respect, are incapable of logical thought?
maybe i'm missing something fundamental here, where you get to sit on your high horse and degrade people who don't agree with you.
Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree, chaps. I think the incessant name-calling by an obvious group of people who can't stand people challenging the commonly accepted norms has really put an end to this thread.
However, if any of the aforementioned want to forward me video evidence if you know where it is, I'll gladly watch it. Ken0042, send me a private link to the video if you can find it. I appreciate you being the most cordial of the bunch.
here is a picture of an airplane part in front of the pentagon
so, your thoughts and beliefs are confirmed by people you respect, hence your stance on 9/11.
but, people who don't buy the 'official' 9/11 story, who's thoughts and beliefs align closely with people's opinions they respect, are incapable of logical thought?
maybe i'm missing something fundamental here, where you get to sit on your high horse and degrade people who don't agree with you.
You misunderstand - I'm talking about my thoughts and beliefs about truthers, not the events of 9/11. And, yes, they are incapable of logical thought, as that concept has been historically defined.
You misunderstand - I'm talking about my thoughts and beliefs about truthers, not the events of 9/11. And, yes, they are incapable of logical thought, as that concept has been historically defined.
"....after a thorough review of the available evidence." clearly you must be talking of the evidence surrounding 9/11. if i'm wrong, what evidence surrounding 'truthers' are you referring to?
i'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you and many others in this thread watch a lot of mainstream television, which is probably more responsible for the way you think about major world events than actual critical thinking and your own judgement.
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.
Try getting any security film of any cameras around the Whitehouse or capitol hill... Good luck
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
"....after a thorough review of the available evidence." clearly you must be talking of the evidence surrounding 9/11. if i'm wrong, what evidence surrounding 'truthers' are you referring to?
i'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you and many others in this thread watch a lot of mainstream television, which is probably more responsible for the way you think about major world events than actual critical thinking and your own judgement.
The "available evidence" is the arguments by truthers I have seen in this thread and others like it...
And you would be wrong - I do not watch TV, aside from hockey, soccer, poker and travel shows.
