Your belief about September, 11th, 2001

[Muta]

So I'm assumed to be a truther because I'd like to see more evidence?

Why?

I know a plane has crashed into the Pentagon. There's pictures, first-hand eye witness testimonials and a three-frame video clip released by the Pentagon.

I'm simply wondering if there is more video footage, that is all.

Would some of you like more evidence from the disallowed goal in 2004? It won't change the result, but if there's more evidence I'd still be interested in seeing it.

THIS IS NO DIFFERENT.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

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.

The available evidence is a bunch of opinionated posters on a message board? That's hardly a thorough research task. And you were talking about available evidence to the facts behind 9/11, not what truthers were arguing. You're contradicting yourself.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Muta

So I'm assumed to be a truther because I'd like to see more evidence?

Not by my definition no.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The available evidence is a bunch of opinionated posters on a message board? That's hardly a thorough research task. And you were talking about available evidence to the facts behind 9/11, not what truthers were arguing. You're contradicting yourself.

i was just about to point that out to vlad......

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The available evidence is a bunch of opinionated posters on a message board? That's hardly a thorough research task. And you were talking about available evidence to the facts behind 9/11, not what truthers were arguing. You're contradicting yourself.

I am afraid you (and moncton) fail at reading...

[Ozy_Flame]

Vlad, this is the golden nugget of your argument:

The "available evidence" is the arguments by truthers I have seen in this thread and others like it...

This is hardly . . . HARDLY.. "thorough". And if I and other posters are wrong, then please correct us because I know it's not just two of us who are confused by your argument, which is becoming pretty spotty . . .

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Muta

So I'm assumed to be a truther because I'd like to see more evidence?

Why?

I know a plane has crashed into the Pentagon. There's pictures, first-hand eye witness testimonials and a three-frame video clip released by the Pentagon.

I'm simply wondering if there is more video footage, that is all.

Would some of you like more evidence from the disallowed goal in 2004? It won't change the result, but if there's more evidence I'd still be interested in seeing it.

THIS IS NO DIFFERENT.

A truther is anybody that asserts there is an alternate theory to the plainly obvious one.

There is not a signal schred fo evidence to support any alternate thoery to what happened on 9/11. Alternate theories rely entirely on out of context quotes and circumstantial evidence.

Were the world trade centre buildings insured? Yes. Doest that potentially create a motive for their destruction? Yes. Is there any evidence to show that they were purposely brought down? No.

The problem with your question is that you've set some ridiculous standard of proof, that is totally unatainable. You're then using that lack of evidence towards that standard as reason to speculate there is an alternate explanation besides the painfullly obvious one.

The simple truth of the matter is that in 2001 camera technology wasn't that great and filming the pentagon building was not an everday activity. After a plane hits the ground or a building at full speed there is very little discernable wreckage left. In incidents where planes have hit the ground in the past, there is normally just a blacked crater, random metal debris and potentially a few bits of wing and/or tail, which is exactly what the post-crash pentagon wrekcage shows.

The rest of the details have been fully explained.

What exactly do you think is out there? What exactly are you looking for?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

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.

What an absolute load of crap.

This 9/11 truther movement is no different than those loonies who think Obama was born in Kenya, or who think the moon landing never happened, or that fluoride is put in the water for mind control. They're the ones incapable of critical thought because they concoct fantastic scenarios to explain simple events and cannot be dissuaded regardless what evidence there is. In fact, the movement it reminds me most of is the creationists. They have their pet theory which has a predetermined conclusion and because they have little evidence to support their own opinions they spend time trying to poke holes in the prevailing theory and then think that their "theory" it's of equal validity compared to other theories simply because they shout the loudest.

The problem with creationism, the 9/11 truth movement, the birthers, the people who think the moon landing was a hoax, and whatever other conspiracy theories there are is that they cannot be falsified which is an absolute requirement of rational thought and the scientific method. If I was presented compelling evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon you're damned right I would consider it a possibility. If there was compelling evidence that the Bush administration planned 9/11 again, I wouldn't hesitate to give it serious weight if the evidence made sense. Minor holes in the official story don't count as compelling evidence though. They make me believe the government less, not believe some other notion that 9/11 was a new world order plot to take our civil liberties away.

However, conspiracy theorists are presented with mountains of evidence that contradicts their opinion but they continue to make fantastic leaps in logic to back up their untenable positions. The WTC towers fell in a similar fashion to a controlled demolition? Well, I guess they must have sneaked bombs into every floor and the 125,000 or so people that went in there day in and day out didn't notice. No clear footage of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? It must have been a missile!


There's nothing wrong with being suspicious of the government's motives or thinking they're hiding something because history has shown that they almost certainly are. However, to take the leap from a healthy skepticism to the fanaticism that makes up most conspiracy theorists is a long one and one that most rational people will not take. Suggesting that we're brainwashed by cable news because of that is both insulting and absurd.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Muta

So I'm assumed to be a truther because I'd like to see more evidence?

Why?

I know a plane has crashed into the Pentagon. There's pictures, first-hand eye witness testimonials and a three-frame video clip released by the Pentagon.

I'm simply wondering if there is more video footage, that is all.

Would some of you like more evidence from the disallowed goal in 2004? It won't change the result, but if there's more evidence I'd still be interested in seeing it.

THIS IS NO DIFFERENT.

I'd love to see more video evidence as well, however, like I've said before, it's unlikely that any more useful video exists.

Security Cameras around the building and across the street would have these limitations:

1. They are pointed down at the ground, not into the air or at the whole side of the building.
2. Low frame rate - makes it unlikely to have more than one frame with the plane on it.
3. the side of the pentagon is not where the security cameras would be aimed at. Pictures would be in just one small corner of the video.
4. Video quality is often poor in the first place. It takes a lot more hard drive/tape space to record higher resolution video. Also, high definition cameras were extremely rare in 2001, never mind security cameras. I would think that any security camera would have been shooting around 240 lines of resolution.

We are LUCKY to have the one video of the first plane hitting the WTC towers (and pretty good quality at that). At the speed the planes were going, if you didn't have a video camera in your hand ready to record, you weren't going to catch any footage of it. It's not like everyone had a video camera as part of their smartphone in 2001. Having bought a pretty good video camera around 2001, I can tell you that you had to spend at least as much money as I did ($3500 for the camera alone) to get any kind of decent video quality. And then at that, the plane was so low and coming so fast, that if I was close enough to notice the plane coming, I probably couldn't turn myself around fast enough to keep the plane in view for more than a second.

Again, it's unlikely that any more video exists of the plane hitting the pentagon. If there was, we likely would have seen it the day of the tragedy.

[Oy Tiggins]

Im sure there were many eye witnesses around the pentagon when the plane hit, has anyone ever come forward saying they saw anything other then a plate hit the building?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Muta

So I'm assumed to be a truther because I'd like to see more evidence?

Why?

I know a plane has crashed into the Pentagon. There's pictures, first-hand eye witness testimonials and a three-frame video clip released by the Pentagon.

I'm simply wondering if there is more video footage, that is all.

Did you even try to look? Hell, you can find it on the wikipedia page for the flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AA77

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Vlad, this is the golden nugget of your argument:

The "available evidence" is the arguments by truthers I have seen in this thread and others like it...

This is hardly . . . HARDLY.. "thorough". And if I and other posters are wrong, then please correct us because I know it's not just two of us who are confused by your argument, which is becoming pretty spotty . . .

What's spotty? I believe truthers are idiots and the "available evidence" are their posts in this thread which confirm that self-evident truth. What's hard to grasp? I'm not arguing about 9/11 itself because it's completely pointless to argue with people who are... incapable.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Oy Tiggins

Im sure there were many eye witnesses around the pentagon when the plane hit, has anyone ever come forward saying they saw anything other then a plate hit the building?

If it was a missile, like the "theory" says, you probably wouldn't really see it. They fly significantly faster than the speed of sound. If it were a missile, you probably wouldn't have any witnesses.

However, there are plenty of witnesses for a plane.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Did you even try to look? Hell, you can find it on the wikipedia page for the flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AA77

Had to look it up, but found the video in question. It does show a bit more (not as clear as I hoped - the plane is a thin white line), but happy to see there is better footage. I did not know this 2006 video was released.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If it was a missile, like the "theory" says, you probably wouldn't really see it. They fly significantly faster than the speed of sound. If it were a missile, you probably wouldn't have any witnesses.

However, there are plenty of witnesses for a plane.

If it was a missile, no one would see it barreling through central Arlington?

Sure.

[VladtheImpaler]

It was probably a stealth missile, fired from a satellite.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

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.

I'm no expert by any means on flying a plane, however I am going to guess its quite similar to when someone drives there car into the vehicle next to them instead of just going into the parking spot they planned on. Except at a MUCH higher speed. Whoops he missed.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

It was probably a stealth missile, fired from a satellite.

Or God's Invisible Finger.

[Oy Tiggins]

Of all the possible witnesses of the pentagon attack not one person has come forward saying they didn't see plane hit? To me that answers every question about what hit the building. Unless all witnesses were planted by the government and told to say for sure it was a plane ??????? get real truthers are reaching in a big way on this one

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

So I'm assumed to be a truther because I'd like to see more evidence?

Why?

I know a plane has crashed into the Pentagon. There's pictures, first-hand eye witness testimonials and a three-frame video clip released by the Pentagon.

I'm simply wondering if there is more video footage, that is all.

Would some of you like more evidence from the disallowed goal in 2004? It won't change the result, but if there's more evidence I'd still be interested in seeing it.

THIS IS NO DIFFERENT.

I don't think any of that would make you a truther. To me that label applies when someone refuses to accept something as truthful until they see x ,y & z regardless of mountains of other evidence. It's putting the emphasis on a certain element as if it is the only plausible explanation, and frequently shifting that emphasis onto new things in order to constantly be able to pretend that proof doesn't exist.