Missile hitting the Pentagon: Please explain

[Undesired Walrus]

I know this has probably been asked many times before, but it's been bothering me recently. Why on earth would you fire a missile, in daylight, on a clear day, straight into the Pentagon, with the potential of hundreds of tourists filming the damn thing itself, only to pretend that it is an airliner, divert the real plane to a field in Alaska, run onto the Pentagon's lawn and sprinkle plane debris and DNA on the grass, saw down a few lamposts, put your foot through the window of a taxi cab, all in the view of thousands of people who will inexplicably say 'That was an airliner that was!'?

The idiocy of such a plan should be enough to debunk it on the spot, regardless of all the arguments about the size of the hole etc.

The only way I can see the conspirators justifying this baffling decision is their claim that: 'Well, nobody will think we are that stupid'.

[T.A.M.]

What I find even more stupid (I know, almost impossible), are those who espouse the theory that planes hit the two towers, but they used a missile for the Pentagon...

WHY???

TAM:)

[dtugg]

Do twoofers even argue anymore that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon?

[BigAl]

I know this has probably been asked many times before, but it's been bothering me recently. Why on earth would you fire a missile, in daylight, on a clear day, straight into the Pentagon, with the potential of hundreds of tourists filming the damn thing itself, only to pretend that it is an airliner, divert the real plane to a field in Alaska, run onto the Pentagon's lawn and sprinkle plane debris and DNA on the grass, saw down a few lamposts, put your foot through the window of a taxi cab, all in the view of thousands of people who will inexplicably say 'That was an airliner that was!'?

The idiocy of such a plan should be enough to debunk it on the spot, regardless of all the arguments about the size of the hole etc.

The only way I can see the conspirators justifying this baffling decision is their claim that: 'Well, nobody will think we are that stupid'.

It wouldn't be just one missile. The largest non-nuclear missiles top out at about 1,000 pounds for the explosive warhead. (The Russians may have modestly larger missiles intended to blow up aircraft carriers from ~200 miles but proposing that someone got one and it's launcher into the US is right up there with space beams in my book.)

Nit: Without disagreeing with your "why", there weren't lots of consumer video cameras around in 2001. By today's standards there were few still cameras too.

[atecom]

"Without disagreeing with your "why", there weren't lots of consumer video cameras around in 2001. By today's standards there were few still cameras too. "

It would still seem almost impossible to justify within the planners, there would be a lot of 'we have to do this then and hope that' in their plan. A conspiracy where someone on the inside, through a chain of organisations pays off Al Qaeda to do 9/11 seems feasible, but i'm not just gonna assume that's what happened since I have not seen any evidence of that.

[RedIbis]

There should be some kind of rule against purely rhetorical questions in an OP.

[Dave Rogers]

Ask yourself how you knew the question was purely rhetorical.

Dave

[RedIbis]

Ask yourself how you knew the question was purely rhetorical.

Dave

Because from my almost 4000 posts it's obvious to me that a thread such as this is merely looking for a fight. If anyone were silly enough to entertain the premise of the thread the pile on would be thick and funky.

Unpleasant indeed.

[Dave Rogers]

If anyone were silly enough to entertain the premise of the thread [...]

Which, I rather think, is the point the OP makes.

Dave

[BigAl]

The more honest posters will admit that if I'm asked a straightforward, sincere question, I answer as best as I can. It's the incessant badgering that follows that I tend to ignore.

Given how much evidence we have for the crash of Flight 93, your question about the EPA was anything but straightforward and sincere.

[Brainster]

I know this has probably been asked many times before, but it's been bothering me recently. Why on earth would you fire a missile, in daylight, on a clear day, straight into the Pentagon, with the potential of hundreds of tourists filming the damn thing itself, only to pretend that it is an airliner, divert the real plane to a field in Alaska, run onto the Pentagon's lawn and sprinkle plane debris and DNA on the grass, saw down a few lamposts, put your foot through the window of a taxi cab, all in the view of thousands of people who will inexplicably say 'That was an airliner that was!'?

The idiocy of such a plan should be enough to debunk it on the spot, regardless of all the arguments about the size of the hole etc.

The only way I can see the conspirators justifying this baffling decision is their claim that: 'Well, nobody will think we are that stupid'.

Of course there is no good reason for the "conspirators" to have done this. What there is, is a good reason for the conspiracy theorists to have claimed they did this. Why? Because the CTs poke at every part of the "official story", on the notion that if they can prove one thing wrong about the "OCT", they will have proven it entirely wrong. So one person focuses on the "evidence" for WTC controlled demolition, while another pokes into whether the hole at the Pentagon is big enough, while a third looks for evidence of a shoot-down at Shanksville.

So far everything is hunky-dory. But as the researchers begin to report back to each other is when the problems arise. Everybody is convinced of the strength of their case, while some have concerns about the weaknesses of the others' cases. Sometimes the criticism is on the lowest level: there is plenty of plane debris on the Pentagon lawn. Sometimes it's on the second level, as in the OP: Why would the conspirators not use a plane for the Pentagon? And sometimes it's on the third level: The public will never buy it, regardless of the evidence.

Most "responsible" "Truthers" have adopted #3 as their motto for both the Pentagon and the no plane theories at the WTC. I put responsible in scare quotes there because you'd be startled how many times a "Truther" will do a terrific debunking of the missile at the Pentagon only to conclude that "None of this means that I think Hani Hanjour flew AA77 into the Pentagon; in fact I consider remote control far more likely, but it's speculative."

[T.A.M.]

Not to encourage an off topic post, but I wasn't questioning the evidence for Flight 93, I was asking about soil analyses. It's a perfectly reasonable question for such an extraordinary series of events. If you disagree, chalk it up to a difference of opinion, don't take it so hard.

Yes and asking the question, in and of itself, is not an issue. However, what is your answer to the follow up...

Why do you feel alleged absence of fuel reminents in the soil is important to who carried out the 9/11 attacks, or how they did so? Be specific.

Now I am a relatively honest poster on this forum, so I suspect I can make comment on how directly you answer this question.

TAM:)

[Mangoose]

Is what is related in the OP really that far from what CIT hypothesizes in all seriousness? The main difference is that CIT claims that a combination of planted explosives in the building and a flyover of the airliner is what occurred rather than a missile. But they still have the perps faking a plane crash in broad daylight where anyone with a camera could unbeknownst to them expose the conspiracy, plant plane debris, fake the light pole toppling, fake the damage to England's taxi cab, fake the radar data, etc. etc. How is inquiring on the operational feasibility of plans like these "trolling"?

[BenBurch]

... Nit: Without disagreeing with your "why", there weren't lots of consumer video cameras around in 2001. By today's standards there were few still cameras too.

Well, now, cell phones all being cameras and many being video cameras, you might be right, but I had a digital camera on my keychain then, and they were not expensive. However a single snap from a half-decent FILM camera, such as you could buy in any 7-11 or circle-K right at checkout and which every trucker carried in case of accident, has a lot more information in it than any sort of videotape or digital camera can give you.

So the ability to get a CONVINCING photo might have been better then than now.

[Tricky]

Please stay on topic and stop bickering.

[alienentity]

I know this has probably been asked many times before, but it's been bothering me recently. Why on earth would you fire a missile, in daylight, on a clear day, straight into the Pentagon, with the potential of hundreds of tourists filming the damn thing itself, only to pretend that it is an airliner, divert the real plane to a field in Alaska, run onto the Pentagon's lawn and sprinkle plane debris and DNA on the grass, saw down a few lamposts, put your foot through the window of a taxi cab, all in the view of thousands of people who will inexplicably say 'That was an airliner that was!'?

The idiocy of such a plan should be enough to debunk it on the spot, regardless of all the arguments about the size of the hole etc.

The only way I can see the conspirators justifying this baffling decision is their claim that: 'Well, nobody will think we are that stupid'.


Spot on argument - the truther claims should, one would think, be self-debunking, so would normally be ideas briefly entertained then discarded as ridiculous. Apparently, truthers do not function this way.

It is strange that more and more, the leadership of the 'truth' mvmt is embracing 'no planes' anywhere - not at the pentagon, Shanksville or WTC 1 and 2!!! The 'missile' theory is not the only one - lately some kind of science-fiction 'hologram' technology is cited as the culprit. I don't have a comprehensive list of those who are 'no-planers' but I believe it includes Dr. Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Judy Wood.

File the 'no plane theory' under 'Strange but Untrue'.....:D

You might be interested in this recent thread regarding a study being done about people who tend to believe in conspiracy theories. It may not surprise you to learn that such people tend to believe in multiple conspiracy theories, or things paranormal.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743116#post4743116

[Undesired Walrus]

Is what is related in the OP really that far from what CIT hypothesizes in all seriousness? The main difference is that CIT claims that a combination of planted explosives in the building and a flyover of the airliner is what occurred rather than a missile. But they still have the perps faking a plane crash in broad daylight where anyone with a camera could unbeknownst to them expose the conspiracy, plant plane debris, fake the light pole toppling, fake the damage to England's taxi cab, fake the radar data, etc. etc. How is inquiring on the operational feasibility of plans like these "trolling"?

I've seen these long CIT threads, with the number of posts reaching the thousands, all about the evidence that a plane did not fly over the pentagon at the same time an explosion went off underneath it. I'm sometimes startled, as the premise is so utterly ludicrous I don't see why it is worth arguing against it. I mean, the entire concept of the flight path inexplicably being fabricated, with the plane flying straight over the Pentagon? It's just really, really funny.

Why would they do such a thing? What the hell would be the point in it? To see if they could pull off such an elaborate scheme?

It's like the towers. Why would you go to such lengths and destroy both towers? Weren't two planes dramatic enough? Imagine the image of two buildings standing over New York with huge gaping holes in the middle for several months.

[BenBurch]

UW- I have argued that ruined buildings would have been a bigger win for terrorists for just that reason. They might STILL be there given the bureaucratic screw up going on over the rebuilding.

[Undesired Walrus]

Imagine how that would have looked. I'm sure they could have boarded them up by now, but I don't think anything would have been done for them for at least a few months.

Imagine walking past them every day on your way to work, taunting you, reminding you of that horrific day in an ugly manner. You could even work it into a Bush speech justifying some war, here:

'In Manhattan, all residents, of all races and religions, political philosophies and creeds, must be reminded every day of that moment when evil punctured our proud buildings, and fractured our souls. That is why we must yada yada invade yada yada'

And if they had remained standing, I'm sure we would have conspiracists in here arguing 'Are you telling me that an airliner with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 500 MPH couldn't have knocked down those buildings? Conspiracy!'

[T.A.M.]

I've seen these long CIT threads, with the number of posts reaching the thousands, all about the evidence that a plane did not fly over the pentagon at the same time an explosion went off underneath it. I'm sometimes startled, as the premise is so utterly ludicrous I don't see why it is worth arguing against it. I mean, the entire concept of the flight path inexplicably being fabricated, with the plane flying straight over the Pentagon? It's just really, really funny.



Bingo!

I am surprised that someone with at least a grain of intellect like Childlike, has fallen for the cheapest, nastiest of snake oil out there.

TAM:)

[JoeyDonuts]

The only U.S. produced missile that I know of that could be, in a CT's wildest dreams, mistaken for an airliner is on static display down in Florida somewhere. And I'm pretty sure it's completely and totally inert. And the only one of its kind.

But to mistake even this thing for an airliner would require a very Flash Gordon-like view of modern aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-64_Navaho

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why on earth would you fire a missile, in daylight, on a clear day, straight into the Pentagon, with the potential of hundreds of tourists filming the damn thing itself....

So... how many hundreds of tourists filmed flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

How many thousands of tourist filmed the first WTC impact?

In NEW YORK CITY.

Yeah that is crazy.

[Macgyver1968]

I know this has probably been asked many times before, but it's been bothering me recently. Why on earth would you fire a missile, in daylight, on a clear day, straight into the Pentagon, with the potential of hundreds of tourists filming the damn thing itself, only to pretend that it is an airliner, divert the real plane to a field in Alaska, run onto the Pentagon's lawn and sprinkle plane debris and DNA on the grass, saw down a few lamposts, put your foot through the window of a taxi cab, all in the view of thousands of people who will inexplicably say 'That was an airliner that was!'?

The idiocy of such a plan should be enough to debunk it on the spot, regardless of all the arguments about the size of the hole etc.

The only way I can see the conspirators justifying this baffling decision is their claim that: 'Well, nobody will think we are that stupid'.

Paranoid delusions do not see logic very well. :)

[JoeyDonuts]

In all fairness, the Pentagon doesn't receive a lot of 'tourists.'

If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of the eyewitnesses were people that worked at the Pentagon and the surrounding area.

[BenBurch]

In all fairness, the Pentagon doesn't receive a lot of 'tourists.'

If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of the eyewitnesses were people that worked at the Pentagon and the surrounding area.

No doubt, but I know somebody who saw it from a nearby hotel. Didn't see the impact, that was hidden by buildings, but saw the A/C and the fireball.

[Homeland Insurgency]

In all fairness, the Pentagon doesn't receive a lot of 'tourists.'

If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of the eyewitnesses were people that worked at the Pentagon and the surrounding area.

How about NEW YORK CITY? I guess they wouldn't have too many tourist either huh?

Not many news cameras doing morning shows I bet too.

Not too many cameras positioned at the top of buildings like the Empire State building and the WTC you think?

Not too many traffic helicopters flying around the tri-state area either huh?

If debunkers want to claim that truthers can't back up their claims of what hit where because of lack of footage from tourists or anything else well then maybe they should take a good hard look at the story they cling to first.

[BenBurch]

See; http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

[UNLoVedRebel]

There were 3 shots of the north tower impact: 1) the Naudet Brothers footage 2) a security camera footage and 3) footage from a European tourist. Why this is significant to anyone's argument, I have no idea.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why do debunkers continue to ask truthers for the same things that they don't have to support their story?

Did this thread author not imply that hundreds of tourists in the DC area might have caught a missile on video (going how fast???) hitting the Pentagon thus blowing the whole supposed inside job?

Is that a stupid idea?

Well yeah!

But it's a debunker idea. It's one of the stupid ideas that somehow helps the debunker cling to HIS conspiracy theory.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Is what is related in the OP really that far from what CIT hypothesizes in all seriousness?


The missile fantasy is a bit more plausible. Then again, so are unicorns when compared to dragons.

[Redtail]

Why do debunkers continue to ask truthers for the same things that they don't have to support their story?

Did this thread author not imply that hundreds of tourists in the DC area might have caught a missile on video (going how fast???) hitting the Pentagon thus blowing the whole supposed inside job?

Is that a stupid idea?

Well yeah!

But it's a debunker idea. It's one of the stupid ideas that somehow helps the debunker cling to HIS conspiracy theory.

The bolded is a key word.

[Mangoose]

Some known cameras near the Pentagon at the moment of the attack:

1 digital camera with Steve Riskus in his car on Route 27 in front of Pentagon, started taking pictures some 10-20 seconds after the attack
1 videotape camera with tourist on Route 27, borrowed by Eugenio Hernandez after the crash.
1 videotape camera with Anthony Tribby in his car on Route 395, started filming about 15-20 seconds after the attack
1 disposable camera with Mary Ann Owens in her car on Route 27 in front of Pentagon
1 still camera with Daryl Donley in his car on Route 27, started taking pictures less than a minute after the attack

[KreeL]

Video experts report that the pentagon video is still missing frames. What happened to them?

[dtugg]

What experts?

[KreeL]

Video ones.

[dtugg]

Imaginary ones you can't produce?

[Orphia Nay]

Because the CTs poke at every part of the "official story", on the notion that if they can prove one thing wrong about the "OCT", they will have proven it entirely wrong.

Well said, and subsequently demonstrated by at least two twoofers in this very thread!

:dl:

[KreeL]

Of course there are missing frames. However, it really doesn't matter. For all we know a Boeing DID hit the Pentagon. The real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job was the simple act of confiscating the films from all the cameras available within minutes of the attack. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that foreknowledge existed at the Pentagon as well as in NYC.




You're pwnd again. You guys are slowing down.

[dtugg]

God forbid the FBI collect evidence...

[KreeL]

Evidence of what?

[dtugg]

Any evidence that could be useful. Whether not it turned out to be is besides the point.

Find those imaginary video experts yet?

[KreeL]

Are you saying there are no missing frames?

I'm saying there is, and it doesn't matter. Foreknowledge again. Coverup again.

The real perps want to tie up debates in crap like this. They, afterall, have the evidence that a boeing struck the Pentagon. This kind of endless loop debate really goes nowhere because you have exactly what the truthers have - zilch. Your side let you down. Someday they will roll out the missing tapes and we can all watch. The simple fact that they won't do that now implies guilt. The simple act of agents ready to roll to the nearest hotel/convenience store/etc. proves foreknowledge. Totally enough to pwn the guvnutz.

[dtugg]

Are you saying there are no missing frames?

I'm saying there is, and it doesn't matter. Foreknowledge again. Coverup again.

The real perps want to tie up debates in crap like this. They, afterall, have the evidence that a boeing struck the Pentagon. This kind of endless loop debate really goes nowhere because you have exactly what the truthers have - zilch. Your side let you down. Someday they will roll out the missing tapes and we can all watch. The simple fact that they won't do that now implies guilt. The simple act of agents ready to roll to the nearest hotel/convenience store/etc. proves foreknowledge. Totally enough to pwn the guvnutz.

How much does the NWO pay you?

[Redtail]

Are you saying there are no missing frames?

I'm saying there is, and it doesn't matter. Foreknowledge again. Coverup again.

The real perps want to tie up debates in crap like this. They, afterall, have the evidence that a boeing struck the Pentagon. This kind of endless loop debate really goes nowhere because you have exactly what the truthers have - zilch. Your side let you down. Someday they will roll out the missing tapes and we can all watch. The simple fact that they won't do that now implies guilt. The simple act of agents ready to roll to the nearest hotel/convenience store/etc. proves foreknowledge. Totally enough to pwn the guvnutz.

You find that the fact that FBI agents were quickly able to confiscate video tapes (of the largest terrorist attack to ever hit America mind you) in WASHINGTON DC odd? Really? Wow....

[Reactor drone]

Why do debunkers continue to ask truthers for the same things that they don't have to support their story?

Did this thread author not imply that hundreds of tourists in the DC area might have caught a missile on video (going how fast???) hitting the Pentagon thus blowing the whole supposed inside job?

Is that a stupid idea?

Well yeah!

But it's a debunker idea. It's one of the stupid ideas that somehow helps the debunker cling to HIS conspiracy theory.


The thread author implied that a single shot taken by one of hundreds of tourists would be enough to ruin the plan.

The suggestion that that statement implies that hundreds of people should have filmed any of the crashes is a ludicrous argument.

[zorro99]

Are you saying there are no missing frames?
The simple fact that they won't do that now implies guilt. The simple act of agents ready to roll to the nearest hotel/convenience store/etc. proves foreknowledge. Totally enough to pwn the guvnutz.

How so?

[Tweeter]

Some known cameras near the Pentagon at the moment of the attack:

1 digital camera with Steve Riskus in his car on Route 27 in front of Pentagon, started taking pictures some 10-20 seconds after the attack
1 videotape camera with tourist on Route 27, borrowed by Eugenio Hernandez after the crash.
1 videotape camera with Anthony Tribby in his car on Route 395, started filming about 15-20 seconds after the attack
1 disposable camera with Mary Ann Owens in her car on Route 27 in front of Pentagon
1 still camera with Daryl Donley in his car on Route 27, started taking pictures less than a minute after the attack

At the moment of attack?
Dont you mean after the attack?

[Redtail]

At the moment of attack?
Dont you mean after the attack?

They teleported their cameras there?

[Dave Rogers]

At the moment of attack?
Dont you mean after the attack?

This is building into a classic two-way truther argument. If anybody was filming at the time of the attack, that proves foreknowledge. If nobody started filming until after the attack, that proves that the attack never really happened. Any conceivable scenario is proof of an inside job.

Dave

[BenBurch]

This is building into a classic two-way truther argument. If anybody was filming at the time of the attack, that proves foreknowledge. If nobody started filming until after the attack, that proves that the attack never really happened. Any conceivable scenario is proof of an inside job.

Dave

Exactly Correct.

And if you set things up so that all future such events will be under video surveillance they will scream BIG BROTHER!!!!!!! NEW WORLD ORDER!!!!

Because they have not at all considered what the world would be like if everything was video-recorded all of the time. Nor have they considered the data storage consequences.

[Mangoose]

Tweeter: Try again. They were near the Pentagon when AA77 ploughed into the building. They started rolling or taking pictures within a minute or so of the attack. But that need not to have been the case. The tourist with the video camera on Route 27, for instance, could have thought, "Oh let me capture the Pentagon," as her husband drove past it. The Pentagon is, after all, a famous building a tourist might want an image of. If that happened, the camera would have been out and rolling when the plane flew in front of them. How was the guvmint gonna prevent that from happening? How'd they know whether or not such a tape existed when they went ahead with the "official story"? The FBI could confiscate all the tapes they want and not know about something filmed by someone in a car, in the privacy of someone's apartment or hotel room, etc. Indeed, with the crash of UA175 occurring 36 minutes earlier, with the whole nation knowing that a terrorist attack was in progress and that planes were being flown into buildings, a person could have potentially anticipated something happening with respect to Washington DC landmarks and got a camera out just in case. It doesn't matter whether or not this actually happened, the CT suggestion is that the guvmint perps went ahead with their plans with many risks of discovery.

[BCR]

Well, yours truly just got threatened with suspension because when HI attacked the OP author as being stupid, I asked him if he was sober. Yet the "stupid" remarks are left as perfectly fine. JREF can KISS MY ASS!

[DavidJames]

Well, yours truly just got threatened with suspension because when HI attacked the OP author as being stupid, I asked him if he was sober. Yet the "stupid" remarks are left as perfectly fine. JREF can KISS MY ASS!The mods react to reported posts. What may have happened is your post was reported while the one with "stupid" was not.

[FineWine]

Are you saying there are no missing frames?

I'm saying there is, and it doesn't matter. Foreknowledge again. Coverup again.

The real perps want to tie up debates in crap like this. They, afterall, have the evidence that a boeing struck the Pentagon. This kind of endless loop debate really goes nowhere because you have exactly what the truthers have - zilch. Your side let you down. Someday they will roll out the missing tapes and we can all watch. The simple fact that they won't do that now implies guilt. The simple act of agents ready to roll to the nearest hotel/convenience store/etc. proves foreknowledge. Totally enough to pwn the guvnutz.


I asked Homeland Insurgency a question that he will certainly flee from. You are welcome to give it a whirl.

Has there ever been a crash of a commercial airliner where the identity of the plane was a mystery? You frauds pretend that serial numbers are important in identifying crashed aircraft, so I was wondering if you'd stop blowing smoke long enough to show that you actually know something.

Tell us when an airliner crashed and there was serious doubt about the identity of the plane. If serial numbers are important, then surely there must be at least ONE case in which they played a role. Tell us about it.

[tsig]

Of course there are missing frames. However, it really doesn't matter. For all we know a Boeing DID hit the Pentagon. The real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job was the simple act of confiscating the films from all the cameras available within minutes of the attack. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that foreknowledge existed at the Pentagon as well as in NYC.




You're pwnd again. You guys are slowing down.

Nah, Now if they had confiscated them before the attack you would have and argument.

[tsig]

You find that the fact that FBI agents were quickly able to confiscate video tapes (of the largest terrorist attack to ever hit America mind you) in WASHINGTON DC odd? Really? Wow....

Yeh it would be different if Washington was their headquarters or something. :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

Kreel is trolling. Ignore him.

TAM:)

[KreeL]

I made a very distinct point, tam. You simply calling me a troll does nothing for your attacking distraction to this thread. Are you saying there ISN'T a video somewhere of a boeing striking the Pentagon? Please explain.

[alienentity]

The real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job was the simple act of confiscating the films from all the cameras available within minutes of the attack. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that foreknowledge existed at the Pentagon as well as in NYC.



Complete nonsense. You've pwned yourself again. Please tell me you don't take your own arguments seriously, they're pathetic.

[BigAl]

I made a very distinct point, tam. You simply calling me a troll does nothing for your attacking distraction to this thread. Are you saying there ISN'T a video somewhere of a boeing striking the Pentagon? Please explain.

So what? We don't need to catch the image of the baseball in flight to know what happened in the ballgame.


Oh, and you are a troll.

[alienentity]

This is building into a classic two-way truther argument. If anybody was filming at the time of the attack, that proves foreknowledge. If nobody started filming until after the attack, that proves that the attack never really happened. Any conceivable scenario is proof of an inside job.

Dave

Perfectly put.

The underlying question to truthers is 'what evidence would you require to disprove your inside job theory?'

I suspect it doesn't exist. They are already unable to decipher the evidence at hand.

[KreeL]

We do in tennis, however.

[alienentity]

I made a very distinct point, tam. You simply calling me a troll does nothing for your attacking distraction to this thread. Are you saying there ISN'T a video somewhere of a boeing striking the Pentagon? Please explain.

Speaking of evidence, what evidence do you have that the Pentagon possessed extensive unreleased video of the attack?

Please give your sources if you have them. If you don't have any sources, other than speculation, then back off.

A further 'fly in the ointment' for the trutherbabble about pentagon footage is that security cameras in buildings generally are not aimed out randomly into the sky or what-have-you.
It is highly unlikely that there would be an exterior camera except at entrances and other security points.

The truthers never fail to miss this obvious point.

But in trutherland, LACK of evidence is treated like evidence, you see. Contrarian, reverse-world logic run wild.

[KreeL]

So you agree with tam that there isn't a video of a boeing striking the pentagon? Please explain.

[alienentity]

So you agree with tam that there isn't a video of a boeing striking the pentagon? Please explain.

Nope. YOu've got to explain my questions. Nice try at deflecting though.

You still have offered squat to show that there are other pentagon videos showing the impact.

Zero. You've presented Nothing.

Based on your inability to back up your claim you are pwned again.

Truther axiom: If it isn't on youtube, it doesn't exist

[KreeL]

Amazing that you won't answer my question.

pwnd.

[alienentity]

KreeL, you don't even understand the meaning of pwned. Incredible. When you make a false claim, or a claim that isn't backed up by anything, as you have, you get pwned.

Amazing that you won't answer my question.

pwnd. That's correct - you were pwned. You may be starting to understand. There's still hope!


OK I'm bored playing Whack-a-Troll now. I'm going to get some work done.

bye

Have fun playing with KreeL guys

[Grizzly Bear]

So you agree with tam that there isn't a video of a boeing striking the pentagon? Please explain.
So you agree a plane hit the building but because the quality of the video doesn't kneel to your standards it's not proof that that specific flight hit? Is that the only grounds for your assertion?

[Justin39640]

Are you saying there are no missing frames?

I'm saying there is, and it doesn't matter. Foreknowledge again. Coverup again.

The real perps want to tie up debates in crap like this. They, afterall, have the evidence that a boeing struck the Pentagon. This kind of endless loop debate really goes nowhere because you have exactly what the truthers have - zilch. Your side let you down. Someday they will roll out the missing tapes and we can all watch. The simple fact that they won't do that now implies guilt. The simple act of agents ready to roll to the nearest hotel/convenience store/etc. proves foreknowledge. Totally enough to pwn the guvnutz.

figure that camera had about a 500 foot field of view (now that i look at it, it might even be less. its tough to tell cause it was a fish eye lens)
it was a basic equivalent to a webcam
for storage it shoots at a very low frame rate, 1frame/sec (cause its for seeing peoples faces in a car pulling up not to capture terrorist attacks), mostly to conserve data space

at that frame rate and 500 mph (733 feet per second) id say its fair to say it was lucky to have even caught a single glimpse of AA 77


as far as running out and getting the tapes
its the nations military HQ
i would hope that a long time prior to 911 they had figured out what cameras were watching the building in case of an event

perhaps they new that the cams on the grounds had a small field of view and they probably figured what external cameras had better vantage points (wide shots far off the grounds)
that's called preparedness not conspiracy

[Jackanory]

So you agree with tam that there isn't a video of a boeing striking the pentagon? Please explain.

A video exists for all too see that shows the cockpit, cockpit windows and front section of the fuselage heading directly towards the Pentagon only a few feet above the ground. It is shown miliseconds away from striking the Pentagon.

However, the Government forgot that they should have employed Speilberg to capture the 'money shot' of impact so their story stands up better to the TM. How forgetful of them to miss out footage that would convince all.

[aggle-rithm]

So you agree with tam that there isn't a video of a boeing striking the pentagon? Please explain.

There are no videos of the American Civil War, yet it happened.

Troll.

[leftysergeant]

Yes and asking the question, in and of itself, is not an issue. However, what is your answer to the follow up...

Why do you feel alleged absence of fuel reminents in the soil is important to who carried out the 9/11 attacks, or how they did so?

This is actually an important indicator of how disorganized the twoofers are. They shriek about how all the jet fuel in the tower burned off so quickly, but insist that it should have persisted outside the Pentagon, where it was so nicely aerosolized in the initial impact, and discount that any remaining inside the building would hardly have entered the soil through the concrete floors.

Twoofers are not really such deep thionkers as they take themselves to be.

As for making a missile look like an aircraft, there was once a missile called the Snark which was in effect a small airplane with a turbojet engine, but none of them have flown in about forty-five years either.

[Galileo]

I know this has probably been asked many times before, but it's been bothering me recently. Why on earth would you fire a missile, in daylight, on a clear day, straight into the Pentagon, with the potential of hundreds of tourists filming the damn thing itself, only to pretend that it is an airliner, divert the real plane to a field in Alaska, run onto the Pentagon's lawn and sprinkle plane debris and DNA on the grass, saw down a few lamposts, put your foot through the window of a taxi cab, all in the view of thousands of people who will inexplicably say 'That was an airliner that was!'?

The idiocy of such a plan should be enough to debunk it on the spot, regardless of all the arguments about the size of the hole etc.

The only way I can see the conspirators justifying this baffling decision is their claim that: 'Well, nobody will think we are that stupid'.

Criminals act in mysterious ways sometimes. Most honest people cannot ponder the nature of evil people.

[Myron Proudfoot]

And, of course, the Pentagon is not in DC, it is in Arlington , and isn't really visible from most of the "tourist" areas in DC. You can only see the Pentagon from a few spots on the west end the the Mall. I suspect you can see it from a handful of higher spots, such as the top of the Washington Monument, but I haven't personally gone and checked. The best vantage point is from the local roads and, in fact, that's where most of the eyewitnesses happened to be. of course if you are driving in morning DC traffic you'll probably (hopefully!) have both hands on the wheel and not be pointing a camera somewhere trying to catch the touristy shots..

[Childlike Empress]

Criminals act in mysterious ways sometimes. Most honest people cannot ponder the nature of evil people.


Exactly. The people around here call it (because they generally think in latin - the language of empire) "argumentum ad ignorantiam".

[tsig]

So you agree with tam that there isn't a video of a boeing striking the pentagon? Please explain.

Unless you deny that a plane struck the Pentagon there's nothing to explain.

[tsig]

Amazing that you won't answer my question.

pwnd.

Amazing that you won't answer my question.

pwnd.

How simple and easy to C&P

[tsig]

Criminals act in mysterious ways sometimes. Most honest people cannot ponder the nature of evil people.


Funny, I cannot ponder your nature.:jaw-dropp

[tsig]

Exactly. The people around here call it (because they generally think in latin) "argumentum ad ignorantiam".

Nobody thinks in latin:

Latin is a dead language

As dead as dead can be

It killed all the Romans

And now it's killing me!

All are dead who wrote it

All are dead who spoke it

All will die that learn it

Oh Latin let me be

[nicepants]

The real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job was the simple act of confiscating the films from all the cameras available within minutes of the attack.

And how could they know that Joe Blow who was driving by wasn't videotaping at the time? If these grainy security cameras could so easily have caught the deception, why were they not worried about the thousands of eyes in the area?

No...all of these Pentagon conspiracy theories are just truthers attempting to poke holes in reality...and failing. They accuse us of believing everything the government tells us, and their natural instinct is to assume that everything the government tells them is a lie....thus...it couldn't have been a plane that hit the Pentagon...if only becuase the government agrees that it was.

[Childlike Empress]

Nobody thinks in latin:

Latin is a dead language

As dead as dead can be

It killed all the Romans

And now it's killing me!

All are dead who wrote it

All are dead who spoke it

All will die that learn it

Oh Latin let me be


Ave Obama!

[Mangoose]

Jackanory: Is this what you mean?

http://www.gifninja.com/Workspace/066052cf-f1b4-4a55-8d66-49fdc9ecde58/output.gif http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/893/pentapprch18bit7wf.gif
Myron: I would mostly agree, but with so much riding on the conspiracy that could be exposed so simply by an average citizen, it would have to be a profoundly stupid plan to shoot a missile at the building (or fly a Boeing over the Pentagon) in front of many eyewitnesses without being able to "contain" the information flow that would conflict with the official story. Steve Riskus put his photos on the internet within hours of the attack.

I suspect you can see it from a handful of higher spots, such as the top of the Washington Monument, but I haven't personally gone and checked. The best vantage point is from the local roads and, in fact, that's where most of the eyewitnesses happened to be.

There were apartment buildings and at least one hotel with a clear view; it wasn't just people on the roads who were potential witnesses. And those on Route 27 were stuck in traffic, which potentially gave them more time to see the plane approaching. Mike Walter, Penny Elgas, and others described watching the plane approach from the west.

of course if you are driving in morning DC traffic you'll probably (hopefully!) have both hands on the wheel and not be pointing a camera somewhere trying to catch the touristy shots..

Assuming the car has only one occupant. In the case of the tourist with the videocamera on Route 27, it was a family of three. And when I am a tourist riding in a car, I am snapping pictures all the time out the dashboard window.

[stateofgrace]

And, of course, the Pentagon is not in DC, it is in Arlington , and isn't really visible from most of the "tourist" areas in DC. You can only see the Pentagon from a few spots on the west end the the Mall. I suspect you can see it from a handful of higher spots, such as the top of the Washington Monument, but I haven't personally gone and checked. The best vantage point is from the local roads and, in fact, that's where most of the eyewitnesses happened to be. of course if you are driving in morning DC traffic you'll probably (hopefully!) have both hands on the wheel and not be pointing a camera somewhere trying to catch the touristy shots..

It does happen.

BEHoaYMsP9Q

Had somebody fired a missile or had the plane flown over, footage similar to this is all it would have taken to blow it wide open and topple the USG.

Amazing they took such a risk, eh? :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

Well, yours truly just got threatened with suspension because when HI attacked the OP author as being stupid, I asked him if he was sober. Yet the "stupid" remarks are left as perfectly fine. JREF can KISS MY ASS!

Actually, I think reporting, and warning you for that was a little unfair. If you legitimately thought the man was drunk due to the content or style of posting, then it is a legitimate question.

HI intentionally tries to bait people into posting something he can report, with the intent of getting people suspended. Don't let him do it to you John...your contributions to this forum are too important. Put him on ignore, as I and most have...

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

Actually, I think reporting, and warning you for that was a little unfair. If you legitimately thought the man was drunk due to the content or style of posting, then it is a legitimate question.

HI intentionally tries to bait people into posting something he can report, with the intent of getting people suspended. Don't let him do it to you John...your contributions to this forum are too important. Put him on ignore, as I and most have...

TAM:)

Yeah, I agree with this John. Don't let the small minded ones get that far under your skin; certain posters aim to do nothing but disrupt, and losing good contributors is not worth it. What you contribute is indeed valuable. Don't let him derail and distract from your good information with his pettiness.

[Justin39640]

It does happen.

BEHoaYMsP9Q

Had somebody fired a missile or had the plane flown over, footage similar to this is all it would have taken to blow it wide open and topple the USG.

Amazing they took such a risk, eh? :rolleyes:

interesting thought on that video for other threads - from the smoke, must have been an oxygen starved fire :rolleyes:

[CORed]

It seems that in trutherland, the more ridiculous the theory, the better they like it. There is really only one CT that is even reometely plausible: The government paid people to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC towers and the Pentagon. This sitll requires that we believe that somebody fairly high up in the government was the kind of evil monster that would perpetrate a mass murder to further some political agenda, and that quite a few others in the government were evil enough or spineless enough to go along without blowing the whistle, so it's not very plausible, but it doesn't require us to believe such absurdities as particle beams from space, explosive ceiling panels, super-duper-nanoo-nanoo-thermite, or that "they" hijaced a plane, hid it somewhere, murdered or imprisoned the passengers, then fired a missile into the Pentagon to make it look like they flew the plane into the Pentagon.

[FineWine]

Criminals act in mysterious ways sometimes. Most honest people cannot ponder the nature of evil people.

Actually, criminals have motives. For example, the terrorists had declared war on America back in the 90s and were continuing a series of attacks. You immoral frauds desire to weaken America and leave it defenseless. Motives.

The American politicians you lie about had no plausible motive to murder thousands of Americans to start a war with Afghanistan.

[leftysergeant]

Video experts report that the pentagon video is still missing frames. What happened to them?

If they say there are frames missing, they are not experts, but idiots. That simple. There is and should be no video of the actual strike.

[BenBurch]

If they say there are frames missing, they are not experts, but idiots. That simple. There is and should be no video of the actual strike.

They are clearly unable to comprehend the slow frame rate of that camera.

[JohnG]

interesting thought on that video for other threads - from the smoke, must have been an oxygen starved fire :rolleyes:


And note the telltale mushroom cloud, which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the Concorde was destroyed by a hydrogen bomb!:eek:

[Justin39640]

And note the telltale mushroom cloud, which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the Concorde was destroyed by a hydrogen bomb!:eek:

or supernanothermite lasers lol

[doobiedoright]

Are you saying there are no missing frames?

I'm saying there is, and it doesn't matter. Foreknowledge again. Coverup again.

.


You made the claim now prove it!

[Leonidas]

JREF can KISS MY ASS!


911Files, how many times are you going to quit?

First you quit the Troof movement, twice, now you tell JREF to kiss your ass?

So who exactly "hacked" your site this time? Was it P4T? CIT? JREF? The Boogeyman in your mind?

[UNLoVedRebel]

911Files, how many times are you going to quit?

First you quit the Troof movement, twice, now you tell JREF to kiss your ass?

So who exactly "hacked" your site this time? Was it P4T? CIT? JREF? The Boogeyman in your mind?

Don't waste your time. 911files is no longer a member here.

[Leonidas]

Well wait....

Why not? Did he do something wrong?

[BenBurch]

Well wait....

Why not? Did he do something wrong?

No.

He asked to be unregistered.

[Leonidas]

No.

He asked to be unregistered.


The following quote says different...

Originally Posted by 911files
JREF can KISS MY ASS!

Did you miss it above?

[UNLoVedRebel]

The following quote says different...



Did you miss it above?
911files is no longer a member here because he asked to be unregistered. Ben Burch could not have made that any clearer. If you want to know why 911files asked to be unregistered, you'll have to ask 911files.

[jhunter1163]

Well, that didn't take long.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145415