New conspiracy video

[bpjg2fat]

I'm sure someone will argue its been tampered with.

Probably by a Jew.

/forums/images/smilies/devilsign.gif

 

 

uhhhhh

what the ****

/forums/images/smilies/mad_2.gif

[Saitia]

Well, it seems they only give you the one view. :)

 

The FBI confiscated all the video from other angles! from the Hotel and Gas stations, and other places around the Pentagon.

 

And have not released any of those?!

Hmmmmm...

Looking at it from more than one angle might help, right?

 

Anyone consider that?

 

 

There were numerous eye witnesses to the event at the Pentagon.

A wide variety of people saw the event in real time and described it with vivid detail. But it would be interesting to see what the other 84 cameras show.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

[Buffy]

The FBI confiscated all the video from other angles! from the Hotel and Gas stations, and other places around the Pentagon.

Have you ever been there? There's nothing anywhere near the Pentagon! Its surrounded on all sides by raised interstate, thus making it pretty well protected from any video views... Who *sez* they confiscated videos?

 

Your mother was an alien, I saw it on the Internet, :)

Buffy

[Turtle]

Isn't there a Sheridan somewhere within a few miles? :eek2: You don't need to be a couple blocks away to see a fricking Airliner slam into one of the worlds largest buildings. (and have video the FBI may have confiscated)

 

We archived the newspapers (Columbian out of Vancouver Washington) for every day from Sept. 10 to the first week of October. The Sept 11 edition was printed before the attacks & has nothing on them, although it is interesting to see what was making news before the attacks.

Anyway, the next day was full of nothing else & I found an AP article on the Pentagon attack.

 

Printed Sept. 12. 2001

The Columbian Newspapaer

Vancouver, Washington

 

By Robert Burns

Associated Press Writer

Ralph Banton, 79, was enjoying a crystal clear morning.

Then Banton heard a jet flying directly overhead, very low.

"It sounded like it was jetting instead of slowing down, " he said.

 

Outside, Alan Wallace, one of three firefighters to be regularly assigned to the Pentagon, saw the airplane approaching and dived beneath a van for protection. Then he began working to help get people from the building.

Give me a stick & I will start pokin' stuff right away.;) :)

[Buffy]

You don't need to be a couple blocks away to see a fricking Airliner slam into one of the worlds largest buildings.

Nope, but its "large-wide" not "large-tall" and from ground level you don't really see it until you're driving right by it. Its impressive from above and after you've walked a couple miles of the corridors, but its not actually *supposed* to stick out...Its a lot easier to see the high rise hotels down the road in Pentagon City...

Heard it on Coast to Coast AM looney radio! :)

And there you have it! :)

Can I take down the sheetplastic and duct tape yet?

Nope. Still radioactive out here... ;)

 

And your daddy is the real cigarette smoking guy, :)

Buffy "The-Truth-is-Under-That-Rock-Over-There" Skully

[Queso]

O man

I told you the internets

a zoo when you're

drunk

[Queso]

two words.

bong head

[Buffy]

Listen to Buffy.

Good advice! :)

The Government is telling you completely the truth!! ....Right Berkley Barb?

:) :) :) Them lyin' cheatin' good fer nuthin weasels ain't worth cat piss! Show me a politician that isn't lying and I'll show you a dead politician!

 

Gimme an "F"! Gimme a "U"! Gimme a... ;)

 

Who me? Trust the government? Me!?!?!?!? :)

 

Naaawwwww, here's the thing: we can be beating drums about lotso things, but if you get all worked up about totally wacko crusades that can be so easily refuted, you have no Chi left for the *worthy* causes.

 

Pick your battles.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of conspiracy, :)

Berkeley Buffy

[Wondering]

Naaawwwww, here's the thing: we can be beating drums about lotso things, but if you get all worked up about totally wacko crusades that can be so easily refuted, you have no Chi left for the *worthy* causes.

 

Pick your battles.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of conspiracy, ;)

Berkeley Buffy

 

The video does show some evidence of things that aren't right and that can be hidden only by the government. To me, it's just a video, I would have to see it for myself to be totally believing it.. but I do believe it somewhat. It has brought questions to me which I never asked before. I think that's a good thing. Don't you? People should be able to question events like these, their government, their world.

 

I'm not saying we should become crazy paranoid and start rioting in the streets. That's just not healthy, you have to be able to seperate yourself from the chaos and move on. But I really question the american government right now. That's my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to change yours. I respect all of your views. Maybe this is too harsh of a topic to talk about on here.. too emotional maybe (on both sides).

[Buffy]

I wouldn't discourage questioning either. The problem is not that there aren't many interpretations of a skip-frame surveillance tape, or even that the government isn't trying to stifle something, but rather it being used to say that it was really a missle, and no one died or the CIA took everyone off the plane and murdered them elsewhere, or one of the many other totally silly and *easily disproved* arguments that ultimately exist only to try to blame the Jews or Cheney or anyone but murderous Arab terrorists. *That* I find despicable, and I'll strongly argue against it, although people certainly have every right to blather all they want. But they shouldn't be surprised if folks like me call them names! ;) I try not to but then I get called a wimpy liberal. :)

 

Expose stupidity, defend free speech,

Buffy

[Saitia]

The video does show some evidence of things that aren't right and that can be hidden only by the government.

There's a thought-provoking documentary that's worth looking at called "Loose Change 2" http://www.loosechange911.com/

 

Another interesting aspect has emerged which points out the impossibility of novice pilots flying heavy aircraft.

 

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

by Joel Harel

 

 

http://www.physics911.net/harel.htm

 

"The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

 

"In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH—and all this under extremely stressful circumstances."

 

"I find it impossible to believe that someone who couldn't solo a Cessna 172 could navigate his way back across two States to the target and execute a diving spiral from high altitude, at a very high rate of descent, but without overspeeding or overstressing the aircraft to the point of shedding parts (a very narrow margin for error), and then line up on the most difficult approach to the Pentagon to hit the side that was virtually unoccupied.

 

"Especially when flying jets, airspeed management is crucial. And managing airpeed in a heavy jet is nothing at all like in a simple prop trainer. Shove the stick forward on the trainer, and relatively little happens in terms of vertical speed because of the light weight, low airspeed, and high drag of the aircraft. Do the same in a slippery 200,000-lb jet flying at 500 MPH and you’ll lose it all very quickly.

 

"Airspeed management is the one aspect of handling a big jet that’ll throw a serious curve to a novice (in addition to the navigational challenges).

 

In conclusion, the key difference lies in the ability of the human mind to not be intimidated by the display differences—and to keep up with the dynamic challenges of flying at 400 knots, versus 80.

 

"Descend into New York? Sorry, you just passed it. 20,000 feet too high? It would require 60 miles to lose that altitude—unless you want to start rapidly shedding airframe parts. Maintaining level flight? Hand-flown, that’s plus-or-minus 3,000 feet. A 180-degree turn? A radius of 5 -10 miles for a novice. Then level-out quickly and nail the target? At 400 knots, the WTC towers are toothpicks."

[Buffy]

Another interesting aspect has emerged which points out the impossibility of novice pilots flying heavy aircraft.

That, my dear friend is a classic strawman argument. Who says they were "novices"? That's silly! There's ample evidence and interviews of the actual instructors who say that they got training. Were they any good? Not really, but good enough. If you have enough training in the actual simulators--which all of the perpetrators had--you can do this.

 

Why does this have anything to do with anything? What is the alternative theory? Were they Kamakazi CIA agents? Was it all an illusion done with lasers? Planes *were* crashed into these buidlings. What point are you trying to make?

 

Is it simply conspiracy mongering for the sheer gossip value?

 

Again, with all the *real* violation or at least extreme bending of real laws by real perpetrators, what's the point of chasing these ghosts?

 

If I know what we know then I could tell you what we know and if anyone else knows! :rolleyes:

Buffy

[Wondering]

There's a thought-provoking documentary that's worth looking at called "Loose Change 2" http://www.loosechange911.com/

 

."

 

ya, thats what we're talking about

[Saitia]

Who says they were "novices"? That's silly!

These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172—an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

 

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

Here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

 

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

http://www.willthomas.net/911

/911_Commission_Hearing.htm

 

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

http://100777.com/node/237

 

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm

 

Salem A l-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

http://www.willthomas.net/Books_Videos/911_Investigations_Stand_Down.htm

 

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

 

 

 

 

Why does this have anything to do with anything? What is the alternative theory? Were they Kamakazi CIA agents? Was it all an illusion done with lasers? Planes *were* crashed into these buidlings. What point are you trying to make? Is it simply conspiracy mongering for the sheer gossip value?

 

Chill, Buffette. Who made you judge Judy and executioner?:naughty:

These are just links to information. Read it or don't.:rolleyes:

If I have to make "a point" with every post let it be to find out something you don't know.

[Buffy]

A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

They didn't have to land! Of course they were incapable of "flying" in the sense that would involve "land without killing everyone." But they knew that the only thing they had to do was keep the airplane from falling apart, which in spite of the article you referenced is actually not hard if you have had some basic training and practice. In fact the part of the article that tries to claim that they would have *had* to decend so quickly as to overstress the plane had me laughing out loud. They had *plenty* of space for a gradual decent: what on *earth* is he talking about? Well, again classic straw man: set up a completely false and irrelevant premise and attack it. Now *that's* convincing! :rolleyes: Before it became so distasteful, I spent quite a bit of time running into buildings in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Saying this is "difficult" is quite disingenuous.

Chill, Buffette. Who made you judge Judy and executioner?:naughty:

I'm surprised that someone as obviously as intelligent as you are feels the need to call people names. It would be polite to address my questions instead of feinting with the ol' "help, help I'm being oppressed!" line that seems to be extremely common among conspiracy, uh "theorists."

If I have to make "a point" with every post let it be to find out something you don't know.

My the things you could do with that, uh, energy if it were directed to more useful pursuits...

 

So my purpose in this thread is to expose fallacious arguments. The response has been either:

1. You're a stupid idiot who believes everything the government says
   
2. You're trying to surpress valid points of view

Well, 1) is both untrue and completely irrelevant and 2) is transparently self-referential! On this site we're fond of debating the merits of various hypotheses, and the main point here is to recognize that some hypotheses are so outrageous as to not warrant much debate, *especially* if one is not willing to discuss the *implications* of those hypotheses, which I've asked about but its apparently to uncomfortable for the proponents of the conspiracy theories to address.

 

There may well be a conspiracy, and I'm the *last* one to say there isn't one, but "it was a missle" doesn't square with all those dead people who were mysteriously made to disappear without their plane crashing, and "they couldn't fly a plane" does not explain who *was* flying the plane or why these guys with proven terrorist ties who did *indeed* train for this mission *just happen* to be on the planes that Mossad decided to hijack and blame on Osama. I really don't care if you promote these views (indeed, I won't cry too much about your very-close-to-the-edge-copyright-violation "extract" of the silly article), but don't be so surprised if I argue against them! :shrug:

 

Chili! Mmmmm!

Buffy

[Saitia]

I'm surprised that someone as obviously as intelligent as you are feels the need to call people names.

Lol :hyper: . . . You crack me up. Racoon says to you: "You don't know any more than any other Paranoid stupid son-of-a ***** out there!" (Post #25) and your response was?:eek_big:

If you've read enough of my posts to determine I'm "obviously intelligent" you should have also realized I don't call people names to ridicule them; God knows I've had plenty of wonderful opportunities here, having recently been called an "***" by one of the sensitive editors.:shrug:

You can turn your sense of humor on and off as often as you like I guess, and I can ignore what appears to be mild hypocrisy in that you reserve the right yourself to call others names. But that's not mean-spirited name calling where I come from, and I'm disappointed someone obviously as intelligent as you can't— or won't— appreciate the difference.

 

It would be polite to address my questions instead of feinting with the ol' "help, help I'm being oppressed!" line that seems to be extremely common among conspiracy, uh "theorists."

Frankly I don't care enough about this issue to answer anyone's questions about it. It was shear coincidence that I happened to view part of "Loose Change 2" at the request of a friend just a little before reading this thread, so I posted the links as information— it raises some interesting documented information worth knowing— like the assertion the owner of the twin towers (Silverman?) took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on them specifically for a terrorist act six weeks before 9-11.

 

My the things you could do with that, uh, energy if it were directed to more useful pursuits...

Hm. Well I admit I don't always consistently budget my energy toward "useful pursuits," and participating in this forum is as good an example of that as one might pick, but on the whole I do pretty well: Right now I've got a pork shoulder hickory smoking, I'm working the kinks out of the sprinkler system, listening to the TV news, learning about a new phone, keeping the grackles from hauling away the birdfeeders, and writing to you. :eek_big:

 

So my purpose in this thread is to expose fallacious arguments. The response has been either:

1. You're a stupid idiot who believes everything the government says
   
2. You're trying to surpress valid points of view

Well, 1) is both untrue and completely irrelevant and 2) is transparently self-referential!

I certainly haven't responded to you in that fashion on either count, and you know it.

 

 

On this site we're fond of debating the merits of various hypotheses, and the main point here is to recognize that some hypotheses are so outrageous as to not warrant much debate, *especially* if one is not willing to discuss the *implications* of those hypotheses, which I've asked about but its apparently to (sic) uncomfortable for the proponents of the conspiracy theories to address.

I've read enough Hype to have my own opinion about what "we're fond of debating," thank you, but everyone who participates in a thread who doesn't reflect your personal idea of what constitutes or warrants "debate," isn't "too uncomfortable" to address your questions.

 

There may well be a conspiracy, and I'm the *last* one to say there isn't one, but "it was a missle" doesn't square with all those dead people who were mysteriously made to disappear without their plane crashing, and "they couldn't fly a plane" does not explain who *was* flying the plane or why these guys with proven terrorist ties who did *indeed* train for this mission *just happen* to be on the planes that Mossad decided to hijack and blame on Osama.

 

Well you seem to know a lot more about it than I do. But recall my first response on this thread directed people to eye-witness accounts of the Pentagon crash, which almost to a person verified that it was an AA jet that struck the building; there isn't anything remotely "conspiratorial" about their testimony. I don't know who you're quoting: "it was a missle" (sic) — but it wasn't me.

 

 

 

 

I really don't care if you promote these views (indeed, I won't cry too much about your very-close-to-the-edge-copyright-violation "extract" of the silly article), but don't be so surprised if I argue against them! :beer:

 

Argue away, girlfriend;:hyper: but don't be surprised if I argue I'm not "promoting" anything by merely pointing out the opinions of others; your assumption that makes them my opinion too is simply wrong. (Btw, fair use is 500 words. But copyright is to protect the revenue of copyright holders; I don't threaten their revenue stream by posting a short excerpt on an email forum, something I've seen done quite a bit here and everywhere. Internet law is gonna take awhile to sort out.)

 

 

Cheers,

—Saitia