If you read the paper and not cherry pick a sentence or two you may find there is nothing suspicious about it.

....

someone putting words in someone else's mouth.
Not believing the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 is not the same as believing the government would never lie.

That 15 men armed with nothing more dangerous than some box-cutters and minimal flying skills brought the most militarily powerful country in the world to its' knees that day?

unless you have a better explanation.
go on...lay it out for me.

You've already swallowed what you've been given with no room for argument or discussion.

Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone as well, right?

I'm open to ideas.
Let's hear a better scenario as to what happened that day.

I love how easily dismissed these things are. You could kill someone with a pencil if you wanted to. But truthers make it sound as if these box cutters were Nerf toys, suitable for ages 2 and up.

...You miss the point...the USA spends more than any other country on the planet on defense and yet they were ALL completely useless in ACTUALLY defending us that day...

They were unarmed and easily killed.

At least get the count right. It was 19 men. And we were not exactly brought to our knees that day. Yeah it was a bad day, but other than attacking civilians in a most cowardly way and screwing up air passenger transportation for a few days it was a survivable moment.

Panic buying in the supermarkets.

Knock-on effects include the TSA/Patriot ACT/ shredding of civil rights/ media censorship etc etc...

Who had 35 minutes to arm themselves. I find it hard to believe also. And the ONLY evidence is a blurry video when the Pentagon has hundreds of cameras. But that is acceptable for some, but not for me. I want a clear video from another of the hundreds of cameras. This is after all, our defense building. It's a joke. How can so many accept their evidence?

and they all reported a large airliner?

There is a reason truthers are ignored - they have a habit of ignoring the mountains of evidence that don't support their CTs.

I don't recall reading about these "hundreds" of eyewitnesses in the Commission Report...

....

are you saying that all those people didn't see what they said they saw?

So why not release them?

but if this is your excuse to ignore the eyewitness accounts, isn't the government holding on to the tapes a good thing from your perspective? Wouldn't want you to actually look at all the evidence now, would we?

And we know that eye-witnesses have NEVER been wrong before, and have always been believed, right?

Release the videotapes and solve the question once and for all. Very simple.

and not one that saw anything else. Think about it.

...then

if you can ignore the all the other evidence then it is clear you will find a reason to ignore the tapes if they don't support your CT.

There are mountains of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon so don't tell me one more piece will make difference.

...why not release them?

which matched the large amount of aircraft debris at the Pentagon and the missing plane.

There is no withheld video. One video showed a blurry image of the aircraft just before collision. They didn't have high-speed cameras surrounding the Pentagon. They had no reason to install such cameras.

You're grasping at straws. You've got nothing.

Are you new here? The FBI confiscated video from several private businesses around the Pentagon that morning. It has never been seen. Try and keep up..

Since you have been around here for so long you should have already seen on DU2 the massive evidence presented for the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Why are you conveniently ignoring it? It only takes a few moments on Goggle to see pictures of large amounts of aircraft debris in and around the Pentagon.

Want to shut the C/T'ers up? Show the tapes.

Very, very simple.

You're searching hard for reasons to not believe rather than following the massive evidence.

It's like creationists trying to find reasons to not believe evolution, despite the massive evidence for evolution. If a scientists finds a transitional fossil between two know species, as far as creationists are concerned, scientists now have one more gap than before: Give me the transitional fossils. Where are they?

People that are anti-science are impossible to satisfy.

Despite mountains of videos and photographs and eyewitness accounts, some people still don't believe that any airplanes hit the towers. Despite mountains of evidence that WTC7 was on fire and had been badly damaged, people believe it was blown up. Despite eyewitnesses and hundreds of searchers digging up wreckage and human bits, some people believe that Flight 93 was something other than what it was.

There is no way on earth to satisfy those of a conspiratorial mindset. It's a pathological condition with no easy cure.

... from the Citgo and from the Doubletree hotel. They only show indirect evidence of the crash and don't show the plane, but it wouldn't matter if they did: There isn't any way to "shut the C/T'ers up" with evidence, because they just call it fake, as they already do with the massive amount of evidence we already have that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. "Very, very simple" way to protect yourself from any nasty evidence-based reasoning.

Let's say, hypothetically, someone in your life got killed in a traffic accident at an intersection where there were video cameras. Every time you see the tape you get a feeling in the pit of your stomach not unlike being kicked...

Days later, you find out that person in your life had a small camera mounted on the dashboard showing the interior of the car just for fun.

Do you want to see that tape as well?

big office building.

Do you think that like 50,000 Marines live there, rifles at the ready, and there are fighter jets waiting to take off from the roof?

All our national defenses were geared towards a Soviet air assault from the north. And if the Soviets or Chinese decided to strike first with ICBMs, then there's really no defense at all, is there.

and 3 buildings all collapsed in exactly the same way in their own footprint.
the only skyscrapers before or since to be on fire and collapse into pulverized rubble.
tis a puzzlement.

are you saying there are more than 2?

And how else would they collapse other than straight down? Massive weight and gravity don't leave too many options.

Two planes hit two buildings. Three buildings fell down.

the FDNY reported a 20 story gouge in the front of the building. They were monitoring a bulge in the side of the building hours before it collapsed. They had abandoned all firefighting efforts and let several massive fires burn out of control.


These are all documented facts - you need to look further than conspiracy sites for your information.

Your phrasing is ridiculous. All each team had to do was subdue some pilots and flight crew who, by the way, were all trained to never resist hijackers. The guys flying the planes had no space to retreat to, and had their backs to the attackers while strapped into really big seats.

Given a box cutter and the element of surprise, the attackers had a huge advantage over the pilots.

escaped notice.

...

Someone will come forward one of these days with evidence of CGI planes!

Yes, witnesses report an airliner flying into the Pentagon. Suppose, just suppose, that it was a missile disguised to look like an airliner. You wouldn't want people analyzing that video too carefully.

You can't tell me there are no cameras around one of the most sensitive areas on the planet. That should be laughably easy to check. The question is, where is the video from that morning? How hard would it be to run a "test" of the system at the appropriate time, or to confiscate the video in the name of national security? Military people are trained not to ask questions.

try again.

Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2012, 10:04 AM - Edit history (1)

This missile would look like a large jetliner. It wouldn't be large.

You wouldn't know it was small unless you had something to compare it to, or unless you saw it up close. So no video allowed.

Other apparent holes in the theory are left as an exercise for the reader.

This thing flew over people at low altitude - it hit a light pole on the freeway. I think people can tell the difference between a 9 foot and a 160 foot wing span.

you should be familiar with the abysmal record of eyewitness testimony.

didn't think so.

Have you ever seen an HE (High Explosive) detonation? If you have, you know there is no huge orange fireball surrounded by thick black smoke, such as can be seen from the videotape that was released of the airliner hitting the Pentagon. That kind of fireball can only be created by tens of thousands of gallons of petroleum-based accelerant. Fireballs like that are only produced when there are secondary explosions which happen when a bomb or missile hits a target filled with accelerant. Had there been a "missile disguised to look like" an airliner, there would have been neither a large fireball created by the missile, OR the target (The Pentagon) because the Pentagon had no petroleum-based accelerant where the "missile disguised to look like" an airliner hit and most missiles are propelled by solid fuel.