Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What gets people madder than questioning 9-11?

---

I don't think it's specific to 9/11. I think it's just dealing with idiots in general.

---

Yep, when we said certain things about Covid and it's origins or the effectiveness of the vaccines etc., people like you treated us like we were crazy. Same with fed agencies colluding with certain companies to rig/interfere with an election. People like you tried to make others feel crazy.

These were all very big conspiracies that turned out to be true, among others in recent years. That kind of break in trust fuels revitalization of "truther" and "who shot JFK" movements.

All I can say emphatically, is that ANYONE who trusts the government in any way to care for us, not partake in evil activity, and do what's best for our country, is an absolute loon or an idiot. Every bit as much as a 9/11 Truther, if not moreso. And a person who trusts the government is far more dangerous to me than some wackjob who thinks the moon landing was faked or 9/11 was some crazy plot to get us into war.

---

Except that no posters here are trusting the government 100%.

We're simply pointing out the idiocy surrounding the 9/11 truthers conspiracy theories.

Satellite of Love said:

---

Give us examples of top of the line tech from 2001.

---

My dad's handheld was pretty sweet. But here you go...and I doubt any of these were "top of the line" for military or government agencies in 2001.

2001


North Hollywood Shootout - 1997


Rodney king - 1991


Scarface Mansion - 1983


But the most important buildings in the world wouldn't have comparable or better technology than my dad's Panasonic handheld, no way.

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Then again i have not seen or heard of any particular 'conspiracy theory' that was fully persuasive

---

However, claiming that AA 77 did not crash into the Pentagon is akin to denying gravity exists.

---

and apparently has electrical engineering degree from A&M...he needs to turn in his degree.

GAC06 said:

---

I agree. Plus construction at the pentagon was taking place in a secure area, negating the need for cameras for the contractor. And they'd be sensitive about civilians gathering data at the pentagon.

There certainly were tons of cameras at the pentagon, around the perimeter, at the road gates, at the entryways, and monitoring the more secure areas within.

The whole premise is idiotic to begin with. Four planes were hijacked. The remains of one of them are scattered all over and within the pentagon where it crashed, on camera. Obviously the correct answer is that the footage and dozens of witnesses are fake, the plane and passengers disappeared, and 60 tons of serialized parts of that plane were surreptitiously planted without anyone noticing. How TF are we still talking about this?

---

I think most of us (Titan for example) acknowledge that it happened, but believe there is almost certainly much better footage of the crash, that was not released for genuine security/safety reasons. Will be interesting to see if one day it is released. I can't see the down side to it now, personally. Would shut an awful lot of people up...but would also be interesting to see.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

Give us examples of top of the line tech from 2001.

---

My dad's handheld was pretty sweet. But here you go...and I doubt aby of these were "top of the line" for military or government agencies in 2001.

2001


North Hollywood Shootout - 1997


Rodney king - 1991


Scarface Mansion - 1983


But the most important buildings in the world wouldn't have comparable or better technology than my dad's JVC handheld, no way.

---

That's far different than recording video footage for security. Give us technology that would be used for security purposes and not home cameras with limited storage capacity.

Quote:

---

But the most important buildings in the world wouldn't have comparable or better technology than my dad's JVC handheld, no way.

---

Apparently, the technology we had at the time was so good and sophisticated that all the people who actually witnessed the plane crash into the building were simply duped by the BEAR-MAN-PIG hologram machine that also simultaneously gave cover for Big Foot to plant pieces of a 757 at the crash site that were delivered by Nessie on the banks of the Potomac.

So whose sock is the newest poster with the 9/11 fetish?

Satellite of Love said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

Give us examples of top of the line tech from 2001.

---

My dad's handheld was pretty sweet. But here you go...and I doubt aby of these were "top of the line" for military or government agencies in 2001.

2001


North Hollywood Shootout - 1997


Rodney king - 1991


Scarface Mansion - 1983


But the most important buildings in the world wouldn't have comparable or better technology than my dad's JVC handheld, no way.

---

That's far different than recording video footage for security. Give us technology that would be used for security purposes and not home cameras with limited storage capacity.

---

This is from when security at airports was lax to nonexistent. I don't think it's a stretch to assume the White House had better or more high-tech camera quality...or the Capitol, or the Pentagon. I guess we're never going to change each other's minds.



Vegas casino security cam footage just before Tupac killing from 1996...even this grainy ass footage would be enough to capture an attack on a vital government building.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

Give us examples of top of the line tech from 2001.

---

My dad's handheld was pretty sweet. But here you go...and I doubt any of these were "top of the line" for military or government agencies in 2001.

2001


North Hollywood Shootout - 1997


Rodney king - 1991


Scarface Mansion - 1983


But the most important buildings in the world wouldn't have comparable or better technology than my dad's Panasonic handheld, no way.

---

Handheld in 2001 is not the same as security cams in 2001.

Hand held shoots continuous video at 24-30 frames per second.

Security shoots in clips at very low frame rates of maybe 4 frames per second. That's why the 757 impact looks so choppy. The security camera's in 2001 were not trying to capture every second. Just snips of what was going on and it was mostly for MONITORING, not record keeping.

And has been pointed out 20-times, their is likely other footage available, the government is just not going to release it, assuming it was even stored correctly and could be viewed anymore (it was tape, not digital).

schmellba99 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Same. I don't understand how releasing video would expose any critical weaknesses or vulnerabilities at the Pentagon all this time later. Makes zero sense. It would shut a lot of people up...and I can't think of any risk or downside.

---

So the only way you and other Truthers are going to believe an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon is to have clear video evidence? No other reasonable evidence is going to suffice, including multiple eyewitness accounts and actual wreckage onsite?

---

No, not at all. Three 4K videos of the plane impacting could be released tomorrow and the truthers would question how there just so happened to be so many high quality cameras recording the exact place of impact.

Someone touched on it earlier but too many people look at the recording from today's perspective. Today I carry 4 cameras with a combined 121 megapixels and 4x optical zoom in my pocket any time I leave the house. Those 4 cameras are connected to 512 gigabytes of storage and 200 more on the cloud.

The first camera phone was the SCH-V200 which was released in 2000 and boasted 0.35 megapixels. The first camera phone released in the US came in late 2002, also with 0.35 megapixel and the ability to store 500 - count 'em, FIVE ZERO ZERO - phone numbers. The first iPhone launched in 2007 with 16 GB of storage and a 2 megapixel camera.

It should shock no one that the video we have is the best that we have.

---

So if something catastrophic happened at the white house or capitol building on that day instead, we would not have solid footage because they didn't have high tech enough cameras to monitor the most important government buildings in the world? Sorry, not buying it, this was 2001, not 1960. These types of buildings are under constant video surveillance, I can assure you.

No one is talking about lack of cell phone video. Maybe I am way off base, but I would imagine that the Pentagon, White House and Capitol had numerous security cameras monitoring the exterior back in the 80's.

---

If you can assure me, then tell me how many cameras the Pentagon had on 9/11/2001. Tell me the most common type of camera employed at the Pentagon on that day. How much storage was available to these cameras? What form was this storage? Oh you can't? Well I'm real assured.

---

It's common sense to have surveillance out the ass at the most critical and most targeted government and military buildings in the world imo. You're right, I spoke in absolute terms, I could only assure you if I had proof. Should have said "you can bet your ass".

If we didn't have them, and don't have much better footage than the one horrible video we released, we were very sloppy and reckless….if it took something like this to finally monitor the pentagon from the outside, that's crazy.

Do y'all really believe we're not sitting on footage? Possibly for a valid and ethical reason?

---

And with the ubiquity of cameras today, I would agree that the Pentagon is highly surveilled. Not so much 21 years ago. It would have been much cheaper and easier to pay guards to watch the Pentagon. Any cameras used would have been so a guard could watch a screen of 10 cameras at once and send someone to check out anything suspicious, not to document in great detail.

Could there be unreleased footage that is withheld for some reason? Of course there could be but I can't come up with any reason to withhold it that makes sense. Does it show classified info? Then it would be from inside and not show the plane approaching. Is it 4k footage and we don't want our enemies to know that 21 years ago we actually had really great security cameras? Does it show a bunch of gore? Then blur it.

---

You have obviously never been on a military base. To this day there are still very strict limitations on what can and cannot be photographed on a military base, including things as innocuous as runways or hangar buildings. Because it is truly amazing what information can be gleaned by those that have the training to do so from what seems to be very benign and harmless photographs. How do I know this? I've had to turn over my camera and phone more than once to base security to review and approve photos I've had to take for projects I was bidding - and more than once I had several pictures erased because they showed something in the background that was deemed verboten. Half the time what was in the background wasn't even in focus and you could only see parts of things, but they removed the pictures just the same.

So the idea that footage from inside or outside the Pentagon not being released to the public isn't anything close to a surprise at all. While you and I may look at it and see nothing, rest assured that the Chinese or Russians or Iranians or Pakis have the ability to glean a lot of information that we probably don't want them to glean from any such footage. I mean, the Pentagon is only THE central headquarters for the entire US military, nothing major or anything like that.

Why is it hard to accept that 22+ years go the technology and the entire approach to security was completely different than it is today? A whole lot of how we view security today is a direct result of 9/11 and what we didn't do or have at that time. Major events are generally what shape how we operate day to day, and how we operate is almost always a reaction instead of anticipation. In 2001 the thought of hijackers commandeering commercial planes and using them as human guided missiles into both civilian and military buildings wasn't on the forefront of what anybody thought to defend against and prepare for. Most of the hardening was geared towards vehicular assaults, not commercial 757 airliner assaults. You cannot apply modern technology and thought processes to 20 years ago when neither existed and only exist today because of something that happened 20 years ago to initiate the advancements and changes in technology and thought processes and procedure.

---

Yeah, you sound just like the guy who could assure me. You know because you know not because you have any legitimate knowledge.

And exactly who is applying "modern technology and thought processes to 20 years ago"?

agracer said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

Give us examples of top of the line tech from 2001.

---

My dad's handheld was pretty sweet. But here you go...and I doubt any of these were "top of the line" for military or government agencies in 2001.

2001


North Hollywood Shootout - 1997


Rodney king - 1991


Scarface Mansion - 1983


But the most important buildings in the world wouldn't have comparable or better technology than my dad's Panasonic handheld, no way.

---

Handheld in 2001 is not the same as security cams in 2001.

Hand held shoots continuous video at 24-30 frames per second.

Security shoots in clips at very low frame rates of maybe 4 frames per second. That's why the 757 impact looks so choppy. The security camera's in 2001 were not trying to capture every second. Just snips of what was going on and it was mostly for MONITORING, not record keeping.

And has been pointed out 20-times, their is likely other footage available, the government is just not going to release it, assuming it was even stored correctly and could be viewed anymore (it was tape, not digital).

---

This is all I am arguing. And that other cams were likely better than the one that was set up to capture licence plates at the gate...not other activity.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

Give us examples of top of the line tech from 2001.

---

My dad's handheld was pretty sweet. But here you go...and I doubt aby of these were "top of the line" for military or government agencies in 2001.

2001


North Hollywood Shootout - 1997


Rodney king - 1991


Scarface Mansion - 1983


But the most important buildings in the world wouldn't have comparable or better technology than my dad's JVC handheld, no way.

---

That's far different than recording video footage for security. Give us technology that would be used for security purposes and not home cameras with limited storage capacity.

---

This is from when security at airports was lax to nonexistent. I don't think it's a stretch to assume the White House had better or more high-tech camera quality...or the Capitol, or the Pentagon. I guess we're never going to change each other's minds.



Vegas casino security cam footage just before Tupac killing from 1996...even this grainy ass footage would be enough to capture an attack on a vital government building.

---

These are pretty ****ty video stills of things happening at a distance measured in feet. Have you ever tried to take a picture of even a low flying airplane with your multimegapixel phone? Or anything at distances of hundreds of yards?

Could be but why would they be monitoring areas that weren't heavy in foot traffic?

Also, in the footage above from other security cameras, were those objects moving at 450+ mph?

Also your image from 1997 of the North Hollywood Shootout is probably filmed from a helo on a camera that cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, so much that the news station probably used the fact that they owned one in their TV ads.

All you guys abusing what you call "truthers" are pathetic. Your whole answer to everything is "muh gubment tells me so".

The answer to much of this, like everything, is somewhere in the middle. But you people cannot even see there might be a middle. From the first page of this thread and on some of you just relentlessly question the intelligence and motives of anyone who says, wait a minute my eyes are not seeing what you are seeing. My information sources are different from yours. My interpretation is not what yours is.

Grow up, learn to listen and don't be so dramatically dogmatic. Plus, you need to realize that your own credibility is shot once you start using "muh gubment" sources to bolster your arguments. That is tripping down the path of insanity, government agenices have never told you the truth about anything yet.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

And it would have looked like it was filmed with a potato.

---

It's crazy how some people act like 2001 was 1950 or something. OF COURSE we had good quality cameras monitoring places like the white house. What world are yall living in?

Hell, Scarface had this dope setup in 1982...



IB4, "That's a movie, decent security cameras didn't exist in the 1980's!"

The truthers and the logical often times use the same sort of red herrings and argument tactics imo.

---

Just because decent quality video cameras existed at the time that doesn't mean the government would have been using any of them. It takes them forever and a day to get from the request for quote step to actually having something.

GAC06 said:

---

Or because the surveillance was oriented around the perimeter and gates where threats were most likely to come from, not filming the sides of the building 24/7 in case a 757 crashes into it

---

Would add to that that fwiw officially, it was said they did look at the other cams such as were possibly oriented right to have a chance of getting something, and found nothing of interest. You can assume they are lying, but it could also simply be true. They are not continuous stream cameras--it would be easy to miss the moment need. And yes, again, the whole point of security cameras was to prevent incursions---not a sky sweeping function. Even the one we have is a classic case of it only comes into view as it crosses the line of vision of the camera. Its approach is not captured, and would not be. Its worth noting that a similar oriented camera view was released that showed the fireball slightly different in time, but also somewhat proved the point they wouldn't show much more different.

The questions about what limited footage from adjacent buildings is probably a good one. But is probably a mistake to assume there were great amounts of such footage in the first place. Not in 2001.

Rosie O'Donnell is a 911 truther. You wanna get in bed with Rosie?

Think about that for a minute.

txrancher69 said:

---

All you guys abusing what you call "truthers" are pathetic. Your whole answer to everything is "muh gubment tells me so".

The answer to much of this, like everything, is somewhere in the middle. But you people cannot even see there might be a middle. From the first page of this thread and on some of you just relentlessly question the intelligence and motives of anyone who says, wait a minute my eyes are not seeing what you are seeing. My information sources are different from yours. My interpretation is not what yours is.

Grow up, learn to listen and don't be so dramatically dogmatic. Plus, you need to realize that your own credibility is shot once you start using "muh gubment" sources to bolster your arguments. That is tripping down the path of insanity, government agenices have never told you the truth about anything yet.

---

The government told me we dropped 2 atom bombs on Japan. Does that make it untrue?

Old Army Ghost said:

---

cbr said:

---

I dont really get the conclusive opinions either way.

I've never studied any of this but there are a whole lot of seemingly odd things around 9/11

Then again i have not seen or heard of any particular 'conspiracy theory' that was fully persuasive


But one thing is for sure - there remain a lot of secrets or mysteries about this event.

---

lol

so you bury your head in the sand and dont know anything

---

wtf?

there is no way of knowing much unless you spend a lot of time on it. there is no way of knowing the full truth no matter how hard you try.

i've seen 'mainstream' proofs that are clearly biased and idiotic on their face. i've also seen 'conspiracy theories' proofs that dont hold up either.

i havent spent the time to form an opinion, as i have no control over any of it and it's not that interesting to me.

if you look at what happened since, and the discernible motives of various parties, to me that tells me that there is likely more to the story than the mainstream declassified stuff.

but i dont know what, and even if i did a bunch of research i still would not know, so that is different than burying my head.

bottom line, if someone has convinced themselves of particular facts, that's great, i'm listening. But there arent too many facts that seem clear cut about this event.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Same. I don't understand how releasing video would expose any critical weaknesses or vulnerabilities at the Pentagon all this time later. Makes zero sense. It would shut a lot of people up...and I can't think of any risk or downside.

---

So the only way you and other Truthers are going to believe an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon is to have clear video evidence? No other reasonable evidence is going to suffice, including multiple eyewitness accounts and actual wreckage onsite?

---

No, not at all. Three 4K videos of the plane impacting could be released tomorrow and the truthers would question how there just so happened to be so many high quality cameras recording the exact place of impact.

Someone touched on it earlier but too many people look at the recording from today's perspective. Today I carry 4 cameras with a combined 121 megapixels and 4x optical zoom in my pocket any time I leave the house. Those 4 cameras are connected to 512 gigabytes of storage and 200 more on the cloud.

The first camera phone was the SCH-V200 which was released in 2000 and boasted 0.35 megapixels. The first camera phone released in the US came in late 2002, also with 0.35 megapixel and the ability to store 500 - count 'em, FIVE ZERO ZERO - phone numbers. The first iPhone launched in 2007 with 16 GB of storage and a 2 megapixel camera.

It should shock no one that the video we have is the best that we have.

---

So if something catastrophic happened at the white house or capitol building on that day instead, we would not have solid footage because they didn't have high tech enough cameras to monitor the most important government buildings in the world? Sorry, not buying it, this was 2001, not 1960. These types of buildings are under constant video surveillance, I can assure you.

No one is talking about lack of cell phone video. Maybe I am way off base, but I would imagine that the Pentagon, White House and Capitol had numerous security cameras monitoring the exterior back in the 80's.

---

If you can assure me, then tell me how many cameras the Pentagon had on 9/11/2001. Tell me the most common type of camera employed at the Pentagon on that day. How much storage was available to these cameras? What form was this storage? Oh you can't? Well I'm real assured.

---

It's common sense to have surveillance out the ass at the most critical and most targeted government and military buildings in the world imo. You're right, I spoke in absolute terms, I could only assure you if I had proof. Should have said "you can bet your ass".

If we didn't have them, and don't have much better footage than the one horrible video we released, we were very sloppy and reckless….if it took something like this to finally monitor the pentagon from the outside, that's crazy.

Do y'all really believe we're not sitting on footage? Possibly for a valid and ethical reason?

---

And with the ubiquity of cameras today, I would agree that the Pentagon is highly surveilled. Not so much 21 years ago. It would have been much cheaper and easier to pay guards to watch the Pentagon. Any cameras used would have been so a guard could watch a screen of 10 cameras at once and send someone to check out anything suspicious, not to document in great detail.

Could there be unreleased footage that is withheld for some reason? Of course there could be but I can't come up with any reason to withhold it that makes sense. Does it show classified info? Then it would be from inside and not show the plane approaching. Is it 4k footage and we don't want our enemies to know that 21 years ago we actually had really great security cameras? Does it show a bunch of gore? Then blur it.

---

You have obviously never been on a military base. To this day there are still very strict limitations on what can and cannot be photographed on a military base, including things as innocuous as runways or hangar buildings. Because it is truly amazing what information can be gleaned by those that have the training to do so from what seems to be very benign and harmless photographs. How do I know this? I've had to turn over my camera and phone more than once to base security to review and approve photos I've had to take for projects I was bidding - and more than once I had several pictures erased because they showed something in the background that was deemed verboten. Half the time what was in the background wasn't even in focus and you could only see parts of things, but they removed the pictures just the same.

So the idea that footage from inside or outside the Pentagon not being released to the public isn't anything close to a surprise at all. While you and I may look at it and see nothing, rest assured that the Chinese or Russians or Iranians or Pakis have the ability to glean a lot of information that we probably don't want them to glean from any such footage. I mean, the Pentagon is only THE central headquarters for the entire US military, nothing major or anything like that.

Why is it hard to accept that 22+ years go the technology and the entire approach to security was completely different than it is today? A whole lot of how we view security today is a direct result of 9/11 and what we didn't do or have at that time. Major events are generally what shape how we operate day to day, and how we operate is almost always a reaction instead of anticipation. In 2001 the thought of hijackers commandeering commercial planes and using them as human guided missiles into both civilian and military buildings wasn't on the forefront of what anybody thought to defend against and prepare for. Most of the hardening was geared towards vehicular assaults, not commercial 757 airliner assaults. You cannot apply modern technology and thought processes to 20 years ago when neither existed and only exist today because of something that happened 20 years ago to initiate the advancements and changes in technology and thought processes and procedure.

---

Yeah, you sound just like the guy who could assure me. You know because you know not because you have any legitimate knowledge.

And exactly who is applying "modern technology and thought processes to 20 years ago"?

---

Just admit that nothing will change your mind. It's OK to admit that. I mean, it doesn't make you any smarter or anything, but at least you'll be honest with yourself.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. That's OK too. I mean, I'd fire you if you worked for me because of how poor your comprehension skills are, but that's just me.

it just makes cognitive sense that those most opposed to logic, critical thought and rationality -

would be the same ones who are cultists and members of the far right and far left loonies.

congrats on that.

GAC06 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

So why wasn't it done on the large engine parts that should have been there?

I am not arguing that you can do a thorough investigation, as you have described. But as with everything 9/11 related, a thorough investigation was not performed

---

https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/pentagon/Pentagon9-11.pdf

Large engine part on page 201

---

Good luck ever getting a legit response from that cook.

txrancher69 said:

---

All you guys abusing what you call "truthers" are pathetic. Your whole answer to everything is "muh gubment tells me so".

The answer to much of this, like everything, is somewhere in the middle. But you people cannot even see there might be a middle. From the first page of this thread and on some of you just relentlessly question the intelligence and motives of anyone who says, wait a minute my eyes are not seeing what you are seeing. My information sources are different from yours. My interpretation is not what yours is.

Grow up, learn to listen and don't be so dramatically dogmatic. Plus, you need to realize that your own credibility is shot once you start using "muh gubment" sources to bolster your arguments. That is tripping down the path of insanity, government agenices have never told you the truth about anything yet.

---

This is very true...it took me over thirty years to get to the point of realizing that our government lies to us far more often than they tell the truth. The founders screamed this at us, but society got fat and happy.

All that to say, I pretty much always assume the federal government agencies are lying to me. i think all of us have seen at least a handful of conspiracies come true just in the last few months alone, much less the last few years. It has been eye opening and life changing for me to say the least.

I am nowhere near a truther, but do have questions. If anything, I would love for stuff to eventually come out that the vast majority of truthers just can't deny. but i can see why they have questions about that footage at the gate cam. The 30-something foot high plane (without landing gear) looks like a tiny tube. I believe it looks so narrow because it is collapsing against the ground just a fraction of a fraction of a second before it hits the building...but this isn't enough for any of them.

I know the response. It was planted like everything else.

GAC06 said:

---

Did a 757 hit the pentagon? Yes or no. There is no middle.

---

Yes, but I can see how it doesn't look like a behemoth 757 to some because it is likely smashing on the ground rather than flying directly into the base of the building. I kind of agree with the take that even if we had crystal clear footage of it, comparable to the homemade footage of plan hitting tower 2, the hardcore truthers would just move the goalposts and say that it had to be remote controlled by the CIA or something. So it's a fruitless endeavor to debate with the true believers.

I don't think it's crazy to wonder if there is a lot that we don't know or has been hidden from us. Our response was certainly illogical and super costly in the long run...for everyone but the military industrial apparatus.

schmellba99 said:

---

txrancher69 said:

---

All you guys abusing what you call "truthers" are pathetic. Your whole answer to everything is "muh gubment tells me so".

The answer to much of this, like everything, is somewhere in the middle. But you people cannot even see there might be a middle. From the first page of this thread and on some of you just relentlessly question the intelligence and motives of anyone who says, wait a minute my eyes are not seeing what you are seeing. My information sources are different from yours. My interpretation is not what yours is.

Grow up, learn to listen and don't be so dramatically dogmatic. Plus, you need to realize that your own credibility is shot once you start using "muh gubment" sources to bolster your arguments. That is tripping down the path of insanity, government agenices have never told you the truth about anything yet.

---

Imma let you in on a little hint vato - muh gubmint didn't tell me ***** I saw it with my own fuggin eyes and have the capacity for logical thought on how and why the buildings collapsed in the manner that they did.

I destroy truthers because, by in large, they are idiots that can't think and as shown on this thread, try to apply modern technology to 20 years ago in their quest to prove what cannot be proved. Sometimes...juuuuuussst sometimes.....you have to call a spade a spade. Or in cases like this, a dumbass a dumbass.

---

I don't think it makes someone a "dumbass" to think the most important buildings in the world likely had high-tech surveillance cameras littering the place in and out that most businesses and casinos didn't have at that time. Maybe they did maybe they didn't, but to think the government wouldn't have the money or means to have security cams in 2001 with quality on par with my dad's handheld Panasonic at that time, or the camcorder that caught the plane going into tower two...or in that ballpark...is crazy to me. Surely the White House did, right?

There is footage we haven't seen and will likely never seen. Most likely for very legitimate reasons, as I think you mentioned earlier.

txrancher69 said:

---

All you guys abusing what you call "truthers" are pathetic. Your whole answer to everything is "muh gubment tells me so".

The answer to much of this, like everything, is somewhere in the middle. But you people cannot even see there might be a middle. From the first page of this thread and on some of you just relentlessly question the intelligence and motives of anyone who says, wait a minute my eyes are not seeing what you are seeing. My information sources are different from yours. My interpretation is not what yours is.

Grow up, learn to listen and don't be so dramatically dogmatic. Plus, you need to realize that your own credibility is shot once you start using "muh gubment" sources to bolster your arguments. That is tripping down the path of insanity, government agenices have never told you the truth about anything yet.

---

Bless your heart

This is one of those threads I would love to see a headshot of everyone who's posting.

I have a large feeling I would give up immediately…