Why do you keep circling back to our response? It had nothing to do with whether rag heads flew airplanes into buildings.
schmellba99 said: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.chickencoupe16 said:schmellba99 said: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.chickencoupe16 said:Brittmoore Car Club said:chickencoupe16 said:Brittmoore Car Club said: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.chickencoupe16 said:Duckhook said:Brittmoore Car Club said: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.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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
The 757 is a narrow body jet...the fuselage is about 12' wide, same as a 737. Not a "behemoth" as you also described. The size of the hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon is absolutely consistent with what you would expect that size jet flying at that speed into a thick masonry wall building.Brittmoore Car Club said: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.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.
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.
wbt5845 said:
Why do you keep circling back to our response? It had nothing to do with whether rag heads flew airplanes into buildings.
2%er/New Army said:
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…
agracer said:txrancher69 said:
All you guys abusing what you call "truthers" are pathetic. Your whole answer to everything is "muh gubment tells me so".
Not one single poster has stated this.
chickencoupe16 said:schmellba99 said: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.chickencoupe16 said:schmellba99 said: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.chickencoupe16 said:Brittmoore Car Club said:chickencoupe16 said:Brittmoore Car Club said: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.chickencoupe16 said:Duckhook said:Brittmoore Car Club said: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.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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
Go hide from the rain, man
AggiEE said:
What stands out to me is the only piece of debris that looks like it resembles an AA part, very small with the characteristic colors. Beyond that almost nothing you could easily identify as an AA aircraft
There should be an enormous amount of engine debris but we have very little
schmellba99 said:chickencoupe16 said:schmellba99 said: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.chickencoupe16 said:schmellba99 said: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.chickencoupe16 said:Brittmoore Car Club said:chickencoupe16 said:Brittmoore Car Club said: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.chickencoupe16 said:Duckhook said:Brittmoore Car Club said: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.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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
Go hide from the rain, man
Thats rich coming from somebody that doesnt like factual data and i stead thinks a fairy tale is somehow reality.
I honestly thought a 757 was bigger than a 747New World Ag said:The 757 is a narrow body jet...the fuselage is about 12' wide, same as a 737. Not a "behemoth" as you also described. The size of the hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon is absolutely consistent with what you would expect that size jet flying at that speed into a thick masonry wall building.Brittmoore Car Club said: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.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.
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.
Saw this earlier in the thread and thought it was eye opening. Not at all how I would imagine the debris scatter. much different from the plane crashes you normally see footage off that aren't hitting something extremely hard and dense at super high speeds.Thaddeus Beauregard said:AggiEE said:
What stands out to me is the only piece of debris that looks like it resembles an AA part, very small with the characteristic colors. Beyond that almost nothing you could easily identify as an AA aircraft
There should be an enormous amount of engine debris but we have very little
Dude, when an airplane impacts a concrete wall at 400+ mph, it completely disintegrates into tiny pieces. It doesn't make a cartoonish "cookie cutter" plane-shaped hole in the wall, and there are no large intact pieces. This test has been demonstrated before on purpose with an F4 Phantom rocketed into a concrete wall on a track sled at 500 mph. Note what happens and what remains in this video. It practically turns to dust! There is an enormous amount of energy unleashed!
oh snapGAC06 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
Thaddeus Beauregard said:AggiEE said:
What stands out to me is the only piece of debris that looks like it resembles an AA part, very small with the characteristic colors. Beyond that almost nothing you could easily identify as an AA aircraft
There should be an enormous amount of engine debris but we have very little
Dude, when an airplane impacts a concrete wall at 400+ mph, it completely disintegrates into tiny pieces. It doesn't make a cartoonish "cookie cutter" plane-shaped hole in the wall, and there are no large intact pieces. This test has been demonstrated before on purpose with an F4 Phantom rocketed into a concrete wall on a track sled at 500 mph. Note what happens and what remains in this video. It practically turns to dust! There is an enormous amount of energy unleashed!
GAC06 said:
You believe "the gubmint"?!??
Well I certainly hope haven't come across that way. My skepticism is based on specifics, not some default trust in the government or belief in a "received version" of something. I have tried to ask address questions of the doubters or ask queries to make cause thought about some different angles rather than going down all the rabbit holes. At the same time, they shouldn't be mocked for following what appears to be persuasive verbal and photographic evidence that things are "not as they seem." Even if its incorrect, and someone fervently believe its nonsense, understand to another it may be somewhat persuasive in full good faith and shutting down discussion only breeds more suspicion. Covid is and example of that incarnate - --the laptop currently is another.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.
rwtxag83 said:
Rosie O'Donnell is a 911 truther. You wanna get in bed with Rosie?
Think about that for a minute.
Most of them believe they were killed by the government shortly after being taken off the planes, or, my personal favorite because it is the most whacked out one, they were willing sacrifices for the cause, whether that is the New World Order or the Zionist World Conspiracy.Quote:
or that hijacked airline passengers were not brought to a secluded island where they still live today.
lol you still here despite being proven wrong time and time again? quite braveAggiEE said:
Ha! I mean, it's not like our government would ever stage a false flag that killed innocent citizens.
Even though we know definitively that they have had a similar plan drafted up as Operation Northwoods and only needed presidential approval decades before 9/11
And then we have foreign governments like the Israelis attacking the US in false flags to catalyze their agenda
Re-read with this re-phrasing in mind.AggiEE said:
Huh? No, Biden/Obama made it even worse