Why do you keep circling back to our response? It had nothing to do with whether rag heads flew airplanes into buildings.

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Go hide from the rain, man

Brittmoore Car Club 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.

---

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.

---

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.

wbt5845 said:

---

Why do you keep circling back to our response? It had nothing to do with whether rag heads flew airplanes into buildings.

---

I'm talking to others…I can't reason with someone who doesn't believe the feds colluded with big tech companies and media to interfere with the election of 2020. Even though it has been proven as fact.

JK, I'll answer...because the conversation has shifted and broadened at times on this thread, as happens with many threads. That is the one thing I really will always find shady about 9/11, that we, at the very least, "didn't let a good crisis go to waste". It was a convenient disaster that opened up the door to a decades long war that was fruitless to virtually everyone, aside from those who stood to make big $$$ off it.

The idiots say things like "we went to war so Bush could get revenge for his daddy/steal their oil!"...more reasonable people think it was more to feed the military industrial beast who was hungry imo.

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…

---

Best I can do…pre drive-by (on hogs)

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.

---

In addition, I'll be really damn glad when people stop using that term "muh" when mocking someone. Geez that stopped being clever a long time ago! Like nails down a chalkboard!

STOP RESPONDING TO TRUTHERS!

If you don't debate people you find mumbling on the streets, why would you do so with 911 Truthers? It's literally the same thing. They are not capable of rational thought or discussion. It cracks me up watching otherwise intelligent people trying to convince the loonies that Tower 7 wasn't brought down with explosives or that the Pentagon was hit by a hijacked plane not by a missile, or that hijacked airline passengers were not brought to a secluded island where they still live today.

Stop. Please.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

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.

Shhhhhh!!!!!!

Facts arent welcome in unicorn fart and fairy dust land!

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!

schmellba99 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

What fairy tale do I believe in and what factual data do I have a problem with?

New World Ag said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I honestly thought a 757 was bigger than a 747

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!

---

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.

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

---

oh snap

aggieee got beat down

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!

---

That's without a jet fuel fire at impact that continued to burn for days.

You believe "the gubmint"?!??

Yup. Either the hog hunting type bros that posted his pic earlier. Or the dale gribble olds type.

Props for owning up to that

GAC06 said:

---

You believe "the gubmint"?!??

---

AAARRRGGHHHH!!!!!!


What are we outraged about, again?

I mean. We're already here. What are your thoughts aiggiEE?

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.

---

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.

FWIW, a far more believable theory is something was allowed to occur if insist on such. But its not especially credible either. I just don't think some are realizing just how many witnesses you have to control that day on the outside to fake the Pentagon impact. But even that is making the mistake of arguing specifics--part of the challenge is just to hear out first. Consider. That's all.

But the other thing want to point out is there is such a think as several variants of a doubter or `conspiracy theorist' --- some are far less cracked in the head than others, and they get drowned out when just wave all away with total mockery. That's wrong too.

Covid, alphabet meddling in elections, overseas wars--- all of these come under the pattern which as you say may be "somewhere in the middle" of the extremes.

Not even remotely comparable

One of the larger pieces of debris is incredibly small and no verification of source

Proving my point, next.

rwtxag83 said:

---

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

Think about that for a minute.

---

Joe Biden is a 911 mah Guvmint is alwayz Truther

You wanna get in bed and FJB?

Quote:

---

or that hijacked airline passengers were not brought to a secluded island where they still live today.

---

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.

And by "personal favorite" I mean the one I find to be the absolutely most ludicrous one out there.

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

True, there is no reason to believe any `morality' of it is a special barrier.

But suppose just for a second, you go with some kind of false-flag. What was it to do--- launch the Iraq War? What was the purpose? And if it was that, why was the war botched, basically lost or stale-mated? There was so much that was un-ready about the war, strung together, it would seem a pre-planned thing would have been more ready to accomplish its point.

The way see it, what the Bush-Cheney admin did is actually far less decisive and transformative (in the negative sense) than what the Obama admin did.

So if nothing else, will you say what you thought the purpose of this risky false flag was? ("risky" because if it was real, but outed, even executions of officials might have happened from public outrage)

AggiEE 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

---

lol you still here despite being proven wrong time and time again? quite brave

The purpose is pretty straightforward when you see everything that occurred as a result of 9/11

Who benefits? Well, certainly wasn't supposed middle eastern terrorists.

Widespread domestic agenda to expand executive power, increase the surveillance state, curtail personal Liberty, and wage endless wars across the world.

They had a small window of opportunity to usher in this surveillance before the dawn of the coming digital/internet age, and their level of surveillance and control is to a degree many would not believe

None of that gets done without a catalytic event, like a new Pearl Harbor.

They didn't even make it difficult to figure out, it's all spelled out in PNAC

But was all that really all that successful or useful though? Doesn't it appear that Obama (and Biden ) basically demolished all that and set things on a more regressive course? It just doesn't look like all those expansions from 9/11 ended up serving even the neocon side all that much. Lost the whole Hill in '06 and then the WH in '08.

Maybe you see Obama as not a disruption, but part of the same.

Its just considering their control of the press (and what none can doubt, on either side, is, it is the government, and not the American people, that control the press) --- 9/11 seems kind of drastic. They don't even need it to start brushfire wars -- just have the press drum it up. They also didn't really "use" the Pearl Harbor in the final reckoning. (It actually offered chance to unite all of Europe, even Russia, with US, but Bush-Cheney were not up to it)

Huh? No, Biden/Obama made it even worse

The passage of the patriot act, establishing homeland security, massive NSA expansion, and countless large wars would not have been possible without it

AggiEE said:

---

Huh? No, Biden/Obama made it even worse

---

Re-read with this re-phrasing in mind.

What I was saying is, it sounds like you are saying 9/11 was a false-flag to create the WoT. What I was saying is, it sure looks the WoT ended up failing more than anything else. It cost the neocons the entire government by 2009. Is it clearer now?


(In fact, could see them never getting the WH back -- Trump was a very special case, may even prove last popularly indicated President in having flipped state votes before balloting became fully `fortified'.)

I don't believe the WoT was anything more than icing on the cake.

The real meat and potatoes was government power.

Ah, so not even the military spending. Okay. That's an argument.