Still Think There should be Pentagon Video ?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Just gonna point out that the Pentagon is far from "the most highly guarded building in the world." Like...not even close.

At least, apparently for some bizarre reason, not on that day it wasn't.

a reply to: MysterX

It never has been one of the most guarded buildings in the world. White House, CIA HQ, NSA HQ, Fort Knox, Cheyenne Mountain, Mount Weather.....there are quite a few more buildings in the US that are more guarded.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MysterX

It never has been one of the most guarded buildings in the world. White House, CIA HQ, NSA HQ, Fort Knox, Cheyenne Mountain, Mount Weather.....there are quite a few more buildings in the US that are more guarded.

You can even do a tour of the Pentagon.... pentagontours.osd.mil...

So much for it being "one of the most guarded buildings"!

a reply to: peacefulpete

This is getting quite rhetorical but obviously if they had video of it, it could prove what happened, if not help prevent it. Then maybe people wouldn't disbelieve the government's version of events.

There is video of both WTC attacks.
They have eye witnesses of a plane at the Pentagon.
I don't see a problem accepting the fact that there WAS a plane at the Pentagon.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: peacefulpete

How would you prevent it? Shoot it down over Crystal City where it could kill even more people? Shoot it down over Reagan National where it could kill even more? Pray its final attack vector is over the Potomac so you can shoot it down there? And even then....what happens if you have air defenses at the Pentagon and a jet shoots a missed approach from Reagan? You blast a plane of completely innocent folks out of the air? Because I can tell you first hand, an airliner taking off out of Reagan, flies right over the frigging Pentagon.

I wasn't talking about any of that lol. Thanks for the pointless tangent.

My point was that if they couldn't prevent it, a video of the attack could still prove useful. It could be proof of what actually happened.

Then maybe most of the world wouldn't disbelieve the official story so much lol.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: peacefulpete

This is getting quite rhetorical but obviously if they had video of it, it could prove what happened, if not help prevent it. Then maybe people wouldn't disbelieve the government's version of events.

There is video of both WTC attacks.
They have eye witnesses of a plane at the Pentagon.
I don't see a problem accepting the fact that there WAS a plane at the Pentagon.

I guess it's just personal differences. For me, I can't accept there was a plane at the Pentagon, at least not the plane they've claimed, due to a lack of proof.

A drone seems more likely to me, if not just a damn missile lol. The damage was too small to be the plane that was claimed.

originally posted by: peacefulpete
It could be proof of what actually happened.

We know what actually happened.

Then maybe most of the world wouldn't disbelieve the official story so much

Only a few silly conspiracy theory believe Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.... and they refuse to explain how all the wreckage, bodies, body parts, luggage etc. from Flight 77 were found inside inside the Pentagon. Even if they were shown a HD video of the crash they would be in denial.

originally posted by: peacefulpete
The damage was too small to be the plane that was claimed.

No it was not, it matched Flight 77. But obviously you are not interested in facts.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
It could be proof of what actually happened.

We know what actually happened.

Then maybe most of the world wouldn't disbelieve the official story so much

Only a few silly conspiracy theory believe Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.... and they refuse to explain how all the wreckage, bodies, body parts, luggage etc. from Flight 77 were found inside inside the Pentagon. Even if they were shown a HD video of the crash they would be in denial.

Well for me, the disbelief is based on a lack of evidence. I've seen no photos of the wreckage you mentioned at the Pentagon, therefore, I don't believe it was there.

So for people who rely on evidence then photos / videos can be quite convincing and helpful to establishing what happened lol.

a reply to: peacefulpete

The damage was far too large to be a UAV, and too small for a missile.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
The damage was too small to be the plane that was claimed.

No it was not, it matched Flight 77. But obviously you are not interested in facts.

It doesn't match Flight 77 because the damage is so small. The nose of the plane would have had to break a round hole in the wall, and then the plane disintegrated, without even disturbing the dirt on the lawn, and with leaving almost no wreckage. The OS is just bizarre. It seems like willful denial of reality.

originally posted by: peacefulpete
I've seen no photos of the wreckage you mentioned at the Pentagon, therefore, I don't believe it was there.

So for people who rely on evidence then photos / videos can be quite convincing and helpful to establishing what happened

They have been posted in this very thread, but apparently you have refused to look at them as you know they destroy your silly conspiracy theory!

originally posted by: peacefulpete
The nose of the plane would have had to break a round hole in the wall, and then the plane disintegrated, without even disturbing the dirt on the lawn,

As the plane never hit the ground why would it have disturbed the dirt?

and with leaving almost no wreckage.

Pictures of tonnes of wreckage have been shown, it is just bizarre how and why you refuse to look at them!

It seems like willful denial of reality.

That would be you, and your refusal to look at the evidence!

a reply to: peacefulpete

A UAV is far too small and light weight to punch through that wall. The Global Hawk that people like to use weighs 32,000 pounds.

A missile would have killed everyone in the area when the warhead detonated.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
I've seen no photos of the wreckage you mentioned at the Pentagon, therefore, I don't believe it was there.

So for people who rely on evidence then photos / videos can be quite convincing and helpful to establishing what happened

They have been posted in this very thread, but apparently you have refused to look at them as you know they destroy your silly conspiracy theory!

Lol. This guy is a trip. I've seen all the photos posted in this thread. There are only small pieces of wreckage that do not convince me there was really a plane there. Plus there was that USA Today article claiming corpses from the plane etc. and I've never seen any photos of any large wreckage at all.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
The nose of the plane would have had to break a round hole in the wall, and then the plane disintegrated, without even disturbing the dirt on the lawn,

As the plane never hit the ground why would it have disturbed the dirt?

and with leaving almost no wreckage.

Pictures of tonnes of wreckage have been shown, it is just bizarre how and why you refuse to look at them!

It seems like willful denial of reality.

That would be you, and your refusal to look at the evidence!

Dirt: It's okay if you don't think the lawn would be disturbed by a plane crash lol. My real point is that I've never seen any large damage or large wreckage at the Pentagon, so I don't believe there was a plane there. Something happened obviously but not the OS.

Photos: I've seen them all in this thread, I think? If there were any pieces of large debris, did I miss it? I've only seen small debris that is unconvincing, with very minimal damage at the Pentagon. And a perfect undisturbed green lawn lol.

a reply to: peacefulpete

And not all plane crashes leave large pieces.

originally posted by: peacefulpeteI've only seen small debris that is unconvincing, with very minimal damage at the Pentagon.

Here is another crash with only small pieces. Only parts from the tail section was larger, about 2 meter. Ground speed aproximately 280 knots.
Norweigan Hercules

A Royal Norwegian Air Force (Norwegian: Luftforsvaret) Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules military transport aircraft crashed into the western wall of Mount Kebnekaise on 15 March 2012.

Wikipedia

a reply to: rayjoh

This current Airbus crash is another one. They've recovered three pieces that are a couple feet long. The rest is tiny pieces of aircraft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rayjoh

This current Airbus crash is another one. They've recovered three pieces that are a couple feet long. The rest is tiny pieces of aircraft.

Why yes that is true as I viewed the crash site this morning, but there were thousands and thousands of pieces in the pictures. Now take a look at the pentagon Lawn in the photos we have to work with and you can count the pieces of wreckage on your fingers and toes.
Link to the video of the wreckage........www.liveleak.com...

Regards, Iwinder