So let me get this straight: The Pentagon has video tapes of the Boeing hitting their own building.., page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 61 times


reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 03:04 PM by hooper
Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by hooper


That's one of the lamest arguments I have ever heard or read anywhere! Are you the one who has been posting the same or similar argument in other 9/11 threads, i.e. it's OK to withhold the best possible evidence because we the people aren't capable of comprehending it and therefore would not believe it anyway! That argument is pure unadulterated hogwash. I hope most ATS members are a bit smarter than to fall for your nonsense. Your are foolish to think that we are fools enough to accept your stupid premise. Mods: Please notice that I said his premise, not he, is stupid.


All I can say is - huh? I never, ever said that evidence is being withheld because the American people can't handle it. That's from a freakin' movie. There may be "evidence" that is not available yet because it is still literally that - evidence, as in the legal kind. Everybody knows that evidence is not broadcast hither and yon before a trial. Now, mind you, there may never be another trial related to 9/11, and in that case some material that is not otherwise sensitive to national security or insensitive to families of the victims, may be released. However, please bear in mind there is not a groundswell of grassroots activity trying to get the government to release info in order to "prove" what Americans hold to be an obvious truth.


reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 03:21 PM by liveandletlive
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by liveandletlive


It's not important. Like I said, if it did exist it would just be dismissed as fake.

What is important is the tactic. First, appeal to conventional wisdom, i.e. the Pentagon is a fortress bristling with CCTV's and the latest in recording formats. Ignore the fact that the building is an administrative headquarters and the government is usually the last group to get the latest anything. Then exploit the CW by promoting the assumption that if the CW is true (and it must be otherwise it wouldn't be the CW) then there is something missing. The hope is to gain mass appeal by keeping the basics simple. Second, appeal to the perception that everyone thinks the government and its employees are to be assumed evil unless proven otherwise.

The problem comes in the second phase. Most Americans harbor a fairly healthy cynicism regarding the government, but more specifically their elected officials. However, most Americans do not harbor the belief that all agents and employees of the government are assumed to be evil unless proven otherwise. That's where it falls apart, even if the first CW can hold some water among many Americans they are satisfied with the testimony of firefighters, military and law enforecement professionals that have attested to what happened there, specifically, that a commercial plane crashed into the building.


You cant answer the question can you? Funny thing is that I’m still undecided on the whole issue. But when people like you come up with really weak arguments or avoid the legitimate questions altogether, it certainly makes me curious as to their agenda. Instead of answering my questions, you just repeatedly change the subject and say it’s not worth answering. I never asked whether or not you or any one else agreed or disagreed with the 911 conspiracy. I never asked you if a plane hit the building or not. I didn’t ask you about camera positions or what anyone else’s opinion might be on 911. Try and focus if you can and I will ask you and your friends for what I think is the sixth time:

Why is video from the gas station that might show the inbound plane and the crash considered a matter of “national security”? Why is all of the other footage taken by news teams and the other video and pictures taken after the crash ok? It was a commercial jet for god sake! What’s the big secret? Why did they confiscate the video from the gas station?

edit to add: I just found the video. Thanks for nothing!


[edit on 5-11-2009 by liveandletlive]


reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 03:29 PM by dubiousone
reply to post by hooper


Why do you post statements like that? Your "questions" are really just statements which assert "facts" that are not only false but widely known to be false.

No video has been released which shows the supposed plane crashing into the pentagon. You know that. So, again, why do you post false statements in the form of questions?

If I am off base here, and you have seen such picture or videos, please share them or post links to where they can be viewed. Most ATS members who want to know the truth will be quite interested to view them. I'll check in again later so that I can look at your posted pictures, videos, links, or whatever it is you come up with.

[edit on 11/5/2009 by dubiousone]


reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 04:24 PM by hooper
Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by hooper


Why do you post statements like that? Your "questions" are really just statements which assert "facts" that are not only false but widely known to be false.

No video has been released which shows the supposed plane crashing into the pentagon. You know that. So, again, why do you post false statements in the form of questions?

If I am off base here, and you have seen such picture or videos, please share them or post links to where they can be viewed. Most ATS members who want to know the truth will be quite interested to view them. I'll check in again later so that I can look at your posted pictures, videos, links, or whatever it is you come up with.

[edit on 11/5/2009 by dubiousone]


The reply was in response to the statement that all videos were confiscated and none were ever released. They were.


reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 04:27 PM by smurfy
reply to post by dubiousone
Well I have to say that Hooper is using the "keyword" system when he says "Commercial" plane, it's a bit sound-bytey. I do think a plane hit the building so "plane" should be enough. The first of the two videos from the control point clearly shows a nose of an aircraft, what is remarkable is that it is on the ground or as nears as makes no difference.. there is no encumbent horizon to interfere with the viewpoint,(notice the cars heading right, towards a junction before the plane appears) they are quite visible and much further away, to me that makes the plane on the ground before it hit. The big issue is that the eyewitnesses statements around the Navy Annex and the petrol station of the planes trajectory, including policemen are at odds with the the official version ie; two different flightpaths?? One other thing is the planes nose, the only part really visible, looks all white in colour, rather than unpainted aluminium, as a good part of that plane should have been.



[edit on 5-11-2009 by smurfy]


reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 04:34 PM by hooper
Originally posted by liveandletlive
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by liveandletlive


It's not important. Like I said, if it did exist it would just be dismissed as fake.

What is important is the tactic. First, appeal to conventional wisdom, i.e. the Pentagon is a fortress bristling with CCTV's and the latest in recording formats. Ignore the fact that the building is an administrative headquarters and the government is usually the last group to get the latest anything. Then exploit the CW by promoting the assumption that if the CW is true (and it must be otherwise it wouldn't be the CW) then there is something missing. The hope is to gain mass appeal by keeping the basics simple. Second, appeal to the perception that everyone thinks the government and its employees are to be assumed evil unless proven otherwise.

The problem comes in the second phase. Most Americans harbor a fairly healthy cynicism regarding the government, but more specifically their elected officials. However, most Americans do not harbor the belief that all agents and employees of the government are assumed to be evil unless proven otherwise. That's where it falls apart, even if the first CW can hold some water among many Americans they are satisfied with the testimony of firefighters, military and law enforecement professionals that have attested to what happened there, specifically, that a commercial plane crashed into the building.


You cant answer the question can you? Funny thing is that I’m still undecided on the whole issue. But when people like you come up with really weak arguments or avoid the legitimate questions altogether, it certainly makes me curious as to their agenda. Instead of answering my questions, you just repeatedly change the subject and say it’s not worth answering. I never asked whether or not you or any one else agreed or disagreed with the 911 conspiracy. I never asked you if a plane hit the building or not. I didn’t ask you about camera positions or what anyone else’s opinion might be on 911. Try and focus if you can and I will ask you and your friends for what I think is the sixth time:

Why is video from the gas station that might show the inbound plane and the crash considered a matter of “national security”? Why is all of the other footage taken by news teams and the other video and pictures taken after the crash ok? It was a commercial jet for god sake! What’s the big secret? Why did they confiscate the video from the gas station?

edit to add: I just found the video. Thanks for nothing!


[edit on 5-11-2009 by liveandletlive]


I am speculating here and I admit that freely and openly. If I were to guess the reason the tapes were "confiscated" was because they were material evidence to a criminal activity. This is more than common. Happens at all levels of law enforcement, Federal, State and local. It was not unique to 9/11. Secondly, you are only assuming that the focus of law enforcement was to collect videos of the actual crash. But I think that is secondary. I think the primary focus was to see if any of the videos may reveal "interested parties" in the vicinity at the time of the crash. I think it is more than reasonable to assume that there may have been persons representing the terrorist with video cameras at the ready to record the event. We know they do it, and have for years. Don't be suprised to find out that they also confiscated videos in other areas of DC where the were potential targets for Flight 93.


reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 04:38 PM by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by hooper


Did you see the video?

It doesn't show anything other than people walking in to pay for gas or buy chewing gum. You call that important footage? You gotta be kidding me...


reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 04:53 PM by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by vehemes terra eternus


Its not that "we" are too stupid to see its a massive cover-up...its just that people who can do something about it, are not doing something about it...so where does that leave us?

Perhaps rambo should just go blow-up capital hill and the white house because other than that I don't see regular justice taking place. The judicial system is a joke, congress is a joke, the democrats are hypocrites and the republicans act like neo-nazis.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by EarthCitizen07]


reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:07 PM by smurfy
reply to post by 911files
Hi 911,
You are doing the same as Hooper. throwaway words like "speculation" are just not good enough for some of the scenarios here. Please give an analysis of what actually happened in your words, (without speculation) I know I can't give any proper analysis because there are conflicts between the official version of events, (which includes eyewitnesses) and other researchers, (who include eyewitnesses) with a different take on things. So, if you know what actually happened please tell us. You scoffed at someone who used the word "Liquified" in relation to what happened to most of the Jet, did you see the official video of a military jet hitting a slab of concrete and what happened to it? the official term used was that it "vaporised" Ah well it must have been going a lot faster.

www.newlaunches.com...

Then there is this,
NTSB's animation side by side with the 9/11 Commission's animation,

www.youtube.com...

Who do you suppose then that knocked down the lightpoles? if you believe the Commission, then it was the 'plane. If you believe the NTSB, then it had to be Roadrunner.






[edit on 5-11-2009 by smurfy]
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags