Where is the Full Length Pentagon Video OF 911?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Please , oh please, your Logic as much as you claim it to be REASON (sucks) Why? because you CANNOT PROVE IT WASNT A MISSLE.... So At the end of the day the year the Century of everyone haveing a Argument or discussion. The point it----------WHERES THE FOOTAGE??? Showing a JET LINER??? I havent see it .


HAVE YOU???? THE ANSWER IS NO. I can hadle the dicussion but your self rightous, anticts are PATHETIC!!!!!

Originally posted by Genxbeyond
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Please , oh please, your Logic as much as you claim it to be REASON (sucks) Why? because you CANNOT PROVE IT WASNT A MISSLE.... So At the end of the day the year the Century of everyone haveing a Argument or discussion. The point it----------WHERES THE FOOTAGE??? Showing a JET LINER??? I havent see it .


HAVE YOU???? THE ANSWER IS NO. I can hadle the dicussion but your self rightous, anticts are PATHETIC!!!!!

Ok, take a deep breath.

First off, if anyone has to prove anything, its you truthers. The burden of proof falls on you to prove it wasnt a 757. So far, there is great evidence supporting it was an AA 757.

I ask you as I have asked others: Can I get a decent plausable theory on how they would have faked the crash of an airliner without the use of an airliner?

Originally posted by Genxbeyond
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Please , oh please, your Logic as much as you claim it to be REASON (sucks) Why? because you CANNOT PROVE IT WASNT A MISSLE.... So At the end of the day the year the Century of everyone haveing a Argument or discussion. The point it----------WHERES THE FOOTAGE??? Showing a JET LINER??? I havent see it .


HAVE YOU???? THE ANSWER IS NO. I can hadle the dicussion but your self rightous, anticts are PATHETIC!!!!!

You are already ignoring eyewitness evidence ( many to a large plane and none to a missile ), radar tracks, air traffic control tapes, aircraft wreckage, dna identified body parts and personal belongings of AA 77 passengers and crew. So why would any footage that appeared now make any difference ?

You make it sound as though video footage of airliner crashes is a normal expectation but it isn't. A couple of months after 9/11 AA flight 587 went down in New York. Wher's the footage of that ?

You remind me of the people who kept saying if we could only see Obama's birth certificate our doubts would be put to rest. And of course the cries of fake immediately followed its production.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Genxbeyond
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Please , oh please, your Logic as much as you claim it to be REASON (sucks) Why? because you CANNOT PROVE IT WASNT A MISSLE.... So At the end of the day the year the Century of everyone haveing a Argument or discussion. The point it----------WHERES THE FOOTAGE??? Showing a JET LINER??? I havent see it .


HAVE YOU???? THE ANSWER IS NO. I can hadle the dicussion but your self rightous, anticts are PATHETIC!!!!!

You make it sound as though video footage of airliner crashes is a normal expectation but it isn't. A couple of months after 9/11 AA flight 587 went down in New York. Wher's the footage of that ?

There's a difference between a New York neighborhood and the Pentagon. Come on now, really? You don't see the difference?

reply to post by homervb

There's a difference between a New York neighborhood and the Pentagon. Come on now, really? You don't see the difference?

In this case there is no difference.
The witnesses saw a passenger airline.
You can't ignore them.
You can't say they are wrong without proof stronger than their word.

There is a term for stead fastly holding to a theory without a shread of proof.
It's called dillusional.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by homervb

 

There's a difference between a New York neighborhood and the Pentagon. Come on now, really? You don't see the difference?

In this case there is no difference.
The witnesses saw a passenger airline.
You can't ignore them.
You can't say they are wrong without proof stronger than their word.

There is a term for stead fastly holding to a theory without a shread of proof.
It's called dillusional.

edit on 12-4-2012 by samkent because: spelling

And you are the same person to discredit eyewitnesses who reported bombs going off in the WTC, and eyewitnesses at the WTC that said the planes had no windows, and looked like some type of military aircraft. Eyewitness testimony of firefighters who reported secondary explosions way below the point of impact.

Eyewitness testimony is shaky, especially because nobody is waiting for an airplane to crash into the Pentagon. All it takes is one person at the scene to say "I think it was a plane" and before you know it, the media says it was definitely a plane. The O.S. Army discredits all eyewitness testimony that is in favor of "truthers", It's now quite clear.Thank you for pointing that out

reply to post by homervb

And you are the same person to discredit eyewitnesses who reported bombs going off in the WTC, and eyewitnesses at the WTC that said the planes had no windows, and looked like some type of military aircraft. Eyewitness testimony of firefighters who reported secondary explosions way below the point of impact.

Stick to the topic at hand. You are attempting to redirect the conversation because you have no further proof to bolster your argument.

Eyewitness testimony is shaky, especially because nobody is waiting for an airplane to crash into the Pentagon.

Are you trying to say that "no witness" theories are better than multiple witnesses from different locations seeing the same thing?
That constitutes delusional.

Originally posted by samkent

Stick to the topic at hand. You are attempting to redirect the conversation because you have no further proof to bolster your argument.

I'm not redirecting. I'm right and you know it. On the topic of eyewitnesses you fully credit those at the Pentagon and discredit every other eyewitness which puts a damper on your story. Therefore your opinion of eyewitnesses is contradicting and takes away from the validity of what you believe in and try to defend.

Are you trying to say that "no witness" theories are better than multiple witnesses from different locations seeing the same thing?
That constitutes delusional.

No, but you do like putting words in my mouth? I'm saying eyewitness testimony isn't always correct. It's not something you can prove, because honestly, no one near the Pentagon is waiting for a plane to come crashing down. They hear that NYC's been hit with planes, next thing you know something zips by and flys right into the Pentagon. What people saw could have looked like a plane but they draw the conclusions it was a plane because of the planes that hit the WTC at 8:07 & 9:03. I don't use eyewitness testimony on this forum, it gets bashed right away by the O.S. Troops and I'm instantly considered a "loon". What makes your evidence eyewitness evidence any better than ones that us "truthers" provide?

reply to post by homervb


Honestly, the issue is that truther witnesses tend to hear explosions during the collapse of a building. None of the truthers ever seem to wonder if explosion could be any number of things during a collapse that are not explosives.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by homervb

 

Honestly, the issue is that truther witnesses tend to hear explosions during the collapse of a building. None of the truthers ever seem to wonder if explosion could be any number of things during a collapse that are not explosives.

An O.S. witness tends to see an aircraft hit the pentagon. The problem is an O.S. Trooper automatically assumes the witness is a professional plane spotter with vast knowledge in the visual specs of commercial airliners. This argument works both ways my friend. Reason being why I said eyewitness testimony isnt reliable

reply to post by Alfie1


Obamas BC was a fake. A computer generated PDF image.


When does not doing the research, and brainwashing become hand in hand. I see it already has.

reply to post by GenRadek


Helloooooooooooooo, the whole Damn 911 story was faked and made up to create war and money....The pentagon, was just a part of the whole LIE, you have been brainwashed by the goverment controlled media...

Do you ever stop to ask yourself, anything but, " Oh I saw that on the news so IT MUST BE TRUE"

reply to post by Varemia


Nope, there are over a half a dozen youtube actuall 911 videos showing and hearing explosions going off. To bad you havent or wanted to see those videos...


Oh sure youd have me believe they were water tanks or gas lines or something...

Originally posted by Genxbeyond
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Helloooooooooooooo, the whole Damn 911 story was faked and made up to create war and money....The pentagon, was just a part of the whole LIE, you have been brainwashed by the goverment controlled media...

Do you ever stop to ask yourself, anything but, " Oh I saw that on the news so IT MUST BE TRUE"

No I go by the eyewitness accounts that specifically saw planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon. I'm willing to bet you too have never been to the Pentagon area. If you did, you wouldnt be so ignorant. Hell most ruthers would benefit from a trip to the area during morning rush hour. Trying to fake a plane crash there?

Originally posted by Genxbeyond
reply to post by Varemia

 

Nope, there are over a half a dozen youtube actuall 911 videos showing and hearing explosions going off. To bad you havent or wanted to see those videos...


Oh sure youd have me believe they were water tanks or gas lines or something...

I heard explosions last year while I watched a garage burn down. Must have had demolition charges planted in there too, eh?

reply to post by Genxbeyond


Radek and his bunch DO believe, that the Official Government Story on the NEWS is the only one that can be fact, and thus must be proven otherwise, they admit this !!

Nice circular logic, and proves entirely that they lie when they say some things are lied about by the government,

How can they think that, they would have to prove it but they won't even try, they are ALL LIARS,,,and the pathetic lives they lead, show on the ridiculous posts they make.

I would love to see these guys in a deprivation tank with Epsom Salts in it, no music... this would be the most hilarious amazing event ever, far better than the 9/11 spoof !! By God there own soul would eat them alive.

An O.S. witness tends to see an aircraft hit the pentagon. The problem is an O.S. Trooper automatically assumes the witness is a professional plane spotter with vast knowledge in the visual specs of commercial airliners. This argument works both ways my friend. Reason being why I said eyewitness testimony isnt reliable

You still have the problem of the orange fireball at the Pentagon.
Missiles don't explode with orange fireballs.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore

Radek and his bunch DO believe, that the Official Government Story on the NEWS is the only one that can be fact, and thus must be proven otherwise, they admit this !!

Tell you what - you got another set of reliable and testable facts that contradict the narrative - then show'em.

Originally posted by samkent

An O.S. witness tends to see an aircraft hit the pentagon. The problem is an O.S. Trooper automatically assumes the witness is a professional plane spotter with vast knowledge in the visual specs of commercial airliners. This argument works both ways my friend. Reason being why I said eyewitness testimony isnt reliable

You still have the problem of the orange fireball at the Pentagon.
Missiles don't explode with orange fireballs.

I never said it was a missile, I have no idea what it was. All I can say is eyewitness testimony doesn't mean anything. I need to do some research and pull up these testimonies I was reading in a news article that said some woman actually touched the bottom of the plane right before it flew into the Pentagon. LMAO Are you kidding me?

Originally posted by samkent

An O.S. witness tends to see an aircraft hit the pentagon. The problem is an O.S. Trooper automatically assumes the witness is a professional plane spotter with vast knowledge in the visual specs of commercial airliners. This argument works both ways my friend. Reason being why I said eyewitness testimony isnt reliable

You still have the problem of the orange fireball at the Pentagon.
Missiles don't explode with orange fireballs.

I never said it was a missile, I have no idea what it was. All I can say is eyewitness testimony doesn't mean anything. I need to do some research and pull up these testimonies I was reading in a news article that said some woman actually touched the bottom of the plane right before it flew into the Pentagon. LMAO Are you kidding me?