9-11 Video

[Curt 1]

Anyone else seen the vid of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. I tried to watch it on CNN website but my connection made it very jerky and impossible to actually see much.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

[yamayamayama 2]

Couldn't see a plane either, I'm sure there must be if they are releasing it. Slow jerky vid.

[Rag-Doll 0]

This looks like a video that was bouncing around a few years ago. I think it's the same video that some people were using to suggest that the Pentagon attack was a hoax on the basis that the aircraft in the video isn't big enough to be an airliner.

[fb_steve 0]

It looks the same but it is actually new. The first video released caused an uproar of conspiracy theory, and this was supposed to stop that by showing a different angle with the 'nose' of the plane. It really doesn't do anything for the government's cause, the dodgy quality and split second glimpse of the nose just gives more to the conspiracy theorists IMO. I really hate conspiracy theory, but god damn ive watched a few of those full length videos and they have some really credible points regarding the pentagon, it really could have been a light aircraft or missile!

[Rag-Doll 0]

I feel the same way about conspiracy theorists, especially the way they will disregard any credible source of info in preference for some half arsed opinion by someone with no real expertise. The same goes for moon hoaxers and intelligent designers.

 

If the pentagon attack wasn't caused by the plane - where is the plane now? Did the government just have it land somewhere and then shoot the passengers?

[soubriquet 0]

For some stuff on conspracy theories, Rag-Doll, you could check this thread:

 

http://www.snowjapanforums.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/8/5564.html?#000019

 

Health warning. It gets a little messy at times.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Yeesch! Thanks Soubriquet, you're a brave man getting into that stuff. I don't think I'll bother reading through the entire thread - life's too short.

[bushpig 0]

Nah read it RG, I just did and it aint that long. I had stopped following that thread and am glad I just went back and read it. Interesting stuff.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Interesting? Depressing more like. Isn’t it just so much more likely that bad guys with some flight training did it? Isn’t it so much more likely that if their science suggests the buildings shouldn’t have collapsed when they obviously did that their science is wrong (science has been wrong before) rather than people planting a shit load of explosives throughout 3 NY buildings?

 

The capacity of people to close their eyes to anything that doesn't fit within their own frame work of beliefs is truly worrying. Obviously this doesn’t just apply to the 911 guys but lots of other groups as well. Ignorance is a terrible thing but personal convictions based on pop-info isn’t much better.

[soubriquet 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Rag-Doll:
I feel the same way about conspiracy theorists, especially the way they will disregard any credible source of info in preference for some half arsed opinion by someone with no real expertise. The same goes for moon hoaxers and intelligent designers.

If the pentagon attack wasn't caused by the plane - where is the plane now? Did the government just have it land somewhere and then shoot the passengers?

You have hit the nail on the head. I understand structures and materials. The NY Fire Department report is an excellent piece of work. It doesn't fit the conspiracy theory so is dismissed. I'm no good at rhetoric, and life is too short to argue with fools.

My ex-wife taught me the value of the lesson: "never ague with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience".

[fb_steve 0]

The conspiracies are probably very far from the truth, but I can't help but think there is a little more untold truth to the story. Probably not with what happened, but who knew, who aided ... who benefited. There were enourmous amounts of illegal and deniable actions, schemes and involvments by the US government (and others) in the past which have come to light decades later, but there is still a general complacence now that these things don't happen. But they do, and in our old age I'm sure a day will come when the whole truth comes out, not just parts of it, however that long after people just don't seem to care. For example, last week I found out Laos has been the most bombed country in the world by the US in a secret war starting in the late 60's!

[bushpig 0]

RD, by interesting, I was referring to Soubs comments. It was good to see a fairly common sense answer to the stuff that was being thrown around. I agree that conspiracy theories are generally a load of guff.

[soubriquet 0]

That is no news to me fb_steve. It was fully reported in the UK at the time. Kissinger, the mother of all war criminals, was responsible for the expansion of the Vietnam war into Cambodia and Laos. The destabilisation in Cambodia led to the rise of the Pol Pot regime. Laos was much darker. No conspiracy theory here, just an unwillingness to face the facts, and an acceptance that our war criminals are innocent and their war criminals are guilty.

[Ocean11 0]

soubriquet, you're good at rhetoric, of a cynical sort.

 

"I'm no good at rhetoric, and life is too short to argue with fools" is nothing but slimey rhetoric.

 

But you fail to recognize that rhetoric comes as a set with logic and ethics. When you say "I understand structures and materials", do you think that's persuasive? You don't really understand structures and materials. If you did, you'd have an explanation for why the South Tower fell free-fall in 10 seconds. Instead, all you have is rhetoric.

 

You already ran up the white flag on that other thread, and here you are pontificating on nothing again - you're like that fiendish Kraut in Saving Private Ryan who goes back to his lines to shoot more people. If you understand structures and materials, and are an expert on anything, how about going to Scholars for 9/11 and tearing apart some of the peer-reviewed articles for us? This forum would be the more interesting for it.

 

Rag-Doll you're a scream too. Would you just read this again?

 

"Isn’t it so much more likely that if their science suggests the buildings shouldn’t have collapsed when they obviously did that their science is wrong (science has been wrong before) rather than people planting a shit load of explosives throughout 3 NY buildings?

 

The capacity of people to close their eyes to anything that doesn't fit within their own frame work of beliefs is truly worrying."

 

You've just poo-pooed what physics professors have to say about some very basic science, because it doesn't fit your framework of beliefs. You're the flat earther mate.

 

fb_steve, you really hate conspiracy theory do you? But you just love the official conspiracy theory that says OBL did it. Anything that happens in life involving more than one person is a conspiracy of sorts, and understanding it requires a theory.

 

The rational, level-headed, conspiracy-theory-debunking experts on here are full of crap. I don't pretend to know what happened on 9/11 because I've seen only a few scraps of laughably implausible 'evidence', of which this 'new' video is just the latest piece. Can you see a passenger jet there? I can't. If it's there, it would also be on the other tapes that were recording in several other locations at the same time. Where are they? I'll believe it when I see it. What could be simpler than that?

[fb_steve 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
fb_steve, you really hate conspiracy theory do you?

Yep, most the time, but I'll add to that, political conspiracy I don't have a problem with to a reasonable point, what I do oppose is unsubstantiated conspiracies such as aliens, and those that should be under the category of urban myths instead. I don't particularly believe al quaeda has anywhere near the capacity the US claims, and what joys they have had by abusing this fear.

[fb_steve 0]

But back on the topic, it sure as hell does not look like the nose of a passenger jet. The confiscation of all tapes within the area, the smell of explosives, the lack of wing impact on the building... doesn't add up.

 

One scary thing was the coroner at the crash site of the 'failed' hijacking, he stated there was not a drop of blood to be seen. The news reporters all agreed there was virtually no fuesalage or any bodies. There was even an audio tape going round of an airforce official on the phone confirming the passenger jet had successfully been shot down! But I don't know how legitimate that was. It's all very interesting, conspiracy or not.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Like I said - Yeesch! Life's too short.

[fb_steve 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Rag-Doll:
Like I said - Yeesch! Life's too short.

Haha yeah I'd usually agree with that but tonight's an exemption, I have so much homework to do! Any procrastination is a good procrastination!

[JPchucky 0]

I can't believe they were holding onto this for "evidence". I didn't see Zacarias Moussaoui flipping of America through the window,come to think of it I couldn't see shit. I think the they should've bitched for the other camera angles instead saying this.

 

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. "Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77."

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Rag-Doll:
Like I said - Yeesch! Life's too short.

OK. If you don't want to think about it because it's too horrible and it will spoil your life, fine. That would be an honest (but supine) approach. But you're only pretending to do that. You're actually getting involved, poo-pooing science and critical thought from a position of complete ignorance, and trying to shut down discussion by being rude about those of us who are prepared to think about it. If you don't want to play the discussion game, please shut up and go away. Same to you soubriquet (again).


JPchucky, you're right about that. Why would these people be so apparently satisfied with one entirely inconclusive piece of evidence when they know that there's much more available? We skeptics need to stop saying things like "It's a missile" or "They were holograms" and start insisting only that we be shown some credible evidence for the official (and quite fantastic) story.

[Quint 0]

The whole thing is a joke.

[bushpig 0]

Nice new av O11!

[Ocean11 0]

Thank you Bushpig.

 

It marks the start of a new posting strategy. Basically I'm lurking from now on. But when somebody posts some egregious nonsense, such as arguments in favour of genital mutilation or the suspension of science in favour of politics, then I'll occasionally clear the decks, charge the swivel guns with chain-shot, and run up the Jolly Roger.

[bushpig 0]

Well I'm sure I'll fall prey to your lurking at some stage.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Ocean

 

Although I have nothing but complete distain for your beliefs on how 911 came about I feel no compulsion to try to dissuade you from your beliefs. I know that any attempt will be ultimately futile. You’re a smart man and I’m sure that you have reached your conclusions based on your own wide ranging enquiries and reading and after you have explored this issue in depth rather than simply taken your information from one side of the argument. Did you not find government report on 911 at all convincing? What were your problems with the NYFD report?

 

Some of the many problems I have with the government did it argument are as follows:

 

a. I don’t believe the science of the effects of a large airliner smashing into a very tall building at height and speed is all that basic. It is not as if such a thing is common or there is a large body of empirical evidence on which to rely. The buildings fell, so either the planes caused it and the science is wrong, or there were explosives involved. Honestly, which is more likely?

b. It would take an enormous amount of explosives (many many tons) to produce a controlled collapse of the two towers. The logics of placing the explosives without detection would be prohibitive by virtue of the time and number of people involved.

c. The argument is that the collapse was controlled. Why bother doing that? Why act to kill many thousands of people but reframe from causing excessive damage to the surrounding area when doing so (i.e managing a controlled explosion) greatly increases the chances of discovery?

d. If the two towers were laced with explosives (they would have had to be as the organizers could not have been certain the planes would impact at a precise point), there would have been explosives above and below the crash sites. Given the intensity of the explosion why didn’t the explosives located at the point of impact explode and cause the building to collapse immediately after? Why didn’t the fire cause the explosives located immediately above the impact point to explode and cause the building to collapse?

e. If the pentagon crash was not the airliner, where is the airliner and the passengers? They're kind of difficult to hide and a passenger jet landing where they don't normally land is likley to have given someone pause for thought.