Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?
The story so far...
You made a definitive claim regarding the clip.
I asked why don't you freeze clip at relevant frame and post it.
You backpedaled like a drunken clown on a unicycle by making a whole host of new unsubstantiated claims then engaging in abuse to avoid proving you haven't made shit up.
Pfft . . .
def: . . . and here is the best footage we dare release of the incident, plus a computer model we whipped up to support it. Also, here is a plethora of physical evidence and finally eyewitness testimony from the crash site.
judge: . . . I still don't believe you and would rather listen to the prosecution's moronic shadow chasing and speculation, no matter how absurd!
I'm sure the number of cameras does number in the hundreds. But contrary to what 911 truthers would have us believe, the vast majority of them would have been monitoring areas nowhere near the crash site. I have no idea how many cameras were in use at the Pentagon on the day but even if there were 500 cameras devoted entirely to the exterior wall of the section that was destroyed, almost all of them would have been monitoring entry points such as doors and windows and hence would have been facing away from the approaching aircraft anyway.
"Oh, how convenient" I hear the eternal truther muttering.
Convenient indeed, when you consider that is exactly what the purpose of a security camera is. It is there to monitor and observe any potential suspect activity at the entry points and allow intruders to be apprehended.
Yes of course the pentagon is so secure to deter burglars.
They are not installed to monitor the skies, or even the grounds to detect possible threats from the air.
Any external threat like a missile or suicide bomber would have been expected to have been picked up by the larger, national security network and monitoring systems. At the time there would have been very little reason to have had any security cameras monitoring anything but the building walls and entry points. The few that monitor the grounds beyond the building would almost entirely be concerned with entry points such as boom gates etc (ie. the one that has been released).
Notwithstanding footage taken from local businesses overlooking impact site which were confiscated, hidden, and not returned - is this simply your opinion, further hallucinations on your part, or the facts? If you claim facts then you wouldn't mind stating the source, would you?
However, I agree and am sure there would be maybe a hand full of other cameras that did record the impact also. I wouldn't be surprised though if these are even worse quality or show even less than what has been released.
What was wrong with the one released? You managed to make out an incredible amount of detail from it did you not?
Why release them? So the public can decide if they're relevant or not? The film that has been released shows everything, it shows the plane, it shows the approach vector, it shows the impact. It even shows the smoke from the damaged engine.
See - you even managed to discern that not only there was smoke, not only that the smoke was from a damaged engine, but that it was
obviously from a damaged engine.
On top of this we have computer models as well
Ahhh yes the computer model from the truthers...oh wait
as the overwhelming physical and testimonial evidence to support it. Yet there is still contention in the increasing minority of the 911 truther community.
You sure about that? If so you don't mind providing any evidence. Don't be shy, just post it.
Instead the 911 truther, with only speculation, ignorance and theory to support them, will cling to the most ridiculous of notions with the fervour of a religious zealot and claim they know the truth.
Well Sherlock, your powers of deduction are astounding.
I simply stated that if you can make out what you claim then freeze the frame and end worldwide speculation.
From that - and only that - you have deduced I am an eternal truther, using speculation and theory only, assisted by ignorance, clinging to a notion - a ridiculous one no less - and with the fervour of a religious zealot. You also managed to deduce that I claim to know the truth when I only asked a question and YOU made claims of truth based on the clip.
Which, it has been duly noted, you failed to prove. Slip your mind?
Here's a Simpsons quote (I offered this earlier in the thread but is even more apt here):
"Well, you sure don’t look 25, but your unlaminated, out-of-state driver’s license is proof enough for me"
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Instead of abusing me and whining like the jet plane you claim to see why don't you freeze the frame as I asked and not only end all speculation but pwn me?
Unless you have lied to everyone on this thread you are already in possession of the means to do so (and lets face it, after this bawling out it would be satisfying, no?)