Do you think the 9/11 attacks were legit ??

I now think that there needs to be a major investigation into the largest attack on american soil.

noscope-ak47

American Revolution?
Civil War?
Pearl Harbor?

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, the attacks happened. No, they weren't carried out by a bunch of random Islamic terrorists without the consent of the US Government and Bilderberg leadership. The buildings were obviously rigged to blow before the attacks happened. 9/11 served 3 purposes that I'm aware of-

-Scare American citizens into allowing the government to run over the top of them with unconstitutional laws, which opens us up for a New World Order takeover. This part of the plan has been almost entirely successful so far.

-Give the US another excuse to invade the Middle East and take control of oil and other resources

-Gets rid of the financial liability that was the old World Trade Center. Larry Silverstein even ordered the demolition of building 7

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-silverstein-wanted-to-demolish-building-7-on-911.html

hartsickdiscipl

pffffffthahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*catches breath*

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't find it very funny that thousands of Americans were murdered for the advancement of a globalist agenda. Watch what happens over the next few years and tell me it's funny.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, the attacks happened. No, they weren't carried out by a bunch of random Islamic terrorists without the consent of the US Government and Bilderberg leadership. The buildings were obviously rigged to blow before the attacks happened. 9/11 served 3 purposes that I'm aware of-

-Scare American citizens into allowing the government to run over the top of them with unconstitutional laws, which opens us up for a New World Order takeover. This part of the plan has been almost entirely successful so far.

-Give the US another excuse to invade the Middle East and take control of oil and other resources

-Gets rid of the financial liability that was the old World Trade Center. Larry Silverstein even ordered the demolition of building 7

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-silverstein-wanted-to-demolish-building-7-on-911.html

hartsickdiscipl

pffffffthahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*catches breath*

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't find it very funny that thousands of Americans were murdered for the advancement of a globalist agenda. Watch what happens over the next few years and tell me it's funny.

I suppose the aliens gave the government some kind of backroom deal, too, eh?

The gov't initially thought the attacks were Serbs. But then a CIA or FBI guy don't recall which said that no it was al quaeda. When asked why he said they recognize the names on the flight lists. They knew of them already yet claimed to have lost them. Its all in this book by the former dude who used to be in charge of terrorism in the u.s. He goes into detail about all the events directly following and afterwards & why he quit later on.

Don't recall name of book either, leant it to a wanker at work and he never returned it.

I definitely don't believe the official story.

There are a lot of reasons I don't, but the one that seals the deal for me revolves around this question...

Where is the footage of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon? Why hasn't anything other than the few, obnoxiously grainy frames of "footage" been released? It doesn't definitively show a plane of any kind, in fact it's nearly impossible to see anything in the few brief shots.

The Pentagon is arguably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world and there were dozens of cameras pointing at the crash. Nothing has been released... why? Considering how completely bizzare the Pentagon crash site was, this is just astonishing to me.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, the attacks happened. No, they weren't carried out by a bunch of random Islamic terrorists without the consent of the US Government and Bilderberg leadership. The buildings were obviously rigged to blow before the attacks happened. 9/11 served 3 purposes that I'm aware of-

-Scare American citizens into allowing the government to run over the top of them with unconstitutional laws, which opens us up for a New World Order takeover. This part of the plan has been almost entirely successful so far.

-Give the US another excuse to invade the Middle East and take control of oil and other resources

-Gets rid of the financial liability that was the old World Trade Center. Larry Silverstein even ordered the demolition of building 7

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-silverstein-wanted-to-demolish-building-7-on-911.html

wis3boi

pffffffthahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*catches breath*

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I definitely don't believe the official story.

There are a lot of reasons I don't, but the one that seals the deal for me revolves around this question...

Where is the footage of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon? Why hasn't anything other than the few, obnoxiously grainy frames of "footage" been released? It doesn't definitively show a plane of any kind, in fact it's nearly impossible to see anything in the few brief shots.

The Pentagon is arguably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world and there were dozens of cameras pointing at the crash. Nothing has been released... why? Considering how completely bizzare the Pentagon crash site was, this is just astonishing to me.

raynimrod

IDC

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, the attacks happened. No, they weren't carried out by a bunch of random Islamic terrorists without the consent of the US Government and Bilderberg leadership. The buildings were obviously rigged to blow before the attacks happened. 9/11 served 3 purposes that I'm aware of-

-Scare American citizens into allowing the government to run over the top of them with unconstitutional laws, which opens us up for a New World Order takeover. This part of the plan has been almost entirely successful so far.

-Give the US another excuse to invade the Middle East and take control of oil and other resources

-Gets rid of the financial liability that was the old World Trade Center. Larry Silverstein even ordered the demolition of building 7

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-silverstein-wanted-to-demolish-building-7-on-911.html

GrayF0X786

pffffffthahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*catches breath*

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

are you 8 years old?

I definitely don't believe the official story.

There are a lot of reasons I don't, but the one that seals the deal for me revolves around this question...

Where is the footage of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon? Why hasn't anything other than the few, obnoxiously grainy frames of "footage" been released? It doesn't definitively show a plane of any kind, in fact it's nearly impossible to see anything in the few brief shots.

The Pentagon is arguably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world and there were dozens of cameras pointing at the crash. Nothing has been released... why? Considering how completely bizzare the Pentagon crash site was, this is just astonishing to me.

raynimrod

[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]

I now think that there needs to be a major investigation into the largest attack on american soil.

Pffrbt

American Revolution?
Civil War?
Pearl Harbor?

Ummm... there was a full investigation of Pearl Harbor within days

I definitely don't believe the official story.

There are a lot of reasons I don't, but the one that seals the deal for me revolves around this question...

Where is the footage of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon? Why hasn't anything other than the few, obnoxiously grainy frames of "footage" been released? It doesn't definitively show a plane of any kind, in fact it's nearly impossible to see anything in the few brief shots.

The Pentagon is arguably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world and there were dozens of cameras pointing at the crash. Nothing has been released... why? Considering how completely bizzare the Pentagon crash site was, this is just astonishing to me.

raynimrod

Since the Pentagon is one of the most surveilled buildings in the world, why would on risk using anything OTHER than a plane to hit it with? If people think the tapes had been confiscated because a missle hit it (something that would have been seen by numerous eye-witnesses), why bother using a missle in the first place? That's much more risky, don't you think?

Serious question, how is it possible for people to be as stupid as hart?

TopTierHustler

If you think I'm so stupid, why waste your time in this thread? Why waste your time typing at least 2 posts insulting me?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

Serious question, how is it possible for people to be as stupid as hart?

hartsickdiscipl

If you think I'm so stupid, why waste your time in this thread? Why waste your time typing at least 2 posts insulting me?

Seriously. Conspiracy theorists....u probably don't believe in the moon landing either.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

I definitely don't believe the official story.

There are a lot of reasons I don't, but the one that seals the deal for me revolves around this question...

Where is the footage of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon? Why hasn't anything other than the few, obnoxiously grainy frames of "footage" been released? It doesn't definitively show a plane of any kind, in fact it's nearly impossible to see anything in the few brief shots.

The Pentagon is arguably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world and there were dozens of cameras pointing at the crash. Nothing has been released... why? Considering how completely bizzare the Pentagon crash site was, this is just astonishing to me.

MirkoS77

Since the Pentagon is one of the most surveilled buildings in the world, why would on risk using anything OTHER than a plane to hit it with? If people think the tapes had been confiscated because a missle hit it (something that would have been seen by numerous eye-witnesses), why bother using a missle in the first place? That's much more risky, don't you think?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

Serious question, how is it possible for people to be as stupid as hart?

TopTierHustler

If you think I'm so stupid, why waste your time in this thread? Why waste your time typing at least 2 posts insulting me?

Seriously. Conspiracy theorists....u probably don't believe in the moon landing either.

I believe in the moon landing. I also believe that we haven't had another manned mission there for a reason. Seriously.. over 40 years and we've never gone back?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you think I'm so stupid, why waste your time in this thread? Why waste your time typing at least 2 posts insulting me?

hartsickdiscipl

Seriously. Conspiracy theorists....u probably don't believe in the moon landing either.

I believe in the moon landing. I also believe that we haven't had another manned mission there for a reason. Seriously.. over 40 years and we've never gone back?

teh alienz, right? That live on a ball of dust without any atmop\sphere right?

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

I definitely don't believe the official story.

There are a lot of reasons I don't, but the one that seals the deal for me revolves around this question...

Where is the footage of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon? Why hasn't anything other than the few, obnoxiously grainy frames of "footage" been released? It doesn't definitively show a plane of any kind, in fact it's nearly impossible to see anything in the few brief shots.

The Pentagon is arguably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world and there were dozens of cameras pointing at the crash. Nothing has been released... why? Considering how completely bizzare the Pentagon crash site was, this is just astonishing to me.

Nuck81

Yes, lots of eyewitnesses saw a plane, I'm not denying that. Have a watch of this (all 8 parts if you have the time). This is all from eyewitnesses that testified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you think I'm so stupid, why waste your time in this thread? Why waste your time typing at least 2 posts insulting me?

hartsickdiscipl

Seriously. Conspiracy theorists....u probably don't believe in the moon landing either.

I believe in the moon landing. I also believe that we haven't had another manned mission there for a reason. Seriously.. over 40 years and we've never gone back?

derp derp derp.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

I definitely don't believe the official story.

There are a lot of reasons I don't, but the one that seals the deal for me revolves around this question...

Where is the footage of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon? Why hasn't anything other than the few, obnoxiously grainy frames of "footage" been released? It doesn't definitively show a plane of any kind, in fact it's nearly impossible to see anything in the few brief shots.

The Pentagon is arguably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world and there were dozens of cameras pointing at the crash. Nothing has been released... why? Considering how completely bizzare the Pentagon crash site was, this is just astonishing to me.

MirkoS77

Since the Pentagon is one of the most surveilled buildings in the world, why would on risk using anything OTHER than a plane to hit it with? If people think the tapes had been confiscated because a missle hit it (something that would have been seen by numerous eye-witnesses), why bother using a missle in the first place? That's much more risky, don't you think?

Flipping it around doesn't answer my question. Plenty of footage was shown over and over again of the twin towers, but basically nothing of the Pentagon. It makes no sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

I definitely don't believe the official story.

There are a lot of reasons I don't, but the one that seals the deal for me revolves around this question...

Where is the footage of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon? Why hasn't anything other than the few, obnoxiously grainy frames of "footage" been released? It doesn't definitively show a plane of any kind, in fact it's nearly impossible to see anything in the few brief shots.

The Pentagon is arguably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world and there were dozens of cameras pointing at the crash. Nothing has been released... why? Considering how completely bizzare the Pentagon crash site was, this is just astonishing to me.

raynimrod

Since the Pentagon is one of the most surveilled buildings in the world, why would on risk using anything OTHER than a plane to hit it with? If people think the tapes had been confiscated because a missle hit it (something that would have been seen by numerous eye-witnesses), why bother using a missle in the first place? That's much more risky, don't you think?

Flipping it around doesn't answer my question. Plenty of footage was shown over and over again of the twin towers, but basically nothing of the Pentagon. It makes no sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

I agree that it makes no sense. I'm not prepared to say that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, but you have to wonder. There are dozens of cameras watching every part of the outside of the building. There had to be some good footage available. I've nevers seen it though.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]Let's flip this around.

Since the Pentagon is one of the most surveilled buildings in the world, why would on risk using anything OTHER than a plane to hit it with? If people think the tapes had been confiscated because a missle hit it (something that would have been seen by numerous eye-witnesses), why bother using a missle in the first place? That's much more risky, don't you think?

hartsickdiscipl

Flipping it around doesn't answer my question. Plenty of footage was shown over and over again of the twin towers, but basically nothing of the Pentagon. It makes no sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

I agree that it makes no sense. I'm not prepared to say that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, but you have to wonder. There are dozens of cameras watching every part of the outside of the building. There had to be some good footage available. I've nevers seen it though.

Of course it makes no sense to you. You want to believe in conspiracy. Pretty much any and all conspiracies.

Which is why you cannot even reason through the most basic things like cameras.

How many cameras that guard buildings are pointed up? Seriously, the field of vision is deliberately at ground level.

How many cameras have both long range panoramic views and short range clarity? The building is isolated with hundreds of feet of flat unremarkable land surrounding it. It isn't like they are expecting a brigade of enemy troops to sneak up on it.

How many cameras have a framerate speed to capture objects moving at 500 mph at short range? Which covers those hundreds of feet of flat unremarkable ground in a near instant.

The footage that we have is from parking lot security cameras, which are designed to make sure a woman doesn't get assaulted late at night in a dark parking lot, or to identify the driver of a truck at 10 feet. Pretty much all security cameras would be useless unless they had a long depth field of vision directly in front or behind the aircraft trajectory. Otherwise you are going to get one or two frames of blur which is what we have.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

Flipping it around doesn't answer my question. Plenty of footage was shown over and over again of the twin towers, but basically nothing of the Pentagon. It makes no sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

SUD123456

I agree that it makes no sense. I'm not prepared to say that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, but you have to wonder. There are dozens of cameras watching every part of the outside of the building. There had to be some good footage available. I've nevers seen it though.

Of course it makes no sense to you. You want to believe in conspiracy. Pretty much any and all conspiracies.

Which is why you cannot even reason through the most basic things like cameras.

How many cameras that guard buildings are pointed up? Seriously, the field of vision is deliberately at ground level.

How many cameras have both long range panoramic views and short range clarity? The building is isolated with hundreds of feet of flat unremarkable land surrounding it. It isn't like they are expecting a brigade of enemy troops to sneak up on it.

How many cameras have a framerate speed to capture objects moving at 500 mph at short range? Which covers those hundreds of feet of flat unremarkable ground in a near instant.

The footage that we have is from parking lot security cameras, which are designed to make sure a woman doesn't get assaulted late at night in a dark parking lot, or to identify the driver of a truck at 10 feet. Pretty much all security cameras would be useless unless they had a long depth field of vision directly in front or behind the aircraft trajectory. Otherwise you are going to get one or two frames of blur which is what we have.

You're misinformed about the surveillance cameras around the Pentagon. Nice job of making all sorts of assumptions and trying to make someone else feel stupid.

I do not believe in those conspiracy theories about 9/11 being set up by the governent of the US. The government would never condemn three thousand people to death for any reason whatsoever.

Flipping it around doesn't answer my question. Plenty of footage was shown over and over again of the twin towers, but basically nothing of the Pentagon. It makes no sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

raynimrod

I keep posting this over and over in these threads but don't feel like retyping it so here's a C & P. Kind of a long read, sorry. :) This isn't directed solely at you btw:

All of these people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. Alright, the buildings were rigged with explosives and it was a controlled demolition. A missle hit the Pentagon instead of a plane. Flight 93 was shot down. OK. What I'm wondering is, and which I have yet to get a reasonable answer for no matter how many times I ask this: why in the world would anyone go to such lengths to engineer such elaborate measures, measures that are logistical nightmares, not only to set-up, execute, but also to conceal, when it wouldn't be necessary? Pull back from the details of the attacks and look at the larger picture. Why not simply recruit people (say through a radical Islamic organization fronted through one of our intelligence agencies) to fly planes into the buildings and let it play out however it does?

This is what cracks me up about truthers, they're so concerned with the tiniest details they don't pull back and ask WHY (not the motivations for the attacks, the attacks themselves). Personally, if I were going to commit an attack on the scale of 9/11 I'd be smart enough to realize three things: 1) the less people involved the better, 2) everyone in the entire world will witness it and it has the possibility of being recorded by hundreds of people from various angles, and 3) you will have every single expert on the planet in every field of study you can possibly imagine scrutinizing it for many years afterwards with documented footage as reference. This is not to mention those who were part of the attacks and were right in the thick of it. Now how stupid would you have to be to make it such a large ordeal? You keep it a tiny operation with a few in the know moving pieces around the board, execute your plan, and then hands off and let happenstance and physics dictate the rest. Then all these logistics would not need to be a consideration. You don't attempt to control reality (this is entirely unpredictable and would only present risk), you set predetermined circumstances in motion, cross fingers, and let it do its thing. This is just common sense.

With the eyes of the entire world watching 9/11 unfold, why would you risk discovery by using a missile to hit the Pentagon instead of a plane? Why would you risk discovery by bringing down the buildings with explosives? Why would you conceal footage which would fuel the theorist's claims? Don't people think everyone would see a missile hit the Pentagon? Or a jet shoot down the airliner? Hell, let's just use F-16s and launch missiles at the towers while we're at it. It always amuses me when I hear about these pods underneath the airliners, how their windows were covered and they weren't commercial planes, etc etc. The funny thing is, truthers believe that the U.S. government is capable of pulling off a feat such as 9/11 and keeping the wool over everyone's eyes for all these years, yet the very basis of their argument against it not being a conspiracy stems from incompetent preparation or oversights from that same government.

Do people really think if the buildings had not collapsed we would have not taken the exact same course of action that we have? Their collapse was not necessary to get the rationale for what the conspiracy theorists claim the attacks were meant for. You can bet your ass people would've been just as united behind any action the U.S. would've taken if the towers were still standing today. Theorists go to all these extensive lengths to explain away how the buildings fell, how (and with what) the Pentagon was hit, how phone calls from the flight that crashed were computer generated or whatever, how it was shot down by a military jet, but it simply makes no sense. A small handful of people could accomplish what thousands supposedly did (if the conspiracy theorists are correct), all with much less effort and much more secrecy, and it would immediately make a conspiracy much more plausible.

So what is the advantage? I only see cons. The more complex something is, the harder it is to keep a secret. If our government wanted to accomplish such a massive conspiracy they would want to keep it as simple as humanly possible. I sure would. Complexity is the archenemy of conspiracy. What is this morbid need to believe in some massive master plan that was set-up over many years and would require a massive amount of money, many people who would then need to be paid off/silenced, not to mention having to keep it quiet from that point on? Please don't bother bringing up or arguing specifics of the attack, because I'm not interested and have heard it all before. I'm viewing the larger picture here, and would simply like someone to explain this to me. My issue is not so much whether it's a conspiracy or not, I'm actually open to the possibility. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Let's all assume it is a conspiracy for a moment. As such, tell me what is the benefit of making it such an enormous effort to pull off and risk exposure when simply recruiting and helping some extremists to hijack and fly commercial airliners into buildings would accomplish just as well what conspiracy theorists claim the attacks were for?

Again, I just would like to make clear here:I'M NOT ASKING OR MAKING A STATEMENT ON WHETHER 9/11 IS A CONSPIRACY. Just why it needed to be so complex when it wasn't needed.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

I definitely don't believe the official story.

There are a lot of reasons I don't, but the one that seals the deal for me revolves around this question...

Where is the footage of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon? Why hasn't anything other than the few, obnoxiously grainy frames of "footage" been released? It doesn't definitively show a plane of any kind, in fact it's nearly impossible to see anything in the few brief shots.

The Pentagon is arguably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world and there were dozens of cameras pointing at the crash. Nothing has been released... why? Considering how completely bizzare the Pentagon crash site was, this is just astonishing to me.

raynimrod

Since the Pentagon is one of the most surveilled buildings in the world, why would on risk using anything OTHER than a plane to hit it with? If people think the tapes had been confiscated because a missle hit it (something that would have been seen by numerous eye-witnesses), why bother using a missle in the first place? That's much more risky, don't you think?

Flipping it around doesn't answer my question. Plenty of footage was shown over and over again of the twin towers, but basically nothing of the Pentagon. It makes no sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

Do you know how the typical closed circuit camera recording system works, especially ones that record via video tape? They take a frame of video every 2 -5 seconds. Plenty of time for a plane, especially one flying at 250+ MPH to fly through the view of any camera recording anything.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]Let's flip this around.

Since the Pentagon is one of the most surveilled buildings in the world, why would on risk using anything OTHER than a plane to hit it with? If people think the tapes had been confiscated because a missle hit it (something that would have been seen by numerous eye-witnesses), why bother using a missle in the first place? That's much more risky, don't you think?

WhiteKnight77

Flipping it around doesn't answer my question. Plenty of footage was shown over and over again of the twin towers, but basically nothing of the Pentagon. It makes no sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

Do you know how the typical closed circuit camera recording system works, especially ones that record via video tape? They take a frame of video every 2 -5 seconds. Plenty of time for a plane, especially one flying at 250+ MPH to fly through the view of any camera recording anything.

Conspiracy nuts don't wanna hear logical stuff

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]Let's flip this around.

Since the Pentagon is one of the most surveilled buildings in the world, why would on risk using anything OTHER than a plane to hit it with? If people think the tapes had been confiscated because a missle hit it (something that would have been seen by numerous eye-witnesses), why bother using a missle in the first place? That's much more risky, don't you think?

WhiteKnight77

Flipping it around doesn't answer my question. Plenty of footage was shown over and over again of the twin towers, but basically nothing of the Pentagon. It makes no sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

Do you know how the typical closed circuit camera recording system works, especially ones that record via video tape? They take a frame of video every 2 -5 seconds. Plenty of time for a plane, especially one flying at 250+ MPH to fly through the view of any camera recording anything.

Have you even bothered to look and see from where the countless confiscated tapes were removed, and from which angles (and distances) they viewed the Pentagon?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you think I'm so stupid, why waste your time in this thread? Why waste your time typing at least 2 posts insulting me?

hartsickdiscipl

Seriously. Conspiracy theorists....u probably don't believe in the moon landing either.

I believe in the moon landing. I also believe that we haven't had another manned mission there for a reason. Seriously.. over 40 years and we've never gone back?

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

Flipping it around doesn't answer my question. Plenty of footage was shown over and over again of the twin towers, but basically nothing of the Pentagon. It makes no sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk

raynimrod

Do you know how the typical closed circuit camera recording system works, especially ones that record via video tape? They take a frame of video every 2 -5 seconds. Plenty of time for a plane, especially one flying at 250+ MPH to fly through the view of any camera recording anything.

Have you even bothered to look and see from where the countless confiscated tapes were removed, and from which angles (and distances) they viewed the Pentagon?

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Do you know how the typical closed circuit camera recording system works, especially ones that record via video tape? They take a frame of video every 2 -5 seconds. Plenty of time for a plane, especially one flying at 250+ MPH to fly through the view of any camera recording anything.

Nuck81

Have you even bothered to look and see from where the countless confiscated tapes were removed, and from which angles (and distances) they viewed the Pentagon?

you're asking him to use something that which does not exist

I do not believe in those conspiracy theories about 9/11 being set up by the governent of the US. The government would never condemn three thousand people to death for any reason whatsoever.

Funky_Connor

No it was faked. The towers are still there.Acemaster27

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Please spare me your "adversed affect" about Libya. If Gaddafi was really that good and benevolent (if only economically), then he would have never been overthrown through an air war alone. I've seen plenty of examples of air support that led to nothing because the ground forces were unmotivated, incapable, or unsupported by sufficient portions of the population. Given how quickly Tripoli was blitzed (much of the city was taken unopposed or with little resistance), and how much fighting equipment was left unused by the defending regime, I'd say that there is little evidence that the air war alone led to his overthrow. Therefore, there were obviously plenty of economic and political problems to go around and that were left unresolved (and there usually are in oil rich nations), leading to an eventual revolt.

Further, regardless of what I think about RT, can you find something unrelated that even mentions Gaddafi's proposal for a gold dinar? Before or since? This idea is usually attributed to Malaysia's former prime minister,Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad in a somewhat different form. Yet, he seems to be doing alright and not under any active threat.

jetpower3

From my observations, what Libya and Gaddafi suffered was a result of Gaddafi going against the "status quo", so to speak. Gaddafi refused to borrow money from the international banking cartels and instead nationalized Libya's own central bank as well as their oil company 'Libya's National Oil Coorporation', benefitting his people while being free from the clutches of Rothschild & friends with their sky high interest rates for unnecessary loans. Gaddafi's idea to introduce a Gold Dinar in Africa was a means for the people to leave the clutches of the sunken ship that is the Dollar and to share true wealth, not just with his Libyan people, but with all of Africa as well since he was planning on creating a United States of Africa since the African Union had been more or less considered a failure. Incidentally, as the "Rebels" were fighting Gaddafi, somehow they managed to put together at the same time a new oil company under US/UN control and a new central bank subservient to the very entities Gaddafi had sought to rid himself of.

Libyan Rebel Council Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi's

Libyan Rebels Form Their Own Central Bank

I'll assume that you're pretty certain that there was no outside influence as to the funding these so called rebels were able to attain which obviously allowed them to accomplish so much in almost record breaking time...

I love how you engage in complete nonsense hyperbole and simply ignore my assertions. First, the NOC and Libyan Central Bank still very much exist. Second, the only reason these organizations were formed was because Tripoli was still held by Gaddafi. Until the rebels were able to take it, they needed institutions that could perform basic government functions (whether or not they were effective is another story). And their oil company for most intents and purposes was actually the Benghazi based Agoco, which did little in way of any production until September. Third, it is very clear that, outside of his heartland (mainly his hometown Sirte, Bani Walid, and smaller associated towns), Gaddafi was neither popular nor interested in sharing his wealth in any meaningful sense. I understand that Libya was at one time the most developed country in Africa, with also the highest GDP per capita. But this is often the case with countries who make easy money from oil and other natural resources. It doesn't mean that Gaddafi was any economic wizard or "liberator". He certainly had no gripes about his family's often insanely excessive lifestyles. And even despite its oil wealth, unemployment continued to run high (15%+) and many parts of the country remain significantly underdeveloped (particularly the eastern regions, where most of the oil lies geographically).

Finally, these organizations you mention had little if any influence on the final outcome of the war. If you were paying attention to the conflict, you would have found that the groups most responsible for toppling Gaddafi and driving him from Tripoli came from the Tripolitania enclaves of Misarata and the Nafusa Mountains, which had only superficial connections to the rebel NTC to begin with and with little initial NATO air backup. This makes your assertions even more insane. How do two regions of no more than 600k people overpower a region of easily more than 2 million if the majority of those 2 million support the defending regime and in 3 weeks after breaking out? And why do they put up no meaningful or organized resistance afterward?

If Gaddafi wasn't adamant on changing himself and his country for the better, the UN wouldn't have proposed to recognize the man for all the greater good that he has done for his country and his people.

Libya's Late, Great Rights Record

United Nations Human Rights Council report on Libya Jan 4th, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

Here are links/sources of how the government helped Libyans by heavily subsidizing the costs of necessities like food staples, housing, oil, while providing free medicalcare, free education, and even profit sharing. Not a liberator, but a leader.

Library of Congress and it's Country Study of Libya...updated Study of Libya

Yes, Libya was subsequently suspended from the UN Human Rights Council, incidentally though that happened after Gaddafi opened his mouth about nationalizing the central bank and the oil company as I've already posted.

You ask... "How do two regions of no more than 600k people overpower a region of easily more than 2 million if the majority of those 2 million support the defending regime and in 3 weeks after breaking out?"

Simple, with US & NATO supporting and funding the "rebels".

However, as with Frame_Dragger, I'm sure this is all nonsense and hyperbole to someone that can't see past the story they've already swallowed at face value, but that's besides the point because initially we were discussing the many causes of 9/11 being used as the catalyst to push American hegemony across the face of the planet before I presented the example that Gaddafi suffered the same fate as Hussein.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Do you know how the typical closed circuit camera recording system works, especially ones that record via video tape? They take a frame of video every 2 -5 seconds. Plenty of time for a plane, especially one flying at 250+ MPH to fly through the view of any camera recording anything.

Nuck81

Have you even bothered to look and see from where the countless confiscated tapes were removed, and from which angles (and distances) they viewed the Pentagon?

Everything you said is true save for one thing, the Pentagon is a 5 sided building.

I gotta admit I did but I had a conversation with a guy that asked question that I admit had me stumped. I now think that there needs to be a major investigation into the largest attack on american soil. I also think that the laws that were passed need to be overturned and the troops recalled. Americans need to ask questions and to pay attention to what their govenment is doing.

noscope-ak47

Everything you said is true save for one thing, the Pentagon is a 5 sided building.WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Do you know how the typical closed circuit camera recording system works, especially ones that record via video tape? They take a frame of video every 2 -5 seconds. Plenty of time for a plane, especially one flying at 250+ MPH to fly through the view of any camera recording anything.

Nuck81

Have you even bothered to look and see from where the countless confiscated tapes were removed, and from which angles (and distances) they viewed the Pentagon?

Um... do you know how many cameras were pointed AT the Pentagon? I'm not just talking about cameras ON or IN the Pentagon complex. Try using your own brain and do a little research. Dozens of tapes were confiscated from cameras in nearby areas that would have had a perfect view of the impact.

Yes, they were legit. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

Are you American? If so, lets meet behind your local Dennys and settle this man on man gun on gun.

We don't need pvssy's like you in this country. We stand for freedom and will die for it. Or not die for it, as that is your right too. But what else is worth dying for?

Are you American? If so, lets meet behind your local Dennys and settle this man on man gun on gun.

We don't need pvssy's like you in this country. We stand for freedom and will die for it. Or not die for it, as that is your right too. But what else is worth dying for?

lo_Pine

Don't kid yourself.

If all of us really stood for Freedom, as you like to think, we'd have Bush, Cheney, Clinton etc and everyone else involved lynched and hanging by their Achillies tendon from meathooks like Mussolini and his circle. Instead, majority of Americans would rather sit down in front of the tube to drown themselves in a plethora of reality shows that aren't even real or just being apathetic about it all.

The only thing I see Americans standing up for is for the big Red White & Blue dick that continuously gets shoved up their asses while drinking the patriotic flavored kool-aid as they continue to believe in this "American Dream" which is steadily becoming a nightmare.

Um... do you know how many cameras were pointed AT the Pentagon? I'm not just talking about cameras ON or IN the Pentagon complex. Try using your own brain and do a little research. Dozens of tapes were confiscated from cameras in nearby areas that would have had a perfect view of the impact.

raynimrod

It dooesn't matter how many cameras were pointed at or towards the Pentagon If they are only recording one frame every 5 seconds, the chances are, nothing will have been seen and any confiscated tape would show just as much as the one that was released, little to nothing if not just a blur. Planes traveling at 250+ MPH would barely be seen, at the Pentagon Flight 77 impacted at 530 MPH. Wanna do the math on how long it would take to cover 500 feet at that speed and then let us know how come the plane isn't visible in any video?

There was a second video released and it came from the Doubletree Hotel but it does not show an airplane hitting it, just a plume of smoke rising from the building.

The Citgo gas station also had a video camera, that wasn't pointed at the Pentagon. It too would have nothing to show.

Yes. I've never seen any evidence to the contary.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

Um... do you know how many cameras were pointed AT the Pentagon? I'm not just talking about cameras ON or IN the Pentagon complex. Try using your own brain and do a little research. Dozens of tapes were confiscated from cameras in nearby areas that would have had a perfect view of the impact.

WhiteKnight77

It dooesn't matter how many cameras were pointed at or towards the Pentagon If they are only recording one frame every 5 seconds, the chances are, nothing will have been seen and any confiscated tape would show just as much as the one that was released, little to nothing if not just a blur. Planes traveling at 250+ MPH would barely be seen, at the Pentagon Flight 77 impacted at 530 MPH. Wanna do the math on how long it would take to cover 500 feet at that speed and then let us know how come the plane isn't visible in any video?

There was a second video released and it came from the Doubletree Hotel but it does not show an airplane hitting it, just a plume of smoke rising from the building.

The Citgo gas station also had a video camera, that wasn't pointed at the Pentagon. It too would have nothing to show.

+1

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

Um... do you know how many cameras were pointed AT the Pentagon? I'm not just talking about cameras ON or IN the Pentagon complex. Try using your own brain and do a little research. Dozens of tapes were confiscated from cameras in nearby areas that would have had a perfect view of the impact.

wis3boi

It dooesn't matter how many cameras were pointed at or towards the Pentagon If they are only recording one frame every 5 seconds, the chances are, nothing will have been seen and any confiscated tape would show just as much as the one that was released, little to nothing if not just a blur. Planes traveling at 250+ MPH would barely be seen, at the Pentagon Flight 77 impacted at 530 MPH. Wanna do the math on how long it would take to cover 500 feet at that speed and then let us know how come the plane isn't visible in any video?

There was a second video released and it came from the Doubletree Hotel but it does not show an airplane hitting it, just a plume of smoke rising from the building.

The Citgo gas station also had a video camera, that wasn't pointed at the Pentagon. It too would have nothing to show.

+1