Explosive 9/11 Documentary About To Air On Public Television In United States

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Are you one of those "Pilots for 9/11 truth" characters who caused the 9/11 forem to be locked? Your single minded disregard of all the concrete evidence in favor of your own undocumented and unprovable theories strikes me as being rather orchestrated.

Did you bother to investigate the member profile before you asked the question? Dave?

You are now being malicious.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You're changing your story and you know it. You said there was a very good reason to aim a security camera at a SECLUDED brick wall

And secluded brick wall too Dave.

We get every move monitored by the feds regardless of who we are ( good or Bad). So why is it such a crazy thing to expect the Pentagon to aim cameras at a wall?

I was going to make a serious attempt at answering this until I stopped, read it again, and realized you're really not asking why the Pentagon isn't aiming cameras at blank walls. You're really arguing out of desperation and you're grasping at pretty absurd straws becuase you dont want to admit you know your claims are untenable.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you really don't mean to say "the Pentagon doesn't aim security cameras at blank walls! Ooooh, it totally proves conspiracy!" so please amend your argument accordingly.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I was going to make a serious attempt at answering this until I stopped...

We are still waiting...got that objective corroborating evidence? Answered any of the questions I posed? Do you have the snippet you claim is missing from the documentary by Gage? Please STOP with the obfuscation...just fork over the goods...

you're grasping at pretty absurd straws becuase you dont want to admit you know your claims are untenable.

I think you read the final explanations of the argument and finally came to a conclusion your position is untenable. There are no areas within a thousand yards of the Pentagon that would be characterized as SECLUDED. Walked right into that one Dave...

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I reiterate...Do not show me any piece of crap reenactments. Do you have objective corroborating evidence or not?

Ahem...if you were to actually bother watching the "crap reenactments" you will see the "crap reenactment" is based upon the objective corroborating evidence. The knocked over light poles (yes, POLES as in more than just one), the aircraft wreckage, the observable ground damage, and even explains what we're seeing in that photo that was released. You asked for evidence and I gave it to you. It's just that you don't want to accept any evidence that shows you are wrong, whcih makes it your problem, not mine.

Let me ask, in all seriousness; it's patently clear you've dedicated yourself into believing the photographic evidence isn't enough to convince you, the eyewitness accounts won't be enough to convince you and even the recovered aircraft wreckage won't be enough to convince you. It's a given the information retrieved from the recovered black box won't have any impact on your beliefs, either. What wonderous, magical information would there be in any video that would spontaneously convince you that you wouldn't thoughtlessly deny in the same way? Please, explain that one to me.

It seems to me you're just making up excuses to avoid having to admit you're wrong, here.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Let me ask, in all seriousness; it's patently clear you've dedicated yourself into believing the photographic evidence isn't enough to convince you, the eyewitness accounts won't be enough to convince you and even the recovered aircraft wreckage won't be enough to convince you. It's a given the information retrieved from the recovered black box won't have any impact on your beliefs, either. What wonderous, magical information would there be in any video that would spontaneously convince you that you wouldn't thoughtlessly deny in the same way? Please, explain that one to me.

I did bother to watch the "crap reenactments." That is why I called it a crap reenactment. If I had not watched it, I would not have used the word crap.

Dave, part of the conditions were this...film! Got film of the plane striking the Pentagon or not?If you have film of the plane striking the Pentagon, that is objective corroborating evidence. If you do not, then you have no objective corroborating evidence.

A lot of film and photos have been offered in regard to the events of 9/11/01...some of the video and film you accept as objective corroborating evidence, some of it I accept...some of it you reject, some of it I reject...why? Because some of it you believe to be okay and some of it not...Same with me...

That is all I am saying...

It is like this. The US Government and multiple witnesses made claims that terrorists using box cutters hijacked 4 planes on 9/11/01. The US Government and multiple witnesses made claims three of these planes collided with buildings on 9/11/01, WTC 1, WTC 2, and the Pentagon. We have objective corroborating evidence present in the first two collisions. We have no objective corroborating evidence regarding the third. I find that to be troubling.

Now, I know you would like to keep this discussion focused on the Pentagon, but since you have yet to offer any film of that event, let us stick with what you have offered in regard to film.

WTC 7...

You got some 'splaining to do Dave...You made the claim that snippets were excluded from Gage's documentary...CLAIM PROVEN FALSE!!!

Let me ask, in all seriousness: Will you answer the questions I posed please...

Originally posted by totallackey

Did you bother to investigate the member profile before you asked the question? Dave?

Come now, what useful purpose would that serve? Any Pilots for 9/11 truth groupies here certainly won't display "I'm a member of Pilots for 9/11 truth" in their profile when they know full well they're on the hit list. The P4911T groupies are akin to the Nazis after WWII; They pulled all these outrageous stunts to let the world know of their existance and yet noone ever can ever seem to actually find anyone who admits they belong to the group.

You are now being malicious.

It is not being malicious to note a pattern of behavior between a member and a group of self serving conspiracy peddlers who are known to behave in the same manner. This is how the entire conversation is going, in a nutshell:

Him: What evidence do you have that proves a plane hit the Pentagon?
Me: Here's a list of eyewitnesses accounts detailing they saw that it was a plane
Him: LIES! What else do you have?
Me: There was aircraft wreckage all over the place after the impact
Him: LIES! What else do you have?
Me: A number of light poles were knocked over in a path leading straight to the Pentagon
Him: LIES! What else do you have?
Me: The photos of the damage shows the object that hit it was really large, heavy, and circular.
Him: LIES! What else do you have?
Me: They also recovered the black box from the craft and it identified it as being flight 77.
Him: LIES! What else do you have?
Me: There were also the recovered passenger effects and DNA tests confirming they were flight 77 passengers
Him: LIES! What else do you have?
Me: That's all the evidence there is.
Him: You see? I told you that you couldn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon!

This isn't "denying ignorance" by anyone's definition. This is either being unrepentently ignorant, or there's an agenda at work here. Even you have to acknowledge that whatever his true motives are, they have nothing to do with an honest attempt to learn the facts of the 9/11 attack.

...and may I ask just why are you becoming so defensive over this? What dog do YOU have in this fight?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Come now, what useful purpose would that serve? Any Pilots for 9/11 truth groupies here certainly won't display "I'm a member of Pilots for 9/11 truth" in their profile when they know full well they're on the hit list. The P4911T groupies are akin to the Nazis after WWII; They pulled all these outrageous stunts to let the world know of their existance and yet noone ever can ever seem to actually find anyone who admits they belong to the group.

How to reply... This needs no reply...It stands as a monument to exactly what you are...however, comparing people who ask questions to Nazis...Got any books you want burned?

It is not being malicious to note a pattern of behavior between a member and a group of self serving conspiracy peddlers who are known to behave in the same manner.

"self serving conspiracy peddlers." What does that make you?

This is how the entire conversation is going, in a nutshell: Him: What evidence do you have that proves a plane hit the Pentagon? Me: Here's a list of eyewitnesses accounts detailing they saw that it was a plane Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There was aircraft wreckage all over the place after the impact Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: A number of light poles were knocked over in a path leading straight to the Pentagon Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: The photos of the damage shows the object that hit it was really large, heavy, and circular. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: They also recovered the black box from the craft and it identified it as being flight 77. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There were also the recovered passenger effects and DNA tests confirming they were flight 77 passengers Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: That's all the evidence there is. Him: You see? I told you that you couldn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon!

You are joking now, right Dave? Post some direct evidence this is how the conversation has flowed...I think you will see otherwise...Your emotions are clouding your thinking...

This isn't "denying ignorance" by anyone's definition. This is either being unrepentently ignorant, or there's an agenda at work here. Even you have to acknowledge that whatever his true motives are, they have nothing to do with an honest attempt to learn the facts of the 9/11 attack. ...and may I ask just why are you becoming so defensive over this? What dog do YOU have in this fight?

I am simply waiting for you to answer the questions...My dog?

photo courtesy of 1.bp.blogspot.com...
That could be you, depending on your answers to the questions I posed...REPEATED HERE NOW!!!

1) And from the video evidence we have of the building, kindly point out these "massive deformations." Thanks.
2) And I find it quite convenient your adjectives turn from "really loud BANGs," to "creaking noises." WHICH WAS IT!?!?!
3) I want you to tell me how the video you present (supposedly showing the missing snippet) substantially and objectively differs from that presented in the documentary. I can see no objective difference. As a matter of fact, the entire documentary viewed for free here, shows multiple angles of the building coming down from the beginning. What has Gage eliminated? Watch from 45:07 to approx 47:00 on the documentary. Tom Sullivan clearly states he saw the penthouse portion of the collapse at 46:04 (approx). Your claim that Gage has "snipped," the video is FALSE. At 47:53 the exact same footage you present is IN THE DOCUMENTARY!!! FOR THE UMPTEENTH FREAKING TIME, Where is the missing snip!?
4) Why do you think NIST is refusing to release the computer model parameters that were used?
5) Do you have evidence the engineers and architects in question were shown the documentary in advance of the final cut?
6) Do you have evidence indicating the architects and engineers were incapable of viewing the events as they took place that day?
7) Do you have evidence these people are capable of being deceived while you are not?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Him: What evidence do you have that proves a plane hit the Pentagon? Me: Here's a list of eyewitnesses accounts detailing they saw that it was a plane Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There was aircraft wreckage all over the place after the impact Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: A number of light poles were knocked over in a path leading straight to the Pentagon Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: The photos of the damage shows the object that hit it was really large, heavy, and circular. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: They also recovered the black box from the craft and it identified it as being flight 77. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There were also the recovered passenger effects and DNA tests confirming they were flight 77 passengers Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: That's all the evidence there is. Him: You see? I told you that you couldn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon!

woah dude! Is "him" suposed to be me? I never had that conversation with you Dave.

see that's what I mean when i say that it seems like there's more than one goodoldave here. We have replied to each others posts hundreds of times and you can't remember what my issue is with 9/11...Dave?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

This isn't "denying ignorance" by anyone's definition. This is either being unrepentently ignorant, or there's an agenda at work here. Even you have to acknowledge that whatever his true motives are, they have nothing to do with an honest attempt to learn the facts of the 9/11 attack.

Are talking about me Dave? Quote me to prove this nonsense please!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


What avatar did you have before the one you have now Dave?

Originally posted by totallackey

"self serving conspiracy peddlers." What does that make you?

Someone with too much free time on his hands. I'm not trying to sell you any merchendise. No books, no DVDs, no T-shirts, not even a "Investigate 9/11 licence plate frame".

You are joking now, right Dave? Post some direct evidence this is how the conversation has flowed...I think you will see otherwise...Your emotions are clouding your thinking...

All right, time to put up or shut up- I already posted a GIGANTIC list of eyewitness testimony, and some of them are quite specific at what they saw. How do you explain every single one of these eyewitnesses are wrong when they all said they saw the exact same thing? You won't because you can't unless you outright accuse all these people of lying.

1) And from the video evidence we have of the building, kindly point out these "massive deformations." Thanks.

Strawman argument. T the eyewitnesses saw this on the SOUTH side, where the wreckage from the north tower hit the building. That video is entirely from the NORTH side so of course it's not goign to be in the video. You can't NOT know that.

2) And I find it quite convenient your adjectives turn from "really loud BANGs," to "creaking noises." WHICH WAS IT!?!?!

If you're going to quote me then quote me correctly. The buildign was creaking while it was standing. The "really loud bangs" were the ones witnesses heard six seconds before the collapse of the exterior of the building.

3)I can see no objective difference. As a matter of fact, the entire documentary viewed for free here, shows multiple angles of the building coming down from the beginning. What has Gage eliminated?

Sheesh, of all the unrepentently lazy...! All right, here's a link to Gage's web site. He runs a web site called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, and on his web site he specifically shows the snipped video on the right side of the page and then immediately overlays it with "Controlled demolition?" If you attempt to deny he's deliberately snipping off the section of the Penthouse collapse to embellish his claims, you will be lying.

Architects and Engineers "resources" web page

4) Why do you think NIST is refusing to release the computer model parameters that were used?

Dunno. Did you ever ask them for the computer model parameters?

5) Do you have evidence the engineers and architects in question were shown the documentary in advance of the final cut?
6) Do you have evidence indicating the architects and engineers were incapable of viewing the events as they took place that day?

7) Do you have evidence these people are capable of being deceived while you are not?

Yes I do- look at the petition page (and no, I'm not going to provide a link. Click the specific link on Gage's web site yourself. It takes about four seconds.) and click the names of the people signing the petition. It brings you to the personal messages for why they're signing it, and they are chock full of the exaggerated information Gage is repeating- the buildings fell symmetrically when the missing penthouse collapse shows it wasn't, claiming there were only minor fires when even the NYFD said the fires were out of control, saying no planes hit WTC 7 when it was actually hit by wreckage from the north tower, claiming fires can't melt steel when the only ones ever claiming the fires ever actually melted steel was Gage. Thermite foiund in the debris when peer examination determined it was paint, and so on. The point is, these people are all admitting right there out in the open they're not basing their opinions on their own professional expertise. They're basing it entirely upon the bad information Gage is presenting.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

What avatar did you have before the one you have now Dave?

Yes, I'm who you think I am: it was a black and white photo of a 50's era guy suffering a headache with the heading "Ah Jeez, not this crap again". The days of the 9/11 forum are over so I had to change it when I migrated to other forums. Besides, I was feeling creative with the animated GIFs.

You'll forgive me for cheating on you when I admit I play with the "we never landed on the moon" conspiracy people now.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

What avatar did you have before the one you have now Dave?

Yes, I'm who you think I am: it was a black and white photo of a 50's era guy suffering a headache with the heading "Ah Jeez, not this crap again". The days of the 9/11 forum are over so I had to change it when I migrated to other forums. Besides, I was feeling creative with the animated GIFs.

Well then please remind me when this conversation took place...

Him: What evidence do you have that proves a plane hit the Pentagon? Me: Here's a list of eyewitnesses accounts detailing they saw that it was a plane Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There was aircraft wreckage all over the place after the impact Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: A number of light poles were knocked over in a path leading straight to the Pentagon Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: The photos of the damage shows the object that hit it was really large, heavy, and circular. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: They also recovered the black box from the craft and it identified it as being flight 77. Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: There were also the recovered passenger effects and DNA tests confirming they were flight 77 passengers Him: LIES! What else do you have? Me: That's all the evidence there is. Him: You see? I told you that you couldn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon!

You'll forgive me for cheating on you when I admit I play with the "we never landed on the moon" conspiracy people now.

Don't be too hard on those guys over there, they're just trying to have some fun.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Someone with too much free time on his hands. I'm not trying to sell you any merchendise. No books, no DVDs, no T-shirts, not even a "Investigate 9/11 licence plate frame".

Never asked to buy one...I do suggest you take some classes with your free time...perhaps in critical thinking.

All right, time to put up or shut up- I already posted a GIGANTIC list of eyewitness testimony, and some of them are quite specific at what they saw. How do you explain every single one of these eyewitnesses are wrong when they all said they saw the exact same thing? You won't because you can't unless you outright accuse all these people of lying.

Dave, you and I both know there have been previous instances of mass witnesses to events that have misinterpreted what was seen, correct? Take a look at this.

Psychologists and behavioral science researchers have found that memory is influenced by an observer's conditioning. Time is also an important element. Psychologists describe the influence of the passing time in terms of sharpening and leveling effect; thus, as time passes, critical aspects of the remembered situation become exaggerated or sharpened. At the same time, memory for less critical aspects of the original perception become diminished in a phenomenon known as leveling. For example, in a store hold-up, the eyewitness may remember the weapon more accurately than the person wielding it.[10] Another major factor influencing memory is the amount of suggestion supplied by law enforcement throughout the identification process. Suggestion can be created intentionally or unintentionally.[11] According to one study of eyewitness accuracy, study participants that received confirmation (ie. feedback suggesting their identification was correct) reported having a clearer picture of the culprit's face, being sure of their description, and being more willing to testify.[12]

Does this sound like someone needs to be labeled as a liar? I believe they saw something. Same as you believe they saw something.
en.wikipedia.org...

the eyewitnesses saw this on the SOUTH side, where the wreckage from the north tower hit the building. That video is entirely from the NORTH side so of course it's not goign to be in the video. You can't NOT know that.

So, let me get this straight...you cannot describe what was meant by the term "massive deformations," and there is no pictures of "massive deformations"...okay...Let us look again at the issue of where

massive deformations in the side of the structure where the fires were burning out of control,

these were taking place...According to NIST report, WTC 1 was to the south of WTC 7...The NIST Report states the debris struck the north side and also caused damage to the south west exterior? So how do you get witnesses of damage to the SOUTH? Get twisted much?

If you're going to quote me then quote me correctly. The buildign was creaking while it was standing. The "really loud bangs" were the ones witnesses heard six seconds before the collapse of the exterior of the building.

I quoted you very exactly...you are now needing to clean up your mess...

Sheesh, of all the unrepentently lazy...! All right, here's a link to Gage's web site. He runs a web site called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, and on his web site he specifically shows the snipped video on the right side of the page and then immediately overlays it with "Controlled demolition?" If you attempt to deny he's deliberately snipping off the section of the Penthouse collapse to embellish his claims, you will be lying.

No Dave...I pointed to exact times in the documentary (the documentary is the topic) where the video YOU posted and CLAIMED was utilized by the NIST is EXACTLY PRESENTED in the GAGE DOCUMENTARY!!! You lied Dave...

Dunno. Did you ever ask them for the computer model parameters?

Not yet. Do you not think this is something that ought to be shared freely?

Yes I do- look at the petition page (and no, I'm not going to provide a link. Click the specific link on Gage's web site yourself. It takes about four seconds.)...The point is, these people are all admitting right there out in the open they're not basing their opinions on their own professional expertise. They're basing it entirely upon the bad information Gage is presenting.

One petitioner simply states, "the evidence raises unresolved questions about causal factors and event sequences." And it does.

Dave, you act as if what you posted serves as a blanket answer to my questions...No...it does not...I would say "nice try," but you do not meet any of the standards to warrant such a comment...you are dismissed.

Originally posted by totallackey

What is debunked?

This statement you made.


"An object traveling over 500 mph would be very difficult to identify."

It was very easy to id that plane as a large passenger jet. Therefore, you are wrong. And debunked.

When you show me video of the plane in question at the Pentagon then we can have a discussion. Until then, there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to corroborate the testimony of the Pentagon incident. Understand?

Sorry, but you do not get to set the standards of evidence. You do not get to decide that since there is no clear video, it is logical to reject all other evidence, That is illogical.

No, I do not. The claim by the US Government is a plane struck the Pentagon. You got radar tracks? Let's see them

Do some research. I will not spoon feed you.

You got corroborating video evidence to support the eyewitness testimony?

Nope. Therefore it is logical to mover onto other forms of evidence. Rejection of these other forms shows an agenda NOT interested in any truth.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous

This statement you made. "An object traveling over 500 mph would be very difficult to identify." It was very easy to id that plane as a large passenger jet. Therefore, you are wrong. And debunked.

Live action taking place right in front of you is a far cry from the video you posted. It was very easy to identify the object in your video. Yet, I notice you still have no video of the actual plane in question...Therefore, you are wrong and talking out the side of your neck.

Sorry, but you do not get to set the standards of evidence. You do not get to decide that since there is no clear video, it is logical to reject all other evidence, That is illogical.

And you do? Appealing to numbers again...please stop. It is logical to reject evidence that does not take into account statements like these:

I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke. - Steve Anderson, eyewitness at the Pentagon

That crappy re-enactment Dave posted had a hard time working that statement in given it claims "unscathed lawn," and must meet the other video evidence present immediately shown on live TV right after the incident. Yeah, crappy re-enactments do not cut it, especially since other video right after the event do not jive. Further, a live reporter from CNN was on site and made the claim there were no parts of a plane present at all.

Do some research. I will not spoon feed you.

EXCELLENT!!! I cannot stand the idea of your pablum and drivel anyway. And your failure to pony up demonstrates your inability to do so.

Nope. Therefore it is logical to mover onto other forms of evidence. Rejection of these other forms shows an agenda NOT interested in any truth.

Leaping like Peter Pan...If what I have seen here so far was anywhere close to sane, maybe we might continue; given the state of the situation, it is clear it is not. So, care to engage directly on the NIST Report of WTC 7? I asked you that some time ago...if not, then you are dismissed...

So, is it important to note that the FDR places "Flt 77" at about 400 ft over the top of the Pentagon at the moment of impact? Maybe not, but it could explain the sighting of the plane by folks on the highway and still easily explain the cordite smell and relatively small impact damage if the large plane actually delivered an ordinance as it overflew the building. It would have been a suddenly shock - visually - and readily "disappeared" behind the explosion and smoke plume as the ordinance lit up the wall facing the highway. It would also explain why that area of the Pentagon was chosen as a target and the offices reorged accordingly. It was the only one of the 5 sides that provided such a advantageous perspective for so many bystanders, with the explosion and smoke acting to block out the view of the continuing plane's flight for all of those people.

I'm always amazed that this obvious part of the scenario is overlooked. It seems so well planned and clearly well executed.

Originally posted by maxella1

Well then please remind me when this conversation took place...

Would you mind terribly then legitimately explaining why over a hundred eyewitness accounts who all say they saw the same thing shouldn't be considered credible? It would be one thing if only a few people saw the impact, or if it can be shown there were major discrepencies in eyewitness accounts, or if it can be shown most of the eyewitness accounts were really heresay, but NOPE, when so many eyewitnesses who were physically there all specifically say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, the philosophy of "eyewitness accounts aren't reliable" is simply a cop-out and it cannot be used here.

Otherwise, you ARE calling them all liars, whether you wish to admit to the fact or not.

Originally posted by NorEaster
So, is it important to note that the FDR places "Flt 77" at about 400 ft over the top of the Pentagon at the moment of impact? Maybe not, but it could explain the sighting of the plane by folks on the highway and still easily explain the cordite smell and relatively small impact damage if the large plane actually delivered an ordinance as it overflew the building. It would have been a suddenly shock - visually - and readily "disappeared" behind the explosion and smoke plume as the ordinance lit up the wall facing the highway. It would also explain why that area of the Pentagon was chosen as a target and the offices reorged accordingly. It was the only one of the 5 sides that provided such a advantageous perspective for so many bystanders, with the explosion and smoke acting to block out the view of the continuing plane's flight for all of those people.

How is attacking the side of a building that faces a major highway during rush hour traffic considered "blocking out the view of all those people?" The Pentagon was in the middle of an industrial park, right across the river from what is arguably the capitol of the world. Where is there no people for these imagined conspirators to aim their staged attack in that direction like it was some movie camera, exactly?

Now let me ask a question- do you or do you not agree that after passing off so much blatantly false conspiracy mongoring information like this, it can only cause more harm than good to the conspiracy movement?

reply to post by totallackey


Okay this is where I have to step in and point out that you are lying when you say a CNN reporter said there were no pieces of the plane. What he sai that there was no evidence the plane had hit the GROUND prior to hitting the building.