9/11 Flight 77 (Pentagon) Footage Released

And so, what, they destroyed Flight 77 themselves to make it seem real?

PVS, it's nosnese. It is totoal bullcrap nonsense that doesn't pass any tesat of logic. If the Pentagon got missiled, they would have gone with that; it is no more embarrassing than being aeroplaned, considering the number of security faults that let that happen.

What is to stopping them crashing an aeroplane with a warhead on? God, it's just so damn silly, this whole thing, that I do not know where to start.

All you have is some footage not being released from an incident that otherwise shows overwhelming evidence of being hit by Flight 77. You are spinning fairy tales out of nothing.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And to add to that, the video doesn't look like this

And why the hell SHOULD it?

Are people really so devoid of logical capacity any more?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
This is the hole in the inner most ring. Not indicative of a JUMBO JET

Why not? Do you actually know what you are talking about, or are you making it up as you go along?

it doesnt matter capt.

either people tend to stuff their logic in their own rectums and deny their basic isntinct to question "why" or they just go over the deepend and trust any lunatic theory as fact. its sad imho the lack of people who will simply ask "um...why exactly cant we see what happened?"

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And... err... there WAS damage at the point where it impacted.

Yeah, at the point it hit the building, but not in the lawn on the way up to the point of impact. When was the last time you saw a plane crash that didn't leave at least a half mile burn mark in the groud when it crashed.

That is a desperate comment from a desperate person who has not one shred of actual evidence to back up his ludicrous assertions.

I note you make no effort to refute the massive evidence against your view, PVS, so your attempts to make us out as the unintellectual ones are pitiful.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And why the hell SHOULD it?

Are people really so devoid of logical capacity any more?

Why the hell should it? Because that's the whole ****ing point? I don't think you need to concern yourself with me making stuff up as I go along.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yeah, at the point it hit the building, but not in the lawn on the way up to the point of impact. When was the last time you saw a plane crash that didn't leave at least a half mile burn mark in the groud when it crashed.

When it crashed that close to the building, hmm?

More and more desperate.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And so, what, they destroyed Flight 77 themselves to make it seem real?

PVS, it's nosnese. It is totoal bullcrap nonsense that doesn't pass any tesat of logic. If the Pentagon got missiled, they would have gone with that; it is no more embarrassing than being aeroplaned, considering the number of security faults that let that happen.

What is to stopping them crashing an aeroplane with a warhead on? God, it's just so damn silly, this whole thing, that I do not know where to start.

All you have is some footage not being released from an incident that otherwise shows overwhelming evidence of being hit by Flight 77. You are spinning fairy tales out of nothing.

i am not spinning fairy tails. i made it clear three times so far that my suspicion of a missile attack is one thing and that my certain belief that something is being covered up is another thing entrely. its pretty obnoxious to intentionally blur the two just so you can say "retarded logic" and "fairy tails" and "bullcrap" etc.

Well, go on, Captain. Enighten us, oh genius. Why could that not have been caused by Flight 77?

What you have done is post a picture and say that could not have been a plane. There is no actual logical connection betrween the two, you are just hoping the comment will stand.

It is so sad, all of this, it really is.

Originally posted by PVS
i am not spinning fairy tails. i made it clear three times so far that my suspicion of a missile attack is one thing and that my certain belief that something is being covered up is another thing entrely. its pretty obnoxious to intentionally blur the two just so you can say "retarded logic" and "fairy tails" and "bullcrap" etc.

Evasion, as ever. You are not attempting to refute the evidence against you, Therefore what you say is shit. You have not the slightest grounds to suspect a missile attack. There is no evidence. I may as well say it was an explosive garden gnome attack.

What sort of crusie missile leaves burning aviation fuel behind?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
When it crashed that close to the building, hmm?

More and more desperate.

So, you compare the pic I posted of a 757 that close to the building, and the pics from the video...and you're telling me I'm desperate? How should they not look at list a little bit alike? A tiny silver object slamming into the side of the pentagon should not look like a 757? Desperate is clearly a point of view.

well, i really dont care to debate this thread anyway. i already did it, it got nowhere, and just amounted to people either saying "ZOMG NOTHING IS BEING HIDDEN!!! THATS STUPID!!!! THATS RIDICULOUS!!!! THATS *insert negative adjective* !!!!!1111" or the thread would be hijacked by deano with tales of explosive demo charges in the wtc. its just a cluster**** and not worth getting into.

Because... as already mentioned... the camera frames are too far apart to actually see the damn plane. It was going VERY fast, you know.

Quite why you thought the image had to look anything remotely like what you mocked up there is beyond me.

Originally posted by PVS
ok fine, what made me suspicious of a coverup:
"why are they hiding the footage?"
"why are no passengers killed aboard this supposed airliner identified?"
"why is the whole event just a black whole in the overly extensive media coverage of 9/11"

this is why i say that i believe a truth is being covered up.

-------------- THICK LINE --------------

now for my speculation: a missile attack.
the reason i feel that a missile attack would be covered up is to
prevent panic. even after we were attacked, we still feel invulnerable to
any type of attack not involving hijacking. but to know that we were actually hit by a missile would beg the question "whats preventing them from firing another with a tactical nuclear warhead? panic. thats the only reason i would see for a cover up.

Ok. But that still does not answer the questions:
Who fired the missile? From where? And for What reason?

Originally posted by PVS
well, i really dont care to debate this thread anyway. i already did it, it got nowhere, and just amounted to people either saying "ZOMG NOTHING IS BEING HIDDEN!!! THATS STUPID!!!! THATS RIDICULOUS!!!! THATS *insert negative adjective* !!!!!1111" or the thread would be hijacked by deano with tales of explosive demo charges in the wtc. its just a cluster**** and not worth getting into.

You mean you haven't got any evidence or logical reason to think what you do, and confronted by the evidence against you, you are backing out.

Fine.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
PVS, so your attempts to make us out as the unintellectual ones are pitiful.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
capt, oh genious

That's kind of hypocritical of you. I haven't insulted you, have I?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Evasion, as ever. You are not attempting to refute the evidence against you, Thgerefore what you say is shit. You have not the slightest grounds to suspect a missile attack. There is no evidence. I may as well say it was an explosive garden gnome attack.

What sort of crusie missile leaves burning aviation fuel behind?

how you avoid the point so eloquently and then accuse me of evasion.
i stated my suspicion and then i stated a theory. (4th time)

you're totally being obtuse and i wont entertain this for another second.

My attempts aren't pitiful, is the difference. Your arguments are silly, and I am refuting them as such., PVS was talking from grounds with no foundation.

Come on- are you going to xplain to us the logic behind what you say or not?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You mean you haven't got any evidence or logical reason to think what you do, and confronted by the evidence against you, you are backing out.

Fine.

I hate to point this out, but you are the one that has provided no evidence for your point of view. All you've done is take the evidence provided by others and simply stated your opinions about it.