9/11 Flight 77 (Pentagon) Footage Released

Originally posted by PVS
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.

Asking you to provide evidence and refute mine is obtuse?

No, that's direct. Your so-called theory has nothing to back it and therefore is actually nothing more than wild speculation. Not deserving of the term 'theory'.

You don't want to entertain the argument because you cannot fight it.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
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.

his opinion is always fact. no evidence is ever needed. havent you learned this by now?

opinion/fact: they are hiding nothing and the videos were not released simply because they dont feel its a big deal.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
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.

First of all, if that is so, so what? Evidence is evidence, and it is there. Hence, you are just evading again, because you cannot defend your point.

Second- what, your evidence is all yours, is it? Took pics and vids yourself? We all get our evidence from other sources.

I can post a pic of a piece of plane wreckage on the lawn if you want. But this is a massive distraction from the actual argument.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Note the photo that shows debris from the plane.

Also, Ush asked a perfectly valid question which more or less debunks the whole missile thing. What kind of missile leaves burning aviation fuel behind?

See, now PVS is just desceding to making pointless posts that simply attack me, rather than advance his point at all. Evidence of how completely without structure, form or foundation his ideas are.

Doesn't the fact that no-one fronting this idea actually has any evidence or any means to refute contrary evidence say something?

The bottom line is that none of you know what happened at the pentagon unless you were standing outside the front of it to actually see it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Asking you to provide evidence and refute mine is obtuse?

No, that's direct. Your so-called theory has nothing to back it and therefore is actually nothing more than wild speculation. Not deserving of the term 'theory'.

You don't want to entertain the argument because you cannot fight it.

i'm not "fighting" it (what a revealing term) because as i said, its my suspicion. not once did i tout it as fact or say i had ANY evidence besides suspicion and absence of evidence otherwise. of coarse, you will ignore that for the....5th time is it?...and go on to parrot the same response. should i just ring a bell and declare you the winner, since you called me out for not producing the evidence that i never said i had?
fine:

*ding* *ding* *raises ush's hand*

and for your victory speach, perhaps you can produce your evidence that nothing of the pentagon attacks is being hidden from the public eye. surely you're just bitter since you never got to deliver the big knockout punch. sorry i couldnt go the distance.
so lets have it champ...

Well, you called it a theory, which I refuted. You refuse to counter any evidence against it, which means even your suspicion makes absolutely no sense. And nor did I ever claim anything other than simply not caring about why the footage is not released, because frankly it doesn't affect a damn thing at all. We have overwhelming evidence saying it is a plane. Some unreleased footage still means jack shit.

Get me some evidence or your suspicions are pure folly.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
First of all, if that is so, so what?

Because that is the very basis of this discussion.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Second- what, your evidence is all yours, is it? Took pics and vids yourself? We all get our evidence from other sources.

While I'm sure that all evidence you post to support your arguments in various threads on this forum are first hand evidence, I will yeild the point that I did not shoot the video, or digitally place the 757 in front of teh pentagon. But you know damn well, that the government has not addressed this video...and in not addressing it, they couldn't have denied the authentic value of it in this discussion. Also, I'm unaware of any other occasion where a missle or prop plane hit the pentagon and it was not reported to the American people. Perhaps you coupld provide the truth behind this video...what other occasion did a prop plane or missle have to hit the pentagon? As for the pic of the 757 in front of the building; while I'll conceed that the person who created it may have a bias in this case, I can't see where the video is at ALL indicative of a 757 hitting the side of that building. I'm not here to debate you on the merrits of conspiracy. I'm here to state that that video DOES NOT represent teh story given to the American people as the explaination of the events of 9/11

then: produce your overwhelming evidence. or i guess you just dont have to.

You know there are many other pictures (check the link I gave you) aside from that video footage that plainly show evidence that it was a plane that hit the pentagon and not a missile or a garden gnome or a fat person.

Err, the overwhelming evidence is all over the place. I already listed it. Burning aviation fuel. Plane debris on the lawn. Eyewitness accounts. The fact that Flight 77 has to go somewhere, and every indication we have is that it hit the Pentagon.

Ok, I don't have a time machine to go and check it myself, but nor do I have one to go see Pearl Harbour; it is still pretty damn obvious what happened there.

Captain, I have no idea what you are talking about. The relevance of this line:

"what other occasion did a prop plane or missle have to hit the pentagon? "

Totally escapes me. More total irrelevance?

If you are going to tell me the video doesn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon, then I agree, It doesn't show a damn thing. But nothing I have said has anything to do with that. Fact remains, there is plenty of evidence that it WAS a plane, none that it was a missile. That's the bottom line.

Originally posted by BackFire
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Note the photo that shows debris from the plane.

Also, Ush asked a perfectly valid question which more or less debunks the whole missile thing. What kind of missile leaves burning aviation fuel behind?

I see no evidence of burning aviation fuel. And when a plane the size of a 757 hits a building the size of the pentagon, there will be damage consistant with such an impact. There would be damage from teh wings hitting the building. We saw that kind of damage with the WTC impacts. And such evidence does not appear in a single video or picture from teh pentagon.

No, it does show damage caused by the wings in another picture.

Here.

You see no evidnece of burning aviation fuel, huh?

So, all the firefighters trying to deal with it, interviewed and filmed at the time it happened, are all liars? What thge hell do you think was burning so vigorously there for so long?

As BF says, there IS damage consistent with the wings. You have nothing to go on, Captain.

Originally posted by BackFire
You know there are many other pictures (check the link I gave you) aside from that video footage that plainly show evidence that it was a plane that hit the pentagon and not a missile or a garden gnome or a fat person.

i see no definative evidence. i just see theories, counter theories, and some conspiracy evidence debunked...and a tiny chunk of what may or may not be airplane debris.

and again, im not saying that i feel its fact that it wasnt a plane.

snopes fails to point out the lack of passenger identities,
the quesion of confiscated videos, or the fact that when the planes hit the wtc, there was clear evidence of wing penetration and they punctured solid steel.

look, the point as someone else pointed out is that neither of us knows anything with 100% cetainty (except for ush of coarse) i just find much suspicion in their hiding of evidence. i guess that its "retarded logic" but oh well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Captain, I have no idea what you are talking about. The relevance of this line:

"what other occasion did a prop plane or missle have to hit the pentagon? "

Totally escapes me. More total irrelevance?

You want to act like the video isn't authentic footage of teh 9/11 impact. But I haven't heard of any other occasion where the pentagon was blown up, is my point.

And the whole point of this argument is that the video doesn't show a boeing 757 hitting the side of that building. How can you argue that? I'm saying that the video is close enough to the point of impact...along with all teh objects in teh foreground to go along with that...and you still maintain that a 757 hit the side of that building. It simply did not.

And if you want to talk about eye witness accounts, don't leave out the dozens and dozens that said they heard a missle or saw a military fighter jet flying low over the ground just before the explosion.

It really annoys me to see these suicide bombers blowing up people as well as themselves. In my day, suicide was done in a more dignified way, such as slicing your wrists in the bath, or hanging yourself from a door with a belt.

Originally posted by BackFire
Here.

Where? I see a round hole. Not at all like the ones in the side of the WTC.