Moderator: Jesus H Christ
Link?Mike the Lab Rat wrote: I believe firmly that man landed on the moon, that the Earth is round...
WASHINGTON — Conspiracy theorists may or may not be disappointed Tuesday when they see footage released from the Pentagon showing two angles of American Flight 77 hitting the western wall of the building on Sept. 11, 2001.
The Department of Justice released the videotape after a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a government watchdog. The request was made to quiet claims by some that pictures from that day never showed an airplane, only the "alleged" impact of the plane. Those claims spawned theories that the U.S. government faked the crash at the Pentagon.
"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77. As always, our prayers remain with all those who suffered as a result of those murderous attacks."
One of the tapes is from a security camera that was used to produce five still shots on that day. That video, which takes pictures in half-second increments, shows the nose cone of the plane clearly entering the picture, then a blur and then a fireball.
The other camera shot that hasn't been seen before shows more of the plane before the fireball.
Several other cameras throughout the years supposedly caught part of the attack on tape, but none of these leads have panned out.
Tom Bortner, a Pentagon attack survivor, said he thinks the speed of the plane is what prevented the attack from being captured on more surveillance cameras on the premises.
"I think it's conclusive that plane hit the Pentagon and I don't think the tape really adds or detracts from that," Bortner said.
American Airlines Flight 77 left Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C., around 8:51 a.m. EDT on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. On its way to Los Angeles, the plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. EDT; 184 people died in that attack.
Three other planes were hijacked that day. Two hit the North and South towers of the World Trade Center and one — United Flight 93 — believed to be headed to Washington, D.C., was stopped by passengers who fought the hijackers. The plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pa. Nearly 3,000 people died that day as a result of the attacks.
"I think it's appropriate that the American people be reminded from time to time about the horror of that day, be reminded about the fact we need to remain vigilant, we need to take the rest of the steps the commission recommended," James Thompson, the former Illinois governor who sat on the Sept. 11 commission, told FOX News.
A dramatic film, "United 93," is currently in wide release depicting that day. The film borrows heavily from taped phone conversations that passengers and crew had with their families and air traffic controllers before the fight for control of the plane.
Judicial Watch first filed the FOIA request in February 2004. It received a letter from the Pentagon in January 2005 that it possessed a videotape responsive to the request but wouldn't release it since it was "part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui." Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in February 2006, arguing that the Defense Department had "no legal basis" to withhold the tape.
Moussaoui, the only person formally charged with his role in the attacks, was recently sentenced to six consecutive life terms in prison.
Van wrote:Kumbaya, asshats.
R-Jack wrote:Yes, that just happened.Atomic Punk wrote:So why did you post it?
Jsc810 wrote:MS, your legal education is working against you here. If this was a criminal trial where Bush had to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt, then yeah, your approach might make sense.
I understand. That is what you do. But this isn't a criminal trial, and you cannot win this argument by continuously changing topics, nitpicking, and other obfuscation.
Those who do not wear tin foil hats believe that the damages of 9/11 were caused by the terrorists.
Although you have asked many questions, you have yet to provide any answers. If it wasn't the terrorists, then what happened? Did Bush, Rove, or members of the Trilateral Commission conspire with Osama bin Laden? Did the CIA plant bombs in WTC 7 or the Pentagon?
I believe 9/11 is accurately explained in The 9/11 Commission Report, and that no agent of our government was involved. What do you believe?
1st-So called science? Just because you don't like where it leads does not make it junk.Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Nice going yourself, there, shyster boy - you seem to have forgotten that we already did this entire go round on this very topic many moons ago, and YES I did read the "science" as you call it and I agree with the official reports.
Another lie. No one ever explained the 'magic plane theory.' Why? Because the science isn't there to do it.Your nitpicking obscure points at that time showed an appalling dependence on conspiracy site interpretations...which then get debunked by various sites people put up.
Who said that? I never said that. YOU lump me in with people and say I said what they say. That is a fallacy of the worst kind.I'm no fan of GW. I think that Dumbya is perhaps the single stupidest person to ever draw breath in the Oval Office. In my opinion, Cheney and Rove leave a trail of slime wherever they go. However, I don't for a frigging second believe in some wild, unsubstantiated fantasy that has those guys deliberately having Americans die by the thousands for some sinister end.
I have never once posted a fallacious argument. You do it in every post. Messenger what?Unfortunately for you, one of the ways in which I (and probably many others 'round these parts) judge the "message" is by looking at the "messenger."
Fucking LIAR! If you could read you would know that I never said they are not dead.You haven't exactly helped your own case, insinuating that people didn't really die in that plane that hit the Pentagon - what, are the people in some super secret "holding cell?" Have they all been given new identities like mobsters in a witness protection program? Were they whisked away by frigging aliens?
Name one person.I already know your usual response: "Have YOU seen the bodies?!?!?! Has anybody?!?! Give me the names of those who have!!!"
Another fallacy. Poison the well much?You know what? I believe firmly that man landed on the moon, that the Earth is round, that the Freemasons are just a bunch of old dudes who wear funny clothes and get drunk a lot,
You can start with the first word. I don't believe the report, but I will play anyways.Jsc810 wrote:...when you reach the first point that you disagree with, please identify it.
Thank you.
That is your evidence? Have you seen the footage? Click socal's link and then tell me that proves anything about 77. Gawd your side of the aisle is full of tards.Rack Fu wrote:Wasn't there actual footage of that plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11?
Now, now, you Lilliputian legal dimwit, calling me a "lying sack of shit" just shows your frustration and inability to handle the truth. I tried taking the stuff you posted seriously, albeit with a grain of salt (which cannot be helped when the preponderance of experts disagree with YOU). What I found did not convince me that I should cast my lot with you and the other conspiracy nuts.Moving Sale wrote:2nd- You are such a lying sack of shit. You NEVER took it seriously or ever showed how what I posted was bunk.
"For all you know?" Nice dodge. And nice of you to then toss in some more idiotic, paranoid possibilities.Moving Sale wrote:For all I know AQ slammed a missile into the pentagon and the Bushies are covering up that fact so as to not worry the American people further.
You are a walking, talking, posting fallacy. You do absoultely nothing but spew ad hominems, try to throw the burden of proof on others when YOU are the one with that burden, you make utterly ridiculous, endless requests for layers of proof (prove that people died?). You have done prcisely nothing to either prove your case nor undermine the official story (which is all you are attempting).Moving Sale wrote:I have never once posted a fallacious argument.
Sigh.... Let me explain it this way - you are widely perceived as an imbecile, and therefore, even if you were to somehow correctly present the solution to world peace, the cure for cancer, and cold fusion, no one here would give it any credence because YOU, TheVapidOne, presented it.Moving Sale wrote:Messenger what?
In your own words:You haven't exactly helped your own case, insinuating that people didn't really die in that plane that hit the Pentagon - what, are the people in some super secret "holding cell?" Have they all been given new identities like mobsters in a witness protection program? Were they whisked away by frigging aliens?Moving Sale wrote:Fucking LIAR! If you could read you would know that I never said they are not dead.
Ummm.....so if you are claiming that there's no proof they are dead, then what ARE you saying? Either they are dead or alive, and you on record as saying that there is "no proof they are dead."MovingThe GoalPosts wrote:No proof they are dead. No proof, if they are dead, that they died on 911. No proof, if they are dead, that they died when '77 hit the pentagon.' Just a list of 64 people that may or may not be dead. Try harder next time.
One person who died? One person who SAW a dead body? One person who did the forensic analysis?MtLR wrote:I already know your usual response: "Have YOU seen the bodies?!?!?! Has anybody?!?! Give me the names of those who have!!!"Moving Bowels wrote:Name one person.
Mmmm...no. I know that I read those paranoid pseudoscientific screeds and gave them no acceptance on my first reading. You just don't like that I disagree with their validity and have to resort to name-calling.Moving Sale wrote:You can't explain the 'magic plane theory' or the pancake theory or any of a number of theories that your position relies on because the science isn't there. You can say you have but we both know that is a lie.
Nice bit of legal argumentation right there, you half-witted homunculus.Moving Sale wrote:How did WTC 7 fall again?
Go fuck yourself.
Here's your cover up, Otter Pop:Moving Sale wrote:socal,
Show me how that is 77.
What Really Happened. Honest wrote:The Pentagon Force Protection Agency were mystified when they came upon a smoldering hole in the side of the western wall along the outer ring. The metal debris resembled the site of an airplane crash, but it turned out to be the vaporized remains of an automobile. The make of the vehicle was unidentifiable at the scene.
The folks in the lab finally figured out what it was, and pieced together the events that led up to its demise.
It seems that a former Air Force sergeant had somehow got hold of a JATO (Jet Assisted Take-Off) unit. JATO units are solid fuel rockets used to give heavy military transport airplanes an extra push for take-off from short airfields.
The sergeant took the JATO unit into the Washington D.C. desert and found a long, straight stretch of road. He attached the JATO unit to his car, jumped in, accelerated to a high speed, and fired off the rocket. The facts, as best as could be determined, are as follows:
The operator was driving a 1967 Chevy Impala. He ignited the JATO unit approximately 3.9 miles from the crash site. This was established by the location of a prominently scorched and melted strip of asphalt. The vehicle quickly reached a speed of between 250 and 300 mph and continued at that speed, under full power, for an additional 20-25 seconds. The soon-to-be pilot experienced G-forces usually reserved for dog-fighting F-14 jocks under full afterburners.
The Chevy remained on the straight highway for approximately 2.6 miles (15-20 seconds) before the driver applied the brakes, completely melting them, blowing the tires, and leaving thick rubber marks on the road surface. The vehicle then became airborne for an additional 1.3 miles, impacted the base of the Pentagon, and left a blackened crater 12 feet wide.
Most of the driver's remains were not recovered; however, small fragments of bone, teeth, and hair were extracted from the crater, and fingernail and bone shards were removed from a piece of debris believed to be a portion of the steering wheel.
Van wrote:Kumbaya, asshats.
R-Jack wrote:Yes, that just happened.Atomic Punk wrote:So why did you post it?
You fukking tell me TiVo. If you are making the inference that there was something more than a pair of jets that brought down 2 really fukking big buildings, don't you think that maybe, just maybe they would have been able to topple, #7 just as easily at the same time? But it didn't. It went down quite a while later and I'll take a wild guess and say that 2 really, really, really fukking big buildings a few feet away had some influence on it.Moving Sale wrote: How did WTC 7 fall again?
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
Sorry I didn't read the rest of your rant... I was laughing too hard.Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Now, now, you Lilliputian legal dimwit, calling me a "lying sack of shit" just shows your frustration and inability to handle the truth.
Sincerely,Moving Sale wrote: That leaves out most of the people on this board who tow the government line.
I haven't bought anything, I'm still shopping. I can tell you that, more than anything else, the shit retorts I get from people towing the government line make me think the whole thing stinks. Mis-information, dis-information, flat out lies, fallacies by the boat-load, reliance on government docs to prove the government line. It is all very strange indeed.RadioFan wrote:I must say, MS, your buying into this particular conspiracy is strange, to say the least. Entertaining, but very strange..
Confusion? That is rich. Are you saying he was not on the list because he used the wrong name? Is that name on the manifest?Jsc810 wrote:Yeah, I'll stipulate that there was confusion the week after 9/11 and that the FBI had not established all of the facts at that time.
To move this along, I'll stip to it for this thread only.Do you now agree that Hani boarded the plane?
He asked me a question. I'm answering it. We will get to the science part soon enough. WTF do you care anyways?88 wrote: I thought we were talking science here.
First off, The headset expert's testimony would not be hearsay, it would fall under FRE 701, and you know it.You are trying to create an issue using inadmissible hearsay.
That is manufactured horseshit that would never make it before a jury.
The things relating to 911 that you know nothing about could fill the hole at ground zero 100 plus stories high.And I know nothing about the content of the rootsweb database.
That is a pretty shitty way to get out of it, but I can't force you to answer. I still say she did not make the call. The evidence points to her husband lying about the whole thing.Jsc810 wrote: Your issue of whether or not she made a collect call is not addressed by the report, and therefore is not a point that I asserted.
If you are going to play the way you have been we might as well get to the meat. The next part I would mention is where it says 77 hit the pentagon. I don't think that happened. (I would have brought up the flight being hard to pull off for HH or the lamposts, but since the shit report.... errr 911 report does not mention that HH was the pilot or anything about the lamp-posts you would have just dodged them anyways.)Please identify what part, if any, of the above quote that you disagree with.
That you had not read the report was no suprise. Nice that you are educating yourself...after you made up your mind. What knid of crap is that?Neck, this process has been educational and interesting to me. I had only read parts of the Report previously, and this has been an opportunity for me to read the whole thing.
I can see how you missed the La bar the first time. The evidence is a report that Mr. Olsen said she called collect when that is not possible. As 88 tried to point out I have an FRE hoop or two to jump thru, but I would get there.Jsc810 wrote: What evidence are you talking about?
There you go again. That is not true. A few frames of video that is shit for quality? Come on.The entire world saw the evidence.
Terrorists boarded 93 too and IT didn't hit then pentagon. How do YOU get from Kentucky to the pentagon?You've agreed that terrorists boarded the plane. I look forward to seeing how you get from that point to a (rational) conclusion that 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.
No shit.Mississippi Neck wrote:The fact that some of you waste time on this idiot is more disturbing than his inane arguments.
Then he is a liar? Or is it Harnden that is lying?Atomic Punk wrote: BTW, Olsen called Ted on her cell phone..
I told you, the part where it says 77 hit the pentagon.Jsc810 wrote: What happened next? Where do you disagree with The 9/11 Commission Report?
Jsc810 wrote:Not true, dude passed the CA bar exam, something that very few can do. Hell, I failed the La. bar exam the first time I took it, and I think he passed his first time. Props.Diego in Seattle wrote:Yeah, but this one is like beating a special olympian.
He's said he doesn't believe our government. I'd like to know whether he has a rational basis for that belief.
I think you confused him, Jsc. Good job.Jsc810 wrote:Let me see if I have this right. You agree that:Moving Sale wrote:I told you, the part where it says 77 hit the pentagon.Jsc810 wrote: What happened next? Where do you disagree with The 9/11 Commission Report?
1) On 9/11, terrorists boarded 4 planes, AA Flight 11, UA Flight 175, UA Flight 93, and AA Flight 77.
2) AA Flight 11 hit the North Tower of the WTC.
3) UA Flight 175 hit the South Tower.
4) UA Flight 93 crashed in southwest Pennsylvania.
Yet somehow AA Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon.
Is that what you're claiming?
If I get him on the stand he is toast. As for as not being able to use extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. Huh? 613b clearly say I can bring in EE to impeach using a PIS as long as "the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon..."88 wrote:{If} Ted Olson is available to testify.
