No, evidence is not stupid, but you are. Thanks for the laugh though. All the way my point has been the lack of security images of the attack, and your best counter-argument is that I need to provide evidence of the existence of such cameras in the Pentagon. Are you serious? LOL Sacrificing your intelligence just to win an argument which you can't possibly win, and which will make no difference whatsoever because the fact will remain that there is no image of the crashing ariplane...
@EdgemanLL2 - I actually have every reason to believe there should exist AT LEAST one clear shot of the plane before, during and/or after the attack to the most secure building in the US. No one wins here, everybody loses.
@LegionarioCruel Again, MORON, you already admitted that you DONT have any reason there should be. Because youve already agreed that they wouldnt have cameras pointed up at the sky. just in case a plane crashes someday.
YOU CLAIM to have this great securty at work? Great Bitch! Nows the time to put your bullshit to the reality test.
go take a picture of any security camera at your work, that is pointed such that if a plane comes speeding into the building from the West, that camera would get a continuous shot of the approach and impact. Upload it as a video.
Stop proving your retarded intellect, low education, and moron-level thought process Start proving your claims.
@EdgemanLL2 - I have an even better idea. Why don't you crash an airliner against the Pentagon while I check the news for images of the incident? Your funny.
@Legionaretard. Translation "I lied about the security at my work. And youre right, there really isnt a way for a camera to catch a better view."
Understood.
Now, you lied before about the pentagon being the most secure building in the US. Yet, you already admitted that you really dont know the security level at the penty.
So on what do you base the lie that it is the most secure building in the US?
@EdgemanLL2 - I hear you, you can't explain why there are no images of an enormous airliner heading to and crashing against the pentagon, probably the most secure bulding in the US. But I already know that.
@LegionarioCruel There are no images of U93 crashing into that field near Shanksville either. You know, the most secure field in Pennsylvania. Must be an inside job.
@terrymanning1 - Shanksville is Shanksville, and some people would tell you there are also some problems there regarding the evidence of the crashing. But the Pentagon was allegedly hit by a passenger airliner, yet there are no images of that happening. How do you know there were no cameras pointing to the sky? Why do you believe they would not prevent an air strike? Do you understand we are talking about the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense?
@LegionarioCruel Who are "some people"? Truthers you mean? The air crash and forensic teams who sifted through the site know a plane crashed at Shanksville.
The Pentagon WAS hit by an airliner. How do you explain wreckage clearly visible on the lawn and over 130 eye witnesses who all saw it? Air crash and forensics teams were there too. All liars I suppose?
Why would the Pentagon have cameras pointed at the sky in peacetime and well within it's own borders. There was no need pre 9/11.
@LegionarioCruel False. It's visible in hundreds of photos. But even if you were right, how did it get there? Did a team of ninjas unload it from the back of a lorry amidst all the chaos without anyone seeing them? Why did 130 people say they saw a large AA plane? All liars? What about the forensics team and air crash investigators? Liars too? You can't ignore the testimony of hundreds of people who were there unless you have proof they all lied!
@terrymanning1 - I can do exactly the same thing you do: Why are there so many pictures that do not show any traces of an airplane crash in the Pentagon? Why is there no wreckage shown in the pictures, appart from a couple of pics of a conveniently recognizable part of the AA logo? How can such a huge airliner produce small holes on the Pentagon walls? Why did so many people (and some media) initially described the incident as a "missile" and a "bombing"? Where are the videos? Liars?
@LegionarioCruel You're clutching at straws again. You didn't answer the question of how aircraft wreckage was found at the Pentagon if no plane struck it. You didn't explain how 130 eye witnesses saw a plane not a missile either. Where's the missile wreckage? lol
The Pentagon was steel reinforced blast proof concrete. Not thin steel plate like the wtc towers. What did you expect? An outline of the plane?
@terrymanning1 - I don't need to answer no fucking questions. I am AKSING, and no one answers. You feel brave calling me stupid anonymnusly on the Internet? You are little sad person.
@LegionarioCruel Yes you do.need to answer the questions as you're effectively accusing hundreds of people who worked on the clean up at the wtc and Pentagon etc of being liars and paid off to keep quiet. I would be quite happy to call you stupid to your face you miserable lying POS. Now answer the fucking questions I've asked you or get the fuck off my channel.
@terrymanning1 There were dome cameras all along the top of the Pentagon on the side of the impact that would have caught the "plane" . Whats to hide anyway? Release all the footage with the time stamps showing to verify it and we'll all be happy!!
@EdgemanLL2 - Nah, I am the one questioning the lack of images, I don't really need to prove anything. If anything, you would need to explain why you think the headquarters of the Department of Defense would NOT be prepared against air strikes.
@LegionarioCruel OK, so you admit you lied. And there is nothing to suggest that the penty is the "most secure building in the US." So you had to change the subject,.
@EdgemanLL2 - No, you can't lie by asking. If the Pentagon is NOT one of the most secure buildings in the US, you would have to provide evidence of this, not me. I assume it is because, as you have also said before, all military bases have strict security measures, moreso the HQ's of the Department of Defense, one would asume. Anyway, the point remains the same: there should be more evidence of the strike.
You have shown ZERO reason to even MISTAKENLY assume the penty is the most secure building in the US. Yet you continue to peddle that claim, though knowing its false.
@EdgemanLL2 - I do not need to show evidence. I am asking a simple question. You are the one who says the Pentagon could not possibly be a very secure facility, and that they could not anticipate an air strike, and that therefore we cannot possible have any images of the attack ("who would point cameras to the sky?") and all that bullshit. Well, bring the evidence or shut up.
@EdgemanLL2 - I do not need to show evidence, since I ham only making a very valid question. I have never said the attacks were an inside job to reactivate the economy and take over Iraq's oil production or anything of that sort. I can't lie by asking why is there so little evidence of the attack against the pentagon, why are there no images of the airplane, etc. etc.
@EdgemanLL2 The ‘Pentagon’ is considered as the one of the highly secured buildings in the world. The security of the 280 acre building is under the Pentagon Force Protection Agency which comprises federal police officers, Untied States Pentagon Police, expert technicians and anti-terrorism investigative and security personnel. The security is very tight with various identification and references required to enter the building
@EdgemanLL2 You don't have to look very far -google Top Ten Most Secured Buildings In The World.Tell me- where does the Pentagon come in that list?
Do you agree that all of the people I mentioned in my previous post reside in that building? Why would you think it would NOT have loads of CCTV cameras?
@EdgemanLL2 So what you are saying is that the Pentagon isn't the most secure building in the world right? What makes you think that eh?. Wasn't Rumsfiled at the Pentagon on 9/11 (on the other side conveniently! ) when the "plane" hit. Don't important Govt/Military people visit/reside there? Seriously Edge you're not gonna win this one!!
@acidthunder1 So what youre saying is that you have NO evidence at ALL that the pentagon is the most secure building in the world, except for "the internet said so!! If its on a blog, its gotta be true?""
@EdgemanLL2 So its just an office building then? yeah right!!! Rumsfied had an office there, he had plenty of high level visits military etc - Edge you're not gonna win this one!
Of course the security was high ,therefore loads of high quality cams
@EdgemanLL2 Edge, hey you're wrong.own up Who resided in the East wing? Listen its simple: Important people (Rumsfield etc) = lots of security = lots of security cameras etc
@EdgemanLL2 ha ha Edge wins what exactly ?Prize for ignoring the fact that Pentagon housed VIPs -Military and otherwise? Tell me, was Rumsfield important, did he warrant a lot of security? The answer is YES isn't it?
@acidthunder1 Translation "Youre right Edge. I cant show you a similar watch tower, or wall around the penty. Clearly Im a moron for believing blogs instead of actual facts. Im so embarassed!"
@EdgemanLL2 hah you're funny - Is Rumsfield important? Yes or NO? Did he warrant a lot of security at the Pentagon? Yes he did, plus all the other VIPs from the Military etc, You can't answer because you know its true.
@LegionarioCruel <--Admits it. There is no Nasa sky cam at rhe pentagon.
So we are back to the original point. Absolutely ZERO evidence that the Penty has thousands of cams pointed up at the sky, at all angles. As such, there is ZERO reason to believe a better video exists.
However, thats a moot point now. Since he already agreed that a fisheye lense video already released was sufficient.
@EdgemanLL2 - It is utterly stupid to ask for me to provide evidence of what kind of security the Pentagon had during the 9/11 attack, when that is EXACTLY the point I am questioning. It is kind of a sad show to see the last remnants of your intelligence die in despair...
@LegionarioCruel It is utterly fuxing retarded and moronic for you to admit youre only questioning the level of security, but insist the securty should provide you better pics.
Getting it yet, retard? if youre only "questioning" what the level is, that means you dont know. And if you dont know, iur a fuxing idiot for insisting "Duhh. beturr piks ov da krash egsist ::;while jamming a finger up your nose:::"
Thats the point, retard. Until you prove thet HAD better, you cant insist they did.
It is not believable that all we have to see of an airplane hitting the Pentagon is a 3 frame video . There should be other, better images (basically, there is NO image of an airplane hitting the Pentagon). It is also not believable that there are no security videos from the buildings in the surrounding area.
@terrymanning1 - By the way, if you really think the airplane in this video is flying anywhere near 500 mph (the actual cruising speed of a Boeing 757 is 533 mph) you must be really stupid.
I PMSLMGDAO at morons who reject the crystal clear images of the plane debris on the lawn as fakes, yet somehow pretend they believe the same pics, if the plane were still flying.
Now a simple question for the 911 Terrorist movement to answer:
Why is it that, after 10 full years of searching, you fuxing idiots havent yet found even the smallest, tiniest, little scrap of evidence that actually shows govt agents participating in the attacks?
A simple guestion for debunkers and also debunker wannabe's can answer. If u look at the pieces of the fuselage u can see they are shiny clean. No dust, no soot, no dirt. Not a single signs of an explosion or collision on their surface. How? Again, this is just a guestion. Not a claim.
Really? I'd like to see one hit (at speed) a steel building the exact age and construction as the WTC towers, and just "melt" into it. Oh. Oops. Can't do that; both towers fell to rubble didn't they? Had nothing to do with the explosive residue all over the place, did it?
I'd much prefer to believe my government, but I can't, since they've lied to me since Roswell, JFK, Watergate, and more.
What about finding seven of the supposed 19 men who carried out these atrocities still living?
Truthers dont seem to realise that if a plane hits a building at 500+ mph materials will vapourise, leaving only the toughest materials, i.e the engines. They seem to think that every scrap of the plane will survive, including things like the foam seats and plastic suitcases. Honestly these people are morons
@callum1131 If this were to be the case what you are saying, then almost all aircraft in almost all of the plane crashes in the world would vaporise, because most of the planes that crashes from high altitude are falling at almost supersonic speed - BUT THE DON'T VAPORISE , DO THEY.
There are even cases of jetfighters having crashed at speeds far beyond mach-1 were the body of the pilot was completely destroyed but the jetfighters didn't vaporise.
@DemonCisco when did I say all the aircraft vapourises? I even said only the toughest parts survive, i.e the engines. You're comparing the planes hitting the towers with conventional crashes. This is ignorant.
@callum1131 What's the difference between a plane hitting the ground at 500 miles/hour and a plane hitting a building at 500 miles/hour, it is the same laws of physics that apply in both cases, there's no difference in the physics if the planes crash on the same planet. The plane vaporising at the pentagon is a total bullshit story, you either have to be a three year old to believe that story or an ignorant American, the idiocy of you people is mind boggling.
And assuming he did the maneuver, where are the pieces of the plane in front of the pentagon? can you also make a "Really?" type video explaining this? how two huge titanium alloy engines, seats, luggage, fuselage, just evaporated into thin air. you see, there are still people like you that refuse to accept that this is the truth, but how is this possible? with all the evidence available for everyone to access, how is it possible to still have deniers unless they work for the man?
Pilots of 911 "Truth" only consists of around 60 people, some who aren't even qualified pilots. Meanwhile, there were thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of pilots who petitioned for reinforced cockpit doors and guns in the cockpit.
Really? There has been pilots that have said it's impossible to fly a 757 like that, and I'll rather listen to a pilot then some debunker any day. By the way flight 77 when it 'hit' the Pentagon it was doing 150 knots over it's max speed. I don't know how blind some of you debunkers are but wow, wake up.
@IndependentForPres Really? If so where are all the currently flying 757/767 pilots saying so? Where's the statement from Boeing saying the same? And AA77 was coming out of a dive so it's speed was over the RECOMMENDED safe flying speed. That doesn't mean the plane would fall to bits over that speed! Truthers really are as dumb as shit.
No interest either way, but that plane was not even close to 550mph. You could have at least edited the video to make it look like it was going as fast as the govt. claims, it would help your side of this argument.
@terrymanning1 Pilots for 911 truth, READ THE FACTS BEFORE PUBLICLY EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY! There is engineers for 911 truth, and whole bunch more, I know that internet is pretty tough to manuever for retards like yourself.
@HomeEnergyNow Where are all the currently flying 757 and 767 pilots saying their planes can't do what the planes on 9/11 did? Where is the statement from Boeing saying likewise? You silly retarded little troofers just don't see it do you? You've been conned. The people you mention are anti-war protestors trying to force a new investigation that would see Bush on trial. That's it. Oh and if they can make some money from gullible twats like you at the same time, why not? Now fuck off and blocked.
We've all repeatedly seen the Airplane shaped holes in Towers 1&2 yet not one person has ever seen an airplane shaped hole in the Pentagon. How can anyone defend a position without video or visual evidence? I guess that's life, some people chose to see black and call it white! See Orange and call it Apple! Until I see the stolen video surveillance footage from the most secure building in the world showing a jet liner hit the Pentagon...I'll never buy it and no one else should either!
What professionals can do with a plane doesn't prove that inexperienced pilot could repeat their moves.
Just remember the Gimli Glider. When that scenario was given to professional pilots every single one of them crashed the first time they got it. But Pearson and Quintal landed the plane safely on their first go, and they didn't do it in a simulator.
dusins of camera pointing to the place where the "plain" crashed and not a singel one of those who have been showed to the public shows nothing else than a explosion..... Realy belive what they say and not the evidence?
this video was stupid.... man what a waste of time... OH and the EXPERTS claim they couldn't have made that turn at those speeds!... The truthers just backed them on their claims asshat!..lol and the first part of the video is even more BS. wow...that is all....
@midnitespider Oh really, so Boeing have come out and said their planes can't do the manoeuvres seen on 9/11 have they? Oh and all those currently flying 757 & 767 pilots are saying the same are they? You're a moron and you're blocked.
@TheGMMuk yeah the super incompetent us government was able to set all the explosives hijack 4 planes and keep thousands of people quiet for all this time just so they can go to war that would cost the government trillions when they could have done nothing and made trillions , there is no point for a corporation to invest in such a costly affair to try and make money when the green backs value will plummet because of it ,
Bush, Cheney, Silverstein and many more were the chief architects of 9/11. Anyone who thinks different has the brains of a rocking horse! Please watch my efforts - 911 by GMM pts 1 - 9.
OKAY PEOPLE.. THIS PLANE IS NOT GOING 500 KNOTS LIKE THE "PLANE THAT HIT THE PENTAGON" WAS SUPPOSEDLY DOING.. ALSO, 93 WAS ALSO DOING A SIMILAR SPEED, AN IMPOSSIBLE SPEED AT SEA LEVEL. THEY ALSO THINK THE PLANE THAT HIT THE SECOND TOWER WAS GOING 500 KNOTS AND THAT AN ARAB WHO COULDN'T HANDLE A CESSNA MANAGED TO HIT A TARGET WITH 25FT ROOM FOR ERROR. WHAT DO PEOPLE MAKE OF THAT? HOW CAN THEY BE DOING A SPEED WHICH IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE AND MANAGE TO HIT 3/4 TARGETS WITH DEADLY ACCURACY?
@superrrnova1986 the speed is not impossible to attain but what i do like is you twoofers think its so hard to hit the twin towers but then say they hit it right where the explosives or thermite was supposed to be initiated what like it was blind luck , bigger aircraft are easier to fly and are more stable at speed all he had to do was line it up , its not like they were the smallest target in the city
Ok one question for truthers : If that plane didn't hit the pentagon, what happened then to that plane and its passengers ? Are they secretely playing cards somewhere in a desert Island ? If yes, it's probably with Elvis, Marylin and a bunch of friends.
um..exactly what "moves" do these ah.. "truther pilots", claim were impossible ? if there are no video clips of these allegedly "impossible moves " ..how do they claim to know anything about them ?
if attah and the other 911 pilots spent all that money on expensive "boeing simulater time" ,why would they risk the success of their various missions doing any "impossible moves" ..were they on some really tight time restraint that required them to needlessly "redline" the airframes?
Terry, I read your homepage. On it you state "I allow comments on my page and videos but I will block anyone who posts abuse, excessive profanity, threats or intimidation of any kind." Funny how you don't follow your own advice since you like to use excessive profanity.
Stay in Great Britain. We kicked the Reds out in 1783, yet you keep coming back for more.
Thank you. I'm so sick of these "Truthers" that can find a conspiracy in everything they see regarding 911. You wouldn't think one could do a barrel-roll either but the first 707 ever made did it back in the 50's. Search Youtube - I'm sure you'll find it somewhere.
At 9:00am Pentagon ups its alert status to alpha, so 37 min. Before the Pentagon was attack. My question is they didn't see the plane coming? what about the SAMS they couldn't have time to shoot the plane down? Or did they let it happen?
Not at all convincing mr/mrs/ms govt agent! Your sham video proves nothing, almost as bad as the fake, staged videos used on 9/11 as part of the terror CRIMES themselves. Numerous pilots, including at 'pilots for 911 truth' have said repeatedly that the moves supposedly made by 11, 175 and 77 were physically impossible, and also the supposed speeds of over 500mph at sea level are also 100% impossible for a 757 and 767. Agent/Liar you are who posted this, you'll be punished too, burn in hell.
how do these shameless ppl still have the hutzpa to call themselves "truthers" ..;THERE IS video footage of the pentagon strike ..its crappy and hard to see distinctly but it is all we have ..does EVERY f#king event from now on have to be captured on some CCTV cam to be considered as credible ?..when did this start?
@woodenmajor lol theyre even starting to say that cuz there is no footage of shanks ville that absolute proof it never happened but never mind that there are even people who are saying the new york flights were holograms and everyone thought they saw it cuz of the lsd in the water and they think im nucking futts
How is it possible there are no security videos of the pentagon airplane attack? Isn't the Pentagon one of the most protected buildings on Earth? Wouldn't a couple of videos showing a Boeing 757 manouvering against the Pentagon shut up the conspiracy theorists?
@LegionarioCruel Firstly the cameras at the Pentagon were trained on entrances, car parks, approach roads etc, not the part of the sky the plane came in from. Secondly, even if there was footage showing the plane "truthers" would only say it's fake, like some truthtards have said about the wtc video footage.
I can't possibly believe there is no one single video showing a plane about to crash into the Pentagon, sorry. I am no conspiracy theorist or anything, but the lack of reliable videos and evidence fuels this kind of BS.
@LegionarioCruel It only fuels conspiracy bullshit if you ignore all the physical evidence that proved AA77 hit the Pentagon as well as the 130+ eye witnesses who saw the plane.
@LegionarioCruel there are a few reasons for there being a lack of footage at the pentagon first off in the interest of security they are not about to show all the camera angles this gives away theyre position and shows off holes in the coverage second they had 2 cameras covering an open field where if someone was in that area they could be seen there was no need to have 15 cameras when the job could be done by 2
@LegionarioCruel ok easy little experiment for the kiddies to try at home ! call the pentagon and ask them if someone will take you on a tour and show you where all the cameras are pointing ,,, good luck and let me know how you get on
We are talking about the biggest attack in US territory; keeping the videos from public view because they give away the position of the cameras seems a bit stupid to me as an argument if you ask me. Moreover, the pentagon is not a isolated builing; it has its own metro station and is surrounded by other buildings, (an US Army office, hotels, cafeterias, a gas station, and the complex known as pentagon city. But there is not one picture, film or video of the plane that hit the pentagon.
@LegionarioCruel last time i checked the investigation is still open , everyone who takes over the leadership of al qeada is subject to this investigation and will continue till it is eradicated ( i know this may never happen ) but go to the cops and ask to see all the evidence they have on a current case thats going to court and see how far you get ,and if you get off at the metro station you still have to pass security to get in to the military wings
@imbetterthanyouis - You're not really answering anything. You say the Pentagon videos are not out because they are part of an ongoing investigation, but we DO have several public videos from the second airplane hitting the towers. If a plane hit the pentagon there MUST be videos and, being the attack to the country a public affair, they SHOULD release them. Period. And I am not talking strictly about the Pentagon security camerars, but from the surrounding buildings as well.
@LegionarioCruel now before you go chucking a typical dead shit twoofer try my experiments and you will see i have explained quite a bit , but i do think its funny that there is no footage from inside the twin towers maybe you should ask that question , what the civilians filmed in mew york has had copies rendered for the fbi and if you ask them to see a particular piece of film they will tell you to get nicked but you can find on the nist site
@LegionarioCruel why they had security cameras every where and being an authority the most likely would be able to stream footage to another location and yet you lot dont seem to give 2 shits about it , but heres a question for you if the government in fact knew and had the time to shoot down the planes and did how would you feel about it would you accept they killed 4 plane loads of people in order to prevent an attack that there would be little evidence of if prevented ? think about it
All I say is that the government should have released the pentagon videos as well as all possible information to confirm the official version of the attacks.
@LegionarioCruel the government shouldnt do nothing of the sort , what part of national security is more important than your piddily ass dont you get , any way have you come up with a thought about the question i posed you ?
im not going to get nasty about it im realy interested in you pov on that question
@imbetterthanyouis - I am not here to discuss wether the government shot down any planes or not. I think people do not deserve to be lied about such an important issue. I do not see how releasing footage of the pentagon attack would represent a threat to national security.
@LegionarioCruel that is precisely my point if they shot down all 4 planes and they never made theyre target there would be only the say so of the government as to what the planes were up to , if they did shoot them down and the intended targets were unimpeded there would be little evidence to show why they were shot down would you take the governments word for it ,, in a pre 911 world ??
there wouldnt be any footage except for the gun cameras from the fighters
@imbetterthanyouis and as far as the pentagon thats a military establishment and you civilians can go get fucked as far as they are concerned ,this is because there are elements in the military investigation that have repercussions in current operations and they wont say anything for 2 reasons 1 to protect operatives that can be made vulnerable from information leaks thanks to the internet and 2 cuz its really none of your fucken business!
@LegionarioCruel and heres another little experiment for you go to your nearest military base stand at the fence line with a camera and see how long it takes for an mp to come and tell you to fuck off , it may take a while but thats beside the point but they will all the same
@EdgemanLL2 - That is kind of truly stupid. There is only one 3 frame video of the alleged impact of an airplain against the most secure building in the United State. I say BS and I keep saying BS. I never said there should be a video pointing to the sky, althoug, if you think so, it should not be so unexpected in a facility that might be targeted from the sky...
@LegionarioCruel Well, since the airplane comes from the sky, only a camera pointed at the sky, (with a 1-in-a-million chance its pointed up along the approach path) would capture a better angle of it.
And On what basis are you pretending the pentagon (without even a chain link fence around it) is the most secure building in the US?
So you're saying the videos we have from the twin towers were "one in a million"? BS. A secure building which can't produce a single viable image of a terrorist attack of this dimensio... not likely. Of course, the Pentagon security information is not public and will never be. By the way, the Pentagon does have a fence, which is actually clearly visible in the 9-11 pics. What I can't see is the eveidence of a huge airliner hitting the building.
@LegionarioCruel Really? You mean the clear pictures of aircraft wreckage on the lawn and the 130+ eye witnesses who all saw a plane and nothing else isn't good evidence? How about the salvage crews who picked out plane parts from inside the Pentagon and the forensics teams who picked up and ID'd body parts? All lying right?
Truthers really are the dumbest morons on the planet.
@terrymanning1 - Really? You mean the single pic of a single identifiable piece of metal which conveniently shows a part of an AA airplane logo? I am not a "truther"; I criticize the fact that there sure are more videos of the Pentagon attack and I question the reasons they are being withheld them from public scrutiny.
@LegionarioCruel The problem with people like you is that you ignore everything that doesn't support your daft idea that a plane didn't crash at the Pentagon. Clear pics of wreckage on the lawn. Clear and unequivocal testimony from over a hundred eye witnesses saying they saw an AA jet liner. There are no videos showing the impact. Nothing relevant is being withheld.
Truthers AND those who share their ideas are the dumbest morons on the planet.
@LegionarioCruel Actually, it was LESS than one in a million. WTC had security cameras. So do countless buildings in NYC.
How many of those captured flight 77??
Really, honestly, do you think they would put hundreds, if not k's of cameras on the roof of the pentagon, pointed at every conceivable angle away from the building, just in case a plane crashes into it someday?
@EdgemanLL2 - Wow, you're such a stubborn moron. 1) You don't neeed thousands of cameras to cover the sky. Any amateur astronomer will tell you all you need is a single "all sky" camera. I am sure the Pentagon now them. Even 5 or 6 regular cameras would do the trick. 2) I NEVER implied the Pentagon should have videos of the sky, but rather videos of the IMPACT. is it so far-fetched to think the Pentagon would care of having security videos covering their five stupid walls? LOL
@LegionarioCruel 1) then how do you plane to cover ALL the thousands of differnt angles that a plane could apporach the penty by?
2) you did,m when you insisted that any plane crash must have been recorded. Unless there are cameras pointed at every conceivable angle, there is no reason to believe a better vid was collected.
@EdgemanLL2 - Are you serious or just trolling? YOU DON'T NEED THOUSANDS OF CAMERAS! GOOGLE "ALL SKY CAMERA" SO YOU´LL UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, MORON!!!. And the fucking plane hit the fucking wall of the fucking pentagon, they do not even need a camera pointing at the sky to record THAT. SO I, as millions of people, do expect the Pentagon to have more than one camera pointing at thier fucking walls!!!! Fuck, you have issues, man!
All sky cameras use fisheye lenses. Same lense used on the video the penty released.
Worked really well, didnt it retard?
Again, without thousands of cameras, in all directions, how would they know where to point the ONE camera, so that it catches an approaching plane from the west?
This has been flagged as spam show
The plane in this video wasn't really a plane, instead it was a CGI hologram inserted by the government! Everyone knows planes don't really exist!
MazJax 6 days ago
LegionarioCruel = blocked for offensive remarks and a complete failure to answer questions.
terrymanning1 2 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel "It is utterly stupid to ask for me to provide evidence..."
Evidence is stupid? lmgdao. Man! you cant even make up comedy this good.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
No, evidence is not stupid, but you are. Thanks for the laugh though. All the way my point has been the lack of security images of the attack, and your best counter-argument is that I need to provide evidence of the existence of such cameras in the Pentagon. Are you serious? LOL Sacrificing your intelligence just to win an argument which you can't possibly win, and which will make no difference whatsoever because the fact will remain that there is no image of the crashing ariplane...
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel "All the way my point has been the lack of security images of the attack,"
And as youve admitted, you have NO reason to believe there is a camera better positioned to show us a better picture.
Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - I actually have every reason to believe there should exist AT LEAST one clear shot of the plane before, during and/or after the attack to the most secure building in the US. No one wins here, everybody loses.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel Again, MORON, you already admitted that you DONT have any reason there should be. Because youve already agreed that they wouldnt have cameras pointed up at the sky. just in case a plane crashes someday.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@Legionaretard Better idea.
YOU CLAIM to have this great securty at work? Great Bitch! Nows the time to put your bullshit to the reality test.
go take a picture of any security camera at your work, that is pointed such that if a plane comes speeding into the building from the West, that camera would get a continuous shot of the approach and impact. Upload it as a video.
Stop proving your retarded intellect, low education, and moron-level thought process Start proving your claims.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - I have an even better idea. Why don't you crash an airliner against the Pentagon while I check the news for images of the incident? Your funny.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@Legionaretard. Translation "I lied about the security at my work. And youre right, there really isnt a way for a camera to catch a better view."
Understood.
Now, you lied before about the pentagon being the most secure building in the US. Yet, you already admitted that you really dont know the security level at the penty.
So on what do you base the lie that it is the most secure building in the US?
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - I hear you, you can't explain why there are no images of an enormous airliner heading to and crashing against the pentagon, probably the most secure bulding in the US. But I already know that.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel There are no images of U93 crashing into that field near Shanksville either. You know, the most secure field in Pennsylvania. Must be an inside job.
Truthers = retards
terrymanning1 3 weeks ago
@terrymanning1 - Are you reading what you just wrote? WTF? LOL
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel I was being sarcastic!
Truthers = retards
terrymanning1 3 weeks ago
@terrymanning1 - Nope, you were just being stupid. But that's OK.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel No I was being sarcastic. You don't need video evidence to be able to prove AA77 hit the Pentagon or U93 crashed in Shanksville.
The cameras at the Pentagon were trained on gates, entrances, car parks, approach roads etc. Not the sky!
terrymanning1 3 weeks ago
@terrymanning1 - Shanksville is Shanksville, and some people would tell you there are also some problems there regarding the evidence of the crashing. But the Pentagon was allegedly hit by a passenger airliner, yet there are no images of that happening. How do you know there were no cameras pointing to the sky? Why do you believe they would not prevent an air strike? Do you understand we are talking about the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense?
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel Who are "some people"? Truthers you mean? The air crash and forensic teams who sifted through the site know a plane crashed at Shanksville.
The Pentagon WAS hit by an airliner. How do you explain wreckage clearly visible on the lawn and over 130 eye witnesses who all saw it? Air crash and forensics teams were there too. All liars I suppose?
Why would the Pentagon have cameras pointed at the sky in peacetime and well within it's own borders. There was no need pre 9/11.
terrymanning1 3 weeks ago
@terrymanning1 - "Wreckage clearly visible". In one picture.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel False. It's visible in hundreds of photos. But even if you were right, how did it get there? Did a team of ninjas unload it from the back of a lorry amidst all the chaos without anyone seeing them? Why did 130 people say they saw a large AA plane? All liars? What about the forensics team and air crash investigators? Liars too? You can't ignore the testimony of hundreds of people who were there unless you have proof they all lied!
terrymanning1 3 weeks ago
@terrymanning1 - I can do exactly the same thing you do: Why are there so many pictures that do not show any traces of an airplane crash in the Pentagon? Why is there no wreckage shown in the pictures, appart from a couple of pics of a conveniently recognizable part of the AA logo? How can such a huge airliner produce small holes on the Pentagon walls? Why did so many people (and some media) initially described the incident as a "missile" and a "bombing"? Where are the videos? Liars?
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel You're clutching at straws again. You didn't answer the question of how aircraft wreckage was found at the Pentagon if no plane struck it. You didn't explain how 130 eye witnesses saw a plane not a missile either. Where's the missile wreckage? lol
The Pentagon was steel reinforced blast proof concrete. Not thin steel plate like the wtc towers. What did you expect? An outline of the plane?
Stupid truthtard. You're a clueless idiot.
terrymanning1 3 weeks ago
@terrymanning1 - I don't need to answer no fucking questions. I am AKSING, and no one answers. You feel brave calling me stupid anonymnusly on the Internet? You are little sad person.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel Yes you do.need to answer the questions as you're effectively accusing hundreds of people who worked on the clean up at the wtc and Pentagon etc of being liars and paid off to keep quiet. I would be quite happy to call you stupid to your face you miserable lying POS. Now answer the fucking questions I've asked you or get the fuck off my channel.
terrymanning1 2 weeks ago
@terrymanning1 There were dome cameras all along the top of the Pentagon on the side of the impact that would have caught the "plane" . Whats to hide anyway? Release all the footage with the time stamps showing to verify it and we'll all be happy!!
HardcoreJungFunk 4 days ago
@LegionarioCruel "probably the most secure bulding in the US."
Show proof. Or admited that you lied.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - Nah, I am the one questioning the lack of images, I don't really need to prove anything. If anything, you would need to explain why you think the headquarters of the Department of Defense would NOT be prepared against air strikes.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel OK, so you admit you lied. And there is nothing to suggest that the penty is the "most secure building in the US." So you had to change the subject,.
Understood.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - No, you can't lie by asking. If the Pentagon is NOT one of the most secure buildings in the US, you would have to provide evidence of this, not me. I assume it is because, as you have also said before, all military bases have strict security measures, moreso the HQ's of the Department of Defense, one would asume. Anyway, the point remains the same: there should be more evidence of the strike.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel You didnt lie by asking. You just plain lied.
You have shown ZERO reason to even MISTAKENLY assume the penty is the most secure building in the US. Yet you continue to peddle that claim, though knowing its false.
A lie. Any way you cut it.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - I do not need to show evidence. I am asking a simple question. You are the one who says the Pentagon could not possibly be a very secure facility, and that they could not anticipate an air strike, and that therefore we cannot possible have any images of the attack ("who would point cameras to the sky?") and all that bullshit. Well, bring the evidence or shut up.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel "I do not need to show evidence"
You do if youre going to insist that it "should have had better image" or "is the most secure building inthe universe" or whatever.
THOSE a claims. Without evidence, those are then FALSE claims
And the reason you have to lie (protending I EVER said "it couldnt be a very secure facility") is because you KNOW the fact refute you.
You wouldnt have to lie about me, if you thought you had facts on ur own.
You lie, and U know you lie.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - I do not need to show evidence, since I ham only making a very valid question. I have never said the attacks were an inside job to reactivate the economy and take over Iraq's oil production or anything of that sort. I can't lie by asking why is there so little evidence of the attack against the pentagon, why are there no images of the airplane, etc. etc.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel Repating the lie doesnt change the lie to truth,
As already explained, youre making CLAIMS, not asking questions.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - We agree on one thing: repeating a lie won't make it true.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel Correct. Until you show proof, your lies remain lies.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - Exactly. Until the we are shown proof, lies remain lies.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel Exactly. you have no proof.
youre an admitted liar, =]
Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TOP FIVE 911 TWOOFER LIES
1) Nanothermite (aka paint chips from PPG)
2) No flight 93 (despite 95% of plane debris recovered)
3) No flight 77 (even though over 130 witnesses saw a plane)
4) Marvin Bush WTC security (never happened)
5) Free fall speed (absolutely no building collapsed at freefall speed)
ctcole77 2 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 The ‘Pentagon’ is considered as the one of the highly secured buildings in the world. The security of the 280 acre building is under the Pentagon Force Protection Agency which comprises federal police officers, Untied States Pentagon Police, expert technicians and anti-terrorism investigative and security personnel. The security is very tight with various identification and references required to enter the building
HardcoreJungFunk 4 days ago
@HardcoreJungFunk "The ‘Pentagon’ is considered as the one of the highly secured buildings in the world."
Based on what?
And (FYI) "I heard it on talk radio, so its gotta be true" is not a valid source.
EdgemanLL2 4 days ago
@EdgemanLL2 You don't have to look very far -google Top Ten Most Secured Buildings In The World.Tell me- where does the Pentagon come in that list?
Do you agree that all of the people I mentioned in my previous post reside in that building? Why would you think it would NOT have loads of CCTV cameras?
acidthunder1 3 days ago
@acidthunder1 "Google said so, so its gotta be true?"
Is that how it works then? lmgdao. I swear. You couldnt make this shit up. LOLOL
EdgemanLL2 2 days ago
@EdgemanLL2 So what you are saying is that the Pentagon isn't the most secure building in the world right? What makes you think that eh?. Wasn't Rumsfiled at the Pentagon on 9/11 (on the other side conveniently! ) when the "plane" hit. Don't important Govt/Military people visit/reside there? Seriously Edge you're not gonna win this one!!
acidthunder1 4 hours ago
@acidthunder1 So what youre saying is that you have NO evidence at ALL that the pentagon is the most secure building in the world, except for "the internet said so!! If its on a blog, its gotta be true?""
Understood.
EdgemanLL2 4 hours ago
@EdgemanLL2 So its just an office building then? yeah right!!! Rumsfied had an office there, he had plenty of high level visits military etc - Edge you're not gonna win this one!
Of course the security was high ,therefore loads of high quality cams
acidthunder1 4 hours ago
@acidthunder1 So, still NOTHING other than "a blog said so?"
Understood.
EdgemanLL2 4 hours ago
@EdgemanLL2 Edge, hey you're wrong.own up Who resided in the East wing? Listen its simple: Important people (Rumsfield etc) = lots of security = lots of security cameras etc
QED
acidthunder1 3 hours ago
@acidthunder1 So, still nothing?
Edge wins.
EdgemanLL2 3 hours ago
@EdgemanLL2 ha ha Edge wins what exactly ?Prize for ignoring the fact that Pentagon housed VIPs -Military and otherwise? Tell me, was Rumsfield important, did he warrant a lot of security? The answer is YES isn't it?
acidthunder1 2 hours ago
@acidthunder1 Translation "Youre right Edge. I cant show you a similar watch tower, or wall around the penty. Clearly Im a moron for believing blogs instead of actual facts. Im so embarassed!"
Another successful debunking. Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 2 hours ago
@EdgemanLL2 hah you're funny - Is Rumsfield important? Yes or NO? Did he warrant a lot of security at the Pentagon? Yes he did, plus all the other VIPs from the Military etc, You can't answer because you know its true.
Edge debunked -over and out
acidthunder1 2 hours ago
@acidthunder1 Your claim was no "rummy is important." Your claim was "the pentagon is the most secure building in the world.
close to 20k troops guard the amory at Ft Knox.
Show me the 20k or more troops guarding the pentagon.
EdgemanLL2 2 hours ago
@acidthunder1 He retard, here is a wall and watch tower around a supermax prison.
Show me the same wall, and watch towers around the penty.
concurringopinions*com/archives/supermax*jpg
EdgemanLL2 2 hours ago
@LegionarioCruel
Next question. Any proof tha tthe penty has a NASA quality Sky cam planted on top of the building?
ANY ANSWER THAT DOES NOT SHOW PROOF OF A NASA SKY CAMERA AT THE PENTY WILL BE ACCEPTED AS ADMISSION THERE WASNT ONE.
Ill wait .=]
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - When people reply to questions with other questions, I say bullshit.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel <--Admits it. There is no Nasa sky cam at rhe pentagon.
So we are back to the original point. Absolutely ZERO evidence that the Penty has thousands of cams pointed up at the sky, at all angles. As such, there is ZERO reason to believe a better video exists.
However, thats a moot point now. Since he already agreed that a fisheye lense video already released was sufficient.
Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - It is utterly stupid to ask for me to provide evidence of what kind of security the Pentagon had during the 9/11 attack, when that is EXACTLY the point I am questioning. It is kind of a sad show to see the last remnants of your intelligence die in despair...
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel It is utterly fuxing retarded and moronic for you to admit youre only questioning the level of security, but insist the securty should provide you better pics.
Getting it yet, retard? if youre only "questioning" what the level is, that means you dont know. And if you dont know, iur a fuxing idiot for insisting "Duhh. beturr piks ov da krash egsist ::;while jamming a finger up your nose:::"
Thats the point, retard. Until you prove thet HAD better, you cant insist they did.
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is not believable that all we have to see of an airplane hitting the Pentagon is a 3 frame video . There should be other, better images (basically, there is NO image of an airplane hitting the Pentagon). It is also not believable that there are no security videos from the buildings in the surrounding area.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel <--the self admitted Troll just repeats the same thing, and wont discuss the points.
Edge wins!
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - And now I am a "self-admitted troll". You see what I mean? What a loser.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel Answer the question Troll
We already HAVE a fisheye lense video. Are Fisheye lense videos sufficient for you? Yes or no.
Answer, or Ill just ask again. =]
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
@EdgemanLL2 - Do not avoid the point, troll.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LegionarioCruel The point is you have ZERO proof of any camera in a better position.
Are fisheye lense vids sufficient for you? Yes or no?
Answer, or Ill just ask again. =]
EdgemanLL2 3 weeks ago
Truthers = Retards
terrymanning1 4 weeks ago
LegionarioCruel = RETARD!!!
terrymanning1 1 month ago
@terrymanning1 - By the way, if you really think the airplane in this video is flying anywhere near 500 mph (the actual cruising speed of a Boeing 757 is 533 mph) you must be really stupid.
LegionarioCruel 4 weeks ago
@LegionarioCruel Read the fucking video blog you truthtard moron.
terrymanning1 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
LegionarioCruel 4 weeks ago
@terrymanning1 - Your video is still misleading.
LegionarioCruel 3 weeks ago
I PMSLMGDAO at morons who reject the crystal clear images of the plane debris on the lawn as fakes, yet somehow pretend they believe the same pics, if the plane were still flying.
LOLOLOLOL
EdgemanLL2 1 month ago
Now a simple question for the 911 Terrorist movement to answer:
Why is it that, after 10 full years of searching, you fuxing idiots havent yet found even the smallest, tiniest, little scrap of evidence that actually shows govt agents participating in the attacks?
EdgemanLL2 1 month ago
@EdgemanLL2 thats a new one"911 terrorist movement"!!!
acidthunder1 4 hours ago
A simple guestion for debunkers and also debunker wannabe's can answer. If u look at the pieces of the fuselage u can see they are shiny clean. No dust, no soot, no dirt. Not a single signs of an explosion or collision on their surface. How? Again, this is just a guestion. Not a claim.
Scumbot404 1 month ago
@Scumbot404 No sign of destruction other than "being obliterated down to tiny peices" you mean?
Question really ainswers itself, doesnt it?
Oooops
EdgemanLL2 1 month ago
Really? I'd like to see one hit (at speed) a steel building the exact age and construction as the WTC towers, and just "melt" into it. Oh. Oops. Can't do that; both towers fell to rubble didn't they? Had nothing to do with the explosive residue all over the place, did it?
I'd much prefer to believe my government, but I can't, since they've lied to me since Roswell, JFK, Watergate, and more.
What about finding seven of the supposed 19 men who carried out these atrocities still living?
FablehavenFan1 1 month ago
Comment removed
tomcykcrush10 2 months ago
Comment removed
DemonCisco 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 ✡===== ✈ ✈ ▌▌
watch?v=IQqWM0nRRPU
Watch '911 Missing Links' or google '911 Missing Links'
search for 'Dr Allan Sabrosky 911'
911 Was a Zionist Job
DemonCisco 2 months ago
is it documented anyplace, exactly what speed the aircraft in the video was traveling?
n0spam4me 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Idiot, the clocked speed of the second plane to hit the towers were in EXCESS of the MAXIMUM PERMITED speed of a Boeing 757.
911 ✡===== ✈ ✈ ▌▌
Watch '911 Missing Links' or google '911 Missing Links'
search for 'Dr Allan Sabrosky 911'
911 Was a Zionist Job
DemonCisco 2 months ago
Truthers dont seem to realise that if a plane hits a building at 500+ mph materials will vapourise, leaving only the toughest materials, i.e the engines. They seem to think that every scrap of the plane will survive, including things like the foam seats and plastic suitcases. Honestly these people are morons
callum1131 2 months ago
@callum1131 If this were to be the case what you are saying, then almost all aircraft in almost all of the plane crashes in the world would vaporise, because most of the planes that crashes from high altitude are falling at almost supersonic speed - BUT THE DON'T VAPORISE , DO THEY.
There are even cases of jetfighters having crashed at speeds far beyond mach-1 were the body of the pilot was completely destroyed but the jetfighters didn't vaporise.
DemonCisco 2 months ago
@DemonCisco when did I say all the aircraft vapourises? I even said only the toughest parts survive, i.e the engines. You're comparing the planes hitting the towers with conventional crashes. This is ignorant.
callum1131 2 months ago
@callum1131 What's the difference between a plane hitting the ground at 500 miles/hour and a plane hitting a building at 500 miles/hour, it is the same laws of physics that apply in both cases, there's no difference in the physics if the planes crash on the same planet. The plane vaporising at the pentagon is a total bullshit story, you either have to be a three year old to believe that story or an ignorant American, the idiocy of you people is mind boggling.
DemonCisco 2 months ago
@DemonCisco Who ever said, in an offical capacity, "the plane vaporised?"
EdgemanLL2 1 month ago
Comment removed
hank1961 2 months ago
Comment removed
hank1961 2 months ago
And assuming he did the maneuver, where are the pieces of the plane in front of the pentagon? can you also make a "Really?" type video explaining this? how two huge titanium alloy engines, seats, luggage, fuselage, just evaporated into thin air. you see, there are still people like you that refuse to accept that this is the truth, but how is this possible? with all the evidence available for everyone to access, how is it possible to still have deniers unless they work for the man?
soullavee 3 months ago
@soullavee I'm sorry I don't understand gibberish. Please translate into English. Thanks.
terrymanning1 3 months ago
Pilots of 911 "Truth" only consists of around 60 people, some who aren't even qualified pilots. Meanwhile, there were thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of pilots who petitioned for reinforced cockpit doors and guns in the cockpit.
MazJax 3 months ago
of course they can go that fast,
you're just not supposed to. you're also not supposed to fly into a building, but they did that too.
plotchickens 3 months ago
Really? There has been pilots that have said it's impossible to fly a 757 like that, and I'll rather listen to a pilot then some debunker any day. By the way flight 77 when it 'hit' the Pentagon it was doing 150 knots over it's max speed. I don't know how blind some of you debunkers are but wow, wake up.
IndependentForPres 3 months ago
@IndependentForPres Really? If so where are all the currently flying 757/767 pilots saying so? Where's the statement from Boeing saying the same? And AA77 was coming out of a dive so it's speed was over the RECOMMENDED safe flying speed. That doesn't mean the plane would fall to bits over that speed! Truthers really are as dumb as shit.
terrymanning1 3 months ago
@IndependentForPres Well watch the video and see the proof for yourself. They are obviously wrong or mis-informed these 'pilots' you speak of.
22ness0hayden 3 months ago
@22ness0hayden No not really, the plane in the video isn't doing 550 knots. If it was that will be impossible.
IndependentForPres 3 months ago
@IndependentForPres Oh so you've measured its speed have you. duuuuhh
22ness0hayden 3 months ago
@22ness0hayden
HERE is a 60 year old 727 going 390 knots, or 450 mph, at an air show in UK,
years ago. : aerospaceweb. o rg/ question/ conspiracy/ q0274. sht ml
watch?v=xXXA-pRIQV8 * 727 announced speed 390 knots= 450 mph
TRY THIS ONE, an A310, 400 mph, just 50 feet high.
watch?v=9rZER-Qw3rE&feature=related * A310 400 mph, 50 feet high
Merlin5by5 3 months ago
@IndependentForPres
Gee, dumbshit, you mean a plane with a suicidal terrorist pilot ignored safe
flight guidelines? NO KIDDING, LOL, How dumb and gullible are you?
The Mach limit of a 757 is 0.8, and at sealevel, that's 600 mph.
Terrorists diving from 25 miles away, presumably can go faster.
Even on Twoofer planet.
Merlin5by5 3 months ago
No interest either way, but that plane was not even close to 550mph. You could have at least edited the video to make it look like it was going as fast as the govt. claims, it would help your side of this argument.
HomeEnergyNow 4 months ago
@HomeEnergyNow As I keep repeating. Read the blog before commenting!
terrymanning1 4 months ago
@terrymanning1 Pilots for 911 truth, READ THE FACTS BEFORE PUBLICLY EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY! There is engineers for 911 truth, and whole bunch more, I know that internet is pretty tough to manuever for retards like yourself.
HomeEnergyNow 4 months ago
@HomeEnergyNow Where are all the currently flying 757 and 767 pilots saying their planes can't do what the planes on 9/11 did? Where is the statement from Boeing saying likewise? You silly retarded little troofers just don't see it do you? You've been conned. The people you mention are anti-war protestors trying to force a new investigation that would see Bush on trial. That's it. Oh and if they can make some money from gullible twats like you at the same time, why not? Now fuck off and blocked.
terrymanning1 4 months ago
@HomeEnergyNow there was more then one plane in the video. So clearly you never look at all the evidence. Jump to conclusions much?
MegaYeshua33 4 months ago
We've all repeatedly seen the Airplane shaped holes in Towers 1&2 yet not one person has ever seen an airplane shaped hole in the Pentagon. How can anyone defend a position without video or visual evidence? I guess that's life, some people chose to see black and call it white! See Orange and call it Apple! Until I see the stolen video surveillance footage from the most secure building in the world showing a jet liner hit the Pentagon...I'll never buy it and no one else should either!
RCPCTermite 4 months ago
@RCPCTermite I suppose you'd need video proof of the sun coming up in the morning or you wouldn't believe that either. Fucking truther retard!
terrymanning1 4 months ago
What professionals can do with a plane doesn't prove that inexperienced pilot could repeat their moves.
Just remember the Gimli Glider. When that scenario was given to professional pilots every single one of them crashed the first time they got it. But Pearson and Quintal landed the plane safely on their first go, and they didn't do it in a simulator.
koppadasao 4 months ago
@koppadasao The Gimli pilots were professionals. So what is your point?
woebrd 4 months ago
dusins of camera pointing to the place where the "plain" crashed and not a singel one of those who have been showed to the public shows nothing else than a explosion..... Realy belive what they say and not the evidence?
and dont even get me started on wtc 7
playboe89 5 months ago
this video was stupid.... man what a waste of time... OH and the EXPERTS claim they couldn't have made that turn at those speeds!... The truthers just backed them on their claims asshat!..lol and the first part of the video is even more BS. wow...that is all....
midnitespider 5 months ago
@midnitespider Oh really, so Boeing have come out and said their planes can't do the manoeuvres seen on 9/11 have they? Oh and all those currently flying 757 & 767 pilots are saying the same are they? You're a moron and you're blocked.
terrymanning1 5 months ago
@TheGMMuk yeah the super incompetent us government was able to set all the explosives hijack 4 planes and keep thousands of people quiet for all this time just so they can go to war that would cost the government trillions when they could have done nothing and made trillions , there is no point for a corporation to invest in such a costly affair to try and make money when the green backs value will plummet because of it ,
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
Bush, Cheney, Silverstein and many more were the chief architects of 9/11. Anyone who thinks different has the brains of a rocking horse! Please watch my efforts - 911 by GMM pts 1 - 9.
TheGMMuk 5 months ago
OKAY PEOPLE.. THIS PLANE IS NOT GOING 500 KNOTS LIKE THE "PLANE THAT HIT THE PENTAGON" WAS SUPPOSEDLY DOING.. ALSO, 93 WAS ALSO DOING A SIMILAR SPEED, AN IMPOSSIBLE SPEED AT SEA LEVEL. THEY ALSO THINK THE PLANE THAT HIT THE SECOND TOWER WAS GOING 500 KNOTS AND THAT AN ARAB WHO COULDN'T HANDLE A CESSNA MANAGED TO HIT A TARGET WITH 25FT ROOM FOR ERROR. WHAT DO PEOPLE MAKE OF THAT? HOW CAN THEY BE DOING A SPEED WHICH IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE AND MANAGE TO HIT 3/4 TARGETS WITH DEADLY ACCURACY?
superrrnova1986 5 months ago
@superrrnova1986 the speed is not impossible to attain but what i do like is you twoofers think its so hard to hit the twin towers but then say they hit it right where the explosives or thermite was supposed to be initiated what like it was blind luck , bigger aircraft are easier to fly and are more stable at speed all he had to do was line it up , its not like they were the smallest target in the city
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
Ok one question for truthers : If that plane didn't hit the pentagon, what happened then to that plane and its passengers ? Are they secretely playing cards somewhere in a desert Island ? If yes, it's probably with Elvis, Marylin and a bunch of friends.
legrosduduche 5 months ago
@legrosduduche yeah and hendrix and jim morrison is playing to keep them all entertained lol
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
um..exactly what "moves" do these ah.. "truther pilots", claim were impossible ? if there are no video clips of these allegedly "impossible moves " ..how do they claim to know anything about them ?
if attah and the other 911 pilots spent all that money on expensive "boeing simulater time" ,why would they risk the success of their various missions doing any "impossible moves" ..were they on some really tight time restraint that required them to needlessly "redline" the airframes?
woodenmajor 5 months ago
Terry, I read your homepage. On it you state "I allow comments on my page and videos but I will block anyone who posts abuse, excessive profanity, threats or intimidation of any kind." Funny how you don't follow your own advice since you like to use excessive profanity.
Stay in Great Britain. We kicked the Reds out in 1783, yet you keep coming back for more.
wadeLAS 5 months ago
Lol .... good post
OurGamehenge 5 months ago
youtube.com/watch?v=3IV9PZW1N9U
jhs5150 5 months ago
Thank you. I'm so sick of these "Truthers" that can find a conspiracy in everything they see regarding 911. You wouldn't think one could do a barrel-roll either but the first 707 ever made did it back in the 50's. Search Youtube - I'm sure you'll find it somewhere.
jhs5150 5 months ago
At 9:00am Pentagon ups its alert status to alpha, so 37 min. Before the Pentagon was attack. My question is they didn't see the plane coming? what about the SAMS they couldn't have time to shoot the plane down? Or did they let it happen?
vrn1970 5 months ago
You're generalizing.
kcj1993 5 months ago
Not at all convincing mr/mrs/ms govt agent! Your sham video proves nothing, almost as bad as the fake, staged videos used on 9/11 as part of the terror CRIMES themselves. Numerous pilots, including at 'pilots for 911 truth' have said repeatedly that the moves supposedly made by 11, 175 and 77 were physically impossible, and also the supposed speeds of over 500mph at sea level are also 100% impossible for a 757 and 767. Agent/Liar you are who posted this, you'll be punished too, burn in hell.
gggsuccess 5 months ago
@gggsuccess fuckwit!
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
TRUTHERS FTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
thins112 5 months ago
how do these shameless ppl still have the hutzpa to call themselves "truthers" ..;THERE IS video footage of the pentagon strike ..its crappy and hard to see distinctly but it is all we have ..does EVERY f#king event from now on have to be captured on some CCTV cam to be considered as credible ?..when did this start?
woodenmajor 5 months ago
@woodenmajor lol theyre even starting to say that cuz there is no footage of shanks ville that absolute proof it never happened but never mind that there are even people who are saying the new york flights were holograms and everyone thought they saw it cuz of the lsd in the water and they think im nucking futts
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
How is it possible there are no security videos of the pentagon airplane attack? Isn't the Pentagon one of the most protected buildings on Earth? Wouldn't a couple of videos showing a Boeing 757 manouvering against the Pentagon shut up the conspiracy theorists?
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Firstly the cameras at the Pentagon were trained on entrances, car parks, approach roads etc, not the part of the sky the plane came in from. Secondly, even if there was footage showing the plane "truthers" would only say it's fake, like some truthtards have said about the wtc video footage.
terrymanning1 5 months ago
I can't possibly believe there is no one single video showing a plane about to crash into the Pentagon, sorry. I am no conspiracy theorist or anything, but the lack of reliable videos and evidence fuels this kind of BS.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel It only fuels conspiracy bullshit if you ignore all the physical evidence that proved AA77 hit the Pentagon as well as the 130+ eye witnesses who saw the plane.
terrymanning1 5 months ago
@terrymanning1 - I still find it curious to say the least that there are no videos.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel there are a few reasons for there being a lack of footage at the pentagon first off in the interest of security they are not about to show all the camera angles this gives away theyre position and shows off holes in the coverage second they had 2 cameras covering an open field where if someone was in that area they could be seen there was no need to have 15 cameras when the job could be done by 2
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
@imbetterthanyouis - Gives away their position? C'mon!
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel ok easy little experiment for the kiddies to try at home ! call the pentagon and ask them if someone will take you on a tour and show you where all the cameras are pointing ,,, good luck and let me know how you get on
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
We are talking about the biggest attack in US territory; keeping the videos from public view because they give away the position of the cameras seems a bit stupid to me as an argument if you ask me. Moreover, the pentagon is not a isolated builing; it has its own metro station and is surrounded by other buildings, (an US Army office, hotels, cafeterias, a gas station, and the complex known as pentagon city. But there is not one picture, film or video of the plane that hit the pentagon.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel last time i checked the investigation is still open , everyone who takes over the leadership of al qeada is subject to this investigation and will continue till it is eradicated ( i know this may never happen ) but go to the cops and ask to see all the evidence they have on a current case thats going to court and see how far you get ,and if you get off at the metro station you still have to pass security to get in to the military wings
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
@imbetterthanyouis - and still.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel lol give me another one i have an answer for everything
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
@imbetterthanyouis - You're not really answering anything. You say the Pentagon videos are not out because they are part of an ongoing investigation, but we DO have several public videos from the second airplane hitting the towers. If a plane hit the pentagon there MUST be videos and, being the attack to the country a public affair, they SHOULD release them. Period. And I am not talking strictly about the Pentagon security camerars, but from the surrounding buildings as well.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel now before you go chucking a typical dead shit twoofer try my experiments and you will see i have explained quite a bit , but i do think its funny that there is no footage from inside the twin towers maybe you should ask that question , what the civilians filmed in mew york has had copies rendered for the fbi and if you ask them to see a particular piece of film they will tell you to get nicked but you can find on the nist site
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
@imbetterthanyouis - I have a good idea as of why there are no videos from inside the twin towers... LOL
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel why they had security cameras every where and being an authority the most likely would be able to stream footage to another location and yet you lot dont seem to give 2 shits about it , but heres a question for you if the government in fact knew and had the time to shoot down the planes and did how would you feel about it would you accept they killed 4 plane loads of people in order to prevent an attack that there would be little evidence of if prevented ? think about it
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
All I say is that the government should have released the pentagon videos as well as all possible information to confirm the official version of the attacks.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel the government shouldnt do nothing of the sort , what part of national security is more important than your piddily ass dont you get , any way have you come up with a thought about the question i posed you ?
im not going to get nasty about it im realy interested in you pov on that question
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
@imbetterthanyouis - I am not here to discuss wether the government shot down any planes or not. I think people do not deserve to be lied about such an important issue. I do not see how releasing footage of the pentagon attack would represent a threat to national security.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel that is precisely my point if they shot down all 4 planes and they never made theyre target there would be only the say so of the government as to what the planes were up to , if they did shoot them down and the intended targets were unimpeded there would be little evidence to show why they were shot down would you take the governments word for it ,, in a pre 911 world ??
there wouldnt be any footage except for the gun cameras from the fighters
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
@imbetterthanyouis and as far as the pentagon thats a military establishment and you civilians can go get fucked as far as they are concerned ,this is because there are elements in the military investigation that have repercussions in current operations and they wont say anything for 2 reasons 1 to protect operatives that can be made vulnerable from information leaks thanks to the internet and 2 cuz its really none of your fucken business!
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel and heres another little experiment for you go to your nearest military base stand at the fence line with a camera and see how long it takes for an mp to come and tell you to fuck off , it may take a while but thats beside the point but they will all the same
imbetterthanyouis 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Guess again, grasshopper.
It would he highly unlikely that any of the cameras, anywhere, would be pointed up along the flight path.
They tend to point cameras where they think the security issue will arise. Point it at a doorway, for example.
They dont juste waste hundreds of cameras, pointed up at the sky, just in case a plane crashes some day they might catch a glimpse of it.
EdgemanLL2 1 month ago
@EdgemanLL2 - That is kind of truly stupid. There is only one 3 frame video of the alleged impact of an airplain against the most secure building in the United State. I say BS and I keep saying BS. I never said there should be a video pointing to the sky, althoug, if you think so, it should not be so unexpected in a facility that might be targeted from the sky...
LegionarioCruel 1 month ago
@LegionarioCruel Well, since the airplane comes from the sky, only a camera pointed at the sky, (with a 1-in-a-million chance its pointed up along the approach path) would capture a better angle of it.
And On what basis are you pretending the pentagon (without even a chain link fence around it) is the most secure building in the US?
EdgemanLL2 1 month ago
So you're saying the videos we have from the twin towers were "one in a million"? BS. A secure building which can't produce a single viable image of a terrorist attack of this dimensio... not likely. Of course, the Pentagon security information is not public and will never be. By the way, the Pentagon does have a fence, which is actually clearly visible in the 9-11 pics. What I can't see is the eveidence of a huge airliner hitting the building.
LegionarioCruel 1 month ago
@LegionarioCruel Really? You mean the clear pictures of aircraft wreckage on the lawn and the 130+ eye witnesses who all saw a plane and nothing else isn't good evidence? How about the salvage crews who picked out plane parts from inside the Pentagon and the forensics teams who picked up and ID'd body parts? All lying right?
Truthers really are the dumbest morons on the planet.
terrymanning1 1 month ago
@terrymanning1 - Really? You mean the single pic of a single identifiable piece of metal which conveniently shows a part of an AA airplane logo? I am not a "truther"; I criticize the fact that there sure are more videos of the Pentagon attack and I question the reasons they are being withheld them from public scrutiny.
LegionarioCruel 1 month ago
@LegionarioCruel The problem with people like you is that you ignore everything that doesn't support your daft idea that a plane didn't crash at the Pentagon. Clear pics of wreckage on the lawn. Clear and unequivocal testimony from over a hundred eye witnesses saying they saw an AA jet liner. There are no videos showing the impact. Nothing relevant is being withheld.
Truthers AND those who share their ideas are the dumbest morons on the planet.
terrymanning1 1 month ago
@LegionarioCruel Actually, it was LESS than one in a million. WTC had security cameras. So do countless buildings in NYC.
How many of those captured flight 77??
Really, honestly, do you think they would put hundreds, if not k's of cameras on the roof of the pentagon, pointed at every conceivable angle away from the building, just in case a plane crashes into it someday?
You really this stupid? LOLOLOL
EdgemanLL2 1 month ago
@EdgemanLL2 - Wow, you're such a stubborn moron. 1) You don't neeed thousands of cameras to cover the sky. Any amateur astronomer will tell you all you need is a single "all sky" camera. I am sure the Pentagon now them. Even 5 or 6 regular cameras would do the trick. 2) I NEVER implied the Pentagon should have videos of the sky, but rather videos of the IMPACT. is it so far-fetched to think the Pentagon would care of having security videos covering their five stupid walls? LOL
LegionarioCruel 1 month ago
@LegionarioCruel 1) then how do you plane to cover ALL the thousands of differnt angles that a plane could apporach the penty by?
2) you did,m when you insisted that any plane crash must have been recorded. Unless there are cameras pointed at every conceivable angle, there is no reason to believe a better vid was collected.
EdgemanLL2 1 month ago
@EdgemanLL2 - Are you serious or just trolling? YOU DON'T NEED THOUSANDS OF CAMERAS! GOOGLE "ALL SKY CAMERA" SO YOU´LL UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, MORON!!!. And the fucking plane hit the fucking wall of the fucking pentagon, they do not even need a camera pointing at the sky to record THAT. SO I, as millions of people, do expect the Pentagon to have more than one camera pointing at thier fucking walls!!!! Fuck, you have issues, man!
LegionarioCruel 1 month ago
@Legionaretard.
All sky cameras use fisheye lenses. Same lense used on the video the penty released.
Worked really well, didnt it retard?
Again, without thousands of cameras, in all directions, how would they know where to point the ONE camera, so that it catches an approaching plane from the west?
Duh
EdgemanLL2 1 month ago