911 - Points to discuss

bonkey · 09-04-2009 3:30pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

there are wild assumptions and logical assumptions. to say that the pentagon has cctv is a logical one, *every* building of any value or of any importance has cctv, this is a logical assumption, so why would the pentagon, *especially* the pentagon, not have any?

At least we agree that is an assumption, which means that the entire argument of there being cameras which would capture this event is based on an assumption, rather than on evidence.

its been said "but it has armed guards, no need for cctv", once again *this is the pentagon* it should have both guards *and* cctv

OK...there seems to be some talking at cross-purposes here. I've read back through what we've both said and I think I see the problem...

I responded to the notion that the Pentagon is "surrounded by its own CCTV cameras" by saying that it isn't. I still maintain that it isn't. It relies on personnel for perimeter and grounds security.

This is not quite the same as saying it has no CCTV. It must have - the videos released were from CCTV...but not cameras attached to the building. They were cameras for a specific purpose - controlling road-based entry.

I'm not ruling out that the Pentagon has other CCTV cameras. It may well have cameras at its various entrances. It may have cameras at key junctions inside the building. I am, however, suggesting that the notion that it is "surrounded" by CCTV cameras is not backed by evidence.

We could argue back and forward as whether or not your assumption is as reasonable as you feel, but I think we both agree already that we're not likely to see eye-to-eye on that.

the only "proof" that it doesnt have cctv is mr.this or mrs.that from *some government agency* saying it doesnt.

You can't prove non-existence. You can't even supply evidence of non-existence. I can show you shots of the Pentagon and say "no cameras to be seen", but that in no way serves as evidence that they're not there and hidden, or somewhere else. Imagine if we found interviews of the people who control road-based entry, and pictures of the CCTV setup that they have, and saw no evidence suggesting cameras facing outwards along the entire perimeter. Its still not evidence of non-existence...because it doesn't rule out a seperate security room, with seperate staff, monitoring that because its a seperate function.

The burden of proof lies always on those claiming existence.

but these agencies are involved to begin with as far as the CT is concerned, so they wont do

I'm not asking you to trust them. I'm asking you to provide evidence that they're lying. You have what you admit is an assumption, and are defending it on the grounds that its a logical assumption.

Lets agree (for the rest of this post, at least) that its a logical assumption. Its still not evidence. Its not proof. In a court of law, it would be considered "conjecture". In scientific terms, it would be considered a guess (an educated guess...a reasonable guess...but a guess nonetheless). In both cases, it would be considered a starting point from which to go and search for evidence, and not an end-point on which to base a conclusion.

so i dont see how we can move on from this unless there is other proof you can point to?

We can agree that there is no evidence suggesting the evidence of these cameras, and that you feel it is reasonable to assume they exist. We shuld also be able to agree that you have neither proof nor evidence of their existence, and thus neither proof nor evidence of guilt.

For those looking for proof or evidence of guilt, we should therefore be able to both agree that they need to look elsewhere.

If we can agree on those points, I'd be inclined to remind you that you have said the internet is literally full of this proof, and ask you to perhaps suggest something to discuss where you believe the proof is to be found....and we can have a look at that.

on to WTC7, have you watched this video posted by soretoe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ

opinions?

I can't access youtube where I am at the moment. I'll have a look at it later, and I might post some comments on it here.

I say "might", because as a general rule, I'm not inclined to argue with youtube videos. I find youtube is very poor at writing responses. If you'd like to make an argument using this video as a source, I'll more than happily discuss whatever argument it is that you'd like to make.

If the video is making one short, sweet point, then it shouldn't cost you much time and effort to put it in writing - almost certainly far less than it will take me to respond. If the video is making many points, then experience has taught me not to try and choose what aspects to comment on, because I inevitably get "whataboutery" in response, asking me to comment on other parts instead.

ETA: I've looked at the video. I'll happily discuss it with anyone who wants to put their hand up and say that they believe Chandler makes a well-researched, compelling argument and that his research constitutes the type of evidence people like myself and Meglome have been looking for. All you have to do is summarise Chandler's argument about collapse times (a single sentence will do) and say that you believe it to be well researched and compelling evidence, if not outright proof of a conspiracy.

meglome · 09-04-2009 3:31pm

meglome wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

How close is the Reagan International Airport to the Pentagon?

Diogenes wrote: »

Um wheres your proof of that?

Secondly did Frank Probst just imagine diving to avoid the engine

Also

Quote:
You could see where the plane had gone in. It sheared off some of the light poles and those were on the ground. There were some plane parts around. We got right up to the building. The frustrating thing is you couldn’t get in because of the smoke.
–Colonel John F. Roser, commander of the Rader Army Health Clinic at Ft. Myer, VA.

We could not see the plane. The only thing that we saw was a piece of the front skin with the “C” from American Airlines by the little heliport control tower. (see photo above)
–Lieutenant Colonel Frank Bryceland

I rushed through Henderson Hall (a close-by Marine barracks) to the Pentagon. Along the way, debris of an airplane wing was on the grass.
–Dr. Duong Nguyen, COL, MC (retired), physician

We noticed pieces of the aircraft that had landed inside the courtyard, and the FBI personnel were marking the location where each piece landed. –Colonel Jonathan Fruendt, Surgeon

But we did go right up by the helipad almost. You could see pieces of the airplane sitting there, and it looked like some cushions or some pieces. –Lieutenant Colonel Bernadette Close

At that point we were able to see the last part of the plane, where it stopped, basically. It was a big 8 by 10 or bigger, I’m just guessing, hole in the wall. You could see the tire, the landing gear, were just forward of it. There was a fire that was burning right up against the wall.
–Sergeant First Class Reginald Powell, radiologist

I remember looking down the corridor, and you could see where part of the plane had busted through the wall, and the firefighters wouldn’t let us in. They were scared the entire wall was going to collapse. You could still see a tire and some unrecognizable little small portion of the plane.
–Specialist Kristopher Leigh Sorensen, Medical Laboratory Technician

Responding to the Pentagon PDF 136

I've posted the above image before in this thread. The yellow dots in the flight path are lightposts that were clipped Because several of the lamposts are on either side of the road. In order to hit them all your missile needs to either;

A) Needs to veer wildly around the road

or

Have the wingspan of a passenger plane.

Diogenes wrote: »

Again there are several entrances to the whole compound, and forgive me, you didn't specific entrance to the building or to the grounds.

Was she driving? Was she heading specifically to the Pentagon?

So to be clear, your own close relative, who was there that day, believes the official account, but you still demand video proof?

No, thats not what I said.

Here and Here

Are some of the witnesses.

You're a busy guy with work to do so I'll let Mark Roberts summarise.

From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

This article is about the chaplins on the ground that day.

In the minutes, hours and days after the attacks 8,000 people from dozens of agencies were on the ground either firefighting, tending to the wounded, or attempting to stabilise the building, here's an incomplete list.

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

With Thanks to the phenominal Gravy

What do the people working in these agencies have in common?

NONE OF THEM FOUND ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS OR FELT THE URGE TO COME FORWARD AND SAY THAT THEY SUSPECTED SOMETHING ASIDE FROM A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON

In order for these conspiracy theories to work, all of the above agencies must be involved. Is the salvation army in on it? The Red Cross? The search and rescue teams?

These people scrambled in the rubble to find survivors, and then combed the crash site picking up body parts, they worked among the wreckage of the plane, and the stench of death.

So frankly I'm disinterested in your claims that you need to see video to suit your morbid fascination.

So instead of just saying there's no proof explain all this?

King Mob · 09-04-2009 3:33pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

aaa funny that because you have a post saying it..

plane size funny that you mention that but its well highlighted that the size of the explosion shouls have been much gretaer then what the dameage was done if it was plane..its on youtube ill check it up..

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html

And what have you to back up the claim it was a missile?

The_Kew_Tour · 09-04-2009 3:33pm

meglome wrote: »

So instead of just saying there's no proof explain all this?

I could have done that myself..not being smart but like in all fairness

The_Kew_Tour · 09-04-2009 3:37pm

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html

And what have you to back up the claim it was a missile?

These photos are all on the thread nothing new here really..:D

meglome · 09-04-2009 3:39pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

I could have done that myself..not being smart but like in all fairness

Well it seems to me you haven't read it at all. You say there's no evidence but you've been provided with a **** load of evidence and still you say there no evidence. Either we're following the evidence here or we're not. If we're not just let me know so I can stop responding.

adrian280582 wrote: »

These photos are all on the thread nothing new here really..:D

And since that's one of the few sites with real balance why is that an issue?

King Mob · 09-04-2009 4:20pm

So evidence for a missile strike......?

The_Kew_Tour · 09-04-2009 4:48pm

King Mob wrote: »

So evidence for a missile strike......?

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

and while your at it take a chill pill

The_Kew_Tour · 09-04-2009 4:49pm

oh and wont be on this page till tomorrow again dont spend my life on here, but ill come back

:D

King Mob · 09-04-2009 4:59pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

and while your at it take a chill pill

Much of what's in that has been addressed.

And of all those witness reports you'll notice they're "I heard what sounded like a missile." Not "I saw a missile."
Anything else?

The_Kew_Tour · 09-04-2009 5:04pm

King Mob wrote: »

Much of what's in that has been addressed.

And of all those witness reports you'll notice they're "I heard what sounded like a missile." Not "I saw a missile."
Anything else?

Not all no..

well least its more clear then hand writing by the government thats for sure

King Mob · 09-04-2009 5:08pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

Not all no..

well least its more clear then hand writing by the government thats for sure

So all the evidence points to a plane. No evidence points to a missile.
So why do you believe it's a missile?

The_Kew_Tour · 09-04-2009 5:15pm

King Mob wrote: »

So all the evidence points to a plane. No evidence points to a missile.
So why do you believe it's a missile?

last time

(1)size of the destruction
(2) no cctv footgae gives me doubts
(3) "real" accounts not handwriting
(4) No wings found or engine found "on the site"
(5) they found parts with the logo "im thinking outside the box here"

You do realise that missiles at times do look like planes just throwing that one out there when I was in isreal there easily like planes at times..

As I have said if I see footage of plane hit the building I will hold hand up for wasting yours and everybody else's time till then I have doubts and this is my thinking from people I have spoken too in demolition fields and further.

King Mob · 09-04-2009 5:27pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

(1)size of the destruction

How is it inconsistent with a plane hitting exactly? Have you anything to back this assertion up?

adrian280582 wrote: »

(2) no cctv footgae gives me doubts

Why exactly? We have yet to see whether there should have been footage?

adrian280582 wrote: »

(3) "real" accounts not handwriting

What do you mean by real "accounts not handwriting?" And what about the fact the examples of quote you provide do not support a missile?

adrian280582 wrote: »

(4) No wings found or engine found "on the site"

They were. You are claiming that they where planted there afterwards. Have you anything to back this up?

adrian280582 wrote: »

(5) they found parts with the logo "im thinking outside the box here"

So clear unambiguous evidence is evidence for a cover up?

adrian280582 wrote: »

You do realise that missiles at times do look like planes just throwing that one out there when I was in isreal there easily like planes at times..

So planes and missiles are easy to be mixed up by untrained civilians? Kinda makes those eyewitness testimonies you provided less credible don't you think?

adrian280582 wrote: »

As I have said if I see footage of plane hit the building I will hold hand up for wasting yours and everybody else's time till then I have doubts and this is my thinking from people I have spoken too in demolition fields and further.

But you'll accept the idea it was missile with absolutely no evidence?

The_Kew_Tour · 09-04-2009 6:54pm

King Mob wrote: »

How is it inconsistent with a plane hitting exactly? Have you anything to back this assertion up?

Why exactly? We have yet to see whether there should have been footage?

What do you mean by real "accounts not handwriting?" And what about the fact the examples of quote you provide do not support a missile?

They were. You are claiming that they where planted there afterwards. Have you anything to back this up?

So clear unambiguous evidence is evidence for a cover up?

So planes and missiles are easy to be mixed up by untrained civilians? Kinda makes those eyewitness testimonies you provided less credible don't you think?

But you'll accept the idea it was missile with absolutely no evidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE

Of course there was footage more footage on that building then ever

Third point you made i rather hear from ordinary person then read from the Bush admin

I said I think missile hit as i have on few occassions i could be wrong....But have yet too be made wrong

King Mob · 09-04-2009 7:04pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE

That video is a load of **** to be honest. Just a bunch of arguments for incredulity and arguments from authority. And if you'd been reading the other posts you'd see that many of these points have already been addressed.

adrian280582 wrote: »

Of course there was footage more footage on that building then ever

Ok how many cameras in the pentagon where pointing in the right direction to see the plane?

adrian280582 wrote: »

Third point you made i rather hear from ordinary person then read from the Bush admin

Or is it you'd rather hear something that supports your preconceived belief rather than something that doesn't?

adrian280582 wrote: »

I said I think missile hit as i have on few occassions i could be wrong....But have yet too be made wrong

Well all the evidence points to a plane. You've yet to be shown to be right.

meglome · 09-04-2009 7:56pm

adrian280582 I have no vested interest in whether the Pentagon was hit by a plane or not. I however wonder when we look at the actual details here and it can clearly be shown it was a plane why people won't let go of their previously held assumptions. There really is overwhelming evidence of it being a plane once you look at the details.

So...

Big List of people supplied who saw a plane hit the building.
Big list of organisations supplied that were involved in the clean-up, literally thousands of people, who's members have either reported seeing bodies and bits of plane and/or who have no problem with the idea it was an AA 767 passenger jet.
Damage to lampposts (in the exact space a 767 would take up) correlating exactly with what most eye witnesses say they saw. In fact more than that the lampposts are dinted near the tops as they have been hit by something big and hard. Exactly as most eye witnesses saw.
We have a few people who say that 'it was like a missile' and given it was a big silver, sleek and fast moving object that would make perfect sense.
A couple of people say they saw a missile.
No video evidence from anywhere showing it was a plane or missile for sure. But much more importantly in more than seven years not one person has come up with anything to show there where security cameras all around the building as is so often claimed. So as far as we can say is that no such video exists.
Damage to the building in the shape of a plane (see video).
Numerous pictures that show pieces of plane, with AA makings on some.
No explanation as to where the real plane went to if it wasn't a plane. Other than we'd assume that even more people would need to be involved to hide it.
No explanation as to where the people are gone. Other than even more people would have to be involved to kill them.

Now there has been some argument as to whether the hole was big enough for a plane. But the only way we can still say it wasn't a plane after reading all this evidence is to say everyone was in on it. Now leaving aside some of the organisations involved like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army do you honestly think you're going to get thousands of random people to agree to cover this up and not one to open their mouths, not even one? If you believe that I'll have to assume that you still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too.

Woger · 09-04-2009 8:24pm

meglome wrote: »

adrian280582 I have no vested interest in whether the Pentagon was hit by a plane or not. I however wonder when we look at the actual details here and it can clearly be shown it was a plane why people won't let go of their previously held assumptions. There really is overwhelming evidence of it being a plane once you look at the details.

So...
Big List of people supplied who saw a plane hit the building.

Big list of organisations supplied that were involved in the clean-up, literally thousands of people, who's members have either reported seeing bodies and bits of plane and/or who have no problem with the idea it was an AA 767 passenger jet.

Damage to lampposts (in the exact space a 767 would take up) correlating exactly with what most eye witnesses say they saw. In fact more than that the lampposts are dinted near the tops as they have been hit by something big and hard. Exactly as most eye witnesses saw.

We have a few people who say that 'it was like a missile' and given it was a big silver, sleek and fast moving object that would make perfect sense.

A couple of people say they saw a missile.

No video evidence from anywhere showing it was a plane or missile for sure. But much more importantly in more than seven years not one person has come up with anything to show there where security cameras all around the building as is so often claimed. So as far as we can say is that no such video exists.

Damage to the building in the shape of a plane (see video).

Numerous pictures that show pieces of plane, with AA makings on some.

No explanation as to where the real plane went to if it wasn't a plane. Other than we'd assume that even more people would need to be involved to hide it.

No explanation as to where the people are gone. Other than even more people would have to be involved to kill them.

Now there has been some argument as to whether the hole was big enough for a plane. But the only way we can still say it wasn't a plane after reading all this evidence is to say everyone was in on it. Now leaving aside some of the organisations involved like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army do you honestly think you're going to get thousands of random people to agree to cover this up and not one to open their mouths, not even one? If you believe that I'll have to assume that you still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too.

Way too many facts for this thread.

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 1:06am

King Mob wrote: »

That video is a load of **** to be honest. Just a bunch of arguments for incredulity and arguments from authority. And if you'd been reading the other posts you'd see that many of these points have already been addressed.

Ok how many cameras in the pentagon where pointing in the right direction to see the plane?

Or is it you'd rather hear something that supports your preconceived belief rather than something that doesn't?

Well all the evidence points to a plane. You've yet to be shown to be right.

So pilots are now **** are they? I mean I bet you did not even see the whole thing these guys know the business much more then me and you..

So here is one question and the only question i will ask you. of the important points in the video please explain why these are so incorrect.. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

what evidence points to plane lamps posts getting knocked down give me break?

O and I love the fact that my facts are **** when you have yet to give me anybody saying that a plane hit the pentagon..actaula person

I could go on but im nice guy:D

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 1:13am

meglome wrote: »

adrian280582 I have no vested interest in whether the Pentagon was hit by a plane or not. I however wonder when we look at the actual details here and it can clearly be shown it was a plane why people won't let go of their previously held assumptions. There really is overwhelming evidence of it being a plane once you look at the details.

So...
Big List of people supplied who saw a plane hit the building.

Big list of organisations supplied that were involved in the clean-up, literally thousands of people, who's members have either reported seeing bodies and bits of plane and/or who have no problem with the idea it was an AA 767 passenger jet.

Damage to lampposts (in the exact space a 767 would take up) correlating exactly with what most eye witnesses say they saw. In fact more than that the lampposts are dinted near the tops as they have been hit by something big and hard. Exactly as most eye witnesses saw.

We have a few people who say that 'it was like a missile' and given it was a big silver, sleek and fast moving object that would make perfect sense.

A couple of people say they saw a missile.

No video evidence from anywhere showing it was a plane or missile for sure. But much more importantly in more than seven years not one person has come up with anything to show there where security cameras all around the building as is so often claimed. So as far as we can say is that no such video exists.

Damage to the building in the shape of a plane (see video).

Numerous pictures that show pieces of plane, with AA makings on some.

No explanation as to where the real plane went to if it wasn't a plane. Other than we'd assume that even more people would need to be involved to hide it.

No explanation as to where the people are gone. Other than even more people would have to be involved to kill them.

Now there has been some argument as to whether the hole was big enough for a plane. But the only way we can still say it wasn't a plane after reading all this evidence is to say everyone was in on it. Now leaving aside some of the organisations involved like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army do you honestly think you're going to get thousands of random people to agree to cover this up and not one to open their mouths, not even one? If you believe that I'll have to assume that you still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too.

(1) name these people "from the big list" l:D

(2) organisations that are not governement run please???

(3) what eyewitness saw this can you tell me

(6) good point but not one of this big list of people have a photo or video recording of the plane hitting the building??? Surly one them has something so where is it then?

(7) it does in its hole look like shape of building get glasses

(8) notice letters to make it stand out what about other parts of the plane the wing etc..the engine photo is proven to have been taken elsewhere

(9) who said plane even took to that route?

meglome · 10-04-2009 2:10am

adrian280582 wrote: »

(1) name these people "from the big list" l:D

Seriously how many times should someone post the list?

adrian280582 wrote: »

(2) organisations that are not government run please???

Emm I'm a bit confused here. Who would you expect to turn up at this type of event? The staff from the local McDonalds? Emergencies services are employed by the state. So we're still implying if you work for the government in any capacity you are capable of covering up murder? That is such utter bull****. But the Red Cross and Salvation Army were there on the day too, yup I can see them covering up murder alright. :rolleyes:

adrian280582 wrote: »

(3) what eyewitness saw this can you tell me

You mean all the ones who saw the plane, the ones we keep listing. It's in pictures in the video so anyone can understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

adrian280582 wrote: »

(6) good point but not one of this big list of people have a photo or video recording of the plane hitting the building??? Surly one them has something so where is it then??

You're like a broken record, no one, not one single person has come up with either A. Any cameras were there on the day to video anything, personal or security B. That any video exists.
We can all say anything we like but it will remain just our own opinion unless we can prove it. I'd safely say if these cameras existed, and after more than seven years, we would have heard about it.

adrian280582 wrote: »

(7) it does in its hole look like shape of building get glasses

Fair enough. Here's two pictures of an Air France plane that caught fire and everyone got off. It didn't crash at high speed into a reinforced building it just burned and yet the most of the plane is gone. The point being planes are not solid steel they are aluminium with steel reinforcing.

adrian280582 wrote: »

(8) notice letters to make it stand out what about other parts of the plane the wing etc..the engine photo is proven to have been taken elsewhere

The fact that there was so many people there on the day and afterwards means we should be able to get one of the thousands involved to speak off script, right? Someone should have said, look there's no evidence of a plane this is weird but it seems none of them did that. Weird, unless maybe it was a plane. And that still leaves the other pictures.

adrian280582 wrote: »

(9) who said plane even took to that route?

Well it's on radar and lots of people saw it. Leaving that side... where did it go then? Why has no one seen it since? It was like the magic plane, it just went poof into thin air or maybe it crashed into the Pentagon.

10-04-2009 3:27am

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

regarding the pentagon, there is literally nothing, other than the gov/military saying a plane hit it as proof, this is usually seen as the easiest proof of "inside job"

for example there is no real plane wreckage, and the little bits of "wreckage" shown on the news would instantly (for me anyway) have my common sense telling me BS

plus they took every video of cctv from all the buildings around and would not release them, why?

they only released a video of only a few frames, which doesnt even show a plane, but rather what many people see to be a missile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWT2lQszEE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0

they go into all this very well in the documentary loose change

as for the towers falling, i though its pretty clear from all the videos that they do fall bottom first? i actually saw the second plane hit on the news as it was happening and instantly thought that they way the buildings fell looked not quite right to me, and this is when it literally fell, on tv,

Another interesting fact that comes out of this involved the reporter in the first video link you gave.

I was watching a documentary before that this came up in, showed him at the time there saying he couldn't see anything to show it was a plane, but then he popped up a day or two later with a COMPLETELY different story saying there was debris everywhere and massive pieces of the plan were everywhere etc...

Interestingly he was talking in a reverse way to the interview on the morning off the attack(first interview went like: doesn't look like a plane crashed here, pieces are so small you can pick them up.... while the second went like: the damage from the plane was unbelievable, there was pieces of the airliner all over the place, you could see the engine etc..... He seemed to make sure to disprove everything he had previously said.

There has to be sinister partys at work here, and they obv' have a lot of power to make a reporter change his story to match the ''official'' reports

I think if you take 9/11 on it's own there's various ways you could disapprove it, but when you look at the wider picture and what acts it lead to(Patriot Act, Invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq- none would have come without the attacks on that day) achieve you would have to say there was something going on

King Mob · 10-04-2009 4:10am

adrian280582 wrote: »

So pilots are now **** are they? I mean I bet you did not even see the whole thing these guys know the business much more then me and you

That's the aforementioned argument for authority. "These guys are pilots therefore they must be right." That's just not gonna work I'm afraid.

adrian280582 wrote: »

So here is one question and the only question i will ask you. of the important points in the video please explain why these are so incorrect.. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The fact that the only argument they really present is "I don't see how a plane could have hit the pentagon therefore it must have been a missile." That's an argument from incredulity.

adrian280582 wrote: »

what evidence points to plane lamps posts getting knocked down give me break?

It's been explained several times now, you haven't been reading the response to your posts.

adrian280582 wrote: »

O and I love the fact that my facts are **** when you have yet to give me anybody saying that a plane hit the pentagon..actaula person

I could go on but im nice guy:D

Again these have been supplied to you you haven't been read other peoples posts.

bonkey · 10-04-2009 8:25am

adrian280582 wrote: »

what evidence points to plane lamps posts getting knocked down give me break?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

What evidence is there that lamp-posts were knocked down? The knocked-down lamp-posts, for one. The pictures of the knocked-down lamp-posts for another. The vehicles damaged by knocked-down lamp-posts...the eye-witnesses who saw them getting knocked down...the media reports...

Need we continue?

You may be asking what evidence points to them having been knocked down by a plane?

The positioning of the knocked posts is 100% consistent with a possible flight-path of a plane exactly the size of the one which you don't believe hit the Pentagon.

The flight-path that would have resulted in this is 100% consistent with all other damage, including that of the Pentagon itself.

Again, the eye-witness accounts who saw a plane knock lampposts.

Now...before you ask again who these eyewitnesses are..can I just point out that it took me one search with google to find references to media reports from September 11 and 12, 2001, which included named individuals, who were interviewed the day of the events.

One search.

This is relevant, because if you've been looking into the events of September 11, 2001, as I believe to be the case, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't either have come across such things yourself, be aware they exist or be able to easily find them given no more than the discussion going on here.

So given that you've repeated the question several times, let me ask you some in advance...

Have you, in all of your 911 research, come across no eyewitness accounts outside of government-agency documents which match those that you are asking for?
If not, have you looked for such accounts?

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 11:02am

meglome wrote: »

Seriously how many times should someone post the list?

Emm I'm a bit confused here. Who would you expect to turn up at this type of event? The staff from the local McDonalds? Emergencies services are employed by the state. So we're still implying if you work for the government in any capacity you are capable of covering up murder? That is such utter bull****. But the Red Cross and Salvation Army were there on the day too, yup I can see them covering up murder alright. :rolleyes:

You mean all the ones who saw the plane, the ones we keep listing. It's in pictures in the video so anyone can understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

You're like a broken record, no one, not one single person has come up with either A. Any cameras were there on the day to video anything, personal or security B. That any video exists.
We can all say anything we like but it will remain just our own opinion unless we can prove it. I'd safely say if these cameras existed, and after more than seven years, we would have heard about it.

Fair enough. Here's two pictures of an Air France plane that caught fire and everyone got off. It didn't crash at high speed into a reinforced building it just burned and yet the most of the plane is gone. The point being planes are not solid steel they are aluminium with steel reinforcing.

The fact that there was so many people there on the day and afterwards means we should be able to get one of the thousands involved to speak off script, right? Someone should have said, look there's no evidence of a plane this is weird but it seems none of them did that. Weird, unless maybe it was a plane. And that still leaves the other pictures.

Well it's on radar and lots of people saw it. Leaving that side... where did it go then? Why has no one seen it since? It was like the magic plane, it just went poof into thin air or maybe it crashed into the Pentagon.

hahaha I nearly fell off my chair when you said i was broken record in all fairness I have tried to move these issues to other points all you come up with is your "big list" and your "lots of people" I have read what you have said im sorry but your getting boring and running out lof ideas at this stage

bonkey · 10-04-2009 11:18am

adrian280582 wrote: »

your getting boring

Attack the post, not the poster

No-one is forcing you to take part in this discussion. If you find it boring, you're free to leave.

meglome · 10-04-2009 2:33pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

hahaha I nearly fell off my chair when you said i was broken record in all fairness I have tried to move these issues to other points all you come up with is your "big list" and your "lots of people" I have read what you have said im sorry but your getting boring and running out lof ideas at this stage

So maybe you can address the points made?

This isn't about my ideas it's about what we can prove within reason. You keep claiming a video must exist, but cannot show that it does. Now either you show this video exists or at the very least show the cameras exist. The thing is you can't do either yet you keep repeating the claim that they must. Maybe we can call it fixation rather than a broken record?

Personally I'd be very interested to see this video if it existed or to even see these video cameras. But the reality is even if there were indeed more camera as you keep claiming it's quite likely given the speed and trajectory of the plane that we still wouldn't see anything conclusive.

Woger · 10-04-2009 2:54pm

meglome · 10-04-2009 3:10pm

Shock horror we're looking at the fine details and suddenly we're back at the 'bigger picture' again. Isn't this bigger picture made of the fine details?

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Another interesting fact that comes out of this involved the reporter in the first video link you gave.

I was watching a documentary before that this came up in, showed him at the time there saying he couldn't see anything to show it was a plane, but then he popped up a day or two later with a COMPLETELY different story saying there was debris everywhere and massive pieces of the plan were everywhere etc...

Interestingly he was talking in a reverse way to the interview on the morning off the attack(first interview went like: doesn't look like a plane crashed here, pieces are so small you can pick them up.... while the second went like: the damage from the plane was unbelievable, there was pieces of the airliner all over the place, you could see the engine etc..... He seemed to make sure to disprove everything he had previously said.

I'm going to assume here what you're saying about the report being different from one day to the next is correct. Not the reason why but that it did happen. So let's look at big news stories in general for starters, what happens exactly? They more often than not start off with reporters giving patchy information, sometime contradictory information and regularly confused information. So I would contend that on a confused day you would expect confused information. If I didn't see that confused information I might be very suspicious indeed but on 911 we are using confused information to prove conspiracy. Seems arse about face to me.

Also given the context of the fine details we've been discussing, the same fine details that should make up the 'big picture' we keep hearing about, in that context the reporters change of story is irrelevant. Was this reporter an eye witness? No. Was this reporter an expert on plane into building crashes? Not that we know of. etc etc etc. We've moved down into the nitty gritty where we have lots of people who saw a plane, we have proof that a 767 or something exactly the same size flew across the highway and knocked down lampposts exactly were the eye witnesses say it did.

Again I'll show the pictures of the Air France plane. Look at how little of this plane is left and it just burned out in the open, it didn't crash into a big reinforced building. And remember the fire trucks came within a few minutes and put the fire out.

gilberto_eire wrote: »

There has to be sinister partys at work here, and they obv' have a lot of power to make a reporter change his story to match the ''official'' reports.

Yup that's the only possible reason why reporters would change a story as the story unfolds, yup no other reason whatsoever other than the really glaringly obvious one.

gilberto_eire wrote: »

I think if you take 9/11 on it's own there's various ways you could disapprove it, but when you look at the wider picture and what acts it lead to(Patriot Act, Invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq- none would have come without the attacks on that day) achieve you would have to say there was something going on

So we're back to the 'bigger picture' again even though so far we can't show the fine details match the conspiracy. There's a big difference between opportunism and conspiracy.

Bubba HoTep · 10-04-2009 3:14pm

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Another interesting fact that comes out of this involved the reporter in the first video link you gave.

I was watching a documentary before that this came up in, showed him at the time there saying he couldn't see anything to show it was a plane, but then he popped up a day or two later with a COMPLETELY different story saying there was debris everywhere and massive pieces of the plan were everywhere etc...

Interestingly he was talking in a reverse way to the interview on the morning off the attack(first interview went like: doesn't look like a plane crashed here, pieces are so small you can pick them up.... while the second went like: the damage from the plane was unbelievable, there was pieces of the airliner all over the place, you could see the engine etc..... He seemed to make sure to disprove everything he had previously said.

There has to be sinister partys at work here, and they obv' have a lot of power to make a reporter change his story to match the ''official'' reports

I think if you take 9/11 on it's own there's various ways you could disapprove it, but when you look at the wider picture and what acts it lead to(Patriot Act, Invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq- none would have come without the attacks on that day) achieve you would have to say there was something going on

EXACTLY!!!!

and i know this is off topic but....when asked, why did they attack the US? the answer was "because they hate our freedom!"

then along came the patriot act. (illegal) phone tapping etc etc

Diogenes · 10-04-2009 3:31pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

and i know this is off topic but....when asked, why did they attack the US? the answer was "because they hate our freedom!"

You do realise this wasn't the first Al Qaeda attack on the US. The African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and the 93 WTC bombing? Right.

You have read Bin Laden's letter to America outlining their reasons for the attack?

Full text here

Some significant points.

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

meglome · 10-04-2009 3:31pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

EXACTLY!!!!

and i know this is off topic but....when asked, why did they attack the US? the answer was "because they hate our freedom!"

then along came the patriot act. (illegal) phone tapping etc etc

Or we could discuss the fine details and you could prove the conspiracy? (See previous page)

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 5:42pm

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

What evidence is there that lamp-posts were knocked down? The knocked-down lamp-posts, for one. The pictures of the knocked-down lamp-posts for another. The vehicles damaged by knocked-down lamp-posts...the eye-witnesses who saw them getting knocked down...the media reports...

Need we continue?

You may be asking what evidence points to them having been knocked down by a plane?

The positioning of the knocked posts is 100% consistent with a possible flight-path of a plane exactly the size of the one which you don't believe hit the Pentagon.

The flight-path that would have resulted in this is 100% consistent with all other damage, including that of the Pentagon itself.

Again, the eye-witness accounts who saw a plane knock lampposts.

Now...before you ask again who these eyewitnesses are..can I just point out that it took me one search with google to find references to media reports from September 11 and 12, 2001, which included named individuals, who were interviewed the day of the events.

One search.

This is relevant, because if you've been looking into the events of September 11, 2001, as I believe to be the case, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't either have come across such things yourself, be aware they exist or be able to easily find them given no more than the discussion going on here.

So given that you've repeated the question several times, let me ask you some in advance...

Have you, in all of your 911 research, come across no eyewitness accounts outside of government-agency documents which match those that you are asking for?
If not, have you looked for such accounts?

Show me the evidence from reports to show me there 100% consistent with a plane (lamp posts)

the answer to your last question is simple yes

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 5:45pm

bonkey wrote: »

Attack the post, not the poster

No-one is forcing you to take part in this discussion. If you find it boring, you're free to leave.

well if that the best you can come across against me then I happy to take that as proof that you just read me threads..aint replying to someone who a bully

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 5:48pm

King Mob wrote: »

That's the aforementioned argument for authority. "These guys are pilots therefore they must be right." That's just not gonna work I'm afraid.

.

Not trying be smart but if there not right who says you are right???:D

King Mob · 10-04-2009 5:49pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

Show me the evidence from reports to show me there 100% consistent with a plane (lamp posts)

the answer to your last question is simple yes

Had you been actually read the responses to your post you'd have seen these where post at least twice.
Flight%2077%20flight%20path%20from%20pentagonresearch.jpg

Flight%2077%20flight%20path%20from%20pentagonresearch.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8ed

King Mob · 10-04-2009 5:52pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

Not trying be smart but if there not right who says you are right???:D

The fact I'm not basing my argument on arguments from authority or arguments from incredulity?

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 5:55pm

King Mob wrote: »

Had you been actually read the responses to your post you'd have seen these where post at least twice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8ed

This proves nothing to me its a picture plan and simple a sketch that shows a few planes and how its supposed to have landed..im sorry but this is like me drawing a missile instead of plane and getting sombody belive that

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 5:56pm

King Mob wrote: »

The fact I'm not basing my argument on arguments from authority or arguments from incredulity?

But one simple question I asked and you could not answer it.

I mean how am I supposed take you serious when you think that "experts" are talking **** as you called it...

Double standards here im afraid

King Mob · 10-04-2009 6:04pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

This proves nothing to me its a picture plan and simple a sketch that shows a few planes and how its supposed to have landed..im sorry but this is like me drawing a missile instead of plane and getting sombody belive that

And what about the pictures of the lampposts? And the fact that it is completely consistent with the damage and flightpath of the plane?
Why exactly do you believe it was a missile when you have signifigantly less evidence than what we've supplied.

adrian280582 wrote: »

But one simple question I asked and you could not answer it.

I mean how am I supposed take you serious when you think that "experts" are talking **** as you called it...

Double standards here im afraid

Because I don't take experts word for it when the only thing backing them up is "I'm a expert."
And what about the vast majority of experts that argee with the idea a plane hit and can back it up? Are they lying?

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 6:06pm

Eugenio Hernandez, APTN - Latin American Desk, "I was in my Jeep Cherokee, driving on Route 395 toward DC and listening to NPR. I saw the plane coming down. I didn't have a camera with me. On the left shoulder, I saw this tourist with a video camera. The man was with his wife and son. They were from southern Virginia. He was freaked out completely. He was not recording anything. The camera was facing the ground. I jumped out of my car, pulled out one of my business cards, and handed it to him. 'I work for a news agency. Please could I borrow your camera?' I explained, 'I'm sure you will be rewarded.' He handed me the camera, and I went across the road. No one stopped me. I was holding my press badge on top of the camera while I was recording; I walked as close as possible. I was maybe 300 feet from the impact."[10]

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses

The guy from the "big list" to solve all problems..

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 6:09pm

King Mob wrote: »

And what about the pictures of the lampposts? And the fact that it is completely consistent with the damage and flightpath of the plane?
Why exactly do you believe it was a missile when you have signifigantly less evidence than what we've supplied.

Because I don't take experts word for it when the only thing backing them up is "I'm a expert."
And what about the vast majority of experts that argee with the idea a plane hit and can back it up? Are they lying?

So you just agree with the experts you want to agree with ya?

your right on your second point but one problem there and I have stated why so aint going to state this again our else ill become the broken record as some people say(not you):)

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 6:13pm

I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as it went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.[57]

if he saw this then the wings should have ben on the ground for everybody to see

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 6:15pm

CNN: What can you tell us about the plane itself? Timmerman: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question. CNN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767? Timmerman: 7-5-7. CNN: 757, which, of course. Timmerman: American Airlines. CNN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets. Timmerman: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there. a yes the good old "expert" who always happens to be there when something wrong happens.

this happened quite a bit on the WTC clips that CNN did after

King Mob · 10-04-2009 6:17pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

So you just agree with the experts you want to agree with ya?

No, I agree with the experts that provide empirical evidence and back up their assertions with something more than "I'm an expert."

adrian280582 wrote: »

your right on your second point but one problem there and I have stated why so aint going to state this again our else ill become the broken record as some people say(not you):)

Oh enlighten us, why don't you argee with the experts who argee with the official story?

adrian280582 wrote: »

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses

The guy from the "big list" to solve all problems..

Hey look at one of the first quotes at the top of the page:

Richard Benedetto was in his car on his way to work, stuck in traffic just outside the Pentagon. He was listening -- in horror -- to an account of what had just happened at the World Trade Center in New York. "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast," Benedetto said. "That plane is going to crash." The jet knocked over several light posts before it smashed into the Pentagon. Other observers said it seemed to come in full throttle with no attempt to slow down. "The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb," Benedetto said. Then he saw a giant billow of smoke followed by a huge fireball, presumably the exploding fuel from the crashed plane. "You couldn't even see the building because there was so much smoke," said Benedetto. The sight was shocking and chilling, even for a veteran reporter. "You don't hand in your humanity when you get a press pass," he said.[2]

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 6:26pm

King Mob wrote: »

Hey look at one of the first quotes at the top of the page:

yes I have read these through over about four times now at this stage there more then those that say it. Your not catching me out here like I know they are report of "witnesses"

My point is there is a person as the report claims to have taken footage of plane hitting the building yet he new agency worker and nobody has seen it?

Second post I pointed out clearly is a new media catch in providing "experts" at the scene

The_Kew_Tour · 10-04-2009 6:29pm

King Mob wrote: »

No, I agree with the experts that provide empirical evidence and back up their assertions with something more than "I'm an expert."

I presume your on about my video in relation to this point in some part of your answer here..

Thing is they did provide simply solutions from what they know I mean you dont have have big IQ to understand what they are trying to picture for us.

King Mob · 10-04-2009 6:30pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

yes I have read these through over about four times now at this stage there more then those that say it. Your not cathcing me out here like I know they are report of witnesses

And note how they're all consistent with a plane crashing, not a missile. Are all these witnesses lying?

adrian280582 wrote: »

My point is there is a person as the rport claims to have taken footbage of plane hitting the building yet he new agency worjker and nobody has seen it?

Ok and where is it?
The guy clearly saw an airplane why would government cover it up?

adrian280582 wrote: »

Second post I pointed out clearly is a new media catch in prviding "experts" at the scene

I'm not talking about experts at the scene I'm talking about expert who looked at the event afterwards. Just like the ones in the video you posted.

Diogenes · 10-04-2009 6:32pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

But one simple question I asked and you could not answer it.

I mean how am I supposed take you serious when you think that "experts" are talking **** as you called it...

Double standards here im afraid

Experts are they? Lets take a jaunty look at your "Experts"

Glen Stanish, aka John Doe X, founder of "pilots for truth". He shouldn't really be wearing that pilots outfit because he lost his FAA licence several years ago, so it's a bit like going to interview a retired CIE worker who still likes to dress in his uniform.

The next is Jim Fetzer, has a doctorate in philosophy, not aviation or engineering or physics. He also believes that the planes that hit the WTC were in fact holograms, and that the towers were in fact destroyed by invisible space lasers.

Jim Marrs, wrote the book that Oliver Stone based on JFK, a film riddled with inaccuracies, and a book riddled with inaccuracies, he's a conspiracy theorist dyed in the wool.

Albert Stubblebine. May have spent some time staring at photos, but he's chiefly remembered as setting up the secret army goat lab, during the 70s. This lab was dedicated to training soldiers to gain psychic powers. They were trying to use the power of their minds to stop goat's hearts.

So what have we learnt about your experts? THEY'RE ALL FREAKING NUTS

King Mob · 10-04-2009 6:32pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

I presume your on about my video in relation to this point in some part of your answer here..

Thing is they did provide simply solutions from what they know I mean you dont have have big IQ to understand what they are trying to picture for us.

Not really. They just put forward arguments like "I don't see how they would have flown so low?" etc. Those are arguments for incredulity. They don't stand up I'm afraid.
But yea the reason I don't don't believe them is obvisously because I'm stupid.

911 - Points to discuss

Comments