rare 9/11 footage, how was this unseen for so long?

[chaos]

Here's the info I mentioned last night.  Sgt. William Lagasse, Edward Paik, Robert Turcio, Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, possibly among others.  The cops are with the Pentagon Police.

Just shows it isn't as simple as some would say.

[Yamcha]

He forgot to copy/paste and link the rest

[Simple Simon]

Iraq had nothing to do with the world trade center.

A fake story of 'weapons of mass destruction' was concocted to invade them.

In terms of Iraq, the US were the terrorists.

You need to read the other posts in the thread to work out what I was getting at.
Someone wrote that they brought down the towers so they could make snooping on the internet legal and yet completely ignore legalities and go to war.

[Las Vegas]

Anyone who is interested in a missile-instead-of-plane line should look at what those witnesses said.  Searching any or all of those names with a related keyword or two (like pentagon plane) will bring up info.

Fwiw, imo a plane hit but something else added in causing damage.  And as for the people listed above, I think it could be another plane was in the area at the same time, flying very suspiciously low.  Maybe it was the Doomsday Plane and maybe it was a matter of procedure for it (Doomsday Plane) to fly low at that time.  I don't know.

[chaos]

Anyone who is interested in a missile-instead-of-plane line should look at what those witnesses said.  Searching any or all of those names with a related keyword or two (like pentagon plane) will bring up info.

Fwiw, imo a plane hit but something else added in causing damage.  And as for the people listed above, I think it could be another plane was in the area at the same time, flying very suspiciously low.  Maybe it was the Doomsday Plane and maybe it was a matter of procedure for it (Doomsday Plane) to fly low at that time.  I don't know.

So another guy with all the answers that won't share them and instead tells other to find the info themselves. 

[Las Vegas]

So another guy with all the answers that won't share them and instead tells other to find the info themselves. 

If I start linking sites, then there's an opportunity to complain about the site I link.  So rather than do that, I figure a person either gives a shit and will find it on a site they like, or they don't g.a.f. about it to begin with (which I don't blame them for, as we're all just wasting time, anyway).

Just like the Politics Board.

[SF1900]

[devilsmile]

so many new ideas in this thread, i mean how have we never thought about these things before  

[Las Vegas]

Does the black fruit claim there's no conspiracy, or what?

[Las Vegas]

and btw, I do believe a plane hit, so I'm not the best person to try to argue otherwise.  IMO this is on someone like obsidian or Matador etc

[Twaddle]

If I start linking sites, then there's an opportunity to complain about the site I link.  So rather than do that, I figure a person either gives a shit and will find it on a site they like, or they don't g.a.f. about it to begin with (which I don't blame them for, as we're all just wasting time, anyway).

Just like the Politics Board.

I've searched endlessly, and can't find any of the information you speak of.  Can you kindly provide a link with irrefutable evidence?  

[Las Vegas]

I've searched endlessly, and can't find any of the information you speak of.  Can you kindly provide a link with irrefutable evidence?  

I don't believe you.

[SF1900]

If I start linking sites, then there's an opportunity to complain about the site I link.  So rather than do that, I figure a person either gives a shit and will find it on a site they like, or they don't g.a.f. about it to begin with (which I don't blame them for, as we're all just wasting time, anyway).

Just like the Politics Board.

Well, um, yeah, why should we take what you post as irrefutable evidence? I bet in your world, you would absolutely love it if everyone just agreed with your ideas, huh? But just because you post a "evidence," it doesn't mean it's good evidence. Not all evidence is created equal. There is good and bad evidence. Just like there are informed opinions and uninformed opinions.

If you are so confident that this site is credible evidence, THEN IT SHOULD SPEAK FOR ITSELF!! Solid evidence can withstand scrutiny. You know, kind of like Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravity can withstand scrutiny because the evidence is demonstrable. If your site (evidence) is that strong, and the evidence is also that strong, it will speak for itself.

[Las Vegas]

Well, um, yeah, why should we take what you post as irrefutable evidence? I bet in your world, you would absolutely love it if everyone just agreed with your ideas, huh? But just because you post a "evidence," it doesn't mean it's good evidence. Not all evidence is created equal. There is good and bad evidence. Just like there are informed opinions and uninformed opinions.

If you are so confident that this site is credible evidence, THEN IT SHOULD SPEAK FOR ITSELF!! Solid evidence can withstand scrutiny. You know, kind of like Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravity can withstand scrutiny because the evidence is demonstrable. If your site (evidence) is that strong, and the evidence is also that strong, it will speak for itself.

You can take it and shove it up your ass, dummy.

Once again, for the very stupid:

I believe a plane hit the Pentagon.  I am not the person to argue that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Damn, I tried to give obsidian an assist, since he really wants to push the missile thing, but it was regrettable to do that.   

This was a good thread, though.

[SF1900]

You can take it and shove it up your ass, dummy.

Once again, for the very stupid:

I believe a plane hit the Pentagon.  I am not the person to argue that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Damn, I tried to give obsidian an assist, since he really wants to push the missile thing, but it was regrettable to do that.   

This was a good thread, though.

I am not talking about that claim. You said, "If I start linking sites, then there's an opportunity to complain about the site I link." Obviously, you have a link that supports an idea of yours (I never said it was an idea that a plane did not hit the pentagon). That link that you wanted to post can support any idea. I don't care what the idea is, I only care what sort of evidence this link provides. I didn't read the whole thread, so what does think link provide evidence for? Does this link provide evidence that 9-11 was some sort of conspiracy? Or does the link show that it was not a conspiracy? Again, I didn't read the backthreads, so I don't know what context this site was discussed in.

[Las Vegas]

I am not talking about that claim. You said, "If I start linking sites, then there's an opportunity to complain about the site I link." Obviously, you have a link that supports an idea of yours (I never said it was an idea that a plane did not hit the pentagon). That link that you wanted to post can support any idea. I don't care what the idea is, I only care what sort of evidence this link provides. I didn't read the whole thread, so what does think link provide evidence for? Does this link provide evidence that 9-11 was some sort of conspiracy? Or does the link show that it was not a conspiracy? Again, I didn't read the backthreads, so I don't know what context this site was discussed in.

This is about witness statements.  You will find it over hundreds of sites if you're that bored.

[SF1900]

This is about witness statements.  You will find it over hundreds of sites if you're that bored.

So, my initial statement still stands, dummy.   I don't care what the specific claims are. That is secondary. All I care about is how strong the evidence is, and that goes for the witnesses statements, as well as any other claim that is being made.

If your link has indisputable evidence that this is what witnesses have said, and there is verifiable proof that this is what they experienced, then the site/evidence will speak for itself. Yet, you still do not want to post this site. Why not? As I previously stated, the witnesses and the evidence on the site will speak for itself and stand up to scrutiny. So, go ahead and post it so we can see if the evidence is credible.

Thus, I restate: Well, um, yeah, why should we take what you post as irrefutable evidence? I bet in your world, you would absolutely love it if everyone just agreed with your ideas, huh? But just because you post a "evidence," it doesn't mean it's good evidence. Not all evidence is created equal. There is good and bad evidence. Just like there are informed opinions and uninformed opinions.

If you are so confident that this site is credible evidence, THEN IT SHOULD SPEAK FOR ITSELF!! Solid evidence can withstand scrutiny. You know, kind of like Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravity can withstand scrutiny because the evidence is demonstrable. If your site (evidence) is that strong, and the evidence is also that strong, it will speak for itself.

Geez, you're dense. 

[Las Vegas]

So, my initial statement still stands, dummy.  I don't care what the specific claims are. That is secondary. All I care about is how strong the evidence is, and that goes for the witnesses statements, as well as any other claim that is being made.

If your link has indisputable evidence that this is what witnesses have said, and there is verifiable proof that this is what they experienced, then the site/evidence will speak for itself. Yet, you still do not want to post this site. Why not? As I previously stated, the witnesses and the evidence on the site will speak for itself and stand up to scrutiny. So, go ahead and post it so we can see if the evidence is credible.

Thus, I restate: Well, um, yeah, why should we take what you post as irrefutable evidence? I bet in your world, you would absolutely love it if everyone just agreed with your ideas, huh? But just because you post a "evidence," it doesn't mean it's good evidence. Not all evidence is created equal. There is good and bad evidence. Just like there are informed opinions and uninformed opinions.

If you are so confident that this site is credible evidence, THEN IT SHOULD SPEAK FOR ITSELF!! Solid evidence can withstand scrutiny. You know, kind of like Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravity can withstand scrutiny because the evidence is demonstrable. If your site (evidence) is that strong, and the evidence is also that strong, it will speak for itself.

There is no "this site".

[SF1900]

There is no "this site".

You said, "If I start linking sites." So, obviously you must have some sites in mind (even if you are not referring to a specific site at the moment). No? I am sure you have researched this before and found sites that you believe are credible (otherwise you would not have said, "If I start linking sites"). I mean, you are making a claim, so don't you have to provide evidence?   That is like me saying, "Hey, I can start linking sites that they found a cure for cancer, but you have to find it yourself?" Does this make sense? No. So, if youre making the claim about witness statements in relation to 9-11, I assume you would be able to provide evidence regarding these witness statements (at least a website).

Boy, youre a certain kind of stupid.  

[Las Vegas]

You said, "If I start linking sites." So, obviously you must have some sites in mind (even if you are not referring to a specific site at the moment). No? I am sure you have researched this before and found sites that you believe are credible (otherwise you would not have said, "If I start linking sites"). I mean, you are making a claim, so don't you have to provide evidence?   That is like me saying, "Hey, I can start linking sites that they found a cure for cancer, but you have to find it yourself?" Does this make sense? No. So, if youre making the claim about witness statements in relation to 9-11, I assume you would be able to provide evidence regarding these witness statements (at least a website).

Boy, youre a certain kind of stupid.  

Maybe you don't understand this isn't some unique "theory" linked with someone's site.  It is witness testimony.

[SF1900]

Maybe you don't understand this isn't some unique "theory" linked with someone's site.  It is witness testimony.

I don't care what the claim is--it could be the smallest or biggest claim. You're still making a claim, thus the burden of proof lies on you to provide the evidence, even if its a website with a bunch of quotes from eyewitnesses. You did state, "If I start linking sites..." So, apparently there must be sites with these eyewitness testimonies are people interviewing them. Can you provide any links?   I mean, how dumb is it to say, "yeah, there are sites out there with X evidence, but you go find it." Okay.   That is not how we evaluate evidence when someone else is making the claim, no matter what the claim is.

This is not so difficult to understand.

[Las Vegas]

I don't care what the claim is--it could be the smallest or biggest claim. You're still making a claim, thus the burden of proof lies on you to provide the evidence, even if its a website with a bunch of quotes from eyewitnesses. You did state, "If I start linking sites..." So, apparently there must be sites with these eyewitness testimonies are people interviewing them. Can you provide any links?  I mean, how dumb is it to say, "yeah, there are sites out there with X evidence, but you go find it." Okay. 

This is not so difficult to understand.

Okay, let me try to explain this to you so you can go back to being a cock-loving troll.

The statements stand by themselves.  When you go to a website to examine them, however, that's when the "theories" become added.  So if YOU want to develop a "theory", then have at it.  There are scores of sites that refer to the statements.

As for myself, though, in case I haven't mentioned it: I believe a plane hit the Pentagon.  I'm not the person to argue that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

[Las Vegas]

  

Like I said, good thread.

[SF1900]

Okay, let me try to explain this to you so you can go back to being a cock-loving troll.

The statements stand by themselves.  When you go to a website to examine them, however, that's when the "theories" become added.  So if YOU want to develop a "theory", then have at it.  There are scores of sites that refer to the statements.

As for myself, though, in case I haven't mentioned it: I believe a plane hit the Pentagon.  I'm not the person to argue that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

lol. Wow, you really are dense. A theory only becomes a theory when the ideas are presented, verified, repeatable and demonstrable. Whether that is scientific data or quotes or observations. Either way, you still have to provide that proof.

As such, the ideas still need to be provided to back up the claim. You're making a claim that there were eyewitness testimonies, thus the burden is on you provide evidence, whether the evidence comes from website, interviews, or whatever. It doesn't matter what the idea is. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Thus, you are making the claim, therefore, you are required to at least provide evidence of these quotes or interviews. The person usually making the claim is the expert. That's how it works.

As for the quotes "standing for themselves," well, that is not necessarily the case. How do we know that these are not "junk" or "fake" websites that are making up quotes? Perhaps these websites are elaborating or changing quotes or eyewitness testimonies, in order to fit their agenda. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of quotes or eyewitness testimonies that you know are from credible websites and have not been tampered with. It is not  my job to do that, since I am not making the claim that there are credible websites for this.

Geez, I don't know how else to explain it. I mean, are you really this dense?  

[Las Vegas]

Do you claim the people are made-up, SF?