Congressman Walter Jones Exposes Massive 9/11 Conspiracy [who financed hijackers?]

[coastie]

This is what's so annoying about truthers, when they make these sensationalistic absolute claims. Nobody who watches that video critically would conclude that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon. All it proves is that whoever made the video doesn't believe that any plane hit the Pentagon.

You obviously didn't even watch the video, critically or otherwise.

 

[coastie]

This is what's so annoying about truthers, when they make these sensationalistic absolute claims. Nobody who watches that video critically would conclude that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon. All it proves is that whoever made the video doesn't believe that any plane hit the Pentagon.

Matter of fact, the video specifically addresses several questions to you LIARS(couldn't think of anything to counter the TRUTHer label), care to address them, or attack me?

 

[erowe1]

Matter of fact, the video specifically addresses several questions to you LIARS(couldn't think of anything to counter the TRUTHer label), care to address them, or attack me?

Case in point.

How am I a liar? How did I attack you? What do I need to address? You made a false claim that the video proves something beyond reasonable doubt. I corrected it. There was nothing more to my post than that.

 

[erowe1]

You obviously didn't even watch the video, critically or otherwise.

I watched the whole thing. If anybody else is thinking about it, go ahead, but know that I warned you, it's a waste of time. It doesn't prove anything. If you have 5 minutes to waste, you might want to watch it just to see what I'm saying.

 

[coastie]

Case in point.

How am I a liar? How did I attack you? What do I need to address? You made a false claim that the video proves something beyond reasonable doubt. I corrected it. There was nothing more to my post than that.

Case in point? YOU are the one that started with the ad hominem - NOT I. Either address the questions in the video, prove it wrong, or.....


You didn't correct anything. THE PLANE IS NOT THERE...as this video PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

How, and where, exactly, did you correct my statement? Merely dismissing it and calling me a truther does not mean you corrected anything, are you reading what you are typing?
Typical of the OCT's(Official Conspiracy Theorists).

 

[erowe1]

Case in point?

Yes. Notice the all-caps and the name calling.

 

[erowe1]

THE PLANE IS NOT THERE...as this video PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

So you have a video that doesn't have a plane in it (although, as even the above video shows, even that is not certain), and that video is proof that no plane hit the Pentagon?

Take a minute before you reply and look up the definition of the word "prove."

And while you're at it, look up "ad hominem" too.

 

[coastie]

Yes. Notice the all-caps and the name calling.

So, in other words, like all of you OCT's, you're not gonna focus on the subject at hand, and makes this about something unrelated. If you're not gonna bother trying to prove the video wrong, then we are done here. Go away.

 

[erowe1]

So, in other words, like all of you OCT's, you're not gonna focus on the subject at hand, and makes this about something unrelated. If you're not gonna bother trying to prove the video wrong, then we are done here. Go away.

I don't beed to prove it wrong. That video doesn't prove anything in the first place. There's nothing in it to disprove.

And that is precisely the complaint I have about what you said in the post where you first presented that video.

 

[coastie]

So you have a video that doesn't have a plane in it (although, as even the above video shows, even that is not certain), and that video is proof that no plane hit the Pentagon?

Take a minute before you reply and look up the definition of the word "prove."

Video shows impact zone of where the explosion occurred. Neither video shows a plane. The frame where the plane should be visible, it's not there. How much more proof do you need????

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I watched the whole thing. If anybody else is thinking about it, go ahead, but know that I warned you, it's a waste of time. It doesn't prove anything. If you have 5 minutes to waste, you might want to watch it just to see what I'm saying.

@caostie's claim of what it proves may not be completely correct, but that claim does not negate the importance of the content of the video. To say that the video doesn't prove "anything" is also incorrect. IF, in fact, the analysis of the video frames is correct, then the result is that the frames in question were "touched". The question becomes, then, "Why?"

 

[coastie]

I don't beed to prove it wrong. It doesn't prove anything in the first place. There's nothing in it to disprove.

And that is precisely the complaint I have about what you said in the post where you first presented that video.

well, then get at it, mr. internet video analysis expert. The video specifically addresses your types, and you seem to know what really happened

I will patiently, and with an open-mind await your results.. As is typical, you avoid all technical discussion, and instead focus on things that annoy you.

 

[erowe1]

well, then get at it, mr. internet video analysis expert. The video specifically addresses your types, and you seem to know what really happened

I will patiently, and with an open-mind await your results.. As is typical, you avoid all technical discussion, and instead focus on things that annoy you.

Another case in point.

I never claimed to know anything beyond the fact that the video which you claimed proved something doesn't actually prove that. And it doesn't.

Given that this much is true, then what kind of technical discussion is even necessary?

Why is it so hard for you just to backtrack the tiniest bit and say, "OK, fair enough. I exaggerated. That video doesn't actually prove that no plane hit the Pentagon."?

When I encounter this kind of argument from truthers it just comes across like the whole thing is a religion to them.

Does the video itself even claim to provide proof that no plane hit the Pentagon? Or was that just your own claim? I don't recall it saying that, although it might have.

 

[coastie]

Another case in point.

I never claimed to know anything beyond the fact that the video which you claimed proved something doesn't actually prove that. And it doesn't.

Given that this much is true, then what kind of technical discussion is even necessary?

Hey, you're the one that refuses to see what your own eyes are showing you, and started off with an ad hominem and "what annoys you". You were never here to have a rational discussion, period, you were just itching to get a "truther" stab in there, your first post PROVES that.The video clearly proves there was no plane in it. PERIOD. The video addresses all angles, speed of the object(and even assumes it was a plane), max fluctuation of the speed and planes length, etc, etc. THERE IS NO PLANE.


Either address the VIDEO, not what I said, or STFU, for real.

 

[erowe1]

Hey, you're the one that refuses to see what your own eyes are showing you.

Which is what?

The video clearly proves there was no plane in it.

It clearly proves there was no plane in what? In the pictures that it showed me? Even that is disputable, since there are things in the pictures that I can't identify, and neither could the narrator of the video. But so what? You didn't say that the video proved that there existed some pictures that didn't have a plane in them. You said it proved that no plane hit the Pentagon.

Either address the VIDEO, not what I said, or STFU, for real.

I did address it. I already said that it never proved that no plane hit the Pentagon. And that is true. Do you still claim that it did prove that? If you actually watched the video, I don't see how you could possibly say that.

 

[TheGrinch]

People, we've had this pissing match a million. Can we instead focus on this concrete revelation of a coverup of Saudi involvement? It's a pretty big revelation if true.

But no matter what you believe, this is just more reason we need a proper investigation, not just a rubberstamp of what, who, why this happened.

 

[coastie]

I'll try this slower for you.


1. THERE IS NO PLANE IN THE VIDEO. This video was released under the pretense that that is exactly what it was - Flight 77 going into the Pentagon.

2. A video forensics expert did a detailed analysis of BOTH videos, and found major discrepancies...Namely, that the PLANE WAS NOT IN THE FUCKING FRAME IT SHOULD'VE BEEN, or ANY of the frames, for that matter. In fact, the video shows what was presented as the nose of the plane in one video, coming after the tail in the other video. This, obviously, is not possible.

3. You have done nothing here but focus on my statement that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt - and it does. So, the ball's in your court. Prove it doesn't, instead of calling me a truther every other post, you still have not addressed the video at all, instead focusing on a statement I made, which takes nothing away from the video.

You just merely keep claiming the video proves nothing, with nothing but your infinite wisdom and spidey-senses with regards to "truthers".

 

[ClydeCoulter]

@coastie, it's better not to feed the trolls. They will take you around in circles.

For one thing, you have to be very careful with how you word your comments on things. To say that the video proves there was no plane is not really correct. Instead, if you think about it, it only proves that the video frames were "touched". Imho, your interpretation of that is that that means there is no plane, but that the touched frames are covering up what "really" hit the pentagon (missile?) otherwise why would they be touched. In order to keep the trolls (on this subject) from attacking your stance, you have to stick with only the facts and not your interpretation of the meaning of the facts.

The trolls on this subject will attack your theories about what the facts show. So, it is better to stick with the facts that question the official story, and that the "released facts" by the PTB are fake. Then, ask the question, "Why?". Why release video that is touched, which the video you posted demonstrates.

 

[PRB]

which one is it? did somebody finance the hijackers? or were there no hijackers?

 

[erowe1]

I'll try this slower for you.


1. THERE IS NO PLANE IN THE VIDEO.

When you say "video" do you mean the time-lapse photographs that the video you linked is about?

If so, I'm not as certain that there is no plane in those photographs as you are. But so what? I've also never claimed that there is a plane in them.

2. A video forensics expert did a detailed analysis of BOTH videos, and found major discrepancies...Namely, that the PLANE WAS NOT IN THE FUCKING FRAME IT SHOULD'VE BEEN, or ANY of the frames, for that matter.

There you go again, saying "videos." The video you posted doesn't say anything about videos. It's about time lapse photographs, with a lapse of 1 second between each picture.

Where do you get the idea that there should have been a plane in any of those pictures? If the video really were to present proof beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon, and if it were to do that by showing that there were no plane in a picture that it should have been in, then it would first have to prove that the plane should have been in that picture. Since it does not present that proof that any of the photographs ought to have had planes in them, it is invalid to claim that it proves that no plane hit the Pentagon.

3. You have done nothing here but focus on my statement that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt

Exactly. That's all I'm doing. I'm not claiming to prove anything myself. I'm just taking issue with that kind of exaggeration. The fact that you're insisting on sticking with that claim only further proves my point.