There is absolutely no evidence that the Pentagon is hiding videos of the impact.

Only three security tapes capturing anything of the Pentagon impact were sequestered at that time. A few frames from the Pentagon helipad tape were released immediately, but the rest of the footage remained confidential as it might have been needed during the Moussaoui trial. Since his conviction though, all three have been released.

There is overwhelming evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This includes (but isn't limited to) dozens of pieces of eyewitness testimony, numberless pieces of recovered debris (including engine wreckage), recovered and functional flight data recorders and the DNA identification of all but one of the passengers.

The song is called "Poney Pt. 1" and not "Birds".

Rotty:

I think you might be slightly muddled over which clip I was referring to at any one time and what those clips themselves actually show. Just to clarify, my first paragraph referred to this one, my second to this one and my third to this one (which features a discussion of the "pulling" of World Trade Center 6 and not World Trade Center 7).

Further, if you'll notice, I didn't simply claim that "It's fairly clear that by 'pull it,' Silverstein meant 'pull the team of fire fighters back to a safe distance'" and leave it at that. I gave a number of reasons as to why it's clear that that's what he meant; the belief that he meant "blow it up" results in a number of absurd consequences. The most notable of which is that it implies that the Fire Department are both complicit in and keeping quiet about a conspiracy that claimed the lives of approximately three hundred of their colleagues and a further three thousand innocent American citizens.

If we're to think that the rescue workers had foreknowledge of a supposed demolition, it would imply that they're both complicit in and keeping quiet about a conspiracy that claimed the lives of approximately four hundred of their colleagues. The rescue workers were well aware that World Trade Center 7 was going to collapse -- due to the structural damage and extensive fires it had suffered; there are a number of quotations in which they state as much.

It's fairly clear that by "pull it," Silverstein meant "pull the team of fire fighters back to a safe distance." There are numerous quotations in which the fire fighters themselves use the term in precisely the same way. Grammatically, it would have been exceedingly strange if by "pull it" he'd meant "blow it up." Further, given that he was talking to the Fire Department at the time, if that's really what he'd meant, then it would imply that the Fire Department made the decision to carry out a nefarious demolition. Somehow, I doubt he'd be the subject of all this libellous nonsense if his name wasn't Silverstein.

With regards to the clip featuring the discussion of "pulling" World Trade Center 6, there's a reason why the typically deceitful conspiracy theorist that runs that site has cut the video at that point. He doesn't want you to see the next scene; it shows the building not being demolished by an explosive demolition, but being literally pulled over with steel cables attached to heavy machinery.

Choggie:

Why do you persist in telling lies about World Trade Center 7? You know that your description of the official explanation of the collapse is completely inaccurate. Do you lie to make that explanation appear less plausible and, consequently, to afford your absurd controlled demolition fantasies some undue credibility?

Once again, World Trade Center 7 collapsed due to a combination of major structural damage caused by the collapse of World Trade Center 1 and from suffering eight-hours of widespread and unfought fires. Further, it didn't fall into a "neat pile." The collapse caused significant damage to 30 West Broadway and The Verizon Building and minor damage to several others; the debris spanned the width of Barcley Street.

PS: If you do decide to reply, it might be beneficial for you to actually include some evidence and some argument as opposed to yet another ream of narcissistic drivel.

Bluecliff:

No, we don't disagree. That both sides "have to give proof that theirs is the legit one" is exactly right. However, when the conspiracy theorists say "We think there was a conspiracy; so, what evidence do you have that we're wrong?" the responsibility of presenting evidence to support their claim is exactly what they're trying to avoid; they’re attempting to shift the burden of proof.

That would be an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It's not my responsibility to prove that there wasn't a conspiracy. It's the conspiracy theorists' responsibility to prove that there was. Further, it's an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy; analogously, I don't have any direct evidence that the tooth-fairy doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that it's reasonable to believe that it does.

Choggie:

For around the ninth time in a row you've left a post that basically equates to "You're naive and believe everything you're told, whereas I'm enlightened and know the real truth." Yet again, however, you've simply presented no argument; yet again, you've cited no evidence whatsoever. It appears that you're nothing more than a narcissist and a charlatan.

So, once again, do you have any evidence that 9/11 was a conspiracy or do you not?

Bluecliff:

Since you mention the religious, according to a 2004 poll, 55% of Americans believe in literal biblical creationism. I sincerely doubt that this majority is due to any shadowiness or secretiveness on the part of the scientific community. The fact that creationism persists in the minds of "common people" is not a good reason to think there must be something to it or something we're "not being told" (just as the persistence of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 in the minds of such people is not a good reason to think that the government is hiding something or that those theories are in any way rationally justified).

Incidentally, "If you want to convince those who are utterly certain then your damned to begin with" is something else with which I wholeheartedly agree; as Jonathan Swift said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." This applies to both our subject and its aforementioned analog.

PS: Apologies for being dense -- here are the Pentagon videos: Citgo; Doubletree. (There's little of interest and they're not worth posting, in my opinion.)

Bluecliff:

Yes. The tapes are on the net.

The idea that the conspiracy theories subsist on no evidence is not merely a matter of opinion. Unless you're an epistemological relativist, I can't see what basis you can have for claiming that it is. It's an empirical question. It's either true or it is false. If you know of any compelling evidence that 9/11 was a conspiracy, then, by all means, please reveal it.

It isn't really those who "still hold some doubt" I'm referring to (having some doubt, within reason, is perfectly sensible); it's those who are convinced of a conspiracy. In my experience, the only people who persist in espousing such ideas are either (sometimes willingly) ignorant of the facts (possibly because they've been intentionally misled by other conspiracy theorists), politically motivated by their ultra-left or ultra-right ideologies or are simply irrational or insane.

You state that the persistence of the conspiracy theories is "not about evidence" and that "evidence itself isn't much." Well, that is something we can certainly agree on.

Choggie:

We don't have all the facts about evolution. There is, however, overwhelming evidence in support of it and absolutely no compelling evidence in favour of any alternative theory. So, do you think that the conclusion that evolution exists is "God damn insane"? Further, I have no idea why you're referring to pilots "from the desert." The hijacker pilots were mainly from Saudi Arabia. They were all commercially licensed and instrument rated. Many were university educated.

Bluecliff:

Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder has been released. Those belonging to Flights 11 and 175 were destroyed and never recovered.

As far as I'm aware, there were only three security tapes capturing anything of the Pentagon impact sequestered at that time. A few frames from the Pentagon helipad tape were released immediately, but the rest of the footage remained confidential as it might have been needed during the Moussaoui trial. Since his conviction though, all three have been released.

Further, you claim that by releasing such-and-such, the government could "deal a fatal blow to the conspiracy theories." With respect, that is a naive thing to say. The conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 subsist on simply no evidence and also in the face of overwhelming counterevidence. It's not like a few further pieces of counterevidence are going to change anything.

Yet more conspiratorial nonsense.

Anyway, what BicycleRepairMan said. Either that or he meant "I saw an airplane had hit the tower..."; he's hardly renowned for his public speaking abilities.

Tofumar:

I dabble
: )

Given that, for the meantime at least, I'm only interested in discussing matters of empirical fact (and more specifically, those surrounding 9/11), my motives for doing so are perfectly irrelevant. If I happen upon any videos I deem worthy, then by all means I'll consider posting them.

Implicitly is all the New World Order pays me for. CoIntelPro isn't all glamour, you know.