No, actually, you didn't stipulate any conditions until you shifted the goal posts recently (hence the emot in my response above). I'd watch that one, because it makes you look like a dishonest poster.
What you're doing here is called 'moving the goalposts,a very dishonest form of debate. YOU wanted proof that the video existed,it was provided,Now act like an adult.
You saw the shifting of the goal posts too,eh? Seems this poster is interested in only insulting people who won't swallow his garbage.
Where do you think the cameras were? They were at the security check.. How often did you fly before 9/11?
Assuming a building with a massive array of security cameras was under attack from a very large object, couldn't they publish a few photographs?
It was comical how the first stories told by MSM offered passenger lists that did not include the hijackers, eh? Oops! The thread title here is spot on--pilots who fly the airplane say this story and the required maneuvers are simply impossible. Yes, in a time of universal deception telling the truth is a radical act.
Very true once the video is provided he demands a better one where people wear signs in airports identifying themselves for the cameras - - - Updated - - - Actually they did no such thing
Common mistake of the truthers, they weren't passenger manifests, they were lists of those whose relatives were contacted.
No, I was reading the newspapers in those days and watching news TV too. The first lists out did not include the names of the hijackers, and had to be "edited" later to correct that embarrassing failure. Many mistakes were made by the perps, and that is probably why the Pentagon had to "edit" so much of its testimony at the 911 Commission. Am I more perceptive than you, or is it just that my memory is better(apparently) than yours?
Most got it right from the start. In such a chaotic event however many mistakes will be made before all the evidence is in. You have no evidence to refute that 19/hijackers succeeded in attacking. You have no evidence for your claim
Wrong again, the papers had gotten ahold of the list of people whose relatives were notified, not the passenger manifest. The Boston Globe got the passenger manifest and published that. I suppose anything to cling to the misconceptions.
Oh heck, there is lots of evidence. All the evidence contradicts the story. For example, several of the supposed hijackers, pilots all, made public statements published in newspapers in other parts of the world, stating that 1)they were not involved in what happened, and 2) they were still alive and gainfully employed. The cell phones calls were impossible, and the statements of players like Betty Ong were unnatural and appeared staged. The planes could not have performed the way they are said to have, the thread topic. There was no airliner at all in Pennsylvania, and all the pictures and the statement of the local coroner all confirm that. There is ample evidence for my claim that the story is a lie. Anybody being intellectually honest will come to the same conclusion.
Maybe you read only the amended lists. I read the lists first issued, and they did not contain the names of the supposed hijackers. - - - Updated - - - Do you mean to say that if you examine a field and cannot see an airliner in it, and the coroner walks the field and can find no airliner in it, that if some authority figure TOLD you there was an airliner in the field, then you would believe the authority figure?
I made my first post here on the second page, post # 19 to be exact. Read it. That post and every subsequent post that I have made clearly show that there was no "moving of the goalposts". I'd watch that one. Making false claims which can be easily proven wrong make YOU look like a dishonest poster.
Duh, because they were not the passenger manifest. You obviously have no clue what happens to an aircraft in a crash or during crash investigations. Opinions of some blogger don't count.
Once again your shifting the goalpost claim is the canned bunch of crap used by your ilk. It is provably false. Simply read all of my posts here and you will see that there is no inconsistency in my position. You, Soupnazi and the others on the other hand have been evasive, slippery and constantly dishonest.
Once again you err in your judgment of me. Actually, I do have a clue, and more than a clue, about what happens to an aircraft in a crash. From time to time, probably monthly, I visit the NTSB site in which aircraft accidents are documented. Much can be learned from that.
No doubt the NIST made some mistakes but generally it is factual. The truthers have opinion and logical fallacies on their side. - - - Updated - - - Still you need to have little understanding of aircraft to believe the OP.
The videos that were cited did not show ANY of the alleged hijackers or ANY of the other passengers boarding ANY of the alleged murder weapons. Are you really not smart enough to understand the point I was making or are you just being a dishonest jerk on purpose. Maybe it is time that YOU start acting like an adult here.
Maybe not for you, but actually I have a sufficient understanding of aircraft to agree completely with the OP.