Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Debunking 911 conspiracy theories

1246

Comments

  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    So the wreckage - engines, flight data recorders, wheels etc plus DNA of passengers of AA Flight 77Boeing 757 was planted there you think?
    I've already explained that:
    1. The wreckage is inconclusive.
    2. That is flight date recorder, singular, which contradicts the official story.
    3. A - Any supposed DNA was analysed by the US Military. B - DNA evidence can be faked.
    The dozens of eye witnesses who saw the airliner take down the street lamps immediately before impact were.........?
    part of the whoooooole plot?
    I've posted an interview with one of these so-called witnesses who is proven on camera to be lying. I have also posted interviews with credible witnesses who contradict the official story.

    Can you please explain to me why should believe without question one set of witnesses and completely disregard another?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Can you please explain to me why should believe without question one set of witnesses and completely disregard another?
    • The majority of witnesses report a plane.
    • A tiny minority of witnesses report specifically and directly that it was a missile and not a plane.
    • There is no additional evidence that it was a missile.
    • All of the available evidence points to a plane.
    • The most likely explanation is that it was a plane.
    • There are no witness reports of the things that would follow if it was a missile (such as the planting of wreckage or of the fallen street lamps.)
    • A massive nonsensical conspiracy isn't required to explain why a small minority of people make erroneous witness reports. Such a conspiracy is required to explain why so many people reported a plane if there was none.

    So since people are saying that the only thing that would convince them is footage of the plane, can we see footage or pictures of the government planting the wreckage of the plane?
    After all it was an attack on one of the most famous buildings in the world, and it was right next to a freeway and in the open. So I assume that there was tons of cameras and witnesses able to see.
    So why no reports or evidence of the wreckage being planted?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    After all it was an attack on one of the most famous buildings in the world, and it was right next to a freeway and in the open. So I assume that there was tons of cameras and witnesses able to see.
    So why no reports or evidence of the wreckage being planted?

    Would that be the same cameras the footage was confiscated from by government officials never to be seen again ?

    It was not only one of the most famous buildings it is also one of the best protected ones .. with dozens and dozens of cameras recording every move ... and all that was released where 4 frames with no plane visible

    One of the reasons used to explain that the technology used in 2001 somehow was incapable of registering a plane hitting the pentagon.

    Why is the government feeding the conspiracy regarding the Pentagon attack ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Would that be the same cameras the footage was confiscated from by government officials never to be seen again ?
    No. No one has ever claimed they had the footage showing that the wreckage was being planted. The government did not confiscate video from bystanders witnessing the aftermath.

    Even so, this would not stop witness reports of it. There are none.
    Why do you think this is?
    weisses wrote: »
    It was not only one of the most famous buildings it is also one of the best protected ones .. with dozens and dozens of cameras recording every move ...
    You are assuming that they would have these cameras. Have you anything to actually show this was the case?

    There isn't any good reason to assume that there would be a camera in the right place to capture the images you want.
    weisses wrote: »
    One of the reasons used to explain that the technology used in 2001 somehow was incapable of registering a plane hitting the pentagon.
    Most security cameras at the time (and some now) have a lower frame rate to conserve power and tape.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiPaLkcRx7c

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9HrwTONo4k Note the police car jumping across the frame.
    This is adequate for capturing images of cars and people walking through a security gate.
    The plane was simply traveling to fast for it to be captured very well.

    So why exactly were they unable to fake the footage you are asking for?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    You are assuming that they would have these cameras. Have you anything to actually show this was the case?

    63ax9xg.jpg

    King Mob wrote: »
    There isn't any good reason to assume that there would be a camera in the right place to capture the images you want.

    84 and none produces a picture of a plane
    King Mob wrote: »
    Most security cameras at the time (and some now) have a lower frame rate to conserve power and tape.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiPaLkcRx7c

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9HrwTONo4k Note the police car jumping across the frame.
    This is adequate for capturing images of cars and people walking through a security gate.
    The plane was simply traveling to fast for it to be captured very well.

    So why exactly were they unable to fake the footage you are asking for?

    If all the cameras where operating at exactly the same frame rate at the same time you would have a point ... But that is highly unlikely


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    I have to say I'm getting a tad confused on the last few posts.

    Weisses - Are you saying that a plane did not hit the Pentagon? And that it was in fact a missile? You don't have any evidence that it was a missile but seem to be basing you arguement on the fact that there are apparent inconsistencies in the plane theory.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    84 and none produces a picture of a plane
    And what view did those cameras have exactly?
    Can you show that they had a clear view of the run up to the crash site? Or is that another assumption?
    weisses wrote: »
    If all the cameras where operating at exactly the same frame rate at the same time you would have a point ... But that is highly unlikely
    What is unlikely exactly?
    The camera that did capture the plane was of that frame rate.
    Have you something to show that the other cameras in the building had higher frame rates?

    Again, you are assuming these things out of nothing and are using those assumptions to declare something an impossibility.

    No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building.
    It's not a strange thing for such a system to not capture any images.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    King Mob wrote:
    The government did not confiscate video from bystanders witnessing the aftermath.
    No of course not..... They were paid to provide BOGUS INFO!!!!


    Anyone who was involved in helping aid thier crime should be brought up on major charges!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And what view did those cameras have exactly?
    Can you show that they had a clear view of the run up to the crash site? Or is that another assumption?

    Dont know what view they had ..They were confiscated.. probably for a reason ... The ones on the pentagon looks like 360 degree cameras.
    King Mob wrote: »
    What is unlikely exactly?
    The camera that did capture the plane was of that frame rate.
    Have you something to show that the other cameras in the building had higher frame rates?

    Unlikely is that all the cameras capturing the same frames which conveniently don't show a plane hitting the building
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, you are assuming these things out of nothing and are using those assumptions to declare something an impossibility.

    And you think it is perfectly normal that 84 cameras could not produce 1 single frame that identify's a plane hitting or about to hit the best protected building in the world
    King Mob wrote: »
    No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building.

    They are designed to capture and record things normal tv is 24 fps plenty of cctv record at 30 fps If we have to believe your assumption we couldn't be able to watch the planes hitting the twin towers.

    And this was not your average gas station that was monitored it was one of the most secure buildings in the world an a top priority for any terrorist
    King Mob wrote: »
    It's not a strange thing for such a system to not capture any images.

    Actually it is ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Dont know what view they had ..They were confiscated.. probably for a reason ... The ones on the pentagon looks like 360 degree cameras.
    So you don't know what view they had and they only look like 360 degree cameras to you.

    You are assuming that they all had a clear view on the crash site and the run up to it, but you've nothing to base this assumption on.
    weisses wrote: »
    Unlikely is that all the cameras capturing the same frames which conveniently don't show a plane hitting the building
    No one is arguing this.
    weisses wrote: »
    And you think it is perfectly normal that 84 cameras could not produce 1 single frame that identify's a plane hitting or about to hit the best protected building in the world
    You've shown only three cameras.
    And yes, it's perfectly normal for lower frame rate cameras to have trouble getting a clear picture of a fast moving object.
    weisses wrote: »
    They are designed to capture and record things normal tv is 24 fps plenty of cctv record at 30 fps If we have to believe your assumption we couldn't be able to watch the planes hitting the twin towers.
    Can you show any low frame rate CCTV footage of the planes crashing into the twin towers?
    weisses wrote: »
    And this was not your average gas station that was monitored it was one of the most secure buildings in the world an a top priority for any terrorist

    Actually it is ...
    But the video actually showing the impact is from a low frame rate camera:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9HrwTONo4k
    Again, note the police car before the impact.

    Why would the most secure building in the world bother with such a low frame rate camera at all?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you don't know what view they had and they only look like 360 degree cameras to you.

    1.0x0.jpg

    That is what a 360 camera looks like
    King Mob wrote: »
    You are assuming that they all had a clear view on the crash site and the run up to it, but you've nothing to base this assumption on.

    No Im not assuming that (where do i state that they all had a clear view on the crash site)


    King Mob wrote: »
    You've shown only three cameras.
    And yes, it's perfectly normal for lower frame rate cameras to have trouble getting a clear picture of a fast moving object.

    Why do you assume that the pentagon is only using low fps cctv ? other then you want it to be that way to make your point




    Just an ordinairy cctv camera in 2001

    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you show any low frame rate CCTV footage of the planes crashing into the twin towers?

    Why would I ? you stated that
    No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building

    Ordinary video cameras operate at 24 fps plenty of CCTV systems operate at the same or even higher framerate .. therefor they can easaly capture a plane hitting a building as is shown in the twin tower attacks

    King Mob wrote: »
    But the video actually showing the impact is from a low frame rate camera:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9HrwTONo4k
    Again, note the police car before the impact.

    conveniantly it supposed to be the only footage capturing the plane
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why would the most secure building in the world bother with such a low frame rate camera at all?

    I think you should ask Why they only released the low fps frames not showing a plane


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    That is what a 360 camera looks like

    No Im not assuming that (where do i state that they all had a clear view on the crash site)
    So you agree that even though there were other cameras present, they are not necessarily in the position to capture the plane.
    weisses wrote: »
    Why do you assume that the pentagon is only using low fps cctv ? other then you want it to be that way to make your point
    I did not assume any such thing.
    I'm just explaining that even if there is a camera present and also in the position to see the point of impact, it doesn't necessarily mean that it had to capture an image of the plane.
    Hence the argument that you are making, that it is impossible for the security system to have missed getting a clear picture, is false.
    weisses wrote: »
    Why would I ? you stated that

    Ordinary video cameras operate at 24 fps plenty of CCTV systems operate at the same or even higher framerate .. therefor they can easaly capture a plane hitting a building as is shown in the twin tower attacks
    So if it is easy for CCTV cameras to capture an image of the plane hitting the twin towers, why is there no footage of it from security cameras?
    Perhaps all of the cameras weren't being used to scan the skies for possible incoming jets?
    weisses wrote: »
    conveniantly it supposed to be the only footage capturing the plane
    This is not an answer to my question.
    You are asserting that the pentagon would only have high quality, normal frame rate cameras. The video shows that this is not the case.
    weisses wrote: »
    I think you should ask Why they only released the low fps frames not showing a plane
    Because it was the only one that was pointed in the right direction at the right time?

    Are you claiming the footage is faked?
    Or that is shows something other than a plane?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you agree that even though there were other cameras present, they are not necessarily in the position to capture the plane.

    You stated that i said that they all had a clear view on the crash site I asked you to point out to me where i made that statement ... if you cannot why make such a disingenuous claim
    King Mob wrote: »
    I did not assume any such thing.

    You are only referring to low fps regarding the Pentagon
    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm just explaining that even if there is a camera present and also in the position to see the point of impact, it doesn't necessarily mean that it had to capture an image of the plane.
    Hence the argument that you are making, that it is impossible for the security system to have missed getting a clear picture, is false.

    One low fps camera could miss it But all these cameras scanning the building and surroundings and not one showing a picture of a plane ... That is highly unlikely
    King Mob wrote: »
    So if it is easy for CCTV cameras to capture an image of the plane hitting the twin towers, why is there no footage of it from security cameras?
    Perhaps all of the cameras weren't being used to scan the skies for possible incoming jets?

    They where probably doing what they where supposed to do and that is monitoring... most cctv cameras have a downwards angle anyway

    Are you actually still suggesting that a cctv camera cannot capture a plane flying by ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    This is not an answer to my question.
    You are asserting that the pentagon would only have high quality, normal frame rate cameras. The video shows that this is not the case.

    No you asserting they only have low fps cctv (because thats all you talk about)

    I showed that even in 2001 it was perfectly normal to have CCTV that can capture anything driving/flying by ... But somehow according to you one of the best guarded buildings in the world doesn't have this technology and only have one camera facing that side of the building (when its clear that camera's purpose would be monitoring the entrance)

    So you basically stating there is no CCTV camera at all monitoring that whole side of the Pentagon

    King Mob wrote: »
    Because it was the only one that was pointed in the right direction at the right time?

    And I showed you that probably isn't the case

    How are you so sure its the only camera pointing in that direction ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Are you claiming the footage is faked?
    Or that is shows something other than a plane?

    I cannot make anything out of it ... Can you tell its a plane from these frames if so please point out where ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    You stated that i said that they all had a clear view on the crash site I asked you to point out to me where i made that statement ... if you cannot why make such a disingenuous claim
    It's not disingenuous because of statements like this:
    weisses wrote: »
    One low fps camera could miss it But all these cameras scanning the building and surroundings and not one showing a picture of a plane ... That is highly unlikely
    Which cameras had a clear view and were pointing at the right place at the right time? And how do you know that this is the case?
    weisses wrote: »
    They where probably doing what they where supposed to do and that is monitoring... most cctv cameras have a downwards angle anyway
    So why couldn't this be the explanation for the lack of footage at the pentagon?
    This is what I am suggesting. Like the pentagon, the towers and the surrounding city was riddled with security cameras, yet none of them were in the right position to capture the impact.
    weisses wrote: »
    Are you actually still suggesting that a cctv camera cannot capture a plane flying by ?
    No that's not what I'm suggesting.
    I said that no security system in the world is designed to capture images of planes crashing into buildings. I did not say that CCTV cameras were incapable of doing so.
    weisses wrote: »
    No you asserting they only have low fps cctv (because thats all you talk about)
    I did not assert this.
    weisses wrote: »
    I showed that even in 2001 it was perfectly normal to have CCTV that can capture anything driving/flying by ... But somehow according to you one of the best guarded buildings in the world doesn't have this technology and only have one camera facing that side of the building (when its clear that camera's purpose would be monitoring the entrance)
    So again, why if the pentagon had access to this technology do they use a low fps camera at all?
    The reason is that low fps cameras are perfectly fine for normal security involving cars and people. Just because the technology existed it does not mean that all of the cameras in the pentagon were high fps. The three cameras you highlighted could have also been low fps.
    Do you disagree with this? If so, what do you have to suggest that they were not?
    weisses wrote: »
    So you basically stating there is no CCTV camera at all monitoring that whole side of the Pentagon
    I did not state or suggest this.
    weisses wrote: »
    And I showed you that probably isn't the case
    No you haven't. You haven't shown that any other cameras were pointing in the right direction at the right time.
    weisses wrote: »
    How are you so sure its the only camera pointing in that direction ?
    You asked me why it was the only footage released, that is the possible (and most likely) explanation.
    weisses wrote: »
    I cannot make anything out of it ... Can you tell its a plane from these frames if so please point out where ?
    You have avoided my question.

    And no, from the video alone, you cannot conclude that it is a plane.
    However in reality, all of the other evidence and reasoning points to it being a plane. The video does not contradict it being a plane. And with the total lack of any viable, sensible alternative, I'm going to conclude it's a plane.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's not disingenuous because of statements like this:

    Saying
    One low fps camera could miss it But all these cameras scanning the building and surroundings and not one showing a picture of a plane ... That is highly unlikely

    Is not the same as your dishonest statement regarding the above saying
    King Mob wrote: »
    You are assuming that they all had a clear view on the crash site and the run up to it, but you've nothing to base this assumption on.



    King Mob wrote: »
    Which cameras had a clear view and were pointing at the right place at the right time? And how do you know that this is the case?

    I showed you pictures of the 360 degree cameras on the pentagon
    King Mob wrote: »
    So why couldn't this be the explanation for the lack of footage at the pentagon?
    This is what I am suggesting. Like the pentagon, the towers and the surrounding city was riddled with security cameras, yet none of them were in the right position to capture the impact.

    How do you know for a fact they don't have footage that captured the impact but not released it
    King Mob wrote: »
    No that's not what I'm suggesting.
    I said that no security system in the world is designed to capture images of planes crashing into buildings. I did not say that CCTV cameras were incapable of doing so.

    You said
    King Mob wrote: »
    No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building.

    Caught again

    So what did you actually suggest with that statement if its not CCTV you where referring to ... What other video security system are you talking about?

    King Mob wrote: »
    So again, why if the pentagon had access to this technology do they use a low fps camera at all?

    Maybe because at the gates where you have police as well its not needed to have these systems but on places where you have no eyes all the time more sophisticated equipment would be used
    King Mob wrote: »
    The reason is that low fps cameras are perfectly fine for normal security involving cars and people. Just because the technology existed it does not mean that all of the cameras in the pentagon were high fps. The three cameras you highlighted could have also been low fps.
    Do you disagree with this? If so, what do you have to suggest that they were not?

    You said it perfectly Involving cars and people .... at an entrance gate guarded 24/7 ... I never said all the cameras at the pentagon where high fps ... but I am assuming better equipment is used in places where there is no human presence 24/7

    King Mob wrote: »
    No you haven't. You haven't shown that any other cameras were pointing in the right direction at the right time.

    I showed you the pictures of the 360 degree cameras hanging from the pentagon walls


    King Mob wrote: »
    And no, from the video alone, you cannot conclude that it is a plane.
    However in reality, all of the other evidence and reasoning points to it being a plane. The video does not contradict it being a plane. And with the total lack of any viable, sensible alternative, I'm going to conclude it's a plane.

    But yet there is no plane visible .... not really a scientific approach

    You are happy they released footage of the plane hitting the pentagon without seeing a plane hitting the pentagon .... terrific


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    • The majority of witnesses report a plane.
    • A tiny minority of witnesses report specifically and directly that it was a missile and not a plane.
    • There is no additional evidence that it was a missile.
    • All of the available evidence points to a plane.
    • The most likely explanation is that it was a plane.
    • There are no witness reports of the things that would follow if it was a missile (such as the planting of wreckage or of the fallen street lamps.)
    • A massive nonsensical conspiracy isn't required to explain why a small minority of people make erroneous witness reports. Such a conspiracy is required to explain why so many people reported a plane if there was none.

    So since people are saying that the only thing that would convince them is footage of the plane, can we see footage or pictures of the government planting the wreckage of the plane?
    After all it was an attack on one of the most famous buildings in the world, and it was right next to a freeway and in the open. So I assume that there was tons of cameras and witnesses able to see.
    So why no reports or evidence of the wreckage being planted?
    Have I not posted in this very thread one of these so-called witnesses being caught out lying through his teeth? Did you watch his interview? Reactions?

    Can you do the same here?
    Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
    • Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

      It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

      There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

      I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

      The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

      The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

      More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

    • Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.

    • Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."

    • Bio: http://militaryweek.com/


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Saying

    Is not the same as your dishonest statement regarding the above saying

    I showed you pictures of the 360 degree cameras on the pentagon
    So all of those cameras had a clear view of the crash site and were all pointing in the right direction?
    weisses wrote: »
    How do you know for a fact they don't have footage that captured the impact but not released it
    I don't know. But I think it's more likely that the cameras just didn't pick up anything. You suggested that this was the case.
    Do you think the CCTV camera did see the crash?
    weisses wrote: »
    You said

    Caught again

    So what did you actually suggest with that statement if its not CCTV you where referring to ... What other video security system are you talking about?
    A system of cameras, like the security system around the Pentagon.
    I did not ever once say anything about CCTV cameras being unable to get an image of a plane.
    weisses wrote: »
    Maybe because at the gates where you have police as well its not needed to have these systems but on places where you have no eyes all the time more sophisticated equipment would be used

    You said it perfectly Involving cars and people .... at an entrance gate guarded 24/7 ... I never said all the cameras at the pentagon where high fps ... but I am assuming better equipment is used in places where there is no human presence 24/7
    Yes, as I said, you are assuming this is the case when you have no real reason to.
    weisses wrote: »
    I showed you the pictures of the 360 degree cameras hanging from the pentagon walls
    But you have not shown that they had a clear view of the crash site or the run up, nor that they happened to be pointing in the right direction, or that they were able to get a clear picture of the plane in the first place.

    If they did not have a clear view, or were pointed in the wrong direction or were of too low fps to get a clear, distinct image or all of the above, then it's not a strange thing for there to be no image.
    weisses wrote: »
    But yet there is no plane visible .... not really a scientific approach

    You are happy they released footage of the plane hitting the pentagon without seeing a plane hitting the pentagon .... terrific
    Again, taken in context with all of the other evidence, yes, I am happy to say that in the absence of a better alternative.
    Do you have a better alternative?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Have I not posted in this very thread one of these so-called witnesses being caught out lying through his teeth? Did you watch his interview? Reactions?
    So are all of the witnesses who claimed to see a plane lying?
    Can you do the same here?
    He says:
    I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
    This is evidently not the case.

    http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/mil_pentagon_relief_plane.jpg
    http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/debrisHR.jpg

    If these, and other pieces of evidence where planted, how come he doesn't say he saw them being planted?

    So beyond the assumptions of people who didn't see it and witness reports you've no reason to trust, what direct evidence is there that a missile hit?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    So are all of the witnesses who claimed to see a plane lying?
    Who knows? Do you?
    So you acknowledge that Taxi Driver was lying? If one "witness" is lying to corroborate the already questionable narrative it calls into question the rest.

    Could you share your views briefly on the interview with this guy? What was he afraid of? Why was he lying?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Who knows? Do you?
    I'm asking what your theory is.
    The only way for the majority of witnesses to be invalidated is if they are lying.
    If one "witness" is lying to corroborate the already questionable narrative it calls into question the rest.
    No not really. Unless you are indeed speculating that they were all lying and have a reasonable theory for this.
    Could you share your views briefly on the interview with this guy?
    Well first, I think it's pretty despicable the way they keep badgering the poor guy.
    Second, there's a lot of cuts, which is a red flag for me.

    Taking the content at face value, I fail to see how it's not just a case of him remembering the specific details or getting confused.
    Which part are you claiming that he's lying about, the pole being in his car, or his position?

    I don't see any of the stuff you claimed he did:
    breaking down, admitting this is a concern for "men with money" and essentially admit a cover up that he is too afraid to divulge.
    Is that in the same part of the video you posted? If so, can you point out where this occurs?
    What was he afraid of? Why was he lying?
    I'm not convinced he was afraid or lying.
    Could you elaborate on your theory about it?
    Don't make me laugh...
    Your witness said that there was no wreckage on the lawn. There are some examples.
    Your witness is wrong.

    Now again, he claims to have seen the whole thing and watched carefully. If he had seen them planting wreckage, he'd have no issue claiming so. Yet he doesn't.
    Can we use this to conclude that no wreckage was planted? If so, where did the wreckage in those pictures come from? If not, then doesn't that mean he's an unreliable witness since he missed something so important?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So all of those cameras had a clear view of the crash site and were all pointing in the right direction?

    Isn't that something you falsly stated i have said earlier ?

    Define all cameras
    King Mob wrote: »
    I don't know. But I think it's more likely that the cameras just didn't pick up anything. You suggested that this was the case.
    Do you think the CCTV camera did see the crash?

    Why is it so likely that 84 cameras apparently did not capture the plane ?

    Are they all low fps ?

    Are they all pointing in the wrong direction ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    A system of cameras, like the security system around the Pentagon.
    I did not ever once say anything about CCTV cameras being unable to get an image of a plane.

    Can you give me the information that explains what kind of system the pentagon uses. ?

    Because you seem to know its not a CCTV system they used

    Ill ask again regarding your statement below
    King Mob wrote: »
    No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building.

    What is this system you talk about ? Its not CCTV according to you

    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, as I said, you are assuming this is the case when you have no real reason to.

    Yes i assume they will use state of the art surveillance equipment in places where there is no human presence ... Specially because its one of the prime targets for any terrorist,

    Meanwhile you assume you see a plane where there is no plane visible in a released video

    King Mob wrote: »
    But you have not shown that they had a clear view of the crash site or the run up, nor that they happened to be pointing in the right direction, or that they were able to get a clear picture of the plane in the first place.

    http://www.arecontvision.com/images/products/Arecont_Vision_180_SurroundVideo_42039_xl.png

    Is this to far fetched ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    If they did not have a clear view, or were pointed in the wrong direction or were of too low fps to get a clear, distinct image or all of the above, then it's not a strange thing for there to be no image.

    I am just gonna wait your response regarding the system they used in the pentagon


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Define all cameras

    Why is it so likely that 84 cameras apparently did not capture the plane ?

    Are they all low fps ?

    Are they all pointing in the wrong direction ?
    All being all 84 camera you claim were there.
    Of those cameras, how many were able to get a clear view of the crash site?
    All of them? Some of them?
    weisses wrote: »
    Can you give me the information that explains what kind of system the pentagon uses. ?

    Because you seem to know its not a CCTV system they used

    Ill ask again regarding your statement below

    What is this system you talk about ? Its not CCTV according to you
    A system meaning many cameras hooked together from all around the facility.
    No such system is designed with the intent of capturing images of fast moving planes in mind.
    weisses wrote: »
    Yes i assume they will use state of the art surveillance equipment in places where there is no human presence ... Specially because its one of the prime targets for any terrorist,
    But they didn't use the state of the art equipment in some places. So they might not have used it in the places you are assuming they did.
    Your assumption is not sound enough to draw the conclusion you do.
    weisses wrote: »
    Can you show that this was the camera they used?
    Is it possible that they did not use such a camera?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    All being all 84 camera you claim were there.
    Of those cameras, how many were able to get a clear view of the crash site?
    All of them? Some of them?

    84 recordings were confiscated

    Ill ask again

    Why is it so likely that none of the 84 cameras did not capture the plane ?

    Are they all low fps ?

    Are they all pointing in the wrong direction ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    A system meaning many cameras hooked together from all around the facility.
    No such system is designed with the intent of capturing images of fast moving planes in mind.

    Then point out the specifications of that system ... you seem to know what is used in the pentagon.

    But its not CCTV according to you
    Closed-circuit television (CCTV) is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors.
    King Mob wrote: »
    A system of cameras, like the security system around the Pentagon.

    What system of cameras?

    What security system?

    You seem to know it so stop being vague about it
    King Mob wrote: »
    But they didn't use the state of the art equipment in some places. So they might not have used it in the places you are assuming they did.
    Your assumption is not sound enough to draw the conclusion you do.

    Pentagon is a level V facility
    A level V facility is a building such as the Pentagon or CIA Headquarters that contains mission functions critical to national security.

    So I think its safe to assume they use state of the art security on places that requires that ... An entrance gate with armed officers could probably do with less
    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you show that this was the camera they used?

    Nope .. Its a 360 degree dome they use
    King Mob wrote: »
    Is it possible that they did not use such a camera?

    Possible yes ... even if they didn't use that lens there where still plenty of cameras mounted on the pentagon covering every inch of space

    2593-02c16b8e5e92f2ce844eb5d6edc7983a.jpg


    Berkley_gen_trailer_cameras.jpg

    63ax9xg.jpg


    Can you point out how its logical they all faced in the wrong direction ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    84 recordings were confiscated

    Ill ask again

    Why is it so likely that none of the 84 cameras did not capture the plane ?
    I've asked you point out how many cameras were pointed at the spot or had a clear view of it.
    You cannot answer because you cannot show that any did.

    It's possible that none were in a position to capture the images.
    You are claiming that it is not possible because you are making assumptions that aren't backed up.

    So since you are unwilling to consider a non-conspiracy explanation, can you please present a viable alternative?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I've asked you point out how many cameras were pointed at the spot or had a clear view of it.
    You cannot answer because you cannot show that any did.

    84 recordings where confiscated probably to see if there was anything on it 2 where released with no plane on it

    The rest is still not released so I cannot make out which camera was facing where .. which you also know of course so I don't understand why you would ask this

    Do you think its logical that 1 of the most important buildings in the US had its CCTV pointed elsewhere ? all of the cameras that are in the Pictures ? ??
    King Mob wrote: »
    It's possible that none were in a position to capture the images.
    You are claiming that it is not possible because you are making assumptions that aren't backed up.

    I am making assumptions based on logic ..
    King Mob wrote: »
    So since you are unwilling to consider a non-conspiracy explanation, can you please present a viable alternative?

    No I am making logical conclusions based on the importance of the building and the security measures logically used for such a building

    Your logic so far is that you see a fireball and conclude its a Boeing 757 despite there has been no evidence it was a Boeing 757 if you have any then please present it !


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Do you think its logical that 1 of the most important buildings in the US had its CCTV pointed elsewhere ? all of the cameras that are in the Pictures ? ??
    Yes it is logical that there might be gaps, momentary or otherwise.
    Can you say it is impossible?
    weisses wrote: »
    Your logic so far is that you see a fireball and conclude its a Boeing 757 despite there has been no evidence it was a Boeing 757 if you have any then please present it !
    There's been plenty of evidence shown but you're not going to accept it.

    What alternatives are there that fit better?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes it is logical that there might be gaps, momentary or otherwise.
    Can you say it is impossible?

    Those gaps happen to be there affecting all the (pentagon) cameras at the same time ?

    Is that logical ?

    King Mob wrote: »
    There's been plenty of evidence shown but you're not going to accept it.

    Then point me to the evidence it was a Boeing 757 ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    What alternatives are there that fit better?

    Has nothing to do with fitting other alternatives more the lack of forensic evidence proving what is claimed by officials


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Those gaps happen to be there affecting all the (pentagon) cameras at the same time ?
    Is that logical ?
    Nope it's not. But I didn't say that.
    weisses wrote: »
    Then point me to the evidence it was a Boeing 757 ?
    For one example I posted pictures of some wreckage a few posts ago.
    weisses wrote: »
    Has nothing to do with fitting other alternatives more the lack of forensic evidence proving what is claimed by officials
    Would you then agree that the alternatives that are presented, such as it being a missile are baseless and without merit?
    Or are they more likely than the official story?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope it's not. But I didn't say that.

    Then how do you explain the apparent failure from Cameras at the pentagon to record the plane hitting the building ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    For one example I posted pictures of some wreckage a few posts ago.

    That is not evidence it was from a 757
    King Mob wrote: »
    Would you then agree that the alternatives that are presented, such as it being a missile are baseless and without merit?
    Or are they more likely than the official story?

    The alternatives are only there because of the lack of Information from officials

    Interesting piece below

    Suppressing Evidence of the Crash Serves the Cover-up

    Evidence from the Pentagon crash that would decisively resolve the question of whether Flight 77 was the attack plane has been systematically suppressed by authorities, such as the FBI. Actions have included the following:

    The seizure of security videos from the nearby Citgo gas station and Sheraton hotel within minutes of the attack, and their refusal to release those videos.
    A failure to release recordings of security video cameras thought to ring the Pentagon or traffic monitoring video cameras along the nearby highways maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
    A failure to release photographs of the Pentagon's interior prior to removal of debris.
    A failure to disclose the fate of aircraft debris collected at the Pentagon, and their failure to document or disclose the results of any attempts to identify the aircraft parts.
    An implausible insistence that the recovered black boxes yielded "nothing useful."
    This behavior is consistent with three different motives on the parts of the those responsible for suppression and destruction of evidence.

    An institutional penchant for secrecy, amplified by the atmosphere of national emergency produced by the attack
    A desire to suppress evidence that would disprove the crash of Flight 77
    A desire to suppress evidence that would prove the crash of Flight 77
    People who fail to grasp the role of disinformation in the cover-up will tend to overlook Motive 3 and attribute the suspicious actions to Motive 2. However, as I point out in the Booby Trap article, an analysis of the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement demonstrates the value of the no-jetliner theories in sidelining challenges to the official story as the product of lunatic conspiracy theorists.

    Conclusion

    In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence -- primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.


Advertisement