Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect

123468

Comments

  • #152
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    and that's why all the police forces in the world are rushing to get cctv into cities and towns!!!!...

    No...they're doing that so that they have coverage even when there isn't a police person in sight.


  • #153
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Read my point above about why shops have CCTV. The reason for CCTV in towns is similar: to detect crime in progress, and to help prosecute after the fact.

    What has this got to do with whether or not the Pentagon has CCTV?

    so there was no crime committed at the pentagon?!!!!


  • #154
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The difference is, there is a preponderance of evidence that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, and none - none whatsoever - that a passenger jet didn't. That makes the decision as to whom to believe a fairly straightforward one for me. Again, the argument is that because the DoD could afford digital video recorders, therefore they had them. Still no speculation as to why they might actually need them, let alone any evidence that they actually had them. Yes, because they have a particular reason for wanting them. Why would they want them on the Pentagon? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

    Yes you have no idea.:(


  • #155
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,032 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    and that's why all the police forces in the world are rushing to get cctv into cities and towns!!!!...

    But they are doing this because they do not have the (wo)man power to properly police our towns. CCTV is a cheaper alternative to personal on the ground.

    If you are on a dark and dangerous street at night, which do you want near-by, a camera or a real person.


  • #156
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    bonkey wrote: »
    No...they're doing that so that they have coverage even when there isn't a police person in sight.
    exactly... so the police forces realise that it's a good idea to have cctv for cases where no officer is present or to monitor areas or to prevent crime but the the pentagon don't need it coz they have... armed red-necks!!!? are you really that naive?!


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,032 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    meglome wrote: »
    Looking forward to them explaining this away. Although considering that hundreds of people actually saw a plane and they still don't believe there was one, who knows. I mean why believe the hundreds of people who saw a plane when you can believe the handful who saw a missile, presented on a nice internet video... so it must be true.


    Also, IF is was a missile that hit the pentagon, what happen to the plane and all the passengers???


  • #158
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    If you are on a dark and dangerous street at night, which do you want near-by, a camera or a real person.

    if you are protecting a vital piece of your country's security industry which would you prefer? a camera system that watches 24/7 in rain or shine, that doesn't blink, that doesn't go for a piss, that can see in the dark, that can see thermally, etc, etc...


  • #159
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    Also, IF is was a missile that hit the pentagon, what happen to the plane and all the passengers???

    listen i don't KNOW what hit the pentagon, you don't KNOW what hit the pentagon, diogenes doesn't KNOW what hit the pentagon, i believe something hit it, i believe parts of the government and military were/are complicit in the committing of the crimes AND covering up the truth...

    My point is that i'm sure one of the most secure buildings in the world, has enough cameras on it to prove what hit it, but for some reason they are not showing this evidence...


  • #160
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,032 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    if you are protecting a vital piece of your country's security industry which would you prefer? a camera system that watches 24/7 in rain or shine, that doesn't blink, that doesn't go for a piss, that can see in the dark, that can see thermally, etc, etc...

    Camera's might never go for a piss, but the person watching the camera will...

    With respect to the 9-11 attacks, other than proving "pretty pcitures" what extra protection would cctv have provided from the plane/missle whatever.


  • #161
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The difference is, there is a preponderance of evidence that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon
    where? reported by "unbiased" media!!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    and none - none whatsoever - that a passenger jet didn't
    double negative?! interesting...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That makes the decision as to whom to believe a fairly straightforward one for me
    believe who you like
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Again, the argument is that because the DoD could afford digital video recorders, therefore they had them
    it's not a huge leap to assume that the DoD has the best tech available.... come try to use your imagination...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Still no speculation...
    don't know what you're actually saying?! do you know what speculation means?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...as to why they might actually need them, let alone any evidence that they actually had them.
    if we were in washington we could walk upto the pentagon and have a look...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, because they have a particular reason for wanting them. Why would they want them on the Pentagon?
    if you can't see why the pentagon (of all places) might need cctv then there's no hope for you...


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    With respect to the 9-11 attacks, other than proving "pretty pcitures" what extra protection would cctv have provided from the plane/missle whatever.

    who said anything of protecting the pentagon from a plane/missile?!!!
    have you followed this discussion at all?!!! try reading before you reply...

    GerardKeating wrote: »
    Camera's might never go for a piss, but the person watching the camera will...

    computers watch these things, there was a brilliant doc on discovery about the cctv system in fort knox, advanced systems watch and alert humans when there is a "breach". it's called technology...


  • #163
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    have a look at this... pay particular attention to questions 5 & 7...

    http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm


  • #164
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    so there was no crime committed at the pentagon?!!!!
    There was an act of terrorism committed at the Pentagon. What difference would CCTV have made?
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    listen i don't KNOW what hit the pentagon, you don't KNOW what hit the pentagon, diogenes doesn't KNOW what hit the pentagon...
    A passenger jet hit the Pentagon.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    ...i believe something hit it, i believe parts of the government and military were/are complicit in the committing of the crimes AND covering up the truth...
    What's your evidence for believing this?
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    My point is that i'm sure one of the most secure buildings in the world, has enough cameras on it to prove what hit it, but for some reason they are not showing this evidence...
    What makes you sure? You talk about "evidence", but don't seem to be interested in looking for any to back up your assertion that there were cameras.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    where? reported by "unbiased" media!!
    Reported by almost every conceivable medium, with every conceivable bias, many of which are mutually contrary.

    Find me an "unbiased" medium that supports your ideas, and explain to me why I should believe it.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    double negative?! interesting...
    It's not a double negative. Trying to look clever instead of addressing my arguments doesn't lend any weight to your assertions.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    believe who you like
    Thank you.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    it's not a huge leap to assume that the DoD has the best tech available.... come try to use your imagination...
    I'm sure they have all sorts of wonderful toys and gadgets. The question is, did they have CCTV watching the Pentagon?
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    don't know what you're actually saying?! do you know what speculation means?
    Yes, I do. Read what I wrote a few times, the meaning might sink in.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    if we were in washington we could walk upto the pentagon and have a look...
    I've been there. I didn't see any.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    if you can't see why the pentagon (of all places) might need cctv then there's no hope for you...
    How about you cut out the arm-waving and actually produce some evidence that they had them?


  • #165
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    have a look at this... pay particular attention to questions 5 & 7...

    http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
    I know I'll regret being drawn down the blind alley of answering loaded questions based on invalid data, but...

    Question 5 asks what happened to the wings: they disintegrated on impact, which is what you'd expect from aluminium hitting reinforced concrete. It also asks why they caused no damage, which is a particularly stupid question considering they did cause damage, especially closer to the fuselage where most of the fuel was contained, adding mass to their structure.

    Question 7 is even stupider, asking if it's possible to see the precise point of impact, despite the fact that much of the facade of the building is obscured by smoke and fire suppressant.


  • #166
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    sorry, my psychic powers let me down!


    subjective... doesn't give her (claimed) assertions any more weight!!


    where did you see these hundreds of witnesses accounts? reported on mass media perhaps?! and they give examples? you editor friend would be able to show you how clever editing can push an agenda!!!

    Clare guy seriously, look at any photograph of the pentagon's western approach, flight 77 passed so low that it clipped light posts on the road above them. To suggest that the hundreds of motorists on this busy road would have missed a missile, and the plane flying over head is just absurd. Again an analogy. O'Connell bridge on a busy tuesday morning, a passenger plane flies down the liffey, and crashes into the SIPTU building. You think you could fool people into believing what exactly?
    does this prove that other peoples claims, that the pentagon was NOT hit by a passenger jet, are incorrect?!!!

    Who claims that the pentagon wasn't hit by a passenger jet. Which eye witnesses dispute the fact.
    i'm not suggesting anything, i'm wondering if people saw everything in the sky that day?

    What else
    VHS!! Switch tapes!! what age are you? Have you heard of Sky+?? Have you ever heard of a Digital Video Recorder?!! Storage these days is, literally, limitless. Commercial cctv recording is limited by costs. the biggest cost is the recorder. I'm sure governments (particularily the US DOD) are not limited by budgets...



    http://www.dvrsecuritysystems.com/storagecalc.htm

    Sigh. Storage in 2001 wasn't. I work in video post production, back in 2001 500gigs was seen as massive storage, and you'd eat through that in a matter of minutes if you were recording dozens of live feeds at 29.97fps, at full resoultion. Today I'm in (and you can IP check me if you like) I'm sitting at my desk in a company called framestore. One of the largest and best video and visual effects companies in the world. I have a 500 terrabyte server, and even then if I was recording dozens of cameras 24 hours a day at full resolution I'd still eat through that server in matter of days.

    Clare guy you need to prove that the pentagon's security cameras were recording to harddrive in 2001, before I lend credence to your incredibility.
    are you mad? yeah, an armed guard is THE foolproof way of securing a building...

    What would you suggest?
    listen i don't KNOW what hit the pentagon, you don't KNOW what hit the pentagon, diogenes doesn't KNOW what hit the pentagon, i believe something hit it, i believe parts of the government and military were/are complicit in the committing of the crimes AND covering up the truth...

    Tell me Clare guy what would satisfy you as proof flight 77 hit the pentagon?

    See I'm satisfied by the fact that the plane was seen crashing into the pentagon by hundreds of eyewitnesses. The physical evidence created by plane's low flying journey. That within the first few hours hundreds of emergency workers (including firefighters from four different counties, police from four or five agencies, EMT workers, civilians and military personal) they all turned up, saw first hand the wreckage and the bodies of passengers. Are all these people "in on it"

    In fact, I'm going to turn this over to the ever knowledge Mark "Gravy" Roberts. He's compiled a list of witnesses
    136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
    104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

    6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

    26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

    39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

    2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

    7 said it was a Boeing 757.

    8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

    2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

    4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

    10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

    16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

    42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

    2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

    15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

    3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

    3 took photographs of the aftermath.

    Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

    And of course,

    0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

    0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

    Remember those first responders I mentioned?

    Here's a list of the organisations that attended the rescue and clean up. 8,000 people all told;
    Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

    These people picked up body parts and wreckage. Every one of 8,000 in on it.

    Clare guy why don't you make your case for your point of view, what evidence do you have that a missile not United 77 hit the pentagon. Please enlighten us.


  • #167
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There was an act of terrorism committed at the Pentagon. What difference would CCTV have made?
    terrorism is not crime?!!! i'm not saying cctv would've made a difference on the day, i'm saying it would make a difference in proving what exactly happened...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    A passenger jet hit the Pentagon.
    did you see it hit it?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What's your evidence for believing this?
    it's the only logical conclusion..
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What makes you sure?
    i'm a genius...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You talk about "evidence", but don't seem to be interested in looking for any to back up your assertion that there were cameras.
    you show me "evidence" that there wasn't... like i said it's not a huge assumption...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Find me an "unbiased" medium that supports your ideas, and explain to me why I should believe it.
    you can lead a mule to water...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Thank you.
    you're welcome
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm sure they have all sorts of wonderful toys and gadgets. The question is, did they have CCTV watching the Pentagon?
    that is indeed the question..
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, I do. Read what I wrote a few times, the meaning might sink in.
    i've been SPECULATING that they need them for security, in fact, i've been SPECULATING that it's crazy to SPECULATE that they don't have or need them... (my bad, a comma would've helped)
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've been there.
    good for you, me too, i saw 'em
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I didn't see any.
    well if YOU didn't see 'em...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How about you cut out the arm-waving and actually produce some evidence that they had them?
    if i showed you pics of cameras then you'd argue, with diogenes, that they couldn't have caught anything useful....


  • #168
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,032 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    have a look at this... pay particular attention to questions 5 & 7...

    http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

    Same old tired clap-trap.


  • #169
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I know I'll regret being drawn down the blind alley of answering loaded questions based on invalid data, but...

    Question 5 asks what happened to the wings: they disintegrated on impact, which is what you'd expect from aluminium hitting reinforced concrete. It also asks why they caused no damage, which is a particularly stupid question considering they did cause damage, especially closer to the fuselage where most of the fuel was contained, adding mass to their structure.

    Question 7 is even stupider, asking if it's possible to see the precise point of impact, despite the fact that much of the facade of the building is obscured by smoke and fire suppressant.

    it's only obscured for blind people... it's amazing how the planes made holes the full width of their wings in the twin towers...?


  • #170
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    Same old tired clap-trap.

    i'd imagine a sharp fella such as yourself looked at it objectively...


  • #171
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    terrorism is not crime?!!! i'm not saying cctv would've made a difference on the day, i'm saying it would make a difference in proving what exactly happened...
    I doubt it. If a 30fps hi-def video was released clearly showing an American Airlines jet hitting the Pentagon, I expect you'd be questioning the its veracity, just as you're questioning the veracity of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    did you see it hit it?
    No. I also didn't see a 777 land short at Heathrow yesterday, but I have no reason to believe it didn't happen.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    it's the only logical conclusion..
    If you're going to talk about logical conclusions, first you have to use logic.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    you show me "evidence" that there wasn't... like i said it's not a huge assumption...
    Oh dear, fell at the first fence. It's a logical fallacy to ask for proof of a negative. You have no evidence whatsoever that such cameras existed, so why do I have to prove they didn't?
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    that is indeed the question..
    ...to which you've posited an answer, but refused to produce any evidence to back it up.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    i've been SPECULATING that they need them for security, in fact, i've been SPECULATING that it's crazy to SPECULATE that they don't have or need them... (my bad, a comma would've helped)
    And yet, with all the speculation, you've yet to speculate what they actually might need them for.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    good for you, me too, i saw 'em
    Oh good, we're getting somewhere. Take any pictures? Want to describe them and their locations?
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    well if YOU didn't see 'em...
    I'm not saying it's proof there are none. You're claiming to have seen them, so you should be able to describe where they are, and in what direction they were pointing.
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    if i showed you pics of cameras then you'd argue, with diogenes, that they couldn't have caught anything useful....
    Are you going to show pictures of cameras?
    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    it's only obscured for blind people... it's amazing how the planes made holes the full width of their wings in the twin towers...?
    The twin towers were made of steel, not reinforced concrete. Nothing amazing about it at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    Diogenes wrote: »
    Clare guy seriously, look at any photograph of the pentagon's western approach, flight 77 passed so low that it clipped light posts on the road above them. To suggest that the hundreds of motorists on this busy road would have missed a missile, and the plane flying over head is just absurd. Again an analogy. O'Connell bridge on a busy tuesday morning, a passenger plane flies down the liffey, and crashes into the SIPTU building. You think you could fool people into believing what exactly?
    you're missing my point completely, i never said i believed a missile hit the pentagon. i believe something hit it. i don't know what. the most likely is flight 77 i agree, but there are reasonable questions that could be cleared up by cctv footage. there were cctv systems on surrounding buildings that had their recordings seized by cia/nsa/fbi/dod, and i'm certain the pentagon had cctv footage of it's own that could clear up questions...
    Diogenes wrote: »
    Sigh. Storage in 2001 wasn't. I work in video post production, back in 2001 500gigs was seen as massive storage, and you'd eat through that in a matter of minutes if you were recording dozens of live feeds at 29.97fps, at full resoultion. Today I'm in (and you can IP check me if you like) I'm sitting at my desk in a company called framestore. One of the largest and best video and visual effects companies in the world. I have a 500 terrabyte server, and even then if I was recording dozens of cameras 24 hours a day at full resolution I'd still eat through that server in matter of days.

    US government have access to unlimited storage.
    Diogenes wrote: »
    Clare guy you need to prove that the pentagon's security cameras were recording to harddrive in 2001, before I lend credence to your incredibility.

    yeah you're right diogenes, the us military were using vhs in 2001, 3 years after google was founded...:rolleyes:


  • #173
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I doubt it. If a 30fps hi-def video was released clearly showing an American Airlines jet hitting the Pentagon, I expect you'd be questioning the its veracity, just as you're questioning the veracity of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts.
    i'd be delighted to see footage of it, it'd answer my questions. read all my posts, that's exactly what i'm looking for!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No. I also didn't see a 777 land short at Heathrow yesterday, but I have no reason to believe it didn't happen.
    there was footage of the crashed plane on tv and i'm sure the cctv around heathrow would show it too...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you're going to talk about logical conclusions, first you have to use logic.
    so it's logical to assume that some unarmed unqualified saudi guys took control of a modern jet and crashed it into a buliding...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Oh dear, fell at the first fence. It's a logical fallacy to ask for proof of a negative. You have no evidence whatsoever that such cameras existed, so why do I have to prove they didn't? ...to which you've posited an answer, but refused to produce any evidence to back it up.
    here's your proof that there are cctv cameras on/around the pentagon...
    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And yet, with all the speculation, you've yet to speculate what they actually might need them for.
    for god's sake i've SPECULATED umpteen time that they'd need/want them for security!!...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Oh good, we're getting somewhere. Take any pictures? Want to describe them and their locations? I'm not saying it's proof there are none. You're claiming to have seen them, so you should be able to describe where they are, and in what direction they were pointing. Are you going to show pictures of cameras?
    see my link above...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The twin towers were made of steel, not reinforced concrete. Nothing amazing about it at all.

    are you thick? one of the goverments own excuses for the lack of damage is the amount of steel they put into the pentagon when they upgraded it!!!
    i guess they should've used that "special" passenger jet proof steel in the twin towers!??


  • #174
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    a quote from the pentagon by donald rumsfeld on 12th Oct. 2001...

    "It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

    conclusive?... no. interesting?... yes.


  • #175
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The difference is, there is a preponderance of evidence that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, and none - none whatsoever - that a passenger jet didn't.

    not quite none... here's one...

    "It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN.-CNN.COM,


  • #176
    Clare_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Clare_Guy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Are you going to show pictures of cameras?

    here you go...

    http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/video/pent-cams-911.jpg


  • #177
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Look where they're pointing. They'd see nothing. There are photos from the security hut that show a blur and then the impact. That's the only photoage from the pentagon.

    You see, you're over estimating the importance of the Pentagon. It's a fancy office block. You mentioned Fort Knox earlier. Fort Knox is a federal reserve with billions in gold bullion in it. It NEEDS security. An office block doesn't. And if you went over to the US before Sept 11 and told the police that a plane was going to hit the Pentagon, they'd laugh at you. Who the hell would do such an insane thing? It was completely unexpected and that's why there's feck all footage of it. They had no need to protect it like a fortress. Hell, you could get out of a car and walk up to the walls.

    I can't understand why you think there's a conspiracy against you. People saw a plane hit the building. Why is that so hard to believe? A plane hit Tower 1. A plane hit tower 2. Why is it so hard to believe that one hit the Pentagon too? Granted, you're not as bad as the people who go on about space beams holograms, but do you nhot think to yourself that maybe you're clutching at straws? There's no evidence that it was anything but a plane.


  • #178
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Clare_Guy wrote: »
    you're missing my point completely, i never said i believed a missile hit the pentagon. i believe something hit it. i don't know what. the most likely is flight 77 i agree, but there are reasonable questions that could be cleared up by cctv footage.

    Why don't you accept the other evidence, like hundreds of eye witnesses who say that they saw the plane fly into the pentagon. Or do you believe that the Washington Blvd an eight lane highway was deserted at 9:40 on a tuesday morning?

    Furthermore you've yet to prove that there was cctv footage of a "suitable quality" even existed.
    there were cctv systems on surrounding buildings that had their recordings seized by cia/nsa/fbi/dod, and i'm certain the pentagon had cctv footage of it's own that could clear up questions...

    And again you've yet to prove that these and the pentagon footage wasn't at standard low res 5fps onto vhs.

    US government have access to unlimited storage.

    The US government have a system of infinite media storage? Really? You can prove this? And this system existed allowed the US to record an infinte number of video streams to unlimited storage back in 2001?

    Clare guy, I hate to ask you to do something out of character, but I don't suppose you could provide supporting links for your very specific claim in the above post?

    Because I know from experience working at a 24 hr news station, massive international stations cannot provide unlimited storage for even 24 hrs of 12 differen video feeds onto a server. Usually overnight someone needs to arrange for archiving the most important material. Two or Three feeds are dropped to tape.

    Perhaps you could explain where you get information that the pentagon had the ability to store dozens of video feeds to hardrive in 2001?
    yeah you're right diogenes, the us military were using vhs in 2001, 3 years after google was founded...:rolleyes:

    And five and a half years before the creation of google video. Clare guy, again I hate to break it but your entire argument from personal incredibility is going old, fast. Unless you can provide evidence that high resolution hard drive recordings were standard in the US DoD, six years ago this is getting tiresome.

    Oh and also I noticed you avoided the point, what about the hundred or so eyewitnesses who saw and went on the record about the flight flying over them and into the pentagon.

    Oh and my point about the 8,000+ emergency workers from dozens of agencies who were on the scene within minutes, hours and days of the crash. Thousands of men and women who collected wreckage, and body parts.

    Were they in on it?
    here you go...

    http://killtown.911review.org/images...t-cams-911.jpg

    Firstly killtown? Really? Killtown is a vile excuse for a human being who has commited a campaign of harassment and abuse of Val Mc Clatchey who took the infamous photo of the smoke plum from United 93. If you think that a reprenhensible anonymous coward who abuses an innocent woman is an acceptable source, so be it.

    Secondly whats your point? Neither I or anyone else on this thread have ever disputed that there weren't camera on the pentagon. Never. However what you've failed to prove is that cameras aren't fixed, what their focus is, or that these cameras have a 29.97fps rate and were archived to hardrive in 2001. Those are points you need to prove. And citing a contemptable coward like killtown highlights my contempt for your argument.

    Oh and Clare Guy, any chance you'll get round to addressing the Payne Stewart point?
    not quite none... here's one...

    "It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN.-CNN.COM,

    Honestly this is just getting pathetic.

    Clare guy do you know what a simile is?

    Just for those in the cheap seats;
    a simile; a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared, as in “she is like a rose.”

    Secondly Mike Walters isn't an eye witness, he's a tv news correspondent. Y'know one of those guys who work for your supposed "unbiased" (I'm being sarcastic here incase you try and misrepresented me) media. Incidently he was so sick of being misrepresented by the likes of you he recorded this message explicitly refuting conspiracy theorists about his intial report.

    Oh and just to complete the set I've decided I'll post some random links supporting the story that you disagree with I'll add a few each time I post;

    A report into the priests and chaplains who were at the pentagon

    Where they in on it Clare guy?

    Captain Lincoln Lieber, who entered the inferno of the pentagon four times to help people out of the building

    Was he in on it Clare guy?

    What about firefighter Alan Wallace?
    About 9:40, Alan Wallace had finished fixing the foam metering valve on the back of his fire truck parked in the Pentagon fire station and walked to the front of the station. He looked up and saw a jetliner coming straight at him. It was about 25 feet off the ground, no landing wheels visible, a few hundred yards away and closing fast.

    "Runnnnn!" he yelled to a pal. There was no time to look back, barely time to scramble. He made it about 30 feet, heard a terrible roar, felt the heat, and dove underneath a van, skinning his stomach as he slid along the blacktop, sailing under it as though he were riding a luge. The van protected him against burning metal that was flying around.

    Is Alan lying, Clare Guy?

    How about this detailed PDF Clare Guy. It details the complex organisation logistical difficulties and the pain staking detail that went into identifying the passengers on American Airlines flight 77 and the Pentagon Staff who died.

    Did the people who complied this report
    and the staff who did the horrendous work finding and identifying the body parts.

    Well Clare Guy were these people in on it?

    I'm dying to know your answers....


  • #179
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    humanji wrote: »
    Look where they're pointing. They'd see nothing. There are photos from the security hut that show a blur and then the impact. That's the only photoage from the pentagon.

    You see, you're over estimating the importance of the Pentagon. It's a fancy office block

    Incidently during world war 2, several members of congress and senate expressed concern and outrage that the soldiers manning the anti aircraft defenses around the capital building on the roof were not being relieved or given any respite. It had to be quietly pointed out that the "soldiers" manning these "guns" were manniquins "manning" wooden guns.

    These soldiers were for show. For propaganda. The simple truth there, and for the following fifty years was that the atlantic was the most effective barrier protecting the Capital from attack.

    As the cold war grew the US felt the pentagon had only one threat, from nuclear attack. Fighters/convential bombers couldn't breach NORADs "dougnut" outward looking defense, was the convential wisdom.

    The threat was to them external, pentagon security was based on terrorist attacks like OKC bombing, security breaches, and massive CNB attacks. An ariel attack orginating from inside the USA was the stuff of Tom Clancy.


  • #180
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    OK folks , SORRY, I asked about the cameras cos I thought if the Pentagon or any of the other organisations had any method of Proving that a plane hit the buildings then they would be better served by showing it and silencing their critics, what I forgot is that all this shoite distracts from the main point of,

    WHO CONSPIRED TO CRASH THE PLANES INTO BUILDINGS??


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    OK folks , SORRY, I asked about the cameras cos I thought if the Pentagon or any of the other organisations had any method of Proving that a plane hit the buildings then they would be better served by showing it and silencing their critics, what I forgot is that all this shoite distracts from the main point of,

    WHO CONSPIRED TO CRASH THE PLANES INTO BUILDINGS??

    Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Men who have prior to 911 conspired and succeed to attack america, and american interests

    Mahatma this thread was started by someone who claims the US government were capable of the most complex piece of video hoaxing in the history of the most medium. It's been carried by someone who thinks the US government needs to hide video in case it incriminates them because it exposes their lies. There is an essential paradox here one person believes that the US is so omniprescent that they can forge countless video streams at real or near real time. The other, Clare guy, thinks that half a decade on, that the USA has footage of what hit the pentagon but cannot fake credible video footage of this event half a decade later.

    Honestly this is just pathetic. One side of the truth movement is saying the opposite of other. So which is it? Is CB_Brookyln right and the WTC footage is "faked?" If thats so, why isn't there loads of "fake" pentagon footage.?

    Or is CB_Brookyln wrong? And the footage of the WTC is real, then if they release the security booth footage, why is it an "obviously a fake."?

    A better question MC is why don't you believe that Osama and Al Qaeda attacked america on Sept 11th, and what evidence do you have to support this assertion.


Advertisement