3292 replies to this topic

[lliqerty]

frenat, on 07 July 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

This wasn't focused on the building so you last sentence is meaningless.  They may have recorded digitally in 2001 but not for a traffic camera that really wasn't used for security.  Even when it can be rerecorded then you can't keep it and 1 FPS DOES adequately show what it needed to show.  Your whole argument is nothing more than "If I ran the zoo."

Maybe it is to you but I am trying to figure out what that Defense Dept video is about. The money they spend and this is all they come up with... But yes, the camera WAS pointing straight at the building.Why would they want to keep it, for keepsake? They had an automatic loop.

[bee]

frenat, on 07 July 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

What in my post is not true?

I know you are not as innocent as you try to make out to be regarding the surveilance and defence of the US Defence Headquarters (Pentagon)

When the country was under attack and on red alert...

Jeeeeeeezus frenat...what do you think your military are going to be doing when your country is under attack.

Ignoring the Defence Headquarters? I don't think so....


.

[frenat]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Maybe it is to you but I am trying to figure out what that Defense Dept video is about. The money they spend and this is all they come up with... But yes, the camera WAS pointing straight at the building.Why would they want to keep it, for keepsake? They had an automatic loop.

No, the building was in the background.  It was pointed at the traffic.

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

I know you are not as innocent as you try to make out to be regarding the surveilance and defence of the US Defence Headquarters (Pentagon)

When the country was under attack and on red alert...

Jeeeeeeezus frenat...what do you think your military are going to be doing when your country is under attack.

Ignoring the Defence Headquarters? I don't think so....


.

How is a traffic camera ALREADY IN PLACE going to be altered simply because we are under attack?  how does the existence of a 1 FPS camera show the surveillance and defence was being ignored?  Again, what in my post was not true?

Edited by frenat, 07 July 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[bee]

frenat, on 07 July 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

No, the building was in the background.  It was pointed at the traffic.


How is a traffic camera ALREADY IN PLACE going to be altered simply because we are under attack?  Again, what in my post was not true?

please don't play the innocent and try to tell us that the only surveillance of the Pentagon was a crappy cctv traffic camera.

especially when the country was under attack and on red alert.

.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Coffey, on 07 July 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

What part of the Twin towers being able to withstand a plane hitting without falling did you miss?

You mean the "being designed to withstand a 707" aspect? That was explained by MID a few pages back, I think. It's all about energy and velocity.

Edited by 747400, 07 July 2012 - 12:54 PM.

[frenat]

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

please don't play the innocent and try to tell us that the only surveillance of the Pentagon was a crappy cctv traffic camera.

Did I say that?  No.  What I did say is that camera was already in place.  And that it was 1 FPS and adequate for its purpose.  And that a traffic camera is not really designed to protect the secure areas deeper inside the building.  All of that is true.  It is highly possible that the only camera with a view of that area is the one in question.

Should there be more cameras focused on an empty field?  Or at the sky?

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

especially when the country was under attack and on red alert.

.

So because they're under attack they're going to set up new cameras?

Edited by frenat, 07 July 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[lliqerty]

frenat, on 07 July 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

No, the building was in the background.  It was pointed at the traffic.


How is a traffic camera ALREADY IN PLACE going to be altered simply because we are under attack?  how does the existence of a 1 FPS camera show the surveillance and defence was being ignored?  Again, what in my post was not true?

How does it get altered. Lets see. Very complicated. - - "Give me that! I am in charge of it now."

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

please don't play the innocent and try to tell us that the only surveillance of the Pentagon was a crappy cctv traffic camera.

especially when the country was under attack and on red alert.

.

i think it was about 50 minutes from the first plane hitting the WTC to the [real or supposed] attack on the Pentagon. Would they have had time to reconfigure their entire security camera disposition? How could they have done so for it to be any use?

[bee]

frenat, on 07 July 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Did I say that?  No.  What I did say is that camera was already in place.  And that it was 1 FPS and adequate for its purpose.  And that a traffic camera is not really designed to protect the secure areas deeper inside the building.  All of that is true.  It is highly possible that the only camera with a view of that area is the one in question.

Should there be more cameras focused on an empty field?  Or at the sky?

There should be (and logically, of course, was) complete air and ground surveillance of the Pentagon. As a military man, wouldn't you agree?

Quote

So because they're under attack they're going to set up new cameras?

see above....




edit...@747..... the above covers a reply to you as well.....


.

Edited by bee, 07 July 2012 - 01:06 PM.

[lliqerty]

747400, on 07 July 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

You mean the "being designed to withstand a 707" aspect? That was explained by MID a few pages back, I think. It's all about energy and velocity.

Velocity ... momentum ... but wait the momentum did not cause the collapse. The speed of the airplane at the moment of collapse was exactly, zero.

[lliqerty]

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

There should be (and logically, of course, was) complete air and ground surveillance of the Pentagon. As a military man, wouldn't you agree?

http://www.infowars...._stand_down.htm

[frenat]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

How does it get altered. Lets see. Very complicated. - - "Give me that! I am in charge of it now."

Give me that traffic camera that is not being monitored and is physically mounted and incapable of movement?  To look at what?  You do realize that aircraft are not tracked with cameras right?

[frenat]

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

There should be (and logically, of course, was) complete air and ground surveillance of the Pentagon. As a military man, wouldn't you agree?





see above....




edit...@747..... the above covers a reply to you as well.....


.

Same question as for lliqerty, you do realize that aircraft are not tracked with cameras right?  I have NOT said there were not other cameras.  Given the FACT that the building is primarily an office building with the secure areas much deeper inside I see no reason to have excess cameras on the outside of the building.  That is based on my experience as a military man who speciallized in ISR.

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

http://www.infowars...._stand_down.htm

http://www.911myths.....php/Stand_Down

Edited by frenat, 07 July 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

MID

My apology for not being able to provide a link, but a few months ago I saw a short film from way back in the 60's.  It was a crash test, probably the military, and it was being filmed professionally.

Lockheed Constellation aircraft was crashed, maybe from high speed taxi and not from flight.  Can't remember exactly.

What happened though, very clearly, was that one or both of the wings were cleanly cut by a wooden light or telephone pole that was standing in the impact zone.  Guessing the speed was maybe 60-80 knots, straight line vector, on the ground, and the right wing (maybe both) was severed cleanly by a wooden light pole.

Imagine, if you need to, what structural steel would do to that Constellation wing.

I don't need to imagine it, because I have seen quite a few times the damage done to wings by steel hangar structure.

The claim that the aluminum fuselage parts could sever the structural steel members of WTC is specious.

Yet some people actually embrace the idea as valid.

[bee]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

http://www.infowars...._stand_down.htm

from your link.....

Quote

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?

Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, "When I overheard something about 'the orders still stand' and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down."

my Cover Up Theory....would contend that this may have been when the order to take flight 77 by remote control over the Atlantic and shoot it down...was made...

and confirmation that the orders to do that still stood.

.