3292 replies to this topic

[frenat]

bee, on 01 October 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

cheers....it's painfully and logically obvious that the Pentagon would have visual, ongoing surveillance all around it.



IF there is a proper image or short piece of footage showing Flight 77 hitting the building...then it beggars belief that it isn't

made public....especially as this failure to provide it fuels the Inside Job Conspiracy theory...

So we can only conclude that the said footage doesn't exist and there is a(nother) question mark about Flight 77 actually smashing into the building.

(no matter how many alleged 'eye witnesses' they wheeled out.)...

Oh goody!  Yet another person who thinks the Pentagon should be like their local Walmart!  Just what good would cameras pointed at an empty field do anyway?  Especially when there are armed guards already on the premises?  Do they need to watch the cash registers?  Oh wait, that Walmart again.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

No explanation for explosions in the basement just seconds before the impact, ....

The reason why there is no explanation for an explosion  in the basement is because there was no explosion in the basement.

Quote

no explanation for absence of necessary aircraft debris at the Pentagon,

Of course there is explanation for B-757 wreckage at the Pentagon because that is where American 77 slammed into the Pentagon. Remember, you have admitted to having fun being dishonest and your post is just another example.

Other examples are where you claimed that no Boeing was involved and then, claim that American 77 passed north of the  gas station and not to forget that you threw in a P700 anti-ship missile.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 October 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[skyeagle409]

bee, on 01 October 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

cheers....it's painfully and logically obvious that the Pentagon would have visual, ongoing surveillance all around it.

Yes indeed, but it is not prudent to advertise the full potent of your surveillance capabilities to your enemies and potential enemies on the Internet.

[bee]

frenat, on 01 October 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Oh goody!  Yet another person who thinks the Pentagon should be like their local Walmart!  Just what good would cameras pointed at an empty field do anyway?  Especially when there are armed guards already on the premises?  Do they need to watch the cash registers?  Oh wait, that Walmart again.

ground hog day......


ok......lets imagine something 'happened' around the Pentagon (and/or immediate area)....it doesn't even have to be 9/11.

There's an incident that is of concern to  Pentagon Security...I presume you admit that the Defense Headquarters

and Command Centre HAS it's own security?

So the incident is investigated....

Someone Important says...lets take a closer look and see who was involved and exactly what happened....

Someone else says.......sorry we can't do that....we don't have any surveillance.

Someone Important replies......oh dear that's a shame......never mind.





.

[bee]

skyeagle409, on 01 October 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Yes indeed, but it is not prudent to advertise the full potent of your surveillance capabilities to your enemies and potential enemies on the Internet.

Sky....we're only talking about one proper photo or short piece of footage....not a detailed report of all the surveillance capabilities.

And with the figures on the pie -chart you posted earlier....where only 46% believe Al Qaeda 'did it'.....America's enemies on the internet

are having a field day.....and making a real impression on public perception....re 9/11.

Failure to provide the visual proof is helping to fuel the belief that it was an Inside Job and that the US government (or parts of it..plus

many many collaborators) committed mass murder and high treason against it's own people.

It's a corrosive situation....in terms of World Politics...


edit to say....but if visual proof doesn't exist...then of course it can't be provided anyway....


. .

Edited by bee, 01 October 2012 - 02:56 PM.

[bee]

Czero 101, on 30 September 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

Poor baby...

Come back when you've put on your big boy pants and are prepared to not only discuss the topic rationally, but are prepared to defend your position with actual evidence like most of the grown ups here do.

I was  saying more or less the same thing to Iron_Lotus only the other day.....

Except I wasn't so harsh about it....


.

[frenat]

bee, on 01 October 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

ground hog day......


ok......lets imagine something 'happened' around the Pentagon (and/or immediate area)....it doesn't even have to be 9/11.

There's an incident that is of concern to  Pentagon Security...I presume you admit that the Defense Headquarters

and Command Centre HAS it's own security?

So the incident is investigated....

Someone Important says...lets take a closer look and see who was involved and exactly what happened....

Someone else says.......sorry we can't do that....we don't have any surveillance.

Someone Important replies......oh dear that's a shame......never mind.





.

Or in reality, they had guards there that saw what happened and nothing happened in an empty field and the secure areas deep inside the building where the majority of cameras are were never in any danger.  Your "someone important" would know where the cameras were and wouldn't ask a stupid question to start with.  Even IF they had hundreds more cameras (and of course the expense of installing operating and monitoring them) there would STILL be unmonitored areas and STILL a possibility for your lame imagined scenario.  In reality they have cameras at secure areas and other security methods that are far more effective than cameras covering everything else.
Just because you THINK they should have cameras covering every square inch for some wildly imagined scenario, doesn't mean they do.  Reality is not defined by your lack of comprehension.

[bee]

frenat, on 01 October 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Reality is not defined by your lack of comprehension.

readers of this thread will be the judge of who is lacking in comprehension......

and I'm quietly confident that out of the two of us, they won't think it's me.....




.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 01 October 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

readers of this thread will be the judge of who is lacking in comprehension......

and I'm quietly confident that out of the two of us, they won't think it's me.....




.

I'm not going to say that you lack comprehension bee, but you do seem to make a lot of assumptions about these supposed cameras that you think should have been there recording everything.

[frenat]

bee, on 01 October 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

readers of this thread will be the judge of who is lacking in comprehension......

and I'm quietly confident that out of the two of us, they won't think it's me.....




.

Says the person who after it was explained multiple times why cameras are not the preferred security choice still thinks there should have been more.  I've been involved with military, seen the security available.  How much involvment have you had?  What TV shows were they?  

[flyingswan]

bee, on 01 October 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

readers of this thread will be the judge of who is lacking in comprehension......

and I'm quietly confident that out of the two of us, they won't think it's me.....

If we're taking a vote, add a third to Boony and frenat.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 01 October 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

I'm not going to say that you lack comprehension bee, but you do seem to make a lot of assumptions about these supposed cameras that you think should have been there recording everything.

booN.....thanks for the first bit,,,,but....I would call it Common Sense....not just assumptions.

frenat, on 01 October 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Says the person who after it was explained multiple times why cameras are not the preferred security choice still thinks there should have been more.  I've been involved with military, seen the security available.  How much involvment have you had?  What TV shows were they?  

I hope you weren't involved in defense decisions......

And I'm sorry...but I just don't believe you about the cameras.....so it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.

But you can have the last word in this little exchange......and I won't reply to your next comment if there is one......

Go on.....go for it.....



.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 01 October 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

booN.....thanks for the first bit,,,,but....I would call it Common Sense....not just assumptions.


.

Actually, I'm afraid it is just assumptions bee.  You think they would have had more cameras based on what you believe should be standard security precautions.  This is nothing but assumptions.

[skyeagle409]

bee, on 01 October 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Sky....we're only talking about one proper photo or short piece of footage....not a detailed report of all the surveillance capabilities.

That one image taken from the footage depicts a B-757 in the background. On another note, how many air disasters are supported by video evidence? How are details of an accident determined when video evidence is not available?

Quote

And with the figures on the pie -chart you posted earlier....where only 46% believe Al Qaeda 'did it'.....America's enemies on the internet are having a field day.....and making a real impression on public perception....re 9/11.

It has been more than 11 years and yet,  not one piece of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government in the 9/11 attacks, and now, there are 9/11 conspiracist who are claiming that no aircraft were involved. There was no way the U.S. government could have pulled off a 9/11-style operation and not get caught.

Taking a look back, how long did it take to reveal details of the Watergate scandal?  

Quote

Failure to provide the visual proof is helping to fuel the belief that it was an Inside Job and that the US government (or parts of it..plus many many collaborators) committed mass murder and high treason against it's own people. It's a corrosive situation....in terms of World Politics...

edit to say....but if visual proof doesn't exist...then of course it can't be provided anyway....

Those who are fueling a government conspiracy are doing so  out of pure ignorance. After all, look how fast their claims have been debunked. For an example.

1. 9/11 conspiracist claimed that United 93, a B-757, landed in Cleveland. It was determined the aircraft they confused as United 93, was a Delta Airlines, B-767.

2. Passengers of United 93 in Cleveland were bused to an unknown location, when in fact, the passengers they confused as those from United 93, were scientist who arrived on a KC-135.

3. 9/11 conspiracist claimed that a photo depicts molten steel, when in fact, they were duped by a doctored photo of a reflection from a flashlight they said was molten steel.

4. American 77 passed north of the gas station when in fact, the path of destruction leading to, and inside the Pentagon, proved beyond any doubt American 77 passed south of the gas station.

5. They claimed that a modified pod is depicted on United 175 when in fact, they confused fairings and gear doors on United 175, which are standard on all B-767s.

6. Molten steel is see flowing from one of the WTC buildings when it fact, the cooling silvery droplets were not indicative of molten steel. This photo is an aluminum droplet from an aircraft incident which I witnessed at Travis AFB.



You can see the similar silvery droplets at the bottom of this photo.



I was standing not far from where this photo was taken.



7. 9/11 conspiracist have said that debris from United 93 was found up to 8 miles away is proof that United 93 was shot down. Not true at all because light weight debris can be expected to be found far from a crash site. After all, debris from the wreckage of PSA 1771 was found up to  8 miles away from that crash site in California.

8. 9/11 conspiracist have said that turning off the transponder will make an aircraft invisible on radar. Nothing can be further from the truth and turning off the transponder just make an aircraft very difficult to track, not make it invisible. Even the F-117 stealth fighter was not totally invisible on radar.

The list goes on and on.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 October 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[Czero 101]

flyingswan, on 01 October 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

If we're taking a vote, add a third to Boony and frenat.

And a fourth.





Cz