Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... There are dozens of security cameras around the pentagon. You're claiming none of them actually face the building itself? (apart from the one which only took 5 frames, none of which showing a plane?) Just to point out (for Renton mainly) that I'm not ignoring your answer, I just don't see how it's accurate? Do you have plans of the field and angle of view of all cameras at the impact site? Do you have an accurate estimate of the speed and angle of descent of the plane? Do you have any knowledge of the frames per second of said cameras? Based on this information, do you have an estimate of how much footage should theoretically be available, but is being withheld? I am pretty sure I have seen some amateur footage as well as frames from the Pentagon I'd love for you to post the amateur footage showing the plane, as the rest of the world hasn't seen it. I'll await your post with anticipation. As I said, I am pretty sure. I saw it on TV years ago. How do you expect me to find it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site? what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ?? Between 350mph and 400mph. It's impossible to know whether any plane would vanish into thin air after hitting the pentagon though, as it's never been done before. It vanished? That's your assertion? There was no debris at all? Do you have a source for this fact? Nothing from a 757 was found, particularly the engine or the black box flight recorder. You want me to prove what "wasn't" found rather than you having to prove what was? That's a good one mate, nicely done. Your whole argument of "it must have happened because you can't prove otherwise" is frankly like burying your head in the sand. As I said, how come the rest of the world hasn't seen the footage of the plane hitting the building, as you claim? Surely it should be on the internet, as it proves the US government are right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site? what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ?? Between 350mph and 400mph. It's impossible to know whether any plane would vanish into thin air after hitting the pentagon though, as it's never been done before. It vanished? That's your assertion? There was no debris at all? Do you have a source for this fact? Nothing from a 757 was found, particularly the engine or the black box flight recorder. You want me to prove what "wasn't" found rather than you having to prove what was? That's a good one mate, nicely done. Your whole argument of "it must have happened because you can't prove otherwise" is frankly like burying your head in the sand. As I said, how come the rest of the world hasn't seen the footage of the plane hitting the building, as you claim? Surely it should be on the internet, as it proves the US government are right? Do you want me to explain what pretty sure means? I'm damned if I'm going to explain the absence of third party evidence for a memory I formed years ago. Once agin, you are simpliying my point. I am neither saying it was a missile or a plane or a flying elephant (if you don't believe me about footage, and insist all evidence vanished). I am saying you have no basis to tell anyone what damage the impact of a jet liner into the Pentagon would do, or what evidence it may or may not leave, as it is a completely unique event. You show me an even remotely similar event and I will retract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? Can't work out your argument here. The only footage released shows EXACTLY the view you talk about, without showing the plane hit. How come it's the ONLY camera giving that sort of view? What was the purpose of the camera in the first place, and how come there isn't one further around? There are cameras pointing directly at the pentagon, this being one of them: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site? what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ?? Between 350mph and 400mph. It's impossible to know whether any plane would vanish into thin air after hitting the pentagon though, as it's never been done before. It vanished? That's your assertion? There was no debris at all? Do you have a source for this fact? Nothing from a 757 was found, particularly the engine or the black box flight recorder. You want me to prove what "wasn't" found rather than you having to prove what was? That's a good one mate, nicely done. Your whole argument of "it must have happened because you can't prove otherwise" is frankly like burying your head in the sand. As I said, how come the rest of the world hasn't seen the footage of the plane hitting the building, as you claim? Surely it should be on the internet, as it proves the US government are right? Do you want me to explain what pretty sure means? I'm damned if I'm going to explain the absence of third party evidence for a memory I formed years ago. Once agin, you are simpliying my point. I am neither saying it was a missile or a plane or a flying elephant (if you don't believe me about footage, and insist all evidence vanished). I am saying you have no basis to tell anyone what damage the impact of a jet liner into the Pentagon would do, or what evidence it may or may not leave, as it is a completely unique event. You show me an even remotely similar event and I will retract. I'm not asking you to explain anything. I'm putting my point of view across that there is little evidence that any of the damage to the pentagon was caused by a 757. I don't have to prove what actually hit it, much as you don't have to prove it was indeed the 757. I'm surely allowed to question the very limited evidence put forward, right? I'm pretty sure I saw footage of it being a missile. It was a few years back like.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15870 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 "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 filed 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." Donald Rumsfeld answering Parade Magazine reporter Lyric Wallwork Winik in Pentagon Press Conference Oct.12, 2001. (Posted on the Pentagon website) ....even Donnie can't remember what version of the story he is telling... Is it inconceivable that the word missile could be used to refer to an airliner being flown on a one way kamikaze course into a target? Or am I just way off here? Absolutely, the word can refer to any projectile aimed with intent to damage. Of course I assume (i.e. hope) Parky was just being awkward there. Do you think Rumsfeld would have said plane, if it was a plane? He seemed quite specific in the previous sentence. tbh, it's purely speculation, but wouldn't he actually have said: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and then flying them into this building and the World Trade Center" Doesn't that actually make a lot more sense? I'll ask you the same question. Do you believe the story put to you by the US Government regarding 9/11? Whoa there tiger, I don't have any particular opinion either way! I'm just a language pedant. You know, concentrating on the important things in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22412 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 (edited) Was gonna respond until I saw that. Patronising wanker you are sir. How did people on the plane use mobile phones by the way? Can't see that on snopes. Great. So I throw in an off the cuff comment and you use that as an excuse to avoid answering any of my questions. If you change your mind, here they are (not sure what your mobile phone comment is about btw): You believe the guy I saw on TV about two hours after the evenet was not an AA captain but a plant? What happened to the plane? Where are the passengers? Why would "they" not use the plane as a weapon? Why go to the extraordinary lengh and risks of using a missile? Presuming "they" are the ruling force in America, do you really think it is plausible they would fire a missile at the headquarters of their defence? If the motive was to invade Iraq, why were the patsies Saudi? Edited February 20, 2007 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? How about the camera angle from the photo I posted? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there? Have you seen the footage from the twin towers, recorded on camera phones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site? what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ?? Between 350mph and 400mph. It's impossible to know whether any plane would vanish into thin air after hitting the pentagon though, as it's never been done before. It vanished? That's your assertion? There was no debris at all? Do you have a source for this fact? Nothing from a 757 was found, particularly the engine or the black box flight recorder. You want me to prove what "wasn't" found rather than you having to prove what was? That's a good one mate, nicely done. Your whole argument of "it must have happened because you can't prove otherwise" is frankly like burying your head in the sand. As I said, how come the rest of the world hasn't seen the footage of the plane hitting the building, as you claim? Surely it should be on the internet, as it proves the US government are right? Do you want me to explain what pretty sure means? I'm damned if I'm going to explain the absence of third party evidence for a memory I formed years ago. Once agin, you are simpliying my point. I am neither saying it was a missile or a plane or a flying elephant (if you don't believe me about footage, and insist all evidence vanished). I am saying you have no basis to tell anyone what damage the impact of a jet liner into the Pentagon would do, or what evidence it may or may not leave, as it is a completely unique event. You show me an even remotely similar event and I will retract. I'm not asking you to explain anything. I'm putting my point of view across that there is little evidence that any of the damage to the pentagon was caused by a 757. I don't have to prove what actually hit it, much as you don't have to prove it was indeed the 757. I'm surely allowed to question the very limited evidence put forward, right? I'm pretty sure I saw footage of it being a missile. It was a few years back like.... Exactly. Endless questions with no demonstrable alternative theories. Story of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there? Are you saying you honestly think that none of the camera's monitoring the Pentagon would have picked up any evidence of an aircraft ?? I've not seen any pictures that catagorically prove that 757 hit that building. OK, camera phone's maybe I'll conceed that one, but the chances of not one person filming an aircraft heading towards the Pentagon are just daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Was gonna respond until I saw that. Patronising wanker you are sir. How did people on the plane use mobile phones by the way? Can't see that on snopes. Great. So I throw in an off the cuff comment and you use that as an excuse to avoid answering any of my questions. If you change your mind, here they are (not sure what your mobile phone comment is about btw): You believe the guy I saw on TV about two hours after the evenet was not an AA captain but a plant? Plenty of people on the news gave false evidence, and then changed their stories. Why? Plenty of people give different accounts for what happened? Why? Who's to say he isn't a plant? What happened to the plane? Where are the passengers? Very good question. I've never even seen a list of passengers who "boarded" the flight, have you? Why would "they" not use the plane as a weapon? Why go to the extraordinary lengh and risks of using a missile? They could indeed use a plane. But it's highly unlikely, and would need an extremely skilled pilot to crash a 757 exactly where it crashed. If they missed the building with the plane, that's a hell of a lot to cover up, don't you think? Presuming "they" are the ruling force in America, do you really think it is plausible they would fire a missile at the headquarters of their defence? Yes, why not? If the motive was to invade Iraq, why were the patsies Saudi? I've never claimed that was the direct motive. However, it did start the "war on terror" didn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Exactly. Endless questions with no demonstrable alternative theories. Story of this thread. The theories put forward are as likely as the "theory" put out by the US goverment. We unfortuntely don't have access to "evidence" which could either back it up or disprove it. However, the US government does have this evidence, yet chooses to not disclose a lot of it. Why is it impossible to debate things like this without certain people (mainly Renton, for a change like) becoming arsey and calling everyone else idiots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Was gonna respond until I saw that. Patronising wanker you are sir. How did people on the plane use mobile phones by the way? Can't see that on snopes. Great. So I throw in an off the cuff comment and you use that as an excuse to avoid answering any of my questions. If you change your mind, here they are (not sure what your mobile phone comment is about btw): You believe the guy I saw on TV about two hours after the evenet was not an AA captain but a plant? What happened to the plane? Where are the passengers? Why would "they" not use the plane as a weapon? Why go to the extraordinary lengh and risks of using a missile? Presuming "they" are the ruling force in America, do you really think it is plausible they would fire a missile at the headquarters of their defence? If the motive was to invade Iraq, why were the patsies Saudi? Sorry, the mobile phone comment is just another hole in the whole theory. They've released so many of these mobile phone conversations from passengers on the plane, which are crystal clear. How come the airline have now gone to effort of installing systems which allow people to call from their mobile phones, if it was already possible to do 6 years ago anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? How about the camera angle from the photo I posted? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there? Have you seen the footage from the twin towers, recorded on camera phones? How about the camera angle from the photo I posted? From the photo you provided? You know for sure you could plot a plane shadow from that view? Are those weather conditions the same as the impact day? ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...nt_wreckage.jpg http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1...c-highlight.jpg http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...or_of_slats.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...ay06/112as1.jpg recorded on camera phones do you really want to get into what I do and do not remember again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22412 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Are you saying you honestly think that none of the camera's monitoring the Pentagon would have picked up any evidence of an aircraft ?? I've not seen any pictures that catagorically prove that 757 hit that building. OK, camera phone's maybe I'll conceed that one, but the chances of not one person filming an aircraft heading towards the Pentagon are just daft. The pentagon is hardly a tourist attraction so I'm not sure the lack of photographs from the general public is remotely surprising. As for security cameras, who knows? Maybe they have footage which they aren't releasing for some reason. Maybe the one or two cameras that were orientated the right way weren't working? The official story is still easily the most plausible though, bearing in mind a 757 plane went missing that day, and, correct me if I'm wrong, was seen (on radar) as disappearing in the vicinity of the Pentagon by flight control, after being reported hijacked. What do you think happened to the plane? How much are all these eye witnesses getting paid? Are flight control in on it? The media? Expert structural engineers and materials scientists? If so, can you give me a remotely plausible motive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there? Are you saying you honestly think that none of the camera's monitoring the Pentagon would have picked up any evidence of an aircraft ?? I've not seen any pictures that catagorically prove that 757 hit that building. OK, camera phone's maybe I'll conceed that one, but the chances of not one person filming an aircraft heading towards the Pentagon are just daft. Well of course there was the security footage confiscated from the petrol station and the Hotel. Pesky cameras probably saw everythig....Better get all the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Was gonna respond until I saw that. Patronising wanker you are sir. How did people on the plane use mobile phones by the way? Can't see that on snopes. Great. So I throw in an off the cuff comment and you use that as an excuse to avoid answering any of my questions. If you change your mind, here they are (not sure what your mobile phone comment is about btw): You believe the guy I saw on TV about two hours after the evenet was not an AA captain but a plant? What happened to the plane? Where are the passengers? Why would "they" not use the plane as a weapon? Why go to the extraordinary lengh and risks of using a missile? Presuming "they" are the ruling force in America, do you really think it is plausible they would fire a missile at the headquarters of their defence? If the motive was to invade Iraq, why were the patsies Saudi? Sorry, the mobile phone comment is just another hole in the whole theory. They've released so many of these mobile phone conversations from passengers on the plane, which are crystal clear. How come the airline have now gone to effort of installing systems which allow people to call from their mobile phones, if it was already possible to do 6 years ago anyway? ........not to mention the issue of cascading from transmitter to transmitter which would take networks out of action.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 From the photo you provided? You know for sure you could plot a plane shadow from that view? Are those weather conditions the same as the impact day? ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...nt_wreckage.jpg http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1...c-highlight.jpg http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...or_of_slats.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...ay06/112as1.jpg recorded on camera phones do you really want to get into what I do and do not remember again? Weather conditions looks similar yes. I don't see why we would need to look for a shadow, when that camera would show the plane in real time. How come that footage was confiscated? And no, I don't want to get into what you can and can't remember, as it seems it's an argument winner for you. You don't have to prove anything, as long as you remember it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 From the photo you provided? You know for sure you could plot a plane shadow from that view? Are those weather conditions the same as the impact day? ONE picture of debris, not even from the right plane according to experts http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...nt_wreckage.jpg http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1...c-highlight.jpg http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...or_of_slats.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...ay06/112as1.jpg recorded on camera phones do you really want to get into what I do and do not remember again? Weather conditions looks similar yes. I don't see why we would need to look for a shadow, when that camera would show the plane in real time. How come that footage was confiscated? And no, I don't want to get into what you can and can't remember, as it seems it's an argument winner for you. You don't have to prove anything, as long as you remember it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Isn't it about time the US government release all of the footage from the cameras around the pentagon? That'll kill the conspiracy theorists off The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there? Are you saying you honestly think that none of the camera's monitoring the Pentagon would have picked up any evidence of an aircraft ?? There are frames, but as I have pointed out, these would be few and far between. The assertion there should be over 10 seconds of seamless footage from multiple angles is doubtfull. I've not seen any pictures that catagorically prove that 757 hit that building. Again, what are you expecting to see?, and based on what assertions? Show me a realisitc similar event. None exists that are even close. OK, camera phone's maybe I'll conceed that one, but the chances of not one person filming an aircraft heading towards the Pentagon are just daft. Totally impossible? I have no idea what the area is made up of around the Pentagon. Is it totally implausible theat no footage was taken? (again, ignoring my claim based on purlely my memory to have seen some years ago) It is these sorts of claims of refuting an event happened because you have never seen any evidence for it (not you in particular, but in this post generally), as if at the stroke of a key you searched the entire world for clues and found nothing, that I find perplexing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can I just say, that seeing as Parky influenced this thread, I officially hate him. Had a huge debate about religion at work, and wanted to come home to some peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can I just say, that seeing as Parky influenced this thread, I officially hate him. Had a huge debate about religion at work, and wanted to come home to some peace ......technically the blame lies with Renton.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now