List your inside job proof [Archive]

Zlaya

11th December 2007, 07:13 PM

LOL why are only debunkers replying to this question? Its a good question OP, too bad it has 'yet again' been soiled by your other peers who can't keep their mouths closed for two minutes...

Here's my piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Ready?

Well, i'll give you 3, just for hell of it, so that you can get all bent out of shape and quote reply to my every sentence, instead of considering the whole thing. Oh yea, when the debunkers reply, please don't forget to put that 'tantrum' images that you love to use so much.

Anyways, here you go:

1. Sibel Edmonds gag. Let's hear what she has to say...
2. Originally, Kissinger was going to head the commission. This was, thank god, outrageous enough for the Jersey girls, so Kissinger was replaced with another Neoconservative insider, who coincidentally is a man who often works on "public myths". What a perfect replacement! Who better be in charge of chosing what makes it into the report (thousands of pages of useless sap, hatefull baseless claims, and anti muslim propaganda), and what is excluded (sibel edmonds, building 7, norman mineta, willie rodriguez, firemen testimonies on explosions...)
2. An object hit the Pentagon. We don't know what object, since the Powers that Be refuse to release a clear shot of the event. We all know that Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, and showing a clear shot of the event really should not be a problem. This fact, coupled with the obvious dump into the memory hole of Norman Mineta's testimony and the consequent fact that Cheney was in the bunker at 9:30, before pentagon was hit (giving that "have you heard anything to the contrary" statement), while the official report states that he was in the bunker only at 10 AM, is one of the clearest signs of cover-up and distortion. Mineta testimony tells us that Cheney was in the bunker before the pentagon was struck.

Did you hear what i said, PENTAGON WAS STRUCK, and no one had any idea that it was coming, and no one was fired, instead, people in charge were promoted.

Are you kidding me? Like, how stupid do you have to be to buy just that one facet of 9/11? Pentagon was struck! This is not your neighbourhood wal mart, this is the Penta-freaking-gon.

HAHA!

defaultdotxbe

11th December 2007, 07:18 PM

i must say im disappointed, your "proof" is nothing more than speculation, and not even good speculation

PhantomWolf

11th December 2007, 07:19 PM

i must say im disappointed, your "proof" is nothing more than speculation, and not even good speculation

Dang you beat me, but I was going to say handwaving and assumptions, and not very good handwaving and assumptions at that.

T.A.M.

11th December 2007, 07:19 PM

"speculation" is the Simon Peter of the church of 9/11 Woo.

TAM:)

dbalsdon

11th December 2007, 07:20 PM

We all know that Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, and showing a clear shot of the event really should not be a problem.

Yeah, the pentagon is surrounded by cameras.... now. It wasn't back then (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary) Scroll down to about a third of the page down, and read the statement from the pentagon employee.

T.A.M.

11th December 2007, 07:23 PM

I am guessing that most of the "Pentagon Cameras", how ever many there may or may not have been, would have been located ON the Pentagon. Hence, I am also guessing that most of them would have been pointed away from the building they were located on, looking about the grounds surrounding the building.

Just a guess of course.

TAM;)

pomeroo

11th December 2007, 07:23 PM

LOL why are only debunkers replying to this question? Its a good question OP, too bad it has 'yet again' been soiled by your other peers who can't keep their mouths closed for two minutes...

Here's my piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Ready?

Well, i'll give you 3, just for hell of it, so that you can get all bent out of shape and quote reply to my every sentence, instead of considering the whole thing. Oh yea, when the debunkers reply, please don't forget to put that 'tantrum' images that you love to use so much.

Anyways, here you go:

1. Sibel Edmonds gag. Let's hear what she has to say...
2. Originally, Kissinger was going to head the commission. This was, thank god, outrageous enough for the Jersey girls, so Kissinger was replaced with another Neoconservative insider, who coincidentally is a man who often works on "public myths". What a perfect replacement! Who better be in charge of chosing what makes it into the report (thousands of pages of useless sap, hatefull baseless claims, and anti muslim propaganda), and what is excluded (sibel edmonds, building 7, norman mineta, willie rodriguez, firemen testimonies on explosions...)
2. An object hit the Pentagon. We don't know what object, since the Powers that Be refuse to release a clear shot of the event. We all know that Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, and showing a clear shot of the event really should not be a problem. This fact, coupled with the obvious dump into the memory hole of Norman Mineta's testimony and the consequent fact that Cheney was in the bunker at 9:30, before pentagon was hit (giving that "have you heard anything to the contrary" statement), while the official report states that he was in the bunker only at 10 AM, is one of the clearest signs of cover-up and distortion. Mineta testimony tells us that Cheney was in the bunker before the pentagon was struck.

Did you hear what i said, PENTAGON WAS STRUCK, and no one had any idea that it was coming.

Are you kidding me? Like, how stupid do you have to be to buy just that one facet of 9/11? Pentagon was struck!

HAHA!

Hey, you're good!

Sigh.

Sibel Edmonds is not a twoofer.

Henry Kissinger has absolutely no relevance to your fantasies about an imaginary, mathematically impossible conspiracy.

Seriously, how many times do you want to run through the Mineta drill? I mean, when do you throw in the towel?
Mineta's timeline, as proved by ALL other testimonies and the phone logs, was off by at least a half-hour. Mineta has no idea that deranged conspiracy liars have fabricated a controversy over his remarks.

EITHER CHENEY WAS CONFIRMING THAT THE SHOOTDOWN ORDERS STOOD OR HE WAS CONFESSING PUBLICLY TO A MONSTROUS CRIME.

NOT A SINGLE REPORTER FOR ANY NEWS SERVICE IN THE WORLD FOUND A STORY HERE.

MINETA WAS NOT ASKED IF HE UNDERSTOOD THE VICE-PRESIDENT TO BE ANNOUNCING THAT A HIJACKED PLANE WOULD PERMITTED TO CRASH INTO A GOVERNMENT BUILDING.

All of the myths promoted by the fantasy movement are baseless and silly, but this one is right up there with "pull it.'

stateofgrace

11th December 2007, 07:25 PM

2. An object hit the Pentagon. We don't know what object,

Did you hear what i said, PENTAGON WAS STRUCK, and no one had any idea that it was coming, and no one was fired, instead, people in charge were promoted.

Are you kidding me? Like, how stupid do you have to be to buy just that one facet of 9/11? Pentagon was struck! This is not your neighbourhood wal mart, this is the Penta-freaking-gon.

HAHA!

Indeed

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) responded to the tragic events of September 11 by providing a multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel to the Dover Air Force Base morgue. This team conducted one of the most comprehensive forensic investigations in U.S. history

Our success in identifying 184 Pentagon victims

Oh read it yourself, stop making people do it for you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200209/ai_n9086520

OldTigerCub

11th December 2007, 07:51 PM

2. An object hit the Pentagon. We don't know what object, since the Powers that Be refuse to release a clear shot of the event.
A clear shot of the moment of impact is irrelevant, since all of the wreckage found at the site was positively identified, all of the victims from Flight 77 were positively identified, eyewitnesses testified to witnessing a large commercial aircraft crashing into the Pentagon and hundreds of pictures are on file from government, media and private sources documenting the aftermath.
A clear still picture could not be expected, as well, due to the nature of video surveillance equipment and the way that it works. Most video surveillance cameras have a scan rate that could not capture a whole frame in the time that it would take for a fast moving object to move across the field of view, usually 60 frames per second. Most video recording equipment is set to conserve tape or disk space by capturing frames at a much lower rate...typically 1 - 5 frames per second. To do otherwise would require extremely high speed film or video equipment, the kind used for sporting events, scientific studies or movie special effects. On the other side of the equation, having such video equipment or film cameras running and pointed at the impact point would most likely suggest a staged event.

We all know that Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, and showing a clear shot of the event really should not be a problem.
Regardless of how many cameras there are, they are still unlikely to be capable of capturing high speed events in detail....see above.

This fact, coupled with the obvious dump into the memory hole of Norman Mineta's testimony and the consequent fact that Cheney was in the bunker at 9:30, before pentagon was hit (giving that "have you heard anything to the contrary" statement), while the official report states that he was in the bunker only at 10 AM, is one of the clearest signs of cover-up and distortion. Mineta testimony tells us that Cheney was in the bunker before the pentagon was struck.

Almost everyone in Washington (and many other places) was headed for safety after the 2nd WTC tower was hit. Noone knew what the next target was, so exactly when Cheney arrived in the bunker is irrelevant to the challenge of what hit the Pentagon.A mistake in the times reported is always a possibility when all hell is breaking loose around you. I, for one, would not be checking my watch every 5 minutes if I knew my city was under attack.

CHF

11th December 2007, 07:55 PM

An object hit the Pentagon. We don't know what object, since the Powers that Be refuse to release a clear shot of the event.

That's what passes as "proof" in Twooferland?

Normal Dude

11th December 2007, 07:59 PM

Are you kidding me? Like, how stupid do you have to be to buy just that one facet of 9/11?

Like, how stupid do you have to be to number your own points wrong?

bynmdsue

11th December 2007, 08:23 PM

Well, i'll give you 3, just for hell of it...

1. Sibel Edmonds gag. Let's hear what she has to say...

2. Originally, Kissinger was going to head the commission. This was, thank god, outrageous enough for the Jersey girls, so Kissinger was replaced with another Neoconservative insider, who coincidentally is a man who often works on "public myths". What a perfect replacement! Who better be in charge of chosing what makes it into the report (thousands of pages of useless sap, hatefull baseless claims, and anti muslim propaganda), and what is excluded (sibel edmonds, building 7, norman mineta, willie rodriguez, firemen testimonies on explosions...)

2. An object hit the Pentagon. We don't know what object, since the Powers that Be refuse to release a clear shot of the event. We all know that Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, and showing a clear shot of the event really should not be a problem. This fact, coupled with the obvious dump into the memory hole of Norman Mineta's testimony and the consequent fact that Cheney was in the bunker at 9:30, before pentagon was hit (giving that "have you heard anything to the contrary" statement), while the official report states that he was in the bunker only at 10 AM, is one of the clearest signs of cover-up and distortion. Mineta testimony tells us that Cheney was in the bunker before the pentagon was struck.

Truthers can only count to two.Fascinating.

Pardalis

11th December 2007, 09:58 PM

Truthers can only count to two.Fascinating.

Pathetic isn't it?

OldTigerCub

11th December 2007, 10:21 PM

crickets....chirp chirp chirp
(dagnabit....we need a cricket "smilie"...):p

Edit: I was too busy reading the body of the challenge...I didn't even notice the "mathematical" challenge in the numbering....

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

HereticHulk

11th December 2007, 10:38 PM

Y'all ask for proof?

It makes it hard to present evidence when it gets destroyed, covered up and gagged. Sibel Edmonds et al.

I wish I had that tape that had Abu Zubaydah telling of the Saudi-Pakistan-bu$h-9/11 lovefest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-cias-destroyed-inter_b_75850.html
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1692518,00.html
But more to the point, the revelation will raise another question: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? And can the CIA be trusted to tell us? The CIA had told the 9/11 Commission, when it formally requested such materials, that there was no taping of interrogations. CIA lawyers also told federal prosecutors trying the Zacarias Moussaoui terror case that the agency did not possess recordings of interrogations sought by the judge and Moussaoui's defense lawyers. The CIA insists that the tapes destroyed were not the ones in question.

I would find it very difficult to believe the CIA would deliberately destroy evidence material to the 9/11 investigation, evidence that would cover up a core truth, such as who really was behind 9/11. On the other hand I have to wonder what space-time continuum the CIA exists in, if they weren't able to grasp what a field day the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are going to have with this — especially at a time when trust for the government is plumbing new depths.

It isn't going to help that the Abu Zubaydah investigation has a lot of problems even without destroyed evidence. When Abu Zubaydah was arrested in Pakistan in 2002, two ATM cards were found on him. One was issued by a bank in Saudi Arabia (a bank close to the Saudi royal family) and the other to a bank in Kuwait. As I understand it, neither Kuwait nor Saudi Arabia has been able to tell us who fed the accounts. Also, apparently, when Abu Zubaydah was captured, telephone records, including calls to the United States, were found in the house he was living in. The calls stopped on September 10, and resumed on September 16. There's nothing in the 9/11 Commission report about any of this, and I have no idea whether the leads were run down, the evidence lost or destroyed.

The bottom line is that things have been covered up and continue to be covered up. We have not the gotten the whole story re: 9/11.

There is a conspiracy.

Davidlpf

11th December 2007, 10:46 PM

Like this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/19757475f3eb17414a.jpg
Undeniable proof that Oswald was not the lone gunman!!!11!!:eek:

Edit: Wrong conspiracy, I know.... :blush:

There goes the theory NWO kitty is just a cartoon.

qarnos

11th December 2007, 11:13 PM

~enigma~

11th December 2007, 11:33 PM

~enigma~

11th December 2007, 11:39 PM

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 12:34 PM

Yeah, the pentagon is surrounded by cameras.... now. It wasn't back then (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary) Scroll down to about a third of the page down, and read the statement from the pentagon employee.

1. I hope that you understand how innocent you sound when you say that pentagon was not surrounded by cameras back then. Especially when you consider who you're quoting as your proof.
2. I hope you understand that your source for the above claim is an Mark Roberts disinformation website, and the source for that specific claim is actually an anonymous post on disinformation forum called 'Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum' (probably made by Roberts himself), which has coincidentally banned all 9/11 discussion some time ago.

So, not only are your wrong, you have been lied to...

Pentagon not surrounded by cameras...

Its the freaking Pentagon. How innocent can you be?

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 12:37 PM

Thanks for answering but you forgot to answer WHY each of your numbered items is evidence of an inside job. Just for ***** and giggles can you come up with any other conceivable reasons for your numbers 1,2 and 2?

Do you understand that Nixon was not brought down for the crimes of watergate.

He was brought down for COVERING UP the crime (erased tapes)

I gave you 3 clear examples of needless coverup.

I know that this does not resonate in that thick skull of yours, but the coverup is out there.

Pardalis

12th December 2007, 12:41 PM

We have not the gotten the whole story re: 9/11.

There is a conspiracy.

A conspiracy to massacre the English language?

Sabrina

12th December 2007, 12:44 PM

The proof of an inside job is that there was an inside job, you fools!

*hat tip to MJD* ;)

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 12:48 PM

The proof of an inside job is that there was an inside job, you fools!

*hat tip to MJD* ;)

One could also, correctly, state:

"The proof of an inside job is that there is the COVERUP, you fools!"

Now that would be Nobel prize winning statement...

MaGZ

12th December 2007, 12:54 PM

Here is your chance truthers. Post your PROOF that ANY aspect of 9/11 was an inside job and alongside your proof please explain how it is proof of an inside job. Please debunkers don't respond to the proof presented unless it is false but I would encourage responses showing what a proof is really proof of.

I do not believe there was and inside job on 9/11, but there has been a government and media coverup on what really happened that day.

JimBenArm

12th December 2007, 12:56 PM

I do not believe there was and inside job on 9/11, but there has been a government and media coverup on what really happened that day.
I think I can summarize for you:

There are Jews in NYC.

The WTC's were in NYC.

Therefore: Inside Job.

uk_dave

12th December 2007, 12:58 PM

So, not only are your wrong, you have been lied to...

Pentagon not surrounded by cameras...

Its the freaking Pentagon. How innocent can you be?

See, that's not how it works.

You have to provide evidence that a camera or cameras were present at the Pentagon in september 2001 , not your own view that there simply must have been cameras because...it's the pentagon and ****, dude!

Better yet, if such evidence is hard to find, why not commission a security company to provide a report on how they would have secured the pentagon, and where they would have placed the cameras. Spend some money, talk to some experts.

Go on

dare ya.

GStan

12th December 2007, 01:01 PM

2. An object hit the Pentagon. We don't know what object, since the Powers that Be refuse to release a clear shot of the event. We all know that Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, and showing a clear shot of the event really should not be a problem. This fact, coupled with the obvious dump into the memory hole of Norman Mineta's testimony and the consequent fact that Cheney was in the bunker at 9:30, before pentagon was hit (giving that "have you heard anything to the contrary" statement), while the official report states that he was in the bunker only at 10 AM, is one of the clearest signs of cover-up and distortion. Mineta testimony tells us that Cheney was in the bunker before the pentagon was struck.

Did you hear what i said, PENTAGON WAS STRUCK, and no one had any idea that it was coming, and no one was fired, instead, people in charge were promoted.

Are you kidding me? Like, how stupid do you have to be to buy just that one facet of 9/11? Pentagon was struck! This is not your neighbourhood wal mart, this is the Penta-freaking-gon.

HAHA!

Are you kidding ME? I can't believe you are using this in your top 3. or 2. Or 3. You know what I mean. There are dozens of witnesses who saw the plane, identified it as a commercial airliner, and reported it. DON'T tell me they are in on the conspiracy. That is baseless and ignorant. Just read the quotes. If after reading the quotes you still believe they were in on it, you should go investigate their private lives and determine if they are living in the lap of luxury or in fear of the evil gubmint, two obvious signs of complicity, and then report back on your findings.

Here are some witness statements:
(BTW, the way this site is laid out is a pain to read, if anyone has a different link to a compilation of AA77 witness testimony, please share.)

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

Mince

12th December 2007, 01:03 PM

Can I assume you mean "empirical proof" and not proof because it's "so obvious"?

For instance:

Northwoods is not empirical proof because what someone does 45 years ago is not proof of what someone does today.

PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" statement is not empirical proof because statements do not prove actions. Even if you ignore the reason why PNAC would advertise to the world that they were going to commit the 9/11 attacks.

"It defies the laws of physics" is not empirical evidence when you do not understand those laws of physics which you are claiming the collapses defied.

Etc.

jhunter1163

12th December 2007, 01:08 PM

1. I hope that you understand how innocent you sound when you say that pentagon was not surrounded by cameras back then. Especially when you consider who you're quoting as your proof.
2. I hope you understand that your source for the above claim is an Mark Roberts disinformation website, and the source for that specific claim is actually an anonymous post on disinformation forum called 'Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum' (probably made by Roberts himself), which has coincidentally banned all 9/11 discussion some time ago.

So, not only are your wrong, you have been lied to...

Pentagon not surrounded by cameras...

Its the freaking Pentagon. How innocent can you be?

The BAUT forum is run by a guy named Phil Plait, who as luck would have it is a poster here (poster "The Bad Astronomer").

Why don't you PM him and ask him why he banned 9/11 discussion? My guess is that he'll say something to the effect of "because Truthers are stupid."

JimBenArm

12th December 2007, 01:11 PM

The BAUT forum is run by a guy named Phil Plait, who as luck would have it is a poster here (poster "The Bad Astronomer").

Why don't you PM him and ask him why he banned 9/11 discussion? My guess is that he'll say something to the effect of "because Truthers are stupid."
Gee, why would an astronomy site not want junk about 9/11 idiocy posted on it? It just doesn't make any sense!

uk_dave

12th December 2007, 01:15 PM

Gee, why would an astronomy site not want junk about 9/11 idiocy posted on it? It just doesn't make any sense!

They just don't want to admit to the non-existent sooper seekrit moonbase which wasn't constructed in the 70's after the US didn't manage to land a man on the moon and which doesn't house an enormous laser not fueled by water, which wasn't capable of dustifying the wtc steel after the towers weren't hit by planes on 9-11

jhunter1163

12th December 2007, 01:19 PM

They just don't want to admit to the non-existent sooper seekrit moonbase which wasn't constructed in the 70's after the US didn't manage to land a man on the moon and which doesn't house an enormous laser not fueled by water, which wasn't capable of dustifying the wtc steel after the towers weren't hit by planes on 9-11

The rest of you didn't see this post.

uk_dave

12th December 2007, 01:21 PM

The rest of you didn't see this post.

I don't know I didn't.

Mince

12th December 2007, 01:22 PM

Anyways, here you go:

1. Sibel Edmonds gag. Let's hear what she has to say...

How is what someone doesn't say, proof?

2. Originally, Kissinger was going to head the commission. This was, thank god, outrageous enough for the Jersey girls, so Kissinger was replaced with another Neoconservative insider, who coincidentally is a man who often works on "public myths". What a perfect replacement! Who better be in charge of chosing what makes it into the report (thousands of pages of useless sap, hatefull baseless claims, and anti muslim propaganda), and what is excluded (sibel edmonds, building 7, norman mineta, willie rodriguez, firemen testimonies on explosions...)

Remember, you need empirical evidence. You're extrapolating and presuming. That is not evidence.

2. An object hit the Pentagon. We don't know what object, since the Powers that Be refuse to release a clear shot of the event. We all know that Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, and showing a clear shot of the event really should not be a problem. This fact, coupled with the obvious dump into the memory hole of Norman Mineta's testimony and the consequent fact that Cheney was in the bunker at 9:30, before pentagon was hit (giving that "have you heard anything to the contrary" statement), while the official report states that he was in the bunker only at 10 AM, is one of the clearest signs of cover-up and distortion. Mineta testimony tells us that Cheney was in the bunker before the pentagon was struck.

Should be "3." of course. So, why would you believe Mineta's testimony over Cheney's when both are equally likely to be mistaken or correct? Do you have proof that Cheney is lying or mistaken while Mineta is not? Please provide the source you used to determine that the Pentagon is "surrounded by cameras". And you can't use a Alex Jones saying it on the radio as a source.

Did you hear what i said, PENTAGON WAS STRUCK, and no one had any idea that it was coming, and no one was fired, instead, people in charge were promoted.

So if a commoner such as yourself could think of this fallacy, why do you think the planners of the attacks overlooked it? Surely they had smarter people than yourself working on their plan. What's your proof that no one had any idea that the attack was coming? People were promoted specifically because The Pentagon was attacked? Proof please. Or maybe they were promoted due to their actions after The Pentagon was attacked? Do you have unique access to their promotion record to determine that they were promoted only because The Pentagon was attacked. Hmmmm. The Pentagon was attacked. General, you deserve a promotion because of that. I don't think so.

Are you kidding me? Like, how stupid do you have to be to buy just that one facet of 9/11? Pentagon was struck! This is not your neighbourhood wal mart, this is the Penta-freaking-gon.

Why do so many people believe The Pentagon is some magical Fortress of Solitude immune to any determined attack by an enemy who does not mind dying in the process. How stupid do you have to be? I don't know. Perhaps you could let us know.

Sabrina

12th December 2007, 01:47 PM

It is pathetically easy to get close to the Pentagon you know. I used to drive by it every day, and all they have is a guard shack at the various entrances to the grounds. It's not like there's a giant, electrified, barbed wire fence around the entire facility patrolled by armed guards and bristling with cameras; there are more cameras than there were prior to 9/11, if what I hear is true, but it's still easy to get close to the building itself.

Now getting inside is another story altogether, but that's not what we're discussing here. The point is, prior to 9/11, the vast majority of the Pentagon's security was internal; i.e. INSIDE THE BUILDING, because that's where all the important stuff was. There was some attention given to outside security in the form of armed guards at the grounds entrances, a few cameras, etc, but the vast majority of the security was INSIDE THE BUILDING (I cannot stress that enough, believe me.) The focus was on protecting the ingress and egress to the building itself, not the surrounding area, because it was easier to control there versus the entrances to the grounds. I don't doubt they've increased external security post 9/11, but why anyone would think their current security level on the outside reflects their security level on the outside on the day of 9/11 is beyond me.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 02:45 PM

2. I hope you understand that your source for the above claim is an Mark Roberts disinformation website

If it is disinformation then you can prove it wrong rather then just throwing a hissy fit and waving your hands in the breeze.

and the source for that specific claim is actually an anonymous post on disinformation forum called 'Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum' (probably made by Roberts himself)

Mark (Gravy) is not a poster on BAUT. BAUT is a forum exactly like this one or any other internet forum, availible to anyone that wishes to sign up. If it was a "disinformation" site then any such postings would be easy to disprove. Instead of doing so you simply use a ad hominem so you can ignore anything that conflicts with your beliefs, some investigator you are, you are doing EXACTLY what you claim your opponents are doing. Ever heard of Transferance? Its a common CT problem.

which has coincidentally banned all 9/11 discussion some time ago.

Gee funny that a site that is primarily about space and astronomy would, after 3 YEARS OF GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES WITH CTs WHO REFUSED TO LISTEN OR ANSWER QUESTIONS, WHO THEN GOT NASTY, POLITICAL, AND INSULTING RESULTING IN THIER BANNINGS decided that they'd stick to the core topics of astronomy and space, who would of thought that such a thing was at all possible? Heck I'm amazed that they let it go on as long as they did, I know forums which are far closer to having 9/11 on topic where such discussions are banned.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 02:49 PM

Now getting inside is another story altogether, but that's not what we're discussing here. The point is, prior to 9/11, the vast majority of the Pentagon's security was internal; i.e. INSIDE THE BUILDING, because that's where all the important stuff was.

I think the Truthers keep forgetting that the Pentagon is nothing more than a fancy office building. They seem to think that it's supposed to be like Fort Knox or Area 51.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 02:51 PM

"The proof of an inside job is that there is the COVERUP, you fools!"

9/11 was an inside job because of the coverup... I can't prove there was a coverup because all the evidence of it being covered up was covered up, so the total lack of eveidence of their being a conspriacy is the evidence of their being a conspriacy and anyone that disagrees is a disinformation agent working for Bush!

:rolleyes:

Sabrina

12th December 2007, 04:40 PM

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 05:06 PM

9/11 was an inside job because of the coverup... I can't prove there was a coverup because all the evidence of it being covered up was covered up, so the total lack of eveidence of their being a conspriacy is the evidence of their being a conspriacy and anyone that disagrees is a disinformation agent working for Bush!:rolleyes:

You said that. You sound like a loonie...

Great job.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 05:09 PM

You know, I'm thinking I ought to try to get an excuse to go over to the Pentagon sometime soon... my company has contractors working there, so I know a few people who might be able to get me in... I should ask what, in general terms and without getting into specifics (no sense giving the terrorists any MORE ideas), was the security state OUTSIDE of the building prior to 9/11 from people who were there. Think we'd stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the twoofers to accept that testimony, PW?

If you, or someone else with clearance, would go there, and ask someone there (security guard?) and get them on tape to give you a rough estimate of how many cameras there are around pentagon, and post that on YouTube, i would love you forever.

Because to claim that the pentagon is less secure, or less covered with cameras on the outside, than your local walmart or the post office, or my apartment building in Los Angeles is just laughable.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 05:10 PM

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 05:13 PM

If it is disinformation then you can prove it wrong rather then just throwing a hissy fit and waving your hands in the breeze.

Mark (Gravy) is not a poster on BAUT. BAUT is a forum exactly like this one or any other internet forum, availible to anyone that wishes to sign up. If it was a "disinformation" site then any such postings would be easy to disprove. Instead of doing so you simply use a ad hominem so you can ignore anything that conflicts with your beliefs, some investigator you are, you are doing EXACTLY what you claim your opponents are doing. Ever heard of Transferance? Its a common CT problem.

Gee funny that a site that is primarily about space and astronomy would, after 3 YEARS OF GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES WITH CTs WHO REFUSED TO LISTEN OR ANSWER QUESTIONS, WHO THEN GOT NASTY, POLITICAL, AND INSULTING RESULTING IN THIER BANNINGS decided that they'd stick to the core topics of astronomy and space, who would of thought that such a thing was at all possible? Heck I'm amazed that they let it go on as long as they did, I know forums which are far closer to having 9/11 on topic where such discussions are banned.

We are discussing how many cameras there are around the pentagon. The above site was shown to me, as a proof of the 'fact' that there were indeed NONE before 9/11.

Upon further inspection, i found out that the source of that 'fact' is an anonymous posting on some third party forum.

Now who's dishonest? You my friend. You're being dishonest, to yourself, and to me.

Simple question.

Does my local walmart, post office, apratment building, have, which had dozens of cameras on the roof, prior to 9/11, more cameras there, than Pentagon did before 9/11?

Please supply more evidence for your statement, than an dishonest, anonymous post on BAUT forum...

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 05:13 PM

You said that. You sound like a loonie...

Great job.

Strangely enough it was because I was trying to sound like a loonie Truther.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 05:21 PM

We are discussing how many cameras there are around the pentagon. The above site was shown to me, as a proof of the 'fact' that there were indeed NONE before 9/11.

Upon further inspection, i found out that the source of that 'fact' is an anonymous posting on some third party forum.

Now who's dishonest? You my friend. You're being dishonest, to yourself, and to me.

You are. You claimed a) that Mark's site is disinformation, since you haven't even bothered to prove this, I'm calling Liar. b) You claimed without evidence that BAUT is a disinformation site. Liar. And c) That the post in question was probably Mark. Since I know for a fact that Mark doesn't post there (I do so I know the other posters) I'm again calling you a liar.

So that's Liar, Liar, Liar. Planning to pull a George of the Corndogs and sue me now?

Simple question.

Does my local walmart, post office, apratment building, have, which had dozens of cameras on the roof, prior to 9/11, more cameras there, than Pentagon did before 9/11?

Not so simple, I have never been in your Apartment building, post office, or local walmat so I have no idea how many cameras they have on the OUTSIDE. I would ask this though. Which is more likely to be robbed, tagged or broken into? A walmart, Apartment Building, Post Office, or the Pentagon? You know how many cameras I have on the outside of the Office building I work in? ZERO. There are ones on the Bank and Post office though, funny that.

Please supply more evidence for your statement, than an dishonest, anonymous post on BAUT forum...

Prove that the poster was dishonest. Liar.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 05:24 PM

You are. You claimed a) that Mark's site is disinformation, since you haven't even bothered to prove this, I'm calling Liar. b) You claimed without evidence that BAUT is a disinformation site. Liar. And c) That the post in question was probably Mark. Since I know for a fact that Mark doesn't post there (I do so I know the other posters) I'm again calling you a liar.

So that's Liar, Liar, Liar. Planning to pull a George of the Corndogs and sue me now?

Not so simple, I have never been in your Apartment building, post office, or local walmat so I have no idea how many cameras they have on the OUTSIDE. I would ask this though. Which is more likely to be robbed, tagged or broken into? A walmart, Apartment Building, Post Office, or the Pentagon? You know how many cameras I have on the outside of the Office building I work in? ZERO. There are ones on the Bank and Post office though, funny that.

Prove that the poster was dishonest. Liar.

Let me ask you this:

DO you even read the stuff you write, or do you just squirt it all out and hit 'submit'?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your willful ignorance man/girl or whatever you are.

Magenta

12th December 2007, 05:24 PM

Does my local walmart, post office, apratment building, have, which had dozens of cameras on the roof, prior to 9/11, more cameras there, than Pentagon did before 9/11?

Why this obsession with cameras? Why are you ignoring the eyewitness accounts of people who saw or, in the case of a couple of firefighters, had to dive out of the way of Flight 77? Why are you ignoring the debris from the plane?

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 05:30 PM

Let me ask you this:

DO you even read the stuff you write, or do you just squirt it all out and hit 'submit'?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your willful ignorance man/girl or whatever you are.

You want to talk willful ignorance while you ignore the wreakage, the DNA results, the hundreds of witnesses, the survivors covered in jet fuel, the first responders that had to pull the plane parts and body parts of the passagers from the wreakage. Sure you just keep your head in the sand and believe in your nice little fantasy world were it's the big bad Bush that is the master of all evil. You haven't brought one fact or piecve of evidence to the table in your entire posting time here, all you do is lie and wave your hands so hard you need take off clearance. You claim you want an investigation yet you've done squat, you won't even bother researching beyond your own in dream world. You are a liar, a fraud, and fantasist and a failure.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 05:45 PM

You want to talk willful ignorance while you ignore the wreakage, the DNA results, the hundreds of witnesses, the survivors covered in jet fuel, the first responders that had to pull the plane parts and body parts of the passagers from the wreakage. Sure you just keep your head in the sand and believe in your nice little fantasy world were it's the big bad Bush that is the master of all evil. You haven't brought one fact or piecve of evidence to the table in your entire posting time here, all you do is lie and wave your hands so hard you need take off clearance. You claim you want an investigation yet you've done squat, you won't even bother researching beyond your own in dream world. You are a liar, a fraud, and fantasist and a failure.

Oh my god.

You're sounding like one of those 'no plane hit the towers, the holograms, the holograms' truthers.

We are discussing Pentagon Cameras. We are discussing the standard debunking claim that pentagon does not have a clear shot showing this plane slamming into the building because they just didn't have any cameras covering the outside of the building.

I have shown that this claim is based on some anonymous post from some forum, later copied by Gravy / Mark Roberts, as irrefutable evidence that pentagon simply didn't have any cameras, and therefore there's no way to show this plane hitting this building.

I have shown that Mark Roberts is dishonest.

jhunter1163

12th December 2007, 05:52 PM

You've shown me that you have no idea what you're talking about. Where are these videos? Why wouldn't they be released? They already released the parking-gate one, which was the best they had. The reason the other videos haven't been released is that they don't exist.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 05:52 PM

Oh my god.

You're sounding like one of those 'no plane hit the towers, the holograms, the holograms' truthers.

We are discussing Pentagon Cameras. We are discussing the standard debunking claim that pentagon does not have a clear show showing this plane slamming into the building because they just didn't have any cameras covering the outside of the building.

I have shown that this claim is based on some anonymous post from some forum, later copied by Gravy / Mark Roberts, as irrefutable evidence that pentagon simply didn't have any cameras, and therefore there's no way to show this plane hitting this building.

I have shown that Mark Roberts is dishonest.

The poster in question was a long standing member of the board, he'd been there for over 4 years at the time of posting and was known to other board members. He also identified his experience and why he was able to say what he had seen and experienced. You offer nothing to rebut what he said, you simply write it off as dishonest. You have no idea if the poster was telling the truth or not, so by calling him dishonest you are lying, pure and simple. Mark is not being dishonest, he accepts that the post is testimony from someone that was there on the day and can speak as to what happened and what security there was. If Rich was not telling the truth about the security, then prove it, you haven't done so yet, all you have done is put your fingers in your ears and lied.

All you have shown is that you are a liar who will never accept anything that isn't part of his fantasy world.

Coffee

12th December 2007, 06:01 PM

Let me ask you this:

DO you even read the stuff you write, or do you just squirt it all out and hit 'submit'?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your willful ignorance man/girl or whatever you are.

You have not provided any evidence to back up your claims instead You have posted lies and insults. You and the rest of the truther movement have done NOTHING to prove your case. You and the rest of the truther movement have done NOTHING to bring those who, you think, are guilty to justice. If you and the others in the truther movement are revolutionaries then you are the weakest and worst revolutionaries ever. Real revolutionaries are willing to sacrifice and even die for their beliefs. Truthers won't even protest in the rain.

In six years the truther movement have not provided evidence, have not taken any meaningful action and have shown themselves to be nothing but loonies, cowards and liars.

stateofgrace

12th December 2007, 06:19 PM

Oh my god.

You're sounding like one of those 'no plane hit the towers, the holograms, the holograms' truthers.

We are discussing Pentagon Cameras. We are discussing the standard debunking claim that pentagon does not have a clear shot showing this plane slamming into the building because they just didn't have any cameras covering the outside of the building.

I have shown that this claim is based on some anonymous post from some forum, later copied by Gravy / Mark Roberts, as irrefutable evidence that pentagon simply didn't have any cameras, and therefore there's no way to show this plane hitting this building.

I have shown that Mark Roberts is dishonest.

No you have not you have shown yourself to be completely dishonest and have been caught doing so. Here are the exact words from Marks page.

Here's a post on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11

There is NOTHING dishonest about this statement; it links directly to a post from somebody who was there. If you dispute this person’s account the burden is on you to disprove it. You have already been told the same person is a member of this forum; you have failed to even contact him and ask a simple question of this person. You have even had the shear nerve to dismiss this account and accuse Mark Roberts of fabricating it, this you have absolutely no proof of whatsoever. You lied.

There is nothing worse than a liar, you sir are a liar and an extremely poor one at that.

JimBenArm

12th December 2007, 06:54 PM

It's funny. Why does Zlaya think he/she/it knows more about security at the Pentagon than someone who was actually in the military and stationed there? Why is this always the case with the loons?
"I can't believe it was like that!"
"It was. I was there."
"I can't believe it was like that. I'm way too smart for that!"
"It was. I was there."
"Nuh-uh! You just are a big poopy head."
"Here's proof."
"I don't need to look at that! You're a big poopy head."

Sheesh. Any question about why I consider them all to be morons? On top of being paranoid antisocial maroons?

And big poopy heads?

DGM

12th December 2007, 06:55 PM

Zlaya:
Tell me again why the Pentagon would need the cameras? You do know they have armed guards and the place would be like breaking into a fortress. As far as planting a bomb or something it would need to be the size of a truck so you would be noticed by the guards. Are they worried about vandals? Because that's why most businesses have them. The Pentagon if you really think about it simply didn't need many.

Sabrina

12th December 2007, 07:49 PM

*sighs* I will try this one more time.

The reason there were not more videos available is due to several factors. A) the camera speed. Numerous experienced-in-photography-and-video-work posters on this board have explained why there would be a rather small chance of a decent photo or video still showing up from the available footage. B) The security at the Pentagon, while heavy, is more focused on the INTERIOR of the building, as that is where the major classified material is. That material is far more important than guarding the outside of the building. I'm confused as to why you think they need much more than armed guards at the entrances and exits and what cameras are currently in place; putting cameras every twenty feet or so would be prohibitive, because of the next factor. C) The Pentagon is approximately a SQUARE MILE in size, perhaps more if you include the surrounding parking lots and grounds. Zlaya, I dare you to travel to DC and actually drive or stop by the Pentagon. I think you will be immensely surprised at the size of the building and the surrounding grounds. The number of people and cameras required to patrol a site of that size would be hugely expensive and quite honestly, a waste of resources. Ask any MP if they think there should be extensive CCTV cameras and armed guards patrolling the Pentagon grounds and they'd likely laugh in your face.

And Zlaya, I am not about to release the number of cameras that surround the Pentagon; it would be a violation of security protocols. I would, at best, be able to get a rough estimate of the type of security in place on 9/11 and thereafter, and it would have to be in vaguest of terms. Why the hell am I going to give a map to the security procedures to people I've never met? I would, at best, simply be able to get an answer to if the external security measures were significantly beefed up post 9/11 and if so, by what approximate percentage. Well, that's not strictly true; I could potentially find out more, as my security clearance is pretty darn high, but I wouldn't ask because I don't have a need to know. Just because I have the clearance doesn't mean I'm automatically entitled to know this sort of thing.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 08:15 PM

You have already been told the same person is a member of this forum

Just a minor correction, to my knowledge (and I might be wrong) Rich is not, and never has been a member of JREF. There is a member here with the Nick of RICH, but they have only posted once and there is no reason to believe they are the same person. Having said that he may post here under a different Nick.

What I did say and will stand by is that I am a member and was even a participant in the thread in which the post Gravy linked too was posted. I also pointed out the Gravy is not and to my knowledge never has been a member on the BAUT (if he is he's certainly not active in the forums I am in.) There ARE a number of BAUT people here, including Phil himself (He posts here under The Bad Astronomer for some unknown reason) however. If they want to reveal themselves that's up to them.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 08:52 PM

Why this obsession with cameras? Why are you ignoring the eyewitness accounts of people who saw or, in the case of a couple of firefighters, had to dive out of the way of Flight 77? Why are you ignoring the debris from the plane?

The evidence you bring forth, is not why i question the Cameras. There's plenty of evidence thatthere was debrees, there was a hole, there was that hole in the C ring, etc etc.

The question is why everyone is claiming that Pentagon didn't capture the impact, and that pentagon does not have perimeter cameras.

The question is why did Nixon erase those tapes.

I would like to see the impact, and then i would like to go to Norman Mineta, and show him the video.

Then two of us would walk over to Cheney, and beat the living crap out of him for lying his eyes out, giving several different accounts on that morning, and for allowing the Pentagon to be struck.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 08:58 PM

You have not provided any evidence to back up your claims instead You have posted lies and insults. You and the rest of the truther movement have done NOTHING to prove your case. You and the rest of the truther movement have done NOTHING to bring those who, you think, are guilty to justice. If you and the others in the truther movement are revolutionaries then you are the weakest and worst revolutionaries ever. Real revolutionaries are willing to sacrifice and even die for their beliefs. Truthers won't even protest in the rain.

In six years the truther movement have not provided evidence, have not taken any meaningful action and have shown themselves to be nothing but loonies, cowards and liars.

You've very angry sounding. I didn't insult anyone, i simply kid around, just like everyone else here. What's it to you?

Do you want me to bring forth evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

1. The Pentagon was struck.

Happy?

Lets ask Mineta about it, shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

Boy, nothin' fishy goin' on there, huh?

JimBenArm

12th December 2007, 08:59 PM

Seeing the impact would do what, exactly? Confirm a plane hit? We already know that.
And I'm sure that Cheney would be shaking in his boots waiting for you to come and try to hit him. I don't think he'd be even as afraid as I would be of that, and I'm not at all.
Of course, you also know you have made a threat against the Vice President. Regardless of whether you believe he deserves it or not, the Secret Service is obligated to take such threats seriously, and the criminal justice system would probably also take a dim view of this.
Just saying, because it seems you're not bright enough to figure this out for yourself.

Magenta

12th December 2007, 09:04 PM

The evidence you bring forth, is not why i question the Cameras. There's plenty of evidence thatthere was debrees, there was a hole, there was that hole in the C ring, etc etc.

The question is why everyone is claiming that Pentagon didn't capture the impact, and that pentagon does not have perimeter cameras.

Then please tell me: (1) why you believe there is additional video footage showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon that has not been made public; and (2) why you think the existence of this video footage has been covered up.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 09:08 PM

T.A.M.

12th December 2007, 09:08 PM

Magenta

12th December 2007, 09:12 PM

Much of this argument is moot. The FBI has admitted to them holding 80 plus tapes from the pentagon area. While they do not specify how many actually came from cameras mounted on the building, I would assume many did.

See www.flight77.info and go to the older documents section...

http://www.flight77.info/dec1/mcquredec05.jpg

TAM:)

TAM, that link just goes to a goofy photo.

From memory, isn't the story with all the other tapes that they don't actually show anything?

ETA: OK the second link wasn't there when I replied to your post.

T.A.M.

12th December 2007, 09:12 PM

Then please tell me: (1) why you believe there is additional video footage showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon that has not been made public; and (2) why you think the existence of this video footage has been covered up.

For this to be true, Agent Maguire of the FBI must be lieing...see reference to site and documents in my last reply. So those who believe this, must believe she is a liar.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

12th December 2007, 09:13 PM

TAM, that link just goes to a goofy photo.

From memory, isn't the story with all the other tapes that they don't actually show anything?

copy the link and place it in your location bar in your browser...it will work. The site owner has decided to reroute any attempts to link to him from here, to that photo. It use to be a pic of a guy wishing to provide oral "actions" on a baseball bat.

TAM:)

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 09:17 PM

Then please tell me: (1) why you believe there is additional video footage showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon that has not been made public; and (2) why you think the existence of this video footage has been covered up.

Good questions.

1. Not sure, it just make sense that there would be more. Especially after you consider how much time this plane wasted descending in the spiral and aligning itself with that specific renovated area. And the awesome flight path final. One roof camera would capture that coming straight at it.
2. Because of the flight path. I want to see flight path. Did the plane fly above the highway intersection, or to the right of the Gas Station, as those 2 cops claim. Why was different flight path shown originally, then what appeared in the black box recording simulation? Considering the fact that this is the United States Military Pride right here. You know.

Who flew this plane? Hanjour or the other guy that they say now?

Really, better footage of this event would silence the so called "CTs" so, let's see it...

http://photo.livevideo.com/photo/A11110AF78EA407A93C261F05A105B56/no-camera-working-on-roof-of-t.aspx

JimBenArm

12th December 2007, 09:22 PM

lol, yea, dude, don't terrorize me, we all use hyperbole
Yes, and I'm very certain that the Secret Service and the Justice Department would absolutely not even think about whether it was hyperbole. They take these kind of statements very seriously, and the fact that you don't realize this, and try to pass it off as meaningless could get you into very deep kimchee very quickly. I'm trying to offer you some advice here, but since you're obviously not bright enough to figure that out either, well, I hope nothing bad happens to you. But if it does, it's your own doing, and I won't have an ounce of sympathy for you.
Toodles.

Magenta

12th December 2007, 09:38 PM

Good questions.

1. Not sure, it just make sense that there would be more. Especially after you consider how much time this plane wasted descending in the spiral and aligning itself with that specific renovated area. And the awesome flight path final. One roof camera would capture that coming straight at it.

Agent Maguire's statement shows there were more tapes but doesn't say where they all came from. Only one shows the impact. Why would you expect surveillance cameras to be pointed at the sky?

2. Because of the flight path. I want to see flight path. Did the plane fly above the highway intersection, or to the right of the Gas Station, as those 2 cops claim. Why was different flight path shown originally, then what appeared in the black box recording simulation? Considering the fact that this is the United States Military Pride right here. You know.

There is an abundance of evidence already showing what happened to the plane and those in it and in the Pentagon. Why is the flight path so important?

Who flew this plane? Hanjour or the other guy that they say now?

Video footage won't show who was flying the plane.

Really, better footage of this event would silence the so called "CTs" so, let's see it...

Do you really think this is likely? I think that the speculation would move on to how the video had been faked.

SpitfireIX

12th December 2007, 09:41 PM

If you, or someone else with clearance, would go there, and ask someone there (security guard?) and get them on tape to give you a rough estimate of how many cameras there are around pentagon, and post that on YouTube, i would love you forever.

Because to claim that the pentagon is less secure, or less covered with cameras on the outside, than your local walmart or the post office, or my apartment building in Los Angeles is just laughable.

The problem with your theory is that you clearly assume that more cameras equals more security, which is at best a highly questionable assumption. The purpose of video surveillance cameras with recorders is generally to record robberies, assaults, or thefts in progress, in order to allow the police to obtain descriptions of the perpetrators, and to have evidence to use against those perpetrators at trial. The Pentagon has its own police force, with officers regularly patrolling. How concerned do you suppose the Department of Defense is about its employees' being mugged in one of the Pentagon's parking lots? How likely would that be to happen? How concerned is the DoD with people sneaking across the lawn and trying to break in through a first-floor window to steal office equipment, or even classified documents?

The answer is, of course, they're not at all concerned about this, because such attempts would undoubtedly be noticed by the police and any number of other Pentagon employees and quickly stopped.

The DoD evidently was concerned about unauthorized vehicles attempting to enter the grounds; that's why the two cameras that did record American 77 were in position at the time.

~enigma~

12th December 2007, 10:24 PM

Do you understand that Nixon was not brought down for the crimes of watergate.

He was brought down for COVERING UP the crime (erased tapes)

I gave you 3 clear examples of needless coverup.

I know that this does not resonate in that thick skull of yours, but the coverup is out there.
I ask you a question and your answer is to insult me like an idiot woo? You know the expression that begins if the shoe fits? How about the one made famous over on LCF, if it walks and quacks like a duck it must be a duck. Substitute the word idiot for duck :)

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 10:33 PM

The problem with your theory is that you clearly assume that more cameras equals more security,

Thats not what i'm assuming. I'm assuming that roof cameras etc would film the final approach of the object. So the point is, i would love to see whether or not Pentagon Has those cameras on the roof, and would they be position to capture the event. We have the final approach. We know how high up from the ground the plane was? Get the idea?

If the 2 REALLY crappy shots are the only ones we have, then i'll be even more petrified to live in this country...

Is that how safe we are, in general?

~enigma~

12th December 2007, 10:34 PM

We are discussing how many cameras there are around the pentagon. The above site was shown to me, as a proof of the 'fact' that there were indeed NONE before 9/11.

Upon further inspection, i found out that the source of that 'fact' is an anonymous posting on some third party forum.

Now who's dishonest? You my friend. You're being dishonest, to yourself, and to me.

Simple question.

Does my local walmart, post office, apratment building, have, which had dozens of cameras on the roof, prior to 9/11, more cameras there, than Pentagon did before 9/11?

Please supply more evidence for your statement, than an dishonest, anonymous post on BAUT forum...
Cameras being around the pentagon or not is NOT the subject of the thread but since you bring it up, why is the absence of video evidence of an inside job and is there ANY concievable explanation for the absence of video (such as cameras not pointed at a wall OR camera's resoluition being subpar). Looking at your last paragraph makes me wonder if you understand that asking questions does not constitute proof of anything except your ability to ask what at times are nothing more than annoying questions. Now can we PLEASE get back to the subject and original intent of this thread. So far no truther has presented anything except conjecture that their "proof" is evidence of an inside job. C'mon, don't be shy truthers. At this point in time over 6 years after 9/11 I firmly believe that there isn't a 9/11 truther capable of explaining why their "proof" points to an inescapable conclusion of an inside job. If there is one on this forum, please post a coherent answer to my original post and realize that an insult slung at me like the one by Zlaya will automatically get me to ignore your post.

~enigma~

12th December 2007, 10:35 PM

Thats not what i'm assuming. I'm assuming that roof cameras etc would film the final approach of the object. So l?
So you call an assumption proof?

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 10:39 PM

For this to be true, Agent Maguire of the FBI must be lieing...see reference to site and documents in my last reply. So those who believe this, must believe she is a liar.

TAM:)

eta: I think I might have misread you TAM, on second reading you were agreeing with Magenta?

Not Necessarily. She states (I assume the image is her writing) the FBI has 85 videos. 56 of them were ruled out because did not contain the pentagon, the impact site or flight 77. 16 of the remaining 29 didn't show the impact site. Of the 13 remaining, 12 on;ly showed the pentagon and so did not show the impact. That means that out of the 85 videos the FBI got, only 1 had anything on it.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 10:40 PM

So you call an assumption proof?

can i nominate that for a Stundie?

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 10:42 PM

...56 of them were ruled out because did not contain the pentagon,

What if they contained an object approaching the building? Would we have a conspiracy?

~enigma~

12th December 2007, 10:43 PM

can i nominate that for a Stundie?
As long as you link to my post that quoted you...go ahead and make yourself look stupid.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 10:44 PM

As long as you link to my post that quoted you...go ahead and make yourself look stupid.

Same goes for you my dear old buddy. I was talking about camera field of vision, and you were verbally masturbating. There's a difference.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 10:44 PM

can i nominate that for a Stundie?

No, it's a valid question. So far all you have done in this thread is wave your hands, lie, and make assuptions without any evidence at all. Asking if you call those things proof is entirely valid given the title of the thread.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 10:49 PM

What if they contained an object approaching the building? Would we have a conspiracy?

Have you got any evidence they do? No, thought not, so in other words you're merely speculating again. Only the looniest of CT's still hold onto the no Flight 77 CT, heck even you switch between it being 77 and not. Think about this. If what you claim about Mineta was actually true (it's not) then Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, case closed. Try to stop contradicting yourself in the same thread man.

~enigma~

12th December 2007, 10:49 PM

Same goes for you my dear old buddy. I was talking about camera field of vision, and you were verbally masturbating. There's a difference.
Welcome to ignore idiot.

hellaeon

12th December 2007, 10:50 PM

Zlaya, dont you think in order to help the conspiracy against the world the evil NWO would release a fake video that showed a plane clearly hitting the pentagon, rather then the security footage we have seen, which fuels the conspiracy theorists in their wild chase? Dont the NWO have unlimited resources at their disposal?

hellaeon

12th December 2007, 10:52 PM

I also wonder why the NWO do things so badly, why release the fact norman mineta got his times wrong, wouldn't it be in the best interests of all the evil ones to keep investigations and commissions within a closed environment and only release what they want the public to know? I dont understand why they could be so lazy as to not cover up their mistakes - since the goal is to lie about 9/11, they are doing an aweful job convincing me of a conspiracy.

Davidlpf

12th December 2007, 10:53 PM

Same goes for you my dear old buddy. I was talking about camera field of vision, and you were verbally masturbating. There's a difference.

You should know, it seems your a master at it.

Coffee

12th December 2007, 10:54 PM

You've very angry sounding.

It's not anger, it's disgust. You and the entire truther movement disgust me. Your lies, weakness, ignorance, denial of reality and laziness is disgusting.

I didn't insult anyone, i simply kid around, just like everyone else here.

You insulted ~enigma~ you liar.

What's it to you?

I don't like liars and you are a liar.

Do you want me to bring forth evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

1. The Pentagon was struck.

Happy?

Lets ask Mineta about it, shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

Boy, nothin' fishy goin' on there, huh?

You watch a video then you speculate and build a fantasy out of it. That video is not evidence of an inside job.

You are a liar and your fantasy about 9/11 is sad.

Welcome to ignore liar.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 10:57 PM

Have you got any evidence they do? No, thought not, so in other words you're merely speculating again. Only the looniest of CT's still hold onto the no Flight 77 CT, heck even you switch between it being 77 and not. Think about this. If what you claim about Mineta was actually true (it's not) then Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, case closed. Try to stop contradicting yourself in the same thread man.

I am not saying that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Where did i say that?

i am saying that footage is being NEEDLESSLY covered up which would clear up once and for all the FLIGHT PATH, the APPROACH PATH, of the plane.

Mineta's testimony tells me that there's something very fishy about that event. How can you just ignore him on one end, and pushing Cheney's view on the other.

Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 10:59 PM

It's not anger, it's disgust. You and the entire truther movement disgust me. Your lies, weakness, ignorance, denial of reality and laziness is disgusting.

You insulted ~enigma~ you liar.

I don't like liars and you are a liar.

You watch a video then you speculate and build a fantasy out of it. That video is not evidence of an inside job.

You are a liar and your fantasy about 9/11 is sad.

Welcome to ignore liar.

Wait, i didn't hear you correcly, did you call me a Liar?

So, tell me, what did i say that was such a horrific lie? I'll explain myself.

johnny karate

12th December 2007, 10:59 PM

What if they contained an object approaching the building? Would we have a conspiracy?

Please, for those of us not possessing your dazzling intelligence, in the simplest terms possible, explain how this supposed unreleased video footage proves the existence of a conspiracy.

~enigma~

12th December 2007, 11:04 PM

Reading along, i can assure you that every truther that has posted in this thread is totally unable to provide any concrete reason why their "proof" is evidence of an inside job. Taking things a bit further I can assure you that NO truther can or will provide a concrete reason why their "proof" is evidence of an inside job.

hellaeon

12th December 2007, 11:05 PM

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 11:07 PM

Please, for those of us not possessing your dazzling intelligence, in the simplest terms possible, explain how this supposed unreleased video footage proves the existence of a conspiracy.

No problem. An airplane is approaching the pentagon. Mineta testified, remember, "15 miles out, 10 miles out... do the orders stand", right? So people knew something was approaching, right?

Then we have 2 cops, testifying on camera that Flight 77 flew to the left of the CITGO gas station (above the cemetary), and not way over on right left where the highways cross - as per the official story.

So, if we somehow acquired footage of proving that the plane flew to the right of the citgo gas station, and not to the left of it, would help, would it not? Remember, there was a plane that did indeed fly over the highway. It did knock the polls, hit the taxi with one of them.

What if there was another plane plane, that flew to the right of the then called CITGO gas station? What if the footage i'm thinking they have show 2 planes flying in timed sequences?

Or did you guys debunk the PentaCon testimony somewhere?

hellaeon

12th December 2007, 11:09 PM

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 11:14 PM

Hey Zlaya, did you miss my enquiry? You may have because your replying to posts after mine...

I just wonder that in all this time since 9/11, the powers that be only release 3 crappy videos. Thats a good 6 years + to make up a fake video. It takes major hollywood studios less time to make an action movie that looks realistic, but the NWO only needs about 10 seconds worth, not 2-3 hours.

Pretty ineffective way to pull the wool over our eyes dont you think?
Does this kind of thought enter your mind?

Sorry, you know how it is. You say one thing, and 15 cronies attack the idea at the same time. So many of you, and so little time. By the time you read my ****, you'll see that I've been debunked, destroyed and humiliated by the valiant crew of the JREF Conspiracy Theories forum.

Anyways, do you think the powers that be want to Touch 9/11? Those 3 videos were not crappy. They were perfect. Enough to silence the weak ones and infuriate the loony ones.

There were not even 3 were they? There were 2. One from the hotel showed a fireball. The other showed a blur. Where are the videos from the roof of the pentagon pointing out?

Evidence is burned.

It's all pointless. You're doomed

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 11:17 PM

Oh noes...pentacon...
Do a search Zlaya, and also search up on Mineta...these have been debunked quite a number of times, so its worth reading those first before asking too many more questions about it.

Cheers

I was hoping you would point me to a thread or something debunking the 2 cops?

Like, i tried using the search function, and all i found was ridicule, slander, disinformation thickheadedness and stubborness.

johnny karate

12th December 2007, 11:19 PM

No problem. An airplane is approaching the pentagon. Mineta testified, remember, "15 miles out, 10 miles out... do the orders stand", right? So people knew something was approaching, right?

Then we have 2 cops, testifying on camera that Flight 77 flew to the left of the CITGO gas station (above the cemetary), and not way over on right left where the highways cross - as per the official story.

So, if we somehow acquired footage of proving that the plane flew to the right of the citgo gas station, and not to the left of it, would help, would it not? Remember, there was a plane that did indeed fly over the highway. It did knock the polls, hit the taxi with one of them.

What if there was another plane plane, that flew to the right of the then called CITGO gas station? What if the footage i'm thinking they have show 2 planes flying in timed sequences?

Or did you guys debunk the PentaCon testimony somewhere?

Why do you choose to believe the few anomalies that contradict the official story, and ignore the mountain of evidence that supports it?

Furthermore, you have yet to offer an explanation as to how the supposed unreleased Pentagon video footage proves the existence of conspiracy.

Instead of evidence, you have given us an unlikely (read: contradictory to overwhelming evidence) scenario based on pure speculation that might appear on video footage you have yet to prove even exists.

You might want to reread the title of this thread and then give it another shot.

Magenta

12th December 2007, 11:25 PM

OldTigerCub

12th December 2007, 11:26 PM

I am not saying that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Where did i say that?

i am saying that footage is being NEEDLESSLY covered up which would clear up once and for all the FLIGHT PATH, the APPROACH PATH, of the plane.

Mineta's testimony tells me that there's something very fishy about that event. How can you just ignore him on one end, and pushing Cheney's view on the other.

Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

LOL why are only debunkers replying to this question? Its a good question OP, too bad it has 'yet again' been soiled by your other peers who can't keep their mouths closed for two minutes...

Here's my piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Ready?

Well, i'll give you 3, just for hell of it, so that you can get all bent out of shape and quote reply to my every sentence, instead of considering the whole thing. Oh yea, when the debunkers reply, please don't forget to put that 'tantrum' images that you love to use so much.

Anyways, here you go:

1. Sibel Edmonds gag. Let's hear what she has to say...
2. Originally, Kissinger was going to head the commission. This was, thank god, outrageous enough for the Jersey girls, so Kissinger was replaced with another Neoconservative insider, who coincidentally is a man who often works on "public myths". What a perfect replacement! Who better be in charge of chosing what makes it into the report (thousands of pages of useless sap, hatefull baseless claims, and anti muslim propaganda), and what is excluded (sibel edmonds, building 7, norman mineta, willie rodriguez, firemen testimonies on explosions...)
2. An object hit the Pentagon. We don't know what object, since the Powers that Be refuse to release a clear shot of the event. We all know that Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, and showing a clear shot of the event really should not be a problem. This fact, coupled with the obvious dump into the memory hole of Norman Mineta's testimony and the consequent fact that Cheney was in the bunker at 9:30, before pentagon was hit (giving that "have you heard anything to the contrary" statement), while the official report states that he was in the bunker only at 10 AM, is one of the clearest signs of cover-up and distortion. Mineta testimony tells us that Cheney was in the bunker before the pentagon was struck.

Did you hear what i said, PENTAGON WAS STRUCK, and no one had any idea that it was coming, and no one was fired, instead, people in charge were promoted.

Are you kidding me? Like, how stupid do you have to be to buy just that one facet of 9/11? Pentagon was struck! This is not your neighbourhood wal mart, this is the Penta-freaking-gon.

HAHA!

(Bolding mine)
By denying that anyone knows what hit the Pentagon with all of the evidence available, while insisting that the only evidence you would accept is a good clear picture from a video survillance system (not intended to or capable of capturing such an event) and then insisting that you did not say that Flight 77 was not involved, is a dodge...in effect a self negating statement. Look at the evidence, study it, try to put aside paranoia and understand that 9-11 was not a movie, an adventure game or a puzzle to be solved by basement dwellers with no background in forensics, law enforcement or accident investigation.
So far all you have accomplished here is to prove a chronic tendancy to ignore facts, and jump to conclusions which you have no way (nor has anyone to date) to prove or even substantially support.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 11:27 PM

Why do you choose to believe the few anomalies that contradict the official story, and ignore the mountain of evidence that supports it?

Furthermore, you have yet to offer an explanation as to how the supposed unreleased Pentagon video footage proves the existence of conspiracy.

Instead of evidence, you have given us an unlikely (read: contradictory to overwhelming evidence) scenario based on pure speculation that might appear on video footage you have yet to prove even exists.

You might want to reread the title of this thread and then give it another shot.

You want me to list the proof that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. I said the pentagon was hit. This is where the discussion ends.

Historians in 100 years laugh and agree with me. Just like they laugh and aggree that Himmler set Reichstag ablaze.

Zlaya

12th December 2007, 11:32 PM

(Bolding mine)
By denying that anyone knows what hit the Pentagon with all of the evidence available, while insisting that the only evidence you would accept is a good clear picture from a video survillance system (not intended to or capable of capturing such an event) and then insisting that you did not say that Flight 77 was not involved, is a dodge...in effect a self negating statement. Look at the evidence, study it, try to put aside paranoia and understand that 9-11 was not a movie, an adventure game or a puzzle to be solved by basement dwellers with no background in forensics, law enforcement or accident investigation.
So far all you have accomplished here is to prove a chronic tendancy to ignore facts, and jump to conclusions which you have no way (nor has anyone to date) to prove or even substantially support.

Sorry i should have not said that. I should have just said "pentagon was hit". You see, i forgot for a moment how you people attach to one thing and then ride it out until your evil twofer nemesis runs away in fury.

Hah!

johnny karate

12th December 2007, 11:36 PM

You want me to list the proof that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. I said the pentagon was hit. This is where the discussion ends.

Historians in 100 years laugh and agree with me. Just like they laugh and aggree that Himmler set Reichstag ablaze.

I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with current events, but the fact that something hit the Pentagon has been common knowledge for just over six years. Turns out it was an airplane.

Furthermore, not only is it not a secret that an airplane hit the Pentagon, but it's certainly not proof of an inside job. It actually fits very neatly into the official version of events.

Try again.

Pardalis

12th December 2007, 11:36 PM

Historians in 100 years laugh and agree with me. Just like they laugh and aggree that Himmler set Reichstag ablaze.

Wow, you managed to make the Galileo and Godwin fallacies in one sentence.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 11:36 PM

Mineta's testimony tells me that there's something very fishy about that event. How can you just ignore him on one end, and pushing Cheney's view on the other.

Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

I know Mineta's testimony, I know better then I know what Cheney says. He got his times wrong, prue and simple. Mineta discribes the White House and nearby buildings being evacuated when he arrived. He states that "people were running out." We know for a fact that the evacuation was a slow dribble of people untill a warning of a plane was given and, according to reporters live on TV at the scene, "People suddenly started running out of the white house and nearby buildings." Since it happened on TV we know exactly when it occured, we don't have to rely on Cheney's memory, or Mineta's. That event occured at 9:45am. Mineta's timing is approximately 30 mins out. On top of that there are the USSS logs of the day which put Cheney in an underground hallway at 9:30am, and more that put Mrs Cheney as arriving at 9:50am. Is it your claim that the USSS are all in on it too? I guess we better add another couple thousand people to the Conspriacy. Furthermore, we also know that the Whitehouse was not informed of Flight 77's fate until well after 10am, previous to that it was believed that a helicopter had crashed on the pad. How could Mineta have been told something nearly hlaf an hour before the Whitehouse was told? Answer: he couldn't, unless he was actually told half an hour after he thought he was. Finally, Cleveland (IIRC, someone will correct me if I have the wrong one) ATC lost Flight 77 when it switched off it's transponder. The Controller started emergency services to look for a crash at that point, and it wasn't until later that they suspected it was hijacked. Washington ATC didn't locate Flight 77 until 9:27am when they saw a fast moving unidentified aircraft. HOW COULD THE WHITE HOUSE BUNKER BEING FEED DETAILS ON THIS PLANE BEFORE THEN? Answer: they couldn't have, they had no systems for it. The system they would have used was Tigerwall, it is a predictive tracker. You put in the speed and heading and it will tell you were the plane is likely to be assuming nothing has changed.

So what did Mineta actually see?

He saw Cheney and the aide discussing what to do about Flight 93 at about 10:15am. The orders where what Bush and Cheney had just been discussing, shooting down a US civilian airliner over US soil. Even Mineta states that he believes that they were discussing a shoot down order.

The only thing that is fishy about Mineta's testimony is that the Truthers demand that the poor guy can't actually make a mistake in his timing.

PhantomWolf

12th December 2007, 11:39 PM

It's all pointless. You're doomed

You're over a year late, you should have been shouting that in Sept 2006 when the Truthers actually had more than 5% of the audience.

Firestone

13th December 2007, 12:14 AM

The only thing that is fishy about Mineta's testimony is that the Truthers demand that the poor guy can't actually make a mistake in his timing.The silly thing is that in the video Zlaya links to, Mineta actually says that he may be wrong about the time.

Historians in 100 years laugh and agree with me. Just like they laugh and aggree that Himmler set Reichstag ablaze.
Wow, you managed to make the Galileo and Godwin fallacies in one sentence.Moreover, most historians don't believe the Reichstag fire was an inside job. Three fallacies in two sentences: keep up the good work, Zlaya!

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 12:21 AM

I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with current events, but the fact that something hit the Pentagon has been common knowledge for just over six years. Turns out it was an airplane.

Furthermore, not only is it not a secret that an airplane hit the Pentagon, but it's certainly not proof of an inside job. It actually fits very neatly into the official version of events.

Try again.

Right, but just like Communists were scapegoated for burning Reichstag, Christians were scapegoated for blowing up the parlament after Gunpowder plog, so the Muslims were scapegoated after blowing up the pentagon.

History repeats and you just watch TV and buy the ****...

Shame on you.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 12:23 AM

The silly thing is that in the video Zlaya links to, Mineta actually says that he may be wrong about the time.

My god man, thats exactly what Mineta does not say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

He says that he was surely right about the time. Did you watch the video, or are you just going to proclaim that and everyone will just move on and forget about your little white lie?

Wow!

johnny karate

13th December 2007, 12:24 AM

I'm not sure why you quoted my post considering your response had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 12:31 AM

You're over a year late, you should have been shouting that in Sept 2006 when the Truthers actually had more than 5% of the audience.

No it seems to me like things are actually exploding right now, as far as 9/11 truth goes. I don't know where you get you 5% figure there, so i'll assume that you have an anonymous source for that on BAUT forum somewhere as well, just like gravy and his awesome debunkings?

Firestone

13th December 2007, 12:33 AM

My god man, thats exactly what Mineta does not say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

He says that he was surely right about the time. Did you watch the video, or are you just going to proclaim that and everyone will just move on and forget about your little white lie?You know, I may not be smartest gal on this forum, but I won't lie about a video EVERYONE CAN WATCH.
I leave this kind of stupid deception to truthers.

Starting at 1.14, Mineta says: "I might have been wrong about the 9.25 ..."
Of course the guy of 911truthseattle doesn't elaborate on that point. :p

Please retract you claim that I lied. Thanks.

Wow!Indeed, Wow!

(By the way, next time write "My god woman", or "My FSM woman" please.)

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 12:44 AM

You know, I may not be smartest gal on this forum, but I won't lie about a video EVERYONE CAN WATCH.
I leave this kind of stupid deception to truthers.

Starting at 1.14, Mineta says: "I might have been wrong about the 9.25 ..."
Of course the guy of 911truthseattle doesn't elaborate on that point. :p

Please retract you claim that I lied. Thanks.

Indeed, Wow!

(By the way, next time write "My god woman", or "My FSM woman" please.)

Yes, Wow. Your powers of doublethink are double plus good my comrade.

He is clearly saying that it wasn't 10 something. You lie. We see right through you.

SatansMaleVoiceChoir

13th December 2007, 01:29 AM

Zlaya, I'd just like to address a few of your comments:

Because to claim that the pentagon is less secure, or less covered with cameras on the outside, than your local walmart or the post office, or my apartment building in Los Angeles is just laughable.

I am a British Soldier and have served in many military establishments (some of extreme importance and classification) in my 18 years in the Army, and I can tell you categorically that you would be VERY shocked at the amount of security cameras that AREN'T used - even on some of the bigger barracks. There tends to be the odd one or two at 'key points' or 'blind spots' - I have certainly NEVER seen security cameras of ANY kind pointed at the sky...

If the 2 REALLY crappy shots are the only ones we have, then i'll be even more petrified to live in this country...

Is that how safe we are, in general?

Yes. Maybe you should be scared. Terrorism works like this; Terrorists plan a job months/years in advance and carry out surveillance, they make sure their target has become complacent, or perhaps makes an exploitable error thus making the terrorists job easier (and safer if they plan to escape afterwards). In the case of the USA, the terrorists had a an absolute gift - the American Government and public in general (prior to 9/11) considered themselves to be 'untouchable' due to many factors, but the overriding attitude was 'It would never happen to us'; this is exactly the kind of environment the terrorists operate in. On 9/11, the 'biggest kid on the block' who thought he was 'The daddy', got a serious kicking from the group of swarthy extremist Muslim kids hiding in the alleyway.

IMO, the majority of Americans have now woken up to the threat of terrorism; the ones that haven't, and still maintain 'It couldn't happen to us' now call themselves 'The Truth Movement', and are looking for increasingly bizarre ways to show how 'It couldn't happen to us - therefore it was an inside job'.

so the Muslims were scapegoated after blowing up the pentagon.

No, Al Qaeda admitted it - there were no scapegoats. Just to make sure I am not accused of a 'Straw man' fallacy, I will say that as you use the word 'scapegoated', this implies to me that you believe 9/11 was perpetrated by the US Government/NWO and then blamed on a fictitious Extremist Muslim terrorist group. Al Qaeda are very real, and still active:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/066dabaa-e81b-11db-b2c3-000b5df10621.html

If that was not what you meant to imply, I apologise.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 01:38 AM

Terrorism works like this; Terrorists plan a job months/years in advance and carry out surveillance, they make sure their target has become complacent, or perhaps makes an exploitable error thus making the terrorists job easier (and safer if they plan to escape afterwards). In the case of the USA, ....................................

1. You forget the part where controllers tell patsies to go forth with the mission. Remember Emad Saleem during '93 WTC bombing?

2. 9/11 ONLY worked because of the drills that went on at the same time. How did Bin Ladin know to pick such a perfect timing?

3. Remember when British soldiers were caught in Iraq, dressed as arabs, shooting policemen, and inciting violence? Was that also Al-Qaeda? Or was that just a few bad apples?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm

uk_dave

13th December 2007, 01:46 AM

3. Remember when British soldiers were caught in Iraq, dressed as arabs, shooting policemen, and inciting violence? Was that also Al-Qaeda? Or was that just a few bad apples?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm

Well, you managed to get two things right. I highlighted them for you.

gumboot

13th December 2007, 01:50 AM

2. 9/11 ONLY worked because of the drills that went on at the same time.

Which drills would these be, and how did they facilitate 9/11? Please be very specific.

-Gumboot

SatansMaleVoiceChoir

13th December 2007, 01:50 AM

1. You forget the part where controllers tell patsies to go forth with the mission. Remember Emad Saleem during '93 WTC bombing?

2. 9/11 ONLY worked because of the drills that went on at the same time. How did Bin Ladin know to pick such a perfect timing?

3. Remember when British soldiers were caught in Iraq, dressed as arabs, shooting policemen, and inciting violence? Was that also Al-Qaeda? Or was that just a few bad apples?

1. Nope, didn't forget that part - it just goes without saying; Generals are not frontline soldiers, and terrorists operate in much the same way - you don't send your important 'Generals' responsible for control and planning at high level to carry out operational combat missions - especially suicide missions, that's what soldiers are for. I apologise if I gave you credit for having a little intelligence - I'll keep things simple from now on.

2. Perfect timing? You mean like carrying out an unexpected and unprecedented terrorist attack on a country unprepared for it? They could have probably gotten away with that attack at ANY time, barring constant CAPs around all major American landmarks, strategic sites. You see, the only effective deterrent against terrorism is constant vigilance and constant blanket armed security presence - difficult and costly to maintain for any serious amount of time, I'm sure you'll agree?

3. I don't understand; where does it say that these men were pretending to be Al Qaeda or trying to have Al Qaeda blamed for anything? I do not wish to compomise OPSEC by explaining how our special forces operate, but I have a pretty good idea what they were doing.

gumboot

13th December 2007, 02:03 AM

I want to address a few matters in regards to the cameras allegedly positioned at the Pentagon.

Firstly, many conspiracy theorists make the fundamental mistake of assuming that the presence of a camera means recorded footage.

This could not be further from the truth.

A video camera is a device for focusing light and converting it into electrical impulses, nothing more, nothing less. It does not record anything. A separate device, called a "recorder" can be utilised to record the video in various formats (such as on magnetic tape or as binary data).

It does not, however, follow that every camera is connected to a recorder. Indeed there's a special name for a device which has both a camera and recorder integrated into a single package - "camcorder" which is rather simply an abbreviation of "camera" "recorder".

A major problem with recording the output from a camera is storage space. This is especially the case for surveillance cameras which are running constantly, thus generating enormous amounts of data to be stored.

This can be addressed by reducing the quality of the video and thus the amount of space it takes up. Initially this can be done through compression, however compression can only do so much. Additionally the data footprint can be reduced by actually reducing the volume of footage to be stored - by reducing frame rates. So it is that typical surveillance cameras run at about 1 frame per second. This is ample time to capture the license plate of a car that drove off without paying for petrol, or to capture an employee stealing money from the till.

So far we've talked only about surveillance footage that is recorded. This is most useful for documenting some sort of unwanted action, in order to prosecute the perpetrator at a later date. However it's not very useful for preventative surveillance - that is surveillance intended to enable to you stop something happening in the first place.

The advantage that cameras gives you as a preventative security tool is that a single individual can watch multiple locations simultaneously, thus greatly reducing how many security staff you require to keep a place secure.

Recording this footage is pointless as it is essential that your staff react at the time that the event is occurring.

So you have what it called live surveillance. The advantage of live surveillance is that because you're not recording the footage you can allow much higher resolution and might higher frame rates. Camera feeds are fed directly into a monitor or series of monitors in a central monitoring room.

From there security personnel can react to incidents occurring in any part of the building, or direct beat security staff if there are any.

Now it would be obvious to most people what sort of surveillance a building like the Pentagon would require. Their major concern was not documenting crimes for later prosecution, but preventing breaches of security from ever occurring. That's why the Pentagon has its own police force, and that's why most of the Pentagon's cameras provide only live feeds to a monitoring station, and are not recorded.

-Gumboot

ETA. To illustrate my point regarding how much space recording footage consumes, DV runs at 36 Mbit/s, thus a facility would require 25 GB of storage per camera to capture a single day of coverage. Alternatively they could record it on 24 DV video tapes at a typical cost of NZ$50 each, or NZ$1200 per camera per day.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 02:09 AM

1. Nope, didn't forget that part - it just goes without saying; Generals are not frontline soldiers, and terrorists operate in much the same way - you don't send your important 'Generals' responsible for control and planning at high level to carry out operational combat missions - especially suicide missions, that's what soldiers are for. I apologise if I gave you credit for having a little intelligence - I'll keep things simple from now on.

Emad was an FBI informant. What i'm trying to tell you is that FBI had an informant in there, and the FBI let the thing go through. This is known as False Flag Terrorism. Controllers lead Patsies to act in their little play...Saleem started blowing the whistle, yet FBI still let the thing go through. But those guys would never do the same thing on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

2. Perfect timing? You mean like carrying out an unexpected and unprecedented terrorist attack on a country unprepared for it?...
No i mean, perfect timing as in having drills on that same day that dealt with multiple plane hijackings. Remember how everything is blamed on confusion of that day? Well how come Al Qaeda picked that perfect day to do this. You know, same way that Visor Consultants held their drills on the morning of 7/7 in London?

3. I don't understand; ...
That's understandible. You're British, and BBC is not exactly a good source of fair and biased news, regarding War in Iraq, and the British involvement.. Just like CNN or BBC does not report much of the insanity that US Blackwater does in Iraq. You need to get the information from outside of your country. Anyways i'm sure you can look into details of this incident yourself.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=972

google.com ?

SatansMaleVoiceChoir

13th December 2007, 02:18 AM

1. What I am trying to tell you is that Al Qaeda didn't NEED to be 'let through'...

So now you're suggesting that the British Government perpetrated an inside job on 7/7 are you?

2. My second point needs no further explanation.

3. When I said I didn't understand, I meant about the point you were trying to make... But you're right about the BBC... In the first few days of the Iraq War, they were nicknamed 'The Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation' by British serviceman because of their apparent spin on reporting portraying the armed forces in an unfavourable way.

I have to go out now, but I will be back to adress and expand on some more points... you'd better have a good think about some of the things you have mentioned, and terrorism in general...

gumboot

13th December 2007, 02:19 AM

No i mean, perfect timing as in having drills on that same day that dealt with multiple plane hijackings. Remember how everything is blamed on confusion of that day? Well how come Al Qaeda picked that perfect day to do this.

This is the second time you've mentioned these drills. You even appear to know what the specific nature of these drills was.

So, I ask again. What were these drills you speak of, and how did they facilitate the 9/11 attacks. Please be specific.

-Gumboot

Nephilim70

13th December 2007, 04:00 AM

uk_dave

13th December 2007, 04:02 AM

hmmmmm able danger as a war game scenario, eh?

nice one

Firestone

13th December 2007, 04:27 AM

Yes, Wow. Your powers of doublethink are double plus good my comrade.

He is clearly saying that it wasn't 10 something. You lie. We see right through you.Well, dear Zlaya, you seem to use a very special definition of the word "lie".

To help you out: when I mention something that Mineta actually says in the video you linked to, I am not lying.
Even if you don't particularly like the sentence I quoted (because it shows that even Mineta isn't particularly sure about the timing), the sentence is still in the video.

On the other hand, when you write that there were "drills on that same day that dealt with multiple plane hijackings", that's a lie, because there were no such drills on 9/11.

So, I ask you once more, retract your silly claim that I was lying.

By the way, I am not your "comrade", and given the abysmal level of your posts on the forum, I don't aspire to become one.

SpitfireIX

13th December 2007, 04:59 AM

Thats not what i'm assuming.

I still think it is, though possibly you're reading my assertion too narrowly and literally, so I'll rephrase. You evidently believe that high-quality video surveillance cameras with recorders covering all of the Pentagon's grounds would significantly increase security at the building.

I'm assuming that roof cameras etc would film the final approach of the object. So the point is, i would love to see whether or not Pentagon Has those cameras on the roof, and would they be position to capture the event. We have the final approach. We know how high up from the ground the plane was? Get the idea?

Yes, I get the idea, but you're setting up a false dichotomy. Choice 1: There were cameras with attached video recorders on the roof of the Pentagon, and the DoD is hiding the videos.

If the 2 REALLY crappy shots are the only ones we have, then i'll be even more petrified to live in this country...

Is that how safe we are, in general?

Choice 2: Lack of roof cameras with video recorders at the Pentagon is proof of extremely lax security.

FALSE DICHOTOMY: Ignores Choice 3, which is that roof cameras aren't necessary for a significant increase in Pentagon security.

SpitfireIX

13th December 2007, 06:22 AM

Emad was an FBI informant. What i'm trying to tell you is that FBI had an informant in there, and the FBI let the thing go through. This is known as False Flag Terrorism. Controllers lead Patsies to act in their little play...Saleem started blowing the whistle, yet FBI still let the thing go through. But those guys would never do the same thing on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

From two New York Times articles (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm):

Federal officials have acknowledged in the past that they dropped Mr. Salem as an informer sometime before the trade center bombing over what they said was his reluctance to wear a body recorder, as well as other disagreements. They said he never provided detailed information of the attack in advance but that they began using his services again after the bombing and credited him with foiling the related but separate plot to bomb the United Nations, Holland and Lincoln tunnels and the Federal building housing the F.B.I. in Manhattan. [emphasis added]

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers. . . .

Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian army officer, was used by the Government to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists now charged in two bombing cases . . . his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the trade center blast, he was feuding with the F.B.I. . . .

CORRECTION:

An article yesterday about accounts of a plot to build a bomb that was eventually exploded at the World Trade Center referred imprecisely in some copies to what Federal officials knew about the plan before the blast. Transcripts of tapes made secretly by an informant, Emad A. Salem, quote him as saying he warned the Government that a bomb was being built. But the transcripts do not make clear the extent to which the Federal authorities knew that the target was the World Trade Center. [emphasis added]

That's understandible. You're British, and BBC is not exactly a good source of fair and biased news, regarding War in Iraq, and the British involvement.. Just like CNN or BBC does not report much of the insanity that US Blackwater does in Iraq. You need to get the information from outside of your country.

From a Time.com article (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1672792,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics) linked on CNN.com (Time-Warner is the parent company of CNN).

A report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that Blackwater alone has been involved in 195 "escalation of force" incidents since early 2005.

But these went largely unnoticed outside Iraq until Sept. 16, when a Blackwater security convoy shot and killed 17 civilians at a major traffic intersection in western Baghdad. [emphasis added]

Sabrina

13th December 2007, 08:09 AM

Why would the Pentagon require cameras on the roof? This confuses me, quite honestly; what good are cameras on the roof going to do if they aren't pointed AT THE GROUNDS? Same goes for all the other videos the FBI confiscated; they'd be pointed at their little slice of real estate, not at the sky. Traffic cameras, which might very well have caught the event, aren't set to record, as they are part of the live surveillance Gumboot mentioned above.

You have a very poor idea of what security entails, Zlaya. As Gumboot stated above, the Pentagon is focused on preventative measures, and preventative measures as a general rule would not include recording cameras. I notice you ignored my post from before; why is that? I told you that the very idea of having an extensive CCTV camera network and a huge network of armed guards guarding the grounds of the Pentagon is a laughable waste of time and resources and you ignored it. Why? Do you not understand that the important things that need to be guarded are INSIDE the Pentagon, not outside, and therefore INSIDE is where the vast majority of security at the site is focused? I'm not saying there's no security around the perimeter of the Pentagon's site; far from it. I'm simply trying to tell you that no amount of cameras or armed guards are enough to prepare for an event like a plane crashing into the building, therefore your insistence on the idea of numerous cameras being a part of the Pentagon's security is ludicrous at best. I will do my best to try to get word directly from someone AT the Pentagon (or, alternatively, I will speak to one of the members of the security network at the site I'm at and ask their professional opinion regarding what type of security is at the Pentagon both pre and post 9/11 if I can't reach someone at the Pentagon itself) regarding the general state of security, but don't demand specifics from me or anyone else. We neither can nor will provide them, because to do so would undermine the very state of security you're asking about.

stateofgrace

13th December 2007, 08:16 AM

That's understandible. You're British, and BBC is not exactly a good source of fair and biased news, regarding War in Iraq, and the British involvement.. Just like CNN or BBC does not report much of the insanity that US Blackwater does in Iraq. You need to get the information from outside of your country. Anyways i'm sure you can look into details of this incident yourself.

google.com ?

Well I never, I am shocked, I have lived in the UK all my life and you mean to tell me that we can get news from somewhere else other than the BBC? This is a revelation; we have all been sat huddled around the little box in the corner listening to the voice of the BBC for the past couple of decades. I did hear that somebody in the neighbouring village had got something called a television and, although I can't confirm this did hear that it actually had moving pictures on it, some in colour also. I must let them know the next time I see them that they can tune into other news services in the UK.

What’s this Google .com anyway? Is this something to do with that new fangled internet thingy? Boy you guys are years ahead of us, thank you for letting me know.

In case you are unaware dear boy over here in the UK, the BBC is not the only way we receive our news, yes we really do have televisions with moving colour pictures that tune into differant news channels and yes we really do have access to the World Wide Web. We also have access to lot and lot of things called independent newspapers and yes were have access to books which we can obtain from bookshops and libraries.

But since you decided to single out the BBC as a lame way of stereotyping the British, it may interest you to know they did run stories on Backwater and yes they really do report how dreadful the war inside Iraq is.

The killings of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by guards from the security firm Blackwater were unjustified, FBI officials have told the New York Times.
The officials are investigating the 16 September incident in which 17 Iraqis were shot by Blackwater staff guarding State Department employees

A US human rights group says it is suing private security firm Blackwater for unspecified damages for war crimes and wrongfully killing Iraqi civilians

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7095764.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7039912.stm

Even the worst paper in the UK ran a story.

IRAQ has called for guards from a US security firm to face trial over 17 Iraqi deaths.
The final results of an official Iraqi investigation into a deadly shooting involving US Blackwater guards said the gunfire was not warranted, the government said

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article312804.ece

Please feel free to continue search for news reports about blackwater in the UK, here is a list of media links. I am sure you will find we have full access to information over this side of the pond, irrespective of how upsetting it maybe.

http://www.wrx.zen.co.uk/britnews.htm

beachnut

13th December 2007, 09:21 AM

Amalgalm Virgo, Able Danger, Tripod II were amongst some 13 Different "war games scenarios" taking place OFFICIALLY between Sept 11-Sept 12th.

Tripod II was a bio-hazard scenario specifically planned for sept. 12th

Why are we doing your homework for you? Do you have google .com webpage?
Oh, where did you scoop up this weak stuff? Now explain all 13 games; oops you can not do it, you have no facts.

SpitfireIX

13th December 2007, 09:57 AM

<snip>

2. I hope you understand that your source for the above claim is an Mark Roberts disinformation website, and the source for that specific claim is actually an anonymous post on disinformation forum called 'Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum' (probably made by Roberts himself), which has coincidentally banned all 9/11 discussion some time ago.

Here is the post (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/41575-pentagon-releases-aa77-video-6.html#post746514) in question, from May 19, 2006. The poster is Rich (http://www.bautforum.com/members/rich.html), and he had been a member of badastronomy.com/bautforum.com for four years, with over 500 posts, prior to his comments on the Pentagon. During that time he had mentioned in several posts (here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/18319-us-air-force-us-space-force.html#post409367) and here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/20354-4-star-army-general-canned.html#post457291), for example) that he is a US Air Force officer.

Here's a quote from a post (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/2635-saturnvs-unanswered-questions.html#post39576) of his from November 12, 2002:

I can sympathize. I had front row seats for the Pentagon events of 9/11 and still wake up somedays believing it was all a sureal dream.

And another from a post (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/17448-babber-history-channel-update-tonight-maybe.html#post387426) from April 8, 2005:

Hey all, just letting those interested know that the History Channel's April 29th edition of Mail Call (with Lee Ermey) you may be able to catch a glimpse of me... at the very least you will see some footage I helped plan and shoot.

The Mail Call guys and Ermey were here back before Presidents' Day to film some segments about the history and transformation of the Pentagon. . . .

So, the long and short of it is... you may see some cool footage I took and I might be seen, briefly, in one or two shots but I really have no idea. So tune-in to the History Channel at 9pm on Friday, April 29th. I'll let anyone who is interested know afterwards what stuff I helped do and if I am in any shots. Or you can simply look for the strikingly handsome Air Force Captain pretending to work at a computer when a Navy guy hands him something (I also filled in as something of an "extra" for a couple hallway shots... it was technically a holiday when we did all of this, so there was a dearth of actual people walking the hallways... lol!))

Now, Zlaya, if you would, please explain again how this post was "probably made by [Mark] Roberts." :rolleyes:

So, not only are your wrong, you have been lied to...

Pentagon not surrounded by cameras...

Its the freaking Pentagon. How innocent can you be?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604749c0482b6a3.jpg

Zlaya, you are the weakest link. Goodbye!

johnny karate

13th December 2007, 10:10 AM

~enigma~

13th December 2007, 10:13 AM

Four pages in and the only CTer to even attempt to present "evidence" is Zlaya. And of course, as usual, this "evidence" was merely wild speculation and vague innuendo.

When pressed to be more specific, true to CTer form, Zlaya either ignores these requests or changes the subject.

Color me surprised.
Evidence?! I call bs. The insanity was apparent when I asked him a simple and direct question and he resorted to the immature and idiotic woo tactic of insulting me. Let's say 4 pages in and every truther has shown themselves to be totally impotent.

Hyperviolet

13th December 2007, 10:34 AM

Amalgalm Virgo, Able Danger, Tripod II were amongst some 13 Different "war games scenarios" taking place OFFICIALLY between Sept 11-Sept 12th.

Tripod II was a bio-hazard scenario specifically planned for sept. 12th

Why are we doing your homework for you? Do you have google .com webpage?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Able Danger - A drill taking place on 9/11? Oh, my.

Amalgam Virgo - Show me the supposed official confirmation that it was running on 9/11.
You can do that, can't you?

gumboot

13th December 2007, 11:37 AM

Amalgalm Virgo, Able Danger, Tripod II were amongst some 13 Different "war games scenarios" taking place OFFICIALLY between Sept 11-Sept 12th.

Okay so we have three "Drills" mentioned above. If you want to claim 13, you have to name 13.

Amalgam Virgo is a biannual NORAD life-fly exercise. In 2001 Amalgam Virgo was held in June, in the Florida area, with special focus on threats of cruise missiles launched from a ship by terrorists.

FAIL.

Able Danger was a military intelligence program which was primarily concerned with using data mining techniques to see if they could be useful in uncovering information about suspected terrorists.

FAIL.

Tripod II, by your own admission, was not scheduled to start until the day after 9/11.

FAIL.

And as far as demonstrating how each of these three "drills" enabled the attacks to proceed...

FAIL.
FAIL.
FAIL.

Pathetic.

-Gumboot

JimBenArm

13th December 2007, 11:38 AM

Okay so we have three "Drills" mentioned above. If you want to claim 13, you have to name 13.

Amalgam Virgo is a biannual NORAD life-fly exercise. In 2001 Amalgam Virgo was held in June, in the Florida area, with special focus on threats of cruise missiles launched from a ship by terrorists.

FAIL.

Able Danger was a military intelligence program which was primarily concerned with using data mining techniques to see if they could be useful in uncovering information about suspected terrorists.

FAIL.

Tripod II, by your own admission, was not scheduled to start until the day after 9/11.

FAIL.

And as far as demonstrating how each of these three "drills" enabled the attacks to proceed...

FAIL.
FAIL.
FAIL.

Pathetic.

-Gumboot
And he had to do your homework? Oh, that's funny!

:dl:

Jonnyclueless

13th December 2007, 11:59 AM

Amalgalm Virgo, Able Danger, Tripod II were amongst some 13 Different "war games scenarios" taking place OFFICIALLY between Sept 11-Sept 12th.

Tripod II was a bio-hazard scenario specifically planned for sept. 12th

Why are we doing your homework for you? Do you have google .com webpage?

Congratulations, you learned the names of some drills, and even some things that weren't drills. Now how about answering the question and explaining how each drill came into effect in the hijackings.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 12:14 PM

And he had to do your homework? Oh, that's funny!

:dl:

Now, which one of those (if any) was used to insert those fake hijack blips, that confused so many operators on that day?

I know you get all excited and powerful when you post your useless stuff here, but let me be the first one to tell you that YOU Fail...

Let me ask a simple question:

Were there drills on 9/11 that simulated multiple hijackings?

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 12:27 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604749c0482b6a3.jpg

Zlaya, you are the weakest link. Goodbye!

That right there shows how completely useless you are.

As far as i'm concerned, a piece of text on a forum does not pass the muster as far as credible evidence goes.

I don't care who you claim that person was that posted that, or how long he was posting there.

When i said that it may have been Mark himself i was simply trying to make a point it could be ANYBODY that posted on BAUT forum.

So you FAIL, and you are indeed the weekest link. Now get over it, and join the reality.

DavidJames

13th December 2007, 12:38 PM

As far as i'm concerned, a piece of text on a forum does not pass the muster as far as credible evidence goes.WOW. If you really believed that, I wouldn't expect you to make another post here or anywhere since that's all you do, you don't provide any evidence, you just type text on a forum.

Nick Terry

13th December 2007, 12:45 PM

Historians in 100 years laugh and agree with me. Just like they laugh and aggree that Himmler set Reichstag ablaze.

Uh, Zlaya, this is wrong. Historians have concluded ever since the 1960s that the Reichstag fire was a lone wolf act of arson, not the work of a Nazi conspiracy. So this historian is laughing at YOU.

JimBenArm

13th December 2007, 01:07 PM

Now, which one of those (if any) was used to insert those fake hijack blips, that confused so many operators on that day?

I know you get all excited and powerful when you post your useless stuff here, but let me be the first one to tell you that YOU Fail...

Let me ask a simple question:

Were there drills on 9/11 that simulated multiple hijackings?

Here's a simple answer:

No, there were not any drills simulating multiple hijackings on 9/11.

I don't get excited. I'm already faster than a speeding bullet point, more powerful than locomotive breath, and able to leap tall cheeses in a single bound.

Also able to get simple concepts without having to have them explained repeatedly to me.

Why can't you?

DGM

13th December 2007, 01:41 PM

Here's a simple answer:
Who you jivin' with that cosmic debris?

Is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?

stateofgrace

13th December 2007, 02:19 PM

Now, which one of those (if any) was used to insert those fake hijack blips, that confused so many operators on that day?

Go on then give us a clue, which of these (if any) was used to insert those fake hijack blips, that confused so many operators on that day?

@ PhantomWolf, thank you for the correction earlier on. The context of my charge still remains though; Zlaya as knowingly lied and made false accusation with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Accusations he is still flinging around BTW.

PhantomWolf

13th December 2007, 03:02 PM

Why are we doing your homework for you? Do you have google .com webpage?

But I founded it on the interweb, It must be true...

PhantomWolf

13th December 2007, 03:04 PM

Go on then give us a clue, which of these (if any) was used to insert those fake hijack blips, that confused so many operators on that day?

I'd just like to see an explanation from how such a feat was done.

JimBenArm

13th December 2007, 04:00 PM

Is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
Yes.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 04:21 PM

No, there were not any drills simulating multiple hijackings on 9/11.

What is your evidence of that claim. How do you explain the audio evidence of FAA controllers saying how they've never seen so much real world stuff during an exercise, and how they weren't sure if certain things were real world or exercise.

If you're going to be in denial over this, go for it, i would just like to see how you can claim this. Give me some proof for your claim. Methinks you're absolutely wrong. Especially because i'm sitting on these audio files, and the transcripts are available online. Let me guess - these audio tapes are fake? They weren't made on the morning of 9/11?

So where do you get the gall to simply dismiss my question by replying

No, there were not any drills simulating multiple hijackings on 9/11.

A quote from Bill Hicks comes to mind, "You're denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, i see through you"

JimBenArm

13th December 2007, 04:24 PM

[quote=JimBenArm;3241442]No, there were not any drills simulating multiple hijackings on 9/11.

What is your evidence of that claim. How do you explain the audio evidence of FAA controllers saying how they've never seen so much real world stuff during an exercize, and how they werent sure if certain things were real world or exercize.

If you're going to be in denial over this, go for it, i would just like to see how you can claim this. Give me some proof for your claim. Methinks you're absolutely wrong. Especially because i'm sitting on these audio files, and the transcripts are available online.

So where do you get the gall to simply dismiss my question by replying [quote=JimBenArm;3241442]No, there were not any drills simulating multiple hijackings on 9/11.
Because I've read the evidence posted here. Do some basic research. It's not that hard. Really.
Of course, you won't believe any of it, but it is here.

And you're sitting on audio files? Or do you mean audiophiles?
Isn't that uncomfortable?

DGM

13th December 2007, 04:27 PM

What is your evidence of that claim. How do you explain the audio evidence of FAA controllers saying how they've never seen so much real world stuff during an exercise, and how they weren't sure if certain things were real world or exercise.

If you're going to be in denial over this, go for it, i would just like to see how you can claim this. Give me some proof for your claim. Methinks you're absolutely wrong. Especially because i'm sitting on these audio files, and the transcripts are available online. Let me guess - these audio tapes are fake? They weren't made on the morning of 9/11?

So where do you get the gall to simply dismiss my question by replying

No, there were not any drills simulating multiple hijackings on 9/11.

A quote from Bill Hicks comes to mind, "You're denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, i see through you"
Zlaya:
How long did the "confusion" last. Please give me exact times and who was speaking. The tapes are time stamped and I will check your claims.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 04:34 PM

[quote=Zlaya;3242148][quote=JimBenArm;3241442]No, there were not any drills simulating multiple hijackings on 9/11.

What is your evidence of that claim. How do you explain the audio evidence of FAA controllers saying how they've never seen so much real world stuff during an exercize, and how they werent sure if certain things were real world or exercize.

If you're going to be in denial over this, go for it, i would just like to see how you can claim this. Give me some proof for your claim. Methinks you're absolutely wrong. Especially because i'm sitting on these audio files, and the transcripts are available online.

So where do you get the gall to simply dismiss my question by replying
Because I've read the evidence posted here. Do some basic research. It's not that hard. Really.
Of course, you won't believe any of it, but it is here.

And you're sitting on audio files? Or do you mean audiophiles?
Isn't that uncomfortable?

Please, please please, i'm really getting tired of this tactics, and i'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to try and learn more about this event, from both sides, without having to read through 1000000 pages of insults and arguments on this 'forum'.

Please post a link proving that there were no such exercises. Am i asking nicely enough for you not to ridicule me, and dismiss me? Please, kindly spend some time and point me in the right direction here.

Let me guess, 911myths.com? Please post a direct link to the actual page on there that debunks that, because i've been looking, trust me.

JimBenArm

13th December 2007, 04:42 PM

Please, please please, i'm really getting tired of this tactics, and i'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to try and learn more about this event, from both sides, without having to read through 1000000 pages of insults and arguments on this 'forum'.

Please post a link proving that there were no such exercizes.

Let me guess, 911myths.com? Please post a direct link to the actual page on there that debunks that, because i've been looking, trust me.
No, the stuff is right here. gumboot has done an extremely thorough job of compiling all the information about the exercises that were scheduled, all the stuff that was going on after the planes hit, and detailing the roles of the air traffic controllers and stuff. Now, seeing as how it's you who doubts all this, and not me, and the attitude you've displayed before towards me, why should I do your research for you? There's a search function. Go for it.

stateofgrace

13th December 2007, 04:44 PM

[quote=JimBenArm;3242157][quote=Zlaya;3242148]

Please, please please, i'm really getting tired of this tactics, and i'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to try and learn more about this event, from both sides, without having to read through 1000000 pages of insults and arguments on this 'forum'.

Please post a link proving that there were no such exercises. Am i asking nicely enough for you not to ridicule me, and dismiss me? Please, kindly spend some time and point me in the right direction here.

Let me guess, 911myths.com? Please post a direct link to the actual page on there that debunks that, because i've been looking, trust me.

Since you asked nicely.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

and

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752

Magenta

13th December 2007, 04:47 PM

[QUOTE=JimBenArm;3242157][quote=Zlaya;3242148]

Please, please please, i'm really getting tired of this tactics, and i'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to try and learn more about this event, from both sides, without having to read through 1000000 pages of insults and arguments on this 'forum'.

Please post a link proving that there were no such exercises. Am i asking nicely enough for you not to ridicule me, and dismiss me? Please, kindly spend some time and point me in the right direction here.

Let me guess, 911myths.com? Please post a direct link to the actual page on there that debunks that, because i've been looking, trust me.

Gumboot has done a lot of research on this. These are a couple of threads which might get you started:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

ETA: Ah, Stateofgrace beat me to it.

calebprime

13th December 2007, 04:49 PM

Especially because i'm sitting on these audio files, and the transcripts are available online. Let me guess - these audio tapes are fake? They weren't made on the morning of 9/11?

links?

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 05:05 PM

No, the stuff is right here. gumboot has done an extremely thorough job of compiling all the information about the exercises that were scheduled, all the stuff that was going on after the planes hit, and detailing the roles of the air traffic controllers and stuff. Now, seeing as how it's you who doubts all this, and not me, and the attitude you've displayed before towards me, why should I do your research for you? There's a search function. Go for it.

Attitude I've shown towards you. Thats absolutely hysterical - never mind your 'holier than thou' and 'you're all a bunch of stupid nutcases' attitude that you so freely disperse across this forum. No biggie, i don't care, but you know, i'm just asking for help here. No need for insults.

Your attitude is wrong, my 'attitude' is simply frustration because of the complete impossibility to find any information on this forum, without actually reading through pages and pages of how rude you and others like are to any newcomers an people like me who just simply have questions.

Again, will you kindly help me out by sending me that direct link to some page on 911myths of Gravy's awesome site.

Thanks!

HyJinX

13th December 2007, 05:12 PM

Attitude I've shown towards you. Thats absolutely hysterical - never mind your 'holier than thou' and 'you're all a bunch of stupid nutcases' attitude that you so freely disperse across this forum. No biggie, i don't care, but you know, i'm just asking for help here. No need for insults.

Your attitude is wrong, my 'attitude' is simply frustration because of the complete impossibility to find any information on this forum, without actually reading through pages and pages of how rude you and others like are to any newcomers an people like me who just simply have questions.

Again, will you kindly help me out by sending me that direct link to some page on 911myths of Gravy's awesome site.

Thanks!

Do you ever stop whining? Ever?

http://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/1/19/Temper_797.jpg/250px-Temper_797.jpg

DGM

13th December 2007, 05:14 PM

Zlaya:
I asked you nicely to back up your assertion. Can you do me the courtesy of a reply?

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 05:21 PM

Zlaya:
I asked you nicely to back up your assertion. Can you do me the courtesy of a reply?

I sure will, when you guys do me a courtesy of showing me how you can claim that there were no hijack drills, as per the above rant.

Thanks!

DGM

13th December 2007, 05:21 PM

Zlaya:
Because i'm in a good mood I'll give you a hint where your wrong here. See the bolded part.
What is your evidence of that claim. How do you explain the audio evidence of FAA controllers saying how they've never seen so much real world stuff during an exercise, and how they weren't sure if certain things were real world or exercise.

DGM

13th December 2007, 05:25 PM

I sure will, when you guys do me a courtesy of showing me how you can claim that there were no hijack drills, as per the above rant.

Thanks!
I didn't catch the post where anyone said there was no exercises. There was but they had little/no effect on the day. If anything they made the response quicker because more people were in fact there.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 05:26 PM

Do you ever stop whining? Ever?

http://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/1/19/Temper_797.jpg/250px-Temper_797.jpg

Will you stop boring me by constantly claiming that i'm a whiny little kid?

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 05:28 PM

I didn't catch the post where anyone said there was no exercises. There was but they had little/no effect on the day. If anything they made the response quicker because more people were in fact there.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3241442#post3241442

So i'm trying to see how he knows this. I'm trying to get the source of his claim. Any suggestion?

PhantomWolf

13th December 2007, 05:35 PM

I sure will, when you guys do me a courtesy of showing me how you can claim that there were no hijack drills, as per the above rant.

Thanks!

did you bother reading the thread where Gumboot laid it all out including dealing with the naming conventions and quoting people who deal with NORAD's response? I thought not.

DGM

13th December 2007, 05:35 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3241442#post3241442

So i'm trying to see how he knows this. I'm trying to get the source of his claim. Any suggestion?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

First posts by Gumboot detail the exercises on 9/11 and the NORAD response.

Your welcome.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 05:39 PM

[quote=Zlaya;3242188][quote=JimBenArm;3242157]

Since you asked nicely.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

and

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752

Thank you. This is how civil discussions are done.

Some people could learn things from you and Magenta.

JimBenArm

13th December 2007, 05:50 PM

Its a good question OP, too bad it has 'yet again' been soiled by your other peers who can't keep their mouths closed for two minutes...

Are you kidding me? Like, how stupid do you have to be to buy just that one facet of 9/11? Pentagon was struck! This is not your neighbourhood wal mart, this is the Penta-freaking-gon.

HAHA!

1. I hope that you understand how innocent you sound when you say that pentagon was not surrounded by cameras back then. Especially when you consider who you're quoting as your proof.
2. I hope you understand that your source for the above claim is an Mark Roberts disinformation website, and the source for that specific claim is actually an anonymous post on disinformation forum called 'Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum' (probably made by Roberts himself), which has coincidentally banned all 9/11 discussion some time ago.

So, not only are your wrong, you have been lied to...

Pentagon not surrounded by cameras...

Its the freaking Pentagon. How innocent can you be?

I know that this does not resonate in that thick skull of yours, but the coverup is out there.

You said that. You sound like a loonie...

Great job.

Let me ask you this:

DO you even read the stuff you write, or do you just squirt it all out and hit 'submit'?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your willful ignorance man/girl or whatever you are.

Then two of us would walk over to Cheney, and beat the living crap out of him for lying his eyes out, giving several different accounts on that morning, and for allowing the Pentagon to be struck.

Same goes for you my dear old buddy. I was talking about camera field of vision, and you were verbally masturbating. There's a difference.

I was hoping you would point me to a thread or something debunking the 2 cops?

Like, i tried using the search function, and all i found was ridicule, slander, disinformation thickheadedness and stubborness.

Yes, Wow. Your powers of doublethink are double plus good my comrade.

He is clearly saying that it wasn't 10 something. You lie. We see right through you.

Now, which one of those (if any) was used to insert those fake hijack blips, that confused so many operators on that day?

I know you get all excited and powerful when you post your useless stuff here, but let me be the first one to tell you that YOU Fail...

Let me ask a simple question:

Were there drills on 9/11 that simulated multiple hijackings?

That right there shows how completely useless you are.

Attitude I've shown towards you. Thats absolutely hysterical - never mind your 'holier than thou' and 'you're all a bunch of stupid nutcases' attitude that you so freely disperse across this forum. No biggie, i don't care, but you know, i'm just asking for help here. No need for insults.

Your attitude is wrong, my 'attitude' is simply frustration because of the complete impossibility to find any information on this forum, without actually reading through pages and pages of how rude you and others like are to any newcomers an people like me who just simply have questions.

Again, will you kindly help me out by sending me that direct link to some page on 911myths of Gravy's awesome site.

Thanks!
Those are your quotes up there. All I see is insult, slander, and poor attitude. I didn't write that stuff, you did. It's all just from this thread. I don't give a rat's patootie what anyone else said. If you're not mature enough to take responsibility for your own words, that's your problem, but drop the BS about how everyone else has been rude and "holier than thou". You need to look in a mirror there, youngster, and see how much bile and venom you yourself have spewn across this forum. As you sow, you reap.
You didn't come here to have any questions answered. We both know that's a lie. You came here to give the debunkers their come-uppance, only it didn't work out how you thought it would, so now you want to try to play martyr. Sorry, there are too many posts like the ones above for you to do that.
And the fact you're too lazy to do your own research also is not my problem. Again, you can find it if you get off your backside and apply yourself even minimally.

Oh, also, this is the last time I will have any dealings with you. So, don't worry, I won't insult you any more, precious!

HyJinX

13th December 2007, 06:02 PM

Zlaya...I think you know what this goes with...

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/disjectamembra/wp-content/photos/cheese_oh_cheese.jpg

HyJinX

13th December 2007, 06:04 PM

Will you stop boring me by constantly claiming that i'm a whiny little kid?

Yes I will...the minute you stop acting like one. Fair?

Magenta

13th December 2007, 06:09 PM

No prize for guessing where this thread is going… Aaaanyway, I’ll post this as I’d already looked it up.

Zlaya, there may be some confusion over nomenclature. As I understand it, “drills”, “exercises” and “operations” are quite different things. (I think Gumboot asked you what you meant by “drills” earlier in this thread - not sure if you got back to him.) This is a recent post from Gumboot that might clear up the “no drills” question:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3215071&postcount=307

hellaeon

13th December 2007, 07:02 PM

Zlaya your right about the 2 v 3 videos, I'm counting the re release of extended footage from the pantagon gate as a seperate camera.

So you think the footage released is adequate? I think its poor quality, as expected from the source it came. I also think as to how gumboot explained, your expecting so much from security and video surveillance without knowing how it works.
Again I have to ask, why do you think its in the best interests of the people you accuse, to skip around and NOT release a fake, 10 second video - It would surely only serve to help conceal the conspiracy greatly and you have to admit, would be easy to do within the 6 years that have passed.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 07:11 PM

Those are your quotes up there. All I see is insult, slander, and poor attitude. I didn't write that stuff, you did. It's all just from this thread. I don't give a rat's patootie what anyone else said. If you're not mature enough to take responsibility for your own words, that's your problem, but drop the BS about how everyone else has been rude and "holier than thou". You need to look in a mirror there, youngster, and see how much bile and venom you yourself have spewn across this forum. As you sow, you reap.
You didn't come here to have any questions answered. We both know that's a lie. You came here to give the debunkers their come-uppance, only it didn't work out how you thought it would, so now you want to try to play martyr. Sorry, there are too many posts like the ones above for you to do that.
And the fact you're too lazy to do your own research also is not my problem. Again, you can find it if you get off your backside and apply yourself even minimally.

Oh, also, this is the last time I will have any dealings with you. So, don't worry, I won't insult you any more, precious!

Sorry! :)

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 07:13 PM

Yes I will...the minute you stop acting like one. Fair?

And you'll define when I'm acting that way, right?

For example, when i call Gravy out on his BAUT forum sources?

Right? I'm such a bad whiny little kid, aren't i.

Sabrina

13th December 2007, 07:29 PM

Three terms Zlaya (and anyone not familiar with DoD SOP) should look up and learn about:

OPSEC
INFOSEC
PHYSEC

Learn about them and you will gain a tremendously better understanding of how security at the Pentagon and pretty much any other DoD-related site (i.e. military posts and agencies that answer to the DoD) is handled.

And while I know Zlaya refuses to treat the word of someone who actually WORKS for the government (as per the attitude toward the BAUT post) as true, I spoke with one of the guards at the site I work at today and asked him point blank if he A) knew how the security at the Pentagon was now versus pre-9/11 and B) if he thought there was any chance in h-e-double-hockey-sticks that more cameras and/or more armed guards would've been able to prevent or minimize the effect of the plane flying into the building. He told me that security has been vastly improved; he has several friends who are on the guard force at the Pentagon, and they've told him that many more cameras have been added, and the number of officers on the Pentagon security force has been more than doubled since 9/11. He also said that nowadays, if you so much as pause by the Pentagon for more than two minutes, a patrol car will pull up beside you and ask your business there. But he also said that none of that would have had ANY effect on the events of that day, as the Pentagon has no anti-aircraft defenses (despite conspiracy theories to the contrary; the fact that a large international airport has runways that end less than a mile from the site of the Pentagon and at least one of which has an approach that takes it fairly close to the building prohibits it), and more guards and cameras aren't going to do jack [rule10] against an airplane. The overall government threat level has to be raised in order for antiaircraft Avenger batteries to be stationed around the Pentagon and other sites in and around Washington, and the threat level on that day was low up until the first plane hit the tower; after that, the day descended into chaos in an extremely short time, far too short to expect antiaircraft missile batteries to be ready to go. Avenger platoons have been stationed around the Pentagon in the years since 9/11, however; I know for a fact they were there on the first anniversary of 9/11 and have been a couple of times since as well according to the guard I spoke to.

Now I still intend to see if I can speak to someone physically AT the Pentagon, but I sought out someone experienced in the field of security to get my question answered, and he pretty much laughed at the idea that more cameras or guards could've done ANYTHING to prevent Flight 77 from hitting the Pentagon; the fact that there are more of both now has everything to do with a reevaluation of the PHYSEC around sensitive high-value targets and almost nothing to do with the plane that actually HIT the Pentagon. It isn't the threat of another plane strike that has the guards and cameras increased; it's the thought that the next time, someone could possibly penetrate the defenses of the building in another, more devastating manner, and the best way we know of to prevent any weaknesses in the building being pinpointed is to ensure that everyone and anyone near the building has a damned good reason for being there.

Another note; the guard I spoke with told me that, since 9/11, fairly extensive camera systems have been installed around targets judged to be high-value (the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, etc) and there is a large group of people whose sole job is to watch those video feeds. Given Gumboot's explanation of how it is prohibitive to expect recordings of these cameras, my guess is they don't actually record everything they watch, but I'm betting if they spot something suspicious they have the capability to do so if necessary. The point is, they are practicing PREVENTATIVE security measures by doing this.

PhantomWolf

13th December 2007, 07:29 PM

The irony of it is that one of the images released has what would likely be the best shot of Flight 77 that we'd get, if you know what you are looking at. Because of the plane's paint scheme (or lack there of) it has a habbit of reflecting the predominate colours, which in this case are blue and green which make it fade into the background. The image quality and compression don;t help to lacate it either, but with a bit of patience it can be found.

here's a small clue:

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/X/757_2x3-0%201a.jpg

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 07:39 PM

So you think the footage released is adequate? I think its poor quality, as expected from the source it came. I also think as to how gumboot explained, your expecting so much from security and video surveillance without knowing how it works.

Absolutely not. There is more footage out there that shows more. We need to see it.

The claim that 50+ tapes (out of 80+ that FBI collected) don't show the pentagon (as per Gravy's amazing resource) and therefore were not released, is a copout.

Really, so what if they don't show the pentagon? I really want to know why those 2 security guards are giving a totally different final approach. We can't have different stories. The two attack angles are so different, and so incompatible, that more footage should be released.

This is something the investigations should have investigated, but didn't. So Patriots (i'm sorry, nut case tin hat wearing twoofer tantrum crybabies) are forced to come here and be called names for simply engaging in dialogue.

I'm more interested in seeing HOW the object is approaching the pentagon, than to see the object impacting the pentagon.

Are those security guards wrong? They seem to think they're right according to their testimony, don't they?

Again I have to ask, why do you think its in the best interests of the people you accuse, to skip around and NOT release a fake, 10 second video - It would surely only serve to help conceal the conspiracy greatly and you have to admit, would be easy to do within the 6 years that have passed.

a) i am not accusing anyone so far, other than perhaps Cheney, due to Minetas testimon
b) come on, you know how much trouble the government would get into with the 'consipracy crowd' if they released a fake pentagon video. Those are very easy to detect, just look at how quickly the "black beard bin ladin' video was debunked. Your question does makes sense, but i feel it's irrelevant. Not really sure what you want me to say.

Instead, they should simply open the 9/11 files.

Lets see all the available pentagon footage. What was it, 86 admitted videotapes? 58 of which were not released 'because they don't show the pentagon'? Plus or minus...

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 07:45 PM

Sabrina

13th December 2007, 07:45 PM

Zlaya, I'm going to ask you again; WHY do you think the cameras would show the flight path regardless? Isn't the whole point of having a security camera having it focused on the asset you want to protect with it, not focused up into the sky away from your asset? I rather doubt any of the cameras in question were focused at the sky; they were either focused on the surrounding ground area or on a building. So I rather doubt any of them will show a flight path. For that, we'll just have to rely on witness testimony, and the FDR data which has been analyzed extensively. Why is that not enough for you?

PhantomWolf

13th December 2007, 07:49 PM

Lets see all the available pentagon footage. What was it, 86 admitted videotapes? 58 of which were not released 'because they don't show the pentagon'? Plus or minus...

Have you consider the idea that the 53 odd videos that don't show the pentagon may also belong to private citizens or companies? Have you considered that it would therefore be illegal for the FBI to release them without permission?

Sabrina

13th December 2007, 07:49 PM

Hey thanks for doing that. That's investigative research right there. Too bad you asked the wrong things. Did pentagon have roof cameras pointing out prior and on 9/11?

A) Roof cameras are irrelevant, as they would be focused downward most likely and would not show a flight path.

B) If there were roof cameras and I knew about them, do you honestly think I'd tell you, given that it would violate PHYSEC for the Pentagon? I'm not about to give you a map to the Pentagon's security; I like my clearance a little too much for that, and you're hardly worth losing it. And no, before you accuse me, I'm not being melodramatic; look up PHYSEC and study it extensively before coming back and even TRYING to do that. It is VERY important to me to maintain the Pentagon's PHYSEC, so in order to do that, I will only be able to give you a very general idea of the Pentagon's security measures prior to and post 9/11. You don't like that? Too bad; like I said, you aren't worth potentially losing my clearance over.

Zlaya

13th December 2007, 08:06 PM

A) Roof cameras are irrelevant, as they would be focused downward most likely and would not show a flight path.

B) If there were roof cameras and I knew about them, do you honestly think I'd tell you, given that it would violate PHYSEC for the Pentagon? I'm not about to give you a map to the Pentagon's security; I like my clearance a little too much for that, and you're hardly worth losing it. And no, before you accuse me, I'm not being melodramatic; look up PHYSEC and study it extensively before coming back and even TRYING to do that. It is VERY important to me to maintain the Pentagon's PHYSEC, so in order to do that, I will only be able to give you a very general idea of the Pentagon's security measures prior to and post 9/11. You don't like that? Too bad; like I said, you aren't worth potentially losing my clearance over.

Sure, that's fair enough, thank you for your help.

Magenta

13th December 2007, 09:09 PM

Absolutely not. There is more footage out there that shows more. We need to see it.

You keep asserting that there is more footage but have not backed this up with anything other than your belief that it exists.

The claim that 50+ tapes (out of 80+ that FBI collected) don't show the pentagon (as per Gravy's amazing resource) and therefore were not released, is a copout.

How is Agent Maguire's statement "Gravy's amazing resource"? By "copout" do you mean that she lied in her statement?

Really, so what if they don't show the pentagon? I really want to know why those 2 security guards are giving a totally different final approach. We can't have different stories. The two attack angles are so different, and so incompatible, that more footage should be released.

Link to the security guards' statements please?

I'm more interested in seeing HOW the object is approaching the pentagon, than to see the object impacting the pentagon.

I don't understand why the flight path is so important. Could you please elaborate?

Jonnyclueless

13th December 2007, 09:53 PM

Does Zlaya know that his or her question was answered years ago? Some research.

hellaeon

13th December 2007, 11:57 PM

Absolutely not. There is more footage out there that shows more. We need to see it.

The claim that 50+ tapes (out of 80+ that FBI collected) don't show the pentagon (as per Gravy's amazing resource) and therefore were not released, is a copout.

Really, so what if they don't show the pentagon? I really want to know why those 2 security guards are giving a totally different final approach. We can't have different stories. The two attack angles are so different, and so incompatible, that more footage should be released.

You cannot concede that they may actually show nothing?

I'm more interested in seeing HOW the object is approaching the pentagon, than to see the object impacting the pentagon.
Are those security guards wrong? They seem to think they're right according to their testimony, don't they?

The planes recorded flight path and the areas physical evidence tend to outweigh the testimony, but I dont think im thinking of the same thing here as what you may be referring to. If your talking about anything to do with the pentacon crowd, use the search as it was discussed at length with the video creators here.

a) i am not accusing anyone so far, other than perhaps Cheney, due to Minetas testimon
b) come on, you know how much trouble the government would get into with the 'consipracy crowd' if they released a fake pentagon video. Those are very easy to detect, just look at how quickly the "black beard bin ladin' video was debunked. Your question does makes sense, but i feel it's irrelevant. Not really sure what you want me to say.

As you would guess, I firmly disagree, it would highly advantageous to release or 'filter' a fake video into the mix. You cannot say with conviction you would detect it 100% of the time. No one could, only the people making a fake video - unless its poorly done.

Instead, they should simply open the 9/11 files.
Lets see all the available pentagon footage. What was it, 86 admitted videotapes? 58 of which were not released 'because they don't show the pentagon'? Plus or minus...

The videos probably fall under private company laws and the FBI (as far as I know) cannot just release it - thats a guess, nothing to back it up. I understand why you would say this and would myself find it interesting viewing, but I would hazard a guess that if you did not see what your hoping for, you would say the said videos are fake or another form of cover up.

Cheers

Max Photon

14th December 2007, 07:35 AM

911 Solved in 42 Seconds - LIVE (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8392598343914420605&q=911+solved+in+42+seconds&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

DGM

14th December 2007, 07:46 AM

911 Solved in 42 Seconds - LIVE (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8392598343914420605&q=911+solved+in+42+seconds&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)
The interesting thing is that no better explanation has been presented in 6 years.

uk_dave

14th December 2007, 07:50 AM

Yeah, really suspicious that within seconds of the second plane crash a journalist mentions the name of a well known mid-east terrorist leader who was so notorious and wanted by the US that sanctions had already been imposed by the UN upon the country in which he resided in order to make them surrender him.

Magenta

14th December 2007, 04:49 PM

Really, so what if they don't show the pentagon? I really want to know why those 2 security guards are giving a totally different final approach. We can't have different stories. The two attack angles are so different, and so incompatible, that more footage should be released.
Link to the security guards' statements please?

No response from Zlaya? Anyway, I listened to the statements given by Brooks and Lagasse in 2001, and watched the video of them at the gas station identifying the flight path. While the video is compelling in that they drew the flight path in more or less the same place, and were quite adamant about it, I believe that you have to go with the physical evidence where the eyewitness testimony is contradictory. Otherwise you’re left with the situation of still having mistaken eyewitnesses, plus having to explain the knocked over light poles.

911 Solved in 42 Seconds - LIVE (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8392598343914420605&q=911+solved+in+42+seconds&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

And...? In case you missed the OP, here it is again with the relevant bit highlighted:

Here is your chance truthers. Post your PROOF that ANY aspect of 9/11 was an inside job and alongside your proof please explain how it is proof of an inside job. Please debunkers don't respond to the proof presented unless it is false but I would encourage responses showing what a proof is really proof of.

~enigma~

14th December 2007, 04:55 PM

And...? In case you missed the OP, here it is again with the relevant bit highlighted:

Originally Posted by ~enigma~ http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2purple/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3234225#post3234225)
Here is your chance truthers. Post your PROOF that ANY aspect of 9/11 was an inside job and alongside your proof please explain how it is proof of an inside job. Please debunkers don't respond to the proof presented unless it is false but I would encourage responses showing what a proof is really proof of.

Never before have I seen such an inane display of the truthers impotence. Guess it is game over for the 9/11 truth movement.

gumboot

14th December 2007, 04:56 PM

Now, which one of those (if any) was used to insert those fake hijack blips, that confused so many operators on that day?

No one in either the FAA or NORAD was confused by fake blips because there weren't any.

Were there drills on 9/11 that simulated multiple hijackings?

No.

-Gumboot

gumboot

14th December 2007, 05:02 PM

What is your evidence of that claim. How do you explain the audio evidence of FAA controllers saying how they've never seen so much real world stuff during an exercise, and how they weren't sure if certain things were real world or exercise.

You're taking "Fail" to a whole new level.

Your "audio evidence of FAA controllers saying how they've never seen so much real stuff during an exercise" was actually 32 year old Major James Fox of the Air National Guard, and leader of the Weapons Team in NORAD's North East Air Defense Sector on 9/11.

At 08:43 EDT he commented:

"I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise."

This is an example of what's called "gallows humour" and the NEADS tapes (of which I have all of them) are full of it.

A minute later Major Fox is on tape again:

08:44:59
FOX: M.C.C. [Mission Crew Commander], I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination—
NASYPANY: O.K., I'm gonna give you the Z point [coordinate]. It's just north of—New York City.
FOX: I got this lat long, 41-15, 74-36, or 73-46.
NASYPANY: Head 'em in that direction.
FOX: Copy that.

Doesn't sound like someone who is confused as to whether the situation is real or not to me.

The simple fact is no one in the FAA or NORAD was in the least bit confused as to the very real nature of these hijackings.

In summary?

FAIL.

Again.

-Gumboot

gumboot

14th December 2007, 05:12 PM

"Did pentagon have roof cameras pointing out prior and on 9/11, and consequently does that he feel that one of 80 + confiscated videos may show the approach of the object that hit the building?" Since the plane wasn't much higher than the roof of the building for the most of the approach, this would be a good question, i think. Then again, that's just me.

Even imagining that there were cameras on the roof, and even imagining that for some strange reason they were pointed at the sky (perhaps a pair of vandalising pigeons standing up to "the man"?), and even imaging your assertion that the aircraft wasn't much higher than the roof of the Pentagon for most of its approach (this is patently false), and even assuming this particularly roof-located sky-pointing camera was being recorded for some reason, I can tell you with assured conviction that the the chances of this camera actually resolving the imagine of an airliner is virtually nil.

AA77 was at about 7,000ft at the beginning of its turn, and 2000ft at the end. A surveillance camera simply would not be able to pick up an airliner at those altitudes due to UV glare (quite apart from how small the aircraft would be at that distance).

-Gumboot