The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

I dont just think it, common sense suggests there should be more evidence given the surveillance system in place.

And TPTB unwillingness to release such video evidence suggest complicity.

I have told you why and what i think. Which part are you having an issue with?

Unwillingness to release the video evidence that you have invented? How can they release something that only exists in your head?

a reply to: mrthumpy

Im not inventing anything, i im however implying that one of the most heavily surveyed buildings in the world, with state of the art 24 hour surveillance, should have captured the event in it entirety and produce more corroborating evidence than is available.

Believe what you wish to believe, cant teach pork after all, have a nice day.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

Im not inventing anything, i im however implying that one of the most heavily surveyed buildings in the world, with state of the art 24 hour surveillance, should have captured the event in it entirety and produce more corroborating evidence than is available.

Believe what you wish to believe, cant teach pork after all, have a nice day.

OK if you're not inventing it then exactly what video evidence are you talking about? Which camera pointed in which direction confirmed as working how and by whom and running at what quality?

a reply to: mrthumpy

"OK if you're not inventing it then exactly what video evidence are you talking about?"

The video evidence that should have been captured form the numerous other CCTV cameras(around 20 i believe) located in the area in question where the alleged plane stuck the building.

"Which camera pointed in which direction confirmed as working how and by whom and running at what quality?"

Chances are they could not all have been pointing in the wrong direction unless directed to do so, stands to reason.

As to quality, well it is/was a state of the art system, certainly one would expect pretty much perfect quality.

a reply to: andy06shake

State of the art 2001 style

a reply to: wmd_2008

For the time yes, that also stands to reason, given the nature and importance of the structure in question.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

"OK if you're not inventing it then exactly what video evidence are you talking about?"

The video evidence that should have been captured form the numerous other CCTV cameras(around 20 i believe) located in the area in question where the alleged plane stuck the building.

"Which camera pointed in which direction confirmed as working how and by whom and running at what quality?"

Chances are they could not all have been pointing in the wrong direction unless directed to do so, stands to reason.

As to quality, well it is/was a state of the art system, certainly one would expect pretty much perfect quality.

So we still don't know if the video evidence actually exists just that you think it should

a reply to: mrthumpy

Why would it not exist?

Were all the cameras turned off aside from the one that captured such spurious content? Or are "They" just unwilling to release images which could call into question there version of events?

I think the lack of corroborating video evidence raises questions on numerous different levels.

Ether that or the U.S just was not trying that day which I find it incredibly hard to swallow considering the target.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

Why would it not exist?

Were all the cameras turned off aside from the one that captured such spurious content? Or are "They" just unwilling to release images which could call into question there version of events?

I think the lack of corroborating video evidence raises questions on numerous different levels.

Ether that or the U.S just was not trying that day which I find it incredibly hard to swallow considering the target.

YOU. are the one making claims about the existence of video evidence but so far the only reasoning you've given for its existence is that you can't believe it doesn't.

a reply to: mrthumpy

The cameras existed that's a given!

Hence they should indeed have captured images of the plane hitting the building if it happened the way they said it did.

That's if they were functional.

If they were not functional, or TPTB are unwilling/unable to produce video that supports there claims, one has to wonder why?

I notice you ask a lot of rather redundant question without attempting to entertain others, why is that?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

The cameras existed that's a given!

Hence they should indeed have captured images of the plane hitting the building if it happened the way they said it did.

That's if they were functional.

If they were not functional, or TPTB are unwilling/unable to produce video that supports there claims, one has to wonder why?

I notice you ask a lot of rather redundant question without attempting to entertain others, why is that?

Which cameras should have captured the images?

a reply to: mrthumpy

Getting board now but i imagine that would be the cameras put in place so as to observe the outside of the building and surrounding area.

Or are you also calling in to question the existence of such cameras as well as the severe lack of video evidence to support there version of events?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

Getting board now but i imagine that would be the cameras put in place so as to observe the outside of the building and surrounding area.

Or are you also calling in to question the existence of such cameras as well as the severe lack of video evidence to support there version of events?

You imagine.

And let's not forget that YOU have already posted a video from a camera covering the area that YOU think should be observed

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

Why would it not exist?

Were all the cameras turned off aside from the one that captured such spurious content? Or are "They" just unwilling to release images which could call into question there version of events?

I think the lack of corroborating video evidence raises questions on numerous different levels.

Ether that or the U.S just was not trying that day which I find it incredibly hard to swallow considering the target.

For the official story to be true, one must believe all sorts of impossible nonsense, such as "Oh, the pentagon had no surveillance cameras in place", and other absurdities.

Only tormented 'logic' and violation of the laws of physics can allow the official story to exist.

When everything the American people believe is false, we will comprehend the success of our misinformation efforts.

a reply to: mrthumpy

I imagine yes, do you depute the existence of the cameras?

The video was posted to address the issue of poor quality and the fact that frames are obviously missing. The video has possibly been tampered with and/or modified. And there is only one video yet there were multiple different cameras covering multiple different angles in the area. One would imagine said plane should have shown up on on some of them other than just the one.

Obvious there should be more corroborating evidence from other camera sources which also display images of the alleged plane in motion leading up to the event.

Cameras of the CCTV variety observe and record, it's what they are designed to do. So yes i do indeed think they should have captured supporting evidence and OBSERVED the incident if indeed it happened as claimed.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: hombero
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I know you're absolutely correct no plane hit the pentagon and for one SUPER simple reason! If a plane hit the pentagon they would release some or all of the video they have of it. That footage hasn't been released because it doesn't show an airplane hitting the pentagon. By withholding the footage it's as good as proof, imo, that there was no airplane. Keep fighting the good fight.

Right so you ignore the evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon because there's no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Well if that's good enough for you then keep clinging to it

Because people cannot die by plan crash unless there is a video? It's only logical?

Never mind the countless witnesses that saw a passenger jet hit the pentagon, backed by radar/flight data, eyewitness account by inflight pilot, physical evidence, DNA, and families of the passengers of flight 77 were give human remains for burial.

a reply to: andy06shake

I think part of the 9/11 "cover up" is the pentagon is an office building were most of the security cameras were at entrances, angled down to maximize viewing persons.

Part of the "cover up" is the pentagon was lacking in surveillance.

The one frame thing? It was a camera set to take a photo on a timed schedule. Every second or two. Not edited. It was the early 2000's. The recording of continuous surveillance video and retention was expensive and not very practical.

Still trying to connect the dots on why it had to be a missile in the context the pentagon was built like a "fortress".

A 190,000 pound passenger jet with a fuselage width of 12" couldn't go through all those walls? The passenger jet did leave a large upside down t-shape on the outer wall of the pentagon before it collapsed?

But a smaller 15,000 pound missile, less than 3 foot in width, would punch through wall after wall, leave impossibly large holes of several feet, with out detention, and without a symmetrical blast radius?

Why did it have to be a smaller missile because the pentagon was built like a "fortress"?

a reply to: neutronflux

"I think part of the 9/11 "cover up" is the pentagon is an office building were most of the security cameras were at entrances, angled down to maximize viewing persons."

All of them? What about the traffic cameras and other cameras? You do relies these systems generally have redundancy built in to network so that more than one camera can also cover similar angles/view?

"Part of the "cover up" is the pentagon was lacking in surveillance."

That could very well be but if that's the case one really has to wonder why considering the importance of the building? Never mind the fact that possible attack via civilian or commercial aircraft was already understood.

"The one frame thing? It was a camera set to take a photo on a timed schedule. Every second or two. Not edited. It was the early 2000's. The recording of continuous surveillance video and retention was expensive and not very practical."

It could very well have been edited or changed. Granted by today's standard and comparison continuous surveillance video and retention of the data is less expensive but there were multiple different cameras, they could not all have been crap. Never mind the fact tha It's the Pentagon not Blockbuster video the system would have been state of the art for the time.

How was data retention not very practical? We had hard drives and magnetic storage mediums back in 2001 it was not the stone age.