The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

originally posted by: andy06shake
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.

OK so you insist that there MUST have been video evidence because you're sure that there must have been but the video evidence that was produced MUST have been tampered with because it doesn't show what you want it to.

The aircraft would have been travelling at around 700 feet per second. What was the frame rate of the video camera?

a reply to: mrthumpy

I don't insist i just find it hard to entertain the notion that there is no more footage.

That one video camera you mean?

Video you probobly did not even relies existed until i brought it to you attention. Video that's problematic at best.

The frame rate is being called into question as is the quality.

a reply to: mrthumpy

If there was video evidence, then it becomes it was staged.

Then it goes into....
The local first responders, the local eyewitnesses, the radar evidence, the military eyewitnesses, the news videos of wreckage on the lawn, the flight recorder data, the local coroner, the lab technicians doing the DNA testing, the families that buried the passenger's remains was all fabricated. It all lies.

Why? Because it more believable the US bet on steeling a sunken missile damaged by a submarine explosion equivalent to 7000 pounds TNT, and damaged by saltwater. Retrofit the missile and trained a crew to launch it at the pentagon. And it had to be a 15,000 pound missile because a 190,000 pound passenger jet didn't have the momentum to go through all those walls.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

I don't insist i just find it had to entertain the notion that there is no more footage.

That one video camera you mean?

Video you probobly did not even relies existed until i brought it to you attention. Video that's problematic at best.

The frame rate is being called into question as is the quality.

Prove its a symptom of editing, and not a symptom of a time lapse close circuit security camera set only to take a picture every second.

It was also common in the 2000's for more than one security camera to share a line in. The line would toggle/cycle between the views of multiple security cameras.

a reply to: neutronflux

I cant prove it, anymore than you can establish that it has not been tamped with. But there are other factors like the lack of corroborating evidence from other cameras in the area to consider.

Common in a state of the art surveillance system covering one of the most strategically important facility's in the nation?

Could be i suppose but if that's the case then said systems had multiple different security problems to contend with because a lot can happen in a second.

TPTB knew possible air attack via commercial airliners was a potential scenario.

Measures would have been taken to detect and prevent against such an attack, which obviously did not work, or were somewhat circumvented.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

I don't insist i just find it hard to entertain the notion that there is no more footage.

That one video camera you mean?

Video you probobly did not even relies existed until i brought it to you attention. Video that's problematic at best.

The frame rate is being called into question as is the quality.

Yes I've seen that video before, some have claimed that it clearly shows a missile.

The reason I'm asking if you know what the frame rate was is related to the the speed of the aircraft and your claim that the video was edited

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: mrthumpy

If there was video evidence, then it becomes it was staged.

Then it goes into....
The local first responders, the local eyewitnesses, the radar evidence, the military eyewitnesses, the news videos of wreckage on the lawn, the flight recorder data, the local coroner, the lab technicians doing the DNA testing, the families that buried the passenger's remains was all fabricated. It all lies.

Why? Because it more believable the US bet on steeling a sunken missile damaged by a submarine explosion equivalent to 7000 pounds TNT, and damaged by saltwater. Retrofit the missile and trained a crew to launch it at the pentagon. And it had to be a 15,000 pound missile because a 190,000 pound passenger jet didn't have the momentum to go through all those walls.

Yes, Ockham's 'beard is long and flowing

a reply to: mrthumpy

But in this instance his razor is rather less than straight.

What about all the other inconsistency in the 911 commissions report?

Are they also to be overlooked?

Personally i believe it was an inside job or TBTB allowed the event to occur to further there own agenda.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

But in this instance his razor is rather less than straight.

Frame rate? Or is that just another assumption you have made?

a reply to: mrthumpy

The frame rate or lack of is whats is question.

Least i can see further than the nose on my face.

I can entertain the possibility that the government lies, don't know why you cant considering what they get up to on a daily basis.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

The frame rate or lack of is whats is question.

Least i can see further than the nose on my face.

I can entertain the possibility that the government lies, don't know why you cant considering what they get up to on a daily basis.

So you don't know what video evidence would have been captured but you're sure there MUST BE some.
You don't know what the frame rate of the video camera was but you're sure that the quality MUST BE better
You don't know what my attitude to the government (whichever one you're talking about) is but you're sure that I MUST trust them.

In your world William must resemble a Yeti

a reply to: mrthumpy

Thats the point of the matter the video does not clearly show anything.

Well speed does equate to distance over time, but like i said the problem may very well lie with the frame rate/lack of/or tampering, making any calculations somewhat inaccurate.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Im pretty sure a state of the art security system would have had multiple cameras at least some of which would have been functional in real time.

Your right i dont know but nether do you.

What i do know is that the whole event is laced with inconsistency and ignorance as the report reflects in the extreme.

Take it you probobly think JFK was killed by a magic bullet fired by William the Yeti? LoL

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

Im pretty sure a state of the art security system would have had multiple cameras at least some of which would have been functional in real time.

Your right i dont know but nether do you.

What i do know is that the whole event is laced with inconsistency and ignorance as the report reflects in the extreme.

Take it you probobly think JFK was killed by a magic bullet fired by William the Yeti? LoL

No, you don't know. That is my point.

So citing the lack of video footage of an aircraft clearly hitting the building as proof that a plane didn't hit the building is not logical when you don't even know if it should exist

a reply to: mrthumpy

So you do know what happened because "They" told you so?

Despite the lack of evidence to the contrary and the inconsistency/inaccuracy/out right fabrications contained with in there report/findings on the matter.

Give me one good reason why said footage should not exist if it happened how they say it did?

I don't know what hit the building but i do know that someone is telling porkie pies about what actually transpired which does indeed suggest a measure of complicity.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

So you do know what happened because "They" told you so?

Despite the lack of evidence to the contrary and the inconsistency/inaccuracy/out right fabrications contained with in there report/findings on the matter.

Give me one good reason why said footage should not exist if it happened how they say it did?

I don't know what hit the building but i do know that someone is telling porkie pies about what actually transpired which does indeed suggest a measure of complicity.

I'm not the one making the claim about what video should be available am I

a reply to: mrthumpy

So if there is other video evidence that could corroborate "There" story you don't think it should and would be made available?

Transparency where such a travesty takes place is a must else there is obviously an ulterior agenda at play.

Still not giving me a reason as to why that extra footage should not exist despite the fact that there were multiple cameras supposedly in operation in the area none of which seems to have captured similar images to the video i posted.

Im making more claims that just the lack of camera evidence, none of which you seem to be addressing.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

So if there is other video evidence that could corroborate "There" story you don't think it should and would be made available?

Transparency where such a travesty takes place is a must else there is obviously an ulterior agenda at play.

Still not giving me a reason as to why that extra footage should not exist despite the fact that there were multiple cameras supposedly in operation in the area none of which seems to have captured similar images to the video i posted.

Strawman fallacies on top of your argument from incredulity fallacy. Tut, tut

a reply to: mrthumpy

You refuse to refute or address your opponent's argument, or address the questions posed regarding said discussion.

So how your Straw man claim applies simply escapes me.

This video highlights some of the inconsistency regarding what transpired, give it a view if you are inclined to do so.



Else crap or get off the pot.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

You refuse to refute or address your opponent's argument, or address the questions posed regarding said discussion.

So how your Straw man claim applies simply escapes me.

This video highlights some of the inconsistency regarding what transpired, give it a view if you are inclined to do so.

Else crap or get off the pot.

I'm challenging the assertion that the lack of video footage of an aircraft hitting the building is proof that an aircraft didn't hit the building. You've acknowledged that you don't know what video should be available