It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Malcram
How come you don't understand the difference between stating something as a possibility and stating it as a certainty?
Because your hypothetical is not being presented in a vacuum without any predecessor activity. They were asked the specific question - by a court of law and respondes, in writing to the specific question saying, and I am paraphrasing here, "We looked at all the tapes and here are the ones that show anything relative to the approach and impact of Flight 77".
Now you want to look at all the same tapes because you think they MAY BE lying. Well, spin it any way you want, you are accusing them of lying. That is the basis of your entire argument. Everyone who says something that contradcits your POV is lying.
I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling them liars if I thought there was cast iron proof of this.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Malcram
I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling them liars if I thought there was cast iron proof of this.
But you are already calling them liars and yet you have no proof of it. Which, of course, proves the point that calling people liars is just a defensive strategy on your part, not an exclamation of fact.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Malcram
I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling them liars if I thought there was cast iron proof of this.
But you are already calling them liars and yet you have no proof of it. Which, of course, proves the point that calling people liars is just a defensive strategy on your part, not an exclamation of fact.
Originally posted by backinblack
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Malcram
I would have no qualms whatsoever about calling them liars if I thought there was cast iron proof of this.
But you are already calling them liars and yet you have no proof of it. Which, of course, proves the point that calling people liars is just a defensive strategy on your part, not an exclamation of fact.
Proof goes both ways..
I'm yet to see PROOF of a 124' wide X 44' high plane with 2 x 3500kg engines and a weight of around 100 tons hitting the Pentagon..
are we still ranting and raving how a plane didnt hit the building despite the overwhelming amount of evidence inside and outside? there were aircraft parts everywhere. how much debris do you think there will be with a plane hitting a building at 500mph with a full tank of gas??????? im surprised there was as much debris as they found, i was expecting much less.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by zimishey
WHY does that 'pilot' not want to give his second name??
In addition to Weedwhacker's suggestion, it is also possible that he may be contractually forbidden from making 'official' statements.
Exactly!!!
And for your claim that the tapes dont exist you must proof that.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by xavi1000
And for your claim that the tapes dont exist you must proof that.
How exactly does one prove a negative?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by stewalters1
One line post.
Exactly!!!
Ya know....I didn't at you, in your "EBE" thread.......
For everyone, and this "camera" BS...and comparing it to your local convenience store.
THINK about it....what happens in convenience stores? They handle MONEY! Do they suffer from robberies? Do they have their OWN 24-hour live, real person Police Force, there patrolling?
AND......do most of those sorts of CCTV recordings ALSO film at a reduced frame rate, to save storage space on the recording medium???? (Because a person robbing a store doesn't move very fast, now does he, for most of the event???)
The Pentagon: Has its OWN 24-hour Police Force....( www.pfpa.mil... )....ARMED with guns and everything, will full legal authority as any other LEO, when on the Pentagon property.
Does NOT handle cash, and is not subject to many armed robberies (care to research the history of armed robberies at the Pentagon for us??)
AND, like many CCTV recording locations, does NOT need full motion, HD-quality video....single frames, at a reduced rate, is sufficient to catch MOST action....but NOT an airliner being flown by suicidal murdering hijackers at 480 knots.
THIS is what you people fail to comprehend. The airplane was moving at roughly ~800 FEET PER SECOND!!!
See it yet?
No, you DON'T "see" it....not when the camera takes about one or two frames, AT MOST, every second!!!
800 FEET PER SECOND!!! DO the darn math..........
edit on 5 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)
THIS is what you people fail to comprehend. The airplane was moving at roughly ~800 FEET PER SECOND!!!
See it yet?
No, you DON'T "see" it....not when the camera takes about one or two frames, AT MOST, every second!!!
800 FEET PER SECOND!!! DO the darn math..........
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker