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 budaruskie
reply to post by FDNY343
If you want to purposefully miss the entire point of the analogy, I certainly can't stop you. Why don't you try to answer any of the questions instead?
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by backinblack
You obviously can't see the irony in advising me to get a life when you put time to researching my posting history and making an off topic and pointless post about it.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
Alfie, do you have ANY other interest in life other than 9/11 threads??
Checking a members post is sometimes good..
You post in NO other threads, only 9/11...
I think you seriously need another interest..
Maybe that is what interests him?
(I haven't posted elsewhere either BTW. Why don't you go ahead and accuse myself and Alfie of being paid government shills. That's usually the next step)
Why don't they release the tapes? Is that one of your questions?
I'll tell you a few reasons.
1-The tapes that belong to other companies re not property of the USG. They belong to a private company. They do not have the right under intellectual property laws to release them.
2- The ones in the Pentagon being released is simple really. Release those, and the location of the cameras can be triangulated. Security camera placement is usually classified. You can also figure out the capabilities of the cameras using their video. You may also be able to find out the manufacturer of the cameras too.
Seems silly to you?
Submarine grocery bills are HIGHLY classified. So are the suppliers. That doesn't make sense does it? Well, it's quite simple really. You could estimate how long a sub will be gone based on the food bills. You could then estimate the average speed, and get a general idea of where they are going.
Now, makes sense now, doesn't it. I surely hope so.
Originally posted by budaruskie
Yes, this seems very silly to me. I can actually understand classifying submarine grocery bills, but as you pointed out before, this is a very bad analogy. The Federal gov't can basically do anything it wants, especially when it comes to an act of war or terrorism, and you cannot convince me that those companies that own tapes that should have planes on them wouldn't allow them to be shown to the public, that's ridiculous. The truth is, the gov't took the tapes and never gave them back...so they certainly didn't ask the owners what they wanted to do with them. As far as "triangulating positions of security cameras" like I said before, GOOGLE CAMERAS ON PENTAGON and you will see pictures of the cameras, so their position is already known. That is frankly one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard dreamed up on this site. BTW if you guys haven't noticed, you've gone from there were no cameras, to there are cameras but they didn't see it, to they saw it but the positions of the cameras is so secret they can't release the footage. Common sense is defeating these arguments.
Originally posted by budaruskie
Originally posted by FDNY343
Why don't they release the tapes? Is that one of your questions?
I'll tell you a few reasons.
1-The tapes that belong to other companies re not property of the USG. They belong to a private company. They do not have the right under intellectual property laws to release them.
2- The ones in the Pentagon being released is simple really. Release those, and the location of the cameras can be triangulated. Security camera placement is usually classified. You can also figure out the capabilities of the cameras using their video. You may also be able to find out the manufacturer of the cameras too.
Seems silly to you?
Submarine grocery bills are HIGHLY classified. So are the suppliers. That doesn't make sense does it? Well, it's quite simple really. You could estimate how long a sub will be gone based on the food bills. You could then estimate the average speed, and get a general idea of where they are going.
Now, makes sense now, doesn't it. I surely hope so.
Yes, this seems very silly to me. I can actually understand classifying submarine grocery bills, but as you pointed out before, this is a very bad analogy. The Federal gov't can basically do anything it wants, especially when it comes to an act of war or terrorism, and you cannot convince me that those companies that own tapes that should have planes on them wouldn't allow them to be shown to the public, that's ridiculous. The truth is, the gov't took the tapes and never gave them back...so they certainly didn't ask the owners what they wanted to do with them. As far as "triangulating positions of security cameras" like I said before, GOOGLE CAMERAS ON PENTAGON and you will see pictures of the cameras, so their position is already known. That is frankly one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard dreamed up on this site. BTW if you guys haven't noticed, you've gone from there were no cameras, to there are cameras but they didn't see it, to they saw it but the positions of the cameras is so secret they can't release the footage. Common sense is defeating these arguments.
How about a real possibility. One where, maybe the U.S. gov't is not at the pinnacle of the power structure. Maybe the gov't wants to release the tapes but some inside or outside force won't allow it. I'm looking for possible reasons or scenarios where anyone having irrefutable evidence that essentially proves their case would choose not to show it to anyone. This is a pivotal issue and must be addressed by OS supporters because its a grand canyon size hole in logical reasoning.
Think of it like this. Say you are at your house and there are known security cameras at your house and your neighbors house alike. One day, out of the blue, your house burns down and kills your family except you. If your first thought was to immediately gather all of the footage of the event and hide it, don't you think people would immediately start to suspect something. Then, you go on to tell the police that something incredible happened that defies logical reasoning and physical laws and that you have very little if any evidence to support your claim. Don't you think the cops would immediately want to see the tapes? Who would be their #1 suspect in a scenario like this? In case you can't wrap your mind around this analogy, the public is represented by the cops in this scenario.edit on 2/3/2011 by budaruskie because: Spelling
How about a real possibility. One where, maybe the U.S. gov't is not at the pinnacle of the power structure. Maybe the gov't wants to release the tapes but some inside or outside force won't allow it. I'm looking for possible reasons or scenarios where anyone having irrefutable evidence that essentially proves their case would choose not to show it to anyone. This is a pivotal issue and must be addressed by OS supporters because its a grand canyon size hole in logical reasoning.
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by canadiansenior70
It must be very liberating when you can think up scenarios without being constrained by any facts or evidence.
But why oh why do you and other truthers keep posting that there was no plane debris or body parts when pictures are posted on here all the time ?
As this thread is about the Pentagon here are some pics taken inside of plane wreckage :-
www.rense.com...
Bearing in mind this area was a blazing inferno, any ideas as to how it got there ?
Why are all of you refusing to see the obvious logic of providing evidence to prove your case.
You certainly never miss the opportunity to demand it from a "truther", but when the tables are turned you choose only to insult or deflect.
I've been careful not to implicate the gov't as culpable in the attack, but how can you possibly say they don't have the footage?
Doesn't it make sense that if they didn't have the footage, they would show it just to prove that the footage isn't sufficient?
You all know this is a perfectly sensible request that as of right now has no perfectly sensible answer...other than the tapes show something different than we are being told.
That is exactly why I'm giving you all the opportunity to provide an alternative explanation, but you refuse to do so.
I am not discounting the eyewitness testimony, but you are not acknowledging the fact that different people claim to have seen different planes in different places, etc.
The fact that all of the "evidence" collected at the "crash site" that "proves" it was the plane they claim it to be is small enough to be moved by 1-2 people.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't count or exist, but it certainly raises some reasonable doubt. Doubt, that could easily be squashed with one video of the plane.
I'm not trying to play games with all of you, I'm trying to pose a perfectly reasonable question in hopes that you will reasonably try to answer it.
Unfortunately, you all just want to insult or argue with me about something else as to avoid the question at hand.
The evidence not existing IS possible, but extremely unlikely
...as unlikely that someone with no experience flying that class of airplane could fly it in excess of all known capabilities and execute maneuvers that known experienced pilots say are impossible or nearly impossible. It could happen, but its clearly not the most likely explanation and once again, a video could easily answer this question or at least part of it.
Originally posted by googolplex
What really happened is they told Bumfeild to release the info to Congress about the missing 2 Trillion Dollars, the following day, they flew a missle into the Pentagon, right where the info was housed that had the records on who got the missing money.
They got everything that day Open Check book and Control, they know how stupid the American People are, at least most of them.
Now there you go all you Truthers, everything is not a Comspiracy, some things are simply Fact.edit on 3-2-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)
Because no one can figure how to PROVE to you that something you think exist, DOESN'T EXIST
Whenever a "truther" makes a positive, assertive statement, evidence may be requested. Like how you insist that recordings of the plane striking the building exist, yet you cannot present any substantiating evidence, in fact your only evidence is that no one can prove a negative.
In other words, you're discounting the witness.
You realize, of course, that the entirety of that plane and its cargo, with the exception of some of the flammable materials, was almost wholly contained within the building. You're confusing the photos you saw with whole of reality which generally exceeds the limits of images found on Google.
You assert that the plane was flown in excess of all known capabilites - that is a positive assertion. Can you provide evidence? Or are you conveying someone else's opinion?
Originally posted by budaruskie
The Federal gov't can basically do anything it wants
Maybe the gov't wants to release the tapes but some inside or outside force won't allow it
3. The USA is too poor to spend money on some unnecessary hi-tech air defense systems for some regular office building.