What I find really odd is that the Pentagon had such shitty, and to an extent, non existent security cameras surrounding it. That is what I find really strange about the Pentagon strike.
Isn't this one of the most recognizable and important buildings our country has to offer? Shouldn't it have had much better security footage surrounding the perimeter of the building?
That is the part that I find really odd.
Would not the security set up been to detect human intruders, would it be expected to set up security cameras with a frame speed to capture an incoming airplane or missile. Security cameras are a deterrent , monitored by staff to pick out intruders and call security,
At the time, military thinking was that any attack on US soil would be a missile attack, no military anticipated any foreign country to attack the US with bombers, that's why airborne defenses were so scaled down in defending US borders, the defenses are anti-missile. And that is completely logical military thinking and planning.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
What I find really odd is that the Pentagon had such shitty, and to an extent, non existent security cameras surrounding it. That is what I find really strange about the Pentagon strike.
Isn't this one of the most recognizable and important buildings our country has to offer? Shouldn't it have had much better security footage surrounding the perimeter of the building?
That is the part that I find really odd.
Would not the security set up been to detect human intruders, would it be expected to set up security cameras with a frame speed to capture an incoming airplane or missile. Security cameras are a deterrent , monitored by staff to pick out intruders and call security,
At the time, military thinking was that any attack on US soil would be a missile attack, no military anticipated any foreign country to attack the US with bombers, that's why airborne defenses were so scaled down in defending US borders, the defenses are anti-missile. And that is completely logical military thinking and planning.
Why did the gov. do it? This is where the conspiracy theories tend to fall apart. It wasn't to gain support for war, they used the WMD debacle for that, it wasn't for insurance on the towers, the gov steals more with pen and paper every day.
I think the US gov has killed it's own many times, like Waco or during their crackdown on right wing militia, even Kent ST, I just don't see it in this case.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HockeyTeeth:
Why did the gov. do it? This is where the conspiracy theories tend to fall apart. It wasn't to gain support for war, they used the WMD debacle for that, it wasn't for insurance on the towers, the gov steals more with pen and paper every day.
I think the US gov has killed it's own many times, like Waco or during their crackdown on right wing militia, even Kent ST, I just don't see it in this case.
What I find really odd is that the Pentagon had such shitty, and to an extent, non existent security cameras surrounding it. That is what I find really strange about the Pentagon strike.
Isn't this one of the most recognizable and important buildings our country has to offer? Shouldn't it have had much better security footage surrounding the perimeter of the building?
That is the part that I find really odd.
No rest for the uninformed.
They DO have videos. The victim's families have seen some of them. However, the government does NOT OWN THE VIDEOS. It is not for them to decide if they are made public.
AND, remember the Zapruder film from JFK?
Just think of the lawsuits that you would see if they made all these videos public.
This reminds me of the old cross examination exercise in law school:
Defense Attorney: So you're testimony is that you did not see my client bite off the finger of the plaintiff.
Witness: No, sir, I did not.
Defense Attorney: Yet you have the gall to waste the court's time coming in here to testify against my client?
Witness: Well I didn't see him bite it off, I just saw him spit it out.
Why is everyone so concerned with seeing video of the finger being bitten off when we all saw it being spit out?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
What I find really odd is that the Pentagon had such shitty, and to an extent, non existent security cameras surrounding it. That is what I find really strange about the Pentagon strike.
Isn't this one of the most recognizable and important buildings our country has to offer? Shouldn't it have had much better security footage surrounding the perimeter of the building?
That is the part that I find really odd.
No rest for the uninformed.
They DO have videos. The victim's families have seen some of them. However, the government does NOT OWN THE VIDEOS. It is not for them to decide if they are made public.
AND, remember the Zapruder film from JFK?
Just think of the lawsuits that you would see if they made all these videos public.
This reminds me of the old cross examination exercise in law school:
Defense Attorney: So you're testimony is that you did not see my client bite off the finger of the plaintiff.
Witness: No, sir, I did not.
Defense Attorney: Yet you have the gall to waste the court's time coming in here to testify against my client?
Witness: Well I didn't see him bite it off, I just saw him spit it out.
Why is everyone so concerned with seeing video of the finger being bitten off when we all saw it being spit out?
Would not the security set up been to detect human intruders, would it be expected to set up security cameras with a frame speed to capture an incoming airplane or missile. Security cameras are a deterrent , monitored by staff to pick out intruders and call security,
At the time, military thinking was that any attack on US soil would be a missile attack, no military anticipated any foreign country to attack the US with bombers, that's why airborne defenses were so scaled down in defending US borders, the defenses are anti-missile. And that is completely logical military thinking and planning.
I thought there was a level of concern that terrorists might hijack planes, but I'd need to do more research. Even so, the point is a good one. What good is a camera going to be in the instance of a plane flying into the pentagon at 500mph+. None.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BMA:
Would not the security set up been to detect human intruders, would it be expected to set up security cameras with a frame speed to capture an incoming airplane or missile. Security cameras are a deterrent , monitored by staff to pick out intruders and call security,
At the time, military thinking was that any attack on US soil would be a missile attack, no military anticipated any foreign country to attack the US with bombers, that's why airborne defenses were so scaled down in defending US borders, the defenses are anti-missile. And that is completely logical military thinking and planning.
I thought there was a level of concern that terrorists might hijack planes, but I'd need to do more research. Even so, the point is a good one. What good is a camera going to be in the instance of a plane flying into the pentagon at 500mph+. None.
This was the first instance in recorded history where hijackers used airplanes as weapons. The traditional MO of Islamic terrorist hijackers prior to that was to demand the plane go to a friendly country, land, hold everyone on board hostage, and negotiate for an exchange of prisoners. Period. The fact that hijacked airplanes had never been used as weapons before does explain a lot of the delayed reaction and failure to intercept.
0
This was the first instance in recorded history where hijackers used airplanes as weapons. The traditional MO of Islamic terrorist hijackers prior to that was to demand the plane go to a friendly country, land, hold everyone on board hostage, and negotiate for an exchange of prisoners. Period. The fact that hijacked airplanes had never been used as weapons before does explain a lot of the delayed reaction and failure to intercept.
They DO have videos. The victim's families have seen some of them. However, the government does NOT OWN THE VIDEOS. It is not for them to decide if they are made public.
AND, remember the Zapruder film from JFK?
Just think of the lawsuits that you would see if they made all these videos public.
This reminds me of the old cross examination exercise in law school:
Defense Attorney: So you're testimony is that you did not see my client bite off the finger of the plaintiff.
Witness: No, sir, I did not.
Defense Attorney: Yet you have the gall to waste the court's time coming in here to testify against my client?
Witness: Well I didn't see him bite it off, I just saw him spit it out.
Why is everyone so concerned with seeing video of the finger being bitten off when we all saw it being spit out?
Hey dumbass…STFU
Post # 498
Post # 533 and Post # 537
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
No rest for the uninformed.
They DO have videos. The victim's families have seen some of them. However, the government does NOT OWN THE VIDEOS. It is not for them to decide if they are made public.
AND, remember the Zapruder film from JFK?
Just think of the lawsuits that you would see if they made all these videos public.
This reminds me of the old cross examination exercise in law school:
Defense Attorney: So you're testimony is that you did not see my client bite off the finger of the plaintiff.
Witness: No, sir, I did not.
Defense Attorney: Yet you have the gall to waste the court's time coming in here to testify against my client?
Witness: Well I didn't see him bite it off, I just saw him spit it out.
Why is everyone so concerned with seeing video of the finger being bitten off when we all saw it being spit out?
Would not the security set up been to detect human intruders, would it be expected to set up security cameras with a frame speed to capture an incoming airplane or missile. Security cameras are a deterrent , monitored by staff to pick out intruders and call security,
At the time, military thinking was that any attack on US soil would be a missile attack, no military anticipated any foreign country to attack the US with bombers, that's why airborne defenses were so scaled down in defending US borders, the defenses are anti-missile. And that is completely logical military thinking and planning.
Maybe I'm wrong but the bold areas seem a bit contradictory.
So even though the U.S. had conducted exercises in which planes were taken over, they never thought that one might hit the Pentagon or any other Government building for that matter?
Not only that but the Cold War wasn't terribly far off from that time. And it's not like the USSR didn't have some technology that would be able to achieve a result similar to what happened. I would have thought they would have had this basis covered sometime in the late 80's.
Maybe I'm giving technology to much credit and maybe it wasn't that developed. But only one angle of that side of the Pentagon being covered by one grainy video that isn't even a constant stream, just seems a bit under-secure imo.
I don't think it would have been all that difficult for someone to sneak into the Pentagon if the security cameras were that bad.
I'm just saying for such an important building, security seems rather shitty. Especially when it comes to the video footage. I'm pretty sure Vegas casinos had better security footage at that time.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BMA:
Would not the security set up been to detect human intruders, would it be expected to set up security cameras with a frame speed to capture an incoming airplane or missile. Security cameras are a deterrent , monitored by staff to pick out intruders and call security,
At the time, military thinking was that any attack on US soil would be a missile attack, no military anticipated any foreign country to attack the US with bombers, that's why airborne defenses were so scaled down in defending US borders, the defenses are anti-missile. And that is completely logical military thinking and planning.
Maybe I'm wrong but the bold areas seem a bit contradictory.
So even though the U.S. had conducted exercises in which planes were taken over, they never thought that one might hit the Pentagon or any other Government building for that matter?
Not only that but the Cold War wasn't terribly far off from that time. And it's not like the USSR didn't have some technology that would be able to achieve a result similar to what happened. I would have thought they would have had this basis covered sometime in the late 80's.
Maybe I'm giving technology to much credit and maybe it wasn't that developed. But only one angle of that side of the Pentagon being covered by one grainy video that isn't even a constant stream, just seems a bit under-secure imo.
I don't think it would have been all that difficult for someone to sneak into the Pentagon if the security cameras were that bad.
I'm just saying for such an important building, security seems rather shitty. Especially when it comes to the video footage. I'm pretty sure Vegas casinos had better security footage at that time.
The story of Pakistan’s direct involvement in 9/11 is another topic beyond the scope of this essay. One example will suffice. The Wall Street Journalreported in October 2001 that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, head of the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence, ordered $100,000 be given to Mohamed Atta in the US. The Journalfurther noted that the FBI had confirmed this information. [Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01] So perhaps it’s not surprising that Pakistan wouldn’t warn the US what its intelligence chief was up to. But again, this information did reach the US through other means. On July 14, 1999, Randy Glass, a thief turned government informant, was wiretapping a meeting in New York City in which he was trying to sell military equipment to some Pakistanis as part of a sting operation. During the meeting, a Pakistani intelligence agent pointed to the World Trade Center and said to Glass, “Those towers are coming down.” Glass recorded this on tape, and passed this and other disturbing evidence to his local congressperson, senator, and others. Senator Bob Graham has admitted his office received such a warning from Glass before 9/11. [Palm Beach Post, 10/17/02]
0
Quote Originally Posted by AlldaysmokeN:
The story of Pakistan’s direct involvement in 9/11 is another topic beyond the scope of this essay. One example will suffice. The Wall Street Journalreported in October 2001 that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, head of the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence, ordered $100,000 be given to Mohamed Atta in the US. The Journalfurther noted that the FBI had confirmed this information. [Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01] So perhaps it’s not surprising that Pakistan wouldn’t warn the US what its intelligence chief was up to. But again, this information did reach the US through other means. On July 14, 1999, Randy Glass, a thief turned government informant, was wiretapping a meeting in New York City in which he was trying to sell military equipment to some Pakistanis as part of a sting operation. During the meeting, a Pakistani intelligence agent pointed to the World Trade Center and said to Glass, “Those towers are coming down.” Glass recorded this on tape, and passed this and other disturbing evidence to his local congressperson, senator, and others. Senator Bob Graham has admitted his office received such a warning from Glass before 9/11. [Palm Beach Post, 10/17/02]
They DO have videos. The victim's families have seen some of them. However, the government does NOT OWN THE VIDEOS. It is not for them to decide if they are made public.
AND, remember the Zapruder film from JFK?
Just think of the lawsuits that you would see if they made all these videos public.
This reminds me of the old cross examination exercise in law school:
Defense Attorney: So you're testimony is that you did not see my client bite off the finger of the plaintiff.
Witness: No, sir, I did not.
Defense Attorney: Yet you have the gall to waste the court's time coming in here to testify against my client?
Witness: Well I didn't see him bite it off, I just saw him spit it out.
Why is everyone so concerned with seeing video of the finger being bitten off when we all saw it being spit out?
Who owns the videos and doesn't the Government own them? Why do the owners of the videos not make them public?
Why not put all doubts to rest in this matter?
This is what bothers me about Osama Bin Laden's reported death in Pakistan. Why not show the pictures and put all doubters to rest? It would go a long way in restoring some credibility in the Government.
It's sad but I have absolutely no faith in the American Government anymore to act in the best interests of its citizens because of situations like this.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
No rest for the uninformed.
They DO have videos. The victim's families have seen some of them. However, the government does NOT OWN THE VIDEOS. It is not for them to decide if they are made public.
AND, remember the Zapruder film from JFK?
Just think of the lawsuits that you would see if they made all these videos public.
This reminds me of the old cross examination exercise in law school:
Defense Attorney: So you're testimony is that you did not see my client bite off the finger of the plaintiff.
Witness: No, sir, I did not.
Defense Attorney: Yet you have the gall to waste the court's time coming in here to testify against my client?
Witness: Well I didn't see him bite it off, I just saw him spit it out.
Why is everyone so concerned with seeing video of the finger being bitten off when we all saw it being spit out?
Who owns the videos and doesn't the Government own them? Why do the owners of the videos not make them public?
Why not put all doubts to rest in this matter?
This is what bothers me about Osama Bin Laden's reported death in Pakistan. Why not show the pictures and put all doubters to rest? It would go a long way in restoring some credibility in the Government.
It's sad but I have absolutely no faith in the American Government anymore to act in the best interests of its citizens because of situations like this.
It seriously saddens me to go through and see how dumb some people are.
Look up operation northwoods.
And would love for someone to explain this. Why the video shows a missile, not a plane, hitting the pentagon, the most heavily guarded fortress on the planet, and this is the only footage.
It seriously saddens me to go through and see how dumb some people are.
Look up operation northwoods.
And would love for someone to explain this. Why the video shows a missile, not a plane, hitting the pentagon, the most heavily guarded fortress on the planet, and this is the only footage.
I thought there was a level of concern that terrorists might hijack planes, but I'd need to do more research. Even so, the point is a good one. What good is a camera going to be in the instance of a plane flying into the pentagon at 500mph+. None.
there was concern that they would hijack planes and exercises were undertaken to counter this, but it was believed any hijaked planes would be from outside the US.The threat of planes been hijaked and used within the US as missiles was not contemplated by NORAD before 9/11.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
I thought there was a level of concern that terrorists might hijack planes, but I'd need to do more research. Even so, the point is a good one. What good is a camera going to be in the instance of a plane flying into the pentagon at 500mph+. None.
there was concern that they would hijack planes and exercises were undertaken to counter this, but it was believed any hijaked planes would be from outside the US.The threat of planes been hijaked and used within the US as missiles was not contemplated by NORAD before 9/11.
It seriously saddens me to go through and see how dumb some people are.
Look up operation northwoods.
And would love for someone to explain this. Why the video shows a missile, not a plane, hitting the pentagon, the most heavily guarded fortress on the planet, and this is the only footage.
People are dumb because they don't buy into the horseshit you do? You truly think people want to listen to a fucking lunatic like you? You come in here and basically say "If you don't believe this like I do, you are dumb" Way to win people over to your way of thinking
WOW!
Histrionic personality disorder. It's sad
0
Quote Originally Posted by dogunder:
It seriously saddens me to go through and see how dumb some people are.
Look up operation northwoods.
And would love for someone to explain this. Why the video shows a missile, not a plane, hitting the pentagon, the most heavily guarded fortress on the planet, and this is the only footage.
People are dumb because they don't buy into the horseshit you do? You truly think people want to listen to a fucking lunatic like you? You come in here and basically say "If you don't believe this like I do, you are dumb" Way to win people over to your way of thinking
If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit crazy, paranoid, tinfoil wearing, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.
Unreal
0
If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit crazy, paranoid, tinfoil wearing, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.
"Guess who's responsible for these terrorist activites?
if you guessed, Muslim Arabs....you're wrong...."
Sounds to me like one group got past these barbaric actions in 1945 while radicalized Islamists still seem to be set in those ways. Let's at least be happy that whatever group did those actions stopped in 1945 or so.
0
"Guess who's responsible for these terrorist activites?
if you guessed, Muslim Arabs....you're wrong...."
Sounds to me like one group got past these barbaric actions in 1945 while radicalized Islamists still seem to be set in those ways. Let's at least be happy that whatever group did those actions stopped in 1945 or so.
It seriously saddens me to go through and see how dumb some people are.
Look up operation northwoods.
And would love for someone to explain this. Why the video shows a missile, not a plane, hitting the pentagon, the most heavily guarded fortress on the planet, and this is the only footage.
It seriously saddens me to go through and see how dumb some people are.
Look up operation northwoods.
And would love for someone to explain this. Why the video shows a missile, not a plane, hitting the pentagon, the most heavily guarded fortress on the planet, and this is the only footage.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
