an “operational environment” is iraq and afghanistan???
do we really have to worry about an air strike from them? or are you off your rocker??
the cold war has nothing to do with anything here, unless you want to discuss putins views on this
i highlighted in bold what you shouldnt have said
and am i supposed to reveal the holy grail of american conspiracies, where this so-called “missile came from (notice how i never implied this in this thread)”
dude it sounds like maybe you are in an airborne division, those guys are funny
Repeatedly asking a question, and ignoring the answers you’re given, does not constitute “making a point”.
“Unsupported statement” is not the same as “fact”, and repetition doesn’t alter that.
If you wish to start a debate (here in Great Debates), you might try stating a proposition, and then being prepared to defend it with facts and logic. You haven’t come close to this yet.
It’s useless for me to tell you this, because you’ll either ignore it or find a way to misinterpret it.
Trust me, nothing you’ve said has startled anybody here. You’ll interpret that to mean that we’re brainwashed sheep, but in fact it’s because we’ve seen it all before, and it’s like arguing with a cymbal-banging toy monkey.
I see that this is the one and only SDMB thread in which you’ve participated. I hope that remains the case.
It’s the Pentagon. They don’t want people (for instance terrorists) examining data on how much damage the building can take. This isn’t a mystery. It’s not even unexpected. More importantly, why do you give a fuck?
But again, the question you always seem to not want to answer is what your explanation is for all the people who saw an airplane crash into the building if a place didn’t crash into the building?
We have lots of evidence. Pieces of wreckage. ATC logs. Eyewitness accounts. It all supports the truth of planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon. What you have is what you perceive as a missing piece that you have no evidence of ever existing.
You can only be a Charter Member if you were here in the beginning when it went pay to post. That is what charter means. Another thing you are wrong about.
I am a police officer. I have dealt with businesses and security cameras for the last 11 years. I see how crappy most of them are. I see what they want to show. Most have no need to show the exterior of the business because it is by definition outside of their business and they don’t care. They care about people stealing their shit which is inside.
I don’t know why you keep harping on the one point. All you have is lack of something. You have no reports that anything is on the tapes. I’ll play your game and agree that tapes were confiscated. Would you be satified if they showed them to you with nothing on it or would you just assume they were fake? How do you refute the evidence that we do have? The wreckage and plane parts. The eyewitness accounts. Anything.
yes, that would be the point of this thread (perpetuated far more than it should have)
i would indeed be satisifed is i was shown one of these tapes…
and what is the evidence we do have? wreckage and plane parts? did you get this from CNN?
i invite anyone to post plane parts from the pentagon crash, the rotors and wheels do not match a 757, and the aluminum on the front lawn is the only piece of evidence you can show me, out of thousands of tons of airplane material
but we can see a hole in ring C. obviously something pentrated 3 walls, but we have no evidence of it?
Let me also add that these videos and pictures quite possibly show random human body parts floating through the air. Often the family of the deceased would rather not have video of their relatives’ dismembered, dead body parts out on YouTube and so the investigative parties opt not to release this so that they don’t get sued.
There’s an error in your logic (well, there’s lots and lots, but…yeah) : If one camera has one chance in a thousand to catch a glimpse, and there are a hundred cameras along the path, that’s still 1% total chance to catch a glimpse.
'Keep in mind that there are very few available photos of aircraft debris inside the Pentagon: a wheel rim and a landing gear strut, and an engine combustion chamber. The wheel rim was in the non-renovated Wedge 2 by the AE drive hole. And despite the assertions of the author of the ATS post, without expert analysis, no one can say that the few recognizable airplane parts are unequivocally from a 757.
Landing gear strut - appears to be from the nose gear - note how charred the area around it is.
This landing gear strut is inadmissible as evidence given the fact that the CatHerder does not claim to be an expert on landing gear and cannot verify from which aircraft this landing gear comes. As such, it could be the landing gear strut from any number of aircraft.
The next photo is from the cover from one of the conspiracy sites that demands “where is the plane?”- they must not have looked very hard, there are 2 obvious chunks of it in the photo. Another rim from the airplane on the right, and a large chunk of bulkhead on the left.
Again the alleged “evidence” of debris from a Boeing 757 in the above pictured debris is inconclusive. The fact that the ATS author claims categorically that there is “a large chunk of bulkhead on the left” is somewhat comical given his/her admitted lack of expertise in positively identifying charred remains of any aircraft let alone a Boeing 757. We should note that we are not saying that “no plane” hit the Pentagon, we are simply saying that the damage and debris is inconsistent with a Boeing 757.
Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.
Again, for anyone, let alone an amateur like CatHerder, to claim that they can positively identify debris from a Boeing 757 from these mangled pieces of material raises questions about the integrity and impartiality of said individual. Can “CatHerder” be sure that these greenish pieces of material are not from some part of the inside of the Pentagon or from another type of aircraft? The very fact that all of these parts and bits of “evidence” were NOT trotted out by the government and put on display for the public and experts to examine is more indication that if they had been, someone would have recognized them as something else entirely.
No official explanation for the above hole in ring C has ever been put forward, and the ATS author studiously ignores this fact. The official Pentagon building performance report simply states that:
“There was a hole in the east wall of ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2. The wall failure was approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building…”
That’s it. The fact that whatever came out through this hole is essentially the object that hit the Pentagon and did the major part of the damage is apparently not deemed important enough, either by the US government or CatHerder, to deserve comment. ’
youre right the fbi wouldnt even need to take the tapes, how clever
my point about the rims is that they are the most identifiable evidence by pentagon “conspiracy debunkers” yet they cannot prove its from the B757 allegedly crashing there
You’re deliberately blinding yourself to significant evidence that it was a plane because of one trivial aspect of the incident which doesn’t even contradict the idea that it was a plane except in the imaginations of people who believe the FBI would cover up counter-evidence, which still does nothing to counter the real evidence.
Frankly, if you’re determined to imagine that everything which is not fully explained contradicts everything which is, you can’t be helped.
Incidentally, Kobal, if there are a hundred cameras, and each has a .001 chance of recording something, there’s about a 9.5% chance one or more of them will capture something.
You assume they’re holding onto evidence because it shows something (though Bryan is right, I fudged a decimal point - still, 10% isn’t likely odds, and that’s with a hundred cams, not a dozen). I’m proving that they’re most probably not. For that matter, are security tapes seized in the process of a federal or criminal investigation given back, ever ? I wouldn’t think so, since it’s evidence for an eventual future investigation or different pannel of investigators. But you must have made the research on this, since you imply that there’s something unusual about the fact they didn’t in this case. Can I please get a cite ?
Maybe there is a conspiracy to hold onto the tapes. The FAA and FBI can grab such tapes pretty much at will when there’s a plane crash, but the FAA has to work closely with the airlines (some say close enough to be in their pockets) and the airlines certainly don’t want footage of lethal plane crashes circulating on youTube as it’s bad for business, which was already taking a major hit from the aftermath of the hijackings. Subsequently, there’s a tacit agreement that footage of planes crashing will not be returned.
Going through this, which I presume to be a random sample, outside of some description comparing the airplane to a missile, no one says they saw anything except a plane.