Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

[Zidane98]

Yet we can clearly see a plane hitting the WTC from numerous cameras and angles. In addition, a frontal view of the object coming from the distance would be much more conclusive than what was released:

So why won't they release the footage from these cameras? Or do you think it will be simply a blur?

Those video camera cover areas << 100 x 100m. The aircraft was travelling at 800 km/h. That's 222m per second. Clearly the aircraft was travelling at a speed too great to be caught on a CCTV camera. Your theory is hopeless.

 

[Thrawn]

Those video camera cover areas << 100 x 100m. The aircraft was travelling at 800 km/h. That's 222m per second. Clearly the aircraft was travelling at a speed too great to be caught on a CCTV camera. Your theory is hopeless.

There are more cameras than that.

Not one of them, close to or near the Pentagon, are more conclusive? If that is the case, then why not release that information? After all, they'd have nothing to hide.

 

[Nebula1971]

fail!
Fa!il
Fall

Lucky you don't want to get into a s**t fight with your emoji's and illiteracy. Otherwise you'd bring down the man!

You know... the Man!!!

Illiteracy? Go fu<k yourself.

How is that for some illiteracy?

 

[Nebula1971]

Those video camera cover areas << 100 x 100m. The aircraft was travelling at 800 km/h. That's 222m per second. Clearly the aircraft was travelling at a speed too great to be caught on a CCTV camera. Your theory is hopeless.

So what is arguably the most secure building in the world, you try and sell the idea that the CCTV cameras weren't up to scratch.

Do you honestly believe they wouldn't have better technology for such an important complex?

Head in the sand stuff right there, much like your other mate above.

You believe the mainstream media do you?

 

[Present Not Past]

I was so drunk when I wrote that, I don't even know what I was trying to say.

Sorry.

I've learnt that it's better to not post anything on Bigfooty whilst drunk. Sure, write something if you have to but don't hit Post Reply - because you may regret it the next morning.

 

[CM86]

I've learnt that it's better to not post anything on Bigfooty whilst drunk. Sure, write something if you have to but don't hit Post Reply - because you may regret it the next morning.

One thing I've learned from drinking... Is that I never learn! Haha.

 

[Sublime]

So what is arguably the most secure building in the world, you try and sell the idea that the CCTV cameras weren't up to scratch.

Do you honestly believe they wouldn't have better technology for such an important complex?

Head in the sand stuff right there, much like your other mate above.

You believe the mainstream media do you?

CCTV cameras aren't to protect from attack in the air. They're to capture people or perhaps vehicles around the buildings perimeter. I think that is more the point here.

 

[Zidane98]

So what is arguably the most secure building in the world, you try and sell the idea that the CCTV cameras weren't up to scratch.

Do you honestly believe they wouldn't have better technology for such an important complex?

Head in the sand stuff right there, much like your other mate above.

You believe the mainstream media do you?

Unless there were video cameras pointing into the sky any idiot can deduce from simple mathematics that it is nearly impossible for even the most advanced CCTV cameras to capture an image of an object moving at 222 metres / second when the area covered by the camera is about 50m wide & long. Hate to break it to you einstein but the CCTV cameras at the pentagon were not designed to capture images of objects moving at speeds of 800 km/h (222 metres / second).

As for your comment about the MSM (where have I heard that conspiracy theory before) I only accept factual information to base my views off - not the conspiracy theorist nonsense you've just rattled off which has conclusively been debunked.

 

[Zidane98]

Yet we can clearly see a plane hitting the WTC from numerous cameras and angles. In addition, a frontal view of the object coming from the distance would be much more conclusive than what was released:

So why won't they release the footage from these cameras? Or do you think it will be simply a blur?

Hahaha. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. You're comparing video footage shot of the WTC from hundreds of metres away by a bystander with a camera pointed towards the aircraft and comparing it to CCTV cameras which are pointing down and designed to catch intruders on camera.

I know some of the CT arguments border on absurd but this one really takes the cake.

 

[Sublime]

Just to help with clarity.

Recorded video is data. Data takes up storage space.

If you want to run continual data storage on multiple areas, you will want to limit the frame rate.

We can all now say that we should be recording the skies, but before 911, who thought that?
Why would record that data before??

No need for cameras pointed at the sky when the pentagon already had a missile silo that mysteriously didn't get used.

 

[Zidane98]

I just don't get why some people are having a difficult time understanding why an aircraft travelling at 222m / second is highly unlikely to be caught on CCTV cameras which are pointing down and covering an area of 50-100 m squared. It really is basic mathematics and common sense.

 

[ablett]

You can't just wish away what actually happened or what people actually saw on that day because it doesn't suit your conspiracy theory 14 years later. The object that hit the Pentagon can't be a drone, because a drone looks nothing like a commercial airliner. Neither in fact does a missile.

Why not , you do, but that's your role as a shill.

 

[ablett]

I just don't get why some people are having a difficult time understanding why an aircraft travelling at 222m / second is highly unlikely to be caught on CCTV cameras which are pointing down and covering an area of 50-100 m squared. It really is basic mathematics and common sense.

.
Prove a plane hit the pentagon then we might.
Prove the reported plane left the airport.
Manifest of the people on board.
Death records of those who died onboard.
Media interviews from anyone who lost family members in the supposed flight.
CCTV cameras from the servo over the road which had full view of the Pentagon where confiscated by the FBI straight after n never been released, why, what are they hiding.

Any who believes the official story is either a shill or a dill.

 

[Zidane98]

.
Prove a plane hit the pentagon then we might.
Prove the reported plane left the airport.
Manifest of the people on board.
Death records of those who died onboard.
Media interviews from anyone who lost family members in the supposed flight.
CCTV cameras from the servo over the road which had full view of the Pentagon where confiscated by the FBI straight after n never been released, why, what are they hiding.

Any who believes the official story is either a shill or a dill.

OK mate. Enjoy your fantasy world.

 

[ablett]

OK mate. Enjoy your fantasy world.

Well you seem to be

 

[Zidane98]

Well you seem to be

I live in a world based on facts & common sense. Something clearly lacking in the list of previous claims you've posted which have already been conclusively debunked I this very thread.

 

[ablett]

I live in a world based on facts & common sense. Something clearly lacking in the list of previous claims you've posted which have already been conclusively debunked I this very thread.

Haha well show me some facts then.
There's no clear footage of what hit the pentagon so I'd love to factual evidence of what hit it?
Common sense says it was an inside job.

 

[Zidane98]

Haha well show me some facts then.
There's no clear footage of what hit the pentagon so I'd love to factual evidence of what hit it?
Common sense says it was an inside job.

Hundreds of witnesses all stated they seen the aircraft. Jet Engine parts from a B757, landing gear from a B757. Human remains DBAH0 matched to the victims on the passenger manifest. Radar records. ATC recording logs. It is absolutely beyond doubt that an American Airlines Boeing 757 jet crashed into the Pentagon at a speed of 800 km/h (the black box was also recovered from this flight) with passengers on board. The facts clearly back up that statement and only the die hard conspiracy theorists entertain the wild alternative theories.

 

[ablett]

Hundreds of witnesses all stated they seen the aircraft. Jet Engine parts from a B757, landing gear from a B757. Human remains DBAH0 matched to the victims on the passenger manifest. Radar records. ATC recording logs. It is absolutely beyond doubt that an American Airlines Boeing 757 jet crashed into the Pentagon at a speed of 800 km/h (the black box was also recovered from this flight) with passengers on board. The facts clearly back up that statement and only the die hard conspiracy theorists entertain the wild alternative theories.

The first reporter on the scene said he seen no evidence of a plane, so he was lying?
Why wasn't the plane shot down before getting near the pentagon?
Do you enjoy eating grass like all the other sheep, can't you think yourself, use logic son.

 

[ablett]

Hundreds of witnesses all stated they seen the aircraft. Jet Engine parts from a B757, landing gear from a B757. Human remains DBAH0 matched to the victims on the passenger manifest. Radar records. ATC recording logs. It is absolutely beyond doubt that an American Airlines Boeing 757 jet crashed into the Pentagon at a speed of 800 km/h (the black box was also recovered from this flight) with passengers on board. The facts clearly back up that statement and only the die hard conspiracy theorists entertain the wild alternative theories.

Explain this Mr.Facts?

A plane cleanly hits the wall without touching the lawn in front?

 

[Nebula1971]

Hate to break it to you einstein but the CCTV cameras at the pentagon were not designed to capture images of objects moving at speeds of 800 km/h (222 metres / second).

Surveillance technologies available to one of the most advanced countries in the world in a place like the Pentagon would be far superior to CCTV cameras. Don't believe for a second that the CCTV cameras were all they had at their disposal.

As mentioned several times already, why was the footage confiscated by the FBI?

You talk about facts... Bullshit, they are facts. Facts that have been delivered by media outlets who incidentally are part of a fairly evil agenda.

Do your research on who the media magnates are and who do they work in collaboration with?

On another topic, just so I can get a better perspective of whom I'm having this discussion with, do you believe in ET life?

 

[Zidane98]

Explain this Mr.Facts?

A plane cleanly hits the wall without touching the lawn in front?

Piece of piss. The reporter is describing how little that there is left of the plane to emphasise just how complete the destruction was of the aircraft. You will hear similar sayings on any air crash where the impact forces are so violent that little to nothing is left that is identifiable as an "aircraft". Infact, when I watched the news coverage of the GW pilot suicide disaster recently one of the first news reports from the crash site reported that it doesn't look like there is even a plane at the crash site. Not to be taken literally but to emphasise how utterly devastating the impact & crash was.

 

[Zidane98]

Surveillance technologies available to one of the most advanced countries in the world in a place like the Pentagon would be far superior to CCTV cameras. Don't believe for a second that the CCTV cameras were all they had at their disposal.

As mentioned several times already, why was the footage confiscated by the FBI?

You talk about facts... Bullshit, they are facts. Facts that have been delivered by media outlets who incidentally are part of a fairly evil agenda.

Do your research on who the media magnates are and who do they work in collaboration with?

On another topic, just so I can get a better perspective of whom I'm having this discussion with, do you believe in ET life?

I do not accept at face value what I see on the news. I'll investigate, look at factual information and make logical conclusions based off evidence I have viewed from multiple sources. And it is clear - there is simply no evidence to suggest that the pentagon was struck by anything other than an American Airlines Boeing 757 at speeds of 800 km/h with passengers in it. If there was any tangible evidence to suggest otherwise I would believe otherwise bur there really isn't unless you start buying into crackpot assumptions and wild unsubstantiated theories.

As for ET, I don't believe or not believe in it. It is possible but as of the moment there is no evidence to suggest that it exists.

 

[Nebula1971]

Why do you think the FBI have confiscated footage of the incident? And given you use rationale for your decision making based on multiple sources, is it at all conceivable to you that maybe there is something they are trying to hide?

Completely forget about the circumstances for a second, and just focus on "why would they have a need to confiscate any material?".

 

[Zidane98]

Why do you think the FBI have confiscated footage of the incident? And given you use rationale for your decision making based on multiple sources, is it at all conceivable to you that maybe there is something they are trying to hide?

Completely forget about the circumstances for a second, and just focus on "why would they have a need to confiscate any material?".

There was a criminal court case involving a trial. Of course the FBI would confiscate anything that could be used as evidence in a trial. You're really seeing things aren't there if you are trying to peddle that as a conspiracy.

I've asked all the same questions as yourself and it is clear that there is no "conspiracy theory" behind what happened to the pentagon on 9/11. Most of all, if there was, it would literally need thousands of people in on it to even have a chance of working. 14 years later there would be plenty that would have spilled the beans about it by now.