9/11 Coincidences

[vegeta613]

Those were released. You can see them on the wiki page. Are there others that anyone is aware of (rather than just speculating that they MUST exist)?

The hotel across the street caught the impact as well and the FBI took that and never released it

[Dance04]

I just want to add that security cameras like ones that did capture bits of the attack on the pentagon operate at a frame rate of about 1 frame per second so that one tape can record and entire day. In order to capture normal motion 30 frames per second are needed. in order to capture his speed motion, up to thousands of frames per second are used in special cameras. the idea that one of the cameras around the pentagon should have captured an image of the plane is, well.... crazy.

this doesnt make any sense. Your telling me, the most guarded place in the states uses cameras that capture at one frame per second?

[Mad Mike]

For some folks on this thread, name calling and insultive posting it is really starting to become your posting method, and to be frank, it makes you look like an ass.

Having a bit of decorum is a positive thing.

You are right. I have no decorum. Moron was over the line.

However if someone insists on making loony statements, I will call him a loon. Not to do so is to give credibility where none should be given and I will not be a part in spreading the insanity of 9/11 conspiracy loons by showing them more respect than they deserve.

[philal0102]

I questioned whether or not you (and on a greater scale, any conspiracy theorists) read. A fair question for people who post links to YouTube as if it were the bible.

A fair question to people who post links to youtube.... great. I have not once posted a link to youtube. That movie... yes... youtube... no.

[Mad Mike]

this doesnt make any sense. Your telling me, the most guarded place in the states uses cameras that capture at one frame per second?

Outside of the building in low security areas? Yes.

[vegeta613]

You are right. I have no decorum. Moron was over the line.

However if someone insists on making loony statements, I will call him a loon. Not to do so is to give credibility where none should be given and I will not be a part in spreading the insanity of 9/11 conspiracy loons by showing them more respect than they deserve.

Since we have a label maybe it's time we give you one

Hmmmmm lets see

One who cast a blind eye to sense and logic to defend the official story at all cost

Yep pretty much sums you up

[vegeta613]

this doesnt make any sense. Your telling me, the most guarded place in the states uses cameras that capture at one frame per second?

Things like sense don't compute in this thread obviously

[Dance04]

Outside of the building in low security areas? Yes.

even the cameras in the restaurant I work at are recorded at live speed.

[Predicto]

even the cameras in the restaurant I work at are recorded at live speed.

Do they film the empty wall on the outside of the building?

[Dance04]

Do they film the empty wall on the outside of the building?

yes they do, how did you know?????

[zoony]

Vote Ron Paul in 2008.

.....

[Reic]

Because they see plane/missile crashes every day.

Yeah, because planes crash into buildings every day in Prince William County and surrounding areas!

But, if it happened every day, yes they would, because that is their job.

There are firefighters on shfit at the helipad every day at the pentagon, the plane hit right above the helipad, so there are a handful of people that had to run their asses off when they saw the plane coming. One of them was a rookie acutally, he was in shock for some while.

[Baculus]

I know these debates can be contentious, for sure, and frustrating, especially with an emotional subject (which is why I try to avoid 9-11 threads, since we have gone over this over and over again, but I always let myself get pulled back in...). It happens to all of us.

[drone007]

to the debunkers out there... i had a pretty heated argument with my roomate about this last semester. :laugh:

he had me sit down and watch an hour long video that we all have seen before, saying all the typical things on why none of the physics add up or make sense, etc.

i'm a mechanical engineering student and i tried to explain to him (political science major, how scary!) my side of things. the problem arises when the mere fact that you believe it WAS a terrorist attack totally convinces them that you're ignorant. there is no arguing with them because they're, quite honestly, not intelligent enough to read the unbiased scientific facts.

it took me about 15 minutes on google to find a FULL PDF COPY of one of the INDEPENDENT reports done on the collapse of the towers and pentagon wall. FULLY CITED for my reading pleasure, 1000+ pages worth.

When you watch a made-for-youtube video with background music, a scary narrator, and quickly flashed math equations like F=ma on the screen,(hahahahahahah) some of us have a little bell go off in our head thinking "maybe these are not the most reputable and unbiased accounts of the situation"

now i dont intend to make it seem like i know all the answers, but there was a guy in the thread asking why we rebutted his stupid video with another stupid website.

go out and read. if its that important to you, read. and don't go out with any preconceived notions. pay special attention to what first hand accounts you get and what secondary sources are used. what are their credentials? what are their past publications? do a real investigation.

otherwise, shut the **** up and listen to the people who actually think for a change.

EDIT: and when i say first hand accounts... i also mean, how much of the interview was omitted? What is the context of the answer in relation to the question? When was the interview conducted and are there words used that are being given a connotative meaning in addition to their denotative meaning?

[Baculus]

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78073&highlight=Iraq

Heh. That must be your "Mad Mike" FAQ. That thread is from 2004, so it shows how long we have been debating this.

Basically, it still comes down to this: Were the Iraqi-terrorism connections enough reason to invade Iraq? Was that nation an immediate threat? Even with the information in your FAQ, was that enough cause to invade, and worth the price in lives and monies?

I guess that where the debate will continue.

[Baculus]

No, there aren't. There are cameras at doors, for example, that show who is going in and out, and in elevators, but there are no cameras just recording the entire outside wall of most facilities. I work in the California Supreme Court. We have high security. Metal detectors and cameras at the doorways, electronic pass cards, etc. But there are no cameras just trained on the front wall of the building waiting for a plane to crash into the building, at least not as far as I can tell. Same thing for San Francisco City Hall, across the street.

Really? I am surprised. I help setup IP-based security cameras in the properties that I help to manage, and we have cameras at least covering the parking regions in addition to the entrances. This is partially for safety of the residents and also to record any crimes which may be committed. Granted, this is seven years later, and security cameras have become cheaper, especially network based ones.

The Pentagon may well have installed such broad cameras now, for all I know, but I do not think we can assume they had them pre 9/11.

Since it is a secure facility, that would have been my assumption. I could be wrong.

Those were released. You can see them on the wiki page. Are there others that anyone is aware of (rather than just speculating that they MUST exist)?

I have never heard of either of those being released, but just the camera that was from a Pentagon entrance. Which Wiki has this footage?

[drone007]

has there been a positive identification on a missile hitting the pentagon?

there are lots of people that say they saw a plane fly overhead but i have yet to hear someone say i saw a missile...?

[Baculus]

Here is the only Pentagon footage that I can locate, and as far as I know, it is the only footage that has yet to be released. And it is filming the side of the Pentagon.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=12606845

Here is a frame-by-frame analysis.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html

Now, this footage doesn't resolve anything. As you can see from these images, there is no plane. Just a sudden explosion, and that is it. That is why further footage is needed to demonstrate the aircraft striking the Pentagon.

[techboy]

A fair question to people who post links to youtube.... great. I have not once posted a link to youtube. That movie... yes... youtube... no.

Ah, yes... "that movie".

I have to admit, your resume is impressive for one who is only 19. You appear to be very well educated, and are extremely well rounded in the areas of literature, music, and culture.

However, I have to wonder... of all the reading you do, how much of it is academic work in the areas of history, archeology, anthropology, astronomy, engineering, finance, economics, politics?

I'm sure we've all had this experience: I read a newspaper article that covers a subject I'm really interested in, and so know more than the average about (say, the Redskins, or gaming, or New Testament history), and I become upset. "That's not the way it really is!" I cry! "That reporter has it all wrong!"

I know this happens to others, because I see it all the time. I think what I (and many) forget, is that when it's a subject I don't know a lot about, there might still be a problem. "If it's in the newspaper, it must be true", I think. Then I go right back to railing the next time I read an article on which I am better informed.

The problem is that bad information can be awfully compelling when we aren't knowedgable enough to pick it out. Zeitgeist is no exception here... once I got past the really boring first two minutes, it seemed very well done and compelling.

But here's the thing. I'm not knowledgable enough in the areas of finance, politics, engineering, physics, etc. to pick out the errors in parts 2 and 3 (9/11 and the federal reserve) with any confidence. I teach Physics, but I do not consider myself a physicist. I have, however, spent the last 15 years of my life reading just about everything I could get my hands on regarding New Testament era history, archeology, anthropology, and so on. I do so because I am a Christian, but I make a point to read every reputable scholar I can, regardless of skeptical stripe. Sometimes, this is so I can find information positive to my case from skeptics (who are less likely to be accused of bias). Sometimes, it's just so that I can know what my "opponents" might hit me with in a debate. So, I feel qualified to judge the first third of Zeitgeist and its sources and claims.

The first third of Zeitgeist is utter crap. It is filled with errors that would be laughably obvious to a first year history student. It makes outrageous claims with no basis in reality, and relies on theories discarded by the academic community decades ago (when it relies on academics at all).

Further, when I go through the list of "sources", I find not a single expert in the fields discussed. No historians, no New Testament scholars, no astronomers, nothing. The primary "expert" citedis completely unqualified and probably crazy. She seems to actually believe that the Mormons, with the help of the Joos, are attempting to bring about Armaggedon using nuclear weapons smuggled into Australia. Huh?

I guess there's no need to go off track in this thread (we discussed the movie here when it first came out), but my assessment of "that movie" is that given that I know how laughably bad and erroneous the part I have knowledge of is, I can't trust the rest of it either.

Now, there is of course the natural inclination of many to dismiss me as merely giving a kneejerk reaction due to the fact that it challenges my faith, but the truth is, Zeitgeist is no challenge. Zeitgeist is a joke, and no credible academic (atheist, agnostic, Christian, etc.) would take its claims seriously.

Skepticism is healthy, but we need to be just as skeptical of alternative sources as we are of the government. Otherwise, we're still "sheeple". We just end up with a different shepherd.

[drone007]

Here is the only Pentagon footage that I can locate, and as far as I know, it is the only footage that has yet to be released. And it is filming the side of the Pentagon.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=12606845

Here is a frame-by-frame analysis.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html

Now, this footage doesn't resolve anything. As you can see from these images, there is no plane. Just a sudden explosion, and that is it. That is why further footage is needed to demonstrate the aircraft striking the Pentagon.

awesome. so there is no plane and no missile seen in this footage because of the slow frame rate and the extremely fast entry speed of either a plane or missile. weird how they use this video as an end-all-be-all for the missile theory.

using logical theory, what you're saying is: lack of visual evidence of anything --> no evidence for a plane --> proof a missile impact occured

[Baculus]

has there been a positive identification on a missile hitting the pentagon?

there are lots of people that say they saw a plane fly overhead but i have yet to hear someone say i saw a missile...?

Well, the theory goes that, if a missile struck the Pentagon, that it was a mock-up of an aircraft. Some of the witnesses that have been quoted described a smaller plane and not a jetliner. And the problem with some witnesses is that they describe bits of detail or actions that is probably not accurate for the few seconds that they saw the aircraft.

This is the general, conventional "missile theory."

Keep in mind that the aircraft was estimated to have been flying at 400 mph, so once a person looks up, it is gone. That doesn't discount anyone saying they saw an airliner, but, for example, they are not going to be able to see passengers in the windows or any fine details on the aircraft. The plane was travelling too fast and sudden for most people to have really catch a good glimpse.

If witnesses were able to see some of the details which have been claimed, then the 757 was flying at a much slower speed.

[drone007]

Well, the theory goes that, if a missile struck the Pentagon, that it was a mock-up of an aircraft. Some of the witnesses that have been quoted described a smaller plane and not a jetliner. And the problem with some witnesses is that they describe bits of detail or actions that is probably not accurate for the few seconds that they saw the aircraft.

This is the general, conventional "missile theory."

Keep in mind that the aircraft was estimated to have been flying at 400 mph, so once a person looks up, it is gone. That doesn't discount anyone saying they saw an airliner, but, for example, they are not going to be able to see passengers in the windows or any fine details on the aircraft. The plane was travelling too fast and sudden for most people to have really catch a good glimpse.

If witnesses were able to see some of the details which have been claimed, then the 757 was flying at a much slower speed.

and do you think that air traffic controllers are part of the conspiracy as well?

and what about the families of the people who died in that pentagon plane? are they in on it too?

[Baculus]

awesome. so there is no plane and no missile seen in this footage because of the slow frame rate and the extremely fast entry speed of either a plane or missile. weird how they use this video as an end-all-be-all for the missile theory.

Yes, this really doesn't prove or disprove, which...well, doesn't prove anything!

using logical theory, what you're saying is: lack of visual evidence of anything --> no evidence for a plane --> proof a missile impact occured

Personally, I have put on own beliefs on standby. Since there is still footage out there, I just don't see why it is released.

Perhaps they just don't feel it is necessary if the on-site and FBI investigation is found to be adequate.

[Baculus]

and do you think that air traffic controllers are part of the conspiracy as well?

and what about the families of the people who died in that pentagon plane? are they in on it too?

I am not going to get into that line. You asked questions about the missile theory. I have answered since I have researched it this topic.

Previously, I have stated that a missile striking the Pentagon, as opposed to a 757, isn't needed for my own personal questions about the events of 9-11.

[drone007]

I am not going to get into that line. You asked questions about the missile theory. I have answered since I have researched it this topic.

Previously, I have stated that a missile striking the Pentagon, as opposed to a 757, isn't needed for my own personal questions about the events of 9-11.

fair enough. do you have any insight on those answers if you were to project yourself behind the eyes of someone who might be endorsing the missile theory?

honestly, i dont see why people make it so complex as to replace a huge plane with a small one planted with explosives. that adds much more complexity in regards to the human aspect of upholding a conspiracy. now you've got traffic controllers, fake family mourners, etc.

call me crazy i guess...