If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"? Yeah, turns out that was about the least alarming of the series of PDB's Bush ignored before 9/11   (dailykos.com) divider line 350
    More: Followup, George Bush, Osama bin Laden, United States, George Tenet, imminent threat, Health Care, International, Chechnya, Bush administration  
•       •       •

3969 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Sep 2012 at 6:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-11 01:35:10 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?



Because he's waiting for HD footage from security cameras that hadn't been invented yet.
 
2012-09-11 01:36:33 PM

inner ted: good thing that the [Pentagon] WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7


1. Not by hi-def cameras (thanks shower_in_my_socks for saving me the time of looking that up).
2. The cameras that are in use, for reasons already explained, would not have provided anything beyond what we already have. Ergo (absent a compelling public need), the Pentagon feels no need to release ~1 second of tape that doesn't add anything to the discussion but DOES tip off the location of at least one security camera (and by extension, part of the building's security protocol).

You're dangerously close to being ignored. I like honest discussion and argumentation, and I'm willing to believe your lack of situational knowledge of the Pentagon's neighborhood is a limiting factor (NTTAWWT), but when you're relying on points that have already been discussed and legitimately dismissed, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

I could be unit testing now, man. Don't consign me to that fate.
 
2012-09-11 01:36:57 PM

inner ted: that's what you are running with? freaking lulz


The fact that HD video cameras weren't readily available ISN'T a good explanation of why there isn't a wealth of HD video records of an airplane crash?
 
2012-09-11 01:37:02 PM

shower_in_my_socks: More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?


Because he's waiting for HD footage from security cameras that hadn't been invented yet.


He knows that the Military got HD camera technology from the aliens at Area 51in 1947. They were used to film the moon landing on a soundstage in California.
 
2012-09-11 01:37:22 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?


i understand that people get rather emotional about this topic, which is why i've tried to be as sensitive as possible, but the complete lack of reading comprehension, or just pointedly ignoring my questions is ... well lame. but i know.. welcome to fark.jpg and all that.

it's cool - if you are all convinced, fine with me.

if anyone would actually like to respond with anything remotely related to what ive asked, i'll happily discuss. even like an adult, sans name calling and flaming out with "zomg you questioned my belief rarrr!!11!!eleventy"
 
2012-09-11 01:39:04 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: He knows that the Military got HD camera technology from the aliens at Area 51in 1947. They were used to film the moon landing on a soundstage in California.



Fark, I totally forgot about that. Point goes to inner ted.
 
2012-09-11 01:39:23 PM

inner ted: More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?

i understand that people get rather emotional about this topic, which is why i've tried to be as sensitive as possible, but the complete lack of reading comprehension, or just pointedly ignoring my questions is ... well lame. but i know.. welcome to fark.jpg and all that.

it's cool - if you are all convinced, fine with me.

if anyone would actually like to respond with anything remotely related to what ive asked, i'll happily discuss. even like an adult, sans name calling and flaming out with "zomg you questioned my belief rarrr!!11!!eleventy"


How about you provide some evidence, any evidence, of anything other than an airplane hitting the Pentagon?
 
2012-09-11 01:39:28 PM

inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.


saying that anything but a plane hit the pentagon is the nutty part...

inner ted: what does it mean to you? does it make you suspicious? or are you so entrusting of our government that you just KNOW they wouldn't be up to any shenanigans


You don't even need to trust the government to think that it makes no sense that we know a plane full of people died that day but they were not part of the attack. It's not that unbelievable in the face of the evidence that neocons allowed the attack to proceed, I'm more of a it was negligence kinda guy but I could see it as a possibility. it is totally ridiculous to believe that it was a conspiracy that involved disappearing a plane full of people. It's so ridiculous that it's less ridiculous to believe that the asinine version of events was purposefully floated to make anyone questioning the actually story look like a fool.
 
2012-09-11 01:42:14 PM

inner ted: More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?

i understand that people get rather emotional about this topic, which is why i've tried to be as sensitive as possible, but the complete lack of reading comprehension, or just pointedly ignoring my questions is ... well lame. but i know.. welcome to fark.jpg and all that.

it's cool - if you are all convinced, fine with me.

if anyone would actually like to respond with anything remotely related to what ive asked, i'll happily discuss. even like an adult, sans name calling and flaming out with "zomg you questioned my belief rarrr!!11!!eleventy"


Then help us out here, kindly restate what you believe. It's a fairly long thread, including posts from a farker that claims to be an eyewitness to the pentagon crash. Your posts may have gotten confused with others. So tell us again, just to clear up any confusion, just exactly are you asking?
 
2012-09-11 01:43:37 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?

Citation Needed.

lol - really ? do you also need a citation that the sun is hot?

and it's funny, in a sad way, that everyone here trying to prove their idea (and poorly) have been citation free - yet you don't feel compelled to ask for links?

gosh... is it only cause they agree with you?

stunning

so that's "no, Phillip Francis Queeg, i don't have any source to link to support my view."


ya got me, there is only that one still camera on the most secure building on earth.

i'll have to get back to you about the sun and if it's hot.
 
2012-09-11 01:45:05 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-09-11 01:46:01 PM
I think I've spent part of just about every 9/11 anniversary pointing out the gaping holes in the Truther's argument. It's become a tradition.
 
2012-09-11 01:47:09 PM

inner ted: ya got me, there is only that one still camera on the most secure building on earth.


stixblog.com
 
2012-09-11 01:52:16 PM

Dr Dreidel: inner ted: good thing that the [Pentagon] WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

1. Not by hi-def cameras (thanks shower_in_my_socks for saving me the time of looking that up).
2. The cameras that are in use, for reasons already explained, would not have provided anything beyond what we already have. Ergo (absent a compelling public need), the Pentagon feels no need to release ~1 second of tape that doesn't add anything to the discussion but DOES tip off the location of at least one security camera (and by extension, part of the building's security protocol).

You're dangerously close to being ignored. I like honest discussion and argumentation, and I'm willing to believe your lack of situational knowledge of the Pentagon's neighborhood is a limiting factor (NTTAWWT), but when you're relying on points that have already been discussed and legitimately dismissed, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

I could be unit testing now, man. Don't consign me to that fate.


while i tremble at a farker "officially" ignoring me, i'll manage. it's not like anyone here has been paying attention to what i've offered and asked, just responded with lots of emotion and rage.

like i said, i understand if this is hard for people to chat about. and many here need to resort to calling names and what not.

but as i've said numerous times to you and others in this very thread: this entire discussion could be avoided by simply showing any ONE of the other cameras. that's it.

and if somehow you really believe that revealing the position of a single camera - from over 10 years ago compromises our security... well i'll respectfully disagree.
 
2012-09-11 01:53:25 PM

inner ted: but as i've said numerous times to you and others in this very thread: this entire discussion could be avoided by simply showing any ONE of the other cameras. that's it.


The other cameras that you have no evidence existed?
 
2012-09-11 01:54:44 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I think I've spent part of just about every 9/11 anniversary pointing out the gaping holes in the Truther's argument. It's become a tradition.


let me know when you start doing that here.

can't wait!!
 
2012-09-11 01:56:02 PM
Much as I'd like to believe the most incompetent administration in my lifetime could pull off the biggest coverup of the biggest crime in US History...

Massive conspiracy!

Ugh. Please don't feed the troofers.
 
2012-09-11 01:57:47 PM

inner ted: but as i've said numerous times to you and others in this very thread: this entire discussion could be avoided by simply showing any ONE of the other cameras. that's it.


What would/could that camera show that would avoid this discussion?
 
2012-09-11 01:59:48 PM

cc_rider: Much as I'd like to believe the most incompetent administration in my lifetime could pull off the biggest coverup of the biggest crime in US History...

Massive conspiracy!

Ugh. Please don't feed the troofers.


Yeah, you're right. I've got shiat to do. I'm out.
 
2012-09-11 02:04:07 PM

inner ted: if somehow you really believe that revealing the position of a single camera - from over 10 years ago compromises our security... well i'll respectfully disagree.


If somehow you believe that the most secure building on Earth, run by a notoriously paranoid agency representing one of the most secretive (when it comes to defense/security) governments the world has ever known (measured by the volume of data they keep secure) will voluntarily divulge any part of their security apparatus - and one which is a painful reminder of how all those trillions of dollars in National Defense money have been spent - I'll respectfully disagree.

Besides the assumptions you make about such a camera and its footage (that any decent footage exists, that it shows anything different from footage we already have, that ), it'd probably take a court order to find out what's on the cafeteria menu today. Actual relevant security information from the Pentagon is difficult to come across.

Remember, there are still classified files from the Kennedy assassination, and that was 50 years ago. 11 years and only one or two security upgrades, and it's easy to see why the Pentagon might want to play their security hand close to the vest.

Meanwhile, all I've read from you are questions. Questions with plausible answers provided by myself and several others (and some snark, and nonplausible things. I ignore those). I have seen nothing from you, other than speculation, to make your point. So now it's time.

What the fark, exactly, are you on about? Is your question really "Why won't the Pentagon release footage I'm sure exists?" Isn't this like wanting a long-form birth certificate, complete with raised seal, SecState's handwritten signature, a notarized certificate of Intent to Interracially Fornicate, and every scrap of INS/ICE paperwork relating to one Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama II?

// and I'm not threatening you with ignore, I'm politely suggesting that you argue honestly
// otherwise, as is my prerogative in an argument, I shall leave it and return to work
// not to hurt you, but to stop wasting my time
 
2012-09-11 02:04:48 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: but as i've said numerous times to you and others in this very thread: this entire discussion could be avoided by simply showing any ONE of the other cameras. that's it.

What would/could that camera show that would avoid this discussion?


how bout a great big plane cruising down the boulevard and across the lawn ? that would shut me up.

but somehow that would put our national security at jeopardy. or so i've been told here.
 
2012-09-11 02:12:46 PM
inner ted:

Flip the discussion.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that there is no other existing footage of the impact. So what?
 
2012-09-11 02:14:48 PM
I have no video of the Lusitania sinking.

So it was a cruise missile.

There are no eye-witnesses who confirm it was a German sub.

So it was a cruise missile.

And the Columbia was made of inflammable materials, yet it "burned up"?

And just like Building 7 was said to have collapsed before it did, CNN reported the space shuttle was going 17 times the speed of light.

Wake up, sheeple!

If someone can show me blu-ray 3D video of the Lusitania sinking, it will shut me up.
 
2012-09-11 02:29:45 PM

Dr Dreidel: inner ted: if somehow you really believe that revealing the position of a single camera - from over 10 years ago compromises our security... well i'll respectfully disagree.

If somehow you believe that the most secure building on Earth, run by a notoriously paranoid agency representing one of the most secretive (when it comes to defense/security) governments the world has ever known (measured by the volume of data they keep secure) will voluntarily divulge any part of their security apparatus - and one which is a painful reminder of how all those trillions of dollars in National Defense money have been spent - I'll respectfully disagree.

Besides the assumptions you make about such a camera and its footage (that any decent footage exists, that it shows anything different from footage we already have, that ), it'd probably take a court order to find out what's on the cafeteria menu today. Actual relevant security information from the Pentagon is difficult to come across.

Remember, there are still classified files from the Kennedy assassination, and that was 50 years ago. 11 years and only one or two security upgrades, and it's easy to see why the Pentagon might want to play their security hand close to the vest.

Meanwhile, all I've read from you are questions. Questions with plausible answers provided by myself and several others (and some snark, and nonplausible things. I ignore those). I have seen nothing from you, other than speculation, to make your point. So now it's time.

What the fark, exactly, are you on about? Is your question really "Why won't the Pentagon release footage I'm sure exists?" Isn't this like wanting a long-form birth certificate, complete with raised seal, SecState's handwritten signature, a notarized certificate of Intent to Interracially Fornicate, and every scrap of INS/ICE paperwork relating to one Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama II?

// and I'm not threatening you with ignore, I'm politely suggesting that you argue honestly
// otherwise, ...


first and foremost i appreciate your take & your ability to offer it without insults.

let me take your questions / comments in order

i can appreciate the building and it's occupants are all about security (which is why i'm confident there is more than just that crappy clip to show what happened) and privacy (the irony)

but i just don't believe / understand how it's not in everyone's best interest to say "here's a different angle - terrible ain't it? now shut up and go away."
other than the security angle you offer, which i don't agree with. again, that was a hella long time ago and i'm sure there have been a few updates that would make whatever position was 'given away' irrelevant.
you say it'd take a court order to find out what's on the menu at the cafe, yet seem confident that there have only been 'one or two upgrades'. either you work there or are just guessing.

as to your Kennedy reference - that's kind of my point, they could dispel all these myths and all the conjecture by showing just ONE decent camera angle. they can make their case and folks like me will have nothing more to add, other than "thanks for clearing that up, what took so long?"

no shiat all i've been doing is asking questions. cause i don't know what happened and have never claimed otherwise. the only thing offered by you or any one else is conjecture and your feelings. that's not what i asked for, yet i'm supposed to be bowled over by it.

yet when i speculate, i am greeted with [citation needed]

that you and others resort to labeling me as a teabagger or birther is really nothing more than exaggerated name calling and it's weak sauce.

i've been upfront and honest this entire time. the only thing i've speculated on is the far fetched idea that the pentagon has a robust camera system and surely there must be another angle to help prove that it was indeed a plane.

i feel similar, that i could & should just return to work & stop wasting my time.
 
2012-09-11 02:31:29 PM

sprawl15: inner ted:

Flip the discussion.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that there is no other existing footage of the impact. So what?


whoa! discussion and not names.. ?? ok, i'll bite:

then i would still be as skeptical as i am now.

ta daa
 
2012-09-11 02:34:19 PM

inner ted: then i would still be as skeptical as i am now.


So...you're shiatting the bed over something that would in no way invalidate or validate your beliefs. Fantastic.
 
2012-09-11 02:38:41 PM

pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.


Yep.....Logan then narrates that Crumpton "couldn't get permission to do anything, including allowing the CIA's Afghan agents on the ground to attack bin Laden's compound."

The miniseries featured a scene vetted, as all the scenes were, by a battery of ABC lawyers, in which a CIA team and its Afghan allies had bin Laden in its sights, called the White House for approval to make the hit, and were denied the go-ahead


In summary....uh yes.
 
2012-09-11 02:39:44 PM

dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.


Different time frame. We also had him cornered and 2 ounces of trigger pull from paradise pre 9-11.
 
2012-09-11 02:40:37 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.

Reread Giltric's claim. He said that we had teams on the ground and OBL in their crosshairs, and the Clinton admin backed down.


Yep...citation should be a post or two above this one.
 
2012-09-11 02:41:48 PM

pontechango: dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.

Well, I think it was more to the effect that Bush had prioritized resources for the invasion of Iraq instead of catching Bin Laden, but I suppose Giltric would blame that on Clinton, too.


Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.[


Guess which president said that but dropped the ball.
 
2012-09-11 02:45:52 PM
One little trip to buy groceries and Inner Ted comes in and does to the thread exactly what I feared when I hesitated to click on the two links on this topic. Here's my conspiracy theory: people like Inner Ted know full well they are full of shiat. As long as they distract any conversation on 9/11 from any real and legitimate criticism of the Bush administration they have accomplished their goal. If they can create that distraction while casting "birds of a feather flock together" aspersions on anyone who asks a question or asserts a criticism that is actually based on evidence; that's a bonus for the Inner Teds of the world.

Now, those tinfoil hats aren't going to fold themselves. Ya'll have a nice day.
 
2012-09-11 02:47:27 PM
Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.
 
2012-09-11 02:57:14 PM

inner ted: but i just don't believe / understand how it's not in everyone's best interest to say "here's a different angle - terrible ain't it? now shut up and go away."
other than the security angle you offer, which i don't agree with. again, that was a hella long time ago and i'm sure there have been a few updates that would make whatever position was 'given away' irrelevant.

you say it'd take a court order to find out what's on the menu at the cafe, yet seem confident that there have only been 'one or two upgrades'. either you work there or are just guessing.


I am just guessing. In IT, they tend to refresh equipment every ~5 years. I assume the Pentagon's security is upgraded more frequently. So probably more like 2 or 3, but that's still a guess.

as to your Kennedy reference - that's kind of my point, they could dispel all these myths and all the conjecture by showing just ONE decent camera angle. they can make their case and folks like me will have nothing more to add, other than "thanks for clearing that up, what took so long?"

And that's why I brought up birthers. They're also "just asking questions" (and no, I don't think you are one. I brought it up to make the point). There comes a point where, when you get an answer that is unsatisfying but accurate, you have to accept that this is the information we have - I can believe a relatively simple explanation, or a Rube Goldberg-y explanation that requires assloads of people - government people, even - to orchestrate, carry out and cover up one of the most significant attacks ever on the American public, in broad daylight, in an area where literally a million people can see what's going on (no camera needed).

yet when i speculate, i am greeted with [citation needed]

Even speculation needs some sort of basis in fact. If I speculate that FDR held the fleet out for a Japanese attack, I should have to prove at least some of those things - that the fleet was there (which everyone agrees on), that the Japanese knew it, that FDR wrote "I want them Japs to hit us so that Congress can't be chickenshiats anymore"...something to tie the speculation into reality. The fact that you have none, but steadfastly hold the speculation anyway, is vexing.

i've been upfront and honest this entire time. the only thing i've speculated on is the far fetched idea that the pentagon has a robust camera system and surely there must be another angle to help prove that it was indeed a plane.

And I'm saying that 1) there might not be any footage at all, 2) any footage would likely be duplicative of what we've already seen or totally useless (blurry, half a second of a gray blob screaming across the frame from left to right, take your pick), and 3) even if there was good footage, there are several reasons the Pentagon may not release it (I speculated it's because they jealously guard all the information they have, but there could be another reason or reasons) - and, by the way, I don't agree with such reasoning.

If the Pentagon is holding such footage, I'd like it released, too. That's irrelevant - the Pentagon are secretive bastards, and they will continue to be.
 
2012-09-11 02:58:08 PM

sprawl15: inner ted: then i would still be as skeptical as i am now.

So...you're shiatting the bed over something that would in no way invalidate or validate your beliefs. Fantastic.


that is not the smartest thing i've read today.

& the only thing i've stated as a 'belief' is that the video released is inconclusive at best.

if they released video that showed a big passenger jet, i'd be delighted and would carry on.

but they haven't. as i've stated waaay to many times here - they released a half-a-second clip that is inconclusive at best.

so i'm skeptical.

is it really that hard to follow? honestly, i don't know how to explain it any more simple than that.
 
2012-09-11 03:02:20 PM

Giltric: Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.


Who gets the responsibility for the Somalia debacle?
 
2012-09-11 03:10:23 PM

Lunaville: One little trip to buy groceries and Inner Ted comes in and does to the thread exactly what I feared when I hesitated to click on the two links on this topic. Here's my conspiracy theory: people like Inner Ted know full well they are full of shiat. As long as they distract any conversation on 9/11 from any real and legitimate criticism of the Bush administration they have accomplished their goal. If they can create that distraction while casting "birds of a feather flock together" aspersions on anyone who asks a question or asserts a criticism that is actually based on evidence; that's a bonus for the Inner Teds of the world.

Now, those tinfoil hats aren't going to fold themselves. Ya'll have a nice day.


i'll go ahead and lump you into the crowd of "i don't like my beliefs being questioned, so i'll call you teabagger / birther / apparent lover of W. and ignore you, cause it's easier than discussing your idea."

and did you actually say that with a straight face? cause that's all i've been doing, asking questions.

then defending myself from the barrage of derp for daring to question your opinion.

/gosh you are so open minded and progressive aren't you?
 
2012-09-11 03:13:04 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: that's what you are running with? freaking lulz

The fact that HD video cameras weren't readily available ISN'T a good explanation of why there isn't a wealth of HD video records of an airplane crash?


holy cow - glad the HD part is what everyone is latching onto.

so remove the HD part and see if you can understand what i'm talking about.
 
2012-09-11 03:30:19 PM
Ugh. HTML fail. You can still read that, right inner ted?
 
2012-09-11 03:36:37 PM

Dr Dreidel: inner ted: but i just don't believe / understand how it's not in everyone's best interest to say "here's a different angle - terrible ain't it? now shut up and go away."
other than the security angle you offer, which i don't agree with. again, that was a hella long time ago and i'm sure there have been a few updates that would make whatever position was 'given away' irrelevant.

you say it'd take a court order to find out what's on the menu at the cafe, yet seem confident that there have only been 'one or two upgrades'. either you work there or are just guessing.

I am just guessing. In IT, they tend to refresh equipment every ~5 years. I assume the Pentagon's security is upgraded more frequently. So probably more like 2 or 3, but that's still a guess.

as to your Kennedy reference - that's kind of my point, they could dispel all these myths and all the conjecture by showing just ONE decent camera angle. they can make their case and folks like me will have nothing more to add, other than "thanks for clearing that up, what took so long?"

And that's why I brought up birthers. They're also "just asking questions" (and no, I don't think you are one. I brought it up to make the point). There comes a point where, when you get an answer that is unsatisfying but accurate, you have to accept that this is the information we have - I can believe a relatively simple explanation, or a Rube Goldberg-y explanation that requires assloads of people - government people, even - to orchestrate, carry out and cover up one of the most significant attacks ever on the American public, in broad daylight, in an area where literally a million people can see what's going on (no camera needed).

yet when i speculate, i am greeted with [citation needed]

Even speculation needs some sort of basis in fact. If I speculate that FDR held the fleet out for a Japanese attack, I should have to prove at least some of those things - that the fleet was there (which everyone agrees on), that the Japanese k ...


i can appreciate [citation needed] on debatable issues - but honestly - am i really presenting some far flung idea about there being multiple cameras that could have caught the incident?

and if i need to give anecdotal evidence, then i submit any area shopping mall - or police station or freaking 7-11. if they have dozens of cameras with facial recognition that can zoom several blocks away, then i'm confident the pentagon does /did as well.

how it is so vexing to you that i hold speculation when all i have to view is that shiatty clip is as vexing to me that anyone can see that clip and say "o ya totally see a plane there."

and stop linking me to ideas i've not offered. i have never said anything about organized government conspiracy. nothing like it.

i have simply said (for the umpteenth time) that the ONLY video i have seen of that incident is that shiatty clip. that shiatty clip is inconclusive at best. if anyone has any other clip (hi def or otherwise) or pic then PLEASE SHARE so i can then be at ease and go about my life.

nobody has done that. people have offered things other than that, like pics or descriptions of the aftermath. while i appreciate the effort, it doesn't really address my questions, it only de-rails the conversation into other areas.

so at this point, we've settled on: the pentagon MAY have other video, but even IF they do, they wouldn't want to release it and shut everyone like me up cause it would somehow be counter to national security by revealing the location of a camera.

i don't really buy that, but we seem at an impasse.

i appreciate everyone's time and contributions.

l8r sk8rs
 
2012-09-11 04:18:52 PM

inner ted: i have simply said (for the umpteenth time) that the ONLY video i have seen of that incident is that shiatty clip. that shiatty clip is inconclusive at best. if anyone has any other clip (hi def or otherwise) or pic then PLEASE SHARE so i can then be at ease and go about my life.


Sorry. No such video exists (and what's on YouTube appears to be the same video run through various programs/filters. You can search further if you like, but there be dragons AFAIC). You'll have to take a single second of grainy video - and thousands upon thousands of eyewitness accounts that pretty much all say the same thing, as well as forensic evidence that supports both the eyewitness accounts and what little can be seen on the video - as all the proof you'll ever have.

And even if it does exist, you'd have to break the Pentagon's silence (which I assume is National Security-based, as that is the raison d'etre for the building's existence) to get it. Good luck.

we seem at an impasse.

That we do. Pleasant days and ecstatic nights, friend.
 
2012-09-11 05:00:30 PM

KiplingKat872: hinten: Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."

Hell, Hollywood writers came up with that scenario in The Lone Gunman TV show.


Tom Clancy did it in Debt of Honor
Stephen King did it in the freaking book version of The Running Man
 
2012-09-11 05:07:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I think I've spent part of just about every 9/11 anniversary pointing out the gaping holes in the Truther's argument. It's become a tradition.


The thing that always confuses me most about Truther's is how nonsensical the plot becomes - obviously they can't really debate planes flying into WTC1/2 because so many people saw them, and that alone would have killed a couple of thousand and been justification for the wars, why would they need to do any of the other stuff? It's not like if the buildings had ended up not collapsing that everyone would have said - "Okay, they killed a couple of thousand people, but they didn't knock the buildings down, so we will let them off with a warning this time". Or if the Pentagon was not attacked it would hardly be the situation that everyone would shrug and say, "Well they killed a few thousand civilians, but no military targets were hit otherwise we would really have got mad".
 
2012-09-11 07:22:10 PM

2wolves: Giltric: Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.

Who gets the responsibility for the Somalia debacle?


That was in 1993 so Bush 43....obviously.
 
2012-09-11 07:25:14 PM

Giltric: 2wolves: Giltric: Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.

Who gets the responsibility for the Somalia debacle?

That was in 1993 so Bush 43....obviously.


I thought it was Obama and his time machine.
 
2012-09-11 09:09:21 PM

inner ted: i don't know who did what and where and to whom. all i know is that video is not enough to convince me that it was a plane.

considering the building we are discussing, it's impossible that there wasn't more video of the incident.


On #1 there is the wreckage. That is "more" than just the half-second video. There are the eyewitness reports, there is the damage to the building, the footage, the fallout, the dead passengers, the missing farking plane.

On #2. [citation needed], you are making a positive claim that "there is no way there couldn't be footage." you have to prove it. You have to prove it despite military Intelligence/government/authorities well-known dislike of internal monitoring and despite the speed at which camera technology evolves (i.e. how good were cameras back when they were likely installed?)

One cannot prove a negative, which is a fact you use as a shield to hide behind, but you're "not buying" the official story is akin to "not buying" the story that the sun exists, that water is wet, and that 9/11 happened at all.
 
2012-09-11 10:44:54 PM

foo monkey: Doesn't NYT have a pay wall?


Not if you clear your cookies from their site every few days.
 
2012-09-11 11:40:22 PM

Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...


Why is this list in small print? It should be IN BIG BOLD farkING LETTERS!

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About 'Spectacular Terrorist Operation' [Baer, 2002, pp. 55-58; Financial Times, 1/12/2002]

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]

August 24, 2001: Foreign Intelligence Reminds US of Al-Qaeda Plot to Attack within US

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of 'Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines' [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/2001]

September 7, 2001: French Give 'Very Specific Information' about Possible Attack on US Soil [Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001]
 
2012-09-11 11:58:55 PM
B-b-buh buh Daily Kose hurrdee hurr teh liburuls lying again
 
2012-09-12 09:06:08 AM

vygramul: Giltric: 2wolves: Giltric: Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.

Who gets the responsibility for the Somalia debacle?

That was in 1993 so Bush 43....obviously.

I thought it was Obama and his time machine.


It's the presidential time machine. Presidents are the only authorized chrononauts
 
2012-09-12 10:25:03 AM

TheBigJerk: inner ted: i don't know who did what and where and to whom. all i know is that video is not enough to convince me that it was a plane.

considering the building we are discussing, it's impossible that there wasn't more video of the incident.

On #1 there is the wreckage. That is "more" than just the half-second video. There are the eyewitness reports, there is the damage to the building, the footage, the fallout, the dead passengers, the missing farking plane.

On #2. [citation needed], you are making a positive claim that "there is no way there couldn't be footage." you have to prove it. You have to prove it despite military Intelligence/government/authorities well-known dislike of internal monitoring and despite the speed at which camera technology evolves (i.e. how good were cameras back when they were likely installed?)

One cannot prove a negative, which is a fact you use as a shield to hide behind, but you're "not buying" the official story is akin to "not buying" the story that the sun exists, that water is wet, and that 9/11 happened at all.


while i appreciate your view, and thank you for sharing in an adult fashion, this has been covered at length.

so as i told others: we are at an impasse. you can read through the thread at your leisure.

cheers
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report