-
Originally posted by res0nat0r
-
Re: Bin Laden's Pictures to be released.
evidence u cant see - that's because it evidence that's not for the public eye, u talk about the "plane" crash on the pentagon and talk about there only being stills/video from one point in the car park, now i don't know about u but from what i see in those pics/vis is the entrance of the car park... probably the only place that there is a "seen" camera in the whole place...the reason they don't show u the rest of the shoot age is for one reason and one reason only..its a security risk to the pentagon...makes sense to me maybe not to u but then u have different opinions on this so who am i to argue.Well one is a privately owned building and the other is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defence. You expect the world trade centre to have external cameras looking to the sky 100 floors up but expect the headquarters of the United States Department of Defence only to have one camera focused across the whole side of the building. Which there where plenty more of. There is an interview with Michael Moore who also pointed out that there where lots of security cameras in that area of the pentagon. You obviously missed the fact all cameras that could have shown a plane hitting the Pentagon where confiscated almost immediately after the attack.
I mite also mite point out you are the only person ever to come up with this theory as to how the President managed to witness the first plane hit the tower on TV less than 20 minutes after the first impact.
And what is the difference between showing an explosion at the Pentagon or showing an aircraft before it hit The Pentagon. How is one a security risk and the other not?Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: Bin Laden's Pictures to be released.
Or should I say...misunderstanding of how shit actually went down.Comment
-
Re: Bin Laden's Pictures to be released.
the latter actually
only not purposeful, i reckon that if he said he saw the plane fly into the first tower then he did see it
now i did NOT say that the pentagon only had one camera lol far from it! what i meant was that the footage u saw of the plane hitting the place was taken from probably the only camera in the place that caught it that they would be willing to show based on security reasons... i don't find it odd @ all that all footage was confiscated but to some this auto means that it wasn't a plane, it was a missile, it was a drone, inside job, hell even one site said it was a bin lorry full of explosives, need i go on....this attack was seen as a declination of war and as much as personally i would love to see all the videos myself surely u can see why they need to keep it to themselves ?Well one is a privately owned building and the other is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defence. You expect the world trade centre to have external cameras looking to the sky 100 floors up but expect the headquarters of the United States Department of Defence only to have one camera focused across the whole side of the building. Which there where plenty more of. There is an interview with Michael Moore who also pointed out that there where lots of security cameras in that area of the pentagon. You obviously missed the fact all cameras that could have shown a plane hitting the Pentagon where confiscated almost immediately after the attack.
I mite also mite point out you are the only person ever to come up with this theory as to how the President managed to witness the first plane hit the tower on TV less than 20 minutes after the first impact.
what about the camera's actually inside of the trade centre ? they would of caught the whole thing surely... have u never seen the google command u can do to watch various security camera's online ? ( intitle:”Live View / - AXIS” | inurl:view/view.shtml^ ) <-- type that command in and u,ll see hundreds of security camera live feeds, just about every private security system company worth its salt has that type of service available to their costumers and considering the trade centres were a known terrorist target do u not think that some sort of system like this would be put in place ? yea i,m probably the only one to come up with the theory that bush seen it but i really do believe that if bush said he saw it he saw it in my mind.
embarrassed ? man they were done over like tinned kippers!! if it wasn't for public opinion/pressure i don't even think u would of seen even that video but going back to what i said previously this doesn't mean it was a drone a missile or a bin lorry people are just speculating with paranoia, that's not healthy!!!And what is the difference between showing an explosion at the Pentagon or showing an aircraft before it hit The Pentagon. How is one a security risk and the other not?Comment
-
Re: Bin Laden's Pictures to be released.
Bush was on the board of directors of Securacom from 1993-2000, which maintained security for the World Trade Center Towers up until September 11, 2001Comment
-
Re: Bin Laden's Pictures to be released.
oh snapComment
-
Re: Bin Laden's Pictures to be released.
Well they weren't willing to show any footage as there is no plane in the pictures. You also do not find it odd how the managed to locate every single private security camera that would have caught a plane in such a short space of time. I love the way way you put everything down to Security. How is security going to be compromised by showing a picture of an aircraft? An explosion is OK to show but a plane is not.I can't say one is more embarrassing. You are correct the it doesn't mean that it was a drone, bin lorry ext... but coupled with the fact the the plane couldn't have followed the route claimed, some of the witnesses couldn't have seen it, the fact that the plane went flew around the city and then hit a part of the Pentagon which just happened to be under refurbishment instead of taking a direct route along with the serious lack of wreckage out side the pentagon I'm very dubious. And no I can't see why they need to keep video evidence to themselves so tell me why do they need to keep it to themselves (Expecting another national security, wikipedia answer) because I don't.Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: Bin Laden's Pictures to be released.
The official investigation of Pearl Harbour and the JFK assassinations where both launched within 2 weeks of the events. The investigation into the Bloody Sunday massacre cost £200 million's (yes pounds) all to investigate the deaths of 12 people. The first UK war trial (to investigate the death of 1 prisoner in British custody) cost 30 million pounds. They already knew who was responsible for these so why do an investigation into any of them?Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: Bin Laden's Pictures to be released.
If you can point me in the direction of where I said they single handedly did it I would be grateful. I would also like you to point me in the direction as to where said the just did it to get billion dollar defence contracts" Also I would be grateful if you could point me as to where I said this was my basic source.
Would it be better for you if the list was on wikipedia as you have already stated you don't trust anything you see on the News or MediaOriginally posted by res0nat0rComment
Tweet
MercuryServer, MercuryServer Logo and all uniquely developed images are the sole property of MercuryServer.com. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
Comment