'The fictional Sherlock Holmes solved the crime in "Silver Blaze" by deducing it was the owner of the house who was the criminal. How did he know? Because the dog did not bark. The only person who could have committed the crime without arousing the dog was someone the dog knew as a friend; the dog's owner. Inspector Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night time" "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. ... The Sarasota Herald Tribune announced Bush's visit to Booker Elementary on September 8th, giving the 9-11 planners three days to include Bush as a target for a diving jetliner. Nobody could have safely assumed he was not a target. The Booker Elementary video shows the Secret Service did not rush in to remove the President to a secure location, or at least to the safety of the armored Presidential Limousine. That's their job. That's what they do in the case of a real surprise attack with many unknowns. They don't do anything else. But the Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark. Bush defenders try to explain Bush's inaction as his not wanting to upset the children. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" suggests Bush's inaction was due to his not being told to leave. But Michael Moore fails to follow that line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion; where were the people whose job it is to get the President to a place of safety in event of attack, the people who would have, SHOULD have, pulled Bush out of there, children and public appearances be damned!' http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11secretservice.html
No one needs to be a Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out. Only a rabid denier will refuse to see the obvious. There are a bunch of those in this forum. There wasn't a single significant attempt to stop 9/11 from anyone in charge from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld on down to the rest of his criminal cabal. In fact, they did everything they could possibly do to ensure it was a rousing success. The 12 war games deliberately scheduled to take place on the morning of 9/11 ensured that the entire northeast corridor of the US was left totally exposed.
What is OCT? The Pentagon is a pretty iconic building. I'm sure that many tourists try to get as close as possible and do some filming. If it wasn't a plane, do you suppose the insiders had a backup plan if a member of the public captured the point of detonation on film and released it to media? I guess all they could've done is say that they thought that it was a plane, but it appears to have been a bomb! What entity?
The Official Conspiracy Theory, the official US government promoted and approved propaganda story about what happened on 9/11. We have yet to determine what it was that really hit the Pentagon on 9/11. The US government (namely the FBI) has refused to release the alleged parts identification data the NTSB claims was conducted with their assistance. There is currently a FOIA request for that information. It could very well have been a large plane, yet there is no definitive proof it was AA77 as officially claimed. The US government. Either with the FBI or it was deliberately (and illegally) destroyed as with the vast amount of 9/11 evidence.
Well do you suppose the insiders had a backup plan if a member of the public captured the point of explosion on film and released it to media? I guess all they could've done is say that they thought that it was a plane, but it appears to have been something else.
Sure they had a back-up plan--they relied upon a complicit media, one that dutifully repeats what it has been told, no questions asked. It worked!
Did I say that? No sir, I did not. YOU said that. For future reference Chris, I'm one of those who say what I mean and mean what I say. Because they are of such low quality, your style of 'question' asking encourages ignoring your low quality questions.
My question specifically related to whether or not they would've had a backup plan if a member of the public captured the point of explosion on film and released it to media. Were you addressing that in your reply?
It’s impossible for me to answer that. Given what they do to whistleblowers and the fact that they’re fully capable of murdering thousands on 9/11 and committing genocide and other human rights atrocities under the pretext of 9/11 anything is possible.
Think about it this way sir: How on earth would I know what specifically they planned, considering that I was not in on the planning? How would ANYBODY that wasn't involved in the planning know that? An absurd question.
If you are really curious about that, check out this link: https://archive.org/details/Collate...ationsAndTheTerroristAttacksOnSeptember112001 If you're still curious after that, put "E.P. Heidner 911" in your search engine. There are numerous articles on the subject. Long story short, there may have been more reasons to attack the Pentagon than there were to attack WTC.
I remember hearing something about the Pentagon hit destroying some evidence, but I don't understand why it wasn't computerised and backed up.
There never was '80 or so' cameras. http://web.archive.org/web/20080208102217/http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html
They either were not facing the Pentagon originally or they were home video cameras that were used by civilians after the crash, or during the clean up (such as here, here, here, and here). This is what I mean about the '80+ cameras' theory, people never bother to actually read what those videos consist of. All the ones I've linked and others make up that 80+ figure that people throw around. No, it was not 80+ videos of the aircraft impacting the Pentagon. It was 80+ tapes that had anything to do with the FOIA request. Video tapes. Not videos, Not footage, Not cameras. Tapes. Physical tapes. Most of which that were collected in the following days didn't even have anything recorded on them. They were literally blank. Only 4 videos exist prior to impact which show anything. The two gate cameras, the doubletree hotel, and the gas station. Only one of the two gate cameras got a full shot of the aircraft. The other it is obscured behind the barrier arm unit. The hotel camera could not see lower than the top floors of the Pentagon because of the built up road in between the two, however it did catch the fireball as it rose above the Pentagon, and some have interpreted part of it as potentially capturing the plane. The gas station only caught the shadow of the plane passing over. None of its cameras were facing the Pentagon. The best shot is from the 2nd of the two gate cameras. See my blog here: http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
Oh I see. I actually thought that the "80 cameras" was referring to Pentagon security cameras. Although now that I think about it, 80 security cameras would be excessive even for a building such as the Pentagon. If they were blank then it means that the cameras were not operational, so then why were they collected? What video was that one?
Again, these were physical tapes. You have no idea what's on a tape until you put it into a video player and press the play button. So if the FBI go into a nearby store with the intention of attaining footage, they are going to take all the tapes they see. They're not just going to pick up one tape and leave 10 others sitting there when any of those 10 may contain footage. The 2nd camera on the blog.
