Anything to back this up? Oh, that's right. You don't provide sources since you've already done it once. Anyway, why would these other buildings have their camera's focused on the Pentagon? For the people that live\work in that area, it's just another building. To the hijackers on the flights, it was their focus. Also, previous truthers have received all of the video footage that could be released via FOIA. They watched the footage and realized there was nothing on it of any interest. This can be found on the internet, but I'm not wasting time finding it for you to not even look at it. After all, you've admitted to not reading debunker links. The fact that other companies wouldn't want their footage released is completely reasonable. Why would they want everyone in the world to know where their security focuses on? Why would they want people to have access to their weaknesses? So they can satisfy a fringe group of nutter butters that think the government did 9/11? Pass....
The 80 videos siezed by the FBI include those from the airports at which the hijackers boarded, so it is meaningless. There is, further, no reason for anyone to have set their cameras to record a stretch of lawn over which nobody was ever expected to approach the building with any instrument capable of breaching a wall.
You acknowledge they were confiscated? You and plagued seem to disagree here. You might want to talk about this at the next meeting. Which is it? Which of your "versions" are we supposed to believe (today...meaning currently)?
Videos were siezed, but only from businesses that were so located as to have a good view of the approach path or the Pentagon. There were not 80 of them. That number includes videos from the airports. How many times need you be reminded of this?
Secondly, I never said they WEREN'T confiscated, can you please quote me where I said that? More of your issues with reading comprehension. I asked you for a source, it was to show that there were 80. Your source should also show where these cameras were located, where they were pointing, and how they're relevant to the investigation. If you're making claims, back them up. I know the tapes were confiscated. I also watched the released PENTTBOM videos, and they don't show anything. Like Lefty said, it would do no good for businesses to record the lawn of the Pentagon. Occam's Razor....learn it.
Ok, that's what I thought. Your source is not a source but a Wikipedia article stating opinions so vague they don't mean anything with formulas indicating the highest mental confusion. The climax of some top dog bullsense right here !
Hold it right there. Are you saying that the organizations listed as participating did not participate, or that their math was wrong? Document whichever is actually the case.
Neither, I am saying what the sentence written above univocally states. The text given as a source by Cjnewson is not a source but an opinion so vague it has no meaning at all because it was formulated by a confused mind apparently unable to handle precise concepts so as to turn them into the objective data expected from an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia has footnotes refering to sources because Wikipedia is not a source.
All that little Dickie Gage has are the opinions of a bunch of non-experts, and less than .0001% of his fellow professionals. His opinion, especially since he "proved" that verinage should not work is worth nothing to anyone with a room temperature IQ.
are you joking? Those airport videos are so bad you are lucky you can tell its even a human much less who it is.
Would you care to demonstrate how that is relevant, like I asked you? This is just more of your jumping up and down and yelling "Dumb shill!"
He is a licensed pe architectural a truther! Now lets look at the trougher line up: thats the TROUGHER MORON that they pulled off of a food line and he had the whole situation fully analyzed only minutes after the alleged plane crash
He's a professional news reporter and has probably covered more than a few fires in his life time. Get a clue.
This is false. PE is an engineering license. He's not an engineer. His architect's license is here: http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=19220&P_LTE_ID=1010 You can look for a PE license for him all you want here: http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllqryna$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=ENG&p_qte_pgm_code=7500 You won't find it.
at least not in california huh - - - Updated - - - he is an actor that doesnt know (*)(*)(*)(*) about shinola and he single handedly figured it all out in seconds He should work for nist
Are you attempting to imply that an architect that has practiced in the San Fran area for 20 years has a PE license in some other state and never applied for one in CA? Yeah... that could be. Everyone, let's just take Koko's word that Richard Gage is an engineer. God forbid we ask him to back up his claims with evidence.
