And I suggested that you expectation is unrealistic. This isn't just about money, this is about practicality and usefulness. First of all, facial recognition is not a camera. It's a software database. Next, the spectrum of a CCD has nothing to do with its speed. In fact, higher spectrum CCDs are typically slower due to the higher processing requirements. Last, high speed cameras are of zero use because they do not defend against high speed objects. Having a high speed camera on and filming while a plane smashes into your building does not help you to react to the situation. We use RADAR for that purpose. The aircraft WAS captured on radar. You just can't see that on the evening news.
Yeah, I guess that would be nice. I've often wondered the same thing. But since there isn't, I guess one has to take all of the other evidence into account and arrive at their own conclusion. Lots of speculation and standard talking points there. Did you miss the evidence points that had already been posted? Flight 77 is missing. A plane hit the Pentagon based on over a hundred eyewitnesses. Several of these witnesses are pilots and identify the plane as a 757. A plane hit the Pentagon based on radar records that ultimately lead all the way back to where ATC lost Flight 77. The flight data recorder for Flight 77 was found in the Pentagon. The remains of the people on board Flight 77 were found and identified through dental records and DNA analysis. How do those stack up against your opinion that the Pentagon would have a full spectrum of cameras?
You keep saying we don't need these high speed cameras. What happens if a plane goes under radar and just misses the pentagon. We missed him because we did not have the technology there. You say money is better spent protecting the Pentagon. I say then why didn't they. Somebody said we had no reason to suspect planes attacking. Really. Earlier that year as I already stated. The G8 summit installed surface to air missiles because of threats to certain leaders via airborne attack. And as I stated earlier and you agreed a phsyco tried to smash a small plane into the white House during the Clinton administration. I would have to say the markers were there. Were there missile batteries around the Pentagon? Do you think this was complete incompetence?
Next time you toss out that professional blogger nonsense, prepare to get hit back even harder next time comrade. QED
What happens if space aliens beam down toxic fire gas? There are certain things that are not worth defending against with high speed video cameras. Space aliens and planes that duck under radar and then fly away never to be seen again are among them.
Yeah and slightly less earlier I asked you how many civilian aircraft they shot down with those sams. The silence on the subject was eerie. I agreed with this nonsense? When did that happen. Which post number was that?
2004 actually. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/u...e-into-white-house.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Not sure what he is trying to get at though since a major airport flight path runs right past the Pentagon. Commercial airliners in the vicinity of the Pentagon would be pretty commonplace I would think.
What am I trying to get at is the signs were there. There were airborne threats and those tend to be fast. So why not have sams and the ability to document it. Is that not reasonable?
Yeah, I remember that. I don't deny that a plane crashed into the white house. I wanted to know when I agreed that "a phsyco tried to smash a small plane into the white House" He didn't just try. He succeeded. Where are the pictures of the plane as it crashed into the white house? Without them, how can you be sure it happened?
As I look into this what do you know in 1973 a wacko tried to hijack a plane and kill Nixon http://www.investigatingtheterror.com/articles/A_Brief_History_of_Suicide_Hijackings___Part_I.htm
Where's the high speed video footage of that? The U2 has been flying since '56, surely they got that attempt on this technology you think should have been at the pentagon?
Thats a good point. Now let me ask you this, are you sure we should not expect an airborne attack on the Pentagon and not need the ability to document and stop that from happening?
I'm sorry but I'm not following the math here A small plane crashes into the White House + G8 summit installed SAMS + Someone hijacked a plane and tried to kill Nixon = the need for SAMs and high speed cameras at the Pentagon? If you were making the case that these needed to be installed at the White House, I could follow your reasoning. But I submit that the need for this at the Pentagon would have made no sense to you prior to 9/11.
SAMS inside a major flight corridor and in a highly populated area. Yeah. That is why truthers get regulated to the loony bins of society instead of to the jobs where people actually plan things. So how do you explain the hundreds dead when an airliner out of position gets shot down and lands on a bunch of houses? I swear. Truthers have the cognative powers of an amoeba with ADD.
They are there now genius. Now you assume you know my career. OK One thing I never did touch on which is something I do have some expertise at. The option trading, is what it is. You can't ignore it the proof is there. You have attacked my character, as you guys do to everybody. Whatever, . I feel like you guys are the Borg. "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" That may be fun but I don't want to live on planet Moron.
As it turns out, that had already been discussed. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Pentagon_Missile_Batteries
TOO LATE!!!! There are no SAMS around the Pentagon, and nobody has said anything about your career. I said truthers are generally too ignorant to plan things. You pretending SAMS around the Pentagon would be a good idea proves this point.
Yeah, to think the country with the most superior military on the planet would actually HAVE defense measures for its defense headquarters...
I guess I am the only one who provides links to their statements. http://articles.cnn.com/2003-02-11/...siles-anti-aircraft-missiles-patrols?_s=PM:US
Defense headquarters is actually Cheyenne Mountain, not the Pentagon. Fly all the planes you want into Cheyenne Mountain. Unless they have nukes onboard that detonate on impact, the planes are not going to do anything. The Pentagon is home to the Department of Defense. I am sure the subtleties escape you.
Mobile launchers BROUGHT IN because a PERCEIVED ATTACK is NOT the same as SAMS being installed at the Pentagon. Nice try, but epic fail on your part.
Are you really going to quote this website please. I am not getting into the trading futures with you guys I have no desire to hear your answers at ALL.
