Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Impressive discussion as I never expected to see so many posts on this. This brought together all the tidbits that I had heard and what I felt. The country has so many that keep their heads buried in the sand and that is how we have ended up like this.
The troll returns!
Next time, you might want to consider actually PARTICIPATING in the threads you start.
I'm going to assume that you've never been inside a Las Vegas casino...
And I'm going to assume you've never been to the Pentagon, which could house every casino in Las Vegas and still have most of the building empty? Not one casino .. every casino.
The Pentagon has 3.7 Million sq ft of usable office space, whereas the average large casino takes about 120,000 sq ft.. Do the math ... Pentagon equals 300+ large Las Vegas casinos .... though Las Vegas only has about 2 dozen large ones and many small ones.
See this is the trouble that you bring on yourself with such silly analogies that you sit there and dream up without realizing how silly they are.
For you and others here .... you should observe the "Law of Holes". The "Law of Holes" states: when you find yourself in one ... stop digging.
And I'm going to assume you've never been to the Pentagon, which could house every casino in Las Vegas and still have most of the building empty? Not one casino .. every casino.
The Pentagon has 3.7 Million sq ft of usable office space, whereas the average large casino takes about 120,000 sq ft.. Do the math ... Pentagon equals 300+ large Las Vegas casinos .... though Las Vegas only has about 2 dozen large ones and many small ones.
See this is the trouble that you bring on yourself with such silly analogies that you sit there and dream up without realizing how silly they are.
For you and others here .... you should observe the "Law of Holes". The "Law of Holes" states: when you find yourself in one ... stop digging.
Um, what does the size of the Pentagon have to do with anything?
Oh, that's right. Nothing.
But I like how you imply that its size somehow supports your assertion that it's heavily surveilled - which, by the way, I never disagreed with. But taking your implication at face value, you're saying that the bigger it is, the more heavily surveilled it is. In the real world (you should visit sometime), the bigger a place is, the more difficult it is to cover it with cameras and other types of security technologies, so the less coverage it tends to have. More area to cover = more technology required. Get it?
So even though I never disagreed with you, you decided to argue with me anyway, and your argument STILL fell flat on its face!
Let's go back to your implication for a moment. This is one more great demonstration of how the truthers have built their entire "case" for their conspiracy theory. Take a bunch of completely irrelevant information, put it together, then claim that it "proves" something. It doesn't even have to make sense - as proven by the quoted response above - they think it makes them sound smart by just saying it. Newsflash...
Now, with all that said, I would bet good money (and this is Las Vegas - I don't say that without meaning it) that there are more cameras per square foot of casino floor than there are cameras per square foot of Pentagon office space. I'd even go so far as to say it's probably many factors higher.
Case in point: I was playing poker at Caesars Palace last weekend. From my poker table, I had line of sight to no fewer than 30 cameras - and those are just the ones I know about. Table games where the players are betting against the house are covered even more densely, as are the machines. How many cameras do you suppose are trained on any given office desk inside the Pentagon?
Now keep in mind that I'm not arguing that the Pentagon is just another office building, with rent-a-cops for security. It's not, and obviously security is very tight - as it should be. But it's very unlikely that you've got a higher density of camera coverage inside that building than Caesars Palace or any other resort casino. Remember, much of what goes on at the Pentagon is classified, and shouldn't be recorded. The Pentagon employs security technology for the purposes of information and physical security, and it's not needed or wanted in many parts of the building.
Conversely, casinos are driven purely by profit, and they employ security technology for the purposes of keeping people from stealing money from them. Also, everything that happens on a casino floor is taking place in public, so there's no expectation of privacy that can be claimed - and the casinos take full advantage of that. There's not a single place inside any casino building that you can be without being on camera, unless you're in a bathroom or guest room. Every square inch of every hallway, elevator, casino, lounge, restaurant, and retail shop is covered. I guarantee that's not the case in the Pentagon. You're welcome to go crawl your truther sites looking for scraps of nothingness to try and prove me wrong, but applying a tiny bit of common sense & logic would save you a lot of wasted time and effort.
Um, what does the size of the Pentagon have to do with anything?
Oh, that's right. Nothing.
But I like how you imply that its size somehow supports your assertion that it's heavily surveilled - which, by the way, I never disagreed with. But taking your implication at face value, you're saying that the bigger it is, the more heavily surveilled it is. In the real world (you should visit sometime), the bigger a place is, the more difficult it is to cover it with cameras and other types of security technologies, so the less coverage it tends to have. More area to cover = more technology required. Get it?
Arguing the point while making my point "the bigger a place is, the more difficult it is to cover it with cameras and other types of security technologies, so the less coverage it tends to have. More area to cover = more technology required. Get it? Yeah I get it ... and you don't seem to have a clue .. the Pentagon is exponentially bigger, and consequently would employ more surveillance technology ... unless they just decided it was to big to surveil properly? Is that what you are implying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
So even though I never disagreed with you, you decided to argue with me anyway, and your argument STILL fell flat on its face!
You're a double talker. Your reply was to insinuate I've never been in a casino in Las Vegas ... which also insinuated you were challenging the point by suggesting a casino was more heavily surveilled than the pentagon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Let's go back to your implication for a moment. This is one more great demonstration of how the truthers have built their entire "case" for their conspiracy theory. Take a bunch of completely irrelevant information, put it together, then claim that it "proves" something. It doesn't even have to make sense - as proven by the quoted response above - they think it makes them sound smart by just saying it. Newsflash...
Another example of your incoherent and pointless arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Now, with all that said, I would bet good money (and this is Las Vegas - I don't say that without meaning it) that there are more cameras per square foot of casino floor than there are cameras per square foot of Pentagon office space. I'd even go so far as to say it's probably many factors higher.
Case in point: I was playing poker at Caesars Palace last weekend. From my poker table, I had line of sight to no fewer than 30 cameras - and those are just the ones I know about. Table games where the players are betting against the house are covered even more densely, as are the machines. How many cameras do you suppose are trained on any given office desk inside the Pentagon?
Back and forth ... not disagreeing ... followed by disagreeing and why. Do you even know how to talk straight?
In any event, I don't care how many cameras you saw INSIDE the casino. Just about anyone with a brain would expect the Pentagon to be more heavily surveilled than a casino, but aside that .. you once again missed the very simple point I was making ... I was referring to building surveillance ... and because it was regarding capturing clear images of a plane HITTING IT, one should automatically UNDERSTAND that I was referring to OUTSIDE SURVEILLANCE. And surveillance comes in many forms ... such that you'd not likely find at a casino ... like infrared imaging and ground and motion sensors covering the outside grounds of the building to monitor every square inch. I don't think a few parking lot cameras found on the casino grounds would be a fair comparison ... and it was you who made such a comparison .. and a very lame one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Now keep in mind that I'm not arguing that the Pentagon is just another office building, with rent-a-cops for security. It's not, and obviously security is very tight - as it should be. But it's very unlikely that you've got a higher density of camera coverage inside that building than Caesars Palace or any other resort casino. Remember, much of what goes on at the Pentagon is classified, and shouldn't be recorded. The Pentagon employs security technology for the purposes of information and physical security, and it's not needed or wanted in many parts of the building.
Once again, aside your missing the point entirely, and going on and on, I would also correct you here. As stated already, surveillance comes in many forms besides video cameras, and I contend there is way more at the pentagon ... constant monitoring of that building with not only video cameras, but identity checking and verification technology, face recognition, encoded and remote readable identity badges, security access monitors, on and on and on ... at far greater levels than a bloody casino. That only authorized personnel are allowed inside the greater portion of the Pentagon (rather than an open to the public Casino) it should be painfully obvious to even the intellectually challenged that security throughout the pentagon is far more stringent ... and because of it's huge size, far more surveillance technology would be present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Conversely, casinos are driven purely by profit, and they employ security technology for the purposes of keeping people from stealing money from them. Also, everything that happens on a casino floor is taking place in public, so there's no expectation of privacy that can be claimed - and the casinos take full advantage of that. There's not a single place inside any casino building that you can be without being on camera, unless you're in a bathroom or guest room. Every square inch of every hallway, elevator, casino, lounge, restaurant, and retail shop is covered. I guarantee that's not the case in the Pentagon. You're welcome to go crawl your truther sites looking for scraps of nothingness to try and prove me wrong, but applying a tiny bit of common sense & logic would save you a lot of wasted time and effort.
I don't need to prove you wrong ... you do a fine job all by yourself. You are the one who so desperately grasps at anything you think you can use to discredit one of my points ... this is just another failed example.
You may continue to believe that your casino employs more surveillance technology than the pentagon if in means that much to you. But anyone reading along is likely conclude just how full of it you really are.
And I'm going to assume you've never been to the Pentagon, which could house every casino in Las Vegas and still have most of the building empty? Not one casino .. every casino.
The Pentagon has 3.7 Million sq ft of usable office space, whereas the average large casino takes about 120,000 sq ft.. Do the math ... Pentagon equals 300+ large Las Vegas casinos .... though Las Vegas only has about 2 dozen large ones and many small ones.
See this is the trouble that you bring on yourself with such silly analogies that you sit there and dream up without realizing how silly they are.
For you and others here .... you should observe the "Law of Holes". The "Law of Holes" states: when you find yourself in one ... stop digging.
the pentagon has p;lenty of camera's....IN IT...not outside
The funny thing about it (the pictures) if the government has nothing to hide why are they so secretive about releasing the pentagon pictures? It cannot be for the sake of national security b/c we all "supposely" have seen what actually hit the building. This fact alone makes me interested in a possible cover up.
what pictures are they not releasing? Did you read the Pentagon Performance Report? There are tons of pictures in the report that show the damage as well as the aftermath of the crash
Edit: IF you want more pictures, no one is stopping you from filing an FOIA request to obtain them.
The funny thing about it (the pictures) if the government has nothing to hide why are they so secretive about releasing the pentagon pictures? It cannot be for the sake of national security b/c we all "supposely" have seen what actually hit the building. This fact alone makes me interested in a possible cover up.
What pictures are those? Exactly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
