It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video (WTC) - NO video (Pentagon) - Information control

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
The world trade centers had multiple video images of the planes attacking. (Information disemination)

The penatagon had almost no video images of the planes attacking. (Information control)




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
For one I'd say WTC is much more popular target for cameras.
Besides, there is EXACTLY ONE footage of the first attack. ONE. That there are multiple of the second attack is logical. Everyone in the NY was trying to get a good view on the burning building.
This doesn't apply to the Pentagon. There was nothing so popular like a burning skyscraper or such. Just normal morning traffic. No reason to film the Pentagon, let alone that section. Is that so hard to get? No mind control, nothing. Just an unatractive target for news or amateurs. Until the plane crashed, that is.
As for the security cameras, the thing that crashed the Pentagon is there already. You may argue whether it is 757 or not, but it's there.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
For one I'd say WTC is much more popular target for cameras.
Besides, there is EXACTLY ONE footage of the first attack. ONE. That there are multiple of the second attack is logical. Everyone in the NY was trying to get a good view on the burning building.
This doesn't apply to the Pentagon. There was nothing so popular like a burning skyscraper or such. Just normal morning traffic. No reason to film the Pentagon, let alone that section. Is that so hard to get? No mind control, nothing. Just an unatractive target for news or amateurs. Until the plane crashed, that is.
As for the security cameras, the thing that crashed the Pentagon is there already. You may argue whether it is 757 or not, but it's there.


shouldn't the HEADQUARTERS FOR THE WORLDS MOST POWERFUL MILITARY have a better security system than the 7-11 up the street?

They had like two cameras that caught like 10 frames?

No AA missiles.

No intercept aircraft.

NO DEFENSES, NO SECURITY SYSTEMS not even SOME FREAKING CAMERAS?

I stopped for gas in Detroit today and the gas station had at leas TEN cameras (high value target). Why is this GAS STATION better equipped to record a crime than THE FREKING HQ OF THE WORLDS MOST POWERFUL MILITARY?

BS

BS

BS

BS IT IS AL LIES.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
So what about some details about those 100s of cameras and AA missiles, eh? "They have to be there"... They were there for a short time around the 0911 anniversaries and every time the launchers were pretty visible.
I'll tell you something. Our General Staff has TWO (exactly) cameras overviewing the main entrance an the entire front of the buildings. By their look, every petrol station has better. Got just once to the main entrance to our MoD but it wasn't bristling with cameras as well. And defences? Two guys with pistols at the gate. About half a year after 0911 they got rifles. None of the buildings is impenetrable fortress. You know, most ministries of defense aren't. Even the Russian one with all their paranoia.
Where the security in such institutions is concentrated is security of information and security against such threats as truckbombs. And even that is in Prague rather weak - weaker than in Pentagon with its automatic road blocks and so on.
Btw why the hell use a great realtime colour zero-to-infinity focusing camera (and one tape for every camera and a hall to store all the tapes) when all you're after are pics of cars and faces of people passing close to the camera?
AA missiles were already mentioned, now what about scramble fighters? Have you tracked the NORAD operations on that day and compared the reaction times to the only case of interception in decade preceding 0911 that took place over the USA (which, at that time, wasn't a focus of the NORAD)? How many fighters were ready to scramble, which bases, and what were required times to scramble? How long did it took to get the scramble orders? How long does it take to prepare non-scramble planes for combat?
It's true that the Czech AF has permanently interceptors in air - either new Gripens or atleas subsonic L-159. But why? Because we, contrary to the USA, don't have thousands of miles of ocean around us. The NORAD was built against inbound aggressors, and the system of ADIZ was base of NORAD - plenty of space and time to get interceptors in air, arm and launch more and have a coffee.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
So what about some details about those 100s of cameras and AA missiles, eh? "They have to be there"... They were there for a short time around the 0911 anniversaries and every time the launchers were pretty visible.
I'll tell you something. Our General Staff has TWO (exactly) cameras overviewing the main entrance an the entire front of the buildings. By their look, every petrol station has better. Got just once to the main entrance to our MoD but it wasn't bristling with cameras as well. And defences? Two guys with pistols at the gate. About half a year after 0911 they got rifles. None of the buildings is impenetrable fortress. You know, most ministries of defense aren't. Even the Russian one with all their paranoia.
Where the security in such institutions is concentrated is security of information and security against such threats as truckbombs. And even that is in Prague rather weak - weaker than in Pentagon with its automatic road blocks and so on.
Btw why the hell use a great realtime colour zero-to-infinity focusing camera (and one tape for every camera and a hall to store all the tapes) when all you're after are pics of cars and faces of people passing close to the camera?
AA missiles were already mentioned, now what about scramble fighters? Have you tracked the NORAD operations on that day and compared the reaction times to the only case of interception in decade preceding 0911 that took place over the USA (which, at that time, wasn't a focus of the NORAD)? How many fighters were ready to scramble, which bases, and what were required times to scramble? How long did it took to get the scramble orders? How long does it take to prepare non-scramble planes for combat?
It's true that the Czech AF has permanently interceptors in air - either new Gripens or atleas subsonic L-159. But why? Because we, contrary to the USA, don't have thousands of miles of ocean around us. The NORAD was built against inbound aggressors, and the system of ADIZ was base of NORAD - plenty of space and time to get interceptors in air, arm and launch more and have a coffee.


So, essentially, our military HQ is/was undefended?

Our military is UNABLE TO PROTECT or at lease install a SECURITY SYSTEM on the Pentagon for our TRILLIONS of dollars?

or ar they just inept?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Erm, maybe it'll be a news for you, but militaries are usually built against military threat. You know, bombers, fighters and all that. That's where the dollars are going. That's what NORAD was set up on 0911 (and all the years before).
Also there is the concept of forward defense - you simply DON't wait till the enemy gets to your capital, especially when it is located just off the coast. You'd move the defensive lines as far away as possible. GIUK gap against subs, ADIZ (plus Iceland plus NATO members plus Taiwan plus Japan plus Hawaii and Alaska) against incoming aerial threats, so that you may shoot down these pesky bombers in safe distance. If a bomber gets to range of any fixed defense in your capital, you're DOOMED!
Also prior to 0911 NORAD thought the security on US airfields is good enough to prevent hijacking, so even hijackers were expected to come from overseas - ie THROUGH that DIZ zones, where numerous intercepts took place. That's also why Otis F-15's headed over the sea after hijack scramble - one thing was they got out of heavy traffic area (as it's no fun to have two 15's on afterburner between all that commercial and passanger jets) and the second one that it was expected at first that the threat comes from overseas.
As for the security, would any better security camera be good for anything? For its job, it was good enough. And I guess you'd be the first to wonder whi the military is wasting money on hi-res, hi-framerate color super duper cameras at gates of the Pentagon when a simple 2fps camera can do the trick as well.

And I'm not saying the US military is inept or whatever. It is just acting as any other military - partly preparing for the previous war as usually (this case on the Cold War) and partly doing the best to counter things it is built to counter - enemy military threat.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
So, again, you are saying that we do not bother to protect this building because if it is going to be hit it is "too late already?

Other goverments do INDEED protect their high value administrative/military installations.

What about truck bombs? Surely we would want to surveil the perimiter/building against this sort of threat. You are aware of OK city right?

There is a Federal building here in Detroit and I can count no less than 15 cameras on and around it... Is this a higher value target than the Pentagon?


There is also a BIG difference between what you call "high-res/high framerate" and the antiquated POS < 2FPS camera at an entry point to the Pentagon.

Are you trying to tell me that the gaurd house NEEDED a camera, but only a cheap one BUT the HELIPAD and CONSTRUCTION site needed no surveilance?

Your arguments are sily. "Leave the HQ unprotected... as a matter of fact, do not even surveil it and CERTAINLY do not have a stinger missile or two just in case.

Stupid argument.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Erm, maybe it'll be a news for you, but militaries are usually built against military threat. You know, bombers, fighters and all that. That's where the dollars are going. That's what NORAD was set up on 0911 (and all the years before).


I'd really hate to crsh the party, but NORAD was basically in disarray on 9/11 for several training exercises, all conveniently 100's of miles away from NYC, and Washington D. C.

I won't post links here, but there is a wealth of documentation, if you wanted to do your own research.

2 cents



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
I'd really hate to crsh the party, but NORAD was basically in disarray on 9/11 for several training exercises, all conveniently 100's of miles away from NYC, and Washington D. C.


I'd really hate to crush the party but the only result of said exercises was the command centers were full, as on alert status, not half-empty as in peacetime. IOW, only result was the response was likely to be FASTER.
Also units involved in exercises WEREN't scramble units.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Slap Nuts, are you sure how long would it take to get that Stinger on the roof and aim it? The task would be hard enough even if the operator was already there, with a jet coming at high speed close to ground. But hey, what do I know, I'm just interested in everything military, I'm not a CTer so I don't know of the super duper variant of Stinger the Pentagon uses usually but didn't use on 0911.
The discussion with you is pointless, with your thesis "if the security wasn't organised to MY liking it was no security"...



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Slap Nuts, are you sure how long would it take to get that Stinger on the roof and aim it?


To deploy a shoulder AA missile would take... let's say...

3-5 minute to get to it (they have golf carts in there if you think they could not run)
3-5 minutes to run outside/get an angle.
1 minute to unpack
1 minute to arm
30 seconds to aquire target and fire

So... Worst case scenario... 12 minutes.

I believe they had 1 hour and 20 minutes from the first WTC strike to at least CONSIDER getting something ready. Maybe an f-16/f-15? Stinger? Dragon?

Hell, they could have deployed a PAC-3 in that amount of time... (sarcasm)

There comes a point when the track of the plane would have made pentagon imact terminal and it should have been brought down. I know you guys are saying you can't shoot it down because other colatteral damages, but just letting it hit the Pentagon is RETARDED.

It can only lead me to one of two conclusions:

1. We have the MOS INCOMPETENT military planners on earth.
0r
2. It was allowed to happen.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
... with your thesis "if the security wasn't organised to MY liking it was no security"...


The security of the HQ OF OUR MILITARY should consist of more than a camera running at 2 FPS at the tollbooth.

They have no armaments.
No surveilance.

Do they even LOCK THE DOORS?

The security does not only fail MY test for "liking" but WAL*MART has better security, Selfridge ANG Base has better security, casinos, banks, hotels...

In my place of business we have cameras all over JUST TO PROTECT THE PARKING LOTS.

They should have too. WHO IS WATCHING FOR THE TRUCK BOMBS at the PENTAGON ALA OK CITY? They don't have cameras for this and a command center with monitors and joysticks to pan and zoom?

Your acceptable level of security for one of our nations MOST VALUABLE TARGETS is pathetic.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Well, getting back to the original question, the Pentagon was one event, the WTC was multiple. If a second plane hit the Pentagon, we woud have more footage. There's not a lot of footage of the first plane hitting, but a lot of the second and subsequent destruction, because after the first plane hit, everyone was pointing in that direction.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join