New Video Discovery Channel "Attack on the Pentagon"

Originally posted by defcon5
What makes people think that they are obligated, or that they would ever even consider releasing footage from a camera on a secure military installation.

They are obligated because of the event and the fact that ALL information is actually OWNED by the public taxpayer. Now, for national security reasons, this information can be withheld. Well, there is nothing on the outside of the building that cannot be viewed from the many public locations around it. If it were sensitive information of the inside of the building it could be legitimately argued that it is a national security situation.

There is NOTHING that happened on 911 that should be withheld from the public due to 'national security' BECAUSE of all of the questions that have gone unanswered.

reply to post by defcon5


Tipping their hand as to the capability of the cameras??? Hogwash.

That would be an excuse given to lame brains that cant even add 1 and 1 to make 2.

Now kiddies, how fast was this airplane going before it hit?

Would a typical security camera, or even one with high definition, be set to run at more than 30 or 60 frames per second to be able to catch a moving object at over 300 knots?

You need a camera that runs well above 160 frames per second and more just to get a decent glimpse of it. Cameras at much slower frame rates
would be lucky to get a slight blurr!


Cheers!!!

[edit on 9-9-2008 by RFBurns]

reply to post by sir_chancealot


Actually that has been asked a lot and has been answered many times on ATS. NORAD is geared to intercepting aircraft coming in from over the boarder to attack, and they rely on the FAA when a plane strays somewhere inside the US boarder. The FAA had lost the aircraft in clutter and were not sure as to their positions/destinations. Additionally the prior to 911, the air force did not have the authority to shoot down civilian airliners, especially over a populated city. So even if they had managed to intercept the aircraft they could not have done much other then try and dissuade it from its target by forcing a landing or blocking its path. If they had fired on the aircraft there would have been even more damage over an even wider area of Washington. As a matter of fact, over the years there have been two private aircraft that have landed at the White house with no fighter intercept.

reply to post by dariousg


They are obligated to no such thing...
As a matter of fact why not try and take some pictures on a military base and use the excuse that your tax dollars paid for the stuff your photographing. Lets just say that I would advise against that as you'll find out really fast exactly how illegal that is...
Also what they are protecting may not be the stuff outside the building that you can see, but the CAPIBILITES of the SECURITY SYSTEM ITSELF. That is if it was even working considering the construction.

Originally posted by thedman

Debris







Montage



Problem is not lack of debris at Pentagon - it is that you don't want to see
it. Might puncture your little paranoid fantasty....

The bandwidth or page view limit for this site has been exceeded and the page cannot be viewed at this time. Once the site is below the limit, it will once again begin serving as normal.

Huh? ATS won't let us see this link? That's odd.

[edit on 9/9/2008 by Matrix1111]

reply to post by RFBurns


Actually that is a very good reason.
Do you know if those camera work in the visual spectrum, IR spectrum, or Thermal imaging?
Do you know the zoom level of those cameras, their capture rate, or their resolution?
Are their blind spots that can be taken advantage of in the system that would allow someone unhindered access on the facility?

You don't know, and you wont know either, for good reasons.
It makes every bit of sense.

But your post is exactly the problem with dealing with 911 information. I have been cordial and polite in all of my posts so far, and you are making a personal attack against me when I quite clearly mentioned the time delay in my post. Despite the fact that I am certain that I know much more about aircraft, and they types of security information that they keep confidential on secured locations.

Originally posted by dariousg
I could buy this if they didn't stand by the argument that the plane increased speed on its approach. You see, the planes that have skidded on grass with wheels up where powering down and doing everything to reduce their speed (thus the energy that would be released upon impact or touch down). Not with a plane going 400+.

Then perhaps you can explain how the fire trucks which have all their weight concentrated into the area of their much smaller wheels were also not tearing up the grass until later that day when the water had time to soak into the dirt?

Originally posted by dariousg
Also, to your camera theory. Sorry, that is the biggest cop out I have heard yet. The Pentagon would NOT turn off their security camera's even during a construction project. They would not worry about displaying what is on them for fear of revealing just what they can see because it is visible for ALL to see as they drive by every single day. You are simply making up excuses to try and explain away something that has had many holes in it. Mainly the 'official story' of what actually happened.

Check above, I hit on this more.

BTW what if they had not turned off the cameras intentionally, but that the cabling that connects them to the the security system was disrupted by the location were it ran though the construction? Do you know for a fact that was not the case in this instance? When I have had construction done on my place they have had to sever the wiring and reroute it in a different manner, how do you know its not the same type of situation there?

Originally posted by dariousg
I'm sorry, I don't believe that only two fighters were sent up to intercept and 'accidentally' sent out over the Atlantic.

As I stated the interceptors were made to go after enemy aircraft that were coming in from overseas, so that is their standard procedure to intercept. The only place that they can even viably shoot down an aircraft without doing massive damage to civilians below is out over a large uninhabited area such as an ocean anyway.

Since they were so excellent at intercepting aircraft originating from within the US, maybe you can explain how both a Helicopter and a private plane have managed to get into the White House unhindered and without interception?

[edit on 9/9/2008 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
I thought it was a good show, 'plane' and simple....

They did mention a few things as to appease some CT's, but all in all it seemed more about the people involved rather than the fact or fiction.

One thing that struck me was the 'brilliant light' that was cast upon Donald Rumsfeld.

Yeah I noticed that too. That guy turns my stomach!

What a "hero". He left his post during an attack. Good example for the enlisted men Don. If you go back to that day and realize that this could have been an attack by another country! The plane hijackings might have been a diversion before the main attack. No one (supposedly) really knew what was going to happen next. So our Sec of Defense leaves his post because he gets emotional and wants to help out??

Where were our air defenses Don? Why didn't you pay attention to the massive amount of intelligence screaming we were about to be attacked??
Those are just a few questions for the adminstration that justifys ever self serving breath they take with 9/11! Ugh!

Not one government official was punished or suffered any consequence for allowing the attacks of 9/11! In fact most were given medals!!! Shame shame!!

757 does not fit into hole, thus there was no 757. Keep it simple and stop watching the Dis-gov-ery Channel for your 9/11 info.

Peace

reply to post by Dr Love


Actually the fuselage of a 757 is 13 feet, almost the same diameter as a DC-9, the hole is much larger than that.


[edit on 9/9/2008 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5


That would be a viable argument if planes didn't have to have wings. Maybe this was one of those new-fangled flying tubes.

Peace

reply to post by Dr Love


First off aren't you supposed to be a moderator?
Why not tone down the sarcasm a bit and lead by example?
Secondly there are markings where the wings hit the facade that run as long as the leading edge of the wing is minus the last 10 feet. The hight of the hole is large enough for a 13 foot plane to get through plus about 4 feet, and the width is as wide as the engines are. There is a really good site that shows exactly how the aircraft hit compared to the damage on the facade, but I am too tired to go looking for it ATM.

edit to add, here you go:



[edit on 9/9/2008 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Dr Love
reply to post by defcon5

 

That would be a viable argument if planes didn't have to have wings. Maybe this was one of those new-fangled flying tubes.

Peace

Witnesses say they either saw the plane crash into the pentagon or saw the plane debri scattered one third of a mile naround the impact area:

www.youtube.com...

Witness reports seeing a small commuter plane crash into the pentagon
www.youtube.com...

Construction worker:
www.youtube.com...

Collection of witness reports:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Are all these people part of the "conspiracy cover-up"?

Why do we accept witness testimony in regards to September 11 yet deny it when it deals with ghosts and UFO's?

Sometimes we use our skepticism purely to protect our beliefs.

reply to post by defcon5


why weren't the spools shattered? i am not really seeing the damage that you are claiming to be on the building either. Where are the wholes from those huge engines?


[edit on 9-9-2008 by Jeff Riff]

reply to post by Dr Love


Wow dude that is far far far from being "that simple".

reply to post by Dr Love


Oh my are you really saying that there should have been a like a cartoon cutout of Flight 77?

reply to post by Jeff Riff


If you can seriously watch the various documentaries and not see the plane parts, debris and the reasonable explanations of what occurred to flight 77 then you really are beyond reasoning with.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


If you look at the photos, the aircraft displaced the spools as it passed over them. The spools went between the starboard engine (#2) and the side of the fuselage under the wing. There was not direct enough contract with the aircraft for them to be destroyed, besides that they are made of harder metal then aircraft aluminum. So they would have possible cut the fuselage skin, but I doubt they would have been torn up excessively.

If you check the photos above, the engine fits in that area quite nicely. 757 engines are not that large, they are not taller then I am, for example, and I would have to bend over to stand inside one. The 757 is a narrow body aircraft, and not as large as it sometimes appears. The illusion of size is given by its excessively long landing gear which are built to accommodate the under wing engines. The fuselage is very close in diameter to the size of a DC-9 or MD-80, which most folks recognize as being very small aircraft. The majority of the inside of the 757 engines is nothing but empty airspace that is filled with the fragile fan blades. Besides that, the #2 engine was most likely in already in the state of structural failure from having contacted both a light pole and a generator on the way in.