A closer look at the pentagon camera footage

reply to post by ProudBird


I hope you're not defending those who had their pants down and are now giving it to us...

reply to post by loveguy




Not sure what is meant, there.

See no need to "defend" anything....except the truth. To dispel the many, many misconceptions that have arisen over the years, mostly form rumors, misunderstandings of things technical (in may areas...no one can know everything, but by providing information about what each person has, whether an expert or just well-informed in their area of expertise, then the facts can be made clearer).

If "pants down" referred to the ineptitude of the Bush administration, then I would agree.

But, that is fodder for other threads.

Originally posted by WeRpeons

FBI Withholding 84 More Tapes of Pentagon on 9/11 Magically Only 1 shows impact so why not release the rest? Steve Watson / Infowars | May 17 2006 The FBI is withholding at least another 84 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon. There is an ongoing lawsuit to get these tapes released via the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI has admitted in a statement to attorney, Scott Hodes, representative of Mr Scott Bingham who runs the website www.flight77.info... that they have these tapes, that they have already analyzed them and are still keeping them under lock and key. A great deal of speculation has surrounded reports that on the morning of september 11th, 2001 the FBI visited two private businesses near the pentagon and confiscated several security camera video tapes. The first is said to be the Cigto gas station with several security cameras aimed in the direction of the pentagon. Flight 77 flew directly over the gas station at an altitude of roughly 50 feet, less than 3 seconds from impact. Three months after 9/11 The National Geographic and others reported on this, publishing short interviews with the gas station owner, Jose Velasquez.

reply to post by userid1

 

...That about covers it.

Not really...
1 - try using references that are *in* date. The Citgo and Double Tree CCTVs (you know, the ones everyone was screaming to be released) - were released in 2006.

2 - The videos showed precisely....nothing.

Google?.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by ProudBird

 

I've lived in DC and worked for the GPO. I've had various VIP tours of many government buildings in DC, and if you believe that our government buildings in our nation's capital are not secured nor lack security cameras that watch your every move, you're living in a dream world. The pentagon is the main hub of our military planners. Do you really think they would keep that building so vulnerable? The last thing our political leaders would expect, is for another country or some inside terrorist having the ability to approach a building that has an archive of military secrets.

People keep ASSUMING that the place was crawling with cameras. Well, it was - in the areas that had PUBLIC ACCESS. Not on the side of the building that only allowed access to arriving helos. As a matter of fact, the doors on that side of the building were always kept locked except when a VIP was choppered in.

Originally posted by Varemia

This is quite clearly a picture of a 757 flying at groud level.

Jeesh get a life

reply to post by InformationAccount


The point was to get the highest detail image of the minute differences between frames. I feel I did a better job of finding the detail than most of the speculators here. I mean, at least I'm trying to use the evidence at my disposal, instead of coming up with wild theories and then backing them up with conjecture.

reply to post by Varemia


Is this the ONLY Footage out there?

I admit there is something there that looks roughly the same shape as a plane tail. However its impossible to tell what it actually is - could be a Commercial Airliner, could be a Global Hawk, could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What I find strange is that as far as I am aware, the plane was approaching at an angle. The "Tail" in this photo looks perpendicular to the camera - therefore probably not actually a tail.

Also, you can see in the first frame a line of white underneathe where the "tail" appears and I have seen people equate this to the plane's body. However it is in the before shot as well so that can't be the case. In fact looking at the changes between the two, it doesn't look big enough to be the alleged plane, even taking into account the angle at which it was supposedly approaching from.

But at the end of the day, this is all meaningless. The fact there are still lots of videos that haven't been released speaks louder than all the videos they have. Of course people will claim there is nothing to be seen on those videos, but as always if there's nothing to see why not release them? We are just left with the FBI's word that there's nothing worth watching and we are supposed to accept that. Complete and utter BS in my opinion.

Futhermore I don't believe for a second they didn't have cameras on the side of the building. Why wouldn't they?!? Its right next to a major road easily accessible by foot if you walked across the lawn. Even some civilian buildings have external cameras just to stop graffiti so I can't see why the Pentagon wouldn't. Especially on the Helicopter pad - you really think a VIP is going to touch down on a helicopter pad that the people inside are just assuming is fine? You really think they would open the door without checking it was really who they thought it was? I could believe the cameras weren't facing the road but to believe there were no cameras is beyond me.

All I need to know about the pentagon camera footage is there is video tape from multiple angles
that are from government buildings ( taxpayers own that footage ) and corporate.

Just like the OKC bombing video tapes we can't see those tapes.

Why can't we see the tapes ??? National security ???

Or some bad ppl are rope/noose adverse ???

I am all for giving them a fair trial, but in this investigation that evidence is being held
by the criminals.

I rest my case.

Also by now they could have made fake tapes so even if they do show them
years after the fact it could be faked.

911 press for truth the film shows what really happened on 911,
the official story is a pack of lies, watch vid in my sig.

reply to post by kiwifoot

Seriously? If you picked your nose at your local 7/11 there will be 20 cameras on you.

How many of those cameras are pointed up at the sky for an incoming plane?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by kiwifoot

 

Seriously? If you picked your nose at your local 7/11 there will be 20 cameras on you.

How many of those cameras are pointed up at the sky for an incoming plane?

Probably none.

However, there must be multiple cameras aimed at the grass, the sides the windows, out towards the freeway etc.

And since the OS tells us the jet came in at or slightly above ground level then there should be multiple shots of the jet approaching.

C'mon, even the most ardent supporter of the OS cannot refute the obvious problem of the lack of video footage.

It is one of the most worrying and doubt raising parts of 9/11 imo.

reply to post by kiwifoot


I doubt the windows open on the Pentagon.

You do not aim cameras at grass and walls of windows or even the freeway. You aim them at entrance doors and parking lots.

Have you ever noticed that almost all cameras are looking down? Even if they had cameras looking at all the exterior walls you wouldn’t catch an incoming plane as the plane was just too fast.

I would suspect that most of the Pentagons cameras were covering interior hallways.
Face it if you wanted to steal America’s military secrets you are going to break into a room on the QT not drive a truck through a wall.

Do you think they have cameras covering the entire perimeter fence at all the nations airports? Or just the parking lots and interior spaces?

reply to post by kiwifoot

C'mon, even the most ardent supporter of the OS cannot refute the obvious problem of the lack of video footage.

I refute it. Why would there be a camera looking at an open piece of lawn and the highway? Is this based on the popular nonsense that the Pentagon is the most heavily gaurded piece of real estate in the known universe?

reply to post by samkent


Seriously, you think the pentagon has an entire side of its building with no camera coverage at all. Nothing, nothing at all facing out from the building.

Well I can't argue with that. If that seems reasonable to you then there is no point arguing.

For me, the fact that the pentagon sides are 921 feet long, and the wall in question faced out onto the road, tells me that there would have been some cameras facing that way.

I guess you just beleive that the head of the largest military in the world is so satisfied that a lawn is a sufficient deterrent to no-gooders that they deemed security cameras not necessary.

I don't mean to mock friend, but seriously?

reply to post by hooper


Not at all, this is based on the fact that the pentagon is an office building, and even the most boring run of the mill office buildings have video security, not to mention this is the head of the US Military.

Forget 9/11 for a second, but do you not think it naive to suggest the Pentagon wouldn't have at least a half dozen routine cameras on a 921ft length of building?

reply to post by kiwifoot

Forget 9/11 for a second, but do you not think it naive to suggest the Pentagon wouldn't have at least a half dozen routine cameras on a 921ft length of building?

Yes, very naive. Again, why would there be cameras there? Just because? CCTV is used as part of a system of security which, in the case of the Pentagon, included a huge security patrol. Stores, office buildings, etc., generally don't have large security forces. Its not like folks were driving up to the Pentagon, pulling on a ski mask, pulling out a revolver and stealing military secrets.