In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11

reply to post by budaruskie


This thread is about witnesses.....and, a camera and what it recorded can be thought of as a "witness" of sorts.....

Why would the gov't so quickly confiscate so many tapes, then not release their footage

I thought this has been addressed hundreds of times already......ALL of the video that was "confiscated" is now back in the public forum. This has been explained. Over and over.

And the term "confiscated" is just another exaggeration. Naturally, the FBI is going to want to see EVERY possible angle that would have been able to have captured the image of the airliner as it approached....so to investigate, they wanted it all....NOT to "hide" anything!!

What do you think happens in any crime? If there is any sort of video or photographic footage, then investigators will want to review it for clues.


And, a camera that was mounted ON the Pentagon building itself??? Does anyone really think that the footage, showing the amount of coverage, and angle of the camera, would be made public?

That is part of the total security scheme for the building....revealing the details would be stupid, from a security standpoint.

However, IF there had been any conclusive footage of American 77, you bet it would have been released to show the public.

The cameras on the building are (were) mostly likely, though, much like the camera at the parking lot entry guard gate....at a slow frame rate, to conserve storage space in the recording medium. THAT camera coincidentally had the best angle of any camera around that building.

AND, think about it if YOU were going to add cameras to YOUR building....would you put a camera up on the roof's edge, and then aim it outward and away from your building?? What purpose would that serve?

Some common sense......

.

Originally posted by budaruskie
ANYONE who believes that there is no video of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon is a flaming moron! Why would the gov't so quickly confiscate so many tapes, then not release their footage....if they were worthless? I've been around here and heard the absolutely absurd arguments and crap that some of you refer to as logic. This is so easy a child can figure it out, if you hide something and your version of events is scientifically proven and considered by most expterts to be at the very least "nearly impossible", then its a pretty good bet that you are LYING. Now, if you have a long standing track record of lying about all sorts of things, and a long standing track record of killing people, as well as motive to both in this case...only a moron would have trouble figuring this out.

P.S. I've posted it before so I don't feel the need to kick that horse, but if you look through the threads right here on ATS you will see pictures of a CAMERA, directly above the impact at the Pentagon. You guys' ridiculous arguments as to why THAT camera didn't get any footage is the epitome of stupidity.

You like the word moron, don't you? Anyone other than a moron would realize that it is the responsibility of Law Enforcement to gather all possible evidence to use in a Court of Law. All of what they might gather may not be pertinent and it may not be evidence after all.

So, you know that device you're referencing was a camera and not a light? How do you know that? Want to share your insight to the moron's who don't know? If it was a camera at what rate was it recording? Was it even operational or might it have been damaged by the impact of the aircraft. Where was it aimed?

Most everyone who has any common sense at all realizes that any lack of film footage is simply an excuse to promote some perverted alternative theory regarding the Pentagon Attack. There is an enormous amount of evidence that a rational sensible person can use to only arrive at one conclusion. That conclusion is that AA 77 a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon killing all souls on board and 125 people inside the building. Anyone who arrives at any other conclusion must be closely related to that moron that you like so well....

reply to post by Reheat

So the topic you've chose is "G forces"?

I believe the topic is witnesses?

Secondly, this is supposed to be a place where we can civililly discuss topics, not get nasty and call others names or use insults. Apparently, you are claiming to be a pilot and therefore obviously have more knowledge about "G forces" than an ex-Army combat ground warrior, such as myself.

As for Mr Wallace, he is another "witness" that did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by Reheat


I'm not going to argue with you, believe whatever you want. But you tell me how many "lights" have black lenses on them. Besides, it could easily be proven whichever it was light or camera by contract records with whomever installed it. Why anyone would put such a small "light" with a black lense 30 or more feet in the air and why there don't seem to be any pictures showing it to be a light...is somewhat puzzling if it is in fact a light. It's called logic, and many people seem to have no idea what it is or how to use it.

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by Reheat

 

So the topic you've chose is "G forces"?

I believe the topic is witnesses?

Secondly, this is supposed to be a place where we can civililly discuss topics, not get nasty and call others names or use insults. Apparently, you are claiming to be a pilot and therefore obviously have more knowledge about "G forces" than an ex-Army combat ground warrior, such as myself.

As for Mr Wallace, he is another "witness" that did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.

No, the topic is not g forces, but what you're claiming definitely involves g forces, lots of them. The topic hasn't changed at all, The fact that you don't understand that shows more than sufficiently that you have no clue what you're talking about except for parroting something you read from the numerous charlatans and frauds on the internet.

In this case it doesn't matter whether Allan Wallace saw the aircraft impact or not. There is no other place it could possibly go besides into the building. Thanks for playing and losing tho'. Better luck with some of the other nonsense that you also most likely don't understand either. That is the case with most "truthers" and it's quite obvious in this case... Bye

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Reheat

 

I'm not going to argue with you, believe whatever you want. But you tell me how many "lights" have black lenses on them. Besides, it could easily be proven whichever it was light or camera by contract records with whomever installed it. Why anyone would put such a small "light" with a black lense 30 or more feet in the air and why there don't seem to be any pictures showing it to be a light...is somewhat puzzling if it is in fact a light. It's called logic, and many people seem to have no idea what it is or how to use it.

Yes, one might expect you'd pick something stupid such as whether or not that device was a light and avoid all of the other issues that you can't answer. You haven't proven a thing at all. For example, how do you know it wasn't an IR sensor for night viewing as opposed to a daylight camera. You don't know what it is, you only speculate while completely ignoring all of the other evidence.

How ironic that you say you aren't going to argue, but then you do and continue to use insulting language even tho' your language applies to YOU more than to anyone else. You just demonstrated that by avoiding all of the other relevant questions that you can't address and not conclusively proving that's not something other than a daytime camera.

It's all a non-issue anyway as all of the video has been released anyway. But this little exercise did accomplish one important thing. It shows that you have nothing at all except empty rhetoric (otherwise known as "hot air"). Another prime example of a waste of time. Thanks for showing that to all who can read, I'm sure it will serve you well among those with whom you choose to "argue".

reply to post by Reheat

So you're above us truthers somehow?

Yet you find it necessary to come into a 9/11 thread to troll and make fun of others?

Guess your life is more boring than you claim!

Back to topic......as stated by the OP, most of these witnesses are not witnesses at all.

Some may have seen an aircraft in the area, which may or may have not flew close to the Pentagon.Most of the on record witnesses either didn't see the actual impact or were not in position to see it.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by freedom12

 

For Pete's sake man did you watch the jet flyby? Those people at the Pentagon watched it go in.

I have relatives on Sint Maarten, and I've asked about it. I can confirm Proudbird's point.

A plane on the ground, with engines running at full thrust? yes, it will blow over people and cars. When it's flying, that thrust is converted into forward momentum for the aircraft, there is nothing left to blow anything over.

You watched a high powered, high speed jet pass over a daredevil by a margin of a few feet. You've lost the argument. Stop being obtuse. Stop believing BS. Accept you were wrong, man up and admit it.

Or... embarrass yourself further. Notice the "ass" in embarrass.

The plane at the Pentagon was said to have been traveling at such a rate of speed that those videos don't show an aircraft with a wide open throttle.

Let's have a real demonstration. Have a competent pilot complete the maneuvers said to have been managed; on camera and have that feller stand just like he did during these demonstrations.


Or not!

Sonic boom?

Does the atmosphere dense-up closer to the ground? What is a sound wave?

There's far too much knowledge out there for anything to be set in stone, IMHO.

reply to post by loveguy


OK! You got it!!

Let's have a real demonstration. Have a competent pilot complete the maneuvers said to have been managed...

Here you go:


Starts @ 4:42..........but the other parts tear apart that appalling bad piece of crap titled "Loose Change"......

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by loveguy

 

OK! You got it!!

Let's have a real demonstration. Have a competent pilot complete the maneuvers said to have been managed...

Here you go:

Starts @ 4:42..........but the other parts tear apart that appalling bad piece of crap titled "Loose Change"......

edit on Sun 22 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Am I supposed to accept a video game analysis? A simulation?

Sorry to fall off topic guys...

reply to post by loveguy

Am I supposed to accept a video game analysis? A simulation?

It's NOT a "video game"!!

It is a "simulation"...a full motion Flight Simulator. Those are what are used almost exclusively nowadays (depending on airplane type) for specific type training.

The most advanced versions, owned and operated by most major airlines, are so good....."Landing certified" (or , 'Level D') per the FAA and other countries aviation authorization agencies.....when a pilot at an airline is changing equipment types, and transitions to another (say, he's flying the Boeing 737, and now has bid for and been awarded the position to fly the B-767)...he goes through all the training (Ground School) and procedural training in non-moving cockpit simulators, just for checklist drills and familiarization with the control and instrument arrangements, then to the Level D full-motion simulators, where there are about seven or eight four-hour sessions.

At that point, having not even yet flown the REAL airplane, the next step is a flight, on a regularly scheduled trip, with passengers aboard. At this point it is with a "Check Captain" and it is called I.O.E., or Initial Operating Experience.

But the point is, the Level D simulator satisfies the requirements for landing currency (ability and recency), so the old days of taking an airplane out (usually at night, when it is parked after the last passenger flight, before it is needed in the next morning) just to get the required three landings is no longer necessary.


The Level D simulators are actually a bit harder to fly properly....they are more difficult because as well as they simulate the controls and operations, there is a limit to what they can do to provide the sensory cues that pilots need when they fly.....g-forces, for instance. The simulator cannot provide g-force, only momentary motions that fool the inner ear, and the mind fills in the rest.


But, it takes a lot more concentration to properly fly the simulator than it does to fly the real airplane.

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by Reheat

 

As for Mr Wallace, he is another "witness" that did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.

SO WHAT??!!

HE HAD TO DIVE OUT OF THE WAY FOR IT.

Would you be standing and looking?

THE PLANE FLEW INTO THE PENTAGON.

Who cares about your silly delusional insinuations in the real world?

To Alan Wallace's side was the Heliport Tower, where Sean Boger saw and heard the plane go in too, and neither saw the plane at an altitude required to satisfy CIT's idiotic fantasy flyover.

Remember, this is not about north or south, this is about high or low.

Originally posted by loveguy
Am I supposed to accept a video game analysis? A simulation?

First off all, you have no idea what you're talking about and what is acceptable or not.

But... Yes, you are supposed to accept a simulation, and a simulation is not a video game. That ignorant comparison alone you just made totally disqualifies you. Do you understand the universe of difference between a simulator engine and a game engine? No you don't.

And what are you supposed to do in lieu of that anyway? Will you volunteer to fly a 757 into a Pentagon sized building for us? Will you pay for it too?

Hey, Jesse Ventura's conspiracy porn (tm) did a Pentagon simulation too, with Pile-Its For 9/11 Truth, and they failed... You can just try not to make it, and you'll probably succeed in failing. But then, you're obviously going to heap lavish praise on the simulator they used for its sophisticated modeling of aerodynamics and aircraft control features. Right?

Originally posted by loveguy
Let's have a real demonstration. Have a competent pilot complete the maneuvers said to have been managed; on camera and have that feller stand just like he did during these demonstrations.

A real demonstration?? Did you or did you NOT see the flyby Proudbird posted?

reply to post by snowcrash911
I believe loveguy is referring to the spiraling, hard banking, descent that was near impossible for a highly experienced pilot to execute. Instead of crashing into the top of the Pentagon and probably causing more damage/casualties, the "hijacker-pilot" supposedly executed this extremely difficult manuver flying by the White House and striking the only side of the Pentagon that was reinforced for just such an attack. Not to mention what offices there were in that part of the Pentagon.

On top of this, there is video/sound evidence of secondary explosions happening in the Pentagon and many military witnesses at the Pentagon reported smelling cordite after the "attack".

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by snowcrash911


Oh, chuckle.......guffaw:

Hey, Jesse Ventura's conspiracy porn (tm) did a Pentagon simulation too, with Pile-Its For 9/11 Truth, and they failed... You can just try not to make it....

That pile of junk in "Captain" Rusty Aimer?? In his garage?? The simulator with no motion??

Man, that was the funniest yet to come out of the fools at "P4T"....can't believe they push that with a straight face.

And, oddly enough, they had the gall to criticize the "Zembla" documentary footage because it wasn't specifically a B-757 simulator!! Then, what did they do? What a complete joke...you almost have to begin to think they are pranking the entire world, at this point.......maybe that's their game?

Nah.....they really are that incompetent and foolish, for real.

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

I believe loveguy is referring to the spiraling, hard banking, descent that was near impossible for a highly experienced pilot to execute.

False. The turn isn't hard to execute at all, ask Proudbird, or Pile-Its for 9/11 Truth, for that matter. Total myth.

Originally posted by freedom12
Instead of crashing into the top of the Pentagon and probably causing more damage/casualties, the "hijacker-pilot" supposedly executed this extremely difficult manuver flying by the White House and striking the only side of the Pentagon that was reinforced for just such an attack. Not to mention what offices there were in that part of the Pentagon.

First the pilot is too good, then he's too bad. Which is it?

Originally posted by freedom12
On top of this, there is video/sound evidence of secondary explosions happening in the Pentagon

The generator exploded, oxyacetylene tanks exploded, a jet fighter went through the sound barrier over DC. None of that points to "conspiracy".

Originally posted by freedom12
and many military witnesses at the Pentagon reported smelling cordite after the "attack"

Unless there was an ancient cannon or an archaic musket on the scene, they were mistaken. Cordite isn't used in missile or bombs, in fact, it has long been abandoned by the UK, the US didn't even use it in WW II, except in Little Boy's detonation system. Ironically, you could have known this had you read your own link.

Absolutely nobody saw a missile, nobody saw a bomb, nobody saw a wall breaching kit, an A-3 Skywarrior, a commuter jet, an oversized bumblebee, an armored kite or a modified attack baboon hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by freedom12


Nope. Again, misconceptions:

I believe loveguy is referring to the spiraling, hard banking, descent that was near impossible for a highly experienced pilot to execute.

Completely false. Didn't you see the "Zembla" documentary segment from YouTube?

It was a simple right-hand turn...not "hard banking"....was about 30° average bank angle, perfectly easy to do. YOU could do it, even if you've never flown in your life.

Heck, even pop singer Ricky Martin could do it....and he even LANDS (with some coaching assistance) a Boeing 737 simulator:




BTW, that ^ ^ ^ is a real company in the UK...anyone with the money can go fly a simulator like that. There are companies in the U.S. too...just Google around. But, it ain't cheap......

.... the "hijacker-pilot" supposedly executed this extremely difficult manuver flying by the White House

No where near the White House.

Here.....last four minutes of American 77, as depicted from the FDR information. Airspeed, Altitude, Attitude (Pitch & Roll), Heading on the right. Control wheel movements. Rudder position (beneath the control wheel). Autopilot status (Off....Green if engaged, in this depiction). Power settings in bottom left corner.

(Cheesy music, but it is what it is):


See any "hard banking" there??


(Where do people get this stuff? Just making it up as they go?)

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by freedom12

 

(Where do people get this stuff? Just making it up as they go?)

I was just wondering the same thing.

Barbara Honegger, Thierry Meyssan, Dave Von Kleist, Eric Hufschmid, CIT, they've done considerable damage.

That "impossible turn" is back to the forefront "thanks" to Corbett's viral YT video.

Gilah Goldsmith --
We saw a huge black cloud of smoke, she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke.


Don Perkal --
Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.



They smelled it, not me.