Newly released, never-before aired, Pentagon post-impact video shows NO plane

originally posted by: Helious
one of the most heavily guarded areas of the United States did not

Please show some proof it was one of the most heavily guarded areas of the USA.... they even run tours of the place!

a reply to: hellobruce

So since they give tours that means it is not heavily guarded?
They do guided tours of the white house, does that mean it is not heavily guarded??

It is the pentagon, the command center of the United States military, you are saying that it is not heavily guarded?
And what would prove to you that it was in fact heavily guarded?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
And what would prove to you that it was in fact heavily guarded?

Well, you made that claim so I assumed you had evidence to back it up.... it appears you have no such evidence!

And heavily guarded against what exactly? Or did you think they had AA missiles on the roof....

a reply to: hellobruce

Actually.. I think a lot of us assumed (I know what the word is...lol) that there was some emergency plans with a modest Air Defense system. I mean, thinking back, a Cessna landed in Red Square as a political statement which shook the Russians more than a 9pt quake as I recall ...then Clinton had one fly right into the front lawn, trying to get the White House.

It's not like it wouldn't have had a decent reason for being there..

So it was a bit surprising at the time to see how totally and woefully unprepared everyone was. The only one with technology up to the task was Bush and ..wow.. some airplane that is, when in full power.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
that there was some emergency plans with a modest Air Defense system.

have a look at how close the Pentagon is to the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport....

It's amazing how after 13 years people are still debating the exact same points.

There are (were) no surface to air defenses for anything within the 50 states.
After 911 the Whitehouse did get portable surface to air missiles for the roof.

The Pentagon is just 1 mile away from RR airport. And is within the normal flight pattern. Meaning planes fly directly over the Pentagon all day.
There is no way you can justify the risk to passenger planes when all it takes is one radical pilot to simply nose over just after takeoff.

a reply to: samkent

So Mineta's testimony means jack #? They just thought the 757 was just any other commericial airliner and Cheney knew nothing about it? The whole story stinks and you have to be extremely gullible to believe everything they tell you.

Look, as for evidence, it can and HAS been fabricated. If this were a government conspiracy - I wouldn't put it past them to conceive of some extremely convincing evidence to support their story. Here's what we, Joe Public, know:

16 ft hole doesn't resemble airliner
FBI Confiscated all CCTV in the area, whether they showed anything or not, and what was released to public showed zilch
All photos and supposed wreckage were shown to public years after event as "evidence"
No 9/11/01 footage shows any wreckage that photos (released much later) have in prominent areas of lawn
The manuever described is a near impossibilty that was only recreated under falsities and bad simulation practices
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Oh, the pilot wasn't even allowed to fly single engine planes by himself - so there's that too
Can a 757 fly at over 500MPH at sealevel where the air is 3X thicker ?


Now the usual bandits will rush in here and dismiss all of these as normal occurences and "of course they can fly a jet that fast at sea level" not considering the pilot has never flown a commercial airliner live.

It basically boils down to how much of the official story you believe. Trust will allow you to jump through logic hulahoops. I mean, it could be a conspiracy, it really could so I don't understand why one would close themselves off to the possibility. NONE of us truly know because we all rely on second, third and fourth hand information.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Sremmos80
And what would prove to you that it was in fact heavily guarded?

Well, you made that claim so I assumed you had evidence to back it up.... it appears you have no such evidence!

And heavily guarded against what exactly? Or did you think they had AA missiles on the roof....

So, in your estimation, the Pentagon isn't heavily guarded? With how much they have invensted inside that building and the figures that make that their everyday workplace - one would have to be extremely dense to think that it would not also have a top notch security system. WE are talking about the same people that have $60k toilets. They don't mind spending your hard earned tax dollars on their safety. This much is entirely too obvious. So, I think it's safe to assume that they would guard the Pentagon and have some heavy duty surveillance. And do you think Mineta was lying under oath when speaking of Cheney's stand down orders? Why wasn't this used in the 9/11 Commission? Pretty convenient.

I had wrote this earlier. This is very important as it shows that people were aware much in advance that there would be and event on that one wedge at the Pentagon in the future.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
The majority of the smoke and fire is not coming from the building but from the generator that was fenced in just feet from the wall. The generator was there to aid in the RE-ENFORCEMENT and BLAST PROOFING of that one wall that used in the 911 attacks.

Yes you heard it right, the wedge that was allegedly hit on 911 was under construction to make it bomb and explosion proof.

Not a coincidence.

It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars [and blast-resistant windows] to withstand bomb blasts.... While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there- La times.

originally posted by: spooky24
Yes, I agree you do need to study the NSTB report and the Egypt Air Minister's report. Not read them but study them.

The primary radar data indicated that the airplane climbed for about 40 seconds after the FDR stopped recording before it rapidly descended again and impacted the ocean. Therefore, the relief first officer and captain had about 83 and 69 seconds, respectively, from the time the airplane began its initial nose-down pitch until it began its second (final) descent,

The airplane recovered it's dive which exceeded mach 86 to a level of 23,000msl from the 13,000msl it was diving through.

recognizes that the simulations could not duplicate the near 0 G loads recorded by the FDR during the accident sequence and that these levels prohibited both crew members from revaluing and reducing the elevators position.

I don't want to derail this thread too much away from the main subject at hand, but it is clear that you are just going round in circles with this. Firstly, if you are going to copy and paste sections from news reports or official reports, or whatever, could you please reference the information, or at least provide links. I'm going to ignore the suggestion that you cannot enter into debate about this subject without "studying" the reports, firstly because it implies that you have some sort of superiority here, and secondly because you have no idea exactly how much 'studying' I have personally conducted regarding this, or any other plane crash. It serves nothing towards the actual debate to state these things. It's just empty logic.

Secondly, as I said before, the claims about the aircraft pulling up out of the dive are widely questioned and disputed. It cannot be stated as fact that this is what happened, because whilst some investigators do believe that is the case, others do NOT. Same with the speeds, as I stated, the speeds have always been in dispute and the calculations are fairly easily accomplished which I displayed. There are many schools of thought on this incident, regarding speeds, free fall or no free fall, whether the plane was in pieces during the descent, etc., etc. Therefore, you are just conjecturing, which is fine, but not definitive or factual, and can indeed be disputed.

You should not criticize the evaluation of others without the studying facts. The Egypt Air Ministry totally rejects this conclusion which leads to my conclusion that the NTSB went into the investigation with a predetermined conclusion. They did not simulate other sequences without the viewpoint that the RFO plunged the airplane deliberately into the ocean-at the same time leaving open the question about recovering from 0g dive due to excessive mach speeds and pull the airplane up almost 10,000 feet. Science couldn't explain it so they dropped it.

Again, you have no place to deduce or claim that I haven't studied the facts, so quit it with the posturing. Present your argument, and leave the empty 'you can't criticise this, because you don't know what I know' rhetoric behind. In fact, I've proven that I clearly do have some idea about this case, but I shouldn't even need to justify whether I do or not. That doesn't at all impact on whether I am allowed to make a conclusion or opinion on this matter. So you've been lead to your own conclusion about this incident. Good. That's fine and dandy. That doesn't make it fact. But leaving aside the 'science can't explain it' stuff, as I feel I've already stated my opinion on that as well as I can; this case still has very little comparison to any of the 9/11 incidents, so as I posed before, I don't understand where you are coming from with this as an attempt to prove any kind of point about the thread subject?

Simple-Video surveillance cameras are not movie cameras. Both mine run at 4 fps and that is much better than the ones installed around the Pentagon-they were 2fps. All they do is frame and mark time just like in 10,000s of convenience stores in North America. The still frames caught very little and what they did catch is in the National Archives and has been studied by both the media and academia and they show what you would expect from 2fps cameras-blurry images.

I'm sorry, what? Yes, you can get surveillance cameras that run at 2fps... You can also get ones that run at 30fps, and in high definition. The big question is not the fact that the video surveillance cameras at the Pentagon WERE running at 2fps, the question is WHY?! Why the hell does the Pentagon NOT have more advanced surveillance camera technology? Are we really supposed to believe that all the cameras at the Pentagon are not top of the range tech? It's completely ridiculous! Hell, the damn petrol station across the street has better CCTV cameras than the Pentagon! Let's get real, shall we? What kind of highly secure government facility, the headquarters of the Department Of Defence no less, would honestly have such completely obsolete, and low quality CCTV technology installed. The bloody corner shop over the road from me has better video surveillance!

a reply to: samkent

There is no way you can justify the risk to passenger planes when all it takes is one radical pilot to simply nose over just after takeoff.

So is your point is that since there was a civilian airport within a mile that they had no defense against commercial planes because it would but the passengers at risk??????

Since when does the US put the average citizen above national security?

Secondly, as I said before, the claims about the aircraft pulling up out of the dive are widely questioned and disputed. It cannot be stated as fact that this is what happened, because whilst some investigators do believe that is the case, others do NOT

If you had read the report you would know the combination of the radar and data recorder show that it did regain altitude-that is not in question by anyone but you simply because you refuse to read the report. Study the report then you can qualify to debate it. You haven't studied the Egyptian report either because that is about the only thing the 2 governments agree on-is the unexplainable regain in altitude by a crew under negative G conditions. The only reason you claim that the altitude regain is in question is because you have not read the reports of both governments on the accident-so your only recourse is to blame it on the rock. The report is 353 pages and not one single word in the entirety is on the question of the regain of altitude. In fact the Egyptian Air Ministry's entire sequence of failure revolves around the altitude variations that they say was caused by faulty maintenance of the elevator lifts.

If you had studied the appendix of the 9/11 report you would know that the focus of the surveillance cameras was on the exits and entrances of the Pentagon all at a downward angle. There is a chart that shows every single camera and the angle of it's field of view. No body knew-except you of course-that an airplane was going to fly into the building and they needed to line up high quality cameras to record it. Almost 9 pages discuss the safety and security of the Pentagon, that, in a bumbling manner, was still based on an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from the former Soviet Union. There is a right way-there is the wrong way-then, of course, there is the Army's way.

If you don't want to study the reports-that is fine. Just don't contradict someone who has as far as it's findings are concerned.

a reply to: spooky24

There is a chart that shows every single camera and the angle of it's field of view. No body knew-except you of course-that an airplane was going to fly into the building and they needed to line up high quality cameras to record it. Almost 9 pages discuss the safety and security of the Pentagon, that, in a bumbling manner, was still based on an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from the former Soviet Union. There is a right way-there is the wrong way-then, of course, there is the Army's way.

Let me guess, that chart is in the archive??
I would assume so since it would be rather easily linked.
Also I fail to see why the cameras pointing at the ground would not have seen the plane... You do remember how close to the ground it was on approach right?
Unless your point is that all the cams were pointing straight down at the ground right in front of the pentagon??

Seems like what you are getting at is that all the cams were pointed the wrong way and that none of them would have seen the plane...
All we need is one frame that shows flight 77 on approach and it would put almost every question regarding the pentagon to rest.

a reply to: 8BitOperator

When my father was audited by the IRS around 2000 (don't recall the precise year) they came out and met him at home to go over his business files. No biggy and it happens every day. What was remarkable and why I bring it up is that the auditor was using Enable software for the audit. It's kinda sad...but I can't even find a quick reference for Enable to confirm it's last version for publishing. I know it was years before a federal accountant showed up using it as the primary software though. Scary..is almost an understatement. Then..they went through billion dollar efforts to upgrade and last I'd heard in headlines, that had failed rather spectacularly (using enable as the base? gee.. who could have predicted that? lol)

I've never gone wrong assuming the Government cheats it's own people on every penny it can, to squeeze every last inch of use out of whatever it has. 2 frame per secon cameras? Sounds about right... I'll bet the hard drives or whatever they recorded on were VERY well used, even at that slow rate for compression and space.

Assuming Uncle Sam has the best...just because Uncle spends like a drunken sailor on a bender..is something I've rarely ever seen play out in the real world for how it is. Cheap cameras don't shock me. HD cameras WOULD have made me very suspicious.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
reply to post by gardener

 

There's no plane in sight.

So what are these pictures showing if no plane hit the Pentagon?



www.rense.com...

So according to your "pics" of a "plane" on this link, you believe a plane made that hole? You can barely fit 3 human men in the hole....What hit there? A toy plane or something?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Fair that the gov grabs every cent they can, they also seem to spend every cent they can.

I just have a hard time with the idea of the pentagon being under surveillance by a bunch of 2 fps camera's
I can go to costco and buy a better system then that

a reply to: Sremmos80

I had a hard time believing a co-driver I had in the late 90's telling me stateside military convoys did NOT have voice comms between every single vehicle in convoy. He spent his 20 in transpo units and retired to be a trucker. I was training him and he told me all his stories on it.

Apparently, he personally called Uniden and negotiated a deal for CB radios in the non-comm vehicles for a convoy so people could at least talk. Not just command vehicle and a couple others. Well.... Getting beyond the point they didn't have anything? The CB radio idea was even denied. No need, too expensive and unauthorized. It was better, apparently, to simply hope everyoe saw everyone else and never, once, did a vehicle drop from the line without others knowing.

Heck of a way to run a nation...but that's us. Billion dollar bombers with a $5 bucket to relieve one's self in because anything else was too expensive. (sigh)

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Tiny flaw is that you keep telling us how some government worker (IRS tax agent) or soldier gets screwed over. Which is sad in itself but isn't really a good comparison to the technology they'd use to protect the entire Pentagon. See, they screw over their employees all the time (veteren benefits for example) but when it comes to protecting their own interests (the ones at the top) - no dollar is spared. Are you using these analogies to argue that the Pentagon really only had that one crappy CCTV at the gate? Didnt' the FBI confiscate over 80 tapes from recordings that day from the surrounding businesses? Doesn't that throw a red flag up to anyone? I can understand using it for evidence and such but why make the footage top secret?

a reply to: cestrup

See, they screw over their employees all the time (veteren benefits for example) but when it comes to protecting their own interests (the ones at the top) - no dollar is spared.

The Pentagon is the world's largest office building. This isn't Area 51 or even Mount Weather. It's just a big, boring and rather dull office building on ENORMOUS scale. It does have some interesting features...but they sit below grade, for the most part and don't dictate the security or access to the giant mass of people and offices above.

Of course, every federal building down to social security has entryways like a Courthouse now, but in 2001? That was when someone would have questioned their sanity, to suggest putting cutting edge HD cameras out to watch the lawns and common spaces. After all...HD wasn't $30 from the Big Lots bargain bin back then, either. How many would it take to cover all directions in the levels you sound like you'd expect, from the largest free standing office building on Earth?

Even storage to record high quality for boring lawn and commons footage would have been a serious expense issue over a decade ago, IMO. Uncle spends to profit contractors and corps who land the contracts. They don't seem to spend squat on their own people. Ask 'ol Chris Stevens about that. Few in the nation rank higher than a Full Ambassador....and cost is what got him guards who joined the attack to murder him.

This isn't a free spending Uncle in that way.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000


I appreciate your response. I don't care about footage quality - I'm more concerned on the QUANTITY of footage. Two cameras at the gate isn't suffice. It won't matter how we paint the picture here of thoses poor, old government facilities - both of us know that more videos of the collision at the Pentagon exist and the one that was given to the public is far from conclusive in determining whether it was flight 77. If Cestrup were trying to hide something and had the means to do so - I'd probably share the same video as they did.