Your belief about September, 11th, 2001

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by worth

Ozy, how do you know it's not the following day, September 12? Maybe this screen cap is from a week after? They could have cordoned off the whole area until the fires were out and had available personnel to search it. I have no idea, i'm just looking for the simplest answer. I think a lot of you guys are reaching here, there are people searching the grounds for evidence. That's how you do it. I don't see how this affiliates the Pentagon with an adverse plan.

Reminds me of the IC before 9/11 ignoring the little details, but I digress

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I guess I'm just surprised they let civilian investigators sweep the area of evidence so quickly, considering an enormous, dangerous crime scene with the potential for further building collapse and/or jet fuel explosion was literally burning right next to them. I would have to think that sweeping the area during those intense moments of first-responders of fire, police, etc. would get in the way of saving lives and controlling the disaster.

I doubt there were any civilians involved, just guys from all over the building, and those guys tend to what the hell they are told burning jet fuel or not, basically the order went 'we have top secret papers all over the place outside the building dress right and sweep the front lawn now, oh and if you find any evidence for the crash while you are at it thats nice as well'.

The Pentagon has a fully self contained system for emergancies that ensures security is maintained above all else, I wouldn't be at all suprised if finding survivors is not actually their top priority.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I doubt you can take a whiz inside the building without being filmed, and all the of the entrances are, I'm sure, also filmed, but conversly the very security of the building means I doubt they had many cameras outside at all, the exterior of the building is well patrolled by their security, you cant get onto the grounds without passing a gate with a security guard etc, there really was/is no need for the usual cameras that supermarkets or offices put in their car parks to reduce car theft or the like.

Not even one? Sounds irresponsible to me, especially for the type of important facility that Pentagon is. You'd want to cover every angle, and then even more.

Plus, if the Mariott filmed it, why hasn't that been released if true? It's not like watching a hole in the wall in the Pentagon is going to compromise national security at this point.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Muta

Not even one? Sounds irresponsible to me, especially for the type of important facility that Pentagon is. You'd want to cover every angle, and then even more.

Plus, if the Mariott filmed it, why hasn't that been released if true? It's not like watching a hole in the wall in the Pentagon is going to compromise national security at this point.

Security cameras are to identify guys who might walk up to the building. They simply aren't set up to show a plane flying at full speed into the side of the building. That's simply overkill.

As per my last post, I would guess that the Marriott footage may show the plane hitting the pentagon at about the same quality as the video we've all seen, except for taking up just a tiny corner of the screen, instead of most of the screen.

A 757 is roughly 50 metres long. at it's cruising speed of 850km/h, it would be travelling 236 metres per second. At the frame rate of most security cameras, they'd be lucky to have a frame with the plane on it, and it would certainly just be one frame even if it was. The plane would almost certainly be blurry on that one frame.

I think it's pretty absurd to think that some security footage at another place that's intended to show the grounds of the gas station or a hotel would have any worthwhile footage of the plane striking the pentagon - even if the very part of the pentagon that was hit by the plane was technically visible on the video.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

A 757 is roughly 50 metres long. at it's cruising speed of 850km/h, it would be travelling 236 metres per second. At the frame rate of most security cameras, they'd be lucky to have a frame with the plane on it, and it would certainly just be one frame even if it was. The plane would almost certainly be blurry on that one frame.

I think it's pretty absurd to think that some security footage at another place that's intended to show the grounds of the gas station or a hotel would have any worthwhile footage of the plane striking the pentagon - even if the very part of the pentagon that was hit by the plane was technically visible on the video.

Your point is taken, but unfortunately it's a double-edged sword. The fact that the ####ty video you talk about probably can't capture anything worthwhile is the same footage that still hasn't been released by the Pentagon, or is ever going to. It would also be ludicrous to suggest that no one has ever requested the footage under a FOIA request, to which the Pentagon has probably denied outside of individuals with Top Secret clearance.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Your point is taken, but unfortunately it's a double-edged sword. The fact that the ####ty video you talk about probably can't capture anything worthwhile is the same footage that still hasn't been released by the Pentagon, or is ever going to. It would also be ludicrous to suggest that no one has ever requested the footage under a FOIA request, to which the Pentagon has probably denied outside of individuals with Top Secret clearance.

My guess would be that there is no other video of any value whatsoever. If it had any value, it would have been released. The reason it hasn't been released is that there's nothing to show.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I think it's pretty absurd to think that some security footage at another place that's intended to show the grounds of the gas station or a hotel would have any worthwhile footage of the plane striking the pentagon - even if the very part of the pentagon that was hit by the plane was technically visible on the video.

Nah, I don't buy it. If so, that would be incredible evidence used to analyze the case and determine how the crash exactly happened.

I think it's just jaw-dropping to know that not one video, other than a a grainy gas station video, has been released showing that specific flight as it not only decended into the Washington area, but also crashed into the Pentagon.

Such a large and rare situation happening, and nothing is available footage-wise?

In New York, there seemed to be enough cameras taping the event everywhere.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'd like to also be more reassured that there were more cameras filming arguably the most important military installation in the world. I also find it really skeptical that more footage hasn't been released, if there were more cameras.

I've also heard that the Marriott Hotel had a camera facing that exact part of the Pentagon, which was promptly confiscated and never released publicly.

Simply showing footage that clearly shows a plane smacking into the Pentagon would alleviate all concerns - without question.

In the age of technology, I just find it strange that the best footage we have of the most devastaing terrorist attack in the history of America on the most prolific military installation in the world is grainy, choppy, unrecognizable footage from a gas station.

No it wouldn't. People would just find something else to try and poke holes in. They'd argue that the video was doctored or fake, they'd argue that it doesn't look like a 757, they'd argue that was a military plane, etc. Some people can be faced with a mountain of evidence to the contrary and still hold steadfast in their positions.

Look what happened with Obama's birth certificate. He'd proven his citizenship many times along the way but some people refused to believe him. He released his short form birth certificate, again some people refused to believe him. Hawaii's Department of Health publicly stated that they had his original birth certificate which proved that he was born in Hawaii, yet again, people poked holes in that and said if he'd just release his long form birth certificate then it'd all be over. So Obama did release his long form to the public and people were arguing that it was altered or photoshopped.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

A 757 is roughly 50 metres long. at it's cruising speed of 850km/h, it would be travelling 236 metres per second. At the frame rate of most security cameras, they'd be lucky to have a frame with the plane on it, and it would certainly just be one frame even if it was. The plane would almost certainly be blurry on that one frame.

I tried in vain to explain this to a whacko at work who believes it was a cruise missle.

He had no concept of how things work. And that is a problem with a huge portion of the truther movement. They don't understand how anything works, technically or scientifically. They refuse to actually learn about the physics of an object that massive that weighs millions of tonnes. Or how a camera actually records things. They just look at things on the surface like a 5 year old child, and form their conclusions on only what is visually observable, but not scientifically probable.

Had one guy go on and on, about how the top of the building should have just fallen off above the impact point, and the rest should have stayed in tact.....there fore that is proof it was an inside job....The only response I had was ,"Did you pay attention for one second in Physics, or even short bus science class?"

[Muta]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

My guess would be that there is no other video of any value whatsoever. If it had any value, it would have been released. The reason it hasn't been released is that there's nothing to show.

Not directed at you personally, but why withhold something if it's got nothing sensitive to show?



At the very least it gives the public more proof of what happened.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Muta

Nah, I don't buy it. If so, that would be incredible evidence used to analyze the case and determine how the crash exactly happened.

I think it's just jaw-dropping to know that not one video, other than a a grainy gas station video, has been released showing that specific flight as it not only decended into the Washington area, but also crashed into the Pentagon.

Such a large and rare situation happening, and nothing is available footage-wise?

In New York, there seemed to be enough cameras taping the event everywhere.

There were numerous eye witnesses. One guy on foot had to duck because he was almost clipped by one of the engines for gods sake.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Your point is taken, but unfortunately it's a double-edged sword. The fact that the ####ty video you talk about probably can't capture anything worthwhile is the same footage that still hasn't been released by the Pentagon, or is ever going to. It would also be ludicrous to suggest that no one has ever requested the footage under a FOIA request, to which the Pentagon has probably denied outside of individuals with Top Secret clearance.

Personally I doubt there is any other footage than what they have released, that is the best and probably closest camera, pointed at the building at the point of impact when the plane is at its lowest, and you can't tell what the hell it is.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

My guess would be that there is no other video of any value whatsoever. If it had any value, it would have been released. The reason it hasn't been released is that there's nothing to show.

If it had value, it would have been retained. Why the heck would the IC hold on to useless intelligence that didn't do anything for them? And what harm is it for them to release non-sensitive video footage under a FOIA request?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by opendoor

No it wouldn't. People would just find something else to try and poke holes in. They'd argue that the video was doctored or fake, they'd argue that it doesn't look like a 757, they'd argue that was a military plane, etc. Some people can be faced with a mountain of evidence to the contrary and still hold steadfast in their positions.

Actually, yes it would. The more evidence you can present, the better off your case is going to be. That's how the legal system is set up to work, and this is no different. I would assume that most reasonable people, when presented with direct evidence, would be satisfied. Even with another video, I know I would be.

The ones you that are referring to are Truthers, who are a whole other breed in amongst themselves.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Question for you, and be honest.

When the 9/11 attacks happened, what was your initial default position? Were you automatically looking for alternate theories, or did one particular thing strike you funny?

I bought the whole thing hook, line and sinker. I didn't question 9-11 at all at the time it happened.

It wasn't until a few years later when I saw the Zeitgeist movie where my curiosity was piqued....

[Muta]

Originally Posted by pylon

There were numerous eye witnesses. One guy on foot had to duck because he was almost clipped by one of the engines for gods sake.

Not denying that one bit at all. I'm aware of the eye witness testimonials.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Muta

Nah, I don't buy it. If so, that would be incredible evidence used to analyze the case and determine how the crash exactly happened.

I think it's just jaw-dropping to know that not one video, other than a a grainy gas station video, has been released showing that specific flight as it not only decended into the Washington area, but also crashed into the Pentagon.

Such a large and rare situation happening, and nothing is available footage-wise?

In New York, there seemed to be enough cameras taping the event everywhere.

But you must weigh that idea of there being no other usuable footage against what would be required for it not to have been flight 77:

1) They'd have had to dispose of a flight and all of its passengers without anyone noticing.

2) Every single air traffic controller and eye witness who saw flight 77 on the radar and on its path would have had to have lied and/or kept quiet about the truth for the past decade.

3) They'd have to fabricate stories whereby people on the plane called relatives during the hijacking. Relatives of the people on the plane (including the Solicitor General whose wife died in the crash) would have to continue to lie in order to protect the government who murdered their loved ones.


Which do you think is a more plausible scenario?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Muta

Actually, yes it would. The more evidence you can present, the better off your case is going to be. That's how the legal system is set up to work, and this is no different. I would assume that most reasonable people, when presented with direct evidence, would be satisfied. Even with another video, I know I would be.

The ones you that are referring to are Truthers, who are a whole other breed in amongst themselves.

Why would you be satisfied? If you believe the government fired a missile at its own building and disposed of a plane full of its own citizens without anyone noticing, surely they could manufacture a phony 3 or 4 frame video that showed a plane hitting the Pentagon.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But you must weigh that idea of there being no other usuable footage against what would be required for it not to have been flight 77:

1) They'd have had to dispose of a flight and all of its passengers without anyone noticing.

2) Every single air traffic controller and eye witness who saw flight 77 on the radar and on its path would have had to have lied and/or kept quiet about the truth for the past decade.

3) They'd have to fabricate stories whereby people on the plane called relatives during the hijacking. Relatives of the people on the plane (including the Solicitor General whose wife died in the crash) would have to continue to lie in order to protect the government who murdered their loved ones.


Which do you think is a more plausible scenario?

I am not, in the slighest, suggesting it wasn't a plane. That's not what I'm arguing here at all.

I am arguing why there isn't more footage made available, if there was any at all to begin with. In a city as big as Washington, and having been hit after the WTC's were, you'd think somewhere, somehow... more footage would be available. That's all I'm saying.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Why would you be satisfied? If you believe the government fired a missile at its own building and disposed of a plane full of its own citizens without anyone noticing, surely they could manufacture a phony 3 or 4 frame video that showed a plane hitting the Pentagon.

I'm not suggesting it was a missile. I just want to know why more footage hasn't been released from other cameras, if it was recorded.