Inquiry - Pentagon 9/11

[Scott G]

I'm still waiting to hear who applied for their release. Everyone seems convinced someone did, but no one seems to know who.

Hard to apply for something that the government has never admitted it has.

[Q24]

I'm still waiting to hear who applied for their release. Everyone seems convinced someone did, but no one seems to know who.

It’s the first time that you have asked who specifically raised FOIA requests. To expand on my initial response…

FOIA requests have been raised by Scott Bingham formally of Flight77.info, and by Christopher Farrell of judicialwatch.org. An overview of the FOIA requests can be found on the 911research site here. Copies of the FOIA requests and responses can be found at the following links: -

• http://www.flight77.info/documents.php
  
• http://www.judicialwatch.org/Flight77
  

The above is acknowledged by the anti-conspiracy debunk911myths site here.

Hard to apply for something that the government has never admitted it has.

Read the FOIA response from FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire, dated 7th September, 2005. Page 5 of 7 here, states: -

“In response to follow-up questions from RMD personnel, I subsequently searched a series of FBI evidence databases, including the FBI’s Electronic Case File System and the FBI’s Investigative Case Management System, and determined that the FBI possessed eighty-five (85) videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request.”

The FBI has admitted that they have them, though only the four that I previously mentioned have been released.

As well as the security cameras around the Pentagon rooftop that I provided an image of, another one I can think of is the VDOT camera monitoring Washington Boulevard, the final road crossed by the airliner at low altitude before impact with the Pentagon: -

[Scott G]

Read the FOIA response from FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire, dated 7th September, 2005. Page 5 of 7 here, states: -

“In response to follow-up questions from RMD personnel, I subsequently searched a series of FBI evidence databases, including the FBI’s Electronic Case File System and the FBI’s Investigative Case Management System, and determined that the FBI possessed eighty-five (85) videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request.”

The FBI has admitted that they have them, though only the four that I previously mentioned have been released.

I've read it. You may notice that they never mention the pentagon cameras.

As well as the security cameras around the Pentagon rooftop that I provided an image of, another one I can think of is the VDOT camera monitoring Washington Boulevard, the final road crossed by the airliner at low altitude before impact with the Pentagon: -

Yes, a lot of videocameras should have seen the planes if they really took the official approach; in a subsequent response to the one you mention, I believe that she says that none show anything of interest. You know, I don't think I've heard anyone mention this oddity, from either the official story side -or- the truther side.

[arglebargle]

Abit off topic but something struck me as kinda odd, when we talk of these things, we are conspiracy theorists. But when governments say for example "We think it's a desert terrorist organization, who did it." then it's not a conspiracy theory. Even if they lack the neccesary proof at the time. And if anyone in that time says something like: we think it's you! Then those people get called CT's.

Anyhow onto the pentagon thing,

The most common claims that it was not an airliner, generally employs these arguments:

- The camera tapes were confiscated and only a few really grainy stills have ever been released.

- Some of the witnesses said it sounded like a missile rather than a jet

- The lawn is remarkably clean for this to have happened

- If it flew so low above the road, why are all the light/telephone poles still standing?

In regards to the camera tapes, the FBI can do that even without there being a conspiracy, they took the tapes to see what happened, exactly. And do not really need to release anything to anyone.

Witnesses do not hold up as scientific evidence, particularly not when the rest said it was a plane.

The lawn being clean is one thing, but as the videolink above shows, a plane hitting a proper wall like the ones protecting nuke silos, can pulverize a plane and youre left with very small parts if any.

And some of the poles were knocked down from what I have seen in images.

However considering the claims that these pilots were really bad pilots, flying like that seems very unlikely to me, in addition there have been claims that the plane hit the pentagon from a weird angle considering where it came from, that apparently it must have circled around and then hit the useless side of the building instead of the closest one which very well could have put razor sharp bits of metal through important peoples faces.

So those two arguments still raise questions for me, if indeed they are valid claims.

[sickpuppy]

in the strained hope that there are still rational, cognitive, normal people left in our world..

all that is required is to show the footage.

the footage was confiscated by FBI agents within 5 minutes. from gas stations, hotels, etc.. anyone who follows the story knows this.

now.. rational person, normal person, i ask you.. what do the actions of confiscating and refusing to show the footage indicate?

solar plexus

they are obviously trying to hide something ...

exactly..

THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH

..even tho' they have the ability to do so..

the whole 9/11 conversation is a huge waste of time.. you may as well debate the existance of leprechauns..

[Civilization]

**EDIT**

**You don't need to quote an entire large post just to add a single line. Quote the relevant portions only.**

http://www.infowars.com/government-warned-911-commission-not-to-cross-the-line/

Edited March 18, 2010 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

in the strained hope that there are still rational, cognitive, normal people left in our world..

all that is required is to show the footage.

Well, in the interest of rational, cognitive, research, wouldn't you first have to confirm that these videos exist, have something to show, and have been released through the normal channels?

Not saying they don't, but, rationally, you can't expect to make such a simple condition and pretend that other factors do not apply. That's just a setup to saying that, because they "they" don't just show the footage, there must be hiding something. Logically, it's a false condition that leads to an invalid conclusion.

[arglebargle]

Well, in the interest of rational, cognitive, research, wouldn't you first have to confirm that these videos exist, have something to show, and have been released through the normal channels?

Not saying they don't, but, rationally, you can't expect to make such a simple condition and pretend that other factors do not apply. That's just a setup to saying that, because they "they" don't just show the footage, there must be hiding something. Logically, it's a false condition that leads to an invalid conclusion.

I'll have to agree with Aquatus here, because the problems start coming when you twist facts to suit theories rather than theories to suit facts, and while speculation is allowed, that distinction needs to be made clear, because as Aquatus says, you'll end up with invalid conclusions. This potentially makes us all look like clowns in my opinion, even if you may be right.

That being said, quite a few of the tapes that were confiscated have been confirmed. Not by me personally, but you can't expect over six billion people to do all the neccesary research, and not to mention the years of obtaining the expertise to verify these statements like when steel melts, etc. So you have to trust someone if you want to formulate an opinion, and I think it is quite credible even if it comes from let's say Alex Jones, that there were 20 something tapes (I believe he and others said 26, but I cannot remember at this time) confirmed by for example shop owners in the area or whatever, that knew they had cameras pointing in that direction, and that the FBI was there within minutes and collected the tapes usually before anyone got to see them, and the tapes have never been releaed, even though several famous conspiracy theorists have tried getting the tapes released. So has others as well.

[aquatus1]

That being said, quite a few of the tapes that were confiscated have been confirmed. Not by me personally, but you can't expect over six billion people to do all the neccesary research, and not to mention the years of obtaining the expertise to verify these statements like when steel melts, etc.

Of course. That's what credibility is for; it gives you an idea how much to trust people. But one has to be careful about what one is trusting others about. For instance, there is no doubt that these tapes exist, in the physical sense. The question is whether these tapes exist in the sense that they are the key to some sort of conspiracy. In other words, do these tapes actually have anything worth revealing? One cannot simply demand that a bunch of random security tapes be released. One has to have a specific legal reason and explain what is supposed to be on that tape. Again, I'm not saying that no one has done this, but I keep hearing that someone did, but when I ask for details on the matter, things start to peter out.

All I'm saying is that, since it has already been established that someone asked for the tapes, and we even have a couple of names, shouldn't we move past the "Just show us the videos." and find out why we haven't been shown the videos? Because, while one conclusion may be "Because they are hiding something." another equally valid one is "There's nothing to see." and still another is "No one has actually filled out the paperwork properly."

[Q24]

All I'm saying is that, since it has already been established that someone asked for the tapes, and we even have a couple of names, shouldn't we move past the "Just show us the videos." and find out why we haven't been shown the videos? Because, while one conclusion may be "Because they are hiding something." another equally valid one is "There's nothing to see." and still another is "No one has actually filled out the paperwork properly."

If you read the FOIA requests and their responses then we see that the correct procedures have been followed in attempt to obtain copies of the 85 videotapes in possession of the FBI. The official reason for non-release of all the videotapes is apparently that the impact was not captured in the footage.

After viewing descriptions that the FBI has provided of the 85 videotapes I believe it is likely correct that no others showed the flight path or impact. Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras are not listed and so appear not to be included in the 85 tapes in the FBI’s possession.

It seems we are all onto a loser with the lack of video footage – no proof it was Flight 77 and no proof it wasn’t.

[Scott G]

If you read the FOIA requests and their responses then we see that the correct procedures have been followed in attempt to obtain copies of the 85 videotapes in possession of the FBI. The official reason for non-release of all the videotapes is apparently that the impact was not captured in the footage.

After viewing descriptions that the FBI has provided of the 85 videotapes I believe it is likely correct that no others showed the flight path or impact. Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras are not listed and so appear not to be included in the 85 tapes in the FBI’s possession.

It seems we are all onto a loser with the lack of video footage – no proof it was Flight 77 and no proof it wasn’t.

Ofcourse, if the pentagon attack is not as he official story describes, it makes perfect sense that those behind the cover up wouldn't want the tapes revealed. Something to think about though- if the impact was truly not on the footage, why is that? Could it be that they are subtly admitting that the impact never took place?

Edited March 18, 2010 by Scott G

[aquatus1]

Something to think about though- if the impact was truly not footage, why is that? Could it be that they are subtly admitting that the impact never took place?

...

Why would they subtly admit that?

[Scott G]

...

Why would they subtly admit that?

Because it may get out eventually anyway. Because the person who denied access to the videos is riddled by their conscience. Because there was a mess up. There are many possibilities. I can't think of a single good reason for with-holding the tapes if there's nothing to hide. If they show no impact, why is that? And most importantly, why can't they show us these videos of nothing occurring? Because, ofcourse, something -did- occur. There were immense explosions at the pentagon, the biggest one about 10 minutes -after- the alleged impact, and this is the one that brought down a lot of the facade; before that, there was just a small hole in the pentagon facade. So many questions, so few answers.

[frenat]

Ofcourse, if the pentagon attack is not as he official story describes, it makes perfect sense that those behind the cover up wouldn't want the tapes revealed. Something to think about though- if the impact was truly not on the footage, why is that? Could it be that they are subtly admitting that the impact never took place?

Perhaps the cameras were off, intentionally or not. Perhaps they were pointed the wrong way. Perhaps their frame rate was too slow to catch something moving that fast. Perhaps the cameras are decoys, they look like cameras but the real cameras are in different, secret locations. In the case of the latter, releasing the video could be a breach of national security.

I had heard that the videos were originally withheld due to being evidence for a trial. One of those, Mousaoui, (I probably spelled that wrong) already took place and some were released after. Are they anticipating more trials?

[aquatus1]

So, hypothetically, if they released a bunch of videos that showed a green lawn, a green lawn, a green lawn, then suddenly black static, followed by nothing...

Do you figure that would be the end of the camera questions?

[Scott G]

Perhaps the cameras were off, intentionally or not. Perhaps they were pointed the wrong way. Perhaps their frame rate was too slow to catch something moving that fast. Perhaps the cameras are decoys, they look like cameras but the real cameras are in different, secret locations. In the case of the latter, releasing the video could be a breach of national security.

Or perhaps they're covering up the truth. Of the options you mentioned, the only one that could possibly be an excuse for not revealing the tapes is the idea that the cameras were decoy cameras. However, I think that with many, if not all, of the tapes, this isn't a feasible possibility. I remember a story of Hotel Employees seeing a video that apparently showed the pentagon explosion, only to have the FBI confiscate it as they were watching it. It would certainly be interesting to know what they saw, but I've never heard any of them speak. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps the thread I started, "Mysterious 9/11 Deaths" is something you might wish to contemplate.

I had heard that the videos were originally withheld due to being evidence for a trial. One of those, Mousaoui, (I probably spelled that wrong) already took place and some were released after. Are they anticipating more trials?

I'm not sure. What I do know, however, is that none of the tapes that were released have revealed any evidence of a plane flying through. I've also never heard of any of the video recorders having malfunctioned. Perhaps the reason no plane was seen was because no plane flew in the area and the North side witnesses are telling the truth. Pilots for 9/11 Truth using trigonmetric equations that are beyond me but which you might be interested in, has determined that it's impossible for the plane to have crashed into the building in the way it did from -any- flight path as well.

[Scott G]

So, hypothetically, if they released a bunch of videos that showed a green lawn, a green lawn, a green lawn, then suddenly black static, followed by nothing...

Do you figure that would be the end of the camera questions?

Ofcourse not; the question would immediately arrise, why no plane before the static? There's also the issue that most of the cameras wouldn't have been within damage range of the explosions at the pentagon. There is also, ofcourse, the point of the tapes that -were- released and yet show no plane flying through their field of view...

[Q24]

So, hypothetically, if they released a bunch of videos that showed a green lawn, a green lawn, a green lawn, then suddenly black static, followed by nothing...

Do you figure that would be the end of the camera questions?

Questions will always linger over the video cameras until either 1) quality footage of the airliner is released and/or 2) every single piece of footage that could reasonably be expected to have recorded the flight path is made public. Even then, it will never truly be over until authorities identify all four of the aircraft involved on 9/11.

• Flight 11 and Flight 175 are the only land-based crashes in world aviation history where the black boxes were (supposedly) never recovered.
  Link
  
• Flight 77 and Flight 93 are virtually the only two crashes in the past 20 years of U.S. aviation history for which FDR identifying serial numbers have not been published.
  Link
  
• In response to a FOIA request to ascertain the 9/11 aircraft identifications through unique serial numbers, the NTSB stated, “Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn’t have any records regarding the above requested information”.
  Link
  
• In response to a FOIA request to ascertain the 9/11 aircraft identifications through unique serial numbers, the FBI stated, “RIDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to your request”.
  Link
  

These aircraft have simply never been identified – it is an unprecedented and unacceptable failing by authorities in such a vital case. There is no proof of the aircraft identities; there is no evidence of the aircraft identities; there is no record of the aircraft identities; the NTSB do not know the aircraft identities; the FBI do not know the aircraft identities; nobody knows the aircraft identities. Do you realise the magnitude of that? This issue is of vital importance to the entire basis of the official story.

Of course there are fundamental questions and it will never be over until they are answered.

[frenat]

Or perhaps they're covering up the truth. Of the options you mentioned, the only one that could possibly be an excuse for not revealing the tapes is the idea that the cameras were decoy cameras. However, I think that with many, if not all, of the tapes, this isn't a feasible possibility.

I was only commenting on why some videos may not show the crash.

I remember a story of Hotel Employees seeing a video that apparently showed the pentagon explosion, only to have the FBI confiscate it as they were watching it. It would certainly be interesting to know what they saw, but I've never heard any of them speak. Why do you suppose that is?

I wouldn't be surprised if their story was exaggerated. Wasn't a video released from the hotel?

I'm not sure. What I do know, however, is that none of the tapes that were released have revealed any evidence of a plane flying through.

I don't agree. The videos that were first released/leaked from the parking area do appear to show a plane. While the frame rate is not fast enough (only about a frame per second) to definitively show the plane, there is a white patch that could be smoke from an engine as well as a plane shaped blur directly in front of it. Given the frame and scan rate of the camera that is about what I would expect it to capture.

[Q24]

I don't agree. The videos that were first released/leaked from the parking area do appear to show a plane. While the frame rate is not fast enough (only about a frame per second) to definitively show the plane, there is a white patch that could be smoke from an engine as well as a plane shaped blur directly in front of it. Given the frame and scan rate of the camera that is about what I would expect it to capture.

I’d go one further and say that the footage does definitively show a plane (at the very least a large flying object with a stabilizing fin). The white patch mislead a lot of people, myself included, in that they believed that was the plane itself when in fact it is smoke or fuel from a damaged engine/wing, probably caused by clipping the light poles on approach. To find the plane, we have to know where to look: -

The first close-up shows the full plane and in the second close-up the fin is clearly visible. I suspect that the object appears dark due to the camera exposure?

Now if someone could just show that was the same Flight 77 that departed Dulles……

[frenat]

I’d go one further and say that the footage does definitively show a plane (at the very least a large flying object with a stabilizing fin). The white patch mislead a lot of people, myself included, in that they believed that was the plane itself when in fact it is smoke or fuel from a damaged engine/wing, probably caused by clipping the light poles on approach. To find the plane, we have to know where to look: -

The first close-up shows the full plane and in the second close-up the fin is clearly visible. I suspect that the object appears dark due to the camera exposure?

Now if someone could just show that was the same Flight 77 that departed Dulles……

That video focuses on the video that shows the tail fin. In the other video, if you compare the frame before the smoke appears with the frame with the smoke you can see a darker area that is approximately plane shaped. Both show about what I would expect for this type of camera though. They captured at one frame per second. They are designed to capture much slower moving objects. Because of this, each frame is also not captured very quickly and the plane moves and blurs in the time it takes to capture the one frame it shows up on in each video. I would not expect any better on any other videos if they even happened to be looking in the right direction.