Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

This wasn't focused on the building so you last sentence is meaningless. They may have recorded digitally in 2001 but not for a traffic camera that really wasn't used for security. Even when it can be rerecorded then you can't keep it and 1 FPS DOES adequately show what it needed to show. Your whole argument is nothing more than "If I ran the zoo."

Maybe it is to you but I am trying to figure out what that Defense Dept video is about. The money they spend and this is all they come up with... But yes, the camera WAS pointing straight at the building.Why would they want to keep it, for keepsake? They had an automatic loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What in my post is not true?

I know you are not as innocent as you try to make out to be regarding the surveilance and defence of the US Defence Headquarters (Pentagon)

When the country was under attack and on red alert...

Jeeeeeeezus frenat...what do you think your military are going to be doing when your country is under attack.

Ignoring the Defence Headquarters? I don't think so....

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe it is to you but I am trying to figure out what that Defense Dept video is about. The money they spend and this is all they come up with... But yes, the camera WAS pointing straight at the building.Why would they want to keep it, for keepsake? They had an automatic loop.

No, the building was in the background. It was pointed at the traffic.

I know you are not as innocent as you try to make out to be regarding the surveilance and defence of the US Defence Headquarters (Pentagon)

When the country was under attack and on red alert...

Jeeeeeeezus frenat...what do you think your military are going to be doing when your country is under attack.

Ignoring the Defence Headquarters? I don't think so....

.

How is a traffic camera ALREADY IN PLACE going to be altered simply because we are under attack? how does the existence of a 1 FPS camera show the surveillance and defence was being ignored? Again, what in my post was not true?

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the building was in the background. It was pointed at the traffic.

How is a traffic camera ALREADY IN PLACE going to be altered simply because we are under attack? Again, what in my post was not true?

please don't play the innocent and try to tell us that the only surveillance of the Pentagon was a crappy cctv traffic camera.

especially when the country was under attack and on red alert.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What part of the Twin towers being able to withstand a plane hitting without falling did you miss?

You mean the "being designed to withstand a 707" aspect? That was explained by MID a few pages back, I think. It's all about energy and velocity.

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

please don't play the innocent and try to tell us that the only surveillance of the Pentagon was a crappy cctv traffic camera.

Did I say that? No. What I did say is that camera was already in place. And that it was 1 FPS and adequate for its purpose. And that a traffic camera is not really designed to protect the secure areas deeper inside the building. All of that is true. It is highly possible that the only camera with a view of that area is the one in question.

Should there be more cameras focused on an empty field? Or at the sky?

especially when the country was under attack and on red alert.

.

So because they're under attack they're going to set up new cameras?

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the building was in the background. It was pointed at the traffic.

How is a traffic camera ALREADY IN PLACE going to be altered simply because we are under attack? how does the existence of a 1 FPS camera show the surveillance and defence was being ignored? Again, what in my post was not true?

How does it get altered. Lets see. Very complicated. - - "Give me that! I am in charge of it now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't play the innocent and try to tell us that the only surveillance of the Pentagon was a crappy cctv traffic camera.

especially when the country was under attack and on red alert.

.

i think it was about 50 minutes from the first plane hitting the WTC to the [real or supposed] attack on the Pentagon. Would they have had time to reconfigure their entire security camera disposition? How could they have done so for it to be any use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Did I say that? No. What I did say is that camera was already in place. And that it was 1 FPS and adequate for its purpose. And that a traffic camera is not really designed to protect the secure areas deeper inside the building. All of that is true. It is highly possible that the only camera with a view of that area is the one in question.

Should there be more cameras focused on an empty field? Or at the sky?

There should be (and logically, of course, was) complete air and ground surveillance of the Pentagon. As a military man, wouldn't you agree?

So because they're under attack they're going to set up new cameras?

see above....

edit...@747..... the above covers a reply to you as well.....:)

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the "being designed to withstand a 707" aspect? That was explained by MID a few pages back, I think. It's all about energy and velocity.

Velocity ... momentum ... but wait the momentum did not cause the collapse. The speed of the airplane at the moment of collapse was exactly, zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does it get altered. Lets see. Very complicated. - - "Give me that! I am in charge of it now."

Give me that traffic camera that is not being monitored and is physically mounted and incapable of movement? To look at what? You do realize that aircraft are not tracked with cameras right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There should be (and logically, of course, was) complete air and ground surveillance of the Pentagon. As a military man, wouldn't you agree?

see above....

edit...@747..... the above covers a reply to you as well..... :)

.

Same question as for lliqerty, you do realize that aircraft are not tracked with cameras right? I have NOT said there were not other cameras. Given the FACT that the building is primarily an office building with the secure areas much deeper inside I see no reason to have excess cameras on the outside of the building. That is based on my experience as a military man who speciallized in ISR.

http://www.911myths.....php/Stand_Down

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MID

My apology for not being able to provide a link, but a few months ago I saw a short film from way back in the 60's. It was a crash test, probably the military, and it was being filmed professionally.

Lockheed Constellation aircraft was crashed, maybe from high speed taxi and not from flight. Can't remember exactly.

What happened though, very clearly, was that one or both of the wings were cleanly cut by a wooden light or telephone pole that was standing in the impact zone. Guessing the speed was maybe 60-80 knots, straight line vector, on the ground, and the right wing (maybe both) was severed cleanly by a wooden light pole.

Imagine, if you need to, what structural steel would do to that Constellation wing.

I don't need to imagine it, because I have seen quite a few times the damage done to wings by steel hangar structure.

The claim that the aluminum fuselage parts could sever the structural steel members of WTC is specious.

Yet some people actually embrace the idea as valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from your link.....

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?

Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, "When I overheard something about 'the orders still stand' and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down."

my Cover Up Theory....would contend that this may have been when the order to take flight 77 by remote control over the Atlantic and shoot it down...was made...

and confirmation that the orders to do that still stood.

:tu:

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from your link.....

my Cover Up Theory....would contend that this may have been when the order to take flight 77 by remote control over the Atlantic and shoot it down...was made...

and confirmation that the orders to do that still stood.

:tu:

.

Of course we have no idea what these orders even were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the "being designed to withstand a 707" aspect? That was explained by MID a few pages back, I think. It's all about energy and velocity.

Energy and velocity, yes. But there are other factors in the equation, such as distribution of mass, and the simple and basic factor of the hardness of the metals involved.

It is obvious that aluminum is a very soft metal, whilst steel is quite hard. Shall that enter into the calculation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have NOT said there were not other cameras.

finally, you admit there would be other cameras....thankyou

Given the FACT that the building is primarily an office building with the secure areas much deeper inside I see no reason to have excess cameras on the outside of the building. That is based on my experience as a military man who speciallized in ISR.

who said surveillance of the US Defence Headquarters would be confined to just cameras on the outside of the building.....not me.

.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me that traffic camera that is not being monitored and is physically mounted and incapable of movement? To look at what? You do realize that aircraft are not tracked with cameras right?

frenat, he will not ask for the camera, he will ask for the tape or drive. Not to look - to exchange for a fake - and to hand a copy of the fake to the press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My speculation is that terrorists managed to get an explosion detonated at the Pentagon...and they may have been fired upon by Ground Defence,

hence the deep holes in the Pentagon (it's possible there were 3 exit holes)

bee, what do you know about the holes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we have no idea what these orders even were.

on this we can agree.

I am speculating on how the (incomplete) actual orders could be interpreted....

.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

finally, you admit there would be other cameras....thankyou

Since I NEVER said there wasn't your statement is at best, odd. Still looking for proof there should be more looking at an empty field, or some that should magically appear simply because we are under attack.

who said surveillance of the US Defence Headquarters would be confined to just cameras on the outside of the building.....not me.

That looks like a twisting of what I said. Why should cameras pointing anywhere else or inside be relevant to this event?

frenat, he will not ask for the camera, he will ask for the tape or drive. Not to look - to exchange for a fake - and to hand a copy of the fake to the press.

So, suppostion and more supposition. Got it.

the question was how would the camera be altered BEFORE the incident simply because we are under attack. Do try to keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on this we can agree.

I am speculating on how the (incomplete) actual orders could be interpreted....

.

.

they could be orders relating to an evacuation or lack of one, or they could be that he wants his coffee a certain way. The statement "do the orders still stand?" by itself is rather meaningless. There is even much ambiguity about the timing of when Mineta heard this or if he even really heard it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the question was how would the camera be altered BEFORE the incident simply because we are under attack. Do try to keep up.

it was NOT altered prior to the attack, please try to make sense. It said THE RECORDING (TAPE OR DISK) was exchanged (or altered).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be (and logically, of course, was) complete air and ground surveillance of the Pentagon. As a military man, wouldn't you agree?

see above....

edit...@747..... the above covers a reply to you as well..... :)

.

With radar, yes; CCTV wouldn't be much use, though, would it.

And incidentally, regarding the "surely the defences would be on red alert" argument; I don't think there actually were any defences; not in the sense of missiles or anything like that, they relied on fighters from the nearest Air Force base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.