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

The real issue : there should have been SEVERAL cameras at the Pentagon alone that would have captured several views of the impact. Do you really think that the most secure structure in the world has fewer security cameras than the average gas station? Also there were other businesses whose cameras caught the impact but the footage was confiscated by the "authorities" and never seen again. This whole thing is suspect.

For what reason would the Pentagon reveal the full potential of its surveillance capabilities on the Internet?

In regards to the flight path of American 77, just following the path of destruction leading to, and inside the Pentagon.

polecomposite.jpg

numberedpoles.jpg

overheadpolespath.jpg

022a.gif

generatorIC.gifgeneratorLC.gif

generator3.jpg

If you want confirmation that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon, just give the folks at American Airlines a call and they can tell you what happened to American 77. After all, American 77 was operated by American Airlines, and remember, American Airlines confirmed the loss of American 77.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh well. I am on a forum. of course I going to run into the standard troll who just disagrees with everyone until they just stop posting so he/she can pretend they "won" an argument with the philosophical equivalent of holding their breath until they get what they want.

goodbye. I stated my opinion. and now unlike you I have a life to get back to. :)

ROFL ... does anyone else see the irony of these two statements?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL ... does anyone else see the irony of these two statements?

Yep. Pretty clear to all who are keenly observing. Emphasis on the word 'keenly' of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it is not false that other businesses caught the impact on security cameras. there was a gas station with an unobstructed view of the pentagon impact.

and cameras may not be the end all be all of security but don't try to tell me only one camera caught such a large explosion and the events leading up to it. really?

these things are pretty obvious and well documented no matter how much you deny them.

you do realize that pouting and saying "nu-uhh" until your'e blue in the face does not count as a rational argument don't you?

oh well. I am on a forum. of course I going to run into the standard troll who just disagrees with everyone until they just stop posting so he/she can pretend they "won" an argument with the philosophical equivalent of holding their breath until they get what they want.

goodbye. I stated my opinion. and now unlike you I have a life to get back to. :)

Rational argument gets lip service, but that's about it.

No explanation for explosions in the basement just seconds before the impact, no explanation for absence of necessary aircraft debris at the Pentagon, but LOTSA out of context photos, and complete reliance upon the testimony of entities with reputations as deceivers. All this is presented as some sort of rational argument.

Showing Sisyphus what futile is really all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue : there should have been SEVERAL cameras at the Pentagon alone that would have captured several views of the impact. Do you really think that the most secure structure in the world has fewer security cameras than the average gas station? Also there were other businesses whose cameras caught the impact but the footage was confiscated by the "authorities" and never seen again. This whole thing is suspect.

cheers....it's painfully and logically obvious that the Pentagon would have visual, ongoing surveillance all around it.

IF there is a proper image or short piece of footage showing Flight 77 hitting the building...then it beggars belief that it isn't

made public....especially as this failure to provide it fuels the Inside Job Conspiracy theory...

So we can only conclude that the said footage doesn't exist and there is a(nother) question mark about Flight 77 actually smashing into the building.

(no matter how many alleged 'eye witnesses' they wheeled out.)...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cheers....it's painfully and logically obvious that the Pentagon would have visual, ongoing surveillance all around it.

IF there is a proper image or short piece of footage showing Flight 77 hitting the building...then it beggars belief that it isn't

made public....especially as this failure to provide it fuels the Inside Job Conspiracy theory...

So we can only conclude that the said footage doesn't exist and there is a(nother) question mark about Flight 77 actually smashing into the building.

(no matter how many alleged 'eye witnesses' they wheeled out.)...

Oh goody! Yet another person who thinks the Pentagon should be like their local Walmart! Just what good would cameras pointed at an empty field do anyway? Especially when there are armed guards already on the premises? Do they need to watch the cash registers? Oh wait, that Walmart again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No explanation for explosions in the basement just seconds before the impact, ....

The reason why there is no explanation for an explosion in the basement is because there was no explosion in the basement. :no:

no explanation for absence of necessary aircraft debris at the Pentagon,

Of course there is explanation for B-757 wreckage at the Pentagon because that is where American 77 slammed into the Pentagon. Remember, you have admitted to having fun being dishonest and your post is just another example. :yes:

Other examples are where you claimed that no Boeing was involved and then, claim that American 77 passed north of the gas station and not to forget that you threw in a P700 anti-ship missile.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cheers....it's painfully and logically obvious that the Pentagon would have visual, ongoing surveillance all around it.

Yes indeed, but it is not prudent to advertise the full potent of your surveillance capabilities to your enemies and potential enemies on the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh goody! Yet another person who thinks the Pentagon should be like their local Walmart! Just what good would cameras pointed at an empty field do anyway? Especially when there are armed guards already on the premises? Do they need to watch the cash registers? Oh wait, that Walmart again.

ground hog day...... ;)

ok......lets imagine something 'happened' around the Pentagon (and/or immediate area)....it doesn't even have to be 9/11.

There's an incident that is of concern to Pentagon Security...I presume you admit that the Defense Headquarters

and Command Centre HAS it's own security?

So the incident is investigated....

Someone Important says...lets take a closer look and see who was involved and exactly what happened....

Someone else says.......sorry we can't do that....we don't have any surveillance.

Someone Important replies......oh dear that's a shame......never mind.

:P

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed, but it is not prudent to advertise the full potent of your surveillance capabilities to your enemies and potential enemies on the Internet.

Sky....we're only talking about one proper photo or short piece of footage....not a detailed report of all the surveillance capabilities.

And with the figures on the pie -chart you posted earlier....where only 46% believe Al Qaeda 'did it'.....America's enemies on the internet

are having a field day.....and making a real impression on public perception....re 9/11.

Failure to provide the visual proof is helping to fuel the belief that it was an Inside Job and that the US government (or parts of it..plus

many many collaborators) committed mass murder and high treason against it's own people.

It's a corrosive situation....in terms of World Politics...

edit to say....but if visual proof doesn't exist...then of course it can't be provided anyway.... :cry:

. .

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor baby... :passifier:

Come back when you've put on your big boy pants and are prepared to not only discuss the topic rationally, but are prepared to defend your position with actual evidence like most of the grown ups here do.

I was saying more or less the same thing to Iron_Lotus only the other day.....

Except I wasn't so harsh about it....

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ground hog day...... ;)

ok......lets imagine something 'happened' around the Pentagon (and/or immediate area)....it doesn't even have to be 9/11.

There's an incident that is of concern to Pentagon Security...I presume you admit that the Defense Headquarters

and Command Centre HAS it's own security?

So the incident is investigated....

Someone Important says...lets take a closer look and see who was involved and exactly what happened....

Someone else says.......sorry we can't do that....we don't have any surveillance.

Someone Important replies......oh dear that's a shame......never mind.

:P

.

Or in reality, they had guards there that saw what happened and nothing happened in an empty field and the secure areas deep inside the building where the majority of cameras are were never in any danger. Your "someone important" would know where the cameras were and wouldn't ask a stupid question to start with. Even IF they had hundreds more cameras (and of course the expense of installing operating and monitoring them) there would STILL be unmonitored areas and STILL a possibility for your lame imagined scenario. In reality they have cameras at secure areas and other security methods that are far more effective than cameras covering everything else.

Just because you THINK they should have cameras covering every square inch for some wildly imagined scenario, doesn't mean they do. Reality is not defined by your lack of comprehension.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is not defined by your lack of comprehension.

readers of this thread will be the judge of who is lacking in comprehension......

and I'm quietly confident that out of the two of us, they won't think it's me.....:)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

readers of this thread will be the judge of who is lacking in comprehension......

and I'm quietly confident that out of the two of us, they won't think it's me..... :)

.

I'm not going to say that you lack comprehension bee, but you do seem to make a lot of assumptions about these supposed cameras that you think should have been there recording everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

readers of this thread will be the judge of who is lacking in comprehension......

and I'm quietly confident that out of the two of us, they won't think it's me..... :)

.

Says the person who after it was explained multiple times why cameras are not the preferred security choice still thinks there should have been more. I've been involved with military, seen the security available. How much involvment have you had? What TV shows were they? :yes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

readers of this thread will be the judge of who is lacking in comprehension......

and I'm quietly confident that out of the two of us, they won't think it's me..... :)

If we're taking a vote, add a third to Boony and frenat.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to say that you lack comprehension bee, but you do seem to make a lot of assumptions about these supposed cameras that you think should have been there recording everything.

booN.....thanks for the first bit,,,,but....I would call it Common Sense....not just assumptions.

Says the person who after it was explained multiple times why cameras are not the preferred security choice still thinks there should have been more. I've been involved with military, seen the security available. How much involvment have you had? What TV shows were they? :yes:

I hope you weren't involved in defense decisions......

And I'm sorry...but I just don't believe you about the cameras.....so it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.

But you can have the last word in this little exchange......and I won't reply to your next comment if there is one......

Go on.....go for it..... :innocent:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

booN.....thanks for the first bit,,,,but....I would call it Common Sense....not just assumptions.

.

Actually, I'm afraid it is just assumptions bee. You think they would have had more cameras based on what you believe should be standard security precautions. This is nothing but assumptions.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky....we're only talking about one proper photo or short piece of footage....not a detailed report of all the surveillance capabilities.

That one image taken from the footage depicts a B-757 in the background. On another note, how many air disasters are supported by video evidence? How are details of an accident determined when video evidence is not available?

And with the figures on the pie -chart you posted earlier....where only 46% believe Al Qaeda 'did it'.....America's enemies on the internet are having a field day.....and making a real impression on public perception....re 9/11.

It has been more than 11 years and yet, not one piece of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government in the 9/11 attacks, and now, there are 9/11 conspiracist who are claiming that no aircraft were involved. There was no way the U.S. government could have pulled off a 9/11-style operation and not get caught.

Taking a look back, how long did it take to reveal details of the Watergate scandal?

Failure to provide the visual proof is helping to fuel the belief that it was an Inside Job and that the US government (or parts of it..plus many many collaborators) committed mass murder and high treason against it's own people. It's a corrosive situation....in terms of World Politics...

edit to say....but if visual proof doesn't exist...then of course it can't be provided anyway.... :cry:

Those who are fueling a government conspiracy are doing so out of pure ignorance. After all, look how fast their claims have been debunked. For an example.

1. 9/11 conspiracist claimed that United 93, a B-757, landed in Cleveland. It was determined the aircraft they confused as United 93, was a Delta Airlines, B-767.

2. Passengers of United 93 in Cleveland were bused to an unknown location, when in fact, the passengers they confused as those from United 93, were scientist who arrived on a KC-135.

3. 9/11 conspiracist claimed that a photo depicts molten steel, when in fact, they were duped by a doctored photo of a reflection from a flashlight they said was molten steel.

4. American 77 passed north of the gas station when in fact, the path of destruction leading to, and inside the Pentagon, proved beyond any doubt American 77 passed south of the gas station.

5. They claimed that a modified pod is depicted on United 175 when in fact, they confused fairings and gear doors on United 175, which are standard on all B-767s.

6. Molten steel is see flowing from one of the WTC buildings when it fact, the cooling silvery droplets were not indicative of molten steel. This photo is an aluminum droplet from an aircraft incident which I witnessed at Travis AFB.

650253_blob_david_giancaspro.jpg

You can see the similar silvery droplets at the bottom of this photo.

SpillingSteel2.jpg

I was standing not far from where this photo was taken.

650253_explosion_1_07_Oct_1993.jpg

7. 9/11 conspiracist have said that debris from United 93 was found up to 8 miles away is proof that United 93 was shot down. Not true at all because light weight debris can be expected to be found far from a crash site. After all, debris from the wreckage of PSA 1771 was found up to 8 miles away from that crash site in California.

8. 9/11 conspiracist have said that turning off the transponder will make an aircraft invisible on radar. Nothing can be further from the truth and turning off the transponder just make an aircraft very difficult to track, not make it invisible. Even the F-117 stealth fighter was not totally invisible on radar.

The list goes on and on.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're taking a vote, add a third to Boony and frenat.

And a fourth.

Cz

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a fourth.

now I KNOW I'm right........(even though I knew before)..but confirmation is nice...

cheers

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That one image taken from the footage depicts a B-757 in the background.

I'm sorry but people aren't stupid....(not about that so-called poor excuse of an image, anyway)

On another note, how many air disasters are supported by video evidence?

this wasn't an air disaster, as such...it would be described an act of war...at ground level, in a very public place, on the US mainland.

.

There was no way the U.S. government could have pulled off a 9/11-style operation and not get caught.

I agree....and I hope you realise that I don't support the Inside Job Theory.....but I do think things have been covered up

and even though it would be hard...I think that the US government should 'come clean'....many people are drawn to the

IJ conspiracy theory because they see decrepancies and those discrepancies haven't been answered.

One of those discrepancies is the lack of visual evidence of the impact at the Pentagon.....and the fobbing of with the

ridiculous CCTV from the traffic cam.....

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No explanation for explosions in the basement just seconds before the impact

BR, I hate to follow you regarding touching basis with me about my analysis of the ross and furlong paper.

Are you willing to get into that debate about my theory on why there is a 14 and 17 second time discrepancy or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rational argument gets lip service, but that's about it.

No explanation for explosions in the basement just seconds before the impact, no explanation for absence of necessary aircraft debris at the Pentagon, but LOTSA out of context photos, and complete reliance upon the testimony of entities with reputations as deceivers. All this is presented as some sort of rational argument.

Showing Sisyphus what futile is really all about.

And hiding all the time is the truth? stand up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but people aren't stupid....(not about that so-called poor excuse of an image, anyway)

The details are clearly evident to those of us who know what to look for in the video. Besides, the B-757 has been a favorite aircraft of mine for decades.

...this wasn't an air disaster, as such...it would be described an act of war...at ground level, in a very public place, on the US mainland.

It was an act of war, but still an airplane crash just the same. You have B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon, along with black box data and even radar data, not to mention eyewitness accounts from the C-130 and observers on the ground and of course, the image taken from the video camera along with the announcement by American Airlines on the loss of American 77.

A check of FAA records, along with those of the Boeing Aircraft company, Rolls Royce, and of American Airlines, will confirm that the airliner which crashed at the Pentagon was in fact, American 77. You can throw away the video and still there is more than enough evidence confirming the airliner was American 77, however, there are those who still claim that a cruise missile struck the Pentagon.

One of those discrepancies is the lack of visual evidence of the impact at the Pentagon.....and the fobbing of with the ridiculous CCTV from the traffic cam.....

Video cameras are not required to identify the airliner was American 77. There are video cameras of American 11 and United 175 striking the WTC buildings and yet you can still hear 9/11 conspiracist saying that no aircraft struck those buildings or that the aircraft were switched aircraft and flown under remote controlled into those buildings without accounting for the original aircraft and passengers. We have videos of American 11 and United 175 and still, there those who are just looking for an argument for the sake of having an argument despite the overwhelming evidence.

.

Edited by skyeagle409

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.