Er, David C...

You may have noticed that we have given the answers mdbapa was looking for.

Did you read this sentence in a post:

I doubt he's liable to entertain the conspiracy theories, especially at this point.

Also, the claims from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have pretty much been debunked on this forum.
Their claims are no more plausible than claims from Apollo hoax believers and just as capable of being debunked by people with sufficent knowledge of the relevant fields.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Pfft! According to that outline, the plane is also pointed toward the top floor of the Pentagon. You obviously can't make any judgments based on that amateurish photo analysis (I don't even think it qualifies as that).

I don't understand why the government just doesn't release more footage to show the crash better though...??

Begging the question: What makes you think they would have more video that shows the crash better?

It just seems like there would be many other surveillance cameras at the Pentagon. Possibly a shot from a different angle or something.

The Pentagon uses live police officers for security so there is little need for surveillance cameras.

__________________
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. ---Cardinal Wolsey (1475-1530)

What Eoanthropus Dawsoni said. Plus, why would they have surveillance cameras looking at the Pentagon? If you are using cameras, wouldn't you look outward from entry ways and such, to look for suspicious people entering the building? The treats they might be looking for are car bombs or human bombs or suspicious packages. I don't think they would have cameras set up to look for airplanes.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Thats what I mean. Cameras looking outward. That would catch anything coming at (in toward) the Pentagon.

David C,
There was extensive discussion of the video in this thread and several others.

You say the picture in the third link is "obviously not the front of a 757". To me it is not obviously anything, it is so blurry, all I would say is that there is something there.

The stuff in the first link seems to confirm the official story, it looks to me like an airplane flying very low and crashing into the Pentagon.

There has been extensive discussion in these threads about the evidence found of the 757 (including parts with serial numbers) and the geometry of the hole.

I can't download videos at work (not allowed) or home (too slow) - could you outline what is said in your last link?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

But it would depend on where they were put - I'm not convinced you would put them in all directions, just the ones mostly for the threats you think are most likely. Things like the truck bomb at the Federal Building in Oklahoma, which was in front of the building. That's just my guess, I'm not a security expert, but I really don't find it suspicious that they didn't have cameras.

It is also possible that they do have such evidence and for various reasons they don't want to release it. For example, it would show that they have such security cameras and where they were located - something you don't want the bad guys to know.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

What good would that do? Just to give something for people to look at?
Better to make use of existing systems (the traffic cams) than spend money on extra stuff that won't do much good, aside from giving something for people to look at.

This is similar to the case of HBers regarding evidence for Apollo;
they don't accept the moon rocks as evidence for the missions, but instead ask for telescopes or lunar probes to provide images of the landing sites.

In this case, CTers do not accept the wreckage of the plane, but claim that additional footage of the crash will provide evidence.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Security cameras cover things like doors, car parks and gates, if the plane came in the door it might be on one

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The most video surveilance used by any non-military organization would be at large casinos. this would be a good comparison then would it not?

The cameras at casinos are pointed down to the parking lots and set fairly wide so as to show any assaults occuring in the lots, those at the doors are set for closer shots so as to be able to identify and follow people entering and exiting the casino. Interior shots are irrellevent.

The above cameras all have pan,tilt and zoom but their default settings would be as above. The Pentagon would be little different and the direction from which the plane came had it moving over not a parking lot but a lawn. Anyone coming accross a lawn , no sidewalk there, would be highly obvious to live security people. No camera at any casino or at the Pentagon would have the depth of focus that would allow it to see a plane coming in from a long way off. At max these cameras would be responsible for viewing as far as the highway.

The cameras at the hotel and the gas station would certainly not be pointed at the Pentagon. Why would they? Their management would be concerned only with what was occuring on the ground on their property. In the case of the gas station the camera was pointed at the pumps. Hardly a suprise to have them pointed that way.

Frankly, IMHO, it would be more suspicious if a Pentagon security camera had followed the plane in. That would require a great deal of luck(though, admittedly, that does happen in other situations such as the first plane into the WTC) OR foreknowledge of not only the attack but the direction from which it would approach the building.

as for the vid of the first WTC aircraft, this took place in very busy urban enviroment, not the middle of a huge expanse where video private cameras are discouraged surrounded by a river on one side and highways on the others that characterised the area of the Pentagon. there is a much better chance of video of a plane flying low over a busy metropolitan area than over the region of the Pentagon.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

That really was not the case. If anything, the FAA's Boston Center was a bit slow (~15 minutes) notifying anyone of the first hijack. The intercepts were ordered by NEADS and CONR NORAD before authorization was given. They really did push the ROEs that morning. There was a moment of confusion within the NEADS battle staff about the effect of the shoot-down order, but it was clearly articulated by NORAD HQ. It's not up to the FAA to decide when or where a shoot down is warranted.

I just don't buy in to that interpretation. Bush was notified of the second crash an remained seated for around five minutes, waiting for a pause in the program while his staff was trying to get a clearer picture of the battle space. Unfortunately, none existed. No decisions were missed during this interim and the delay allowed him to speak to the country about the events before he was evacuated.

__________________
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

This reminds me of one of the great contradictions that is in the truth movement. On one hand its suspicious that there is no clear video of the Pentagon attack and on the other its suspicious that the attack on WTC1 was clearly caught on video.

__________________
Reality is for those that can't handle video games.

There are about a ton of cameras inside casinos. However, if you mean "interior shots are irrelevant regarding the Pentagon," absolutely.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

It looks like the nose of a fighter to me.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...giantpsyop.htm
It might be an F4. Do you really think it's the front of a 757? Whatever it is, it's the front of it that can be seen.

That's a blow-up of a frame from this footage.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13076.htm

If you click on comments in the above link, you'll get this.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tf2...le13076/#34573
What do you think of what these people say?

Also, what do you think of this video?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30216235657870
And this one?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871

http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
In part 1 of "Painful Deceptions" it says that flight 77 probably landed at some military base and the passengers were then killed and the bodies were put in a building and a bomb was detonated so the bodies would look as if they'd been in a plane crash. When the bodies were supposedly transferred from one morgue to another, the bodies of the actual passengers were delivered to the second morgue.
Why don't you take the time to go to a cybercafe and watch "Painful Deceptions"?

Also, what do you all think of these analyses?
http://www.physics911.ca/Dewdney:_The_Missing_Wings
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/A...March2006.html

Wait a minute. You think they can pull this off:

Which, BTW, has to rank right up there as one of the most offensive things I've ever read, but you don't think they're smart enough to "fake" the right nose cone, and then are stupid enough to give you the photo to prove it? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Why would the government fake a nose cone to make it look like a fighter instead of a 757. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

I can understand why you would find that theory about the passengers offensive if you've only been living in the US and reading the US press.
Start reading about what the US has been doing in the world and that theory won't seem so strange.
Put words such as "Death squads" or "Torture" in this search engine and you'll see what kind of stuff the US government has been doing for a century.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/htdig/search.html

Greetings Musashi...Yes you have noticed something real, in my opinion. Yes there ARE video and photographic images of the hole in the Pentagon before the roof collapsed. They're not that hard to find. Try "9/11 in Plane Site" for example. It's a privately produced video that uses imagery taken fromTV screens and other sources published before the official story was in place...Also, it has been reported by numerous sources that a gas station directly across from the targeted side of the Pentagon was visited almost immediately by the FBI, who confiscated surviellance camera footage that would have clearly shown the alleged airliner crashing into the building. The claim that the govenment has no real-time footage of the "airliner" crash is simply absurd. What do you think the few frames of released footage are from? Video cameras!!...The only explanation I've heard so far from the "no conspiracy" camp is that the government might need the video for prosecution purposes. I'll leave the merits of that to your judgement. Also, the air traffic controllers who witnessed the incredible manuevers of the "airliner" were all in agreement that it had to be something military...Anyway, I wasn't there and I don't know exactly what happend. I just know that something about the Pentagon story smells real funny, also the "magical" collaplse of building #7 at the WTC, which was never hit by an airplane. all the best, sf.

Sorry Musashi, I was obviously replying to mdbapa, not you. But I'm sure everyone gets the drift of my argument. sf

It's ok, but those arguments still don't hold water.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

You underestimate the informed nature of US citizens, my friend. Most, if not all of us, are aware of the secret prisons, the torture policies, etc... I can't say more than that due to the politics policy of the board. But that's a red herring for the purposes of the 911 discussion.

@Steve Foss: Try a couple of searches of these forums. Your points have already been completely debunked, except for the "confiscated" video, in which case your claim it would have proven anything is pure speculation. Unless you have a copy which proves your point, and you'd care to share it with us?

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

IMHO its impossible to identify the object that struck the Pentagon from the security cam video, the resolution and frame rate are too poor for that.


I didnt read them all but I cant disagree with alot of what I did read, from that video its impossible to identify what hit the Pentagon.

What the truthers seem to ignore it that the video doesnt exist in a vacuum, by itself it is not proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon, it is just one piece of the puzzle. When you add up the eyewitness accounts, recovered parts, recovered black boxes, recovered DNA, the other hijacked planes that day, missing passengers, a missing 757, and etc. then you can complete the puzzle and say that a 757 did hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Yes, the truthers can find minor problems with each piece of the puzzle but all their minor problems never add up to any kind of alternate theory, it is just a hodge podge unrelated events.

Like I said before, I'm not going to waste hours watching videos, if you think you have evidence for your claims post that. "Here, watch this video" is not evidence.


How about some evidence, just saying it could of happened is not proof that it did happen.


Why dont you supply some real evidence instead of "Go watch this video"


A 757 crashed into a bomb resistant building at several hundred miles an hour resulting in a large explosion and fire. Then he finds it strange that no large wing pieces were intact after that event.

At one point he claims that "two wings, each approximately 18-20 m long (however crumpled and damaged) must have appeared in virtually all the photographs taken of the Pentagon damage on the morning of September 11, 2001."

Now I'm not a scientist but even I can see the error in this logic. Instead of "crumpled and damaged" they just might of been shredded and burnt and their remains just might of ended up inside the Pentagon instead of laying around on the outside to be photographed.


Ohh, its that one again

The plane entered the first floor of the Pentagon, there are no "separate internal walls" on the first floor. The famous rings of the Pentagon don't start until the second floor.

Two thing on this one, first most of the available pics of the exit hole are from after it was enlarged for rescue and fire fighting. Second, a high speed impact against a solid wall for all intents and purposes is an explosion, just one powered by kinetic energy instead of explosives.

__________________
Reality is for those that can't handle video games.

Apollo HBers have the same problem.

David C, pay close attention to that paragraph.

It's like this; investigations don't rely on a single feature. Many pieces of evidence are required.
The same thing applies to historical examples, like the sinking of the Lusitania, Britannic, Titanic, and Andrea Doria, not to mention airline disasters, the Columbia and Challenger disasters, and the Apollo 1 fire.

All aspects from each disaster are investiaged, adding up to the conclusion presented. Flight 77 is no different.
It's not just the video that is evidence; the aspects that Woody- provided are also evidence.

I also suggest reading up on Occam's Razor. I'm sure you can find information about it, given that you have no trouble finding all sorts of conspiracy websites.

Evidence supports the offical theory. Nothing supports the alternative.
All you have that does support it are rantings from conspiracy websites, as well as phrases like "It looks like....", "It seems like...", or "That doesn't look right...".

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Since you like videos so much: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl=

I'm sorry, but you haven't really been keeping up have you? That the video from the CITGO gas station was confiscated is a fact. It was also released last month and, according to that same article, the footage from the Sheraton hotel will be released next month.

"[V]ideo" cameras in an a very basic sense, yes, but that's about it. And it is real-time, yes. It's just not "24+ frames per second" real-time. A lot of security cameras aren't.

You're implying that this isn't the case?

Ahh... you've been duped by a stunted quote. Here's the whole quote:

As has been said numerous times, the hijackers weren't exactly concerned about safety.

There was severe damage to, and fire in, WTC7 as a result of the collapse of WTC1. I posted some quotes from firefighters a while back. There are also a number of pictures showing damage to WTC7 (although none of them show the most severe area of damage described by the firefighters above).

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/7wtc.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/news_wtc7_1.jpg

There's also shots of debris from WTC1's collapse coming very close to WTC7.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Hit1.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_hit_by_debris_.html

Here's something I should have posted with my last post.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...63607579389947

It shows that the US government has no qualms about sacrificing it's own citizens and soldiers to further its aims.

There's a lot of good stuff about 9/11 on this forum.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...ex.php?act=idx

This is the section on the Pentagon.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...p?showforum=19

Because you are looking at the wrong thing. Have a look at this and this. You can see a 757 shaped object pretty clearly if you are open minded.

P.S. It would be more effective if you could look at them side by side but the mods didn't like it last time.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

I've watched some Alex Jones videos. He's somewhat entertaining, and actually gets involved in certain issues I take seriously. For example, his disagreement with the patriot act. I had taken that stance while I was at the University of Pittsburgh two years ago before ever watching any Alex Jones. I'm now at Clarion University and it's a bit boring, so I watch alot of downloaded videos.

I also like the fact that he isn't afraid to speak up when he thinks something is wrong. Example: thumb scanning. I don't think I agree with him that its part of a global government scheme to track everyone, but its also not right to be forced to get a part of your body scanned.

In regard to the pentagon, i've found the information on this board to be very helpful, and I believe that most likely it was a 757. About 911 entirely; I think there are some issues that could be made more clear to the public, but I believe the official story is what actually happened.

Occam's Razor -one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.