[Merged]Acknowledgement of 85 cameras at the Pentagon?

[Blender Head]

After asking at least a few hundred Truthers to source where the Pentagon had 80 cameras, I found one who referred to Jacqueline Maguire, part of the FBI's Counter Terrorism Division. I investigoogled and found a 9/11 Research page which only speaks of her in passing:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.

However this is probably the most reputable source I could find where the FBI states anything about 80 or so cameras at the Pentagon. Anyone know more about this?

[lapman]

85 video tapes in FBI possession = 85 cameras at the Pentagon? So the Doubletree Hotel is part of the Pentagon?

[Blender Head]

85 video tapes in FBI possession = 85 cameras at the Pentagon? So the Doubletree Hotel is part of the Pentagon?

Jeez, I suffer from Truther reading comprehension. :o

Regardless, how many CCTVs were there at the Pentagon on 9/11?

[DC]

i dont know about the number of cameras. but often several CCTV cameras are recorded on one tape. dunno if the pentagon also does this.

[mrbaracuda]

Jeez, I suffer from Truther reading comprehension. :o

Good, then I won't have to click the link and read the text there.:p

[celestrin]

You can get the list of all 85 videos and a good idea about their contents over at flight77.info (http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html).

[Blender Head]

You can get the list of all 85 videos and a good idea about their contents over at flight77.info (http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html).

If I'm reading this right, a fair amount of videos confiscated/submitted aren't even of the attack at the Pentagon.

[Bobert]

well you know 1,2,3, 85.......

[gumboot]

The Pentagon does not record most of its surveillance cameras. I would imagine there are a great number of cameras outside the Pentagon. However the cameras are monitored live by a dedicated police force.

The purpose of cameras at the Pentagon is to give security staff situational awareness so they can respond promptly and effectively to any incident. Recording the video footage would be pointless.

Many conspiracy theorists make the mistake of assuming that if there is a security camera, it must be recorded. This is far from the truth.

[gumboot]

If I'm reading this right, a fair amount of videos confiscated/submitted aren't even of the attack at the Pentagon.

Correct.

[eromitlab]

Many conspiracy theorists make the mistake of assuming that if there is a security camera, it must be recorded. This is far from the truth.
I don't know if it's a mistake as much as it is a knowing, speculative thing that plays into their gimmick. As long as there are X number of videos that are acknowledged to exist and the content of all of those videos have not been ascertained, they can continue to hint to the faithful and those on the fence that there's a clear, damning shot of something other than AA77 hitting the Pentagon and "the government" is covering it up.
Of course, as we all know, such gimmickry will continue even if every piece (80, 85, or however many will be claimed in the future) of security camera footage is released.

[A W Smith]

85 videos means all videos of the entire area, I would think this includes all store/hotel/bank exterior cameras. I read somewhere that they are about to release more FOI data including information regarding the navy annex, This does not necessarily mean video.


edit to add
found it


Navy Annex Footage (http://911files.info/blog/?p=63)

Filed under: DPS (http://911files.info/blog/?cat=14), Navy Annex (http://911files.info/blog/?cat=15)— BCR at 12:49 pm on Thursday, April 24, 2008


After a number of telephone conversations with the Navy today, here is what is known of the Navy Annex exterior camera footage.
The cameras on the exterior of the Navy Annex were operated by the Defense Protective Services (Pentagon Police).
All DOD camera footage was taken into custody by the FBI, including the footage from the Navy Annex.These are “off-the-record” conversations and the FBI is to-date denying possession of the Navy Annex video footage (along with other DPS footage). I was told however that the DOD has been informed that the FBI will soon be making another release of 9/11 records, but there were no specifics beyond that (or at least none that they would tell me).
The Navy Annex FOIA is being referred to DPS and I’ll be going through the process. If anyone has any information regarding the DPS footage, please let me know since I need all the background I can get for the discovery process.

[Spindrift]

The Pentagon does not record most of its surveillance cameras. I would imagine there are a great number of cameras outside the Pentagon. However the cameras are monitored live by a dedicated police force.

The purpose of cameras at the Pentagon is to give security staff situational awareness so they can respond promptly and effectively to any incident. Recording the video footage would be pointless.

Many conspiracy theorists make the mistake of assuming that if there is a security camera, it must be recorded. This is far from the truth.

Why would recording be pointless? It probably wouldn't help with an immediately identifiable incident, but recordings would be very useful for reviewing situations where such things as espionage are a possibility. And it could also be used for a post mortem review of a situation.

[Blender Head]

However the cameras are monitored live by a dedicated police force.

Source for this?

[TC329]

If I'm reading this right, a fair amount of videos confiscated/submitted aren't even of the attack at the Pentagon.

makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

:boggled:

someone is lying.

[defaultdotxbe]

Why would recording be pointless? It probably wouldn't help with an immediately identifiable incident, but recordings would be very useful for reviewing situations where such things as espionage are a possibility. And it could also be used for a post mortem review of a situation.
logistics may have been a concern, its impractical to record dozens of video feeds to VHS (which was the standard in 2001)

even just 7 years later its hard to think of CCTV without DVR, lol

makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

:boggled:

someone is lying.
IIRC the videos that were taken were any that showed the pentagon, although most of them ended up not showing the attack

[DGM]

makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

:boggled:

someone is lying.
No! Rational people would say they confiscated everything that COULD contain what they wanted and THEN analyzed them to see what they had. But thats not as much fun is it?

[celestrin]

someone is lying.
Of course. It's the guy who sold you the story that there are 85 videos showing the Pentagon or the plane.

[TC329]

IIRC the videos that were taken were any that showed the pentagon, although most of them ended up not showing the attack

doesn't mean none of them captured an image of the plane on its official flight path.

[DGM]

doesn't mean none of them captured an image of the plane on its official flight path.
What is the CIT's official path again? I think were still waiting for that.

Hey Dom:
How about suggesting a fly UNDER to your boys? A big airfield under the Pentagon. Think of the possibilities?

[defaultdotxbe]

doesn't mean none of them captured an image of the plane on its official flight path.
im trying to find the letter from jacqueline macquire, because i think thats where i read the 85 videos were only ones that showed the pentagon, and only 1 (the gate camera) showed the plane

so unless you want to assume shes lying any videos that show the plane but not the pentagon were not confiscated (although this is unlikely, as most security cameras arent pointed up in the air)

ETA: i found the source

She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."

http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html

so then yes, the 56 that do not show the pentagon could theoretically show the flight path (submit a FOIA request for any video in the FBI's possession showing f77 on the morning of sept 11th to find out) but i doubt they do because of the reason stated above

[CurtC]

It just occurred to me that of those 16 that showed the Pentagon but didn't show the crash site, they would have to be from the other side of the building, right? At least some of them. Seems like the perfect videos to capture any flyover that might have happened.

TC, if you really believe this flyover nonsense, seems like you'd be filing an FOIA to get those 16. The first FOIA just asked for any videos that showed the impact, so these 16 didn't fit that. Why don't you file another asking for any that show the Pentagon at all?

[Jonnyclueless]

makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

:boggled:

someone is lying.

Or someone did not read correctly before responding....

[gumboot]

Why would recording be pointless? It probably wouldn't help with an immediately identifiable incident, but recordings would be very useful for reviewing situations where such things as espionage are a possibility. And it could also be used for a post mortem review of a situation.


Because you have to consider what the cameras are there to do. The primary security service at the Pentagon is people - the Pentagon Police Force. The cameras are nothing more than a tool to help those police. Their job is to prevent things happening - such as a breach to Pentagon security.

They'll record cameras that capture things that might be useful as later information - a prime example being the gate camera that captures vehicles entering the carpark - that's a useful thing to record.

It's not even just that it's pointless, of course - it's a logistical issue as defaultdotxbe pointed out. Storing surveillance video requires enormous space. It's justified if you need that footage. It's not justified if you don't.

Now if you're the owner of a petrol station and you don't have a dedicated police force on duty, but you're worried that someone might rob the place, or a staff member might steal from the cash register, or that someone might drive off without paying for petrol (all things that happen to petrol stations) you ARE going to want to record your video. And because you've only got four cameras, and because if anything happens you're going to know immediately, you only need to record one day worth of footage then you can erase it and begin again. So it's logistically feasible, and financially justified (good for your insurance, good for prevention, and so forth)

Now compare that to the Pentagon. It's full of military personnel who've sworn an oath of allegiance and work under a rigorous command structure under the constant observation of senior officers. You don't have to worry about employees stealing from the cash register - or at least you shouldn't.

You're not offering a service to the public, so you don't have to worry about being robbed at gun point or someone taking off without paying for their cash.

What you do have to worry about is protection of classified material and security breaches. Espionage, spies, defectors, traitors.

Recording video isn't going to help you there because that's not the sort of thing you can even see on a video. Okay, if you've got a suspect in mind it might be useful to know when their vehicle left the place, so you record the camera on the gate (redundant anyway since the guard at the gate is recording all the vehicles coming through).

But for all the other stuff, video footage that could be months old (because you might not notice a breach for months) isn't going to help you. What's going to help you is if you can detect the breach as it happens and respond immediately. That means people. Sensors. Protocols for dealing with classified material. Relying on the "clean" personnel to be on the look out for that sort of thing. Restricting clearances to only those that need it. And putting up cameras so that your dedicated and professional security staff can be watching everywhere at once and react to anything suspect immediately.

That's the way that places like the Pentagon maintain their security - not by recording a camera that's looking at a lawn.

[Spindrift]

Because you have to consider what the cameras are there to do. The primary security service at the Pentagon is people - the Pentagon Police Force. The cameras are nothing more than a tool to help those police. Their job is to prevent things happening - such as a breach to Pentagon security.

They'll record cameras that capture things that might be useful as later information - a prime example being the gate camera that captures vehicles entering the carpark - that's a useful thing to record.

It's not even just that it's pointless, of course - it's a logistical issue as defaultdotxbe pointed out. Storing surveillance video requires enormous space. It's justified if you need that footage. It's not justified if you don't.

Now if you're the owner of a petrol station and you don't have a dedicated police force on duty, but you're worried that someone might rob the place, or a staff member might steal from the cash register, or that someone might drive off without paying for petrol (all things that happen to petrol stations) you ARE going to want to record your video. And because you've only got four cameras, and because if anything happens you're going to know immediately, you only need to record one day worth of footage then you can erase it and begin again. So it's logistically feasible, and financially justified (good for your insurance, good for prevention, and so forth)

Now compare that to the Pentagon. It's full of military personnel who've sworn an oath of allegiance and work under a rigorous command structure under the constant observation of senior officers. You don't have to worry about employees stealing from the cash register - or at least you shouldn't.

You're not offering a service to the public, so you don't have to worry about being robbed at gun point or someone taking off without paying for their cash.

What you do have to worry about is protection of classified material and security breaches. Espionage, spies, defectors, traitors.

Recording video isn't going to help you there because that's not the sort of thing you can even see on a video. Okay, if you've got a suspect in mind it might be useful to know when their vehicle left the place, so you record the camera on the gate (redundant anyway since the guard at the gate is recording all the vehicles coming through).

But for all the other stuff, video footage that could be months old (because you might not notice a breach for months) isn't going to help you. What's going to help you is if you can detect the breach as it happens and respond immediately. That means people. Sensors. Protocols for dealing with classified material. Relying on the "clean" personnel to be on the look out for that sort of thing. Restricting clearances to only those that need it. And putting up cameras so that your dedicated and professional security staff can be watching everywhere at once and react to anything suspect immediately.

That's the way that places like the Pentagon maintain their security - not by recording a camera that's looking at a lawn.

Okay maybe in 2001 with VHS storage would be a problem. But with digital recording devices you could store huge amounts in a relatively small space, the size of an office.

I still think it's not pointless. Will the vast majority of it ever be useful? Doubtful. Put I would think recording does have a potential for being useful. Even just a replay functionality. "Did I see what I just saw?" In this day with a pretty low cost it would seem to be a nice to have back-up. It could also be used in the defense of security personnel to prove that they handled a situation properly or vice versa to prove they didn't handle the situation properly. There is also training potential. Reviewing how security personnel handle their jobs. Etc.

And of course as we know from TV you can infinitely blow up video with no loss of resolution. ;)

[gumboot]

Okay maybe in 2001 with VHS storage would be a problem. But with digital recording devices you could store huge amounts in a relatively small space, the size of an office.

It depends on resolution quality. If you want to record uncompressed DV (which is what your monitors could show you) you'd need about 5 1/2 TB of storage per camera per day. Say you've got 100 cameras around the Pentagon (seems like a reasonable number), that's 550 TB of storage a day, or 200 PB a year. How long are you going to keep it? Five years? Some espionage is not noticed until decades later. Are you going to purchase another 200 PB of storage every year?

Or maybe we'll compress it. How much? If you compress it you're going to lose data, which makes the video less useful. How much compression do you need in order to reduce the size to a point that storing it is feasible? Is the video still useful at that level of compression?



Even just a replay functionality. "Did I see what I just saw?"

Or alternatively you could grab your radio and ask Jeff to go check door 63...



In this day with a pretty low cost it would seem to be a nice to have back-up. It could also be used in the defense of security personnel to prove that they handled a situation properly or vice versa to prove they didn't handle the situation properly. There is also training potential. Reviewing how security personnel handle their jobs. Etc.

And of course as we know from TV you can infinitely blow up video with no loss of resolution. ;)

Obviously there's going to be benefits to recording your surveillance cameras, but it always has to be a balance of cost versus benefit. Certainly, digital storage is pretty cheap at the moment. But video takes up a lot of storage as well. And it's not that simple. You need recorders. You need to look after the database. You need somewhere to put it. You need people to fix it when it breaks. It needs upgrades. Since it's sensitive information it needs protecting. And so on.

If having this video provides a benefit that outweighs those costs, you'll record it. In the case of a gas station the benefit outweighs the cost.

But at a military installation with a full time security staff? No. The cost outweighs the benefit by a hefty margin. That's why it's pointless.

[defaultdotxbe]

It depends on resolution quality. If you want to record uncompressed DV (which is what your monitors could show you) you'd need about 5 1/2 TB of storage per camera per day. Say you've got 100 cameras around the Pentagon (seems like a reasonable number), that's 550 TB of storage a day, or 200 PB a year. How long are you going to keep it? Five years? Some espionage is not noticed until decades later. Are you going to purchase another 200 PB of storage every year?

Or maybe we'll compress it. How much? If you compress it you're going to lose data, which makes the video less useful. How much compression do you need in order to reduce the size to a point that storing it is feasible? Is the video still useful at that level of compression?
the company i work for records about 7 days of video (640x480x15 or 30fps) from 16 cameras, we dont have an insane amount of storage(maybe 1-2tb for all the cameras for the week) but the video is still very useful after compression, we could easily write the video to tape media once a week (would be 2-3 tapes per week) but we simply dont need it that long, so using digital recording its not hard to keep video, however my point was i highly, highly HIGHLY doubt the pentagon (or anyone really for that matter) was using digital recording in 2001, so we would be looking at VCRs

i happen to have some experience with that too, lol, when i was working at a grocery store we recorded 4 cameras at 160x120x1fps, took 1 vhs tape per day, so even if the pentagon was recording video it would probably be at a very low framerate (i think even the gate camers was only a few frames per second) and could quite possibly miss the entire attack

[gumboot]

the company i work for records about 7 days of video (640x480x15 or 30fps) from 16 cameras, we dont have an insane amount of storage(maybe 1-2tb for all the cameras for the week) but the video is still very useful after compression, we could easily write the video to tape media once a week (would be 2-3 tapes per week) but we simply dont need it that long, so using digital recording its not hard to keep video, however my point was i highly, highly HIGHLY doubt the pentagon (or anyone really for that matter) was using digital recording in 2001, so we would be looking at VCRs

i happen to have some experience with that too, lol, when i was working at a grocery store we recorded 4 cameras at 160x120x1fps, took 1 vhs tape per day, so even if the pentagon was recording video it would probably be at a very low framerate (i think even the gate camers was only a few frames per second) and could quite possibly miss the entire attack


The gate camera was running at 1fps.

[Tweeter]

Yall are talking about the PENTAGON ,not a grocery store.
**** they spend a thousand dollars on a toilet seat.
If they wouldnt have the most and best cameras, who would?

[chillzero]

If they wouldnt have the most and best cameras, who would?

Yeah. Well. The OP is asking for sources to verify a specific claim about these cameras. Got any?

[Brainache]

Yall are talking about the PENTAGON ,not a grocery store.
**** they spend a thousand dollars on a toilet seat.
If they wouldnt have the most and best cameras, who would?

They also have their own Police Force. Not much of a need to record footage of shoplifters or cat burglars climbing the walls.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

:boggled:

someone is lying.
Yeah.....who could that be?
why don't you take some time off with all expenses paid in full courtesy of the NWO and find out?
(we keep doing this we will soon run out of money.)

[peteweaver]

Regardless of how many cameras there are at the pentagon looking out, most of the cameras would have been looking away from the attacked section, and so cctv from other sources would be needed, and quality would vary greatly...

[CptColumbo]

Yall are talking about the PENTAGON ,not a grocery store.
**** they spend a thousand dollars on a toilet seat.
If they wouldnt have the most and best cameras, who would?
I'm not following your line of logic.
Are you saying that since the DoD spent a thousand dollars on something not worth a thousand dollars, that they must have the best equipment in other areas?

[rightshu]

Yall are talking about the PENTAGON ,not a grocery store.
**** they spend a thousand dollars on a toilet seat.
If they wouldnt have the most and best cameras, who would?

The "thousand-dollar toilet seat" is an old canard based on the Pentagon's accounting system in use in the 1980s and early 1990s. What was happening was that, when submitting an itemized invoice for purchase from a contractor, the aggregate cost of the purchase was averaged out over every item in the purchase.

Let's say that you bought a new radio set for an RC-135, and a new toilet seat for the same plane's bathroom. The radio set is $5000. The toilet seat is $30. But on the invoice it would show that both items cost $2515 each.

That's since been fixed. Besides, as gumboot has very ably pointed out, they were purchasing the services of an entire police force to monitor the camera system. That's more expensive than data storage, I would imagine; however, for why the Pentagon needs cameras, it's a much better bang for the buck.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yall are talking about the PENTAGON ,not a grocery store.
**** they spend a thousand dollars on a toilet seat.
If they wouldnt have the most and best cameras, who would?
someone who didnt waste all their money on toilet seats, obviously

[Blender Head]

I'm not following your line of logic.
Are you saying that since the DoD spent a thousand dollars on something not worth a thousand dollars, that they must have the best equipment in other areas?

Yes, he is.

[CptColumbo]

Yes, he is.Gotcha.
Apparently he/she is unfamiliar with how goverment contracts work.

[Tweeter]

Obviously i was implying that money is no object, but good spin on that.

[Jonnyclueless]

Can you put spin on what is already spin?

[gumboot]

Yall are talking about the PENTAGON ,not a grocery store.
**** they spend a thousand dollars on a toilet seat.
If they wouldnt have the most and best cameras, who would?


We're not talking about their cameras. You understand the difference between a camera and a recorder yes?

They could have ten thousand cameras with full patch Super 35 sized CMOS chips capturing video in constant bit rate at 4K resolution (not that such cameras existed in 2001) for all I care, and it wouldn't change my point.

As I've mentioned, places like the Pentagon don't find cameras that useful anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if there isn't a single surveillance camera inside the building.

[Bobert]

Even if the pentagon recordings showed it clear as a bell the truthers would claim they are faked.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=72825&t=280070
I don't get the angle that the Pentagon is "waiting to spring the tapes on us to catch us". They have had almost 7 years to do 'something'. Fake the tapes or release tapes to show us up and stop the whole Pentagon argument.

Funny how the government hasn't put out a "fake" video as they suspect.
So if they released a video that had a perfect image of flight 77 hitting the pentagon why would truthers think it was real?
They have no problem believing the government would fake a video so why would they believe anything the government says?
Well they do when they have a witness who supports their fantasies.

[Alt+F4]

Even if the pentagon recordings showed it clear as a bell the truthers would claim they are faked.

Exactly. If the videos showed the plane hitting the Pentagon the "truthers" will say they were faked/doctored by the government. If the videos don't show the plane hitting the Pentagon the "truthers" will say the videos are 100% legitimate.

That's why these people are conspiracy liars. They only believe something is true if it fits their agenda.

[Alt+F4]

They have no problem believing the government would fake a video so why would they believe anything the government says?

They believe the government when the FBI states why UBL isn't on the ten most wanted list.
They believe the government when they say that the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics states that the flights in question never existed.

They only believe the government when it fits their illogical reasoning.

[defaultdotxbe]

They believe the government when the FBI states why UBL isn't on the ten most wanted list.
They believe the government when they say that the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics states that the flights in question never existed.

They only believe the government when it fits their illogical reasoning.
same applied to mainstream media sources, they will happily cite cnn, bbc and even fox news when they reprint that "i wasnt involved" statement that was read on al-jazeera, but will denounce them as arms of the nwo when they disagree, they even claim al-jazeera is a front for the bbc and thus it cant be trusted either, lol

[Tweeter]

When you look suspicious, act suspicious and outcomes are suspicious, someone might get suspicious.

[Brainache]

When you look suspicious, act suspicious and outcomes are suspicious, someone might get suspicious.

Yeah, I'd watch that if I were you.

[Tweeter]

We're not talking about their cameras. You understand the difference between a camera and a recorder yes?

They could have ten thousand cameras with full patch Super 35 sized CMOS chips capturing video in constant bit rate at 4K resolution (not that such cameras existed in 2001) for all I care, and it wouldn't change my point.

As I've mentioned, places like the Pentagon don't find cameras that useful anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if there isn't a single surveillance camera inside the building.

i really dont know and neither do you
but why would some building that holds the most guarded secrets of war ever have "recorders", its ludicrous to think they might.

[Tweeter]

When you look suspicious, act suspicious and outcomes are suspicious, someone might get suspicious.
Yeah, I'd watch that if I were you.

I`m a cop.

[Brainache]

I`m a cop.

If that is true, then I weep for the standards of whatever Law Enforcement Agency that hired you.

[parky76]

85 cameras all pointing at the exact same spot?

=)

[Tweeter]

Gumboot, tell this guy we`re not talking about cameras. The sheer stupidity is mind-boggling.

[Jonnyclueless]

When you look suspicious, act suspicious and outcomes are suspicious, someone might get suspicious.

If all you are looking for is something suspicious, everything will seem suspicious.

[Brainache]

Gumboot, tell this guy we`re not talking about cameras. The sheer stupidity is mind-boggling.


Errr The title of this thread: Acknowledgement of 85 cameras at the Pentagon?

So what are we talking about Tweeter?

[Tweeter]

Thats what i thought until gumboot corrected me.


We're not talking about their cameras. You understand the difference between a camera and a recorder yes?

[Brainache]

i really dont know and neither do you
but why would some building that holds the most guarded secrets of war ever have "recorders", its ludicrous to think they might.

OK then, to get back to this point: The section of wall hit by the plane was a fairly non descript piece of the building, can you as a law enforcement officer think of any reason why the Pentagon Security force would want to record endless hours of footage of a blank concrete wall?

[parky76]

Gumboot, tell this guy we`re not talking about cameras. The sheer stupidity is mind-boggling.

What is the title of this topic?

lol

[defaultdotxbe]

i really dont know and neither do you
but why would some building that holds the most guarded secrets of war ever have "recorders", its ludicrous to think they might.
actually it is, the purpose of recorders is to find and prosecute someone after the fact, in the case of military secrets you dont want there to be a fact in the first place, thats why the pentagon used live security instead of passive video cameras

[parky76]

OK then, to get back to this point: The section of wall hit by the plane was a fairly non descript piece of the building, can you as a law enforcement officer think of any reason why the Pentagon Security force would want to record endless hours of footage of a blank concrete wall?

Cause the NWO knew the exact location of the missile strike so they should have every camera pointed at that spot so that the 9-11 truth club could yell "inside job".

=)

[Jonnyclueless]

I agree that having 85 cameras pointing at a wall is a bit suspicious. And the plane just happened to hit the wall with 85 cameras pointed at it? That's too much of a coincidence.

[parky76]

Yes. There really should be a 2nd investigation. But wait...we cant trust the governmant. But wait..we cant trust the UN. But wait..we cant trust the EU.

Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran, should investigate 9-11. =)

[BenBurch]

...
Many conspiracy theorists make the mistake of assuming that if there is a security camera, it must be recorded. This is far from the truth.

And the police know, to their sorrow, that most security cameras that ARE recorded are recorded onto a videotape that has been rewound and re-used so often that the images are almost useless in identifying anything or anybody.

[BenBurch]

When you look suspicious, act suspicious and outcomes are suspicious, someone might get suspicious.

That sums up the "Truth" Movement perfectly.

I will push for the next Administration to task a justice department team to conduct a FULL investigation of the "Truth" Movement.

[pomeroo]

When you look suspicious, act suspicious and outcomes are suspicious, someone might get suspicious.


When you look dumb, act dumb, sound dumb, and write dumb, people might get the idea...well, you know.

[gumboot]

i really dont know and neither do you

Well we do, because we've been told by Pentagon staff and the FBI that this is the case.



but why would some building that holds the most guarded secrets of war ever have "recorders", its ludicrous to think they might.

What a stupid comment.

[gumboot]

Gumboot, tell this guy we`re not talking about cameras. The sheer stupidity is mind-boggling.

What guy?

Is he part of the conversation I was having? No. So he can talk about whatever he wants. I was talking about recordings. You were silly enough to reply to my conversation about recordings by talking about cameras. I corrected you for your mistake.

That doesn't mean other people can't have conversations about cameras if they want. In fact you can even discuss cameras with them if you like.

[gumboot]

I agree that having 85 cameras pointing at a wall is a bit suspicious. And the plane just happened to hit the wall with 85 cameras pointed at it? That's too much of a coincidence.


The ultimate proof of its suspiciousness is of course the fact that all evidence of these 85 cameras - including the 85 videos they produced - have been disappeared.

Inside JOB!

[BenBurch]

The ultimate proof of its suspiciousness is of course the fact that all evidence of these 85 cameras - including the 85 videos they produced - have been disappeared.

Inside JOB!

I'm rather proud of it! I personally removed 30 of them in about an hour.

[CptColumbo]

Makes you wonder how crimes were ever solved before video surveilance came along. It's not like there is any other way to solve a crime or gather evidence, is there?

[Jonnyclueless]

The ultimate proof of its suspiciousness is of course the fact that all evidence of these 85 cameras - including the 85 videos they produced - have been disappeared.

Inside JOB!

Along with the evidence that 85 cameras even exist. Correct me if I am wrong, but has that yet to be proven?

[jberryhill]

logistics may have been a concern, its impractical to record dozens of video feeds to VHS (which was the standard in 2001)


VHS multiplexers for security systems, in which each nth frame of n cameras is recorded in sequence, were also common in 2001.

But, yes, the notion of training a camera on a patch of empty lawn in front of a wall is beyond stupid. Cameras are pointed at entrances, doorways, hallways, etc., unless they were concerned about unauthorized hacky-sack games breaking out on the lawn.

The notion that the Pentagon is going to publish details of the building security systems is also stupid beyond belief.

[MSgtWeiss]

Excellent point, rightshu, on the "thousand-dollar toilet seat."

When I worked in the Pentagon one of our contracting officers gave me a slightly different explanation, though there may have been several variations on purchase contracts back then.

Also, whenever the subject came up, this poor guy was usually turning purple, cursing, and ripping up the offending copy of the Washington Post, so I may not have gotten it right, either.

As best I recall, he said that some contracts had been written so that supplying parts for a piece of equipment, like a tank, worked on a quarterly-minimum scale that made sure the manufacturer got a smooth cash flow during the life of the contract. How each item was priced, therefore, was almost arbitrary, and had nothing to do with how much the taxpayer paid for the tank & replacement parts in the long run; that was a set figure.

Outside of the logistics guys I worked with, this is the first time in 25 years that I've ever actually seen a proper defense of the infamous toilet seat. So much for honesty in reporting in the media.

[LashL]

Along with the evidence that 85 cameras even exist. Correct me if I am wrong, but has that yet to be proven?


No, there is no evidence of 85 cameras. Rather, the FBI obtained 85 videos from various sources - but it turns out that the majority of them do not even include video of the Pentagon pre-crash or at all. There is a list of the videos here: http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html

[pomeroo]

No, there is no evidence of 85 cameras. Rather, the FBI obtained 85 videos from various sources - but it turns out that the majority of them do not even include video of the Pentagon pre-crash or at all. There is a list of the videos here: http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html



No matter how often you point out that the security cameras were not set to catch an object moving over 750 feet per second, THEY JUST DON'T CARE.

No matter how often you explain that there weren't 85 cameras, THEY JUST DON'T CARE.

[BenBurch]

Makes you wonder how crimes were ever solved before video surveilance came along. It's not like there is any other way to solve a crime or gather evidence, is there?

Same way this one was; By looking at the aftermath.

[LashL]

No matter how often you point out that the security cameras were not set to catch an object moving over 750 feet per second, THEY JUST DON'T CARE.

No matter how often you explain that there weren't 85 cameras, THEY JUST DON'T CARE.

They also seem to not realize, or care, that at least 40 of the 85 videos were not even footage shot in Washington, D.C.

[CptColumbo]

Same way this one was; By looking at the aftermath.
Exactly.

[Par]

I’m mystified as to why people are still talking to Mr. “The Truth is Out There” Tweeter – the most compelling argument for the prophylactic ever there was.

The ignore feature is a wonderful thing, people. (There’s nowt so zealous as a recent convert.)

[Bobert]

If these CIT frauds believe that the government planted DNA at the Pentagon WHY ON EARTH would they believ ANY VIDEO that the government had of a plane hitting the pentagon?

They would chaulk it up as the government has had years to alter the video or yada yada yada.

[Jonnyclueless]

Well you guys aren't gonna believe it, but the guys at CIT just shared with me their latest breaking news which conclusively proves there was an inside job. They managed to finally obtain some of the secret pentagon camera footage that shows conclusively what hit the WTC. Better check it quick before the CIA shuts it down to keep it under wraps.

Pentagon Footage! (http://www.3d-nut.com/videos/skycutter40.wmv)

[A W Smith]

I am reminded of an episode of the crime show The First 48 (http://www.aetv.com/the_first_48/episodes/). They were investigating a store robbery gone wrong. A trio of teens shot and killed a shop customer who threw a bottle at them. The police became aware of a video surveillance system at a store adjacent to the bungled robbery. They asked the proprietor who barely spoke English if he had external video of the night before. he invited them upstairs to the office only to show them a series of monitors and a broken video recorder which had not functioned in months.

Jonnyclueless, That looks like Doms Susan Mcelwain video! But without the minivan or poles!! Did it shoot a farm tractor out of the sky?

[pomeroo]

Well you guys aren't gonna believe it, but the guys at CIT just shared with me their latest breaking news which conclusively proves there was an inside job. They managed to finally obtain some of the secret pentagon camera footage that shows conclusively what hit the WTC. Better check it quick before the CIA shuts it down to keep it under wraps.

Pentagon Footage! (http://www.3d-nut.com/videos/skycutter40.wmv)


I can hear Clouseau, the patron saint of the CIT, saying, "Ah, ze old lawn mow-air treeck."

[Travis]

DOD: So, how are you going to guard the Pentagon?

Contractor: We have 85 video cameras oriented in every direction imaginable with 10000x3000 resolution at 24fps!

DOD: Uh, so what stops someone from sneaking in and stealing our secrets?

Contractor: Well, nothing... but we'll have great video footage of the guy that did it. We'd nail him for sure!

DOD: But by that time he'd already have copied it and handed it off to whoever he worked for?

Contractor: Yeah, but we'd still nail the guy!

DOD: But the secret is already out! We can't have the secret getting out period, it doesn't matter if we get the guy after the fact! Can't we just use live police that will prevent intruders from getting in in the first place?

Contractor: Well........ yeah but that wouldn't be nearly as cool.

DOD: **sigh**

Contractor: Okay, now here we have the M875 Laser Anti Air system. This thing will automatically detect and incinerate anything bigger than a seagull within ten miles of the Pentagon.

DOD: Uh, we're right in the flight path of a major airport.

Contractor: Damn it! You people are really cramping my style! Don't you watch movies!?!

[ref]

To make it clear for any rational people, here is the story once more.

There are no 85 tapes from Pentagon. There are 85 tapes. Many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all. Instead, many have footage of the WTC, some are security video tapes taken from a Kinko's in Florida, etc. Some that show the Pentagon were taken days after the attacks, and some in the evening of 9/11/2001.

See the list of tapes and their descriptions here:
http://flight77.info/85videos.html

Why did agent Maguire talk about 85 tapes, then? Why did she think these 85 tapes were potentially responsive to a FOIA request, eventhough all of them were not even of the Pentagon area?

The answer lies in the way she determined which tapes could possibly be potentially responsive to a FOIA request.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13639483919e07576a.jpg

I searched a series of FBI databases ... and determined that the FBI possessed 85 videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request. This determination was based on videotapes that had been submitted into FBI evidence, sent directly to the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, and/or obtained by the FBI's Washington Field Office

The Florida and WTC tapes are included, because Maguire determined that tapes sent to Quantico, Virginia could be potentially responsive to the FOIA request. The Florida and WTC tapes included in this 85 tape count were all received at Quantico, so she included those tapes to the 85 tapes. Obviously, not all tapes sent to Quantico were from the Pentagon, so she determined that only a few show anything relevant at all.

In a nutshell, there are no 85 tapes from Pentagon. There are 85 tapes that an agent determined could potentially show something, since they were received at Quantico, Virginia, or Washington Field Office.

Of course, this explanation only works for the rationalists. Some truthers have already determined, that the tape descriptions are lies.

[LogicalThinkking]

I'd also like some things clarified: Why from over 80 videos of footage (plus the videos from surveillance cameras confiscated from the private businesses nearby) of the pentagon crash, the FBI released only 2 videos with the worst possible quality and frame-rate, on which you can't EVEN SEE THE PLANE. Also, why does the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense have the have the worst possible security/surveillance cameras? I've seen better cameras in 3rd world countries' grocery stores.

[tj15]

I'd also like some things clarified: Why from over 80 videos of footage (plus the videos from surveillance cameras confiscated from the private businesses nearby), the FBI released only 2 videos with the worst possible quality and frame-rate, on which you can't EVEN SEE THE PLANE. Also, why does the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense have the have the worst possible security/surveillance cameras? I've seen better cameras in 3rd world countries' grocery stores.

This thread is not about flight 77.

[PhantomWolf]

I'd also like some things clarified: Why from over 80 videos of footage (plus the videos from surveillance cameras confiscated from the private businesses nearby), the FBI released only 2 videos with the worst possible quality and frame-rate, on which you can't EVEN SEE THE PLANE. Also, why does the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense have the have the worst possible security/surveillance cameras? I've seen better cameras in 3rd world countries' grocery stores.

Actually a number of them have been released, but only one shows the plane/impact. Others that have been released include the Citgo footage.

One of the issues is that the footage is not owned by the FBI but rather is privately owned from local businesses. The other major issue is that security cameras rarely are pointed up at the sky, but rather at the things they are supposed to be watching, thus they don't have any images of the plane or impact in them and so there is no need to release them.

As to the camera quality, cameras only need to be able to do what they are there for. The car park camera was to take images of the nearby cars, not planes travelling at 400+ mph at the other end of the Pentagon. Why use a HD camera to take images of cars? Grocery store cameras are usually better quality because they are there to allow identification of a person, so they need high quality images to do that. Identifying a car is a lot easier, so the camera can be of lower quality. It's called only installing what is needed rather than spending megabucks on a system that isn't needed. The military only does that on its weapons systems.

[LogicalThinkking]

As to the camera quality, cameras only need to be able to do what they are there for. The car park camera was to take images of the nearby cars, not planes travelling at 400+ mph at the other end of the Pentagon. Why use a HD camera to take images of cars? Grocery store cameras are usually better quality because they are there to allow identification of a person, so they need high quality images to do that. Identifying a car is a lot easier, so the camera can be of lower quality. It's called only installing what is needed rather than spending megabucks on a system that isn't needed. The military only does that on its weapons systems.


Sorry to say, but that is one of the worst explanations I've seen yet. Firstly about the cameras: as I said, it's the HEADQUARTERS of the United States DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE (that alone implies that it should have the best security and surveillance possible). No one says they should have super high-tech HD cameras (or that it should be pointing at the sky, when the "plane was flying really low"), but having a camera that could actually record and identify the car and driver at normal quality and frame-rate. The footage that was finally released in May 2006 would've been hilarious if it wasn't a tragedy. And then there's a conveniently placed object that blocks the view of the "plane". What a coincidence!

Actually a number of them have been released, but only one shows the plane/impact. Others that have been released include the Citgo footage.

One of the issues is that the footage is not owned by the FBI but rather is privately owned from local businesses. The other major issue is that security cameras rarely are pointed up at the sky, but rather at the things they are supposed to be watching, thus they don't have any images of the plane or impact in them and so there is no need to release them.

Oh and of course, that explains why the FBI quickly confiscated them. And if they don't show no crash impact, why not release them, to satisfy the curious?
About the Citgo tape: If the FBI is SO truthful and honest, explain this: In an interview, the gas station owner said "I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

Oh and sorry for sticking all this in a flight 93 thread.

[applecorped]

You're not sorry, you're disingenuous. All you have is speculation and that seems enough for you. Evidence be damned.

[DGM]

Sorry to say, but that is one of the worst explanations I've seen yet. Firstly about the cameras: as I said, it's the HEADQUARTERS of the United States DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE (that alone implies that it should have the best security and surveillance possible). No one says they should have super high-tech HD cameras (or that it should be pointing at the sky, when the "plane was flying really low"), but having a camera that could actually record and identify the car and driver at normal quality and frame-rate. The footage that was finally released in May 2006 would've been hilarious if it wasn't a tragedy. And then there's a conveniently placed object that blocks the view of the "plane". What a coincidence!



Oh and of course, that explains why the FBI quickly confiscated them. And if they don't show no crash impact, why not release them, to satisfy the curious?
About the Citgo tape: If the FBI is SO truthful and honest, explain this: In an interview, the gas station owner said "I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

Oh and sorry for sticking all this in a flight 93 thread.
Take it to one of the flight 77 threads. Your posting of topic.

Does your local grocery story have it's own army for security? Think!

[LogicalThinkking]

You're not sorry, you're disingenuous. All you have is speculation and that seems enough for you. Evidence be damned.

Yes, that's how you do it! Change the subject and insult me. Evidence?! You call three frames of nothing, evidence?! It is you who is the hypocrite.

Take it to one of the flight 77 threads. Your posting of topic.

Does your local grocery story have it's own army for security? Think!

"Local grocery store". VERY funny. I did live in alot of places, but thankfully I did get out from there. Anyways, no, my "local grocery store" does not have an army. But where was that "army" when the "plane" crashed? Wasn't it supposed to scramble jets? (Please don't even go saying "it's not the army that does that" or something in that matter.)

And yes, I am posting off-topic and this is my last post in this thread.

[Par]

But where was that "army" when the "plane" crashed? Wasn't it supposed to scramble jets?


It’s not the army that does that.

[applecorped]

Yes, that's how you do it! Change the subject and insult me. Evidence?! You call three frames of nothing, evidence?! It is you who is the hypocrite.



"Local grocery store". VERY funny. I did live in alot of places, but thankfully I did get out from there. Anyways, no, my "local grocery store" does not have an army. But where was that "army" when the "plane" crashed? Wasn't it supposed to scramble jets? (Please don't even go saying "it's not the army that does that" or something in that matter.)

And yes, I am posting off-topic and this is my last post in this thread.

I doubt that. Trooothers are compulsive. You can't help yourself. Maybe it's a disease. A government created disease? Hmmmmm....

[DGM]

I doubt that. Trooothers are compulsive. You can't help yourself. Maybe it's a disease. A government created disease? Hmmmmm....
CHEM-TRAILS!!!!!!!!!!! Bawahahahaha

[PhantomWolf]

Since this has been moved to it's own thread...

Sorry to say, but that is one of the worst explanations I've seen yet. Firstly about the cameras: as I said, it's the HEADQUARTERS of the United States DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE (that alone implies that it should have the best security and surveillance possible). No one says they should have super high-tech HD cameras (or that it should be pointing at the sky, when the "plane was flying really low"), but having a camera that could actually record and identify the car and driver at normal quality and frame-rate. The footage that was finally released in May 2006 would've been hilarious if it wasn't a tragedy. And then there's a conveniently placed object that blocks the view of the "plane". What a coincidence!

What does this have to do with the price of petrol? All you have is your incredulity that the Pentagon wouldn't spend millions on a camera. Your claim that it is the "HEADQUARTERS of the United States DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE" is also worthless because for all intents and purposes all the Pentagon is is an office building, nothing more. You are making massive assumptions, such as that the camera is supposed to be able to identify the driver, but you do nothing to establish this other than wave your hands about in some attempt to make people simply accept that this is what should be done. Sorry, you fail.

Oh and of course, that explains why the FBI quickly confiscated them. And if they don't show no crash impact, why not release them, to satisfy the curious?

Again, they are not the property of the FBI to publically release.

About the Citgo tape: If the FBI is SO truthful and honest, explain this: In an interview, the gas station owner said "I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

How has his comment got anything to do with the FBI's honesty? I very much doubt he rushed up to look at the tape, and the FBI's job was to determine what happened. Why wouldn't they take any and every tape in the area that MIGHT have something on it? Surely it'd be more suspicious if they hadn't bothered doing so. Quite simply they didn't know what would be on a tape until they watched it, so they had to get the tapes to do that. Once watched they were and still are under no obligation to release them to the public simply because they are private property. In some cases, such as the DoD tapes, where the tapes are owned by the Government they have released footage, and in a few cases they have released other footage, but without legal authorisation they cannot publically release private footage.

[stevenwarran]

LogicalThinking makes excellent points.

He says "having a camera that could actually record and identify the car and driver at normal quality and frame-rate."

Of course. It was an entry into a secured Remote Delivery Facility. How about we make out the license plate too?

LogicalThinking says "the FBI quickly confiscated them. And if they don't show no crash impact, why not release them, to satisfy the curious?"

To which PhantomWolf says "Again, they are not the property of the FBI to publicly release."

That's right. They are the FBI's property to privately conceal.

As to the all important five frames, they were never officially released. They were leaked to the press, and when the press asked if they were legitimate, the FBI didn't deny it.

THAT'S WHAT WE GET FOR TRILLION AFTER TRILLION AFTER TRILLION AFTER TRILLION'S OF DOLLARS!

Excuse me. Can anybody else make sense out of the FBI's behavior? How could they treat a matter as important so shabbily?

[Finnegan]

This is pure speculation (meaning: this can't be cited as 'stoopid debunkery') but could the limited release of security footage be partially motivated by a desire not to heavily indicate the details, and positioning, of the Pentagon security network?

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again. someone please present this evidence of there being 80 cameras at the Pentagon. Let's first stop making things up, and then start discussing maybe?

[PhantomWolf]

LogicalThinking makes excellent points.

No he waves his hands and makes claims without any backup.

He says "having a camera that could actually record and identify the car and driver at normal quality and frame-rate."

Of course. It was an entry into a secured Remote Delivery Facility. How about we make out the license plate too?

The place I work runs an unmanned remote controlled Gas Plant (the plant is about 30km away from the control room) and so the it has cameras that cover the plant and gate. None of them are enough to read the licence plate, and they are zoomable and remote controlled, not stationary like the Pentagon car parks. It can however be used to determine if a vehicle should be there or not. The Pentagon camera was easily able to do its job, it didn't havbe to read licence plates ID dirivers or spot planes down the other end of the Pentagon. Any claim that it should have been able to do these things results in the burden of proof to show that it should have, not just waving hands and saying "I think it should have so it should have."

LogicalThinking says "the FBI quickly confiscated them. And if they don't show no crash impact, why not release them, to satisfy the curious?"

To which PhantomWolf says "Again, they are not the property of the FBI to publicly release."

That's right. They are the FBI's property to privately conceal.

Incorrect, they are not the FBI's property fullstop. They belong to the person who took them or the owner of the camera. T.A.M posted this link in the original thread (http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html) It has a list of the 85 videos and where they came from. Look through it. Many have nothing to do with the Pentagon, many that do are post crash. Few are taken by cameras owned by Governmental departments. The rest are private property of the person that gave it to the FBI.

As to the all important five frames, they were never officially released. They were leaked to the press, and when the press asked if they were legitimate, the FBI didn't deny it.

Actually this is wrong too. There were initially three leaked frames. They were leaked by the Plantiff's lawers in a lawsuit against the Airlines and others. The full five frames were later released through Judical Watch after they were used as part of the evidence against Zacarias Moussaoui.

THAT'S WHAT WE GET FOR TRILLION AFTER TRILLION AFTER TRILLION AFTER TRILLION'S OF DOLLARS!

What Trillions of dollars?

Excuse me. Can anybody else make sense out of the FBI's behavior? How could they treat a matter as important so shabbily?

They treated it neither shabbily nor poorly. Just because they don't do things the way you think they should be done doesn't make them wrong. Just because they don't release private tapes to the public doesn't make them wrong. They have behaved exactly as they should. They acted quickly to get evidence, they reviewed the evidence and used it in a trail at which point it become public and was released. Items that were not used in the trial were not released without pernmission of the owners. How is this shabby in any way?

[stevenwarran]

This argument is making sense!

"It can however be used to determine if a vehicle should be there or not. The Pentagon camera was easily able to do its job, it didn't havbe to read licence plates ID dirivers or spot planes down the other end of the Pentagon. Any claim that it should have been able to do these things results in the burden of proof to show that it should have,"

What exactly is a security camera's job? To me, it is to provide a reviewable record in case of mishap or other need. If a truck bomb were to make it into the facility, wouldn't you want a record in which a license plate is legible? At the resolution and speed the camera was filming in, what exactly are we witnessing?

I don't understand your arguments about the film which was confiscated from private sources. Are you saying the FBI is protecting privacy rights? The only one I'm interested in anyway was from the Sheraton, which we might as well rename the Pentagon Super 8 motel.

My recollection is the frames were originally leaked to CNN, but I may be wrong. A lawsuit would constitute an official disclosure.

As to, "Just because they don't do things the way you think they should be done doesn't make them wrong," I'll say WRONG BUDDY! It's time to apply some common sense here and hold our public officials to minimum standards of professionalism. The FBI under Van A. Harp and Arther Eberhard are miscreants engaged in organized crime, and the rest of those Holy Cross and Fordham, and Notre Dame jocks had better get off their asses and get to work cleaning house.

[Mr.D]

Oooh. Can I play?

What exactly is a security camera's job? To me, it is to provide a reviewable record in case of mishap or other need. If a truck bomb were to make it into the facility, wouldn't you want a record in which a license plate is legible?

License plate? Feh. Vehicle could be stolen or plate could be forged. What I would want is a record of the driver's DNA.

So to extend your reasoning ...

The Pentagon didn't have security cameras capable of recording the DNA of the people in the parking lot! IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!

(What fun!)

[PhantomWolf]

What exactly is a security camera's job? To me, it is to provide a reviewable record in case of mishap or other need. If a truck bomb were to make it into the facility, wouldn't you want a record in which a license plate is legible? At the resolution and speed the camera was filming in, what exactly are we witnessing?

The camera quite obviously wasn't designed to read number plates because it was fixed and at an angle that it couldn't see them. It appears to just be there to identfy what cars come in an out. More that than I suggest you ask those responsible for the camera, the Pentagon Police Dept.

I don't understand your arguments about the film which was confiscated from private sources. Are you saying the FBI is protecting privacy rights? The only one I'm interested in anyway was from the Sheraton, which we might as well rename the Pentagon Super 8 motel.

Why don't you understand it? The tapes are not the FBI's property therefore they don't have the right to make them public without premission, that's all there is to it. Take some of the most famous footage about, one from 9/11 and one from another day many years ago. The footage of the first plane strike on WTC 1 was taken by the Naudet Brothers. It belongs to them. No one can use that footage without their permission (and generally paying a fee.) The US government (or a department of) can't just release it publically and give it away. The second example is the Zapruder Film. Again this film is owned by the Zapruder Family and to use it you must pay them royalties (quite high ones from what I hear.) In both cases the FBI had access to the footage, but in both cases they could not release it publically because it simply didn't belong to them.

In the same way, it doesn't matter if the footage the FBI has is from a cameraman who filmed the aftermath of the attack, or from a security video from a service station, they can't release it without permission. The sole exception to this is where the footage is used in a trial. Once that happens it's considered public evidence and so is released unless a Judge supresses it.

As to the Sheraton, there is no footage amonst the FBI collection from the Sheraton. The only Hotel footage they have is from the Doubletree and has been released with the hotel owner's permission.

My recollection is the frames were originally leaked to CNN, but I may be wrong. A lawsuit would constitute an official disclosure.

The three frames were leaked by the lawers of the Plantiff in the lawsuit to the media. I can't recall who they released them too. After the trial all five were released properly.

As to, "Just because they don't do things the way you think they should be done doesn't make them wrong," I'll say WRONG BUDDY! It's time to apply some common sense here and hold our public officials to minimum standards of professionalism.

This is just an argument from incredulity. Unless you can so some expertise in the area of law enforcement and what should have been done, you are in no position to say they didn't do it right.

[gumboot]

What exactly is a security camera's job?

A security camera's job is to provide remote observation of a location.



To me, it is to provide a reviewable record in case of mishap or other need.

You would be wrong. That would be a recorder's job.




If a truck bomb were to make it into the facility, wouldn't you want a record in which a license plate is legible? At the resolution and speed the camera was filming in, what exactly are we witnessing?

Why would you need to do that when the security guard on the gate writes down the license plate of every single vehicle that comes through the gate, and any unauthorised (i.e. visitor) vehicles are searched?


I don't understand your arguments about the film which was confiscated from private sources. Are you saying the FBI is protecting privacy rights?

No, US law is protecting privacy and copyright ownership rights. The FBI is merely adhering to said law.



I'll say WRONG BUDDY! It's time to apply some common sense here

You go first.

[BenBurch]

A security camera is there to keep honest people honest; just like locks on your door. Neither one is going to prevent a criminal from doing his thing, and neither one is going to catch him!

[Travis]

Once again, the Pentagon has its own police force and as such does not need a huge array of surveillance cameras. Stop believing Hollywood movies that depict such places as having huge state of the art CCTV systems that can zoom in and read the date on a dime at 100 meters.

[lapman]

Once again, the Pentagon has its own police force and as such does not need a huge array of surveillance cameras. Stop believing Hollywood movies that depict such places as having huge state of the art CCTV systems that can zoom in and read the date on a dime at 100 meters.
But we have spy satellites that do that. So they would have the same technology survailing every square inch of the most heavily protected building in the world!!1!!!111!!!!11!!!!

[Tmy]

This is a 911 sticking point for me. We have one of the most secure buildings in THE WORLD. It must be blanketed by 100's of security cameras monitoring the surrounding area. Yet the only crash footage we ever see is grainy stop action footage from some store across the street.

Where is all the other footage?? And isnt the official pentagon reply is that it "doesnt exist".

[Reheat]

This is a 911 sticking point for me. We have one of the most secure buildings in THE WORLD. It must be blanketed by 100's of security cameras monitoring the surrounding area. Yet the only crash footage we ever see is grainy stop action footage from some store across the street.

Where is all the other footage?? And isnt the official pentagon reply is that it "doesnt exist".

Did you know the year is 2008?

How do you know it is one of the most secure buildings in the world? Secure from what?

If you don't believe the Official Word from the FBI then it's intuitively obvious that you won't believe anyone here.

Go away to a troofer site where you obviously belong....

[HyJinX]

This is a 911 sticking point for me. We have one of the most secure buildings in THE WORLD. It must be blanketed by 100's of security cameras monitoring the surrounding area. Yet the only crash footage we ever see is grainy stop action footage from some store across the street.

Where is all the other footage?? And isnt the official pentagon reply is that it "doesnt exist".

TMY...this issue has been discussed to death here. You have a lot of posts so I'll assume that you know about the search function. Please take the time to research your questions...not only here, but on some of the 9/11 debunking sites. If you still have questions, please come back.

[A W Smith]

do banks have cameras aimed at the skies surrounding the buildings or the tellers and ATM's, do convenience stores have cameras aimed up and down the streets outside or the cashier? Do prisons have cameras aimed at the surrounding neighborhoods or the exercise courts and cell blocks? do park and ride lots have cameras focused on the neighboring streets and skies or the parking lots? Are their any ammunition depots within the pentagon building that may be bombed or just government offices protected by blast resistant walls??

[Tmy]

TMY...this issue has been discussed to death here. You have a lot of posts so I'll assume that you know about the search function. Please take the time to research your questions...not only here, but on some of the 9/11 debunking sites. If you still have questions, please come back.

Ya know, an answer to the question wouldve been alot shorter than your leacture.

Why bother having an active 911 conspiracy page since everything has already been done to death since 2002?

[SezMe]

Why bother having an active 911 conspiracy page since everything has already been done to death since 2002?
Too give some posters a chance create some death warmed over?

[GeeMack]

Ya know, an answer to the question wouldve been alot shorter than your leacture.

Why bother having an active 911 conspiracy page since everything has already been done to death since 2002?


Because some ignorant Truther or another pops in regularly to just-ask-questions that have been answered ad nauseam. Here is a typical example of exactly such an ignorant Truther asking just that sort of stupid, previously answered question... LINK (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119807)

[Tmy]

Well I did a search and found snot.

Tried "pentagon footage" and "pentagon video footage". I didnt find any threads on point.

[T.A.M.]

Search harder Tmy.

It has been covered over and over and over and over.

85 videos. only one had any footage of that part of the pentagon at the time of the attack, that contained any images that could be interpreted as AA77.

It has been covered. It has been covered.

Either you do not know how to use the search engine correctly, or you lied. I do not care which one it is really.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

Ya know, an answer to the question wouldve been alot shorter than your leacture.

Why bother having an active 911 conspiracy page since everything has already been done to death since 2002?


Yawn. We'll run through the usual drill and you can tell us why everyone is lying:

(From the Popular Mechanics book)

"While most advanced security and surveillance cameras can be set to capture real-time video, the attached recording systems are almost always set at significantly slower frame rates in order to conserve storage space. As a result, it is unlikely that the recording rate of any nearby security camera would be set at a rate high enough to capture the speeding plane with decent resolution."

Isn't it long past time for conspiracy liars to explain why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy DID NOT fake videos of the crash?

[A W Smith]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=pentagon+camera+footage&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=forums.randi.org&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off

[HyJinX]

Ya know, an answer to the question wouldve been alot shorter than your leacture.

Why bother having an active 911 conspiracy page since everything has already been done to death since 2002?

Wow...you spent a WHOLE 15 minutes cruisin here and the interwebs. You're quite the super sleuth. Take a few days if you're really that interested. I tell ya, the truthers want fast-food answers to all thier questions...and the world just doesn't work that.

Say...can you explain quantum physics and the theory of relativity to me?

I'll check back in 20 minutes.

[T.A.M.]

http://flight77.info/85videos.html

TAM:)

Edit:

Or here, look, a 3 page thread about just that...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113630

[johnny karate]

This is a 911 sticking point for me. We have one of the most secure buildings in THE WORLD. It must be blanketed by 100's of security cameras monitoring the surrounding area. Yet the only crash footage we ever see is grainy stop action footage from some store across the street.

Where is all the other footage?? And isnt the official pentagon reply is that it "doesnt exist".

Why do you need video footage to verify an event witnessed by hundreds of people?

[ktesibios]

The search function on the forum isn't the most reliable thing in the world. What often works better is to go to Google Advanced search, put in your keywords and enter "randi.org" in the box labeled "Search within a site or domain".

Try This Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=pentagon+video&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=randi.org&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images) (just click the link) and you'll get over a hundred hits from threads pertaining to "Pentagon video".

And, since I'm in an inexplicably generous mood, here's a post you might want to read (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3332963&postcount=74) about Pentagon security.

Executive summary: you're engaging in the "If I ran the Zoo" fallacy. Stop it.

[T.A.M.]

I agree that the search engine here can be, at times, less than helpful.

That said, if all else fails, do a google search, with "jref" and "pentagon videos".

TAM:)

[Tmy]

Say...can you explain quantum physics and the theory of relativity to me?

I'll check back in 20 minutes.

Little things moving really fast. The universe is doughnut shaped.

Is that so hard.


Geez I dont know why you all even come to this forum. Is there anything new on the 911 conspiracies in the last 5 years??

I was going to ask "Why dont they ban all futher skyscrapper buildings since they come down with a mere plane crash" thread but now Im afraid.

[OldTigerCub]

Well I did a search and found snot.

Tried "pentagon footage" and "pentagon video footage". I didnt find any threads on point.

Try this webpage:

http://flight77.info/documents.htm

Found at this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115666&highlight=pentagon+cameras

;)

[Magenta]

From Gravy's website:

Pentagon Attack & Flight 77 Evidence Summary & Links (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary)


When I saw this thread I thought it must be from a new poster. I'm kind of surprised it's from a veteran JREF member.

[Tmy]

I havent really been around in quite some time. Even then I was mainly in the Politics section.

[HyJinX]

Little things moving really fast. The universe is doughnut shaped.

Is that so hard.


Geez I dont know why you all even come to this forum. Is there anything new on the 911 conspiracies in the last 5 years??

I was going to ask "Why dont they ban all futher skyscrapper buildings since they come down with a mere plane crash" thread but now Im afraid.

You should be afraid. That would be a stupid thread.

Oh...and you're completely wrong about Quantum Physics and the theory of relativity. Sheesh.

[RedIbis]

Isn't it long past time for conspiracy liars to explain why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy DID NOT fake videos of the crash?

No need when they have people like you to carry the water for them.

[Tmy]

You should be afraid. That would be a stupid thread.

Oh...and you're completely wrong about Quantum Physics and the theory of relativity. Sheesh.

So the universe is NOT doughnut shaped???


Man, you guyz should really lighten up. I didnt realize the conspiracy forum was a well oiled insult machine.

[beachnut]

Little things moving really fast. The universe is doughnut shaped.

Is that so hard.


Geez I dont know why you all even come to this forum. Is there anything new on the 911 conspiracies in the last 5 years??

I was going to ask "Why dont they ban all futher skyscrapper buildings since they come down with a mere plane crash" thread but now Im afraid.
The planes were speeding. kinetic energy was 7 to 11 times the aircraft impact design. (for the WTC towers, really strong)

physics

I assume you tried a straight google search with "jref" and your topic. good luck, but don't say faster than freefall

or frau blucker

[Jonnyclueless]

This is a 911 sticking point for me. We have one of the most secure buildings in THE WORLD. It must be blanketed by 100's of security cameras monitoring the surrounding area. Yet the only crash footage we ever see is grainy stop action footage from some store across the street.

Where is all the other footage?? And isnt the official pentagon reply is that it "doesnt exist".

Uh my Dog ate it? As mentioned, this has been discussed at least 10,000 times on the forum. So far the answer has not changed.

[AZCat]

So the universe is NOT doughnut shaped???


Man, you guyz should really lighten up. I didnt realize the conspiracy forum was a well oiled insult machine.

It's a bit insular.

That aside, how does the lack of videos of the crash at the Pentagon affect your opinion of the events that day?

[Tmy]

I thought the impact was absorbed. Wasnt it the fire that did the buidlings in? Cant this attack be relatively easy to repeat?

[Tmy]

It's a bit insular.

That aside, how does the lack of videos of the crash at the Pentagon affect your opinion of the events that day?

I found it odd and asked a simple question. I didnt even get into my personal opinion of the day. People just assumed things.

[HyJinX]

So the universe is NOT doughnut shaped???


Man, you guyz should really lighten up. I didnt realize the conspiracy forum was a well oiled insult machine.

Sorry TMY...had a crappy day. Please accept my apologies.

[Magenta]

Man, you guyz should really lighten up. I didnt realize the conspiracy forum was a well oiled insult machine.


Don't take it personally; people are fed up with the just-asking-questions MO of truthers who then ignore any answers they're given. The forum thread TAM linked in post #13 should answer your OP.

[OldTigerCub]

I thought the impact was absorbed. Wasnt it the fire that did the buidlings in? Cant this attack be relatively easy to repeat?

Impact and fires. Impact and fires.
Structural damage from impacts. More structural damage from the resulting fires.
With the post 9-11 mindset, it seems unlikely any U.S. commercial flight will ever be successfully hijacked again, at least not without a major fight from crews, passengers and sky marshalls.

[Tmy]

Don't take it personally; people are fed up with the just-asking-questions MO of truthers who then ignore any answers they're given. The forum thread TAM linked in post #13 should answer your OP.


No problem. I troll forums that are way meaner than this. :)

Hey, my crappy thread has already hit 31 posts. Cant be all that bad!

[X]

Apologies, Tmy, for the surliness of everyone.

Put it down to a recent influx of very stubbornly-ignorant truthers touting long-deceased canards that have no basis in fact, and the utter refusal of said new arrivals to listen to the answers.


It gets frustrating, especially when they appear almost simultaneously, and all behave the exact same way.

Give it a week or two, and a few of the more troublesome ones will be banned, and people here will be a little less testy.


And regarding your first question:
There may be many cameras, but relatively few of them were pointed along the flight path. Security cameras tend to be pointed at things that are of interest, like access points. Any view of the incoming craft would have to be from a camera that had the flightpath as a background due to the orientation of the camera to its item of interest
(please don't show that sentence to my English teacher...).

As it happens, there is at least one of these.
But the view is so distance and the framerate so slow as to render only a brief blur, across only a few frames.

It's the best we have, and it fits with all the other evidence placing Flight 77 in the Pentagon that day.

[beachnut]

I thought the impact was absorbed. Wasnt it the fire that did the buidlings in? Cant this attack be relatively easy to repeat?

Did you read the Clancy novel with the guy who used his own plane to take out Congress, and Ryan was President! The guy was RICH! He used a big plane!

The impacts took out 6 and 10 core columns, proportional to the energy of the impacts. The design impact would have only breached the building with minor office damage, but still a big blast like a 200 pound bomb. But not like the 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts on 9/11.

But yes, fire was a big factor.

Do you have your own big plane?

[T.A.M.]

TMY:

yah, grumble grumble...sorry about the harsh reply....grumble grumble....like others have said...grumble grumble...a plethoric (a word?) influx of dismally stupid and obnoxious truthers recently, as us all a little testy.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

This is a 911 sticking point for me. We have one of the most secure buildings in THE WORLD. It must be blanketed by 100's of security cameras monitoring the surrounding area. Yet the only crash footage we ever see is grainy stop action footage from some store across the street.

Where is all the other footage?? And isnt the official pentagon reply is that it "doesnt exist".


Hi TMY,

My apologies for the rather caustic responses you have got - most of the posters are pretty jaded here from repeated instances of Conspiracy Theorists coming to these forums and failing to learn or do any research. They tend to be pretty confrontational with anyone who asks a question.

To address your post above, I believe the root of your troubles is that you're making a number of assumptions that don't necessarily hold true.

Firstly, a camera does not equal footage. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of surveillance cameras are not recorded, and this is especially true of buildings or facilities that have full time security staff.

Secondly, placement of cameras is generally rather precise. Cameras will be installed to cover a particular area of interest, such as in the blind corner of a shop, behind a til, at a loading dock, and so forth.

The Pentagon undoubtedly has many cameras installed. However it also has a quite substantial full time police force protecting it. As such we can safely conclude that the majority of the Pentagon's cameras are not recorded, but provide remote surveillance for police staff to monitor.

However I think it's safe to assume that some Pentagon cameras are recorded.

But how many cameras would be looking at the wall of the Pentagon where AA77 hit? Well, not many. It's along side a freeway, and there's no carpark along that side. So access is unlikely. About the only thing likely to come and go from that particular spot is a helicopter, but the helipad tower has people in it, so cameras are a bit redundant.

I'd expect recorded cameras at access points - loading docks, carpark entrances, and so forth.

As it happens the wall in question is in the background of one of these recorded cameras - one covering one of the entrances into a Pentagon carpark. And that's where we get our one piece of footage of AA77s impact. It's not a store across the road - it's a Pentagon security camera.

Unfortunately surveillance cameras are typically recorded at very low frame rates - 1 to 3 frames per second. They're not very good for recording distant objects traveling at very high speed.

That's why there's no clear footage of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

[HyJinX]

TMY:

yah, grumble grumble...sorry about the harsh reply....grumble grumble....like others have said...grumble grumble...a plethoric (a word?) influx of dismally stupid and obnoxious truthers recently, as us all a little testy.

TAM:)

A bad day + Turbofan/clippy/papasmurf/Dictator Cheney/et al. = HyJinx being very snotty to TMY.

Bad HyJinx, Bad.

[Tmy]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Do you have your own big plane?

No. But John Travolta does! Do you really trust him!?!?!?

I went to the Pentagon post 911. Holy snap is the security crazy. Im sure theyd see a plane coming now.


By the way I dont really mind the surlyness.

[Reheat]

;3902563']Put it down to a recent influx of very stubbornly-ignorant truthers touting long-deceased canards that have no basis in fact, and the utter refusal of said new arrivals to listen to the answers.


It gets frustrating, especially when they appear almost simultaneously, and all behave the exact same way.

This describes my attitude to a "T". The OP was worded such that my hackles were immediately raised and I didn't even bother to look at the post count.

One more issue that might or might not be mentioned in one of the links is that the Pentagon uses mostly LIVE SECURITY with armed PEOPLE instead of cameras. Cameras and recordings don't react to breaches of security, people do. Film or digital recording is mostly good for investigations in the aftermath, not for stopping something from happening.

In fact, the entire DoD uses this philosophy. There are very few cameras throughout installations world wide.

The most secure areas across the world within DoD are where nuclear assets are involved. There are not a lot of cameras, but there are lots of people.

[HyJinX]

I don't trust anybody that places all their faith in a space alien that was birthed from an angry volcano. I want to check his head for sixes.

[A W Smith]

No. But John Travolta does! Do you really trust him!?!?!?

I went to the Pentagon post 911. Holy snap is the security crazy. Im sure theyd see a plane coming now.


By the way I dont really mind the surlyness.

this is what we do to George Michael and his plane when he visits our state
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/a116813/sting-springsteen-ground-george-michael.html

[nicepants]

Geez I dont know why you all even come to this forum. Is there anything new on the 911 conspiracies in the last 5 years??

This is about it:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Gagebox.jpg/Gagebox-medium;init:.jpg


I was going to ask "Why dont they ban all futher skyscrapper buildings since they come down with a mere plane crash" thread but now Im afraid.

They don't all come down "with a mere plane crash". But given the rarity of such an event, I don't see why anyone would bother to even consider it.

That would be like banning all helicopters because they might collide with each other in mid-air.

[Tmy]

Hi TMY,

My apologies for the rather caustic responses you have got - most of the posters are pretty jaded here from repeated instances of Conspiracy Theorists coming to these forums and failing to learn or do any research. They tend to be pretty confrontational with anyone who asks a question.

To address your post above, I believe the root of your troubles is that you're making a number of assumptions that don't necessarily hold true.

Firstly, a camera does not equal footage. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of surveillance cameras are not recorded, and this is especially true of buildings or facilities that have full time security staff.

.


I agree with what your saying. In a normal situation. But we are talking about the Pentagon here. The place has an entire mall within it, including doctor and dentists offices. This is so the employees do not have to leave the building to do anything until their shift is over.

Logically thinking, one of the most secure buidlings in the world would in fact have the best vid equipment that did record and was pointed in all directions.

[tsig]

I agree with what your saying. In a normal situation. But we are talking about the Pentagon here. The place has an entire mall within it, including doctor and dentists offices. This is so the employees do not have to leave the building to do anything until their shift is over.

Logically thinking, one of the most secure buidlings in the world would in fact have the best vid equipment that did record and was pointed in all directions.

Well here's the thing. You have just been told that this isn't so and you have been told why it isn't so yet instead of trying to answer you mention an irrelevant fact then stubbornly repeat your opinion.

Logical thinking, you are doing it wrong.

Just because you think a thing is so doesn't make it so.

[beachnut]

No. But John Travolta does! Do you really trust him!?!?!?

I went to the Pentagon post 911. Holy snap is the security crazy. Im sure theyd see a plane coming now.


By the way I dont really mind the surlyness.
I did not mean any. You need some?

Gumboot to the rescue, with facts

[HyJinX]

I agree with what your saying. In a normal situation. But we are talking about the Pentagon here. The place has an entire mall within it, including doctor and dentists offices. This is so the employees do not have to leave the building to do anything until their shift is over.

Logically thinking, one of the most secure buidlings in the world would in fact have the best vid equipment that did record and was pointed in all directions.

This is why people start snapping around here. You're interjecting your personal beliefs into this situation and saying that they're facts. They are not facts. Just because there's a dentist or a mall or doctor within the building...that doesn't mean what you think it means. Logically thinking...these things would simply be perks of the job...not to contain the masses until thier shift is over. Why do you keep saying that this building is one of the most secure buildings in the world. Do you have ANY idea of how many people visited this building in a 24 hour period? Why do you think that the pentagon's video equipment would be better than Fort Knox, The White House or the local bank in BFE USA?

Stop portraying your personal beliefs as common facts...it makes you look transparent and uneducated. Truly. Not a smart-ass remark. Just the truth.

[A W Smith]

It was so secure that except for the protection of the construction worksite, there wasn't even any fences around it, In fact CIT members Ranke and Marquis were able to drive right into the parking lot with Video cameras! How friggin secure is that?

[WildCat]

Tmy! Long time no see...

[OldTigerCub]

I found it odd and asked a simple question. I didnt even get into my personal opinion of the day. People just assumed things.

To expand on the sentiments of a few of the regular posters, there has been a recent flood of woo, and it gets tiresome answering questions for people that don't want to learn, but rather have an agenda to press.

If you are really interested in some of the technical details regarding the videos that were captured, and why some CTs try to discredit them, (unsuccessfully, that is) Henry62, an Italian blogger has a great write-up at his page here (http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-dont-pentagon-videos-clearly-show.html).

Edit:oooops....meant to continue...
Frame rates, the type of lens in use, scan speeds....all come into play.
It amazes me that the security cameras got as good of a record as they did. I install and maintain similar cameras and recorders in banks, and it is not unusual to find yourself wishing that the angle, brightness, focus, resolution....was just a little bit different when you have to retrieve video.

[Tweeter]

It was so secure that except for the protection of the construction worksite, there wasn't even any fences around it, In fact CIT members Ranke and Marquis were able to drive right into the parking lot with Video cameras! How friggin secure is that?


Yes, exactly the point.
There are no fences because of the high number of cameras that surround the perimeter. You were being watched and recorded at all times.

[Mobyseven]

Yes, exactly the point.
There are no fences because of the high number of cameras that surround the perimeter. You were being watched and recorded at all times.

And your evidence for this is...?

[Tweeter]

I was there on a class field trip.

[funk de fino]

I was there on a class field trip.

In 2001?

[Tweeter]

Before 2001.

[SezMe]

What was the purpose of your kindergarten class field trip?

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't trust anybody that places all their faith in a space alien that was birthed from an angry volcano. I want to check his head for sixes.

Well that's jsut throwing the baby out with the liquid hot magma....

[chillzero]

Topic merged. Please keep it on point, and civil. Thanks. :)

[funk de fino]

Before 2001.

And they had cameras pointing into the sky?

ETA - stop the press, the most secure building in the world gives tours and field trips and has pissy little barriers at the security checkpoints with 1 FPS cameras

[Par]

Logically thinking, one of the most secure buidlings in the world would in fact have the best vid equipment that did record and was pointed in all directions.


The above is, in fact, the precise opposite of "logical thinking". It's called the appeal to personal incredulity fallacy.

[Drudgewire]

Logically thinking, one of the most secure buidlings in the world would in fact have the best vid equipment that did record and was pointed in all directions.

Logically thinking, those cameras would be INSIDE the Pentagon. The ones which could zoom and see what files an unauthorized person was looking at or what was being attached to a key code to enter a room someone shouldn't be.

Logically thinking, the ones outside the building would be like prison security cameras, where you're more worried about looking for evidence after the fact. In this case, a slower-framed camera is all you need. Anything else would have been considered a pointless waste of storage space for all the footage.

Who, in their wildest dreams, could have imagined this? Not a plane slamming into the Pentagon, but mentally-stunted paranoids who would demand a sharper image of it before believing one did despite hundreds of eyewitnesses, a big freakin' hole in the side of the building, and plane parts littering the area?

[gumboot]

I agree with what your saying. In a normal situation. But we are talking about the Pentagon here. The place has an entire mall within it, including doctor and dentists offices. This is so the employees do not have to leave the building to do anything until their shift is over.

That's reflective of the building's size, not any special security status. The Pentagon has 25,000 workers. That's a very large town.


Logically thinking, one of the most secure buidlings in the world would in fact have the best vid equipment that did record and was pointed in all directions.


That's not logical at all. That's ridiculous. Governments don't just install cameras willy nilly for fun. They have a purpose. There's no reason for the Pentagon to require extensive recorded video surveillance. It would be a rather substantial waste of tax payer's money.

The Pentagon Force Protection Agency are responsible for maintaining security at the Pentagon. They feel that large numbers of surveillance cameras are unnecessary, and I would agree with them.

[gumboot]

What's with the ridiculous CT obsession with exaggerating the level of security at the Pentagon?

"World's most heavily defended airspace"
"World's most secure building"

Please. It's a frikken office building. In Washington DC.

The first thing you do if you want to make a building secure is stick it in the middle of nowhere. Area 51... now there's a secure area!

[pomeroo]

No need when they have people like you to carry the water for them.


Wow, what a brilliantly clever non-answer! You managed to dodge my question with one your trademark slurs and we still don't know why your imaginary super-villains neglected to fake videos that would have proved their case. It's great the way you combine condescension with irrationality and ignorance.

Oh, wait--videos wouldn't have proved anything. You liars would have instantly branded them as fakes.

On second thought, I'll stick with your original incoherent response. The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy understood that if a plane really crashed into the Pentagon, there would be plenty of dupes like me prepared to believe that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. So they persuaded real jihadists to hijack a real plane, crash it into the building, and leave behind wreckage of the aircraft and remains of the passengers and crew. Sometimes the direct approach works best.

[Worm]

Personally, if there was perfect 24fps footage of AA77 hitting the Pentagon, it would make me more suspicious, not less - why did they have a camera pointed at that exact spot? (etc...)

[Reheat]

What's with the ridiculous CT obsession with exaggerating the level of security at the Pentagon?

"World's most heavily defended airspace"
"World's most secure building"

Please. It's a frikken office building. In Washington DC.

The first thing you do if you want to make a building secure is stick it in the middle of nowhere. Area 51... now there's a secure area!

Exactly. I have also often wondered why security there is exaggerated (well, I really know why). It is not any more secure than most other facilities within DoD, certainly not as secure as Area 51 or any other location especially where nuclear assets are stored.

The parking lots are open just like most US Army facilities throughout the US. However, to get inside the building one needs a DoD photo ID or some other ID acceptable to them depending upon the purpose of the visit. Of course, there are more secure areas inside the building, some are not accessible at all except for specific authorization. Having worked there and visited several times, it is not any more or less secure than any other typical DoD installation in the US. Some facilities are completely open while others are not. In fact, there are many much more secure areas outside of the US in other Countries.

As I recall the Protection Force there is only slightly different than the typical non-military Security Forces anywhere within DoD. At the Pentagon they have Federal arrest authority whereas in other locations they don't. That's really the only difference as far as I know.

It is a clear indication of woo for anyone who uses these "most secure" canards to describe the Pentagon. That's one of the primary reasons I reacted the way I did to the OP in the new thread. Those who use it are ignorant and full of "logical person incredulity" just as has been stated several times in the coarse of the thread.

Thanks, Gumboot, for spelling all of this out in more factual detail....

[RedIbis]

Oh, wait--videos wouldn't have proved anything. You liars would have instantly branded them as fakes.



Is this all you have left now, speculation? Videos would have proven that a commercial airliner impacted the Pentagon. Wasn't that the attempt of the CNN video? Didn't work out too well though.

[WildCat]

Videos would have proven that a commercial airliner impacted the Pentagon.
No Red, without any video at all the evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is overwhelming and difinitive.

You'd have to be a complete dolt to think otherwise.

[funk de fino]

Is this all you have left now, speculation? Videos would have proven that a commercial airliner impacted the Pentagon. Wasn't that the attempt of the CNN video? Didn't work out too well though.

Wasn't good enough for the no planers for the WTC was it?

[Reheat]

Is this all you have left now, speculation? Videos would have proven that a commercial airliner impacted the Pentagon. Wasn't that the attempt of the CNN video? Didn't work out too well though.

As you ought to know, that wasn't a CNN video. It was video from one of the parking lot security cameras at the Pentagon, just what you're asking for. Not good enough? I think you've just verified Ron's point! Congratulation, you've failed again as is customary for you.

[RedIbis]

Wasn't good enough for the no planers for the WTC was it?

What does that have to do with me? I never made that claim. Keep that nonsense to yourself.

[RedIbis]

As you ought to know, that wasn't a CNN video. It was video from one of the parking lot security cameras at the Pentagon, just what you're asking for. Not good enough? I think you've just verified Ron's point! Congratulation, you've failed again as is customary for you.

Excuse the grevious error. Regardless, that video only proved that something hit the Pentagon. In no way does it conclusively prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

I suspect that any video trained on that side of the bldg would also not show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, thus why they're not available.

[WildCat]

What does that have to do with me? I never made that claim. Keep that nonsense to yourself.
Because you've rejected all the overwhelming evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Why would a video convince you of anything?

You reject the thousdands of witnesses.

You reject the many pootos of airplane debris.

You've rejected the findings of the FBI.

You've rejected the findings of the FAA, the NTSB, American Airlines.

You've rejected the findings of the coroner's office.

You've rejected the video there is of the crash.

You've rejected every single piece of evidence there is, and it is extensive.

So who do you think you're crappin' when you claim you need just one more video?

[Reheat]

Excuse the grevious error. Regardless, that video only proved that something hit the Pentagon. In no way does it conclusively prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

I suspect that any video trained on that side of the bldg would also not show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, thus why they're not available.

I didn't say it proved anything at all. I merely corrected one of your numerous misquotes, false statements, and convoluted misinterpretations.

You prove over and over again that there is no help and no proof adequate for those who believe Wiley E. Coyote is a real character.

You are not amusing, but then again you've been told that hundreds of times, so press on with your silly little game and please don't let me interrupt it to spoil your entertainment. You can go back to your cartoons now....

[Drudgewire]

Is this all you have left now, speculation?


There's simply no way you typed that with a straight face.

[Minadin]

No. But John Travolta does! Do you really trust him!?!?!?

I went to the Pentagon post 911. Holy snap is the security crazy. Im sure theyd see a plane coming now.


By the way I dont really mind the surlyness.

(my bolding)

They might see it coming, but what do you think they'd be able to do about it? Could they prevent it from impacting, if it happened today? Or should their main focus be to videotape the incident so that curious idiots can watch it on the internet in 2014?

[RedIbis]

I didn't say it proved anything at all. I merely corrected one of your numerous misquotes, false statements, and convoluted misinterpretations.

You prove over and over again that there is no help and no proof adequate for those who believe Wiley E. Coyote is a real character.

You are not amusing, but then again you've been told that hundreds of times, so press on with your silly little game and please don't let me interrupt it to spoil your entertainment. You can go back to your cartoons now....

Let's depersonalize this and take a bit of the vinegar out of the discussion. If we agree on anything it's that this topic has been exhausted. Neither side will budge much. There will always be people who will wonder why the gov't won't release the tapes, and why the only released Pentagon video doesn't conclusively show that it's a commercial airliner, let alone Flight 77.

[RedIbis]

There's simply no way you typed that with a straight face.

You could be right about that.

[CptColumbo]

I agree with what your saying. In a normal situation. But we are talking about the Pentagon here. The place has an entire mall within it, including doctor and dentists offices. This is so the employees do not have to leave the building to do anything until their shift is over.

Logically thinking, one of the most secure buidlings in the world would in fact have the best vid equipment that did record and was pointed in all directions.The building would in fact have a system provided and installed by the lowest bidder. That may not necessarily be the "best."

[Reheat]

There will always be people who will wonder why the gov't won't release the tapes, and why the only released Pentagon video doesn't conclusively show that it's a commercial airliner, let alone Flight 77.

Since the ones that have been released, except the crappy one that doesn't show Wiley, show nothing but the building, my guess it is just as the FBI agent says, there is nothing on the remainder of the tapes that shows anything.

But, then again it could be because they want to be amused at the innuendos and statements casting suspicion that there is something to hide or cover up by the all powerful Government.

Which one do you think it is? That's rhetorical so no need to respond.

[T.A.M.]

FBI Agent McGuire has explained fully the tapes, what they captured, etc... it is in her seven page response found on the flight77.info website.

You either believe her or not...I am guessing Red does not. SO we add her to the list of conspirators I guess.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

FBI Agent McGuire has explained fully the tapes, what they captured, etc... it is in her seven page response found on the flight77.info website.

You either believe her or not...I am guessing Red does not. SO we add her to the list of conspirators I guess.

TAM:)
Red thinks there's thousands of people at the Pentagon alone who are in on it.

[funk de fino]

What does that have to do with me? I never made that claim. Keep that nonsense to yourself.

OK, so you are saying that only video evidence is good enough for you?

Does that stand for everything? Do courts and juries rely solely on video evidence in coming to decisions?

[Jonnyclueless]

AS if the 9/11 cult groups would actually accept video footage as evidence.

"Well yes we have flat out rejected any and all evidence of what happened that day in favor of absolutely absurd and impossible alternate theories. But if we just had some video footage, that would convince us."

"What? There is some video evidence? Oh well then we want some different video evidence".

"Oh there's another video clip? Oh, well then we want a different one and this time we mean it. We'll definitely believe the 3rd video if there ends up being one. What? No of course the 1000s of wtinesses aren't good enough, just the 4 who help us come up with a different theory which contradicts the rest of the evidence. But I'm tellin ya, just one more video and that will change EVERYTHING."

[Calcas]

I'm surprised the old canard about "the missile defense system at the Pentagon was also on a stand down" hasn't been brought up here as well.

So, in anticipation, here's a good paper on that.

http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf

[RedIbis]

Since the ones that have been released, except the crappy one that doesn't show Wiley, show nothing but the building, my guess it is just as the FBI agent says, there is nothing on the remainder of the tapes that shows anything.

But, then again it could be because they want to be amused at the innuendos and statements casting suspicion that there is something to hide or cover up by the all powerful Government.

Which one do you think it is? That's rhetorical so no need to respond.

You've hit the trifecta of bad logic: you take the FBI's word without evidence, a strawman, and false choice.

[johnny karate]

You've hit the trifecta of bad logic: you take the FBI's word without evidence, a strawman, and false choice.

You've hit the trifecta of failure.

Since the ones that have been released, except the crappy one that doesn't show Wiley, show nothing but the building, my guess it is just as the FBI agent says, there is nothing on the remainder of the tapes that shows anything.

Since when does taking the FBI's word constitute "bad logic"? Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence (eyewitness accounts, damage, debris), you just choose to ignore it.

But, then again it could be because they want to be amused at the innuendos and statements casting suspicion that there is something to hide or cover up by the all powerful Government.

The bolded portion prevents this statement from being a strawman argument, or any type of argument at all. It is not definitive, and therefore merely speculation.

Which one do you think it is? That's rhetorical so no need to respond.

Reheat clearly defines this question as rhetorical, and does not require you to respond. Therefore you are not being asked to make a choice, and as such, there can be no false choice dilemma.

You're better off sticking to innuendo and speculation, Red. Whenever you make a concrete statement, you just embarrass yourself.

[Reheat]

You're better off sticking to innuendo and speculation, Red. Whenever you make a concrete statement, you just embarrass yourself.

Based upon Red's consistent failure at ANYTHING other than being a nuisance, one might get the impression that he is not very bright. But, since he is a member here, I can't really say that. However, employing his tactic of innuendo and implication and then running away to hide when he's cornered, one can't help but wonder......

[johnny karate]

Strawman!

[T.A.M.]

You've hit the trifecta of bad logic: you take the FBI's word without evidence, a strawman, and false choice.

So if you become interested in the death of person X, will you only be convinced of their death, and the nature of their death, if you are given photographic or video evidence? A report from the FBI is not sufficient for you? You think you are entitled to more than that? Based on what?

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

Based upon Red's consistent failure at ANYTHING other than being a nuisance, one might get the impression that he is not very bright. But, since he is a member here, I can't really say that. However, employing his tactic of innuendo and implication and then running away to hide when he's cornered, one can't help but wonder......

If all of your questions are rhetorical, then there's no need for debate.

[T.A.M.]

If all of your questions are rhetorical, then there's no need for debate.

You are right red. If you have paid attention (and I don't blame you if you haven't), you have noticed that my days of legitimately "debating" any of these issues were done a few months ago.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

What's with the ridiculous CT obsession with exaggerating the level of security at the Pentagon?

"World's most heavily defended airspace"
"World's most secure building"

Please. It's a frikken office building. In Washington DC.

The first thing you do if you want to make a building secure is stick it in the middle of nowhere. Area 51... now there's a secure area!

Gumboot's right. Everyone talks about the Pentagon like it's some supersecure fort. Hardly. Up until September 11th, there were guided public tours going through the building, for crissakes.

On top of that: The most heavily defended airspace? How? Planes fly right by it (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6903292051376769224&q=pentagon+landing&ei=f8UpSJnGJIym4QLCnMDMCQ) on approach to Reagan International multiple times every day (here is another video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1562303234567348196&q=landing+pentagon&ei=7-yQSPmDGYmS4wKujoGSCA), and another (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU1WXzQ5qRM)). They fly so close that you'd only have on the order of single-digit seconds to realize that a plane was off course before it hit. How would anyone distinguish between suicide planes and planes on course when normally flights come so close to the building?

[Tweeter]

That's reflective of the building's size, not any special security status. The Pentagon has 25,000 workers. That's a very large town.





That's not logical at all. That's ridiculous. Governments don't just install cameras willy nilly for fun. They have a purpose. There's no reason for the Pentagon to require extensive recorded video surveillance. It would be a rather substantial waste of tax payer's money.

The Pentagon Force Protection Agency are responsible for maintaining security at the Pentagon. They feel that large numbers of surveillance cameras are unnecessary, and I would agree with them.

I would disagree with everything you said. Since when does the gov(US) worry about spending tax payers money?
I truly dont believe my country is as incompetent as you make it seem in all of your posts.

[pomeroo]

Is this all you have left now, speculation? Videos would have proven that a commercial airliner impacted the Pentagon. Wasn't that the attempt of the CNN video? Didn't work out too well though.


The wreckage of AA Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn, the remains of the passengers and crew found inside the Pentagon, and the experience of hundreds of eyewitnesses prove that a commercial airliner impacted the Pentagon. I repeat that any clear video of the plane would be instantly branded a fake by you agenda-driven liars.

[pomeroo]

Let's depersonalize this and take a bit of the vinegar out of the discussion. If we agree on anything it's that this topic has been exhausted. Neither side will budge much. There will always be people who will wonder why the gov't won't release the tapes, and why the only released Pentagon video doesn't conclusively show that it's a commercial airliner, let alone Flight 77.


Let us also agree that the people who profess to wonder why a security camera set at a slow shutter-speed didn't catch an object moving at roughly 750 feet per second are really, really stupid.

[gumboot]

I would disagree with everything you said. Since when does the gov(US) worry about spending tax payers money?
I truly dont believe my country is as incompetent as you make it seem in all of your posts.

The government is in a perpetual state of worrying about spending tax payers' money. It has limited income, and necessary expenditure exceeds that income. Thus they have to ration their funds.

Your opinion has been noted and binned. Thanks for playing.

Let's be honest here. The entire Conspiracy Theorist premise regarding cameras is one based on personal incredulity. They believe there are more videos and think it's suspicious they have not been released. They believe this without a single scrap of evidence that there are more videos. It is a fantasy built around their Mission Impossible perception of what the Pentagon should have for security.

Of course, there are no more videos. Anyone with a fraction of a brain cell can work that out. Anyone with a fraction of a brain cell realises how unlikely it would be for any cameras to capture the airliner.

This topic is one of the most amusing there is. It reveals without question the true nature of the conspiracy theorist - someone interested more in their fantasy than they are the truth.

[gumboot]

They fly so close that you'd only have on the order of single-digit seconds to realize that a plane was off course before it hit.


Which is precisely why the Pentagon held the MASCAL exercise - to prepare staff for the very possible event of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon on landing/takeoff.

[Tmy]

[QUOTE=HyJinX;3902700]...that doesn't mean what you think it means. Logically thinking...these things would simply be perks of the job...not to contain the masses until thier shift is over. [QUOTE]

Well thats what the Marine tour guide told us during the visit to the place. They had all that crap to prevent people from leaving the building.

If some crappy store camera across the street can catch the crash on film, why not at least ONE pentagon camera.

[Arus808]

what makes you think that the cameras were facing the direction of the uncoming plane? wouldn't a security camera be focused on what its supposed to do? like filming parts of the building that needed it? not something that would potentially come near it, from an angle, no one would think it would come from?


and a camera did catch the crash. its been posted and released already.

[Mobyseven]

I was there on a class field trip.

Righto then. And how exactly did you deduce that all the security cameras were recording you, let alone recording you at a high enough frame rate to capture a speeding 757?

[Tmy]

what makes you think that the cameras were facing the direction of the uncoming plane?
.

Well it hit from the side. (East?) It didnt drop in from directly above.

[Magenta]

If some crappy store camera across the street can catch
the crash on film, why not at least ONE pentagon camera.


That WAS a Pentagon camera (or rather 2 cameras). From the link that was provided for you back at post #119:

Images captured by two separate cameras at the entrance to the Pentagon Mall Terrace parkinng lot. Images capture the impact of the plane into the Pentagon from two different cameras. Obtained from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency via USA/EDVA.

[OldTigerCub]

...that doesn't mean what you think it means. Logically thinking...these things would simply be perks of the job...not to contain the masses until thier shift is over.

Well thats what the Marine tour guide told us during the visit to the place. They had all that crap to prevent people from leaving the building.

If some crappy store camera across the street can catch the crash on film, why not at least ONE pentagon camera.

what makes you think that the cameras were facing the direction of the uncoming plane? wouldn't a security camera be focused on what its supposed to do? like filming parts of the building that needed it? not something that would potentially come near it, from an angle, no one would think it would come from?


and a camera did catch the crash. its been posted and released already.

Actually 2 cameras caught the event. And the videos have been linked to in posts here ad nauseum, but here is a link to them one more time:
Pentagon video camera (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200022.html)

There are 9 video clips strung together in one .mpg file. The first two are the views from the cameras at the entry gate. The rest are regular video of the resulting damage.

Edit: I see Magenta pointed this out already.

[tsig]

[QUOTE=HyJinX;3902700]...that doesn't mean what you think it means. Logically thinking...these things would simply be perks of the job...not to contain the masses until thier shift is over. [QUOTE]

Well thats what the Marine tour guide told us during the visit to the place. They had all that crap to prevent people from leaving the building.

If some crappy store camera across the street can catch the crash on film, why not at least ONE pentagon camera.

ONE did. Why do you think the pentagon had better cameras?

One guided tour and you're an expert on Pentagon security. WOO

[beachnut]

Well it hit from the side. (East?) It didnt drop in from directly above.
Plane was heading 70 mag, 61.2 degree true track, heading east northeast.
The plane came in at 463 KIAS, 61.2 degree true track, it came down into the building as an angle, the camera would have to be aimed up at an angle of 4 to 6 degrees to catch it. The aircraft came in on one of infinite headings to attack the Pentagon.

Who cares if there is a video, if there was one showing 77, CIT and p4t would have more grist to turn out the fake video DVD!

[Arus808]

did you miss the part where a CAMERA did catch the plane at impact? or are you just going to ignore that?

[Travis]

I suspect that CIA headquarters in Langley had better security than the Pentagon did pre 9/11.

But I might be wrong on that too.

I wonder what the most secure building in the world actually is? I hazard to guess it's a building that's not even acknowledged to exist.

[OldTigerCub]

I suspect that CIA headquarters in Langley had better security than the Pentagon did pre 9/11.

But I might be wrong on that too.

I wonder what the most secure building in the world actually is? I hazard to guess it's a building that's not even acknowledged to exist.

Shhhhhhhh....It's my ex-wife's uncle's son's house in Uniontown, Pa. Even I can't find it....with a map... and a tom tom unit ...and bread crumbs!:rolleyes:

[Arus808]

haha. the fabled fort knox maybe?

[Disbelief]

I suspect that CIA headquarters in Langley had better security than the Pentagon did pre 9/11.

But I might be wrong on that too.

I wonder what the most secure building in the world actually is? I hazard to guess it's a building that's not even acknowledged to exist.

Or, it may not even be a government building. Private industry could very well have crazy security to prevent the leak of trade secrets or R&D.

[Reheat]

I suspect that CIA headquarters in Langley had better security than the Pentagon did pre 9/11.

But I might be wrong on that too.

I wonder what the most secure building in the world actually is? I hazard to guess it's a building that's not even acknowledged to exist.

Most of this speculation stems from ignorance of DoD security in general and CT's in abundance of all of these various facilities around the world.

Pre-9/11 security at the Pentagon was no different than security at most of the DoD installations in the US. The level of security varies with the level of sensitivity/value of the assets involved and with the threat conditions at the time. Some installations were open, meaning that one could drive their vehicle through the gates unimpeded, but access to some buildings and some facilities were controlled. At other installations entry was/is controlled at all accessible points of entry. There are many installations/facilities such as Area 51 where entry is specifically prohibited for anyone not specifically authorized.

Of course, security involves more than just entry control. Again, for highly sensitive/high value areas there are multiple levels of security to include increased/enhanced perimeter controls and defensive weapons up to and including missiles.

It's foolish to speculate about security without specifics as it is highly variable depending upon the assets to be protected and the location. Nuclear assets are among the best protected with the highest levels of security. However, there are other facilities in other parts of the world that are bristling with multiple levels of enhanced security simply because of their location, and those locations are not necessarily all in the Middle East.

ETA: I believe it is well known that the jihadists chose NOT to target/attack a nuclear power facility on 9/11 simply because they correctly believed that it would have little chance of success. Nuclear weapons and their components are ever better protected with higher levels of security than our nuclear power facilities.

I won't be more specific than I've already been simply because specific security measures are implemented for a reason. Those reasons and the specifics surrounding them ARE NOT an appropriate topic for discussion in a open public forum.

[ElMondoHummus]

I wonder what the most secure building in the world actually is? I hazard to guess it's a building that's not even acknowledged to exist.

I would actually guess that it would be the US Bullion (i.e. Gold) Depository (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bullion_Depository) at Fort Knox. And I do not think that because I believe they have super high tech, beyond state of the art security (in truth, a History Channel or Discovery special (forget which) actually revealed much of that structure to be disappointingly old, no more structually secure than a common bank vault, IIRC). I believe it because Fort Knox has the frikkin' US Army Armor School based there! It's secure because there's always a brigade-plus of tanks and armored vehicles around just as the training staff, let alone whatever brigade/regiment*/division happens to be there for training.

Want security? Stick your stuff in the middle of several hundred M1 Abrams and several thousand troops. That's security. Anyway, the Gold depository at Fort Knox has my vote.

*Does the Army still use the term "Regiment" to describe that level of command and organization within their hierarchy? From what this non-expert can find, "Regiment" has fallen into disuse; "Brigades" seem to be the current term for the level between Battalion and Division.

[CurtC]

I'd think that the NORAD facilities deep inside Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs would rank pretty high on the "most secure" list.

[Reheat]

*Does the Army still use the term "Regiment" to describe that level of command and organization within their hierarchy? From what this non-expert can find, "Regiment" has fallen into disuse; "Brigades" seem to be the current term for the level between Battalion and Division.

Yes, the term/unit designation has all but disappeared. As far as I know the only units that still use the term are some Ranger Regiments, which are few in number. The "Big Army" no longer has Regiments, nor do they use the term. Brigade, Battalion, Company, etc. are the organizational elements at that level.

[RedIbis]

I'd think that the NORAD facilities deep inside Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs would rank pretty high on the "most secure" list.

Where was Cheyenne on 9/11? Took the day off?

[funk de fino]

Where was Cheyenne on 9/11? Took the day off?

You get more pathetic by the day Red.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, the term/unit designation has all but disappeared. As far as I know the only units that still use the term are some Ranger Regiments, which are few in number. The "Big Army" no longer has Regiments, nor do they use the term. Brigade, Battalion, Company, etc. are the organizational elements at that level.

That's what I thought. Danke!

[CurtC]

Where was Cheyenne on 9/11? Took the day off?
They were defending our country against missiles and bombers coming in from outside our borders, as they had been doing for decades.

[Jonnyclueless]

Where was Cheyenne on 9/11? Took the day off?

Yeah! And where were the superfriends?

[WildCat]

Where was Cheyenne on 9/11? Took the day off?
And where was your reply to this post? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3904542#post3904542

Yet another in the long list of questions RedIbis runs from like a schoolgirl from a spider.

The cowardice of the truth movement knows no bounds.

[Travis]

Where was Cheyenne on 9/11? Took the day off?

Care to break down the events of that day and share with us where NORAD screwed up and where you, in your infinite wisdom, could have done soooo much better?

[R.Mackey]

I wonder what the most secure building in the world actually is? I hazard to guess it's a building that's not even acknowledged to exist.

The most secure facility in the world is the International Space Station.

If you exclude this pathological example, however, I would guess that it is some small, never-accessed bolthole in a place like Nellis AFB.

For a facility that is actually useful, i.e. accessed by more than one person once in a while, best guess is either nuclear weapon storage under the mountains of New Mexico, or a CDC Level 4 facility like USAMRIID at Fort Deitrick.

[fezzic]

Where was Cheyenne on 9/11? Took the day off?


Doing its job of watching for incoming threats from outside the US and Canada and, whenever they became aware of what was happening in the US, probably feeling pretty helpless to affect things. What else they may have done or tried to do, I have no idea.

Like any higher HQ, it could only watch as its subordinate elements (assuming NEADS was in its chain of command) tried to cope with a chaotic situation that was not particularly provided for. It also could not ignore its primary mission to watch for incoming threats even as 9/11 unfolded.

Given enough warning, things would have been different. But the plan was to deny the US the time to prepare. That is why surprise is often so effective in allowing an inferior (or small) force to do something, possibly significant, to a nominally superior, if not overwhelming superior force, that conventionally arrived at it could not do.

[Tweeter]

Righto then. And how exactly did you deduce that all the security cameras were recording you, let alone recording you at a high enough frame rate to capture a speeding 757?

I asked the "tour guide."
He didnt tell me the frame rate of the cameras, but he did say every inch of that place is being monitored.

[WildCat]

I asked the "tour guide."
He didnt tell me the frame rate of the cameras, but he did say every inch of that place is being monitored.
Monitored by what? And do you know the difference between "monitored" and "recorded"?

[Tweeter]

The government is in a perpetual state of worrying about spending tax payers' money. It has limited income, and necessary expenditure exceeds that income. Thus they have to ration their funds.

Your opinion has been noted and binned. Thanks for playing.

Let's be honest here. The entire Conspiracy Theorist premise regarding cameras is one based on personal incredulity. They believe there are more videos and think it's suspicious they have not been released. They believe this without a single scrap of evidence that there are more videos. It is a fantasy built around their Mission Impossible perception of what the Pentagon should have for security.

Of course, there are no more videos. Anyone with a fraction of a brain cell can work that out. Anyone with a fraction of a brain cell realises how unlikely it would be for any cameras to capture the airliner.

This topic is one of the most amusing there is. It reveals without question the true nature of the conspiracy theorist - someone interested more in their fantasy than they are the truth.
Ridiculous. So.. the one camera that the Pentagon has, recorded the event.
Aren`t we lucky?
You ask 100 Americans (not foreigners like yourself) if the government worries about what taxpayers think when it spends their money. I seriously cant think of a time when people didnt complain about it.

[WildCat]

Ridiculous. So.. the one camera that the Pentagon has, recorded the event.
Aren`t we lucky?
You ask 100 Americans (not foreigners like yourself) if the government worries about what taxpayers think when it spends their money. I seriously cant think of a time when people didnt complain about it.
Is Pentagon security inadequate Tweeter? Are the grounds being infiltrated?

[Tweeter]

Monitored by what? And do you know the difference between "monitored" and "recorded"?
A human!
Yes, i do.

[X]

Where was Cheyenne on 9/11? Took the day off?


In Colorado?

[OldTigerCub]

The most secure facility in the world is the International Space Station.

If you exclude this pathological example, however, I would guess that it is some small, never-accessed bolthole in a place like Nellis AFB.

For a facility that is actually useful, i.e. accessed by more than one person once in a while, best guess is either nuclear weapon storage under the mountains of New Mexico, or a CDC Level 4 facility like USAMRIID at Fort Deitrick.

Now that I think about it, I would have to counter that the Greenbrier in West Virginia was the most secure facility...that is until the location of it was leaked. Until that revelation, most members of congress didn't even know of it's existence.
That it was never used for it's intended purpose, that being housing and facilitating the members of the House and Senate in case of a nuclear war, is probably a very good thing, as the closest they ever came was during the Cuban missile crisis. The evacuation of all of the members of Congress would have almost certainly been interpreted by the Soviets and Cubans as a sign of an imminent attack by the U.S. on Cuba.

Nowdays we just use the place for the annual NWO Christmas party.:p

[Mobyseven]

I asked the "tour guide."
He didnt tell me the frame rate of the cameras, but he did say every inch of that place is being monitored.

'Monitored' is not the same as 'recorded'. You can be monitored without a camera.

Also, as you have been told (and shown) the frame rate rom the cameras that were pointed in the right direction was very low.

I mean, think about it, really. Even if they were capturing at 24fps, how much detail do you think a speeding 757 is going to show up in at such close range? It's not going to be any more than a blur.

Life isn't like the CG you see at the movies.

[OldTigerCub]

'Monitored' is not the same as 'recorded'. You can be monitored without a camera.

Also, as you have been told (and shown) the frame rate rom the cameras that were pointed in the right direction was very low.

I mean, think about it, really. Even if they were capturing at 24fps, how much detail do you think a speeding 757 is going to show up in at such close range? It's not going to be any more than a blur.

Life isn't like the CG you see at the movies.

To expand on this, frame rate is not nearly as important as virtual shutter speed, resolution and field of view when recording high speed objects. A camera/VCR/DVR setup will record only as well as lighting conditions, focus, resolution and sampling rates will allow.

There are commercially available CCTV cameras built today that can capture frames at virtual shutter speeds of up to (and maybe above) 1/2000 of a second, but they are at the high range of the price spectrum.

There are recorders available that can record at speeds of over 1000 frames per second, but again, they are very expensive and mostly employed in such applications as scientific research (like crash analysis).

Nearly all CCTV systems have cameras and recorders capable of frame rates as high as 60 fps, but the virtual shutter speeds are usually not much better than 1/250 sec. to 1/500 sec. and recording at frame rates like that eat up tape/disk space very quickly. A major consideration when placing a CCTV system is image clarity, but it has to be balanced against time before overwrite/number of tapes available. One would have to be changing tapes every hour or two in a VCR, and 100s of gigs of disk space could only hold a few hours of recording rather than days, or even months, pretty much rendering them useless in a security environment.

The cameras and recorders used to document entry at the Pentagon gate did a remarkably good job of capturing the crash images that they did, mostly because the lighting was as close to ideal as possible and the equipment was apparently of very good quality. The images of the Pentagon police officers and their cars are of excellent quality because they are within the field of view that the camera and its wide angle lens were designed to view. However, even the best surveillance system can't be expected to capture an aiplane moving across it's field of view at over 400 mph and render an image as sharp as if the plane is sitting still...that is, unless the event is planned for.

[Drs_Res]

And the sad part about all of this is that the truthers would be crying about the tape(s) being faked if the image showed a nice clean/clear image of the plane.

You would see them coming here posting low quality surveillance videos found on YouTube as proof that the tapes were faked.

[parky76]

Truthers think there were like 40 cctv cameras at the Pentagon, all filming the Army wing and all saw the plane crash.

I was at the Pentagon on Sunday. Guess how many cameras I saw?

I saw 3. One at each corner of the wing and one in the middle. Thats it.

The side isnt even that big. Maybe a couple hundred of feet. no reason whatsoever to have 40...or 30...or 20..or even 10 cameras there.

where do they get this garbage from??

[T.A.M.]

I would guess that 40-50 cameras in the ENTIRE PENTAGON would be a decent guess. The idea that anything more than a handful would be fixed on any given area is absolutely ridiculous.

TAM:)

[roundhead]

Craig at CIT posted a very good piece on the camera's in and around the Pentagon on 9/11.

I suggest anybody who is interested in Pentagon research to read this, very informative



http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=368

[JamesB]

Why don't the truthers ask for the radar records for the super-sekrit anti-missile defense systems mounted on the roof instead? :cool:

[roundhead]

Why don't the truthers ask for the radar records for the super-sekrit anti-missile defense systems mounted on the roof instead? :cool:


You can be the dolt and try and marginalize the reason why those tapes havent been released.

You can be sure they would have been years ago i they supported the official story, or were at least not harmfull to it.(In other words didnt have any info that would shed anymore light on events there)

As they havent been released, any 6th grader would understand why.

remember to attack the argument not the arguer

[JamesB]

Are you familiar with the phrase, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Obviously if you had proof that you were not a child molester, you would have provided it by now. What are you hiding?

[JimBenArm]

You can be the dolt and try and marginalize the reason why those tapes havent been released.

You can be sure they would have been years ago i they supported the official story, or were at least not harmfull to it.(In other words didnt have any info that would shed anymore light on events there)

As they havent been released, any 6th grader would understand why.
It's good you throw the personal insults in there. Otherwise, you might not have made your point.

[Drudgewire]

As they havent been released, any 6th grader would understand why.


For the last time, when you compare the mindset of twoofers to that of children IT DOES NOT HELP YOUR CASE!! :p

[roundhead]

It's good you throw the personal insults in there. Otherwise, you might not have made your point.


When in Rome, do as the Romans do.


Have you even read your first comment in this thread? And you expect somebody to respect you?

[roundhead]

For the last time, when you compare the mindset of twoofers to that of children IT DOES NOT HELP YOUR CASE!! :p


Truthers and anti truthers as far as i have been able to find, have about the same amount of smarts:D

[JimBenArm]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
"He started it!"

Yeah, that works well, doesn't it?

You don't have kids, do you?

Have you even read your first comment in this thread? And you expect somebody to respect you?
>ahem<
Do you think I was trying to earn your respect? You are funny, after all!