911 - Points to discuss

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 2:56pm

bonkey wrote: »

The Pentagon has armed soldiers guarding it. Could you explain how security cameras will add to the security that men with guns offer?

To that end...what evidence do you have to believe that rhere are any cameras on the building?

Good point none these solderis have ever discussed the plane..

Its the most secure building in sense that it has the most cameras on that building not within the land of that building..Should have made that clear

Diogenes · 08-04-2009 2:56pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

Google "Pentagon the most secure building in the world"

you get plenty of answers

Y'know what, instead of getting annoyed at someone waving me in the direction of the internet, and saying "the answers are over there" I just did exactly that. I googled "Pentagon the most secure building in the world."

This is what I got

Then I clicked on link number 1

Controvertial Pentagon security camera videotapes that captured the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 on Sept. 11, 2001 were released yesterday for the first time. The crash killed 184 people.

The Department of Defense handed footage from at least two cameras to Judicial Watch, a nonprofit public interest group that filed a Freedom of Information Act in December 2004, and a lawsuit in February 2006, to access them. The group bills itself as "a non-partisan, educational foundation" that is "dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life."

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement on the organization’s Web site.

Clips available on the Judicial Watch site contain footage of the moment of impact from two security cameras. The scenes of Wedge 1, where Flight 77 hit, are hardly eye opening: Still-frame images taken from one of the videos has been bounding around the Internet for years. The bigger problem is that the footage suffers from a glacially slow frame rate: It moves at approximately 1 frame per second, while the plane--or what theorists insist was some sort of missile--hit the Pentagon traveling 780 ft. per second (more than 530 mph). At these camera angles, Flight 77 hardly registers on either film before a fireball erupts from the building.

The government said it withheld the tapes until completing the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, who last week was sentenced to life in prison for conspiring with al Qaeda to plan the Sept. 11 attacks. "Now that the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is over, we are able to complete your request and provide the video," William Kammer, the chief of the Department of Defense, Office of Freedom of Information, wrote to the group.

Judicial Watch achieved something important with the release of this information. But if Fitton hopes “that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77,” as his statement says, they may not be so lucky. —Davin Coburn

Yes it's popular mechanics

Riverting stuff, but not really what you wanted is it?

Now

My Aunt was seeing distance from where it happened never saw a plane..

Where exactly was your aunt again? Which side of the building?

bonkey · 08-04-2009 2:59pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

My Aunt was seeing distance from where it happened never saw a plane..

The plane travelled fast and low. Unless your aunt was looking in the right direction at the right time, she wouldn't be expected to see it.

Given that your aunt lives that close to the Pentagon, then you are (or at least she is) aware that the Pentagon is literally right beside a major airport. As a result, loud aircraft noises are not something that would automatically make someone look out the window. This means that your aunt wouldn't have necessarily had a loud, out-of-place noise to give her reason to look out the window.

Funny I remember a CNN program and there were people saying they never saw plane fly over the buidling moments before it hit the pentagon..

Again...unless they were looking in the right direction at precisely the right moment, there's no reason for them to see anything.

The people on the freeway are a prime example of those who would be expected to be looking at their surroundings at the time a plane went literally inches over their heads. The eyewitness accounts from such people is overwhelmingly similar...a large plane flew right over their heads, and hit the Pentagon.

For me if I had family that died in the pentagon I would want to see that plane hit the building

You - and they - are entitled to want whatever you please. That won't create footage out of nowhere.

The real question is whether or not there are grounds to believe that such footage exists. Only once we establish that it does (or should) exist, can the case be made that there is something suspicious in it not having been released.

Note - the official stance is that no such footage exists. Its impossible to prove that no footage exists, but its very possible to show that there are reasons to believe that such a claim is false.

What are those reasons?

So far, all we have is a claim that there are cameras on the Pentagon...which is doing nothing but rewording the claim that footage exists. There is no evidence that such cameras exist.

meglome · 08-04-2009 3:00pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

regarding the pentagon, there is literally nothing, other than the gov/military saying a plane hit it as proof, this is usually seen as the easiest proof of "inside job"

for example there is no real plane wreckage, and the little bits of "wreckage" shown on the news would instantly (for me anyway) have my common sense telling me BS

plus they took every video of cctv from all the buildings around and would not release them, why?

This might help. Sorry don't have time to discuss the contents of the video but it should be very useful as it shows why it was a plane that hit the pentagon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

How close is the Reagan International Airport to the Pentagon?

Diogenes · 08-04-2009 3:01pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

Good point none these solderis have ever discussed the plane..

No they have. I take it you haven't read Firefight a riveting and exhaustively researched book, the author interviews hundreds of people who witnessed the crash and took part in the efforts to battle the subsequent fire.

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 3:02pm

Diogenes wrote: »

How do you know how many cameras it has.

Where exactly was your aunt?

Which CNN program.

Heres a funny thing, of the families of people who died that day, would you care to guess how many people belong to the so called truth movement?

I don't want to go into precise figures but 1%?-2%? These are the people who are most heavily invested in this tragedy, and they are satisfied with the official investigation. Perhaps they are angry with intelligence failures, and mistakes in the run up to the events of that day, but the vast, vast majority agree that 19 hijackers took control of three planes, two of which crashed into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field.

Many these familes are in fear of being a tatget if they are seen to be invloved in the truth movement.

My aunt was 700-800 yards from the entrance into the pentagon she told me at time of blast.

As for the program it was in 2005-06 ill google it im sure iv seen it on one the sites before..might be just clip but ill look it up

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 3:11pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Y'know what, instead of getting annoyed at someone waving me in the direction of the internet, and saying "the answers are over there" I just did exactly that. I googled "Pentagon the most secure building in the world."

This is what I got

Then I clicked on link number 1

Yes it's popular mechanics

Riverting stuff, but not really what you wanted is it?

Now

Where exactly was your aunt again? Which side of the building?

so who has seen the video then? Have you seen it..I remember this at the time but its not clear of what happened.

meglome · 08-04-2009 3:13pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

Many these familes are in fear of being a tatget if they are seen to be invloved in the truth movement.

I hear so much talk about people being in fear of 'the man', the government or whomever but yet people seem to be able to say whatever they like on the internet or in videos, and many in person. So if it's so dangerous to speak out why do so many people speak out, and why does no harm come to any of them? Saying it's dangerous would seem very much at odds with the reality IMO.

Diogenes · 08-04-2009 3:13pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

Many these familes are in fear of being a tatget if they are seen to be invloved in the truth movement.

Firstly I don't suppose you have any evidence to support this assertion.

Secondly, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Jack Blood, We are Change, Rise up Journal, Morgan Stack, the Loose Change guys, etc etc etc, all loudly proclaim "9/11 was an inside" You're telling me that these nutballs can get away without being targeted, but someone who's lost a loved one, and suspects the government carried it out, is a coward?

My aunt was 700-800 yards from the entrance into the pentagon she told me at time of blast.

Which Entrance? There are several. If for example she was about to enter via the southwest tourist entrance, she'd have trouble seeing it. The River entrance is on the Northwest side. Keep in mind

Thats from at least 2,000 foot away, notice how you can't see any other side of the building.

Its the world's largest office complex, if your aunt was right ontop of it, it's more than likely it would have been impossible for her to see anything.

As for the program it was in 2005-06 ill google it im sure iv seen it on one the sites before..might be just clip but ill look it up

I wait with baited breath.

bonkey · 08-04-2009 3:15pm

bonkey wrote: »

The Pentagon has armed soldiers guarding it

To correct myself...

The Pentagon had a dedicated police force for its protection - the DPS.

As Diogenes has mentioned, they have been interviewed.

Diogenes · 08-04-2009 3:15pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

so who has seen the video then? Have you seen it..I remember this at the time but its not clear of what happened.

Yes I have, it's a security camera recording to VHS, it records at one frame per second, the plane travelling at immense speed wasn't captured clearly on it.

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 3:20pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes I have, it's a security camera recording to VHS, it records at one frame per second, the plane travelling at immense speed wasn't captured clearly on it.

hmmm really so you believe what was shown after how many years for it to be relaised to be true..

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 3:21pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Firstly I don't suppose you have any evidence to support this assertion.

Secondly, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Jack Blood, We are Change, Rise up Journal, Morgan Stack, the Loose Change guys, etc etc etc, all loudly proclaim "9/11 was an inside" You're telling me that these nutballs can get away without being targeted, but someone who's lost a loved one, and suspects the government carried it out, is a coward?

Which Entrance? There are several. If for example she was about to enter via the southwest tourist entrance, she'd have trouble seeing it. The River entrance is on the Northwest side. Keep in mind

Thats from at least 2,000 foot away, notice how you can't see any other side of the building.

Its the world's largest office complex, if your aunt was right ontop of it, it's more than likely it would have been impossible for her to see anything.

I wait with baited breath.

read what I say I said entance not from the building from what my aiunt saw. for your information she believes that plane did hit but did not see a thing like she has said to me...

sorry but I have to work too you know

meglome · 08-04-2009 3:25pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes I have, it's a security camera recording to VHS, it records at one frame per second, the plane travelling at immense speed wasn't captured clearly on it.

Adrian one of my brothers fits security systems. Nowadays it very common for these to be high quality digital video system with multiple cameras. But in 2001 this was very uncommon. It was basic recording to vhs for a handful of cameras at most. In 2001 a top end video surveillance system would be very expensive indeed. And when you have an armed police force protecting your building you may feel you didn't need them in the first place or just the basics, like the Pentagon.

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 3:29pm

meglome wrote: »

Adrian one of my brothers fits security systems. Nowadays it very common for these to be high quality digital video system with multiple cameras. But in 2001 this was very uncommon. It was basic recording to vhs for a handful of cameras at most. In 2001 a top end video surveillance system would be very expensive indeed. And when you have an armed police force protecting your building you may feel you didn't need them in the first place or just the basics, like the Pentagon.

Great point and its one i was told before and your dead right..

Im more suspicious that all recordings and cameras were taken from buildings around the pentagon that very day.

Bubba HoTep · 08-04-2009 3:41pm

bonkey wrote: »

Everything, assuming you'd like the FBI to act in a law-abiding manner.

The videos are not the property of the FBI. The laws which allow them to seize evidence do not allow them to arbitrarily decide what to do with that evidence. They cannot legally make a decision to release them to the public.

I never said that the owners didn't want them to be shown. I said that the FBI didn't have the right to decide to show them.

Had there not been a Justice Department decision to release the videos, then either the FBI would have held on to them, or released them back to the owners.

The Justice Department could also not arbitrarily decide to release the content. They released it after a FOI request was received for that specific information.

The Pentagon is not surrounded by its own CCTV cameras. The US military rely on armed guards patrolling the perimiter.

I'm open to correction on this, though, if you can provide evidence that these CCTV emplacements exist, and/or show previously-released footage from them.

Agreed. The citgo video shows even less. The point is that the resolution, framerate and field-of-view all combine to the point where one wouldn't expect to see a plane.

here you go

The tapes were seized, held and released in accordance with the law. The reason it wasn't done differently is that to do so would have been illegal.

I, for one, am not going to criticise any government agency for doing its job in accordance with the law, rather than acting against the law to pander to hte wishes of a small minority of the public. I oppose the notion that the public are better served by a government agency which acts illegally in order to pander to the wishes of a small-but-vocal minority.

im not trying to dispute what the FBI can and cannot do legally with the seized videos, i have no doubt that you are prob correct on this

what im asking is this, the actual owners of the videos, what reason in the world would they have to not want these videos shown? none, so why have they not been?

the investigation is over now, so even if they couldnt show them then, then could now. yet they are nowhere to be seen, apart from the 3 we talked about earlier, which are so bad and distorted (which is possibly the reason they were released at all) and the only video that is anyway clear is the video of stills, showing a blast, and just a blast, no plane, *where is the plane?*

as for the pentagon, of course it is surrounded by cctv of their own, im mean honestly, does that even need to be asked?? *its the damn pentagon*

also, have a look at this video from a reporter at the scene right after it happened, what does he say about 45secs into the video
"there is no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the pentagon"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA

Diogenes · 08-04-2009 3:43pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

read what I say I said entance not from the building from what my aiunt saw.

Again there are several entrances to the whole compound, and forgive me, you didn't specific entrance to the building or to the grounds.

Was she driving? Was she heading specifically to the Pentagon?

for your information she believes that plane did hit but did not see a thing like she has said to me...

So to be clear, your own close relative, who was there that day, believes the official account, but you still demand video proof?

hmmm really so you believe what was shown after how many years for it to be relaised to be true..

No, thats not what I said.

Here and Here

Are some of the witnesses.

You're a busy guy with work to do so I'll let Mark Roberts summarise.

From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

This article is about the chaplins on the ground that day.

In the minutes, hours and days after the attacks 8,000 people from dozens of agencies were on the ground either firefighting, tending to the wounded, or attempting to stabilise the building, here's an incomplete list. I've bolded some stand out ones

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

With Thanks to the phenominal Gravy

What do the people working in these agencies have in common?

NONE OF THEM FOUND ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS OR FELT THE URGE TO COME FORWARD AND SAY THAT THEY SUSPECTED SOMETHING ASIDE FROM A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON

In order for these conspiracy theories to work, all of the above agencies must be involved. Is the salvation army in on it? The Red Cross? The search and rescue teams?

These people scrambled in the rubble to find survivors, and then combed the crash site picking up body parts, they worked among the wreckage of the plane, and the stench of death.

So frankly I'm disinterested in your claims that you need to see video to suit your morbid fascination.

Bubba HoTep · 08-04-2009 3:44pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

its the most secure building in the world with the most cameras on it surely one has it..

*exactly!!*

bonkey · 08-04-2009 3:49pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

Im more suspicious that all recordings and cameras were taken from buildings around the pentagon that very day.

Why? Would you not expect the investigating authorities to gather whatever evidence they could?

Diogenes · 08-04-2009 3:50pm

the investigation is over now, so even if they couldnt show them then, then could now. yet they are nowhere to be seen, apart from the 3 we talked about earlier, which are so bad and distorted (which is possibly the reason they were released at all) and the only video that is anyway clear is the video of stills, showing a blast, and just a blast, no plane, *where is the plane?*

They're not stills they're just using an extremely slow frame rate. The camera in question had a specific job to photograph car's number plates as they drove up and were stopped by security. Not to capture objects travelling at 730 feet per second.

as for the pentagon, of course it is surrounded by cctv of their own, im mean honestly, does that even need to be asked?? *its the damn pentagon*

This is similar to the missile defence argument. Look a camera can only passively observe an intruder, a armed officer, can confront and challenge an intrude. The building has it's own specialised police force, how much more security can you ask for?

also, have a look at this video from a reporter at the scene right after it happened, what does he say about 45secs into the video
"there is no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the pentagon"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA

Perhaps it's because THE PLANE CRASHED INTO THE BUILDING NOT NEAR THE BUILDING.

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 4:01pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Again there are several entrances to the whole compound, and forgive me, you didn't specific entrance to the building or to the grounds.

Was she driving? Was she heading specifically to the Pentagon?

So to be clear, your own close relative, who was there that day, believes the official account, but you still demand video proof?

No, thats not what I said.

Here and Here

Are some of the witnesses.

You're a busy guy with work to do so I'll let Mark Roberts summarise.

This article is about the chaplins on the ground that day.

In the minutes, hours and days after the attacks 8,000 people from dozens of agencies were on the ground either firefighting, tending to the wounded, or attempting to stabilise the building, here's an incomplete list. I've bolded some stand out ones

With Thanks to the phenominal Gravy

What do the people working in these agencies have in common.

NONE OF THEM FOUND ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS OR FELT THE URGE TO COME FORWARD AND SAY THAT THEY SUSPECTED SOMETHING ASIDE FROM A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON

In order for these conspiracy theories to work, all of the above agencies must be involved. Is the salvation army in on it? The Red Cross? The search and rescue teams?

These people scrambled in the rubble to find survivors, and then combed the crash site picking up body parts, they worked among the wreckage of the plane, and the stench of death.

So frankly I'm disinterested in your claims that you need to see video to suit your morbid fascination.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

Once I saw this I stopped reading..Im sorry but that is laughable.

my aunt was on the northwest directiuon directly looking at the pentagon she was outside carpark people around them heard an explosion not an plane..

King Mob · 08-04-2009 4:08pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

Once I saw this I stopped reading..Im sorry but that is laughable.

my aunt was on the northwest directiuon directly looking at the pentagon she was outside carpark people around them heard an explosion not an plane..

But she didn't see the explosion either?
Wouldn't that imply she was on a different side of the building?

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 4:10pm

King Mob wrote: »

But she didn't see the explosion either?
Wouldn't that imply she was on a different side of the building?

she saw the explosion but not a plane at that moment

King Mob · 08-04-2009 4:14pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

she saw the explosion but not a plane at that moment

Can you clarify? Where was she standing? Which way was see facing? Did she say that she didn't see a plane even though she should have?

If it wasn't a plane what was it?

Diogenes · 08-04-2009 4:17pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

Once I saw this I stopped reading..Im sorry but that is laughable.

Pray tell why exactly is it laughable?

And why exactly does that discount the other 130 witnesses, or the 8,000 people who worked at or in the crash site.

my aunt was on the northwest directiuon directly looking at the pentagon she was outside carpark people around them heard an explosion not an plane..

Hang on a minute ago you were saying she was outside the pentagon entrance, now you're saying she was in the pentagon car park? Was she visiting the pentagon?

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 4:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

Can you clarify? Where was she standing? Which way was see facing? Did she say that she didn't see a plane even though she should have?

If it wasn't a plane what was it?

sorry King..

when I said northwest that was going by central washington terms

if you were looking staright at the builing from where it was hit she would have been on the 3 o clock side (hope that helps)

Not sure but nobody at the time heard a plane or saw plane.

This is about 22 people she can remember. One did say she heard a whizzing noise but did not sound like plane from where they were.

someone said (on this thread) there airport close by but its not that close to make that suggestion at the time

The_Kew_Tour · 08-04-2009 4:20pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Pray tell why exactly is it laughable?

And why exactly does that discount the other 130 witnesses, or the 8,000 people who worked at or in the crash site.

Hang on a minute ago you were saying she was outside the pentagon entrance, now you're saying she was in the pentagon car park? Was she visiting the pentagon?

yes her nephew in law wokred inside that morning

entrance carpark yes as you can see from pictures even on this thread

Bubba HoTep · 08-04-2009 4:24pm

Diogenes wrote: »

They're not stills they're just using an extremely slow frame rate. The camera in question had a specific job to photograph car's number plates as they drove up and were stopped by security. Not to capture objects travelling at 730 feet per second.

yes a slow frame rate, and i called the frames "stills" .it doesnt change the fact.

This is similar to the missile defence argument. Look a camera can only passively observe an intruder, a armed officer, can confront and challenge an intrude. The building has it's own specialised police force, how much more security can you ask for?

mate, most of my family are in the army, lots of soldiers at the barracks on guard, and yet, they have lots of cctv. ever been to the garda station? lots of gardai, and lots of cctv. gone shopping in the last 20 years? lots of cctv, even the street i live on has cctv

almost anywhere in the western world, where there is a building, especially a building like the pentagon, *there is cctv*

Perhaps it's because THE PLANE CRASHED INTO THE BUILDING NOT NEAR THE BUILDING.

did you even watch the video?

bonkey · 08-04-2009 4:24pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

what im asking is this, the actual owners of the videos, what reason in the world would they have to not want these videos shown? none,

The tapes were taken into evidence. The actual owners of the videos no longer had them in their possession. They could not choose to release them.

so why have they not been?

Every known existant video taken into evidence has now been released.

as for the pentagon, of course it is surrounded by cctv of their own, im mean honestly, does that even need to be asked?? *its the damn pentagon*

Yes, honestly. It needs to be asked.

The Pentagon say they have almost no CCTV outside the building.

They say that it offers them no security, when they have a dedicated human force for such security.
CCTV is used only to control road-based access, which is where the released Pentagon footage comes from.

The Pentagon has 1.4 km of outside wall. It sits on a reserve of 280 acres. CCTV does not and could not meaningfully cover such an area, unless you had hundreds/thousands of poles around the place, with cameras on them. Look around a British city, and you can spot the CCTV stuff all over the place. Look at the pictures of the Pentagon and you see nothing.

In your own post (previous to this one) you say yoruself that you see the stuff in military barracks, in police stations and in cities. You don't see it at the Pentagon.

There's no visible evidence. There's good reason why it would be ineffective. The people in charge of the place say they don't have any.

Again I say yes, honestly, it needs to be asked.

also, have a look at this video from a reporter at the scene right after it happened, what does he say about 45secs into the video
"there is no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the pentagon"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA

I thought we were sticking to discussing the cameras?

Anyway...here is the response to that point, including a comment by J.McIntyre himself explaining that arguments such as the one you've just made are taking him out of context.

Note this is from 911myths.com - the site that Meglome recommended earlier in this thread.

King Mob · 08-04-2009 4:29pm

adrian280582 wrote: »

sorry King..

when I said northwest that was going by central washington terms

if you were looking staright at the builing from where it was hit she would have been on the 3 o clock side (hope that helps)

So if she was looking directly at the building the plane was coming from behind her?
Now the plane was moving quite quickly I'd imagine.
Is it possible that she wasn't looking it the right direction at the right moment and simply didn't catch the plane before it hit?

adrian280582 wrote: »

Not sure but nobody at the time heard a plane or saw plane.

This is about 22 people she can remember.

So she asked twenty two people and determined that they all where all looking the right place at the right time to catch sight of the plane?

adrian280582 wrote: »

One did say she heard a whizzing noise but did not sound like plane from where they were.

Huh... you mean witness can be unreliable?

So if it wasn't a plane what was it?

911 - Points to discuss

Comments