Still Think There should be Pentagon Video ?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I know a friend of a friend, airline pilot type, who was flying out of EWR during September 2001, from where 93 departed.

When this guy checked in for his flight that morning, there was NOBODY manning the security checkpoints at EWR. The checkpoint through which he went to his flight was not manned.

Doesn't prove anything except things were MOST UNUSUAL that morning in Newark.

a reply to: Salander

We had times when checkpoints were unmanned, and crews would try to slip through. Some airports didn't require crews to be screened. Ours did, but if it was a crew member we generally gave them a lot of slack.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SkuzzleButt

The company I worked for on 9/11 was responsible for four checkpoints. Three of those had two lanes, with four cameras to a lane. Those cameras were over ten years old. Not one of them showed an accurate time stamp if it showed on at all. Almost half didn't even work.

Sorry but this is really hard for me to wrap my mind around. A moderator of a conspiracy site seems to be encouraging the lack of video (i.e. the official story) because he used to work for a lame security company at the Pentagon?!

Even if I accept all that, I still don't believe the Pentagon's security would be so weak. "Hey your company needs to watch these four checkpoints with these 30 cameras. They're 10yrs old so they're obsolete and lame. The time stamps are always wrong or nonexistent. Oh and half the cameras don't turn on."

Um that doesn't sound like a real job lol.

As others pointed out before, anyone who thinks it's OK that there's no video of the plane, is assuming the Pentagon had crap security equipment that was obsolete compared to the cameras that actually work... like when every customer gets filmed in a convenience store parking lot.

They have films of shoplifters stealing candy bars but the Pentagon couldn't film an airplane crashing into its wall.

a reply to: peacefulpete
You should see some of the corridors inside the Pentagon. Worn out carpet, water stained walls, half the lights out....... Folks really need to get past this idea that the Pentagon was(is) a gleaming fortress.

a reply to: samkent

Hi samkent,

It is my first post here, but a veteran 911 'researcher'.



The Pentagon DID RELEASE a video from their CCTV in the parking lot. I saw it in a documentary and it was HILARIOUS! I'll describe it:

A corner of the building on the left. A liftgate in the centre. After a few seconds, an invisible object flys across the screen and The Pentagon ends up as not even a POLYGON!! ;o) Oh well... Almoast!

Does anyone remember the video?

I'll get back later when I have more time and let all know what was sooo... hilarious about it.

I'm veri courious about this forum opinion of my offshore posts! MyBB.co.za is in South Africa and I ended up out there after being banned in San Diego, Switzerlan, Germany, etc.

c u soon -dan

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: peacefulpete
You should see some of the corridors inside the Pentagon. Worn out carpet, water stained walls, half the lights out....... Folks really need to get past this idea that the Pentagon was(is) a gleaming fortress.

So... we need to stop assuming the Pentagon had / has functional security cameras. Yeah okay.

I can't buy a gallon of milk without being videotaped, but the US governments' most important buildings... lack surveillance cameras that work.

Well that clears that up lol.

Now the mystery is: Why don't the Pentagon folks ask the gas stations about their amazingly superior cameras, and where to buy some?

Let me guess. There are no functional security cameras left, because all the gas stations already bought them all. Too bad for the Pentagon! But at least our gas stations are safe and secure.

a reply to: peacefulpete

I can't buy a gallon of milk without being videotaped, but the US governments' most important buildings... lack surveillance cameras that work.

There is a big difference in a 'for profit' gas station and the government.
The gas station can go out of business because of theft.
The government doesn't care about wastage.

Even today security can be lacks on any given day.
Before 911 lacks security was the norm. IMO

How many times have you gotten around 'the system' in your life?
Walked down the hall to the second movie at the multiplex?
Inadvertently walked through the wrong door and found yourself where you know you shouldn't be.

If I remember correctly, wasn't the plane supposed to have flown almost directly over the Pentagon's helicopter landing zone? Wouldn't you have expected at least that location to be monitored 24/7 by cctv?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: peacefulpete

I can't buy a gallon of milk without being videotaped, but the US governments' most important buildings... lack surveillance cameras that work.

There is a big difference in a 'for profit' gas station and the government.
The gas station can go out of business because of theft.
The government doesn't care about wastage.

Even today security can be lacks on any given day.
Before 911 lacks security was the norm. IMO

How many times have you gotten around 'the system' in your life?
Walked down the hall to the second movie at the multiplex?
Inadvertently walked through the wrong door and found yourself where you know you shouldn't be.

Well I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks the Pentagon didn't have working cctv, now or on 9-11. Regardless that a few people here seem to think that.

Gas stations have had cameras filming every single customer even in 2001. Buying beer, lottery tickets, tampons. All these pointless transactions get filmed. But around the block, the Pentagon had dozens of cameras set-up all over it. But only one broken camera was filming the wall on 9-11!

If anyone believes that OS then it resembles self-denial more than anything.

2001 had cameras filming parking lots and people buying apples at the grocery store. Pretty much like today. In such a context it's impossible to consider that the Pentagon just wasn't filming their own property too.

The Pentagon's dozens of cameras actually implies that they have dozens of recordings happening all the time.

Their refusal to release any film of the plane, implies that they're hiding something, and that the plane wasn't there. The conclusion is entirely more plausible than the OS with excuses about broken cameras lol.

1. They have enough cameras:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



2. They confiscated more than 80 videos:

infowars.net...


So better come back, when you did your homework!

originally posted by: anotherdaytoday
2. They confiscated more than 80 videos:

infowars.net...

So better come back, when you did your homework!

You really are the one who should do your homework, and that does not mean believing the garbage infowars shows. Please detail these "84" video's confiscated around the Pentagon.... where did they come from, and why would they be pointed at the Pentagon....

So... we need to stop assuming the Pentagon had / has functional security cameras. Yeah okay.

I can't buy a gallon of milk without being videotaped, but the US governments' most important buildings... lack surveillance cameras that work.

Yeah, you should stop assuming things about the Pentagon. Cameras were a secondary level of security. The primary level was the Pentagon police force.

a reply to: IvanAstikov

With a control tower right there, why?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596

So... we need to stop assuming the Pentagon had / has functional security cameras. Yeah okay.

I can't buy a gallon of milk without being videotaped, but the US governments' most important buildings... lack surveillance cameras that work.

Yeah, you should stop assuming things about the Pentagon. Cameras were a secondary level of security. The primary level was the Pentagon police force.

The police force is irrelevant to discussing the Pentagon's cameras.

And I won't stop assuming that the Pentagon's dozens of cameras... are taking dozens of videos. Actually you and everyone supporting the lame-camera idea, are encouraging your own assumptions too. You guys are assuming the cameras don't work right, and I'm assuming they do work. We're both in the realm of assumptions but I think mine are more realistic.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596
Because it was an obvious egress spot and only protected by a couple of guys in a control tower, maybe?
Or, was the Pentagon so arrogant it never really thought anybody might have the nerve?

nah it's much more important to have 4 different angles
of you driving through any intersection in any city in
much better resolution.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596

So... we need to stop assuming the Pentagon had / has functional security cameras. Yeah okay.

I can't buy a gallon of milk without being videotaped, but the US governments' most important buildings... lack surveillance cameras that work.

Yeah, you should stop assuming things about the Pentagon. Cameras were a secondary level of security. The primary level was the Pentagon police force.

The police force is irrelevant to discussing the Pentagon's cameras.

And I won't stop assuming that the Pentagon's dozens of cameras... are taking dozens of videos. Actually you and everyone supporting the lame-camera idea, are encouraging your own assumptions too. You guys are assuming the cameras don't work right, and I'm assuming they do work. We're both in the realm of assumptions but I think mine are more realistic.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Mine are based on people who worked in the Pentagon. Yours are based off of crap you read on conspiracy sites. And, the police force is very much relevant. Especially when it was the primary means of security at the Pentagon, NOT the cameras.


So, you can assume, I will stick with facts.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: peacefulpete

Mine are based on people who worked in the Pentagon. Yours are based off of crap you read on conspiracy sites. And, the police force is very much relevant. Especially when it was the primary means of security at the Pentagon, NOT the cameras.


So, you can assume, I will stick with facts.

It is not facts to ASSUME the US' most important buildings had non-functional cameras. It's your assumption that their cameras don't work right. It's MY assumption that their dozens of cameras take dozens of videos. My assumptions are more realistic than your assumptions, as per obvious common sense.

You said your assumptions are based on folks who worked there. I doubt it, just like (no offense) I honestly doubt that the moderator in this thread just happened to be working there on 9-11 too, I mean come on.

I guess I just doubt internet posters in general when they make such claims about their past employment re: such places and events. I'm not impressed by anyone's claims of working there on 9-11 and stuff like that, nor does it make their views more compelling to me.

And to finish responding to all your meaningless dribble, no my views don't come from crappy conspiracy websites. The Pentagon's events were pretty self-evident that there was no plane there, and that the government is obviously hiding things.

And no the police force is not relevant in discussing the Pentagon's cameras. They're two unrelated topics. I understand what you're saying -- that they counted on their police manpower so much that they let their surveillance cameras fall to # -- but that is just a nonsensical assumption. There would be no reason for the Pentagon not to be able to afford police PLUS cameras, come on man. This is the wealthiest country and government on the planet.

In conclusion: It's by far the most realistic assumption that the Pentagon's tons of cameras... take tons of videos, all the time.

The lack of plane footage suggests... a lack of plane.