Unreleased 9/11 Pentagon Security Tapes

Originally posted by snoopy
appease some people who don't want to look at all the much more overwhelming evidence anyways?

What overwhelming evidence?

In 6 years i have not found any physical evidence or real, official reports to support what we have been told.

Do you have physical evidence or FBI reports that supports the official story?

reply to post by AllSeeingI


I don't think the following issue has been raised in this thread but apologies if it has.

Only one of the objects pointed to by arrows in that image appears to be an actual camera. As can be seen in this high-resolution image the cameras used on the exterior of the Pentagon are quite distinctive and white. Only one object in AllSeeingI's image appears to match that description and the remaining objects are in positions that seem illogical for further security cameras. Without a sufficiently high-resolution copy of AllSeeingI's image (perhaps AllSeeingI could supply us with one) I can't accurately tell what the other objects are but I would hazard a guess of lamps.

How do you propose the government supply us with security footage from lamps or other non-recording equipment?

If the above link doesn't work try this one.

Originally posted by monoclear
Only one of the objects pointed to by arrows in that image appears to be an actual camera. As can be seen in

How do you propose the government supply us with security footage from lamps or other non-recording equipment?

I can see you have never worked at a federal building. There are several cameras on the roof of the Pentagon.

Unless you think they have Walmart security?

Originally posted by snoopy
Do you think that maybe they have a magic spell in which they can snap their fingers and everything is all edited and compiled and distributed? Please tell me more about how it would take no manpower or money to process all this stuff an start dishing it out to people. All kidding aside, from their stand point, why should they bother?

So you think that they haven't already done so? Quite a thorough investigation they did then, eh?

Didn't realize posting a video online takes a lot of money and manpower. I must be rich. You act like they are going to start shipping them out worldwide for retail man.

Originally posted by snoopy
And youa re asserting that ALL other tapes caught something, and based on you not seeing them. My basis for there not being anything on them is them saying there is nothing on them and not having some pre-determined conclusion that there is a conspiracy going on so I can pretend anything they say is a lie. And the fact that they made these claims about the other tapes and then provided them, shows they weren't lying the last 2 times. Thus even less reason they are to believe it this time. So to assume there is something on them ONLY because they aren't being given to you is very incredible.

Don't put words in my mouth to try to play a game of run around. I never said ALL. In fact, read my posts, I just said that out of all of them it's an incredible claim that none of them caught any footage (besides what we've already seen).

And talk about man power. Why would they "fake" tapes when they can just say that there's nothing on them to be released and everyone like you believes them.



[edit on 1-11-2007 by Sublime620]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

I can see you have never worked at a federal building.

And I can see you didn't bother checking the image I posted.

Copy and paste if the link doesn't work: upload.wikimedia.org...

There are several cameras on the roof of the Pentagon.

Indeed there are, as can be seen in the high-resolution image I posted found at the link above. What's your point?

My point (in case you misinterpreted my post) is that only one of the arrows in AllSeeingI's image points to an object that matches the style of camera used on the exterior of the Pentagon.

If you have proof to the contrary please provide it. For example a high resolution image of those objects or any objects similar to those on the exterior of the Pentagon showing that they are indeed cameras.

I think one other point no one bothers with is that the tapes from the hotel etc are NOT govt property. Once the govt is done with them, they go back to the original owners of the tapes and if say, Doubletree chooses not to release them to the public thats their business.

Just because the FBI took the tapes doesnt mean it has the right to release them.

Originally posted by Damocles
Just because the FBI took the tapes doesnt mean it has the right to release them.

But they should be released for a FOIA request.

So you think that they haven't already done so? Quite a thorough investigation they did then, eh?

Didn't realize posting a video online takes a lot of money and manpower. I must be rich. You act like they are going to start shipping them out worldwide for retail man.

Looking at the footage is not the same as compiling it all together for distribution. And yes it does take man power and money.

Don't put words in my mouth to try to play a game of run around. I never said ALL. In fact, read my posts, I just said that out of all of them it's an incredible claim that none of them caught any footage (besides what we've already seen).

It's pretty obvious that the term All didn't mean every single video feed. But more so all other footage other than what you have seen and was simply a reversal of what was said earlier for the sake of making a point. And no it's not by any means an incredible claim that none of the footage caught the incident, but it is an incredible claim to say it should have caught the event.

An assumption is being made (which you will claim I am putting words in your mouth) that all or most of the cameras are all pointed at the event thus out of 80 cameras pointing at it at least one must have caught it. But this is ignoring the fact that most of them are on the inside of the building. And as can be seen from the picture of the cameras on the outside, they are all pointing in different directions. This means that only a single camera out of 80 is even pointed in the right direction. And so now you have a single security camera taking 1fps of a 500 mph moving target.

And talk about man power. Why would they "fake" tapes when they can just say that there's nothing on them to be released and everyone like you believes them.

They DID say there was nothing on them. Just like they did about the guard station footage, and the gas station footage, and the hotel footage. And just like with the others, if they did release the tapes, you guys would still not be happy for the very same reason. That it shows nothing. So either they release the blank footage and you say there was no plane, or they don't and you say there wasn't a plane because they don't release it.

Perhaps they could release the footage from the camera that was pointed on that section. But then you guys would just complain that they are hiding the other tapes. And then you act surprised that a military building isn't just handing out the public security tapes of the building. Is this really a surprise?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by snoopy
appease some people who don't want to look at all the much more overwhelming evidence anyways?

What overwhelming evidence?

In 6 years i have not found any physical evidence or real, official reports to support what we have been told.

Do you have physical evidence or FBI reports that supports the official story?

Oh really? So the witnesses, the phone calls, the DNA, the RADAR, the remains of the plane, the bodies, the passenger belongings, the crew workers, the paper trails, the money trails, the confessions, and all the other stuff is nothing?

To say there has been no evidence found is about the most absurd statement one can make.

Originally posted by snoopy
Oh really? So the witnesses, the phone calls, the DNA, the RADAR, the remains of the plane, the bodies, the passenger belongings, the crew workers, the paper trails, the money trails, the confessions, and all the other stuff is nothing?

1. Witnesses could not agree on what they saw.

2. There are plenty of debates about the phone calls.

3. DNA does not prove anything about the planes.

4. There are no official reports as to the remains of the planes matching any of the 9/11 planes.

5. Bodies do not prove anything about the planes.

6. Passenger belongings do not prove anythign about the planes.

7. What do you know about the paper trails and the money trails ?

8. People and groups confess to things they did not do all the time.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by snoopy
Oh really? So the witnesses, the phone calls, the DNA, the RADAR, the remains of the plane, the bodies, the passenger belongings, the crew workers, the paper trails, the money trails, the confessions, and all the other stuff is nothing?

1. Witnesses could not agree on what they saw.

2. There are plenty of debates about the phone calls.

3. DNA does not prove anything about the planes.

4. There are no official reports as to the remains of the planes matching any of the 9/11 planes.

5. Bodies do not prove anything about the planes.

6. Passenger belongings do not prove anythign about the planes.

7. What do you know about the paper trails and the money trails ?

8. People and groups confess to things they did not do all the time.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

1. FALSE. You are trying to mislead people into thinking that there was some consortium of witnesses who maybe discussed what they saw and couldn't come to a conclusion. many people were certain of what they saw, but like with ALL eyewitness testimony there are some conflicting reports as different people had different vantage points, and different levels of aircraft knowledge. But amoung the eyewitnesses as a whole, there is absolutely no question that it was a commercial airliner. And many specifically identified it as an AA plane. To say they couldn't agree is outright dishonest.

2. FALSE. No there aren't. There was an attempt by some on here to falsify documents in order to mislead people into think that the phones were removed. But that was proven to be a lie. There is no debate by the people who talked to those on the plane as it happened. One such cheap tactic used by some is to say that because one of the victims husband worked for the government that she must be in on it. Sacrificing her life to help with some government plot? Absurd.

3. FALSE. It proves the identities of the victims on the planes. And it establishes that it was not just a plane but the exact plane it was and the people on board.

4. Yes there are, as well as many other forms of evidence. Your requirement that you personally be shown everything is beyond reason. It's an ongoing investigation, which isn't open to the public, as NO investigation is open. And during one of the trials they most certainly did include identifiable parts and have pictures of identifiable parts. You chose to dismiss it for the same reason which is that you require unreasonable requirements.

5. FALSE. They identify the passengers as well as the plane.

6. FALSE they prove the identities of the passengers and the plane.

7. The same as everyone else.

8. Which is not a valid excuse. You need to PROVE that is the case here. You also need to stop dividing up the evidence and examine it as a whole. You chose not to because it debunks yourself. The same reason you won't tell people what you think happened. Because you know it would disprove yourself. Much easier to take pot shots at other rather than actually do research and come up with a theory. If you did attempt to do that, your hypocrasy would destroy your case because all the arguments you make would hurt your own beliefs more than they do the scientific ones.

Originally posted by snoopy

1. FALSE. You are trying to mislead people into thinking that there was some consortium of witnesses who maybe discussed what they saw and couldn't come to a conclusion. many people were certain of what they saw, but like with ALL eyewitness testimony there are some conflicting reports as different people had different vantage points, and different levels of aircraft knowledge. But amoung the eyewitnesses as a whole, there is absolutely no question that it was a commercial airliner. And many specifically identified it as an AA plane. To say they couldn't agree is outright dishonest.

2. FALSE. No there aren't. There was an attempt by some on here to falsify documents in order to mislead people into think that the phones were removed. But that was proven to be a lie. There is no debate by the people who talked to those on the plane as it happened. One such cheap tactic used by some is to say that because one of the victims husband worked for the government that she must be in on it. Sacrificing her life to help with some government plot? Absurd.

3. FALSE. It proves the identities of the victims on the planes. And it establishes that it was not just a plane but the exact plane it was and the people on board.

4. Yes there are, as well as many other forms of evidence. Your requirement that you personally be shown everything is beyond reason. It's an ongoing investigation, which isn't open to the public, as NO investigation is open. And during one of the trials they most certainly did include identifiable parts and have pictures of identifiable parts. You chose to dismiss it for the same reason which is that you require unreasonable requirements.

5. FALSE. They identify the passengers as well as the plane.

6. FALSE they prove the identities of the passengers and the plane.

7. The same as everyone else.

8. Which is not a valid excuse. You need to PROVE that is the case here. You also need to stop dividing up the evidence and examine it as a whole. You chose not to because it debunks yourself. The same reason you won't tell people what you think happened. Because you know it would disprove yourself. Much easier to take pot shots at other rather than actually do research and come up with a theory. If you did attempt to do that, your hypocrasy would destroy your case because all the arguments you make would hurt your own beliefs more than they do the scientific ones.

1. What about the witnesses that admitted they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.

2. It has been proven that cell phones do not work at higher altitudes.

3. No, it proves the identity of the passengers not the planes.

4. You have not shown any official reports of any parts matching any of the 9/11 planes.

5. Bodies do not prove anything about what happened to the planes.

6. Belongings do not prove anything about what happned to the planes.

7. Again what do you know about the paper and money trails?

8. It is a valed excuse, and it is you who cannot come up with any real evidence or official report to support what you think happened.


[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Sublime620
2) None of the cameras caught it.
Now that's garbage. Even if those cameras are all 1 fps, multiple cameras would have caught the plane on approach if not the impact itself.

cameras placed at the top of a building like that are to look at the surrounding area (ground) not up in the sky or even at the horizon. They would not catch a plane or missile on approach, sorry.

Originally posted by JustTheFacts
cameras placed at the top of a building like that are to look at the surrounding area (ground) not up in the sky or even at the horizon. They would not catch a plane or missile on approach, sorry.

Correct me if i am wrong but didn't the plane crash into the building at ground level, where the cameras were looking ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


1. What about the witnesses that admitted they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.

2. It has been proven that cell phones do not work at higher altitudes.

3. No, it proves the identity of the passengers not the planes.

4. You have not shown any official reports of any parts matching any of the 9/11 planes.

5. Bodies do not prove anything about what happened to the planes.

6. Belongings do not prove anything about what happned to the planes.

7. Again what do you know about the paper and money trails?

8. It is a valed excuse, and it is you who cannot come up with any real evidence or official report to support what you think happened.


[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

1. So what you are saying is that if any of the witnesses didn't recognize the kind of plane, then all the ones who do are dismissed? If a person who isn't familiar with planes doesn't recognize the type, but an aviation expert does, the aviation experts testimony is void? How rational is that?

2. NO, it's proven that they do. More more importantly it's known that the planes were not flying at those high altitude, much of the time they were flying close to the ground.

3. Yes, and the passengers are known to be on that plane. They were seen boarding the plane, and they checked in onto the plane. They scanned their tickets as the boarded the planes.

4. Because it's an ongoing investigation, and your request is completely unreasonable. Just because YOU decided that's what's required, does not mean that's what constitutes proof. It just means that you are requiring proof that is completely absurd so that you can pretend that it isn't proof. This is not a valid argument and I won't play childish games with you. It's no different than the "i know you are but what am I" game.

5. Yes it does. Both the bodies from the people who we know were on that plane were there along with the plane itself. Employees of the airline who were familiar with that exact plane were brought down to identify that it was actually flight 77 and were able to confirm that it was indeed flight 77. And one of those people who positively identified the plane is a hard core CTer who thinks the government was behind it. But having served on that plane countless times, she was able to verify it was indeed that actual plane.

6. Yes they do. But once again you are playing your usual game where you treat each piece of evidence as isolated and analyze the entire story with ONLY one piece of evidence at a time instead of them as a whole. This is to maintain a perpetual fantasy.

7. The same as everyone else. I know the stuff that has been made public like everyone else. Unfortunately for you, the 9/11 cult tabloids won't include any of that info, so you probably won't see it. And if you do, you will just claim that it's been provided by the government and dismiss it like everything else.

8. No it's not, it's a cop out so you can keep pretending your pre-determined conclusion is right. It's a way to avoid having to deal with all the evidence that proves your beliefs wrong, much like require an unobtainable level of evidence or dismissing what you don't like.


Please share with us what you think happened. Don't play the "I'm just asking questions" crap because we all know that's not true. And that's not looking for truth, that's hiding from truth.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Correct me if i am wrong but didn't the plane crash into the building at ground level, where the cameras were looking ?

So now you know where the cameras were looking too?

Originally posted by snoopy
7. The same as everyone else. I know the stuff that has been made public like everyone else. Unfortunately for you, the 9/11 cult tabloids won't include any of that info, so you probably won't see it. And if you do, you will just claim that it's been provided by the government and dismiss it like everything else.

Please share with us what you think happened. Don't play the "I'm just asking questions" crap because we all know that's not true. And that's not looking for truth, that's hiding from truth.

7. You know nothing about the paper and money trails becasue there are no reports on the paper and money trail yet.

I do not know what happened, i was not there. Thats why i am doing research to find out what happened.

Anyone who says they know what happened that day and was not there is being very closed minded and dishonest.

Originally posted by snoopy
So now you know where the cameras were looking too?

Anyone who knows the basics of security and has some basic common sense knows where the cameras were pointing.



[edit on 3-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

You are doing research? Yet you haven't looked at any of the trial stuff? You know where they show stuff like receipts, money wiring bills, credit card transactions, bank transactions, hotel bills, car rental bills, etc etc. All those things which you claim don't exist.

Because you aren't personally included in the investigation. Because they don't come and consult you or get your approval? The problem is that you have determined from the beginning that anything coming from anyone that has anything to do with government is dimissed because you pre-determined they are criminals. And because nothing can be investigated without people who are somehow connected to the government, you make it so you will never have to ever see information that doesn't help your pre-determined conclusion.

So it's pretty pointless to even have any kind of debate with you. I wish you the best of luck, but what would be the point? I'm going to use ignore for what it was meant for. Preventing me from wasting my time by constantly getting sucked into what I think could be productive discussions only for it to end in childish antics.

Originally posted by snoopy
You are doing research? Yet you haven't looked at any of the trial stuff? You know where they show stuff like receipts, money wiring bills, credit card transactions, bank transactions, hotel bills, car rental bills, etc etc. All those things which you claim don't exist.

You must not do any research because you don't know anything about the government agencies involved with tracking money from terrorists organizations.

I will give you some help, here is a site that tracks terrorist organizations.
www.trackingthethreat.com...

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You know you're very good at making ambiguous unprovable claims, and relying on fallacies and pitfalls to prop your baseless arguments. But I've yet to see you provide any actual evidence to back up your claims. You accuse people of being ignorant and not doing their research when they make the effort to support their claims with citations and evidence, and yet you seem little concerned about the fact that you provide absolutely nothing but baseless declarations. The only thing you have proven is that you quite often misinterpret or misrepresent the points that people make.

You must not do any research because you don't know anything about the government agencies involved with tracking money from terrorists organizations.

Well since you're such an expert, why don't you enlighten us?

You can claim as much as you like, it does not make you right. It's quite clear from the style of your arguments that you have absolutely no interest in the truth, and other than the delusions you concoct to fill in the vast gaps of ignorance that is your comprehension of reality, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I strongly encourage and welcome any evidence you can provide to prove me wrong.

It really is quite Lear.