Look at the Penagon....is that the pentagon? Is that even a plane?

it is very well known in the military that it was TCM. Thats why it came up on the rictor scale, and why the is only one engin. One hole deep. I do not care what guys think it might be, i have heard this from my superiors, under no condition to think of a lie.
-USMC-

I find it amazing that the pentagon has excellent video of the satalite being blown up with a missile, but they have dodgy glimpses at best of activities in their own backyard/parking lot..

And this is one of the most heavily guarded and surveillanced areas in the world..

AMAZING!!

Your superiors know about as much as any civilian.

The legacy of 911 is cameras cameras everywhere, prior to 911 People provided security
not cameras, likely one reason we only have a couple of shots of the planes of 911
News organizations and documentaries were the reason we glimpsed the first plane hitting
WTC not security cameras. In answer to why all the cameras we have now didn't work back in 2001, they weren't there. Oh If I had bought stock in the security camera businesses.
I have no real idea how many camera's the pentagon had back then, likely they were mostly inside not outside.

Sep 9, 2004 12:16 pm US/Central

CHICAGO (CBS) Mayor Richard Daley plans to use more than 2,000 cameras across Chicago to act as hundreds of eyes that can catch suspicious scenes and alert officials to a possible terror strike. It will be like having police stationed at scores of potential trouble spots.


Note after 911

Rick Steves blog www.ricksteves.com...
I asked Ahmed what the term “Islamist” meant. He said he never heard the term before 9/11. He said an “Islamist” is an aggressive and judgmental Muslim who believes, “I am right and you are wrong.” Ahmed said he was a modern Muslim—he could have a glass of wine and go to a disco when he liked. He could be my friend with no thought about my religion

mantra of 911truthers “I am right and you are wrong or an idiot”

NYC's Subway Spycam Network Stuck in the Station
By Noah Shachtman January 24, 2008 |
A new report by the New York State Comptroller's office reveals that "the cost of the electronic security program has grown from $265 million to $450 million, an increase of $185 million or 70 percent." An August 2008 deadline has been pushed back to December 2009, and further delays may be just ahead.

Houston Police Chief Wants Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes
Analysis posted Feb 16 2006, 3:28 PM

The evidence is actually in the footage they released.




Do they look shockingly similar to you??
^^That right there is THE smoking gun of the whole incident. I have spent a good majority of my life dealing with explosives and the above photo is NOT a plane exploding. It is a high explosive warhead, look at the right side, it is almost completely flat. Uncontrolled fuel explosions don't make perfectly directed formed explosions like this.

Missiles do.

Penetrating missiles focus there power into a small area in order to punch into hard targets, they do this by exploding a few feet away from the target in an "air burst" .

This is what an uncontrolled fuel fireball looks like:

Google Video Link

this is an air burst bullet ( long before the airburst bullet they had air burst missiles) So just scale up the size and you get the idea.

Google Video Link

So when its all said and done, your left with this.

Penetration.

Another example of an airburst :
www.metacafe.com...
Notice the flat side.

I'm really sorry that you fell for the story that the evidence magically comes from the government.

Are you talking about yourself right now? Cause i do not believe YOUR government for a bit, and all the little agency's that are under the current administration

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the answers to your "questions" six years ago.

What questions? I didn't have any, ever. You are the one with questions, or why else would you mine so much information about 9/11?

And not even the right sources too! haha would you really think YOUR government is going to shoot itself in the foot and and publish reports that show us what really happend?

Without tampering?

Think again.

I'm sorry that you don't understand that yes, AA77, A Boeing 757, really did crash into the Pentagon.

I understand more then you think, 1st of all, you where not there when it happend. If you do say so, you are lying.

If you THINK you saw something happening, it was on TV, and yes yes here we go again; how can you tell that there is NO TAMPERING?

That's right, you can't, YOUR government can fabricate all they want, and get away with it. because who is going to stop them? the cia? hte FBI?? . hahaha

I am sorry that YOU don't understand that there are multiple lines of evidence that conclusively demonstrate AA77 DID NOT hit the Pentagon.

And last one;

You blindly put trust in the hands of your leaders, but do you have the courage the say you where wrong from the beginning?

I think not; you hold so much faith in the reports from your beloved leader bush that you ignore your own reality.

All the evidence presented by your official and (sort of) non-official sources SUPPORTED by the offcial sources, proves nothing.

Until you can prove to me YOUR government ISN'T tampering evidence, your statements are worthless.

Good luck.

No my friend, good luck to you... I'm not resident in the United states!

[edit on 6-3-2008 by PureET]

reply to post by shadow_D


Well gee we've seen those types of cameras operate like that. Like in schools and at gas stations and why you see that type of camera. A camera works, whats the point of replacing it? You are comparing a security camera to a camera on a missile.

I think it good really be misunderstood my saying, so I deleted it.

[edit on 6/3/08 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by spacevisitor


Your'e from the netherlands too right?

me 2

post your thoughts space traveller.

reply to post by deltaboy
I worked in a secure site post 9/11 and we had an array of intelligent motion sensing cameras covering the entire grounds between the building and the fences and not one of those cameras was monitoring the sky. All cameras fed back to a central control and monitoring console where they were recorded 24/7 but they only captured approx 1 frame/second/camera on video tape but an operator at the control console could view live action from all cameras simultaneously.

If the Pentagon security camera setup was at all similar to that I doubt they would have captured anything except maybe the fire and smoke as we saw in the infamously non-specific gate cam footage.

Chances are they have no better footage to release than we've already seen because these systems are designed to capture ground level activity, not speeding aircraft.

Originally posted by PureET

I'm really sorry that you fell for the story that the evidence magically comes from the government.

Are you talking about yourself right now? Cause i do not believe YOUR government for a bit, and all the little agency's that are under the current administration

You're not paying attention. Once again, I repeat: I'm really sorry that you fell for the story that the evidence magically comes from the government.



[edit on 6-3-2008 by jthomas]

From May, 2006:

"3. Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be suprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment. Given the limited number of entrances to the facility (all highly controlled areas), cameras are generally only needed in high traffic areas like vehicle control points (such as the one this video came from). What about the surrounding buildings. I've been to the AFFEES gas station on the hill more than a hundred times and can honestly tell you I never noticed a camera pointed towards the Pentagon... that doesn't mean there isn't one, but the filling stations don't seem to be arrainged in such a way as to provide camera coverage of the pumps and the Pentagon."

www.bautforum.com...

Read the whole thing.

While I love a good conspiracy as much as the next, there is absolutely no question that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. I had a friend on that flight. I know what was returned to her family. There were people talking on cell phones to loved ones as they crashed.

I have spoken to two eyewitnesses as well and there is no doubt.

It makes some look like the typical tinfoil hat crowd. There are real mysteries regarding 9/11, but this isn't one of them. Have a little respect for the dead, and accept the obvious truth.

You're chasing down the rabbit hole here.

Now if you want to talk about Flight 93, well that's quite a different story and the one the Government is standing by isn't anywhere close to the truth.

Originally posted by Q Level
While I love a good conspiracy as much as the next, there is absolutely no question that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. I had a friend on that flight. I know what was returned to her family. There were people talking on cell phones to loved ones as they crashed.

I have spoken to two eyewitnesses as well and there is no doubt.

It makes some look like the typical tinfoil hat crowd. There are real mysteries regarding 9/11, but this isn't one of them. Have a little respect for the dead, and accept the obvious truth.

You're chasing down the rabbit hole here.

Now if you want to talk about Flight 93, well that's quite a different story and the one the Government is standing by isn't anywhere close to the truth.

What would lead you to a different conclusion?

That guy (or gal), whoever he was, was one hell of a pilot.

If you THINK you saw something happening, it was on TV, and yes yes here we go again; how can you tell that there is NO TAMPERING?

how can you tell there is tampering

I am sorry that YOU don't understand that there are multiple lines of evidence that conclusively demonstrate AA77 DID NOT hit the Pentagon.

there are multiple lines of evidence that conclusively demonstrate AA77 DID hit the pentagon. not just evidence that it didnt

Until you can prove to me YOUR government ISN'T tampering evidence, your statements are worthless.

until you can prove to ME that MY government IS tampering evidence, your statements are worthless


i tried the quotes but they didnt work out too well
[edit on 3/6/2008 by CTMoney]

[edit on 3/6/2008 by CTMoney]

reply to post by Pilgrum


Michael Moore, said specifically that to 9/11 he filmed at the Pentagon and that there was no way they didn't have a film of what hit. I mean there are an awful lot of cameras from many different angles.

The question would be, why would they have hundreds of useless cameras? I mean ATM machines catch people all the time with their video's, the police have even used the video cameras on indoor ATM machines to catch a key moment on the outside!

I think it a bit much to think that they don't have good footage of what happened.



[edit on 7-3-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by PureET
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Your'e from the netherlands too right?
me 2

post your thoughts space traveller.

Hallo PureET, leuk om na al mijn ruimte omzwervingen weer eens een landgenoot te ontmoeten.
Hi PureET, nice to meat a fellowman after all my space trips.

Great to see that I am not the only Dutchmen in ATS town.
My original reply good easily be interpreted wrongly, and that I tried to avoid, so I delete it.

But in a way my point was, that this footage is in my opinion definitely special prepared, to deceive anyone who sees it and let them believe that it was indeed an big American airliner.
So, I really don’t understand how it comes, that there are so many people who actually believes it as solid evidence.

reply to post by CTMoney


So basicly what you are doing here is repeating my questions and reversing them wich is kinda obvious. You failed to answer my questions wich is too obvious.

Jthomas does this too.

Since you are child-ish i will not respond in a normal manner until you do so.


SpaceVisitor!,

You are right, it's too obvious, there is only one frame with some sort of object in it, the rest is blurred out, you can see it clearly.

Why don't they see it?

The first frame lasts 2 times as much as the rest of the frames... so what is happening here? They added a artificial frame and forgot to rename the time stamp?

You can see it clearly, the fram with the object in it lasts 2 times longer than the rest of the frames...

NOW WHY IS THAT?

I call that tampering, CTMONEY!

reply to post by jthomas


JTHOMAS!


Why are you still ignoring my questions when I am answering yours?

It seems that your mind is blurred with ignorance... Care to explain?