NSA archives: Flight 93 shot down

Originally posted by spookjr
Are you saying that you have the footage from them?

I have photos of the placement of cameras and the ones removed

Photos of cameras in the area:

1. Traffic camera.
i114.photobucket.com...

2. Hotel cameras.
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

Hotel camera removed
i114.photobucket.com...

3. Navy annex.
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

4. Pentagon cameras.
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

5. Gas Station cameras.
i114.photobucket.com...

Gas Station cameras removed
i114.photobucket.com...



[edit on 10-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1
So,from those cameras,no less than 10 security tapes were confiscated all of which would have shown the object that hit the Pentagon,is that correct? And the footage has not ever been seen by anyone because it remains in the possesion of the FBI? To me that fact,in and of itself, reeks to high heaven of cover up. The one camera that actually shows the object is not even close to definitive. I have to say though, that light colored blur in the footage looks suspiciously like some sort of UAV. Also to my eyes the building was not nearly damaged enough or damaged in a way that looks like a jet hit it. If you compare the towers footage with the Pentagon footage you can easily see how the wings would effect the structure. Even though the stone structure of the Pentagon would be a bit tougher than steel and glass there would be some impression of the wings. And by the way where are the 2, 6 ton steel and titanium engines supposed to have dissapeared to?

Originally posted by spookjrSo,from those cameras,no less than 10 security tapes were confiscated all of which would have shown the object that hit the Pentagon,is that correct?

Actually i believe the number of CCTV tapes i heard is more like in the 80s.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Have you ever seen the footage from any of these cameras?

Originally posted by spookjr
Have you ever seen the footage from any of these cameras?

No, they have not been released. I have been attempting to get access to more information but it is tough.

reply to post by ULTIMA1
I bet its tough all right. Dont you think they were probably destroyed so they could never be seen? That would be the most logical thing to do, since "they" are not interested in an ivestigation.

Originally posted by spookjr
Dont you think they were probably destroyed so they could never be seen? That would be the most logical thing to do, since "they" are not interested in an ivestigation.

Well here is a memo from an FBI agent that states nothing could be seen on the tape.

Which raises 2 questions.

1. Why was the tape confiscated if it did not show anything?

2. Why did they wait so long to state this. The memo is from 2005?

i114.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Why was the tape confiscated if it did not show anything?

The tape was probably confiscated to be analyzed at a later date, to keep the tape from being overwritten. Most places with security cams dont record the data once on a tape, then archive it till the sun burns out. They will re-use media. The tape was probably removed from the premises to avoid that.

You would be suprised how often sites re-use media. I've found clients that have been rotating backups on a weekly basis, and using the same 7 tapes over and over and over. I'm suprised the tapes still function.

2. Why did they wait so long to state this. The memo is from 2005?
i114.photobucket.com...

Since we do not know the source of your memo, there is no telling. It looks like it was possibly a reply to some FOIA request, or something. Without more background on the memo, when it was requested, etc, nobody can make a judgement on why it took so long.

reply to post by ULTIMA1
Just another weird fact in an endless river of b.s.. Exactly,why was the tape confiscated if it shows nothing, and why was it not ever disclosed to the general public, if it doesnt reveal a single fact. Very fishy.

Originally posted by gavron
The tape was probably confiscated to be analyzed at a later date, to keep the tape from being overwritten. Most places with security cams dont record the data once on a tape,

But most places with security cameras also have a monitor to view what was on the tape. So why didn't they look at the tape before taking it?

Since we do not know the source of your memo, there is no telling. .

But the date shows 2005, that means it was written 4 years after the tape was taken. Why did they wait 4 years?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But most places with security cameras also have a monitor to view what was on the tape. So why didn't they look at the tape before taking it?

Perhaps most sites have crappy little 6 inch black and white monitors, and they wanted to see the images on a larger screen? So rather than sit and squint at a teensy screen, they tape the tape and analyze it in their LAB.

But the date shows 2005, that means it was written 4 years after the tape was taken. Why did they wait 4 years?

Once again, since we do not know the background information on this memo (when it was requested, who requested it, etc etc), nobody can answer your question. The memo pic is even on your own personal account, not from the source itself. How is anyone expected to answer your questions without more background information?

Originally posted by gavron
Perhaps most sites have crappy little 6 inch black and white monitors, and they wanted to see the images on a larger screen? So rather than sit and squint at a teensy screen, they tape the tape and analyze it in their LAB.

Oh so they were not worried about seeing if there was evidnece of a major crime on it, they were more worried about the size of the screen.

How is anyone expected to answer your questions without more background information?

I think most people can figure out that 4 years is a long time for the FBI to come out with this information.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh so they were not worried about seeing if there was evidnece of a major crime on it, they were more worried about the size of the screen.

So, viewing the media on a larger screen, to see what it contained, doesnt make any sense to you? Wouldnt you want them to view the media on a screen they can see, rather than squint at perhaps an old, 6 inch black and white screen with some dead pixels...and make their judgement there?

I think most people can figure out that 4 years is a long time for the FBI to come out with this information.

Without knowing what the background is with the memo, there is no way to answer your questions, ULTIMA1. When was the request that the memo was referring to put in? Who was making the request? If the request wasnt made till 2005, then there is your answer.

Originally posted by gavron
So, viewing the media on a larger screen, to see what it contained, doesnt make any sense to you?

Viewing it to see if there is evidence of a major attack on the US makes much more sense then the size of the screen.

If the request wasnt made till 2005, then there is your answer.

But why did they wait 4 years to even state there was nothing on it, if there was nothing on it they should have stated it as soon as they found out there was nothing on it?



[edit on 10-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Viewing it to see if there is evidence of a major attack on the US makes much more sense then the size of the screen.

Thats just silly, ULTIMA1. You seriously think it is best for the investigators to look at the tape on possibly a bad, 6 inch monitor, rather than just take the tape to a facility with better equipment? What if the facility had NO monitor, or it was broken. They just skip it? Saying we couldnt see anything because you have no monitor, so we'll assume it has nothing.

Wow.

But why did they wait 4 years to even state there was nothing on it, if there was nothing on it they should have stated it as soon as they found out there was nothing on it?

Without more information on the memo, who requested it, and when it was requested, nobody can answer your questions, ULTIMA1. Maybe you should provide more information to us. Like sources of the memo, the original source that you got your image, etc.

reply to post by spookjr


This is a hard thing to say as I believe Ultima is a good guy, has served his country with honor and, I believe, motivated by what he truly thinks is the 'right thing'.

Why it matters (actual position within the NSA) is thus: it's a far cry to work at NSA, than for NSA. That is, someone can be a janitor (nothing wrong with that!) working in the NSA building however, that's a far cry from being a NSA analyst. My personal belief is Ultima is closer to the former, than the latter.

I find it hard to believe that a community college graduate is working in any position of authority, knowledge or access. Further, I find it highly suspect that someone working for NSA as an analyst would spend so much time posting on the internet, on a very public forum, exposing themselves to a massive amount of professional liability.

Forget if Ultima has access to anything that the rest of us might not have access to. True “spook” type employees do not advertise what they do for a living. Doing so places themselves in all sorts of professional jeopardy.

IMO only, the reason Ultima refers to his credentials is an attempt to “Appeal to Authority”. That is, his assertions are backed up in a way that does not satisfy critics and to counter this, he claims a position of some authority on the subject; his employment at NSA.

I don’t say these things to smear Ultima. As I said, he is a patriot and has served his country with honor in the USAF. However, an NSA analyst, or a NSA employee with access to “the stuff”?

Negative.

Originally posted by gavron
Thats just silly, ULTIMA1. You seriously think it is best for the investigators to look at the tape on possibly a bad, 6 inch monitor, rather than just take the tape to a facility with better equipment?

So lets all get this straight. You do not think it was important enough to find out first that there was evidnece of an attack against the US on a tape

You think it was more important to watch it on a bigger screen?

That has to be the most childish thing i have ever seen on this forum.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
This is a hard thing to say as I believe Ultima is a good guy, has served his country with honor and, I believe, motivated by what he truly thinks is the 'right thing'.

Well at least you are adult enouh to admit the facts i have posted about my service and thanks for the kind words.

I find it hard to believe that a community college graduate is working in any position of authority, knowledge or access.

Where did i state anything abot being a graduate of community college?

All that just proves is that you do not know very much about what really goes on in the government.

I thought you could have seen by the cources i took what kind of work i did. A janitor would not need to take all the courses i have taken specially in computer security, and the intell type courses.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
I know exactly what Ultima does at the NSA, and I also know for a fact that he has access to high level info. I work for a NASA contractor, I have a fairly high clearance, but does that mean I have access to alien tech? Not even, he admits on more than one occasion that he does not have the answers we are all looking for. I served my country as well in the same branch that he did. He can do or say anything he wants as long as he does not reveal the details of his position, which is most assuredly covered by the N.D.A. that he signed when taking the job. Also I can assure you that even a janitor has a security clearance, and he is definitly not a janitor. What point were you trying to make? BTW I am a community college grad, The Community College of The Air Force, I have 2 degrees from them, and I work with NASA. I dont ever recall him stating that he was a Com. Col. graduate



[edit on 10-8-2008 by spookjr]

Originally posted by spookjr
I know exactly what Ultima does at the NSA, and I also know for a fact that he has access to high level info. I work for a NASA contractor, I have a fairly high clearance, but does that mean I have access to alien tech?

Thanks Spooky for the back up. But i i do not believe he will accept anything that is posted, thats the way most believers are.