what amazes me still about the pentagon footage still

we all know about the plane that landed on the hudson river the other day, but the thing that amazes me is about 7 different security cameras *very very good quality* caught this plane landing in the water from 7 different angles. on 9/11 we get one security camera with quality worse than a 1997 webcam and can only view at 3 frames a second. whos fooling who here?

Absolutely. I do not believe the Pentagon was not better surveyed. It stinks of a cover-up.

What was it, again, that caused such an increase in the use of surveillance cameras? Wasn't it some big calamity somewhere? I'm old and forgetful...

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
What was it, again, that caused such an increase in the use of surveillance cameras? Wasn't it some big calamity somewhere? I'm old and forgetful...

all of the hudson river cameras were pointed at the river, a place least likely of a terrorist attack. if you have 7 cameras pointing at this one spot how many are pointing to the pentagon?

They gave us what they wanted us to see which is NOTHING!
Why you ask, because it was a missal (snicker) we expect you to believe it was an airplane, (snicker,) we the gov have spent billions of your tax dollars deceiving you. We hope you all fell for it.

There is a lot going on there on the river, as we have all seen in the past few days. Of course there has been a lot of information hidden about 9-11, for various reasons, but it's easy for us to forget how much has changed in the past seven years, especially in the number of video cameras pointed everywhere. The only reason "they" could get away with releasing those few frames of fuzzy video from a gas station or whatever, is because most people think there weren't many security cameras pointed at the Pentagon. What would you expect to happen in the Pentagon's yard back then? Some graffiti artists going to paint the sides?

In other words, if an airliner had managed a "water landing" (I just love that term ) on the Hudson in, say, January of 2001, would there be video of it? I doubt it.

[edit on 1/17/09 by Double_Nought_Spy]

reply to post by Double_Nought_Spy


That's ridiculous.

Of course the Pentagon had surveillance. It's a government institution holding top secret files for crying out loud! My local Walmart had better security camera coverage back in 2001 than what they showed us. They weren't afraid of kids painting up the walls, but you can bet they were afraid of secrets getting out.

You people act like 9/11 was the first act of terrorism ever.

reply to post by drwizardphd


Calm down, Dude. All I am saying is that it should not be a big surprise that there is decent surveillance video of the crash on the Hudson. If you read my comments, I was talking about perceptions and the reason "they" got away with releasing next to nothing.

Thursday's episode is flat amazing. It's a marvel of competence and professionalism in a great many people. Makes me proud to be an American, even!

reply to post by Swatman


Rivers, particularly the Hudson at that spot, actually are a likely source of terrorist activity. This is why coastal units have been beefed up in the years since 9/11, as well as port security. There's plenty of info about this available open source on the web.

reply to post by Swatman


I'm still trying to figure out what really crashed into the Pentagon. I'm really at a loss. Even if they are just withholding the tapes simply to screw with us it still makes them the scum of the Earth for doing so. 9/11 is not a game, though certain people in the military obviously think it is.

If you look at pictures of the Pentagon up close, you can see cameras on top of the building every so many feet. I'm talking about pictures of 9/11 when the cameras were already there. The FBI has 80+ videos of the plane or alleged plane crash and won't release those videos to the public.

Why do you think they haven't released one single clear video? Because there was no plane that hit the Pentagon as all available evidence has shown.

Two planes were destroyed that day in the attack on the towers on live TV, the other two alleged plane crashes were staged. Since people saw the planes crash into the towers on live tv, it wasn't hard for them to swallow planes hitting the Pentagon or Shanksville.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If you look at pictures of the Pentagon up close, you can see cameras on top of the building every so many feet. I'm talking about pictures of 9/11 when the cameras were already there. The FBI has 80+ videos of the plane or alleged plane crash and won't release those videos to the public.

Why do you think they haven't released one single clear video? Because there was no plane that hit the Pentagon as all available evidence has shown.

Two planes were destroyed that day in the attack on the towers on live TV, the other two alleged plane crashes were staged. Since people saw the planes crash into the towers on live tv, it wasn't hard for them to swallow planes hitting the Pentagon or Shanksville.

Of course, BoneZ won't tell you that he has absolutely no eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

Nor will he or CIT admit that no videos are needed to know that AA77 hit the Pentaqon.

It's the nature of their 9/11 Denial to pretend that physical reality does not exist, which is further demonstrated by CIT's continued refusal to present its "evidence" to any authorities.

The CIT Fairy Tale is over. Get used to it Bone Z.

There was more footage of the Pentagon but wasn't it admitted to be confiscated? I'm sure that was captured in probably hundreds of angles as well, we just didn't have the "pleasure" of viewing all of them. They released the worst one too seems like. If there really is nothing to hide why hold that back? How could it possibly affect security by showing it?

But about the Hudson crash, we shouldn't be surprised that things like that are captured in several angles. 9/11 justified there being more cameras everywhere for our own "security". You could probably get any event that happens anywhere on camera now.

The real question is, what are you allowed to see? Sure everything is probably recorded now, but we won't get to see or know that. If we see something happen at 10 different angles, we were meant to. That's about all.

Originally posted by jthomas
The CIT Fairy Tale is over. Get used to it Bone Z.

As much as you want it to be over jthomas; it won't be over until the tapes are released and we are told why the tapes were kept secret for so long. Actually more and more people are asking questions just like these guys.

www.patriotsquestion911.com...

also jthomas we're hip to your tactics

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 18-1-2009 by whaaa]

Originally posted by jthomas
Of course, BoneZ won't tell you that he has absolutely no eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

I don't recall saying there was a fly-over. I recall saying no jetliner struck the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Sara1
There was more footage of the Pentagon...They released the worst one too seems like. If there really is nothing to hide why hold that back?

Exactly. Check out the pictures of the cameras, just on the Pentagon alone:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's cameras all along the perimeter of the Pentagon, including a camera just above the impact zone. There are plenty of cameras that recorded what happened. To not release a clear video from any one of those cameras shows blatant deception and cover-up.

The available evidence, on top of the refusal to show footage from any of those cameras tells us that there was no jetliner that struck the Pentagon and that a cover-up is in place to hide what really happened.

So it's obvious I have not followed this, and if that bothers you please ignore my question, but has there been any plausible theory to explain where that plane and all those people went if it was not the "missile" that hit the Pentagon? I have not seen one. If there is a sensible theory, then is there evidence? Please don't just tell me "they" can get rid of a plane without anyone knowing, I did say plausible. There is obviously something mighty suspicious about the Pentagon event, but we don't have enough information to even make an intelligent guess, in my opinion. Of course that is not an accident.

I recall Flight 800 very well, a hit that was witnessed by many people, including a pilot in a plane a few miles away. He was a war veteran who had shot down planes and had been shot down himself. He said he saw a missile hit the plane. He then seemed to vanish.

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
If there is a sensible theory, then is there evidence? There is obviously something mighty suspicious about the Pentagon event, but we don't have enough information to even make an intelligent guess, in my opinion.

I won't pretend to know everything. I have no idea where the plane or passengers are. Of course there are theories, but none that I subscribe to. If the 9/11 truth movement get's the investigation we're calling for, that would be one of the questions to ask those responsible for 9/11.

For example, the mother that's been charged with killing her 3yo daughter. It's hard to prove that she killed her daughter without the body. There was evidence that suggests she may have killed her daughter, but no concrete proof without the body. They finally did find the body and now they can prosecute her.

Although there are a few plane parts at the Pentagon that will put some people's minds to rest thinking a plane hit the Pentagon, there's no where near enough wreckage that would be consistent with a 100,000+ pound jetliner.

There's also the CNN reporter, Jamie McIntyre, who reported from the crash scene minutes after the alleged impact and stated that upon his close-up inspection of the crash site, there's nothing there that would suggest that a plane crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

Then you have cameras lined up around the perimeter of the Pentagon and a camera right over the crash site that the government won't release footage from. What are they trying to hide? Each piece of evidence doesn't seem significant by themselves, but put them all together and you get a bigger picture.

I smell something fishy here. I see lag frames on the Coast Guard cameras, just like the ones at the Pentagon. So similar...

Its the year 2009 and they still use cheap cameras like back in 2001. I believe its just to make it hard for the audience to see whats going on.