Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
You made this claim: "...explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

Demonstrate that there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon or withdraw your claim. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

Enough of your evasions, Lilydale. You're making a fool of yourself.

"Demonstrate that there no passenger bodies at the Pentagon"

- Negative Proof -

en.wikipedia.org...

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false.

---

There was a Unicorn at the pentagon...

I don't need photos or video evidence...

Your analogy is certainly humorous. However, in fairness to jthomas, there is, ofcourse, the allegation that DNA from the passengers was recovered from the pentagon. I think we can agree that if DNA were truly recovered of the alleged AA 77 passengers from the pentagon, it would stand to reason that it would have been recovered from bodies.

The thing is, the alleged recovery of the DNA at the pentagon is highly suspicious, to put it mildly, as SPreston explains in another thread here that has since been closed. To whit:

Originally posted by Spreston
DNA strands are highly sensitive to heat, and guess where [they] claimed they found a whole bunch of Flight 77 passenger DNA? Yep. You guessed it. Right out there inside and outside of the Exit Hole. Apparently they figured both the nose cone with the passengers all crammed into the cockpit and the perfectly circular ball of fire blew the Exit Hole through the C Ring wall. No explanation on how DNA survived all that heat nor any explanation on how a flimsy fuselage nose cone could bore a hole through the outer steel reinforced Pentagon wall and through multiple reinforced columns to end up way over in the A&E Drive, carrying all this alleged DNA with it. Just standard government official BS.

reply to post by scott3x


Well thats the beauty of it. You could look into it yourself but dont.

Standing on the mountain and screaming something is a lot different if youre wrong.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Again, it would be SIMPLE to research it.

What else can I say except if you don't believe me debunk me. Post the evidence in this thread right here. I have been proven wrong before, it would be nice if the "truthers" took a stab at it.

reply to post by mmiichael


But, we aren't talking about the age of the telephone equipment in their offices, are we? We're talking about surveillance cameras on the building that houses the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You can create an appeal to ridicule fallacy that scoffs at my supposition, but it's still a fallacy and not a logical argument.

The Naval Research Laboratory revealed advanced AI, under Alan Schultz while other people were fantasizing about it. The military had GPS ten years ahead of the civilian world and that is just location, not surveillance technology. Biometrics was funded by the military and in test during the 90's. We're only just now finding a civilian application for it in terms of Real ID. These are examples. I can give more.

What you are asking me to believe is that the military would leave their generals and admirals without the benefit of surveillance technologies developed by SRA in the 90's, and I just don't.

You may, however.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Again, it would be SIMPLE to research it.

What else can I say except if you don't believe me debunk me. Post the evidence in this thread right here. I have been proven wrong before, it would be nice if the "truthers" took a stab at it.

My argument is that it is not simple to research it, no, not at all. It was not easy for the 9-11 investigators and they were far more empowered, far more doors open for them, and they were still given the runaround.

Asking people what they saw that day makes them nervous. Even talking among friends people are funny about it. The Beltway is a world of "that's classified" and "above my pay grade". I had friends that battled the blaze and all they'll do when you ask them to comment is take a deep breath and roll their eyes and that is among friends.

My argument, is that there is a lot that may still be investigated and enough questions that those who choose to ask them need not be ridiculed.

Do you remember when your teacher used to say: there are no dumb questions? That holds true in the adult world, as well. Questions are good things.

I'm curious why you are so uncomfortable with the people asking them?

Originally posted by A Fortiori
What you are asking me to believe is that the military would leave their generals and admirals without the benefit of surveillance technologies developed by SRA in the 90's, and I just don't.

You may, however.

I understand you feeling on this.

But I'm sure anyone who works in high tech or the military will tell you - not everything they have is state of the art and immediately updated. Generally just what they're focusing on at ant given time.

It was a joke when Obama moved into the White House. The basic office hardware and communication equipment was out of the 90s. Now this is where the top person making the most critical military decisions for the US operates.

External cameras were installed in the 90s with the most modern available, and it looks like forgotten about. The decade saw the Cold War in mothballs, the last thing anyone expected was an air attack on the Pentagon itself. As we saw.

In typical fashion, no one even thought to upgrade the still working cameras. The inevitable "If it ain't broken, why fix it?"

Mike

[edit on 13-9-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


But what you are saying is that these 3 cameras that are closest to the impact sight, that would pressumably see the the plane coming or the impact itself, are irrelevant. That is highly unlikely, even if the systems aren't up to date there is still a high probability that they saw (and recorded) the plane. The plane is all that matters, it is the plane itself that is in question here.

reply to post by mmiichael


Michael,

I hate doing this because I hate putting personal information out, but my --well, nevermind, I know someone who worked at the Pentagon in the nineties for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and her stuff was the latest greatest. Furthermore, the security in the Navy lab that I interned at during the early nineties was more high tech than you are suggesting.

Please provide a link because I find it interesting that they give the President a crap computer, but then, it might be because Bill Clinton was an admitted technophobe and never asked for a better one and George Bush probably only used his to play Spider Solitaire.

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
what you are saying is that these 3 cameras that are closest to the impact sight, that would pressumably see the the plane coming or the impact itself, are irrelevant. That is highly unlikely, even if the systems aren't up to date there is still a high probability that they saw (and recorded) the plane. The plane is all that matters, it is the plane itself that is in question here.

Without having the answers what I gather is a number of factors at work. If the plane was running at a lowball estimate of 360 mph, that translates to 6 mile per minute, a tenth of a mile per second, which is over 500 ft per second.

So how many shots of the plane would be caught at 1 frame per second recording wouldn't be many. A lot depends on the positioning, of course.

How the actual cameras in the system were linked, all independent, in parallel, in series, is anyone's guess.

I tend to think what happened is there might have been images recorded, but the extreme impact and heat caused power surges and short circuits through the system resulting in losses of immediate data.

It had to have happened at some level.

The military may be withholding the pictures for security reasons. Not to give future bad guys any help with their plans. But I'd say there was simple data loss - in this case critical images.

Mike

OMG!!
If you read or listen to the stupid, ignorant, ultra fantastic, dribble of the gl, spook, reason impaired clan. Then you can laugh it off as I do. Always ask them for CROSS EXAMINED testimony. Ya know what, they got. None. They have NONE from a PERP either. Their spew comes totally from 911 hearsay. The store houses of evidence and testimony of the entire country are congested with the moot material. Only after a jury trial does that stuff hold any water, and maybe then just a little.
Think OJ
Do you want to believe the commission appointed by the MOST inept, lying, hijacked government administration in the history of America?
The one that simply let 911 in it's totallity happen. I do not. I will not believe their shills. Nope.

reply to mmiichael's post #306 in this thread

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
Are you aware of the positive evidence that CIT has already presented for the flyover...

Distortion and manipulation of information and witnesses by the corporation operating as Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has been found.

You really must read this page:

911review.com...

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'

What CIT and many other no-Boeing-impact focused efforts have created is essentially a historical vacuum in which readers and viewers are disconnected from the original larger context of the attack and its aftermath, in favor of the hyped soap opera mystery in which an elderly cab driver's apparent role in the attack is central, rather than officials in Bush Administration who were in charge that day.

I could in theory go over that link in detail, but I think that it would be best to see if CIT has already responded to Victoria Ashley's points. While I myself have been banned from CIT's forum (I won't deny that they can be prickly when faced with disagreement), Craig Ranke posts here, as well as the loose change forum. I'll ask over there, as it's a site that gets considerably less traffic and has a lot of people who I believe know a fair amount on such things.

Update: I just realized that Victoria mentions the DNA. I wonder if she's heard of what SPreston has brought up concerning it.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I hate doing this because I hate putting personal information out, but my --well, nevermind, I know someone who worked at the Pentagon in the nineties for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and her stuff was the latest greatest. Furthermore, the security in the Navy lab that I interned at during the early nineties was more high tech than you are suggesting.

Please provide a link because I find it interesting that they give the President a crap computer, but then, it might be because Bill Clinton was an admitted technophobe and never asked for a better one and George Bush probably only used his to play Spider Solitaire.

I could digress into personal anecdotes. I once did some work for a guy who was also working out the complex software for a defense system in the event of an oncoming asteroid or similar.

Fascinating low tech horror stories about his American military client.

The Obama team encounter with in place technology in the Highest Office is the Land was well covered.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Obama officials ran smack into the constraints of the federal bureaucracy yesterday, encountering a jumble of disconnected phone lines, old computer software, and security regulations forbidding outside e-mail accounts.

What does that mean in 21st-century terms? No Facebook to communicate with supporters. No outside e-mail log-ins. No instant messaging

[…]

One member of the White House new-media team came to work on Tuesday, right after the swearing-in ceremony, only to discover that it was impossible to know which programs could be updated, or even which computers could be used for which purposes.

The team members, accustomed to working on Macintoshes, found computers outfitted with six-year-old versions of Microsoft software. Laptops were scarce, assigned to only a few people in the West Wing.


Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


Michael,

no offense, but again it is the "media" people you are referencing in that article. The White House website under Bush was unattended so this is no surprise. Moreover, the White House is a historical home, first and foremost. Be that as it may, take a tour of the White House any day and you will see up to date security equipment--you could see it then. I used to take out of towners to the White House and there was all sorts of surveillance from the roof downwards.

Additionally, the defense briefings, the defense department has up to date, high tech facilities for "flag". I assure you that they are not sitting on eight year old laptops, ironically the lower rank do more with their equipment and don't have what the stars and their staff have, but that is another story altogether.

At the facility I worked at you had cameras stationed absolutely everywhere and it was not frame by frame, but real time in the case that you tried to walk off with government stash. You had six different badges and in some halls had to be escorted in and out of bathrooms that also had cameras poised outside.

Again, you can believe what you choose to believe and I'll believe differently having been to these places.

No harm in that, eh?

[edit on 13-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by A Fortiori


Youre right, the military has the most up to date technology. That's why I can walk into Wal Mart and get a GPS that is faster and better than the one in the F-16s I work on.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Michael,

no offense, but again it is the "media" people you are referencing in that article. The White House website under Bush was unattended so this is no surprise. Moreover, the White House is a historical home, first and foremost. Be that as it may, take a tour of the White House any day and you will see up to date security equipment--you could see it then. I used to take out of towners to the White House and there was all sorts of surveillance from the roof downwards.

Additionally, the defense briefings, the defense department has up to date, high tech facilities for "flag". I assure you that they are not sitting on eight year old laptops, ironically the lower rank do more with their equipment and don't have what the stars and their staff have, but that is another story altogether.

At the facility I worked at you had cameras stationed absolutely everywhere and it was not frame by frame, but real time in the case that you tried to walk off with government stash. You had six different badges and in some halls had to be escorted in and out of bathrooms that also had cameras poised outside.

Again, you can believe what you choose to believe and I'll believe differently having been to these places.

No harm in that, eh?

I appreciate your reasonable approach.

We could swap anecdotes, I have plenty. I think all would agree that despite having the highest military and security technological capacity in the world, the Pentagon did not have the warning and prevention capability they thought they had.

At the most critical time since their inception their systems proved inadequate. We do know their cameras were emphatically not state of the art. And that their external protective walls could easily be breached.

I don't get any particular satisfaction from these observations.

Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


Hi

this is to both you and swamp fox since they are similar.

Again, we only truly know what we have seen. So, swampfox, you state that your GPS is substandard, yes?

Okay, without sharing secrets let's start easy

What do officers at sea on a DDG eat?
What do petty officers eat?

What sort of equipment does EOD get?
What equipment does your average grunt get?

What sort of laptops do the computer geeks at Dahlgren get?
What laptops does the corporal at personnel get? Wait-they won't get one. What does their computer look like?

What does an office for a LT look like?
What about an SES, Bird, or Star's look like?

Yes, you may have old GPS but my cousin just went to Iraq and installed something (won't say what) that is not "ten" years old. In fact, it is ten years ahead. If you're in the know, then you probably know what they use to target and locate there, yes?

Do you really think then, Swampfox, that the surveillance on the Pentagon is not superior to that of say...the Safety Center at Norfolk?

Michael,

I agree that the Pentagon was an old building. Crimminy, it was from WWII! The facilities are definitely old, but they hold a certain nostalgia for the folks in the area. That said, appearances are probably deceiving in this case. A CDR would be an errand boy at the Pentagon. It gets all the best and brightest from across the military. I have seen the technology at places across the street, so to speak and I just don't buy that their equipment is worse than Dahlgren's or Pax.

You gents can, I don't.

There are a lot of things I don't buy about this whole thing and, like you, I once just believed it was a colossus of a CF. In fact, I would love to believe that now. Do you think I want to believe that my government is run by mad men? No, because that actually means that all is lost because they are, in fact, too powerful if that is the case.

Please, I'm serious. Make me believe you. I'd love to go back to feeling the way I did before.

reply to post by SPreston

 

The attack happened in 2001 , cameras were 8 years behind then. 8 years in electronics is multiple generations. They were set to record at 1 frame per second.

posted by scott3x

I don't see it that way. Even if what you say is true, I believe that 1 frame a second would have been plenty to determine if a plane had actually hit the pentagon or not.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95fd93411642.jpg[/atsimg]

The plane on the left would be the official aircraft allegedly approaching at 780 fps along the official flight path, about even with the Naval Annex in this pic, and about 3200 feet from the Pentagon.

About 4 seconds away and 4 frames away at one frame per sec.

The plane on the right would be the decoy aircraft approaching at about 450 fps and above the Naval Annex and about 3200 feet from the Pentagon.

About 7 seconds away and 7 frames away at one frame per sec.

So why wouldn't the cameras on the Pentagon rooftop be able to see one of the aircraft flying towards them?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3725ac073cd0.jpg[/atsimg]

The El Cheapo parking lot security videos show high above the rooftop even though they were mounted a few feet above ground level. The rooftop security cameras, which the government loyalists and the FBI pretend do not exist, are mounted about 70 feet above the ground level. Since helicopters carrying the President and important Defense Dept officials depart and approach the helipad daily, the rooftop security video cameras would necessarily be aimed outward in case something went wrong.

Perfect for recording the actual aircraft which flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the undamaged overhead highway sign and light poles in its path; flying at about camera level. Perfect for watching what Lloyde England and his bodyguards and the helpful stranger were doing over there on the highway bridge near the taxi. But none of the rooftop videos or NA videos are included in the 85 Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire Tapes are they?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4efbb934c0be.jpg[/atsimg]

And of course the alleged official FDR with no serial number identifying it, reportedly found in two different widely separated areas of the Pentagon, showed the official Flight 77 aircraft far too high in altitude to possibly hit the Pentagon 1st floor.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ab762f5d81d.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 9/13/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by A Fortiori
There are a lot of things I don't buy about this whole thing and, like you, I once just believed it was a colossus of a CF. In fact, I would love to believe that now. Do you think I want to believe that my government is run by mad men? No, because that actually means that all is lost because they are, in fact, too powerful if that is the case.

Please, I'm serious. Make me believe you. I'd love to go back to feeling the way I did before.

This is a digression. I don't want to bore the audience.

According to reports within the US military it is in fact run by lunatics and incompetents. Somehow in the past they managed to get things right occasionally and have some notable achievements under their belt. More a matter of shooting so many arrows they eventually hit the target as opposed to planning genius.

I’ve been involved in high tech start ups where all you saw where people yelling and screaming at each other. Surprisingly they sometimes came out with some very cool stuff that actually worked.

A problem with the military industrial complex these days is no matter how much they screw up, waste money, the pay checks are there, the budgets increase. Some knuckle rapping, but still positive reinforcement for doing everything wrong.

I’m told Afghanistan’s military campaign is like CATCH 22. Presuming you know the reference.

The military is now about more than just winning wars, beating bad guys. The government has to juggle a lot of competing interests, multinational corporate concerns, special arrangements with foreign powers, PR, local level dealings in intelligence, arms, drugs, and more.

Cold War vets still dominate the upper ranks. They really get what’s going on any more, but have to keep their bosses happy. It’s more about keeping you job than doing the right thing.

Starts to sound like running one of those multinational conglomerates than defending a country.

Well that’s what it’s become.

Only a major shock to the system will change things. Change the mindset, force a shake up. That’s what 9/11 was supposed to have done. Not much indication so far.

I’d say the US has lost it’s cutting edge. Too much reliance on superior technology. The opposition knows that and hits them where they are weakest. Figuring out how other people think.

Mike

Originally posted by jprophet420
Please truthers, leave the video camera argument alone, it is futile, and makes you look stupid. The "missing frame" argument is as stupid as the no planes theory. Guess what? It was set to record 1fps and was not precise down to the second. If you think there is a conspiracy in that put your tin foil hat on, the debunkers have won.

You need to substantiate this. In 2001, the company I worked for had full 30fps security cameras surrounding the warehouse. Did I work at the Pentagon in 2001? Did I work at some top secret lab? Gold repository? No, I was working in an office supply warehouse and yet we had cameras recording 30fps directly to hard drives 24/7.

You expect me to believe that the Pentagon had inferior cameras because technology was behind? I did not work in the future.

You also have to explain why these cameras would only be capturing 1fps when the camera at the gatehouse caught 4 frames of movement. Are you saying that it took 4 seconds to cross that cameras field of view? That would take the reported 500mph down to about 10mph. Talk about posting crap.

reply to post by Lillydale


They cant prove it, and they don’t like us talking about it either I wonder why?