What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

reply to post by jthomas


Jthomas,

The frames you parade around do not take into the fact that there is evidence of missing frames in the pentagon video, which could easily account for a flyover.
In frame by frame analysis you can see that there are missing frames due to the movement of the camera in the housing, by debris thrown up and lack of 'plane' before explosion and the way in which the explosion grows..

Here you will see the mystery debris which appears suddenly and does follow expected uniform motion once it falls, initially it is not visible.

In other words: we've got you for lack of wing/lawn damage (check the engine height of a 757 and the invincible, untouched pentalawn) and the data you rely on is edited. For anyone still on the fence, these points alone completely cast doubt upon the OS.

reply to post by GhostR1der


I still do not understand how anyone can put any faith in that tape that is also so horribly mislabeled.

reply to post by Lillydale


I'm curious why people expect HD quality 60fps images from security gate cameras. They were designed to capture images of cars pulling up to the gate, not aircraft flying into the building.

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I'm curious why people expect HD quality 60fps images from security gate cameras. They were designed to capture images of cars pulling up to the gate, not aircraft flying into the building.

Ummmm........ I was talking about the date/time stamps. I never even mentioned frame rate.

Please read before you respond.

reply to post by Lillydale


My reply was to the thread, and not to you personally. I'm sorry if you got that impression.

AAAnnnyway, the quality of the security cams around the area was certainly questionable. Look at the cameras in your own areas: Unfocused (if even working), dirty, and most pointing at the registers of down at the parking lot.

I dont know of any local establishments pointing cameras at local points of interest in the sheer happenstance that an airliner is flown into it.

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by Lillydale

 

My reply was to the thread, and not to you personally. I'm sorry if you got that impression.

really?

reply to post by Lillydale


I'm curious why people expect HD quality 60fps images from security gate cameras. They were designed to capture images of cars pulling up to the gate, not aircraft flying into the building.

What does reply to say up there?

AAAnnnyway, the quality of the security cams around the area was certainly questionable. Look at the cameras in your own areas: Unfocused (if even working), dirty, and most pointing at the registers of down at the parking lot.

I dont know of any local establishments pointing cameras at local points of interest in the sheer happenstance that an airliner is flown into it.

When you get done explaining how that was NOT a reply to my post, then you can tell me why an office supply warehouse has far superior surveillance cameras than the Pentagon.

reply to post by Lillydale

When you get done explaining how that was NOT a reply to my post, then you can tell me why an office supply warehouse has far superior surveillance cameras than the Pentagon

Because the primary aspect of Pentagon security, was the Pentagon security force. Armed guards beat cameras everyday of the week.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Because the primary aspect of Pentagon security, was the Pentagon security force. Armed guards beat cameras everyday of the week.

Apparently not. In case you did not notice, there was a huge hole in the side of the building and I am fairly certain that armed guards could do little to stop that.

By your reasoning, a better security gate camera would have kept the aircraft from slamming into the Pentagon?

Personally, I think Stephen Spielberg could have been filming there and their footage would not satisfy some people.


oh, and technically, since you started this thread, ANY reply is a reply to your post....don'tcha think


[edit on 5-10-2009 by gavron]

reply to post by Lillydale

Apparently not. In case you did not notice, there was a huge hole in the side of the building and I am fairly certain that armed guards could do little to stop that.

And no one ever seriously contemplated a kamikaze attack on the building (other than Tom Clancy and Dale Brown). Which, a camera wouldnt have stopped either. So, back to my point, for the threats considered likely at the time, a security force is more effective than a camera.

Originally posted by gavron
By your reasoning, a better security gate camera would have kept the aircraft from slamming into the Pentagon?

You did not explain your little problem from before.

Ask swampy, he said "armed guards" beat the cameras any day. What were they armed with exactly that makes them more effective than a camera?

Personally, I think Stephen Spielberg could have been filming there and their footage would not satisfy some people.

Personally, I want to know why you do things like reply directly to me and then try to call me out for uh...noticing.

Personally, I do not understand why he would say armed guards beat a camera. Beat a camera at what? They did nothing useful that day. They did not stop the plane but they did not get any evidence of one either. See the difference?

Personally, this is not about what any of us thinks, personally.

oh, and technically, since you started this thread, ANY reply is a reply to your post....don'tcha think

No. There is a clickable link in the post that jumps directly to the post above that. Not sure where you have been but a thread is a thread and an opening post is an opening post. The rest are posts and you replied to mine. You messed up, just man up and own it just this one time.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by gavron]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Apparently not. In case you did not notice, there was a huge hole in the side of the building and I am fairly certain that armed guards could do little to stop that.

And no one ever seriously contemplated a kamikaze attack on the building (other than Tom Clancy and Dale Brown).

No?

Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.

Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one.

The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room.

On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.

reply to post by Lillydale


Do some better research. Yes, they practiced for a mascal involving an airliner crash...an airliner either taking off from Reagan National one landing there that crashed on the Pentagon grounds.

They never practiced, or prepared for a suicide attack using an airliner.

reply to post by Lillydale


You are right on the money, Swampfox. Nobody would have ever anticipated that type of attack...but now of course, things have changed.

Knowing that now, I'm sure there are AA type devices in place....and better cameras to suit those who seem concerned about them

This example of a home security cam caught a hawk flyby:
www.youtube.com...

Just goes to show the difference in quality of cams. Then again, as I stated earlier, the Pentagon cam was just for the security gate, not for things flying past at 500+mph.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Which, a camera wouldnt have stopped either. So, back to my point, for the threats considered likely at the time, a security force is more effective than a camera.

Uh huh. Why respond to me at all if you are just going to shift the parameters each time I point out your fallacy. I asked why a warehouse has better cameras than the pentagon.

You said it was because armed guards are better.

OK! I did not ask why the warehouse had cameras as security, cameras instead of guards, etc. I asked why they had better cameras. They were cheap and easy to install. Why does the Pentagon not have at least half the quality camera?

-armed guards are better.

Give a stupid answer you get a stupid retort.

Anyway...back to my point. Why would an office supply warehouse have better cameras than the Pentagon? Think you can actually answer this time?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Do some better research. Yes, they practiced for a mascal involving an airliner crash...an airliner either taking off from Reagan National one landing there that crashed on the Pentagon grounds.

They never practiced, or prepared for a suicide attack using an airliner.

Do some more research. They were practicing for a plane crash as well as terrorist attacks and you claim that no one thought they might need to cross train a little? They were MOSTLY training for terrorist attacks. Of course this NEVER CROSSED anyone's mind.

So how did it go

- we need a security camera at the gatehouse.

- want one that could actually capture a person hopping past it?

- pffffffffft and spend 150 bucks?

reply to post by gavron


Unfortunately, the Pentagon no longer has the air defenses put in place after 9/11/01. It is almost back to the status it was at prior to that day, with the exception of a few more Air Force fighters kept on alert.

Cold hard facts, the threat of a plane hitting the Pentagon again is considered more acceptable than the chance of an accidental shootdown of a airliner having problems getting into/leaving Reagan National.

Do some more research. They were practicing for a plane crash as well as terrorist attacks and you claim that no one thought they might need to cross train a little? They were MOSTLY training for terrorist attacks. Of course this NEVER CROSSED anyone's mind.

I forgot. You were personally involved with those drills.

Okay, so I was being a bit sarcastic. The terrorist attacks they were preparing for, were car bombs (hence the reconstruction projects) and the mad gunmen scenarios. Serious thought to anti-aircraft capabilities was never a priority due to the proximity of Reagan National.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


The proximity of Reagan to the Pentagon is quite unusual....you would have thought the would have planned the flight paths to NOT fly directly over (hell, for noise abatement alone). Well, maybe not "directly" over, but close enough...

I know I know, it makes it close for all the officials to get to the Pentagon faster, but sheesh!

[edit on 5-10-2009 by gavron]