9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Forty cameras all around the ENTIRE perimeter of the Pentagon. That means 32 of them weren't even pointed at where the plane was or came from. And of the 8 left, I have to wonder how many would be pointed down at the ground, or away from the site of impact. [edit on 11/29/2005 by Zaphod58]

QUOTE : "Fourty cameras located all around the perimeter of the Pentagon and all of them were on the fritz on 9-11? Something smells fishy and it reeks of a coverup. " how many of those cameras focus on a door , or a gate ? how many were faced on the other 4 " faces " looking outwards ? the answers to those two questions quickly make most your " 40 cameras " irrelevant the way the system is set up - the loss of only one cam can degrade a system - and if its baddkly designed - loosing just one cam can lreave a gaping hole in coverage if you want to makle a conspiracy claim of " why was the one camera that would have been most uesful , inoperative on the day in question " ??? then go ahead - but at least make a rational argument - please

Originally posted by billybob i'm only reporting what i heard on that interview, which has now been linked to several times. nila claims to have the original passenger manifests. if he does, will you THEN believe there is some kind of cover-up, or will the hijackers have some new mystery power attributed to them which allows them to slip undetected onto airliners, ...four seperate ones, at that. nila is a commercial pilot and aeronautical engineer. did you listen to the two hour program? he says he has the lists. if you want to argue that, it won't be with me right now, 'cause i don't have 'em. i do have a link to a guy saying he has them. he also mentioned that there wer no less than EIGHT video cameras on each side of the pentagon, for a total of FORTY video cameras. they ALL 'malfunctioned' on that day.

Doesn't sound like this guy has any credibility at all.... Flight 77 Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, and Hani Hanjour Nawaf Alhazmi and Salem You're really going to have to come up with some credible evidence to support that camera claim....

Originally posted by ignorant_ape how many of those cameras focus on a door , or a gate ?

we don't know, because the government is HIDING EVERYTHING.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape how many were faced on the other 4 " faces " looking outwards ?

who cares. the claim is not that the cameras saw anything, you are extrapolating, the claim is that ALL the cameras were malfunctioning.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape the answers to those two questions quickly make most your " 40 cameras " irrelevant

i disagree and i think you are purposely oversimplifying things. do YOU have those answers? how can you know if an answer is relevent or not unless you actually HAVE the answer? how do ALL the cameras fail at once? it is not only what the cameras saw that is relevent, but also WHY they ALL malfunctioned. that's obvious, isn't it?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape the way the system is set up - the loss of only one cam can degrade a system - and if its baddkly designed - loosing just one cam can lreave a gaping hole in coverage

this is frankly, HILARIOUS! they're not christmas tree lights hooked up in series.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape if you want to makle a conspiracy claim of " why was the one camera that would have been most uesful , inoperative on the day in question " ??? then go ahead - but at least make a rational argument - please

so, you went from forty inoperable cameras, down to one inoperable camera, and are asking others for 'rational' arguments? i don't even know if that's the accurate number of cameras, or if they were actually malfunctioning. once again, i am only reporting what this nila fellow said. that's one of the lamest string of arguments with no teeth that i've ever seen, though. congrats. i agree with gimmefootball, ..something's fishy. now, he also said that those airport security pictures you are looking at, show the 'hijackers', however, NILA SAYS in the interview, that he personally interviewed a ticket salesperson who sold the hijackers their tickets, and he(the ticket agent) says they weren't wearing the same clothes that you see in that picture, indicating those were taken at a different time than the morning of sept. 11th. have you heard that james woods story? on sept. 10th he was on a plane and reported to the pilot that there were four men acting like hijackers. apparently, an official report was written up, and the four men turned out to be four of the hijackers from september 11th. the gov. could have used the security pics from that. or, conversely, james woods could be a lying government shill. i don't know. but, 'i'm glad you buyers of the government story are so sure that everyone within the us government is completely innocent of any crime, and you don't mind them hiding all the pivotal evidence from the crime scenes.. [edit on 29-11-2005 by billybob]

I do know of one camera that could have caught what ever it was that struck the Pentagon. That is a traffic camera that VDOT has, which is located less than 1,000 yards to the north on Washington Boulevard. So why wasn't this camera moved to keep it from capturing the moment of impact? Plus, wouldn't those terrorist have a time trying to miss the entrance and exit ramps on the highway next to the Pentagon? Don't believe me? See for yourself. www.maps.google.com... and type in Alexandria, Va. [edit on 11/29/2005 by gimmefootball400] [edit on 11/29/2005 by gimmefootball400]

from linked website At the Dulles tower, O'Brien saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post to help other planes quickly land. "We started moving the planes as quickly as we could," she says. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed . . . I had literally a blip and nothing more." O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. "I said, `Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling . . . `We've got a target headed right for the White House!'" At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west . . . Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west." Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building. "And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien. But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver. "We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. And we waited. And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to hear what's happened," says O'Brien. "And then the Washington National [Airport] controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, `Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.'"

so, i think our previous approach route needs reconsideration. Dulles lies approximately to the west, now the question is why on earth would you perform a near 360deg turn when incoming from that direction, already well aligned for the attack? PS: is there a chance that we are actually tracking the wrong planes somewhere - this is beyond frustrating, tbh anyone want to refute/confirm ?? [edit on 30-11-2005 by Long Lance]

Let's be serios here The plane came from another direction so other cameras should seen it coming when the plane turned the other cameras should of seen it, other cameras as well not from pentagon should of seen it ,ooops they did but the film was confiscated, paranoid fbi agents runing around confiscating film, why dont they give back the film hmmmm after they have confiscated it. To imagine that only one camera with 5 frames have seen all this it is a joke. There is film but you cant see it. Other other other posibilities . It is easy to fake moon landings (fake something that does not exist) It is harder to fake something that exists(the pentagon) I wonder how they are going to fake it this time. Are they going to put up a studio in front of the pentagon so we all can see it with a plane hooked on wiers. [edit on 30-11-2005 by pepsi78]

You make a 360 to lose altitude. He was high, and had to drop. Pepsi, maybe you can explain how cameras that were designed to watch the GROUND around the Pentagon are going to pick up an airplane coming in from ABOVE their field of view? I'd really like to know. Considering that the cameras were watching cars and people on the ground, and would have been pointing DOWN, I'm curious how they were supposed to pick up something above them.

Simple the camera can catch the horison even if it's not mounted up. The plane came from far away so any how you can catch it on camera when it's far away. The plane could be visible even more when it aporched the pentagon at grownd level. Are you telling me that it traveld nenar the grownd over the grass and it was not seen. It traveled a grate distance near the ground. And what about the other film that was confiscated. You got 40 cameras please be serios. In your view 1 The pentagon can not see in front of it's self . 2 There are no cameras pointed at the high way 3 Cameras are pointed only on the walls of the pentagon like they have to worry about spider man and batman just seating there suspended on the walls. Another idication that they didint want this to get out is the confiscation of material. A survailance camera it's self is for observation of what go's around. So if something bad hapens at the pentagon they can see around and see if there was any suspicios activities. A great amount of cameras and only one captures 5 frames. If you want to put a survailance camera at your gate and around the area how do you set it up to see just a fraction of the ground or do you give it a wide perspective to see the suroundings? Than that camera is not useful at all, any one can just go around it. They had wide view at the pentagon and if it was a boeing why not show the tapes.

Considering that the cameras were watching cars and people on the ground, and would have been pointing DOWN, I'm curious how they were supposed to pick up something above them.

That is exact, the plane traveld near the grownd over the high way and traveld near the grownd for a greate distance. [edit on 30-11-2005 by pepsi78]

www.geocities.com...

Crew & Passenger Lists, Attack Aircrafts 11 Sept 2001. None Include Any Arab or Hijacker Names. American Airlines Flight 11, from Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles, California, crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center with 86 people on board, none of whom were alleged hijackers or Arabs. United Airlines Flight 175, from Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles, California, was the second hijacked plane to strike the World Trade Center (South Tower) with 56 people on board. No alleged hijackers or anyone of Arab name or obvious descent. American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 56 people aboard, none of whom were alleged hijackers or Arabs. United Airlines Flight 93, from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, California, crashed in rural southwest Pennsylvania, with 45 people on board, none of whom were alleged hijackers or Arabs.

For all the names and short careers, see the full lists in the link above. There are much more sites with more on passenger lists, do a google.

Ok, yet again. FIVE sides to the Pentagon. Eight cameras per side. Forty TOTAL cameras. The 757 hit ONE side, therefore you have a maximum of EIGHT cameras that might have picked it up. The majority of those cameras are going to be pointed almost straight down at the roads/parking lots/walkways along the side of the building. As far as the others, how do we KNOW they didn't pick up the plane. What proof is there they were all malfunctioning, with the exception of something ONE person has said? As far as the seizing of evidence, come on, it was a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION of COURSE they're going to seize evidence so that they can figure out what happened. You don't see the police come along after a murder and say "Oh, there's a camera over there, but I doubt it picked anything up, so leave the tape there." They're going to seize the tape from ANY camera that even MIGHT have picked up anything and take it to the lab to analyze it.

The Pentagon has a big video surveillance room, near the main entrance, where tapes are stored from all their 24/7 running surveillance videos. Two of the rooftop ones were destroyed by the impact, but ofcourse not the tapes which recorded the moments before impact. And they also store on harddisks. If you want to see them, file a FOIA complaint. I don't give you a shimmer of a chance as long as this administration deals the deck. And they play a foul pack of cards.

Huh cameras were distroied but the didint capture anything . From 8 cameras and we got a film of 5 frames if you call that film. Any one that is tryng to convince others that it's a figure of our imagination will have to do a greate job to convince us other wise i will see it the other way and so will many.

No, from 8 cameras we have 5 frames RELEASED. I have yet to see any proof that those five frames are ALL that were captured. The rest of the tapes were seized as part of the investigation, and may never be released. Even if they are, everyone will scream how they were faked, or edited to show what the government wants us to see if they don't show what people want them to show. [edit on 11/30/2005 by Zaphod58] [edit on 11/30/2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 You make a 360 to lose altitude. He was high, and had to drop. ...

then your timing would suck - alot, wouldn't it? of course, the most striking aspect of the attack is the apparent absence of witness statements concerning that last (descening?) turn, perhaps my search skills blow chunks, but all i can find is a ton of reports describing the last few seconds before impact ( indicating an approach along columbia pike, btw). what's more is that i can't rule out the presence of several planes, so i feel like i'm back to square one now. [edit on 1-12-2005 by Long Lance]

It would depend on him knowing EXACTLY where the target was, and EXACTLY where he was in relation to it. He might not have known exactly where he was, and thoght he was farther from the building, so stayed high until he saw it. They would have been flying by landmarks by this point, looking for the building, so he probably didn't have a good marker to show exactly hor far he was, so was high when they spotted the building.

You seem to me, to be a remarkably bright fellow, so did it never appear to you, that we are talking about THE most important building in the USA, the defence of your country is depending on what goes on in there. You also do realize, I hope, that any ordinary WallMart has already more camera's and equipment to stear them, then the petty 40 which are mentioned in that post. Then we have the Heliport air traffic tower, which had very sophisticated camera equipment, which was not only directed to the ground. They covered the whole perimeter, for miles, and also had a set of camera's, covering 360° of the sky around. Nobody ever talked about that, strange isn't it? ... It all happened in plain sight of these camera's, and that building and tower were not appreciable damaged. It's the VERY spot where your president, all the high brass, and all other politically important people land when they have to visit the Pentagon. The Heliport tarmac had a staircase down, to a tunnel leading all the way to the centercourt. Did you know that? Ofcourse all this high brass needed to stay out of a potential line of attack sight. There was something very shocking for a lot of people in your government on THOSE tapes. It was a warning by some deeply hidden puppeteers, a show-off of ultimate mighty economic power which overruled military power. And it had to be played in front of those camera's. That's why that plane did not dive straight down in the Pentagon's main entrance, but made that "illogical" spiralling down circle. So these petty politicians with their dreams of world supremation would clearly understand that punishment could come from a totally unsuspected side, and that there is an entity which really deals the deck, for a long time already. On another subject, why do you so vehemently defend the right of a few politicians and their chosen civil servants who will be out of power mostly every FOUR years, to close the lid on several worldwide important investigations for a HUNDRED YEARS, like the Kennedy's murders, the Martin Luther King murder, the Ruby Ridge murders, the Waco murders, the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah building murders, the first WTC bombing, the 9/11 Events, etc. What is there to hide? Why may YOU in your lifetime NEVER know what these crooky politicians are trusted with, to know? And they leave the scene after 4 to 8 years max, but you have to live your whole live with the uncertainties, and thus no real honest chance to balance your vote for the next crooks who will come into the same position. YOU voted for them, and the rest of your citizenry, so WHY do you have no rights at all, to know what exactly happened? Because if you knew all, you would never ever vote again for this scum of the earth, and take your guns and march to Washington, to clean up the House. Because in all these historical events on US soil, it were always the SAME group of people who gave the orders to KILL any chance on REAL DEMOCRACY. The Government, the Administration, the State, are ENTITIES wich you cannot kick under their behind, so you have to pick your chances with the PEOPLE operating within these faceless Entities. But half of the USA seemed to think in November 2004 that secrecy is inherent to a government and thus allowed, so they can keep throwing around their -"this is a case of National Security"- hymne at every occasion that you, the voter, would have at last a chance to get a real eyeopening look in their devillish "political" kitchens. Political ... , who still believes that fairytale; - it's just plain old GREED. Grow up, don't hide behind politicians who you hope will do the dirty work for you, so you can play the act of injured innocence. Your guilty as hell and you should know it, they bombed all those buildings. Get involved at the grassroot levels in your local community, and CHECK up on these crooks.

originally posted by LaBTop [,,,Just shift the whole "d" formed white line in such a way, that the leg of the "d" crosses the bridges in the north part of the Potomac river, in front of Arlington cemetery. It would start by crossing over the red square of the Embassy of France..... ..

ok, square one as i said.. please, tell me how did you conclude that the appoach route crossed the French embassy? the radar data, aside from being much too coarse and not too reliable (they probably had a day or more to 'tune' it) shows an approach from the west-south-west, while the radar operator's testimony places the 'starting point' to the southwest of dulles, in other words, why would the plane come from the north unless the aircraft had already performed another turn roughly above pentagram city.. imagine a figure eight flown by the jet, insertion near impact point, along colimbia pike. which brings me the my most nagging concern: the lack of early witness reports makes such elaborate manoeuvers utterly implausible - how come noone mentioned at least the final turn, no matter what it really looked like? this particular airliner supposedly exhibited portions of polished aluminium, which would reflect sunlight everywhere! yet, i was unable to find as single account of an early stage of approach. i suppose, that crash-diving would minimize the chance of being spotted, but then it's not really reliable and carries the risk of premature impact. and all that without even going into wake turbulence, geometric inconsitencies and fake chopped lamp posts, let alone the actual impact damage, which is hard to swallow. final question: the only thing pointing to a 757 is witness testimonies and missing passengers did i get that right? not to sound negative, but i'm going nowhere, i'm afraid. [edit on 1-12-2005 by Long Lance]

You would be surprised at how dull polished aluminum really is. It doesn't reflect like a mirror as you think it would. It actually doesn't reflect any more than a white paintjob does. At any sort of altitude you have trouble telling American form Delta depending on the angle you're looking at. The radar data was working off a skin paint, which means it was going to be a lot less reliable than if the transponder was working. All the flight data is going to come from the transponder and show up on the screen. As far as the wake turbulence goes, the only time wake turbulance would be a problem would be if another lighter plane was flying behind them. Wake turbulance doesn't affect objects on the ground, unless the plane is parked on the ground, with rather powerful engines running at full power and you drive directly behind it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 ...As far as the wake turbulence goes, the only time wake turbulance would be a problem would be if another lighter plane was flying behind them. Wake turbulance doesn't affect objects on the ground, unless the plane is parked on the ground, with rather powerful engines running at full power and you drive directly behind it.

wake turbulence does not equal jet blast, from: www.faa.gov... (let's hope the link remains..)

3. Flight tests have shown that the vortices from larger (transport category) aircraft sink at a rate of several hundred feet per minute, slowing their descent and diminishing in strength with time and distance ..

at this point i'll have to ask how long it would take the wake vortices to reach the ground from an altitude of 30ft and how much time it would have to 'diminish in strength' as they said.... i'm sorry, i don't get how you can even discount the jet engines (if they didn't push air you could just drop them and save weight in the process) i'm not going to go into details, but the way every single issue, (including mostly invisble polished aluminium skins effectively concealing a 757 from the overly curious) is shrugged off in a heartbeat indicates that the 'hidden consent' here seems to be that asking such questions would best be avoided.