Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

reply to post by SkuzzleButt

if there's nothing to hide they would have released all of the CCTV footage surrounding the pentagon.

Maybe what they are hiding has nothing to do with the attack?
Maybe it would reveal details of where they hide their cameras? Or other security reasons?
Or maybe none of the other cameras were pointing in the direction of the plane?

You realize that most security cameras are pointed in the direction of some entry point? Not a row of windows that cannot even be opened.

Would you admit to shutting down cameras in an area where work was ongoing?

You have to consider that maybe there really is no other footage. The government is not good at doing a thorough job of anything. There was just too many things that could have screwed up in their plans.
And no one talks after all these years.

The president couldn't get a BJ behind closed doors without the world finding out.
The head of the F-ing CIA couldn't get a little on the side without the FBI blowing the lid.
You couldn't keep something this big a secret for this long.

Maybe what they are hiding has nothing to do with the attack?

why would the FBI within hours, seize the CCTV footage from other nearby buildings such as petrol stations, hotels within hours, whats the rush? to cover their tracks. Because there was no plane.

Maybe it would reveal details of where they hide their cameras? Or other security reasons?
Or maybe none of the other cameras were pointing in the direction of the plane?

The cameras are not hidden, they are not secret and yes there are cameras EVERYWHERE. there is no area not covered by cameras, a building this important has 100% coverage.

You realize that most security cameras are pointed in the direction of some entry point? Not a row of windows that cannot even be opened.

This is where you are wrong see the pics below.

You have to consider that maybe there really is no other footage. The government is not good at doing a thorough job of anything. There was just too many things that could have screwed up in their plans.
And no one talks after all these years.

There is other footage without a doubt, its just you are not allowed to see it. the government are not that good at keeping secrets, your correct, but what there are good at is killing people who could open them up, many witnesses and employs at the pentagon report being threatened, followed, phones bugged and things like that.

End of the day, if there's nothing to hide, just show us, if they are telling the truth why would they refuse to have any tapes, then years later release something that's clearly been tampered with?

This is why the government is BS

reply to post by SkuzzleButt

"You realize that most security cameras are pointed in the direction of some entry point? Not a row of windows that cannot even be opened."


This is where you are wrong see the pics below.

See the garage door below the heli control tower?

Ya think maybe they might wabt to watch that area????????

You are assuming that they have 100% coverage. You don't tell the world that you didn't have any working cameras to cover 'x'. You just say nothing.

plane was remotely controlled as a rookie pilot could not have done that flight path

footage might be out there showing the plane in flight and all the experienced pilots would have more evidence

Originally posted by BrianG
plane was remotely controlled as a rookie pilot could not have done that flight path

How about a commercially certified pilot?

Remind me again how exactly remote control makes things easier? The few remote control plane videos I have seen did not end well.

reply to post by exponent


Remote control is much harder to perform maneuvers like at the Pentagon, because you don't have any kind of external input to the pilot, where he can make corrections, so he's always behind the aircraft. At that altitude, if you're behind the aircraft, you're going to hit the ground and miss.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by exponent

 

Remote control is much harder to perform maneuvers like at the Pentagon, because you don't have any kind of external input to the pilot, where he can make corrections, so he's always behind the aircraft. At that altitude, if you're behind the aircraft, you're going to hit the ground and miss.

Ah you are thinking remotely piloted

I am thinking computer controlled flight control

Take a look at the Parrot AR Drone you can pilot with a smartphone or Ipad

Fly it in the wind and see how hard it is to control then take you finger off the screen and let the autopilot hover it for you - the dang thing stays in place much better than you can do

I mean this kind of stuff is in RC toys

It's all about control and AS3X gives you more than ever before possible. Before AS3X, stability and agility were typically limited to a narrow control range. Any attempt to gain more stability meant a sacrifice of agility or vice versa. With AS3X, there is no compromise. You get dramatically more control, plus more stability and agility than ever dreamed possible.

An industry-first, specifically tuned AS3X System technology in UMX airplanes is exciting because it helps the pilot focus more on the thrill of flying than work load required to stay in smooth control. No longer will you have to deal intensely with flight complications such as turbulence, torque and tip stalls. All you feel is ultra-smooth control, even outdoors in moderate wind, and exhilarating aircraft agility that feels natural and helps you to quickly build skills as an RC pilot.

AS3X equipped aircraft will change the way you'll want to fly now and in the future.

Now imagine military grade

Originally posted by BrianG
Ah you are thinking remotely piloted

I am thinking computer controlled flight control

Take a look at the Parrot AR Drone you can pilot with a smartphone or Ipad

Fly it in the wind and see how hard it is to control then take you finger off the screen and let the autopilot hover it for you - the dang thing stays in place much better than you can do

It's true modern drones are very good, but this is due to the advancement of microprocessing and accelerometers/gyroscopes.

Piloting a plane is a much harder job. This is why automated landing systems only really took off after 911 or so, once the technology advanced. Let me give you an example.

Lets say you are aiming at a target, but your noise is dropping slightly low. Ok well you pull up obviously. But how much? Too much and you're now above the target and have to dip down, if you keep overcorrecting you'll form an oscillation. This oscillation will build unless you can adjust to compensate for it. Even humans are pretty bad at this, when caused by a pilot it's called PIO:

en.wikipedia.org...

Solving this with computers is not a particularly trivial task, considering we know there are suicidal terrorists it would be much much safer just to recruit a jihadi and ensure they know how to fly.

That's probably what happened and where the evidence leads. Whether he was recruited by the USG or Al Qaeda I ultimately can't say, but I can say that computer controlling a plane into a building in 2001 would be a remarkably risky and less effective solution to the problem.

Andreas von Buelow said that this technology was named Home Run.

The German went on to give his Tagesspeigel interviewer his overall perspective of the 9/11/01 attacks: '"I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry ... I have real difficulties, however, to imagine that all this all sprang out of the mind of an evil man in his cave"'

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Britain's ITN continued: "The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state... It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

According to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: '"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."'

Now, who or what would you trust for aerial missions as demanding as those of "'9/11'" (or trust to fly an airliner from one airfield in California to another in Australia): The Arab students who are described above, or the Global Hawk or Home Run technologies?

reply to post by BrianG


Except the 757 and 767 are not capable of having that system installed on them. They are mechanically controlled, not fly by wire. It would have been at best extremely difficult to install a system like that on them. It would have to be an actual remote control system that moves the control yoke to maneuver the aircraft.

reply to post by BrianG


There is zero evidence that Home Run exists, and a lot of evidence against it. If you think that it's bad that someone has a bad day and shoots up their work place, imagine what they could do with Home Run when they snap.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by BrianG

 

There is zero evidence that Home Run exists, and a lot of evidence against it. If you think that it's bad that someone has a bad day and shoots up their work place, imagine what they could do with Home Run when they snap.

If drones can be flown rc style from a secure and remote location, then I see no reason why rc aircraft cannot be developed and flown the same way. Really there is no stretching of the imagination here at all. Evidence has been provided and you either take it or leave it.

The real stretch of imagination is believing an airplane hit the pentagon when there is not a single credible video proving this from the world's most secure building. And if no airplane hit the pentagon, THEN NO PASSENGER AIRLINER HIT THE TWIN TOWERS EITHER!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If drones can be flown rc style from a secure and remote location, then I see no reason why rc aircraft cannot be developed and flown the same way. Really there is no stretching of the imagination here at all. Evidence has been provided and you either take it or leave it.

We're talking about a decade after 911. Yes, modern drones work well, but they are custom built for this process.

The real stretch of imagination is believing an airplane hit the pentagon when there is not a single credible video proving this from the world's most secure building. And if no airplane hit the pentagon, THEN NO PASSENGER AIRLINER HIT THE TWIN TOWERS EITHER!

Reasonable hypothesis, and since we know from hundreds of eyewitnesses and 15-20 videos taken on the day, passenger aircraft did indeed hit the WTC. Therefore AA77 hit The Pentagon.

Unless you have some evidence to discount the hundreds of eyewitnesses?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
from the world's most secure building.

I keep hearing that silly claim, how about backing it up with some facts?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Because of the control system on the 757 and 767. You don't just slap some devices on them and say "Ok, it's remote control now." The 707 that NASA used in the 1970s took a lot of testing and development to get to where they could get it to fly long enough to get to their crash range. And even then they were off target, and had an incredibly difficult time flying it.

reply to post by exponent


Fox News reported cargo/military planes first and apparently abandoned this for passenger jets. Many eyewitnesses claimed "no windows and a blue logo". Please do not claim they were too far away, as this would be bs.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Because of the control system on the 757 and 767. You don't just slap some devices on them and say "Ok, it's remote control now." The 707 that NASA used in the 1970s took a lot of testing and development to get to where they could get it to fly long enough to get to their crash range. And even then they were off target, and had an incredibly difficult time flying it.

But that was 1970s, so one would reasonably assume 30 years later the technology would be fully harnesed.

Making any boeing into a drone cannot be that difficult. It is simply a matter of upscaling and modifying various accessories. You erroneously make it sound as though it is impossible eventhough the evidence contradicts you.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Fox News reported cargo/military planes first and apparently abandoned this for passenger jets. Many eyewitnesses claimed "no windows and a blue logo". Please do not claim they were too far away, as this would be bs.

How many eyewitnesses claimed 'no windows and a blue logo'? Why would a military cargo plane even be used? That means the whole crew who prepared such a flight and worked in the delivery and control of it would have to be in on the conspiracy.

On the other hand, if it was a small group of suicidal jihadis they kill themselves in the attack and only their handlers would need to be in on the fact.

You're just grasping at early and inaccurate reports in the heat of the moment in order to try and insert a conspiracy where there is absolutely no need for one. Even if we accepted your premise that they used cargo planes at the WTC, why wouldn't they use a cargo plane at The Pentagon?