The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

You are making a statement that you believe that the plane should have been picked up by one or more of the many security cameras at the Pentagon. I am asking you why you believe this is so and to provide the information for having such a belief. You are 100% sure that at least one security camera should have a clear picture of the plane.

Have you taken into account all pieces of information in order to have this belief? Such as:

1. Make and model of camera?
2. Having number 1 above, was it stationary or rotating? Many folks believe it was rotating because it had a dome over the actual camera thus hiding the direction the camera was pointed in at any given time. If they rotated on a schedule to pan the area, how sure are you that a camera was rotated in the direction of the flight path when it happened?
3. What was the resolution of those cameras? Were they able to catch a clear picture of an object traveling at that speed?
4. Were they activated by motion or were they constantly filming?
5. If stationary, what was the field of view? Were they pointed towards the ground? If they were pointed up to get a wider view field, would the grounds next to the walls be out of the view angle?
6. How many cameras were there at the Pentagon?

Do you have any of this information? If not, you have no idea what you are talking about and cannot possibly make an educated guess as to what should or should not have shown up on those cameras.

 

The path of downed downed traffic light poles prove it was a plane. A missile does not fly in a zig-zag pattern. The wreckage proves it was Flight 77.

 

So a government that could pull off a fake 9/11 attack couldn't then park a couple of semi-trucks with WMDs in them inside of Iraq in order to justify the invasion?

 

If you are suggesting to me that the only surveillance camera to be found at the pentagon was the notorious "parking lot" camera, I can only guffaw at your feigned 'understanding' of what sort of surveillance system the US Pentagon has. Do you really think your questions are intelligent? Sophistry sir, is what you offer. Either extremely naïve and gullible, or some other factor.

- - - Updated - - -

Strange reasoning you offer. The 911 attack was not fake, it really happened, and people really died. The only think fake about it is the story and its details.

 

Can you show me where in my post above I said that only camera was the "parking lot" camera? In not, I'll just takes this to mean you have none of the information to make an educated claim.

And where in the above quote is there anything relating to my questions about your information and what you used to make the claims? All I see are personal attacks.

 

Oh so YOU know exactly what system the Pentagon has in place? So you can answer those questions I have and enlighten those of us who are "feigning understanding", are "naive or gullible", and are "peddling sophistry", just to use a few of your words.

Go ahead.

Show us that your characterizations of me hold water.

I'll wait here.

 

This is 100% false. You do have a habit of posting outrageous false claims. Then again you also admit that you have an aversion to doing research. But that's your problem, not mine. I'm just pointing out the fallacy for those interested.

There is no proof tying the recovered parts from any of the 4 alleged airplanes to any of the specific airliners designated as AA77, AA11, UA93 and UA175. All airplane parts, including and especially the RFDs are tagged with a serial number and all those parts are logged to a specific aircraft. There is no known evidence that a parts match was ever conducted for the recovered parts (a standard NTSB investigation protocol) and therefore there was nothing identifying the alleged recovered parts to those named airliners. This is discussed in full detail in this thread and elsewhere.

 

With all the trivial questions you ask, you make it sound as though if a person does not know the answers to those trivial questions, one is not allowed to form an opinion regarding the absence of video evidence from what might be described as the best protected and surveilled building in the world.

To be clear, I don't know the answers to those silly questions, but I do know that the pentagon has way more than one parking lot camera on its premises.

C'mon man, get real.

 

Don't expect that to ever happen.

 

Trivial? Silly?

How can those questions be what you claim when they are pertinent to getting a truthful resolution? You do not know one answer to any of the questions yet are able to make a "without a doubt" claim that can only BE obtained by answering those questions.

I love how that works.

 

Except….

Just that the DNA of people on flights 11, 175, 93, and 77 match those recovered at the crash sites. Including the flight crews. Items recovered match those who were on the planes. The wreckage is not inconsistent with those types of aircraft. The phone calls to the loved ones matches the persons who were on the flights. Those 4 air craft and everyone on the flights have never been seen again.

The light poles prove it was not a missile. The wreckage proves it was AA77.

 

None of the above conclusively proves the wreckage was from AA77 even if it's all valid and true (unfortunately it's all suspect). There is only one way to conclusively prove that the recovered debris was part of AA77. Provide a valid chain of custody for each of the recovered parts then match the serial numbers from each part to the parts log for the aircraft designated as AA77. Then you have nearly conclusive proof of the aircraft using hard evidence.

 

The Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane.

It had approximately 80 camera's pointed at the building and all were confiscated by the FBI after the attacks.

These camera's must have clearly shown a plane coming in hitting the building, however, we have never seen any clear image of it.

9-11 is an inside job.

 

The video cameras were not continuous feed cameras and they all were pointed to within a few feet of the building; basically to photograph persons who are slow and only pose a threat when they are close by. So if you were walking by the building, every 2-3rd step you take would be photographed in great detail.

The traffic light poles prevent it from being hit by anything other than a plane

 

"and they all were pointed to within a few feet of the building"

Do you really believe that?

The most heavily secured building in the world, the military nerve-center of the US had all it's camera's pointed to the ground that day.

C'mooon...

 

In the first place, it is not the “most heavily secured building in the world”. Security is tight and cameras were pointed to where threats would be most likely to come from (the ground) and the cameras were set up to track the most dangerous type of enemy—humans. Seriously, do yourself a favor; try to photograph buckshot leaving the barrel of a standard shotgun. It is traveling about as fast as AA77 was traveling. High speed cameras would struggle to capture the image clearly.

As for my beliefs; the downed traffic light poles eliminate all possibilities but for a few select aircraft from being what hit the Pentagon. The DNA of the passengers and wreckage of AA77 does the rest.

It is helpful if you take the evidence as a whole instead of harping on one faulty fable of “there must of been a camera that caught it!!!”

 

O come on... that building had cameras in, up and around the building pointing in all directions.

Besides that, 1 push of a button and fekking SAM missiles would have launched from out of the grass there and multiple Hydra 6 units would have been gunning from the rooftop.

[video=youtube;2CAgT0ovn4I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CAgT0ovn4I[/video]

But yet, somehow an airbus managed to fly around for over an hour through the most heavily guarded airspace in the world, heading for the most heavily guarded building in the world unscathed?

Get outta heeere....

 

"Nobody could have imagined ..." and "It was a failure of imagination ...". This is the kind of intellectually insulting crap they're peddling.

[video=youtube;Su3tYyjaFDQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su3tYyjaFDQ[/video]

 

Which of course was bull(*)(*)(*)(*), as NORAD held an exercise with an "hijacked airplane which would crash into the WTC" a few years before 9/11

NORAD exercise had jet crashing into building

From Barbara Starr
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, April 19, 2004 Posted: 2349 GMT (0749 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise/



In the above picture you can see they had a plan ready in 1997.

 

Not sure if you’re being serious any longer…. The airspace over the Pentagon isn’t secure; we fly over it all the time when landing at DCA.

 

You don't seem to understand that there are such things as "good" questions, and such things as "bad" questions. Worthy and relevant questions, trivial and irrelevant questions.

In analyzing a series of events, a story, I consider only worthy questions.

 

The moment there's a hijacking going on in world's most heavily guarded airspace, the US just KNOWS the Pentagon is a valuable target, just like the White House and Capitol are.

Those are the first to be defended. Unless there's a Dick Cheney around who gives a stand down order to keep jetfighters grounded of course...

[video=youtube;RRJAI4-e7Xw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRJAI4-e7Xw[/video]

 

For the 2nd time; the Pentagon isn’t guarded airspace. Planes fly within 200 meters of the place all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvbAfC4P8Kc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J04NogAtEPk

As for the defense of other installations in DC…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PDGsbNU22k

 

Well thank you very much.

What do you mean by OCT?

 

Does that change anything to the fact that when the US was well-aware of hijacked planes flying through the sky and that Cheney ordered the airforce to stand down?

Under normal circumstances when multiple planes are hijacked the entire East Coast of the US would have their airspace swarming with fighter jets within minutes. But on 9/11 it took them 2 hours?

Lol, gimme a break...