Where is the footage from these cameras?

[boastOne43]

obviously, the recently released Citgo videos show nothing. the footage i want to see comes from these cameras:



here is a closeup of the same location now.



and then there is the Naval Annex just above the Citgo station. it faces the impact area of the Pentagon.







WHY DO THEY REFUSE TO RELEASE THE FOOTAGE CAUGHT ON THESE CAMERAS!!!
this is just another reason why i believe something other than a 757 (AA flt.77) hit the Pentagon.

EDITED: for typos

[Ezlivin]

1. Those cameras don't exist

You must have missed the thread where all the OCTers assured us that the Pentagon is guarded with armed men and bad intentions; no need for cameras.

And if you don't believe that line, then there will be something about where these cameras were pointed, their resolution, their depth of field, their frame rate or the battery levels.

Remember: Regardless of how much evidence you have for something, it doesn't count if it goes against the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Nice photos, by the way.

[boastOne43]

2. can't take photo credit....

i found these on a thread at the Loose Change forums. i believe Russ Pickering from PentagonResearch.com took them on a recent trip to DC. if you also look closely in the first pic, you'll see a camera just above the large open door to the Helipad garage. i know its probably pointed too much towards the ground but still....

[whistle]

3. Excellent question, I guess those videos are with the missing

...18 minutes of audio tape from the Nixon White House taping sessions, you know that part where Nixon spilled his guts about the JFK assassination involving George HW Bush.

Excellent photos of the Pentagon damage. It is very easy to see the impact area and once again debunk the official story version as one can get an excellent perspective of the impact hole and surrounding wall.

I wish someone with Photo-Shop skills could line up the aircraft impact holes on each of the WTC Towers against these pictures in the proper scale and angles to demonstrate that a Boeing 757 could not have hit the Pentagon wall.

[boastOne43]

4. maybe these pics will put a 757s size in perspective....

same size firetrucks in each pic











obviously edited:

[whistle]

5. That is one big ass aircraft!!!

....Of course the plane was supposed to have come in at a 30 degree angle to the wall correct? The 757 as you are showing it is at more like a 12 to 15 degree angle, or am I wrong on that assessment? The reverse image of the firetrucks and the back half of the plane are a really good match.

Boy, look at that tail section. I mean if what hit the Pentagon was in fact a Boeing 757 and the tail and body debris had slammed against the upper floors of the Pentagon at 500mph as claimed right above the impact hole as outlined in red in the first shot, why are all of the windows on floors 3 and 4 still intact?

Also, the engines each are about fifteen feet on either side of the center of fuselage (about 30 feet across) but again no impact holes like you see on the WTC towers where the outlines of the two planes are clearly visible. Your photo has too much smoke to see, but nothing like that appears at the impact point on the Pentagon. I have seen close up photos of the impact wall on the Pentagon taken prior to that section collapsing. In those photos, on each side of the impact hole, the windows appear blown outward, that is toward the direction from the approach of the plane. Also the wall on the ground floor appears buckled outward not inward as you would expect if the heavy engines had slammed into the wall.

This is beyond a reasonable doubt and the investigations should be reopened along with access to all of the 85 or more surveillance videos. The American public has the right to see all of the evidence .


Thank you for putting those on the post.

[hack89]

6. I think you need to look at more than a couple of pictures

here is the official building performance report. Lots of pictures of the internal damage as well as more detailed descriptions of the exterior.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

One thing for sure - the internal damage is not consistent with a warhead explosion.

[boastOne43]

10. and its most definitely not consistent with a 757 * nt *

[hack89]

11. 85 foot wide swath of damage extending several hundreds of feet

into the building. Care to venture a guess how wide a 757 is from engine to engine?

Certainly way too wide for a missile wouldn't you agree?

[boastOne43]

13. not talking about the width of the impact hole....

im talking about the damage inside the building...

for instance:

[hack89]

14. We are talking about the same thing ..

I suggest you actually read the report. There is nothing in the interior damage consistent with a missile penetrating and then exploding.

on edit: The nose cone comment is classic CT - one opinion twisted beyond recognition. If you were to read the report it is clear that the nose cone did not cause the damage it is claimed to have made.

[boastOne43]

31. but the myth that the nose cone did it is what became....

part of the official reported story early on. i posted that above more for the quote by Lee Evey which made it into every newspaper the next day and thus engrained into the public conscience.

[hack89]

33. Can we at least accept that early statements made prior to ..

investigations may not be as accurate as subsequent statements? And when there is a conflict the actual study or investigation is most likely more accurate than than some prior statement?

[Nozebro]

15. "swath of damage"? Is that a "Faith-Based" synonym for entry hole?

At least your post shows a little creativity, even if it is meant to fool the unwary.

[hack89]

16. I guess you didn't read the report either.

big surprise - can't let those pesky facts get in the way.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

18. As you can see, it is by the post - how's the weather? nt

[Nozebro]

7. "The American public has the right to see all of the evidence ."

There's really _____ else TO see. If ANY kind of airplane had crashed at that site, there would be evidence of it in at least some of the many photos that have already been released.

The Pentagon/FL 77 lies are a much better key to understanding that 9/11 was an inside job. There's no proof of any such flight as AA 77 on 9/11, and if there had been such a flight on that day, there WOULD be official records of it. There's no proof of reservation/ticket/check-in of Mrs. Barbara Olson having been on an AA FL 77 on 9/11, we've seen photos of alleged "hijackers"
at Dulles that day, but not one photo allegedly showing Mrs. Olson there. Besides, NO airport, taxi driver, boarding agent, security agent or anyone else has ever said they saw Mrs. Olson at Dulles Airport on 911.

If Mrs. Olson had called her husband from ANY airplane on 9/11, where's the proof? Where is there one word from anyone at the U.S. Department of Justice saying they took a call from her and transferred it to her husband?

You don't have to get into an endless argument loop over whether or not the ludicrous claims about Hani Hanjours 270 degree turn are true, and you don't have to allow the OCT'ers to try and confuse the issue about the impossibility of an airliner flying a feet off the ground. Likewise, it's not necessary to get into arguments over whether the OCT Faith-Based Theory of whether confetti is a sufficient substitute for ACTUAL engineS, blood, luggage, seats, body parts, or any of the rest.

There is no need to "see" anything else from any other cameras at or near the Pentagon, to know that a large commercial airliner did NOT crash at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

Likewise, there is no need to demand the impossible from the OCT'ers here. They cannot produce (credible) proof of something that didn't happen and it's futile to wish otherwise.

[hack89]

8. Nice rant - feel better now? nt

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

12. Not ridicule - praise..

you obviously put a lot into in and I thought you should be recognized for it.

[IChing]

20. Nice, but where are the cameras that viewed that jet?

which I think the person did a very good job on to see the size


Talk about off topic as usual with your tactics.

[AZCat]

19. Still claiming that anyone who disagrees with you...

is a paid disruptor?


You must have a fascinating life - how do you get by without exposing yourself to dissenting opinion?

[whistle]

21. At some point that will be acceptable, but as of now, I would like

...to see all videos accounted for and released. Any photos taken should be declassified. After five years we should be able to review the evidence. If the Pentagon, CIA, FBI or any other agency as evidence, it should be declassified now. My personal opinion after looking at what is currently available points to some type of aircraft did hit the Pentagon, but I do not believe that it was a 757 as claimed in the OCT.

[Nozebro]

22. What is it in what is "currently available" that points to "some type of

aircraft did hit the Pentagon", in your opinion?

[whistle]

23. A 12 to 15 foot diameter circular hole punched through six current

...walls suggests that something airborne from outside came through the Pentagon. The light poles getting knocked over and witnesses saying they heard a sound like a jet or roar pass over at high velocity.

That doesn't mean that it was a manned airplane. But based on those descriptions, it was not likely to have been explosives detonated inside of the Pentagon building.

Now, if those accounts prove to be false flags, then I would be open to the actual source of the damages as being virtually from within the Pentagon. Prove that the light poles were damaged in some other way and that the jet engine roar although a plane of some sort, was not from anything aiming for and crashing into the Pentagon, then I would embrace the idea that the explosion was set off from within the building itself.

[Nozebro]

24. I was just curious about your opinion, but one thing you said I'd like to

respond to is your statement "Prove that the light poles were damaged in some other way".

Do you know of any credible evidence/proof that substantiates your belief of how the light poles were "damaged"? I'm aware that the OCT'ers claim that "the plane" hit them, but a claim isn't proof. The BTS (Bureau of Transportation) keeps meticulous records of ALL scheduled flights - and they do NOT show FL 77 as a scheduled flight for 9/11, which is why there is NO "wheels off" time record for it - meaning it didn't take off.

Based on the above, I'm sure you can understand why I'm asking what makes you so sure that "the plane" (FL 77) "damaged" any light poles.

[whistle]

26. No proof at all, which is what makes the official story suspect...

...But giving the benefit of doubt and accepting that the light poles had to come down at the time just prior to the impact, that would have meant some type of projectile could have been responsible. But I see your point, that if the ideas of a plane or a projectile or even a missile are all rejected, that nothing actually flew into the Pentagon, that leaves only scenarios which involve explosives both in the Pentagon and also the surrounding damage such as the light poles.

If videos do in fact exist, then these need to be made public. Or, reopen the investigation using an independent panel and look at all the evidence just liek any crime scene.

[Nozebro]

28. It isn't "ideas" that are being rejected. We're talking about LACK of

credible evidence to sustain the OCT claims. You haven't put up any evidence, because there isn't any. No evidence of an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon and no evidence that an aircraft "damaged" any light poles. You don't appear to have even considered that the light poles may have been removed & planted to make it look like they'd been torn loose and knocked down.

Wouldn't it be better to not make claims based on (whatever you're basing things on) - until after you've studied the known facts a bit more, and maybe have given it a little thought?

[whistle]

29. So I've shared my thoughts and doubts, what about yours?

...You are suggesting no planes hit the Pentagon so I assume you are rejecting the official story. So what would be your scenario as to what happened to cause all of the damage at that site on the morning of 9-11?

[Nozebro]

32. Something other than AA FL 77. That's why an independent investigation

is needed and should be undertaken, but won't be. Now, or ever.

[hack89]

34. You kill me ..

give me a lot of crap about what I believe yet you are completely unable to articulate what you think happened.

If you are smart enough to determine without a doubt that it was not a 757, it seems to me that you should be smart enough to determine what it was. Yet you can't.

Yours is a classic CT position - the evidence clearly proves to the casual observer that the official story is false yet at the same time the evidence is so murky it is impossible to determine what really happened. How convenient for you.

[boastOne43]

35. the burden is on the gov't to prove their story...

and they haven't. Col. Bowman says it best when he says "The only truth about 9/11 we know is the we don't know the truth about 9/11".

Yours is a classic CT position - the evidence clearly proves to the casual observer that the official story is false yet at the same time the evidence is so murky it is impossible to determine what really happened. How convenient for you.

you keep throwing this "classic CT position" comment around. well the official story is a conspiracy theory if you didn't know. from m-w.com:

-----------------------
CONSPIRACY-

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
synonym see PLOT

THEORY-

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
-----------------------------------

the official gov't sory is just a "HYPOTHESIS of a PLOT" or conspiracy theory.

[hack89]

36. But they have,,,

to the satisfaction of all but a small minority of Americans. Either you possess some unique understanding or you are wrong - your inability to prove anything would lead me to think you are wrong. Endless questions are not proof of anything except ignorance - the 911 truth movement has nothing but endless questions. That and calls for another investigation they know will never happen. A perfect world - don't have to prove anything just ask a bunch of questions.

[boastOne43]

37. not at all!

the majority of americans only believe what they are told, usually from the MSM. most americans i know who believed the OCT and then actually read the 9/11 Comission Report and the NIST report, etc are now asking the same questions. the ignorance actually befalls on the majority who believe the OCT. if they would do a little homework themselves, they would see that the OCT doesn't add up on many, many levels.

[hack89]

38. But if you are completely unable to prove

an alternate theory, what do you have besides questions? After five years there are nothing but questions.

Do you know why I am certain there is nothing behind 911 CTs? There are no names. Where is the name of the guy who drove the truck that carried the explosives to the WTC? The guy who controlled the remote control Global Hawk/757/who knows what? The Air Force private that knew official procedures were not followed? If I am to accept every 911 CT then I have to accept there was a small army of people involved. There was an even larger number who later found out or suspected. And yet in an age of digital anonymity, no leaks. I don't believe it.

I also don't accept the theory that CTrs can look at the evidence and declare that it absolutely disproves the official story yet that same evidence is insufficient to prove what really happened. It simply shows me that you don't fully understand what you are looking at.

A simple challenge: tell me what happened at the Pentagon and provide the evidence that backs up each claim. And do it without once questioning the official story - just a simple, positive affirmation of your beliefs. You can't do it.

[tenseconds]

50. your theory

How has your theory been proven? By government declaration. Why haven't the serial numbers of the remaining plane parts from the Pentagon been Identified?

[Nozebro]

39. Instead of proof like Bush promised, we get a PR campaign designed

to convince the questioning public that only "conspiracy theorists" question the Official Fairy Tale. Not one single Official Conspiracy Theorist here has ever made a full, credible argument for the Fairy Tale they defend. The only "evidence" they've ever produced is Gov't-sponsored propaganda. The Warren Commission produced a Report that was 26 volumes in length, yet it contains not one word of testimony from some of the most important witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy. The 9/11 CR is the Warren Commission Report of today. "All fluff, not much stuff".

[hack89]

42. Pay close attention to the JFK sites

that's the 911 truth movement 40 years from now.

[bagrman]

52. But you have nothing, The Empire is naked. Energy directed

in a direction can't not be redirected unless there is an equal force to move it. The offical story is that the wings of the plane folded up and went into the building to be burnt up. what could cause this. The engines should be sitting in the yard or there should be holes in the wall.

Latr
Bagrman

[bagrman]

51. Since this area was under construction there is

a rack of gas bottles, often seen on job sites where a lot of cutting and welding is being done, sitting ust out side of the wall to the left of the impact hole. Like the empty wore spools they wouldn'tbe there if a plane had just crashed into the building.

Latr
Bagrman

[Norrin Radd]

25. kick. n/t

[gbwarming]

27. Great! File a FOIA request

Or see if you can get someone like Judicial Watch to do it.

[boastOne43]

30. FOIA and the Pentagon...

i believe the Pentagon is the one arm of the government that has a sort of immunity from FOIA requests. remember, the last 2 FOIA releases were from the FBI.

[gbwarming]

41. They have a foia office

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/

so I don't think they are immune, however they (like most agencies) may be pretty effective at stonewalling requests and answering them in the narrowest possible way, and of course they may be quick to claim national security prevents release. It isn't a quick or easy process but may yield results with persistence.

[Sinti]

40. I hate to break it to you, in that first picture that's not a camera.

It's a light. The side of the Pentagon that was hit faces the road - I can see why they wouldn't have too many cameras on the roof there. The one on the last pic may be a camera. I'm not sure if the Naval Annex cameras would have caught anything - but they should release them, regardless.

I agree they should release all footage and clear this up immediately. They should also have a completely independent, and fully funded, no-holds-barred investigation of what really happened on 9/11 in total. I ain't buying the incompetence business, when did such incompetent people manage to line their own pockets so well?

[boastOne43]

43. actually it is a camera, you are mistaken....

it's only black because it charred.

and just because that side faces a street doesn't mean it's any more secure or they don't care. i would say it's less secure hence the need for security cameras.

[Sinti]

44. Okay. Then those cameras give off light at night. n/t

[Sinti]

45. I just wanted to add that, after a little inquiry, they may well be dual-

use, i.e., cameras as well as lights. The do look like the dome cameras in that photo, but if you go to the Pentagon at night, they're lights. The cameras on the inside are these recessed into the wall black things, so I figured they'd have the same outside.

[boastOne43]

46. here is a pic of the lights & camera taken in 2000

a light is just right of the camera, they are the square box style. you can see another more to the right.

[Sinti]

47. Yep, ya got me. I really thought, from what I remember, that they were

lights. That footage should be released also.

We need a real investigation of the whole damn thing, not just some "Commission" set up to not place blame on anyone.

[Clinton Crusader]

48. Where can one view the Citgo footage? n/t

:kick:

[Nozebro]

49. Karl Rove's office (safe) has the only original footage. EOM

nt