I can sort of understand someone questioning what happened and whether it could have been some sort of setup. What I find utterly fucking bizarre is that all the conspiracy theorists believe the government flew planes into the towers AND blew them up with explosives. They staged hijackings and kamikaze attacks with airliners, but that was just a diversion so they could blow them up with ordinary explosives? It’s like a Rube Goldberg contraption of terrorism. Isn’t it enough that they could have just staged the plane attacks? Or, if they used explosives, why bother with the planes? Why not just stage a big truck-bombing, with a couple semi trailers full of explosives?
(Oh, and don’t forget the missile! They were able to fly airliners into the WTC and a field in Pennsylvania, but instead of using another one at the Pentagon, they decided to use a cruise missile and pretend it was an airplane, hoping nobody would notice.)
Not to mention that there is a missing plane with actual passengers and crew that were on it but aren’t with us anymore. That alone should be all you need to know no matter what else. I feel like finding a conspiracy theorist and blowing their house up. Of course, I would never be prosecuted because any simple explanation with obvious facts simply isn’t acceptable to them.
Four planes were hijacked. One hit the Pentagon; one crashed in Pennsylvania. So that leaves two planes targeted for the World Trade Center.
Did the terrorists know that the World Trade Centerwould collapse completely? Not just the World Trade Center Towers, but the World Trade Center - all seven building. From the point of view of the terrorists, that would be mission accomplished, complete success. So how could they know the towers would collapse, let alone all seven buildings. There was no fifth plane that hit Building 7.
Any serious conspiracy theory begins and ends with the two planes entering the towers.
In fact, to my knowledge, there was no serious investigation regarding the issue Shagnasty brought up. So, if you can, try to look at the perspective of the hijacker piloting Flight 175. You see the North Tower impacted directly in the center of the tower. Why is the tower still standing?!, you think. Do you hit the North Tower at a lower level at a sharp angle thinking this will bring it down? Or do you follow suit and hit the South Tower at the center? Or, maybe, just maybe, you panic and, instead of hitting the center, mid-section, you make a rapid decent and fly into the corner of the South Tower, thinking this will knock it down. — Remember, they knew that there would be only two planes on the attack on the World Trade Center and that the two other planes might fail in their attack as Flight 93 did. So the question then becomes: with one last plane, and the world watching, what was he thinking?
OK, that’s the best evidence I’ve seen so far. I’m not going to take a microscope to it and waste my time trying to discredit it. As I said, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. That being said, I am surprised that this is the first time I have seen that video and that it wasn’t played over and over 1000 times by the media and dissected by the skeptics.
In any event, if that’s the best that our supreme military can come with in regard to securing their headquarters I think it is time that we contract the job to the Wal Mart security department. They have much better surveillance equipment in the parking lots at their worst performing stores.
Not doubting the plane-hitting-Pentagon in any way, but it does surprise me that with the ubiquity of security cameras there were virtually none pointed at or away from the Pentagon. Ok, I can see a few reasons why there’d be fewer (er… just like I see reasons why there’d be more). But virtually none? And aren’t there a lot of tourists in Washington, same as in NY?
Like someone mentioned guards. Ok, that’s fine and effective. But what if something goes down, and you still need to corroborate what happened. Eg naked guy runs across Pentagon lawn. You’re saying there’d be no tape that could be admitted to court? Or if a shooter runs off shooting at windows?
Was not their a tape from a gas station near by that caught the footage but was later taken by the FEDs? Conspiracy theorist always mention this is it true is their a second tape?
If you want to provide court-worthy evidence of trespass, it’s not necessary to document the entire duration of a miscreant’s intrusion; it’s enough to catch them going over the fence into a controlled area. Coincidentally, if security personnel are tasked with monitoring an area, it’s preferable to have them monitor a small area (e.g. the fence plus or minus 30 feet) rather than the entire acreage of the Pentagon’s lawn. One would expect that cameras are placed at slightly elevated positions looking downward at vehicle entry areas, and also at slightly elevated points looking downward and parallel to fencelines. Security personnel and equipment are not expected to be on the lookout against aerial bombardment, so it’s not surprising that they didn’t have wide-angle cameras mounted on the building looking outward anywhere close to level. If there were cameras mounted on the building at all, they wouldn’t be wide-angle cameras, and the would be pointed down at the ground too, since ground-based threats are what they are supposed to monitor.
Lots of tapes were confiscated. Most (or all?) have been returned by now. The one I linked up thread, bad as the quality is, caught the best shot. I don’t believe the gas station one in particular caught anything at all, IIRC.
I’ve seen the Pentagon many times. Did you ever see the World Trade Center? That was a pretty big place too. So what’s your point?
Many very large secured areas have surveillance cameras monitoring the perimeter. You don’t find it at all surprising that the headquarters of the largest military force in the world had no cameras monitoring its perimeter? Ok, I guess I must be delusional.
Keep in mind that skyscrapers are designed to withstand fire, high winds, extreme temperatures, and seismic activity- but not widebody airliners crashing into them.
Why bother? There’s nothing important outside the building. People who break into the Pentagon aren’t cat burglars, they’re hackers.
I think one thing that makes 9/11 fertile ground for CTs is the fact that nothing like it ever happened before. So they can find details about how the buildings collapsed or whatever that seem “odd”… and you can’t refute them by saying “Well, the same thing happened every other time somebody flew a huge airplane into a skyscraper”.
Of course there are cameras monitoring the perimeter of the Pentagon. But they are aimed at the ground, not the sky. And the primary monitoring method at the Pentagon isn’t security cameras, it’s human beings. They don’t have a camera monitoring the helicopter pad for unauthorized landings, they have a guy there. If a helicopter lands without permission they don’t record a video of the landing for future reference, instead a bunch of guys goes to deal with the people in the helicoptor.
The Pentagon is an office building. It’s security systems are meant to deal with the people who go in and out of the building all day, and making sure that the people who come in are granted and denied access to the correct parts of the building. It isn’t a military fort.
These guys werent thinking about how to fly them in, they could barely fly them to begin with. Just hitting the target taxed their flying skills. Wondering about the exact angle and how theyr figured out the buildings would fall is a little silly in my book. All the evidence points to the fact that all they knew was that hitting a building with a large jet will cause an explosion and fire, one which might bring down the building. If it didnt? Big deal. Its still a big act of terrorism.
The framerate on a lot of CCTV cameras is very low and the cameras are so low resolution you can barely see what youre trying to see (doorway, stairwell, etc). Its not like we all have 60fps cameras just pointing into the sky. I imagine if there are photos they wont be like a brochure photo of a plane, it will be an unusable blur, which will just lead to more morons coming up with conspiracy theories.
If you google for it you;ll find four photos released. Because of the low framerate you pretty much only see a blur entering the frame then an explosion.
Right, you can take any event in history and make it a conspiracy. Everything has some unanswered questions as its impossible for us to have perfect information.
When a conspiracy 'theorist" such as David Icke, David Icke - Wikipedia , who proposes that shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, gets a standing ovation at the University of Toronto…
…well, ya kinda have to admit you just can’t talk sense to everyone.
The only thing I can’t understand is the USAF/NORAD explanation of their own actions that day. They seem to have f—ed up royally, and given a bunch of BS answers that make no sense. Mind you, I don’t think it’s a conspiracy to commit a crime, but rather a conspiracy to cover their asses when they failed to intercept obvious hijackings. I would have liked to have seen SOMEONE get fired or demoted or at least censured for poor job performance that led to hundreds of deaths.
