FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Michael Hogan]

I don't doubt for a second that something did hit the Pentagon and it most probably was a plane. But why the secrecy? Where are the videos showing this event in all its Technicolor glory like the twin towers?

Maggie, I enjoy reading your posts and think you have a lot of good ideas. In this case, I don't think Technicolor glory was the best choice of words.

[Maggie Hansen]

I don't doubt for a second that something did hit the Pentagon and it most probably was a plane. But why the secrecy? Where are the videos showing this event in all its Technicolor glory like the twin towers?

Maggie, I enjoy reading your posts and think you have a lot of good ideas. In this case, I don't think Technicolor glory was the best choice of words.

Sorry, Michael, on second reading, probably not. All I meant was there has to be something of better quality than the 5 poor quality frames from the car park camera.

[Evan Burton]

Maggie,

Most (if not all) of the camera evidence has been released, with very little on it. You find that suspicious. Quite understandable, but please remember that the absence of evidence is not evidence.

You could check where all the cameras were mounted on 9/11 and what types they were (field of view, frame rate). From this you could calculate if something should have been seen.

Were picture phones in widespread use on 9/11? They weren't in Australia; I don't know about the US. Very few (if any) in Australia had video capability.

Think how long it takes to react to something:

[a shadow then a large roar]

"What the hell was that?"

[Looks around, see airliner about to hit the Pentagon]

"Holy......!"

[explosion]

Not a lot of time to react. There were some people who had cameras and took images shortly after impact.

So I don't find it unusual at all. If there were camera that should have been able to see something, then that is evidence... but I have not seen anything to say that certain cameras should have seen the approach / impact.

[Len Colby]

How do people simply discount the eyewitness statements?

Evan and others,

I don't discount the eyewitness statements. What I do question is the evidence in general. How do we know that we have all the evidence and not selective evidence? There must be hundreds of videos of the Pentagon plane. There are cameras all around the Pentagon itself. Then there are all the businesses nearby protecting there property and all the cameras on the roads monitoring the traffic. Where are all the films from the mobile phones of the persons caught in traffic who saw the plane impact? I don't doubt for a second that something did hit the Pentagon and it most probably was a plane. But why the secrecy? Where are the videos showing this event in all its Technicolor glory like the twin towers? Its not like it was night time in the Alaskan wilderness. It was the middle of the day in the capital of the USA in the 21st century with almost every person awake there aware that something Real Big was going down. Thought there must be a film or two of somewhat better quality than the four or five frames released by the Pentagon two years later. Do I accept the eye witness statements. Yes. As much as I would in any other circumstance and with the same amount of caution. But what about the other film evidence that should verify the eyewitness accounts? Where is that? Do I trust the government? No way. Its like a magic trick where everyone is made to look at the twin towers being crashed into and falling down over and over again but there is nothing of the Pentagon event. What's not to see? It is not fully documented.

Speculation by people with zero relevant expertise, experience or evidence is worthless. Present evidence there are (or at least should) tapes that weren’t released.

Basically tapes could be expected to be from three sources:

1) Pentagon parking lot or external surveillance cameras: I have seen no evidence that there were more than the two of the former of that the latter existed. Speculation that there “must be” isn’t evidence.

2) VDoT traffic cams: There was a thread about this apparently VDoT didn’t and doesn’t record the traffic cam images. Jack admitted that no cams would have showed the impact. We disagreed about whether one might have shown the plane seconds before it hit. IIRC Jack never responded to my analysis that it was unlikely too. If you disagree revive the thread an rebut the evidence presented there in.

3) Parking lot or external surveillance cameras from local businesses. AFAIK there are only two that show anything:

i) the gas station across the highway – too low resolution to show anything of value

ii) the Double Tree Inn a nearby hotel – the view is blocked by the highway all you can see is the top of the fireball.

They as you can see have been released

There was also speculation about a Sheraton several miles away - as discussed elsewhere the view was almost certainly totally blocked by the Navy Annex. That tape is private property has AFAIK not been released.

On this page the author discusses the above speculates that various other locations might have had cameras that would have shown the crash or the plane but presents no evidence that they do

http://web.archive.org/web/20070202014536/....com/video.html

“There are cameras all around the Pentagon itself”

citation / evidence

“Where are all the films from the mobile phones of the persons caught in traffic who saw the plane impact?”

The plane was flying at about 520 MPH which comes out to a mile every 7 seconds. Even if we presume some of the people had their cell phones in their hands how long do you think it would take even those who had such presence of mind to figure out what was going on switch them to video mode and point them in the right direction. Even then the video quality of even most modern cell phones is too poor to have captured much. Don’t forget that video cell phones weren’t very common then and quality was even lower than today.

EDIT – Various typos and grammatical errors fixed

Edited February 26, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

The subject of surveillance video (or lack there of) from the Pentagon has already been extensively discussed on other threads. Perhaps anyone interested in revisiting the issue should revive one rather that start from zero here.

For a head start perhaps you can look for evidence that unreleased tapes that would show the impact exist (or existed)

Len Colby is looking you straight in the eye...he is telling you, "....the Government never lies......believe me...and believe them....this issue is not an issue...as the Govt. I'm lapdog to never lies and said it was and ordered me to say it was not an issue.....when you awake after I snap my fingers, you will remember nothing of my voice and will only believe this subliminal message....authority it legitimate; comply; do not dissent; do not think for yourself; resistance is useless....I am your CAPO; I always wanted to be best at something - even if at the "darker arts"

.... snap-snap

....awake...

A way a lone a loved a long the riverrun......

Once again Lemkin shows he isn't capable of providing much else that strawmen and insults.

[Len Colby]

In fact, as I recall, he took 9 photos, of which that page shows two.

They were published in the official newsmagazine of the firefighters association, or

they would have gone unknown. Thanks for pointing out my bad word choice.

Did any of the firemen give accounts of what they saw and did? Why was

the photographer so far away from the scene and his fellow firefighters?

Good questions.

The NFPA publishes a newsletter where the photos and firemen's stories

appeared. I just tried to access the original article, and got this message:

Jack

It may be something to do with your browser. I can access the page with no problems using Internet Explorer. I just downloaded the latest version of Safari (v3 Beta) and the page loads fine too.

You could try upgrading your browser by downloading the latest versio of the Safari browser below. Notice this is a beta version, so there may be some bugs.

http://www.apple.com/downloads/

Dave

Can you provide the link to the page?

Jack's link works but doesn't lead to the correct page, ditto Evan's all I could find was stuff from the 1st anneversary of the attacks

I find it interesting that NOBODY addressed the image I posted, but

instead retaliated by launching personal attacks. Any argument that

does not address this photo is meaningless.

Jack

All that your photo established is that the deris was visible in that particular image, it could have been out of the feild of view or too small to be seen

Edited February 26, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

bump

[Len Colby]

ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD! The FBI [who have covered up every major event in USA history and lied about the event and their cover-up] confiscated huge numbers of camera videos - never to be seen. The only thing we've seen have NO images of a plane...only hints of a tail and a 'whoosh' of something airborne at high speed. NOR have any of the cameras that are on the Pentagon been released NOR the satellite photos. Those of you, like Evan and Colby who genuflect to authority whenever and whateve it says don't see the omissions and cover-up....too bad for you...the rest of us do...it is as obvious as the Emperor with NO clothes!....and not a nice image to see.

Peter - Can you produce any evidence that the FBI or any other government agency is (or was) in possession of unreleased video showing the Pentagon impact and/or the plane’s flight path?

[Ron Ecker]

I don't doubt for a second that something did hit the Pentagon and it most probably was a plane. But why the secrecy? Where are the videos showing this event in all its Technicolor glory like the twin towers?

Maggie, I enjoy reading your posts and think you have a lot of good ideas. In this case, I don't think Technicolor glory was the best choice of words.

Sorry, Michael, on second reading, probably not. All I meant was there has to be something of better quality than the 5 poor quality frames from the car park camera.

I see nothing at all wrong with "technicolor glory." It's an apt description of the spectacular fireballs at the WTC that the perpetrators fully intended for the public to see. Jet fuel was intended to explode outside the buildings, it was shock and awe, a show designed to burn in the people's memory, and stoke the burning fires of war on the Middle East. The perps had to be giddy at how well the "technicolor glory" came off.

Of course I can understand one's discomfort in associating the word "glory" with such an attack. But then the word has been identified with war throughout our history. "Paths of glory," "Glory Glory Hallelujah" (a battle hymn), "the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air," etc. So what else is new.

[Len Colby]

Lemkin why do you insist on spamming threads with long irrelevant posts?

[Matthew Lewis]

Just a few things that are obviously wrong. I'm sure there may be more but I've only skimmed it because for the most part I just don't care.

3. In particular, when NMCC-NORAD officials did finally order jet fighters to be scrambled to protect New York and Washington, they ordered them in each case from more distant bases, rather than from McGuire and Andrews, respectively.

4. After public statements saying that Andrews Air Force Base had no jet fighters on alert to protect Washington, its website, which had previously said that many jets were always on alert, was altered.

I've see this before and seen what the website said before it was changed on the internet archive. It did not say that Andrews had planes "on alert" but rather combat ready as in ready to deploy for a military action meaning they were fully trained and could be recalled in a short amount of time to deploy jets and personell to a forward location if needed. The aircraft I fly on (E-8C JSTARS) it also combat ready (less so now that we already have multiple planes and people deployed in theater) but there is no way we could be considered on alert.

6. These same pilots, flying planes capable of going 1,500 to 1,850 miles per hour, on that day were all evidently able to get their planes to fly only 300 to 700 miles per hour.

It takes time to get up to speed, must be done at altitude, and before 911 they were not permitted to fly supersonic over populated areas. Supersonic travel is also not used continuously as it uses a lot more fuel, and greatly increases the temperature of the engines. It would do no good to use up all their fuel getting to where they need to go only to have turn around and go home again because they constantly used their afterburners getting there.

17. On the same day in which jet fighters were unable to protect the Pentagon from an attack by a single airplane, the missiles that normally protect the Pentagon also failed to do so.

I've yet to see any evidence that the Pentagon has missiles protecting it aside from a few quotes taken out of context. No pictures exist showing these mythical missiles. It is hard to say how they would be used anyway as there are planes flying over it all day long as the Pentagon is directly in the approach path of a major airport.

[Len Colby]

Unfortunately Griffin's level of scholarship re:9/11 like that of Scott, Fetzer, Wood etc is abysmally low.

[William Kelly]

Unfortunately Griffin's level of scholarship re:9/11 like that of Scott, Fetzer, Wood etc is abysmally low.

Throwing Griffin, Scott, Fetzer and Wood together shows Len Colby has no level of scholarship whatsoverever and doesn't know what he is talking about.

To pharaphrase Ted Bundy, I am more convinced now than ever of Colby's ignorance.

BK

[Len Colby]

Unfortunately Griffin's level of scholarship re:9/11 like that of Scott, Fetzer, Wood etc is abysmally low.

Throwing Griffin, Scott, Fetzer and Wood together shows Len Colby has no level of scholarship whatsoverever and doesn't know what he is talking about.

To pharaphrase Ted Bundy, I am more convinced now than ever of Colby's ignorance.

BK

Who do you think doesn’t belong on the list with the others? All use their academic credentials to legitimize their views. However all except Wood are pontificating on areas totally outside their areas of specialty, Wood’s views are only marginally related to their areas of specialty and it shows. IMO the 9/11 work of all four has been trash.

[William Kelly]

Unfortunately Griffin's level of scholarship re:9/11 like that of Scott, Fetzer, Wood etc is abysmally low.

Throwing Griffin, Scott, Fetzer and Wood together shows Len Colby has no level of scholarship whatsoverever and doesn't know what he is talking about.

To pharaphrase Ted Bundy, I am more convinced now than ever of Colby's ignorance.

BK

Who do you think doesn't belong on the list with the others? All use their academic credentials to legitimize their views. However all except Wood are pontificating on areas totally outside their areas of specialty, Wood's views are only marginally related to their areas of specialty and it shows. IMO the 9/11 work of all four has been trash.

I would ask them what they think of your work, but I'm sure they never heard of you.

And in answer to your question, while they may be academics, PDS's body of work and influence on those who have written books on a number of subjects cannot be overestimated.

BK

Edited March 2, 2008 by William Kelly