Pentagon Citgo Video Released, Shows Nothing

[Brainster]

Video and article at Raw Story.

[greyl]

1. That's too bad.

"no reason for further speculation about what it does or does not show"

Hey, who needs reason? Besides, I heard somewhere that there are 83 other videos...
:banghead:

[whistle]

6. Yes, the Sheraton Hotel had video pointing straight at the impact

...location, but these were confiscated by officials of the government or the military.

[greyl]

9. Where did you hear that? nt

[whistle]

17. Link to other videos of 9/11 Pentagon attack.....

<snip>
The Sheraton hotel
The cctv video of a "mysterious hotel", not so mysterious in fact as it would be the Sheraton National hotel, is said to have also registered the plane. The video has been viewed by the hotel employees, shocking them. Then the FBI came and took the video.

See point of view, the pentagon being just on the left of the last picture or from the window ...

http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/fct-videos.html

[greyl]

22. Interesting page.

I do remember hearing that "hotel employees shocked" quote before, now that I see it again.
I just don't know if it came from a solid source.

[whistle]

26. Also look at all of the servallence cameras mounted along the

...expressways flanking the Pentagon site. There must be miles of video footage far more detailed then the gas station material

[FoxOnTheRun]

36. But first the fotage with no plane to get the no-planers hyped up

[tenseconds]

39. solid sources

You mean the ones you read?

[JackRiddler]

42. Washington Times

Their Pentagon correspondant - Boortz? Geertz? - had it as a brief in a column called, I believe, "Inside the E-Ring". This was taken off the web at some point. He reported that employees at the unnamed hotel ran the tape several times to watch the impact again when suddenly FBI folk showed up "minutes" after the attack and confiscated it. Please don't pester for more, I have it archived and have accessed it several times, but just wasted a few minutes looking for it and failing, no time right now. (Anyways, I don't make shit up.)

[JackRiddler]

44. Bill Gertz

A bit later, I've found the original text:

"Now word has reached us that federal investigators may have video footage of the deadly terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation.
It may be the only available video of the attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash. The attack occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring." (B. Gertz, The Gertz File, 21 sept. 2001)

[greyl]

45. "may have captured dramatic footage"

Why couch the statement? If the story was based on solid evidence that Hotel employees watched a videotape of the plane hitting the Pentagon, why not say so?
Why say "may have captured dramatic footage"?

[JackRiddler]

61. Yes well...

I've always figured this was a waste of time. What's interesting is keeping the videos classified after 5 years, and the highly manipulative way they've been released one at a time to Judicial Watch rather than to the actual FOIA applicant, Scott Bingham of http://flight77.info. The Pentagon strike is the media's red herring of preference, and sometimes they reduce skepticism to just this one dubious claim of no plane.

[KJF]

2. Thanks for posting this (n/t)

[FoxOnTheRun]

3. The crash occurred according to what I've heard at 9:37

News say between 9:37 and 9:45

The footage is from 9:36-9:41 according to the small time stamp.

It could be that it's before the impact, and why is it recorded on a vcr showing the 01 01 93 as date?


Judicialwatch is playing psy-ops as usual, they give out the rules and let people focus on the pentagon.

They can release every camera that shows nothing until they release the pentagon roof cameras

[greyl]

4. Plus,

dylan avery: guys...something's wrong here...

9:37:46 is the official impact time...

from 9:37:40 to 9:37:50 a man is walking TOWARDS the CITGO...

if a 757 was screaming overhead he would be running away, from under the awning, to see that particular incident...

this is huge.

hopefully the source MPEG is torrented so we can get a better glimpse...

What are the chances that the time on the camera was slightly off?

[FoxOnTheRun]

5. it could even be 1 hour off, for example daylight saving time

[Nozebro]

7. Huge embarassment to the OCT claim that FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon

The video images are obviously not from the day/time of the 9/11 attacks. The reason why they blocked images of the customers is because customers that WERE there on the morning of 9/11 would realize the video is not from when the Gov't says it is (because it doesn't include them), and the people in THIS video would realize the video was also NOT from the time period/date claimed by the gov't.

Bottom line remains: to the great embarassment of the 9/11 Truth Suppressors, the Gov't has released a video that does not support the OCT claim of AA FL 77 crashing at the Pentagon, but DOES support the notion of those that claim the OCT is a huge lie - a fairy tale that has allowed the Gov't to make substantial progress in the long-term efforts of the rich, corporations, and easily-fooled run-of-the-mill rightwingers to have a Fascist gov't here, protecting their interests at the expense of everyone else.

[greyl]

8. Oh lord, you're a great cheerleader.

The video doesn't contradict the OCT at all.

[Nozebro]

18. Right. It doesn't just "contradict" the OCT - it totally destroys it.

The truth seems to be making you a little jumpy. Got a case of OCT heebee jeebees? Take Rush's advice.

[greyl]

20. No bud, it doesn't. Your post is ridiculous. nt

[IChing]

24. It proves that the government is hiding information on purpose

what the hell was the security risk of these videos?
Why did it take 5 years to release this?
Now for the 80 or so cameras around the pentagon?

[greyl]

25. The government hides information on purpose? Holy shit!

I don't think that was ever in doubt.

My tinfoil answer to you is that they're withholding clearer evidence of the plane because they enjoy watching the conspiracy theories develop. They have a crack team of psychic Soviets who are analysing the dynamics of social psychology taking place in the CT community over stupid shit.

I have more reasonable reasons, but they aren't as fun.

[BootinUp]

51. lol, I wouldn't put it past em

:hide:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[AZCat]

28. You can make whatever claims you want...

but reality - for better or worse - is not dependent on your perception of it.

[Nozebro]

31. The reality that counts is that video which does NOT show a plane crash

and if the OCT that you and the rest of the OCT'er Batallion support was the truth about 9/11, the video would show a B757 crashing into the Pentagon. Clearly, it shows no such thing. Not even a model airplane. (it was ALREADY inside the Pentagon, safely stored in a closet)

Reality -for better or worse - is not dependent on your denial of evidence your own side produced (no pun intended).

Do have yourself a nice day, AZCat.

[AZCat]

32. It's Friday...

but I do have a job, so Smokey and me don't get to hang out on the front porch this afternoon. It's a shame, but I'll try to have a nice day anyway.

What does a model airplane stored in a closet at the Pentagon have to do with anything? Are you referring to the one used in the disaster room scenario?

[FoxOnTheRun]

34. calm down boy

The intelligence community isn't doing this for some years, they have lot of experience.

If there was incriminating material on the tapes they would simply destroy them like they did with the FAA tapes.

Deception and many layers of the onion are the mo.

[tenseconds]

40. just..

Just what is reality...oops wrong thread.

[Nozebro]

38. Yes, bud, it DOES. Your posts are ridiculous.

.

[greyl]

50. How does it destroy the OCT?

How does it affect the OCT at all?

[FoxOnTheRun]

29. It destroys nothing, it shows you that good planning is

the best approach to such an operation.

[Nozebro]

33. Yes, planning & the good fortune of being well-connected ! EOM

n/t

[FoxOnTheRun]

10. this is what they want

forget the lost trillions of the pentagon
forget the war games on 911 to confuse the good guys and allow the attacks to happen
forget building 7 and Larry's freudian slip
forget the EPA cover-up instructed by the White House. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/toxic_dust_whistleblower_raided_by_swat_team.htm
forget all the other smoking guns and when they pull the plane out of the magic hat, they can claim the conspiracy theorist are all cooks and here is the proof,a plane hitting the pentagon.

[greyl]

11. CTists have been whining forever about releasing the videos

Now, when they start to come out (another next month) all they do is whine about the release of the videos. Asshole Dylan Avery is even taking credit for the release of the video. I doubt he's ever dreamed of filing an FOIA request.

[FoxOnTheRun]

14. all at once not one per month

You are aware that judicialwatch is organization that has other interests?

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=23233

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case ACLU et al. v. National Security Agency. Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements, available on Judicial Watch’s Internet Site, www.judicialwatch.org.

[greyl]

15. What does that have to do with anything?

Are you trying to cast doubt on the validity of the video because of who filed the FOIA request?

[FoxOnTheRun]

19. I've heard the interview of a judicialwatch member on

Alex's radio show(when the first video was released), the guy had intelligence background.
He said more videos are coming but he didn't say when.
When asked if this could be a honeytrap, he said it could be.

I can't find the mp3 but it must be somewhere

[greyl]

21. What does that have to do with anything?

I really don't understand what you're saying.
Fwiw, at least one DUer that I know of also filed an FOIA request for the videos.

[FoxOnTheRun]

23. The whole united states can file a foia

but only foia from http://www.judicialwatch.org/ get released like the first parking lot cameras.

If the gov would like to keep it secret they would simply say it's national security and keep it for 40 years.

Don't be so naive.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. www.flight77.info

That's the guy you're thinking of, greyl.

http://www.flight77.info

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. What is the point of this video?

Other then to induce seizures in epileptics?

[greyl]

13. The point is that you can see it now thanks

to an FOIA request.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Well, you win some

and you lose some.

[Nozebro]

30. Someone is playing a joke on OCT supporters, to embarass them. EOM

n/t

[greyl]

35. It's damn near impossible to embarass a critical thinker with facts.

Because their opinions tend to be based on evidence rather than emotional attachment & bias, it's relatively painless for a critical thinker to change their opinions in accordance with newly discovered facts. Coincidentally, that explains why they tend to be correct more often

Am I saying that everyone who supports the OCT is a critical thinker? No, but I think your current use of "OCT supporters" really meant to be a shot at critical thinkers.

[Nozebro]

41. The facts are ALL on the side of the notion that 9/11 was an inside job.

Am I saying that every single OCT'er is ignorant of the basic facts? No, but I think their current use of tactics to distract and suppress the truth is a shot at those of us who do know the facts and know how to think critically about them.

We also have eyes. We can see explosions & that tiny hole in the Pentagon that OCT'ers claim was made by a huge B757. What we CAN'T see at the Pentagon is any credible evidence of it having been attacked from outside the building.

[greyl]

52. That's a very extreme and thoroughly unsupported statement.

"We also have eyes."

That's not the most compelling defense of CTists I ever heard.

What do you think of these photos?:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63981
alt link

[mhatrw]

37. What is the point of this?

Is the NIST disappointed that they can't use this video to help create their computer model of the Pentagon collapse?

Otherwise I'm confused. (fill-in-blank) years later they release another (fill-in-the-blank) with nothing on/in it. Are we supposed to cheer, laugh or just fall asleep?

[Will Scoffield]

43. "Shows nothing"

That is not surprising. What is surprising is that anyone would expect a low budget gas station surveillance camera to actually capture definitive footage of an airplane travelling hundreds of miles per hour.

[BootinUp]

46. I have tried to point that out before...

What kind of shutter speed do you need to capture a clear image of a 500 mph object. Any photography experts out there?

[greyl]

48. shutter speed

In addition, it somewhat depends on the distance between camera and subject, focal length, and the light available. It kinda depends on what we'd mean by "clear image", too.
I don't think any security cameras exist that could provide bulletproof video evidence of what hit the Pentagon.

[mhatrw]

59. How about satellite footage?

Or are you contending that no military satellites are pointed in the Pentagon's direction?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

62. Don't know much about satellites do you?

The observation satellites don't do like they do in the movies. In the movies they hang in the air and are always available to look at any place on earth, anytime, and in fine detail.

In the real world - THEY ORBIT. A satellite has to orbit. That is how it stays up. Now if the satellite is 25,000 miles up then the orbit become geosynchronous, meaning it is in sync with the earth's rotation and it appears to be stationary. But that is too far out for recon satellites. The recon jobs are in low earth orbit. They can see in greater detail if they are close up than far away. But if they are in low earth orbit, each starlet only gets to look at any patch of earth twice a day, and then only for a few minutes. We have only a few observation satellites in orbit. We do not have 24/7 coverage of the entire globe - that's for the movies.

Also, why would you want to keep your own administrative headquarters under constant expensive space surveillance? You want you expensive stuff trying to find the bad guys.

[mhatrw]

63. Right. So nothing is surveilling the Pentagon.

Makes perfect sense. Every city block, every train station, every bank machine, every gas station, every mini-mart are under constant surveillance. However, the Pentagon is not. Because there's nothing there worth protecting in any way. Nothing to see there, folks. Move along.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

64. No, everything is NOT under constant space surveillance.

Remember, you were asking about satellites, not on site video. There simply aren't enough surveillance satellites to do that.

I would help you to understand the problem in trying to have full time 24/7 surveillance by satellite if you understood about orbits. You obviously appear not to.

I will repeat: Each surveillance satellite gets to look at a spot on the earth for only a few minutes, twice a day. That all. There are only a few satellites, so most of the time, no one is looking.

[BootinUp]

66. The DOD has release two different videos

What more do you expect?

[mhatrw]

67. The rest of them, including at least several that show a 757

hitting the Pentagon.

[greyl]

47. Yes. It's only because the video NOT being released was woven into

conspiracy theories that it's such a big deal. The CTists were using that as evidence for their CT. In true Conspiracist Worldview fashion, they have turned the release of the video into more evidence for a conspiracy theory, even though it doesn't provide evidence for any version of the story.

The reaction to the tape - the fact that Deniers of the Official Story don't tend to be objective and say "well, the video doesn't provide evidence for any version of the story" may be the strongest evidence to come out today.

Their compulsion to spin reality without considering the logical consequences is displayed stunningly in today's quote from dylan avery:

from 9:37:40 to 9:37:50 a man is walking TOWARDS the CITGO...
if a 757 was screaming overhead he would be running away, from under the awning, to see that particular incident...
this is huge.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

49. Of course it doesn't show anything. Use some logic folks.

Now I know that logic doesn't go well with CTers, but let's try. We have all been in gas stations and seen the cameras, and looked at the monitors sometimes. All of them are pointed at stuff that the store wants to protect. The ones outside are mounted high and pointed DOWN AT THE GAS PUMPS. They are there to record drive-offs. (People who drive off without paying for the gas.) I have never seen a security camera pointed at the horizon, or up at the sky, at a gas station. Why would they want to monitor the horizon or the sky? There is none of their stuff there to be stolen.

All, isn't the pentagon BEHIND the gas station? (I'm not sure about that.) If so, why would the station have a camera watching the rear of the store where they don't have anything to steal? And why would it be watching the rear horizon?

Sama logic for the hotel also. Outside security cameras are always mounted high and pointed down.

[DemInDistress]

53. its a fake and a fraud.. here's why..

while watching this intently notice the time at 9:36 and 9:37 and 9:38 and 9:39 and 9;40 then it stops at 9:41
if you look closely in the blurred section you'll see people milling around probably buying shit.
What would you do if an errant commercial jet passes 20-50 ft. above the store and crashes no less into the Pentagon 100 yards away. I most certainly would run to the door and go outside to see what the fuck just happened.

Nothing, not a soul runs to the door. no excited people. from 9:36am to 9:41 am its business as usual. No commercial jet, global hawk or cruise missile struck the Pentagon at the time listed on this video.

ask yourself, what would you do? No one would have stayed inside that store and I do notice in those 5 minutes
4-5 maybe 6 figures milling around the store.

Its a fake, a fantasy put out by the murderers in our Whitehouse.

I'm open for debunking. Shoot !

[greyl]

54. commence debunk

What are the chances that the clock on security cameras in gas stations are accurate to the minute?
Describe what's going on at 9:40:38-39.

[DemInDistress]

55. your still here?? wow

[greyl]

56. You win. nt

[Nozebro]

58. Pathetic post. Strawman fallacy. EOM

N/T

[BootinUp]

65. Do you know the definition of

a strawman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

[Nozebro]

68. Help me out, Jim. Exactly which fallacy/fallacies is it? Thanks.

I'm thinking maybe "non-sequitur", but I could be wrong, and as noted in the subject line, I'm aware it could be more than one. You were quick to spot it, took the time to research it in wikipedia, and then point out my mistaken identification, so I figure you're an industrious M.P.T.S. who enjoys doing that kind of thing and won't mind doing me this favor. Thanks again, Jim.

[BootinUp]

69. A straw man is where you project a position on your

debate opponent.

[Nozebro]

70. I was right all along. Thanks, Jim.

N/T

[BootinUp]

71. not really, but don't let it bother you.

[Will Scoffield]

57. "Its [sic] a fake" ... Please clarify.

Is it fake because it proves that there was no plane at the Pentagon, or is it fake because it proves that there was a missile fired at the Pentagon, or is it is fake because it proves that there were no planes at all anywhere on 9/11, or is it fake because it proves that a plane did fly into the Pentagon?


(Just trying to figure out this whole conspiracy thing, but it's so inconsistent that it's tough to do without a viewer guide.)