9/11 survivor says there were explosions before/after planes hit

[the cac mamba]

Is there any confirmation that better video exists? There's a simple logistic issue with trying to cover the entire Pentagon grounds with high FPS security vid in 2001 - it was just too fukking big.






How many security cameras do you need to monitor 1,100 acres of land and 150 acres of office space with 17.5 miles of corridors and 3.7 million square feet of offices? Is 10,000 security cameras enough? 20,000? Maybe more? The answer is obviously classified, but there has to be thousands and thousands of cameras there.

Problem is, where are those cameras pointing? If you want to monitor who goes in and out, then you have cameras pointed on every road in, every exterior drive-in entrance, every building entrance. You may have cameras set up all around the perimeter fence as well, all pointing out. None of those cameras are going to be pointed at the building itself, they're all directed away from the building and pointed in line with or at the ground. Then you're going to have cameras all over the corridors to track movement. And you'll have cameras inside certain secure rooms, possibly multiple cameras inside many rooms. NONE of those indoor cameras are gonna show you shyt.

With all of those cameras to worry about already, are you going to have another couple cameras every 50 feet on the wall outside, just to video the wall? You would need to set up another 200 cameras to cover the entire building perimeter that way. What purpose would that serve? No one is going to be able to get into the Pentagon by sneaking into the grounds, running across open space, and climbing up into a fukking window. They'd be caught 10x before then and I seriously doubt the lower-level windows could even be accessed. There's literally zero reason to monitor those walls.

The video of the plane that was released came from a camera that was monitoring a driveway near the building. That makes sense - those are the sorts of cameras that were situated outdoors and pointed in various directions - the ones monitoring the access roads. None of the fence perimeter cameras, none of the entry cameras, none of the corridor cameras, none of the room cameras, are going to be able to capture the plane. With 1,110 acres of land surrounding nearly a mile of building perimeter, I don't know why there would be more than 1 security camera pointed at any one particular part of the building.

Next comes the quality issue. Let's say you have 10,000 or so security cameras already, the vast majority of which are going to be on the outer fence perimeter, building entrances, or inside the building. How much storage space do you think they have to store continuous video from 10,000 cameras? Before 9/11 the last major rennovation of the Pentagon came in 1992. There's no way they're replacing 10,000 cameras and all the infrastructure around them every year, so it's quite possible that the last camera rennovation came when that 1992 rennovation started. Do you realize how unwieldy digital storage space was in the early 1990s? 72 hours of 30fps video would be 7,776,000 frames. At 1080 HD that would be nearly 600 GB for EVERY camera. Ifyou have 10,000 cameras, that 6,000,000 GB every 3 days. And since a true Pentagon security issue may take weeks or months to uncover, they're probably not rewriting that memory every 72 hours like a store would, they might be saving a month of video at a time or even longer. With a month you're talking 60,000,000 GB of camera footage. Back in the 1990s when storage space was many times more unweildy than it is today.

For that reason, the vast majority of security camera footage is not going to be HD and it's not going to be 30fps. Perhaps the key entrances and most secure rooms have the highest quality footage stored, but the random outdoor spaces are going to get the least priority. You're going to have maybe 2 FPS video at standard definition. And that's exactly what we saw.

Again, all the actual specs are going to be confidential, so there's no way to verify what they're really doing. But I don't see why you can assume high-quality security camera footage aimed every-which way on 1,100 acres of outdoor space. It doesn't make sense from a security perspective and it's just not practical logistically. They didn't have that kind of ability to manage memory like that in the 1990s.

the feds went to a gas station nearby and took their security tapes show us that one

and yeah, i dont believe that theres no better official pentagon tape showing the plane approaching. doesnt seem possible

i try not to be one of those conspiracy dikkheads, but it seems pretty incredible that a shytty amateur pilot hit the pentagon absolutely perfectly with a 757. like, pilots have a whole runway to work with this dude just took a boeing and slammed it within feet of the pentagon? that seems extremely difficult

 

[Professor Emeritus]

the feds went to a gas station nearby and took their security tapes show us that one

They did release that one, back on September 15, 2006 after a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch. None of the videos from the gas station captured the attack:

One more piece of the 9-11 puzzle?

If you've been exposed to any of the plethora of conspiracy-theory websites devoted to the 9-11 terror attacks, you'll know there's been been considerable chin-wagging about the FBI withholding a security videotape it seized from a CITGO gas station

www.sootoday.com

You could have taken just 2 minutes to look that up.

and yeah, i dont believe that theres no better official pentagon tape showing the plane approaching. doesnt seem possible

It doesn't seem possible because you know literally nothing about the quality of outdoor security cameras in the 1990s and degree of coverage facing towards the building on a 1,100 acre property, and have done literally no research to learn.

Something like 30,000 people work at the Pentagon every day. So including turnover, there are well over 100,000 people who know far more about the Pentagon security camera situation than you do. If this was implausible as you're claiming, there would be tens of thousands of people who would have a much better case than you of proving the Pentagon was full of shyt.

i try not to be one of those conspiracy dikkheads, but it seems pretty incredible that a shytty amateur pilot hit the pentagon absolutely perfectly with a 757. like, pilots have a whole runway to work with this dude just took a boeing and slammed it within feet of the pentagon? that seems extremely difficult

Look at the #'s I already gave you. Each side of the Pentagon is nearly 1000 feet across and 80 feet high. That's a huge target. That's 4x wider than the biggest runways at any commercial airport, so on the horizontal axis it's easy as hell to hit. Plus a runway has to be hit exactly straight or you'll run off of it, while the Pentagon could be hit at any angle. And vertically all you have to do is be somewhere within 80 of the ground without hitting the ground. That is WAY easier to accomplish than landing an aircraft is.

I've seen numerous pilots talk about this and all of them agree that the pilots of the aircraft did not demonstrate incredible skill and didn't need to. Multiple witnesses who saw the approach reported that the plane was flying erratically and appeared to not be in total control, but they didn't need to be in order to complete the required task. They had more than enough training to do what they did.

Ask the pilot

In search of the ever-elusive "truth," the pilot takes on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

www.salon.com

How was it possible for a relatively untrained pilot to manage to fly a plane into the Pentagon on 9/11?

Answer (1 of 17): Relatively untrained is an example of weasel words. These men were not idiots. Their actions, however despicable, do not show a lack of training or forethought. For example, Mohamed Atta had a private pilot’s license. This licensure requires a bare minimum of 40 hours as the pi...

www.quora.com

How difficult would it be for a pilot with minimal flight experience to fly a large jet, nap of the Earth before crashing into the Pentag...

Answer (1 of 7): The 9/11 suicide pilots were trained pilots with time in simulators for the type that they hijacked. Crashing into one of the world's largest buildings requires no great deal of skill and yes, before hitting the ground the aircraft would get closer and closer to the ground. That...

www.quora.com

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

www.aerospaceweb.org

There have been multiple incidents where private small-plane pilots who have never flown a jet in their lives have been able to land a jet on a runway on the first try after a pilot was incapacitated, working solely off of the autopilot and instructions from the aircraft control tower. Landing on a runway is FAR harder than hitting a building. You have to have incredible precision in terms of your landing speed, your angle of descent when the wheels touch, having the wings perfectly level when the plane touches, and being lined up perfectly even with the runway. Someone hitting a building is flying level which is much easier than controled descent, does not have to keep the wings level, does not have to worry about speed, and does not have to worry about angle. All they have to do is hit the building somewhere. That's so much easier. And while they hadn't flown jets before, they had done a lot of simulator time on jet programs, which is quite good practice for that very limited task.

 

[Dizzle]

The writers of South Park think op is retarded. I do too.

 

[Reality Check]

Is there any confirmation that better video exists? There's a simple logistic issue with trying to cover the entire Pentagon grounds with high FPS security vid in 2001 - it was just too fukking big.






How many security cameras do you need to monitor 1,100 acres of land and 150 acres of office space with 17.5 miles of corridors and 3.7 million square feet of offices? Is 10,000 security cameras enough? 20,000? Maybe more? The answer is obviously classified, but there has to be thousands and thousands of cameras there.

Problem is, where are those cameras pointing? If you want to monitor who goes in and out, then you have cameras pointed on every road in, every exterior drive-in entrance, every building entrance. You may have cameras set up all around the perimeter fence as well, all pointing out. None of those cameras are going to be pointed at the building itself, they're all directed away from the building and pointed in line with or at the ground. Then you're going to have cameras all over the corridors to track movement. And you'll have cameras inside certain secure rooms, possibly multiple cameras inside many rooms. NONE of those indoor cameras are gonna show you shyt.

With all of those cameras to worry about already, are you going to have another couple cameras every 50 feet on the wall outside, just to video the wall? You would need to set up another 200 cameras to cover the entire building perimeter that way. What purpose would that serve? No one is going to be able to get into the Pentagon by sneaking into the grounds, running across open space, and climbing up into a fukking window. They'd be caught 10x before then and I seriously doubt the lower-level windows could even be accessed. There's literally zero reason to monitor those walls.

The video of the plane that was released came from a camera that was monitoring a driveway near the building. That makes sense - those are the sorts of cameras that were situated outdoors and pointed in various directions - the ones monitoring the access roads. None of the fence perimeter cameras, none of the entry cameras, none of the corridor cameras, none of the room cameras, are going to be able to capture the plane. With 1,110 acres of land surrounding nearly a mile of building perimeter, I don't know why there would be more than 1 security camera pointed at any one particular part of the building.

Next comes the quality issue. Let's say you have 10,000 or so security cameras already, the vast majority of which are going to be on the outer fence perimeter, building entrances, or inside the building. How much storage space do you think they have to store continuous video from 10,000 cameras? Before 9/11 the last major rennovation of the Pentagon came in 1992. There's no way they're replacing 10,000 cameras and all the infrastructure around them every year, so it's quite possible that the last camera rennovation came when that 1992 rennovation started. Do you realize how unwieldy digital storage space was in the early 1990s? 72 hours of 30fps video would be 7,776,000 frames. At 1080 HD that would be nearly 600 GB for EVERY camera. Ifyou have 10,000 cameras, that 6,000,000 GB every 3 days. And since a true Pentagon security issue may take weeks or months to uncover, they're probably not rewriting that memory every 72 hours like a store would, they might be saving a month of video at a time or even longer. With a month you're talking 60,000,000 GB of camera footage. Back in the 1990s when storage space was many times more unweildy than it is today.

For that reason, the vast majority of security camera footage is not going to be HD and it's not going to be 30fps. Perhaps the key entrances and most secure rooms have the highest quality footage stored, but the random outdoor spaces are going to get the least priority. You're going to have maybe 2 FPS video at standard definition. And that's exactly what we saw.

Again, all the actual specs are going to be confidential, so there's no way to verify what they're really doing. But I don't see why you can assume high-quality security camera footage aimed every-which way on 1,100 acres of outdoor space. It doesn't make sense from a security perspective and it's just not practical logistically. They didn't have that kind of ability to manage memory like that in the 1990s.

I can definitely understand the storage capacity that would be required back in 2001 to host all of the security video along with the lack of HD quality video, but this is the headquarters of the Department of Defense. If they didn't have every square inch of the property covered by at least 1-2 security cameras I'd be shocked. Even if they were still recorded on film (again, no idea the technology they were using vs. what regular security programs were publicly available), they have to have several angles of that plane coming towards it and I assume they would have procured the tapes of it ASAP. Not a conspiracy nut by any means, but it's crazy that 20+ years later, there's only the grainy start/stop security footage that's shown the Pentagon being hit.

 

[BaltimoreTwilightMarauder]

This just in! Random man says something

 

[Jahbarri]

They did release that one, back on September 15, 2006 after a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch. None of the videos from the gas station captured the attack:

One more piece of the 9-11 puzzle?

If you've been exposed to any of the plethora of conspiracy-theory websites devoted to the 9-11 terror attacks, you'll know there's been been considerable chin-wagging about the FBI withholding a security videotape it seized from a CITGO gas station

www.sootoday.com

You could have taken just 2 minutes to look that up.









It doesn't seem possible because you know literally nothing about the quality of outdoor security cameras in the 1990s and degree of coverage facing towards the building on a 1,100 acre property, and have done literally no research to learn.

Something like 30,000 people work at the Pentagon every day. So including turnover, there are well over 100,000 people who know far more about the Pentagon security camera situation than you do. If this was implausible as you're claiming, there would be tens of thousands of people who would have a much better case than you of proving the Pentagon was full of shyt.








Look at the #'s I already gave you. Each side of the Pentagon is nearly 1000 feet across and 80 feet high. That's a huge target. That's 4x wider than the biggest runways at any commercial airport, so on the horizontal axis it's easy as hell to hit. Plus a runway has to be hit exactly straight or you'll run off of it, while the Pentagon could be hit at any angle. And vertically all you have to do is be somewhere within 80 of the ground without hitting the ground. That is WAY easier to accomplish than landing an aircraft is.

I've seen numerous pilots talk about this and all of them agree that the pilots of the aircraft did not demonstrate incredible skill and didn't need to. Multiple witnesses who saw the approach reported that the plane was flying erratically and appeared to not be in total control, but they didn't need to be in order to complete the required task. They had more than enough training to do what they did.

Ask the pilot

In search of the ever-elusive "truth," the pilot takes on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

www.salon.com

How was it possible for a relatively untrained pilot to manage to fly a plane into the Pentagon on 9/11?

Answer (1 of 17): Relatively untrained is an example of weasel words. These men were not idiots. Their actions, however despicable, do not show a lack of training or forethought. For example, Mohamed Atta had a private pilot’s license. This licensure requires a bare minimum of 40 hours as the pi...

www.quora.com

How difficult would it be for a pilot with minimal flight experience to fly a large jet, nap of the Earth before crashing into the Pentag...

Answer (1 of 7): The 9/11 suicide pilots were trained pilots with time in simulators for the type that they hijacked. Crashing into one of the world's largest buildings requires no great deal of skill and yes, before hitting the ground the aircraft would get closer and closer to the ground. That...

www.quora.com

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

www.aerospaceweb.org

There have been multiple incidents where private small-plane pilots who have never flown a jet in their lives have been able to land a jet on a runway on the first try after a pilot was incapacitated, working solely off of the autopilot and instructions from the aircraft control tower. Landing on a runway is FAR harder than hitting a building. You have to have incredible precision in terms of your landing speed, your angle of descent when the wheels touch, having the wings perfectly level when the plane touches, and being lined up perfectly even with the runway. Someone hitting a building is flying level which is much easier than controled descent, does not have to keep the wings level, does not have to worry about speed, and does not have to worry about angle. All they have to do is hit the building somewhere. That's so much easier. And while they hadn't flown jets before, they had done a lot of simulator time on jet programs, which is quite good practice for that very limited task.

Ur a sheep if u believe a plane hit the pentagon .. why are americans so dumb .. it was a missle theend

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I can definitely understand the storage capacity that would be required back in 2001 to host all of the security video along with the lack of HD quality video, but this is the headquarters of the Department of Defense. If they didn't have every square inch of the property covered by at least 1-2 security cameras I'd be shocked. Even if they were still recorded on film (again, no idea the technology they were using vs. what regular security programs were publicly available), they have to have several angles of that plane coming towards it and I assume they would have procured the tapes of it ASAP. Not a conspiracy nut by any means, but it's crazy that 20+ years later, there's only the grainy start/stop security footage that's shown the Pentagon being hit.

As I pointed out, there are hundreds of thousands of people who worked there who would be able to verify this "every square inch" thing if it were really true. They would be able to tell us exactly where all these cameras would have been located because they worked there every day. It wouldn't just be random people online making assumptions.

As I pointed out, the outside of the building is the last thing you would cover. Wouldn't the entrances be far more important? All roads leading in and out? And the 17.5 miles of corridor? 3.5 million feet of office space? Not to mention the entire outside fence perimeter?

Once you add up what would be necessary, it becomes obviously ridiculous to suggest that such an enormous property would have every square inch covered by high-def security cameras in the 1990s. That's spy movie talk, not reality. And if you're picking and choosing what to cover, random portions of the outside of a building that takes a fukking mile to walk around would be your last priority.

Ur a sheep if u believe a plane hit the pentagon .. why are americans so dumb .. it was a missle theend

If it was such an obvious fake, then why didn't they just fake a high-def video? Or why not just fly a plane in to do the damage that missile supposedly did? And where the fukk did Flight 77 go, if you're going to hijack the plane then why not fukking use it? Hell, why the fukk crash anything into the Pentagon in the first place?

For your theory to work, you'd have to:

* Have a ton of collaborators in both government and military, all of whom kept quiet
* Get dozens or hundreds of regular people to lie about seeing a plane flying toward the Pentagon, none of whom have ever cracked or leaked
* Pay off all Pentagon employees who could even possibly see the missile coming in an expose your plan.
* Pay off hundreds of firefighters and other rescue personnel who saw the wreckage in the immediate aftermath
* Somehow disappear Flight 77
* Somehow create all the hijackers, even though numerous people had interacted with these flight-learning foreign Saudis in the lead-up


And for what? You're doing all that insanely intricate, involved conspiracy, creating 100s of chances to expose yourself....and for what benefit?

 

[Mike Nasty]

i try not to be one of those conspiracy dikkheads, but it seems pretty incredible that a shytty amateur pilot hit the pentagon absolutely perfectly with a 757. like, pilots have a whole runway to work with this dude just took a boeing and slammed it within feet of the pentagon? that seems extremely difficult

He actually missed and went around. ...and I wouldn't call shytty amateurs, they had 100s of hours thanks to Bin Laden.

 

[Mike Nasty]

Ur a sheep if u believe a plane hit the pentagon .. why are americans so dumb .. it was a missle theend

I know a girl who saw it, and another close family member who heard it fly over her house, but you're a shyt poster so who cares.

 

[Jahbarri]

As I pointed out, there are hundreds of thousands of people who worked there who would be able to verify this "every square inch" thing if it were really true. They would be able to tell us exactly where all these cameras would have been located because they worked there every day. It wouldn't just be random people online making assumptions.

As I pointed out, the outside of the building is the last thing you would cover. Wouldn't the entrances be far more important? All roads leading in and out? And the 17.5 miles of corridor? 3.5 million feet of office space? Not to mention the entire outside fence perimeter?

Once you add up what would be necessary, it becomes obviously ridiculous to suggest that such an enormous property would have every square inch covered by high-def security cameras in the 1990s. That's spy movie talk, not reality. And if you're picking and choosing what to cover, random portions of the outside of a building that takes a fukking mile to walk around would be your last priority.






If it was such an obvious fake, then why didn't they just fake a high-def video? Or why not just fly a plane in to do the damage that missile supposedly did? And where the fukk did Flight 77 go, if you're going to hijack the plane then why not fukking use it? Hell, why the fukk crash anything into the Pentagon in the first place?

For your theory to work, you'd have to:

* Have a ton of collaborators in both government and military, all of whom kept quiet
* Get dozens or hundreds of regular people to lie about seeing a plane flying toward the Pentagon, none of whom have ever cracked or leaked
* Pay off all Pentagon employees who could even possibly see the missile coming in an expose your plan.
* Pay off hundreds of firefighters and other rescue personnel who saw the wreckage in the immediate aftermath
* Somehow disappear Flight 77
* Somehow create all the hijackers, even though numerous people had interacted with these flight-learning foreign Saudis in the lead-up


And for what? You're doing all that insanely intricate, involved conspiracy, creating 100s of chances to expose yourself....and for what benefit?

Ur blocked your so stupid its scary

 

[Trust Me]

I know a girl who saw it, and another close family member who heard it fly over her house, but you're a shyt poster so who cares.

Question then.. why (if it was a plane) was there ZERO plane debris in the wreckage? No black box. No wing. No engine. Literally.. nothing. Serious question.

 

[Mike Nasty]

Question then.. why (if it was a plane) was there ZERO plane debris in the wreckage? No black box. No wing. No engine. Literally.. nothing. Serious question.

No engines? It was a 757 slamming into a concrete building. I'm surprised the pieces in the photo are left.

 

[Dizzle]

Question then.. why (if it was a plane) was there ZERO plane debris in the wreckage? No black box. No wing. No engine. Literally.. nothing. Serious question.

Are you retarded? Serious question

 

[Geek Nasty]

Question then.. why (if it was a plane) was there ZERO plane debris in the wreckage? No black box. No wing. No engine. Literally.. nothing. Serious question.

Give it up man. Security footage showed the plane and there was plane debris all over the place

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Question then.. why (if it was a plane) was there ZERO plane debris in the wreckage? No black box. No wing. No engine. Literally.. nothing. Serious question.

Just blatantly false.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC in Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”






One of the engines specifically is what punched the deepest hole in the structure. Obviously an exploding missile couldn't blow a huge 25+ foot hole in the outer structure and yet make a perfect engine-shaped 8 foot wide hole deep in. You can see pieces of the plane debris in that picture with the green primer paint that is used on certain airplane parts.

Where do you get your info from?

Pieces of the fuselage

Interior framing

More fuselage

landing wheel:

Portion of the landing gear without the wheel:

Engine rotor:

Diffuser

Probably the largest connected piece of plane debris - that's what happens when you hit a heavily reinforced wall at 350 mph

Cleanup worker carrying fuselage:

The following link has the most exhaustive summary of all the evidence showing it was clearly a plane impact, including additional debris photos I didn't include cause the pieces are so small. What bothers me is this happened 20 years ago and at any point a 5-second Google search could have shown you were wrong, but you didn't even look. Just like @the cac mamba still demanding a video that had already been released 16 years ago. Why believe such ridiculous shyt yet not be willing to put in a few seconds of work to check it out?

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

911research.wtc7.net