GAY Good 9/11 Conspiracies

Pork Soda said:
I've worked in Security for my government for a number of years. We had our cameras on areas which covered other property all the time. We had on numerous occasions, the Metro Police and the Secret Service use our tapes for incidents that had happened not on or property.

Also, cameras being taken out doesn't matter. You could have had a plane fly nose first into a camera and still be able to retrieve the footage as the recording system in not normally into the same location as the camera. You should know this.

You either have not looked into this subject all that much, or you are purposely leaving out thing that weigh heavily on what you have just said. The FBI confiscated a lot of cameras right after the impact at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

not if the dvr is sitting in the section that's taken out, which in 2001 was a good possibility with limited range of coax (around 600' unless you went on fiber) and since all cameras were analog at the time this is a good bet. typical architecture back then was spread dvr's all over the building instead of home running everything to a central location, especially in a massive building like that. chances are they had 5 or 10 racks in each section with all cameras in that section going to them.

they probably have cameras on the fence pointing down the fence lines and out, and cameras on the building structure pointing down at the parking lots, not up into the sky. if any other camera caught anything it'd probably be a debris cloud coming in from the top or sides which show nothing at all. same with all other cctv cameras on surrounding structures, pointing down at the parking lots, not over the horizon, as analog needs to be focused in and the resolution still sucks.

we put in some 16mp cctv cameras that caught a dude throwing a bobblehead at a soccer player awhile back from across the stadium, could ID him perfectly recording 15 images per second (thanks to new compression technology, like h.204 compared to what we had in 2001, we can record a lot better image, not to mention how much storage capacity has increased since then). 5 years ago we put in a huge system for on of the fed reserve banks with all analog cameras and our best ones out there couldn't capture a face from the building to the roadway and only recorded at 3fps. redundant recording system? yup, but it didn't save the archive footage it just rolled over to the redundant system in a different part of the building if the first system went down. IP digital cctv cams were just coming out at that time and they were only 1.3mp and for the most part sucked, and that was 5 years ago not 10. never forget we're talkin old tech...

no clue about the fbi or anything that went on at the pentagon, just speaking about my experience with cctv in general. i can't think of any camera on any site i've done in recent years which would catch anything coming from the sky... although we did do a datacenter in the netherlands where we put in underwater cameras cause um... apparently they're afraid of being raided by sharks i guess. we do make it a point to make sure cameras are only pointed at the owners property though, even try to avoid public sidewalks and streets.
 
The entire plot was backed by a rebel faction within the Saudi government, and given blessing by the US. Full training and planning took place in Sarasota, and the fact that Bush was in Sarasota when it all went down is not coincidental.
 
eileenbunny said:
I get the feeling that whatever jobs you've done don't really hold a candle to the amount of security in and around intelligence and military facilities in the DC area. Be prepared to be surprised because that's not the Pentagon before or after 2001. It's parking lots are not covered, which you can easily see on a satellite photo of the place. There are security cameras from the time you get off at that exit all the way up to any entrance to that building. There's cameras and security in case of foot traffic since US Route 1 is right there and there is often a lot of random foot traffic on that road. There's traffic cameras because of the horrendous backups that happen right around there every single day, which is incidentally why there were so many eye witnesses (they were all stuck in a traffic jam!). Inside the building is even more interesting. There's security from the time you get off the metro at the underground stop. If you are going into the building without credentials you must have an escort. You are told you will be recorded. You are interviewed and sent through a metal detector. Mind you, I haven't been to this building since 2001. Locked doors are not uncommon, but that's certainly not the largest level of security they have there. NSA is much the same way, and they've only stepped it up since 2001, just like everywhere else in the DC area. Now you get to go through a security check on your way into the Smithsonian, where they also have cameras everywhere, and this is a friggin museum, not the seat of power for our nation's defense. It certainly isn't like any random military base I've ever been to, which btw has had more security than what you are describing.
Click to expand...

i did a fire alarm job in an nnsa factory where oddly enough, i never noticed any cameras inside the actual building (like i said, they didn't want someone else looking at the cameras). they had a bunch on site and a group who ran around with some weird equipment detecting cell phone signals so they could confiscate cell phones (not allowed on site). tons of physical security though, I had to be escorted by 2 armed security guards at all times. one walked behind me, the other walked ahead closing any doors to any rooms, I wasn't allowed outside of the corridors.

i was also in a security certification class with a bunch of guys who install everything at the Smithsonian. guy teaching the class placed the camera at logan that caught one of the terrorists face on tape right after he went through the main doors or metal detectors or something. they originally were going to place the camera somewhere else but he intervened and said it should be there, head of security at logan called him a few weeks after 9/11 to tell him about it.
 
eileenbunny said:
I get the feeling that whatever jobs you've done don't really hold a candle to the amount of security in and around intelligence and military facilities in the DC area. Be prepared to be surprised because that's not the Pentagon before or after 2001. It's parking lots are not covered, which you can easily see on a satellite photo of the place. There are security cameras from the time you get off at that exit all the way up to any entrance to that building. There's cameras and security in case of foot traffic since US Route 1 is right there and there is often a lot of random foot traffic on that road. There's traffic cameras because of the horrendous backups that happen right around there every single day, which is incidentally why there were so many eye witnesses (they were all stuck in a traffic jam!). Inside the building is even more interesting. There's security from the time you get off the metro at the underground stop. If you are going into the building without credentials you must have an escort. You are told you will be recorded. You are interviewed and sent through a metal detector. Mind you, I haven't been to this building since 2001. Locked doors are not uncommon, but that's certainly not the largest level of security they have there. NSA is much the same way, and they've only stepped it up since 2001, just like everywhere else in the DC area. Now you get to go through a security check on your way into the Smithsonian, where they also have cameras everywhere, and this is a friggin museum, not the seat of power for our nation's defense. It certainly isn't like any random military base I've ever been to, which btw has had more security than what you are describing.
Click to expand...
You are out of your lane. There are uncountable high security areas with no more security than a steel door and a biometric scanner. Frequently it's against policy to have any kind of recording devices in specific places.
For the record: escorts are PHYSICAL security, metal detectors are PHYSICAL security so I'm not sure why you bothered pointing them out.

Cameras are surveillance, you are essentially arguing that we employ them as prevention/response devices and it's actually very rare to see them used that way. They are usually used for investigation (evidentiary, documentary) not proactive response. Typical use: pointed at average height of license plates to record all traffic through a gate, atypical use: pointed at wide swathes of real estate and/or actively monitored. Get where I'm going with this?

Don't tell me what I know or don't know.
Floptical said:
I've worked extremely high level Intel sites my entire adult life and outside of a camera watching at the front 99% don't have any other external cameras because they rely o physical security. Prior to 9/11 90% of military locations were open with no security. You could drive through any Army base with no gate at all. They have zero internal cameras because they aren't allowed to. Trust me prior to 9/11 there wasn't crap at most places including the Pentagon. All you needed at most sites was a sticker on your window and a smile.
Click to expand...
This shit right here is what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
All this talk about security system at other locations is all moot. None of it proves anything one way or the other with regards to the footage that was or was not captured at the Pentagon on 9/11.
 
I'm not saying that I think this crap was rigged, I'm saying it would be a lot easier to swallow the 'official' story if there was some level of transparency going on here. The fact that people have asked these questions and the answers have all been along the lines of "we can't say" or "we won't say" kinda sucks. If it is as they say, why don't they release all the information they have since we know they have it? Wouldn't that offer some level of consolation to the people that lost their family members that day, not to mention all the rest of the people who were traumatized by it all? We see planes flying into the World Trade Towers over and over again and then we see the buildings collapsing and people running for their lives over and over again. We see footage of people throwing themselves from those buildings over and over again. Yet all we get of the over 80 confiscated video tapes from the pentagon area is 5 frames? What's up with that? I find it hard to believe that's all the video footage of this that there is. I'm pretty positive it was the plane that they said it was that hit the building, so why all the secrecy?
Click to expand...

I'm with Eileen here.
 
Pork Soda said:
All this talk about security system at other locations is all moot. None of it proves anything one way or the other with regards to the footage that was or was not captured at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Click to expand...

you're saying you think there should be more footage. i'm simply stating why i find it extremely believable there isn't given what i've seen in the field. hell, i'm surprised the gate cam captured anything to be honest. if we were talking about a truck carrying explosives driving through the parking lot, then i'd expect footage from 50 different cameras.

b_sinning said:
Why did WTC building 7 collapse it wasn't hit? Why were the WTC the only skyscrapers ever to collapse due to fire?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Click to expand...

after seeing the aftermath of oklahoma city and the building being ripped in half, this surprises me too. i fully understand why the big ones collapsed, but building 7 is at a loss to me.

on the other hand for the conspiracies, what was in building 7 and why would it be so important for the government or someone to blow up? think the two main towers more than made a point.
 
ZRH said:
You are out of your lane. There are uncountable high security areas with no more security than a steel door and a biometric scanner. Frequently it's against policy to have any kind of recording devices in specific places.
For the record: escorts are PHYSICAL security, metal detectors are PHYSICAL security so I'm not sure why you bothered pointing them out.

Cameras are surveillance, you are essentially arguing that we employ them as prevention/response devices and it's actually very rare to see them used that way. They are usually used for investigation (evidentiary, documentary) not proactive response. Typical use: pointed at average height of license plates to record all traffic through a gate, atypical use: pointed at wide swathes of real estate and/or actively monitored. Get where I'm going with this?

Don't tell me what I know or don't know.

This shit right here is what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that this is the level of security I experienced at the Pentagon prior to Sept 11, 2001. I was just painting the picture based on what what I know based on experience. I also happened upon security at the HMX-1 unit facilities in Quantico. There's a lot of surveillance cameras on that airstrip and in the hangers, not to mention the cameras on the street. I agree, before 2001 I could drive onto Aberdeen Proving Grounds or Fort Belvoir or even Fort Meade (home of NSA) without having anyone ask me questions at all as long as I didn't try to go anywhere I didn't belong. However, the security at the Pentagon and at Quantico was quite different presumably because of what/who was there. Certainly these places are unique. Langley and Goddard are the same way and have been for as long as I can remember (my dad worked there sometimes). Tightened security for these facilities isn't surprising at all in my eyes.

I can agree that cameras are for surveillance and used for investigation in most cases. I just want to know what the results of the investigation from all these cameras was. Even speed cameras attempt to take a picture of the whole car, license plate, and driver if possible and not just the license plate. I'm pointing out that I find it very hard to believe with all of the cameras I know for a fact to be in the area (military security and otherwise), I find it incredibly difficult to believe that all that was recorded of this incident was 5 frames. Heck, there were several recordings of the first plane hitting the World Trade Tower. If there was no more recorded, why don't they just say that? Why did they go around confiscating those 80 some tapes and in many cases they confiscated the camera that took footage (I have no idea why). Use these tapes for investigation and let us know what they came up with. Being secretive about and only letting the family members view the footage they have after signing a non-disclosure agreement seems a little extreme. If they are going under the guise of being appropriate based on the fact that people died, I'd like to stop seeing people jumping to their deaths in New York as well. I'd like to stop seeing those buildings fall and those people running in terror. I'd like to stop hearing the recorded 911 calls of the desperate people who were about to burn to death or be crushed by the building. I hate when I turn on the TV and am surprised by that delightful little reminder of a terrible day. It all just doesn't sit well with me.
 
eileenbunny said:
What I'm saying is that this is the level of security I experienced at the Pentagon prior to Sept 11, 2001. I was just painting the picture based on what what I know based on experience. I also happened upon security at the HMX-1 unit facilities in Quantico. There's a lot of surveillance cameras on that airstrip and in the hangers, not to mention the cameras on the street. I agree, before 2001 I could drive onto Aberdeen Proving Grounds or Fort Belvoir or even Fort Meade (home of NSA) without having anyone ask me questions at all as long as I didn't try to go anywhere I didn't belong. However, the security at the Pentagon and at Quantico was quite different presumably because of what/who was there. Certainly these places are unique. Langley and Goddard are the same way and have been for as long as I can remember (my dad worked there sometimes). Tightened security for these facilities isn't surprising at all in my eyes.
Click to expand...
Force protection is different than VIP protection and the CIA is like a completely different culture.

I can agree that cameras are for surveillance and used for investigation in most cases. I just want to know what the results of the investigation from all these cameras was. Even speed cameras attempt to take a picture of the whole car, license plate, and driver if possible and not just the license plate. I'm pointing out that I find it very hard to believe with all of the cameras I know for a fact to be in the area (military security and otherwise), I find it incredibly difficult to believe that all that was recorded of this incident was 5 frames. Heck, there were several recordings of the first plane hitting the World Trade Tower. If there was no more recorded, why don't they just say that? Why did they go around confiscating those 80 some tapes and in many cases they confiscated the camera that took footage (I have no idea why). Use these tapes for investigation and let us know what they came up with. Being secretive about and only letting the family members view the footage they have after signing a non-disclosure agreement seems a little extreme.
Click to expand...
I finally found the group that got the FBI and DoD to release footage. I was wrong before, there is actually video from The Pentagon, a Citgo Gas Station, and a from a Doubletree Hotel. http://www.judicialwatch.org/Flight77 It never says "5 frames" sepcifically, which makes sense since video cameras are progressive scan, but just to do some ballpark math: cruising speed of 747 is 555 mph, that's 814ish feet per second, if the camera covered maybe a 100 foot wide strip and was running at 24p (which is fast for a security camera), it means the plane crossed the field of vision in less than 0.125 of a second-ish, .125 of 24 (frames) is 3 frames. So 5 frames would be A LOT of video actually.

If they are going under the guise of being appropriate based on the fact that people died, I'd like to stop seeing people jumping to their deaths in New York as well. I'd like to stop seeing those buildings fall and those people running in terror. I'd like to stop hearing the recorded 911 calls of the desperate people who were about to burn to death or be crushed by the building. I hate when I turn on the TV and am surprised by that delightful little reminder of a terrible day. It all just doesn't sit well with me.
Click to expand...
You can't control public information, when there is a choice between something being public knowledge and keeping something secret, no matter how stupid it is, keeping it secret is almost always the preferred choice. Not saying it's right, wrong, etc. that's just the way it is.
 
Brent, skyscraper fires aren't usually caused by thousands of gallons of jet fuel, nor are they usually coupled with massive structural damage from commercial airliner impacts. It's amazing they stood as long as they did.

As for why building 7 collapsed, virtually the entire building was on fire, with only a manual sprinkler system in place to combat the blazes. It wasn't equipped with an automatic system. On top of that it, too, was heavily damaged from the collapsing towers. Entire chunks were torn from its facade in numerous locations. The next day the firefighters attempting to combat the fires which had burned within unabated for over a day (with limited water pressure) noticed the facade beginning to bulge and everyone evacuated. It collapsed thereafter with no casualties.

Most buildings in this situation, I'm assuming, do not offer firefighters the sort of challenges associated with the 9/11 attacks. Firefighters and sprinkler systems are typically able to combat skyscraper fires. I'm willing to bet that if you took any other similar buildings, tore out a bunch of their steel framework and then set them on fire with either plane loads of jet fuel or simply let them burn for two days they'd collapse too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back