Curious comparison.

[wacmedia 277]

On 4/7/2019 at 10:50 AM, Bushcraft said:

. I remember being ludicrously challenged by Joekicker to prove that the Pentagon had security cameras at the time, at which point I gave up responding. And why was CCTV footage from the gas station opposite confiscated and never returned. Oh yes, national security reasons of course, BARF.  

Hi,

It's not believable that the Pentagon had no CCTV. The local gas station had, as you say. Joe was a strange guy. I think we have to understand that the CCTV only works when there is nothing to hide.

[Butch 3,456]

On 4/8/2019 at 10:32 AM, nkped said:

I've been in the pentagon.  I saw the twin towers.  There was more than a bit of difference in the structures.

Correct, but that doesn't mean that the objects hitting them would have behaved any diffrently, given that fundamentally they were both reinforced structures designed to absorb impacts of extreme weather and possibly given the previous twin towers attack, an incident similar to this. There would still be an obvious debris field.

I also cannot for one moment believe that one of the most important strategic buildings in the USA didn't have any kind of outward looking surveillance systems. I have worked on US Bases in the UK in the mid to late 90's and the security there was tight to say the very least, they were even running facial recognition with thermal and movement detecting security systems monitoring the perimeter and other areas.

[Bushcraft 2,591]

Right on, and to date not one single image of a sodding great passenger jet roaring across the lawn at almost ground level and ploughing into the building has been released. Why not? Because there is no such image, it never happened. My best guess from the damage, the only 16 ft diameter of the hole and the lack of debris is that a cruise missile or similar hit the Pentagon, and it certainly wasn't fired or directed from a cave in Afghanistan. Which in turn raises the question who fired it, and what really happened to the plane and its crew/passengers. These and other anomalies are highly suspicious and surely impossible to ignore.

[atlas2 4,329]

Have to agree regarding The Pentagon......As a girl said to me a few days ago...... 'Too much to swallow'..(It had been a while!)

A good friend of mine who was in New York for the US Open tennis Championship at the time of the attack has a friend in US air-traffic control that he was in live contact with after all flights were grounded. His friend said guardedly that the last plane that supposedly crashed into a field disappeared from radar ...his friend assumed it was shot down.

If true it doesn't confirm a conspiracy as such.....But it would confirm an understandable  cover-up of an unpalatable truth.

There's a lot about 9/11 that is consistent with a conspiracy and a lot that isn't........I doubt I'll ever know.

[jacko 8,822]

You guys are mental.

Here is a more sober analysis.

http://www.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle/85-pentagon-area-surveillance-cameras

So in the space of under one hour after the first impact on the North tower, this deception occurring at the Pentagon was organised, set in motion and enacted. This by a country and organizations that could not protect nor defend against a few Arabs with box cutters! 

[Bushcraft 2,591]

What would be the point of the Pentagon having surveillance cameras capable only of such blurred, low-resolution images such as to be worthless. Cameras were far more advanced in 2001. The article in the link carefully states "appears to show" because it's not at all obvious what is in the frame, and its author naturally has to take the FBI's word for the number of cameras, locations etc. And far from being organised and put in motion within an hour, all these strange events making up a huge lie must have been planned in detail months in advance.    

[jacko 8,822]

13 minutes ago, Bushcraft said:

What would be the point of the Pentagon having surveillance cameras capable only of such blurred

Car park surveillance or near vision security. 

I watch old TV programs and they look blurry to me! Might be my eyes but True comes over great at home.

No, not months in advance, years in advance, by Al Qaeda.

Edited April 10, 2019 by jacko

[Bushcraft 2,591]

You've got to hand it to Al Qaeda, they must have been everywhere. They even managed to have the entire US continental air defences grounded on that day - a matter of fact admitted but officially justified by an "exercise" simulating attacks on buildings using planes, which coincidentally took place on the same day. But an exception must have been made by somebody, as Donald Rumsfeld subsequently and unguardedly stated in an interview that a plane had been shot down over Pennsylvania. That would have been Flight 77, one of whose engines was found half a mile from the "crash site", with other debris scattered over several areas over a mile away. It therefore can't have dived into the ground intact, it was clearly blown out of the sky as its passengers were fighting terrorists with box-cutters.   

[atlas2 4,329]

 

[atlas2 4,329]

Has that video above ever been explained?

[wacmedia 277]

13 minutes ago, atlas2 said:

Has that video above ever been explained?

Hi,

No, How could the BBC explain it ?

[awesum4 2,333]

If this was an internal conspiracy perpetrated from within the USA, it would require thousands of people to keep their mouths completely shut for the last 18 years.  

The last two years have proved that Anerican politicians and everyone else can't keep their mouths shut about anything.  It's been proved on this forum by all the posts for and against President Trump,  and about possible Russian collusion.

If the plane that hit the Pentagon was shot down long before it hit there would be wreckage over a large area as happened with the MAS flight shot down over the Ukraine.  The area the Pentagon plane was supposedly shot down over is not thick jungle or vast ocean. It's a fairly densely populated area. Lots of people would have seen it. Or are you claiming all the people within 50 miles of the Pentagon are part of the conspiracy also?

[atlas2 4,329]

I take on board all you say A4...Especially the lack of leaks in all this time.

But explain the video.....And the tiny hole in the Pentagon....And the absence of camera footage at America's intelligence and defence hub???    Some things don't add up like they should.

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

There was an instance of mass murder in the NHS in England recently. Many people knew about it but were afraid to talk about it and lose their jobs.  When you are dealing with these type of issues one can see how whistleblowers are treated. Then you have the long list of deaths related to Clintons. It's no wonder people are afraid to speak out. Death in strange circumstances or jail and loss of career are a powerful incentive to keep your mouth shut.

Edited April 10, 2019 by wacmedia
frozen post

[Bushcraft 2,591]

No plane was shot down near the Pentagon (perhaps I got the flight no. wrong, too busy to check). I'm talking about the flight crash over Pennsylvania of course. And yes, the BBC explained the inexplicable report of Building 7 falling when it was still clearly visible behind the reporter - "time differences" haha.

[jacko 8,822]

14 hours ago, atlas2 said:

Has that video above ever been explained?

BBC have a history of getting such reports wrong...

On Friday, March 7, 2008, the BBC’s World News with Jonathan Charles (seen in the U.S. on PBS stations as part of BBC America) aired footage purporting to show the demolition and burning of a house that belongs to the family of Ala Abu Dheim, the terrorist who murdered eight students and wounded nine others in the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva (Rabbinical Seminary) .

https://www.camera.org/article/bbc-corrects-false-report/

I was sat watching the reports in a sports bar in Texas near the border, boy there was some shit and incredulous speculation being presented. Some have yet to stop. 

[atlas2 4,329]

1 hour ago, jacko said:

BBC have a history of getting such reports wrong...

On Friday, March 7, 2008, the BBC’s World News with Jonathan Charles (seen in the U.S. on PBS stations as part of BBC America) aired footage purporting to show the demolition and burning of a house that belongs to the family of Ala Abu Dheim, the terrorist who murdered eight students and wounded nine others in the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva (Rabbinical Seminary) .

https://www.camera.org/article/bbc-corrects-false-report/

I was sat watching the reports in a sports bar in Texas near the border, boy there was some shit and incredulous speculation being presented. Some have yet to stop. 

'Such reports'?

Helpful but not really the same. That the BBC get things wrong yes. ......But as we can see they were quickly called out on the mistake in the report you provide.

Are there any explanations for the discrepancy  in the apparently live footage I posted. It could be simply explained if the 'live' footage wasn't live.

Has anyone heard that or any other  explanation? 

I'll have a look myself now.

This came out 2007....A comfortable gap.....I'm sorry but it does still seem fishy......Just that there was understandable confusion...We've lost the tapes. Anyone have them? and a poo poo for the conspiracy theorists.

The comments below are perhaps more interesting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

 

A little more here which I need to read through properly.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

 

This from responder 34 contradicts the BBC policy as stated by Richard Porter. Who'd said they only have to keep a 'representative sample for 90 days which we take to be a third of the report' and destroy the rest.

 Responder 34

• At 09:10 PM on 02 Mar 2007,
• Daniel wrote:

MEDIA MANAGEMENT POLICY 
Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm

"01-01 The following components to be retained:-  
· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master  
· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material · All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use  
· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes · Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media"

How can you possibly loose (at least) three copies from this historic day? It's even stored at two separate sites! If the case that it wasn't archived at all; what about the Broadcasting Act?

"03-01 All media and metadata must be stored securely in the correct conditions to minimise damage and degradation, following industry best practice"

Has this been done in this case, and if not, why? If has been done, how come you made a 'cock-up'? What can be learned from this incident to prevent this from happening again in the future? 

"04-01 All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use"

You say that "the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days"
Why doesn't 04-01 apply to this?

 

This should be simple to refute/explain. As one person said 'The BBC was at the end of other news stations chinese whispers'

It's not a case of 'nothing will satisfy the conspiracy theorist'.....Not in my case. This is probably a simple cock-up. That's what I'd tend to believe. I'd have thought it would be relatively easy for the BeeB to demonstrate if that were the case.

I can't believe the BBC were in on this in any way.....But I find I can't go along with the explanation so far given.  

 

These questions from Michael seem pertinent 

• Michael wrote:

Please stop invoking the "BBC is not part of any conspiracy" line in response to reader complaints. Nobody is suggesting for a moment that you are part of some larger conspiracy and to imply such a thing is at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately misleading.

While you seem to have provided sufficient evidence that BBC World's premature report of WTC7's collapse was a simple matter of gross incompetence and nothing more, you have yet to provide answers to some very important questions:

1. Who is responsible for the 'cock-up' which led to the loss of BBC World News' 9/11 footage?

"I don't know whether they were destroyed or mislaid." just doesn't cut it!

2. What are the circumstances surrounding the 'cock-up' which led to the loss of BBC World News' 9/11 footage?

3. Who cut reporter Jane Standley's live feed from NYC at 5:18pm (EST) on 11/09/01?

4. What are the circumstances surrounding the disruption of Jane Standley's live feed from NYC at 5:18pm (EST) on 11/09/01?

Sorry, Richard, there IS a story here!

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by atlas2

[nkped 1,208]

20 hours ago, Bushcraft said:

What would be the point of the Pentagon having surveillance cameras capable only of such blurred, low-resolution images such as to be worthless. Cameras were far more advanced in 2001. The article in the link carefully states "appears to show" because it's not at all obvious what is in the frame, and its author naturally has to take the FBI's word for the number of cameras, locations etc. And far from being organised and put in motion within an hour, all these strange events making up a huge lie must have been planned in detail months in advance.    

Ah, because the aircraft was flying at 200-300 knots or more

[atlas2 4,329]

I think we are stuck in the murky world of belief here.

undisputed facts are still rare.

 

[jacko 8,822]

18 hours ago, atlas2 said:

I think we are stuck in the murky world of belief here.

undisputed facts are still rare.

 

And lack of evidence is rarely evidence in itself. 

 

[atlas2 4,329]

12 minutes ago, jacko said:

And lack of evidence is rarely evidence in itself. 

 

I hadn't thought of that........Perhaps it's compelling evidence of a cover-up.....??

[jacko 8,822]

14 minutes ago, atlas2 said:

I hadn't thought of that........Perhaps it's compelling evidence of a cover-up.....??

The FBI are notorious for such, harking back to J. E, Hoover days. 

But in the midst of the clearly evident events at the towers, there can be little doubt.