I had hoped to avoid this subject, because I really would prefer to keep my thoughts elsewhere for the next few days. But we have news regarding the famed, though heretofore unseen, convenience store surveillance footage from the CITGO gas station across the street from the Pentagon. The Flight 77 conspiracy theorists have insisted that this video would show the moment of impact, and that "the gummint" kept the data under wraps in order to hide the truth.
Previously, we have had an FBI document which described the video; the text said that the Penta-crash was not visible. 911 buffs weren't buying.
Now you can see the thing for yourself. Guess what? Despite the confident braying of the no-jets-at-the-Pentagon theorists, none of the CITGO cameras showed the impact.
Not that I expect any of the theorists to say "Guess we were wrong." Most people would rather scrape their nipples off with a potato peeler than ever utter those hated words.
(Note: As always, commenters should keep our "basic 911 rule" in mind. Today's topic is surveillance footage of the Pentagon incident. Say whatever you like, at whatever length you wish, as long as you stay on or near that topic. But if you start blathering about WTC7 or NORAD or whatever, I will hit the delete button so fast...)
17 comments:
Geez... what is this, the official mouthpiece of Pravda? We have to now rigidly avoid certain lines of thought lest someone be offended?
Jesus Christ....
It's very much like the Gubbamint cheese eaters who decided to delay that damn tape that shows NOTHING. Why did they do it? To condition people to stop asking questions.
Go ahead delete this and prove my point.
i thought the rule was to smear the messenger
I am not a 9/11 conspiracy guy, but if the tape shows nothing, whay has it been classified for so long?
It's interesting to me why they took so long to release that non-video, I assume it cost something to get it through FOIA. It's not like they would even pretend it was evidence that might be used against someone. So why so long?
It's also interesting to me that the Hj's were aware of the contstruction and aware that the first floor was more permeable than the other floors. The pilot took a lot of pains to get where he got. I sincerely doubt he did what he did to go for the Capitol and then change his mind. So was it common knowledge that renovations were going on, and was it common knowledge that the first floor is constructed differently?
Miss P.
What a complete "non-event" video. Why classify something that is even difficult to see someone fueling their vehicle, let alone a plane crashing into the Pentagon?
So Judicial Watch is using this video to officially debunk and theories other than that of the official story? This video proves absolutely nothing one way or the other, and I'm one who believes the official story that it was AA 77 that crashed into the Pentagon (though I am willing to entertain SOME alternative theories).
Of course, I still wonder why the first target in Washington was the Pentagon. If I'm al Qaeda and I want to send a real message, my first target is the White House, hands down. The Pentagon? No way.
So why the Pentagon, then? Because the military is seen as expendable, just as they've been sacrificed by the Bush administration in Iraq. A true terrorist attack like that of AA 77 in D.C. would have gone at the White House. The fact that it targeted the Pentagon speaks to more nefarious elements behind the planning of the attacks that day.
To the first anon: I listed my reasons in detail in an earlier post. If those reasons aren't good enough for you, then -- as I said on that earlier occasion -- just go away, curse my name, and do not return. I would not cancel your comment because it is on topic.
dermo: If a recording is a key piece of evidence, it will appear in an oficial presentation of the evidence, such as a court case. (Frames from the Zapruder film appeared in the WC volumes -- though not in the correct order!) Otherwise, the FBI is not supposed to share tapes or videos acquired from private parties, unless required to do so. There's pretty good reason for this -- obviously, you wouldn't want the FBI to release surveillance footage from an adult book store, because the innocent-albeit-horny patrons could be identified
I am presuming that Judicial Watch acquired consent to share the thing from the gas station in question. If they didn't...well, I'm confused.
I don't know why the FBI didn't just hand the video back to CITGO, but they've held on to stuff like this in lesser cases for no reasonable reason. I'm not sure CITGO ever requested for it to be returned. It occurs to me that perhaps someone in the J.Edgar Hoover building theorized that one of the faces in the video might be significant.
Tell me, do you think it would now be fair for me to leap atop the highest of my high horses and scream "LIAR! Deliberate LIAR!" at the people who insisted that the video definitely showed the impact? I mean, this presumption-of-bad-faith business can go both ways, y'know.
Joseph, thank you for explaining why the FBI wouldn't have released that video. Citgo itself couldn't have shared it if the FBI had it as potential evidence.
I was one of those people who seriously doubted a plane had crashed into the Pentagon. You make a compelling case, and I appreciate the way you lay the case out. Thank you.
.R.S.E.
I am not a 9/11 conspiracy guy, but if the tape shows nothing, whay has it been classified for so long?
And how did the FBI know to show up there minutes after the crash and confiscate the video (according Juan Velasquez)?
I made these comments on the Raw Story posting, but I was something like commentator #197 and thus buried under a landslide of knee-jerk rants...
Having bought gas at the Citgo in question on several occasions, I'm not surprised the tape doesn't show the impact. One ordinarily positions security cameras to show areas one wants to protect, not the surrounding neighborhood. Not only that, but there is a low, landscaped rise between the station and the Pentagon:
http://tinyurl.com/eg5v5
As I recall, there's no clear line-of-sight from the Sheraton to the point of impact, either -- although the hotel *is* at a higher elevation than the Pentagon, so it's not impossible that some cameras may have caught it, and reasonably likely that some would have a frame or two of the aircraft -- whatever it turns out to have been -- passing by.
http://tinyurl.com/hhfrr
By the way, I disagree with the earlier poster [on Raw Story - maz] about the time of impact. The 'white blob' seen around 1:20 takes far too long to pass by -- 6 or 7 frames, at least -- and the employees and customers far too nonchalant afterwards. Instead, the impact seemingly takes place around 4:40 into the video, since immediately afterwards everyone rushes outside.
The dueling timestamps, by the way, are the result of there being two separate pieces of security gear in use: the 'quad' processor (which actually appears to have had 8 inputs, but 'quad' is the standard terminology) and the low-speed VCR, which can record for 120 hours or more on a single VHS cassette. (A regularly re-recorded cassette, judging from the less-than immaculate image quality.) The VCR's timestamp hasn't been set; the quad processor's has.
I was pretty sure the white blob passing by was a reflection from car windshields moving around. For each blob there is a car appearing to cause it.
Also, the shadows from the pump roof are indicative of morning sun (if the cameras are pointing north).
Miss P.
sofla said...
I don't think this necessarily reflects badly on the critics of the official Pentagon crash story whatsoever. Nor does it even show that the camera was ill placed to capture this on tape, IMO.
The slo-mo surveillance tapes I've seen before show ordinary moving objects (such as people and slow moving automobiles) as jumping from place to place without the normal continuity of moving location one expects from a typical video. Reason? To get those very long recording times on about the same form factor size of commercial cassette (or probably even DVDs, now), they use a lower frames per second recording rate.
What that means is that ANY high speed object going through such a video recording is not likely to be seen, or would only be seen in the minority of cases by sheer accident.
So, there may have never been much reason to think it likely that these cameras would have captured an identifiable object, that it was even a plane rather than something else, let alone details of the plane. Other than, of course, the reason that they were so immediately impounded and then held secretly.
And while it may seem unscientific, even cult-like, but frankly, after such recordings are withheld from the public for so long, there is ample reason to be suspicious of tampering. Joe has made the point before that simply denying evidence that one doesn't like means there is no convincing anyone of anything in this matter who refuses to agree on the evidence's reliability.
While that is nominally true, it is not the position of such a thorough-going skeptic of any and all governmentally held and selectively later released evidence who is unreasonable. For it is the very secretiveness and non-responsiveness of the government that makes such skepticism entirely legitimate. In my opinion, of course.
There's nothing about that video that changes anything. The key evidence remains the tiny hole in the Pentagon wall and the second-floor windows remaining intact after the crash.
Here's something else I never understood. If you're a terrorist who can barely fly a Cessna, and you want to crash a jumbo jet into the Pentagon and presumably cause as much damage as possible, why would you take that flight path along the ground and aim for the side of the building? Wouldn't it be much easier to come in from above and just dive-bomb the building? Much bigger target that way, more room for error, and I think, more destruction.
Unless there was something about that particular part of the building that needed to be destroyed...
Credulity faced with the gummint line, or buffoid detail-junkieism? A false choice!
Some buffs don't get the wood for the trees. No doubt about that. But the official story stinks so much that I would not expect this footage from the convenience store released by the FBI to show the moment of impact, regardless of whether there are gaps in it or not! They'd tamper with it if it suited their purpose, and if they didn't need to, they mightn't bother.
Sorry for being 'boring'! :-)
well anaon. 11:33AM you win! That is the area of the pentagon where the audit trolls were given the task to find the missing 2.6 Trillion dollars in the Pentagon budget. Just google missing trillions 911 and sit back..then of course run over to your window and yell for all you are worth "I am sick and tired of this and we are not going to take it any more".
Then watch the movie at www.wkjo.com to connect the dots..or at least a great many of the . . . . .
"Tell me, do you think it would now be fair for me to leap atop the highest of my high horses and scream "LIAR! Deliberate LIAR!" at the people who insisted that the video definitely showed the impact?"
Well sure. Why not. Go ahead. I wanna know, I'm sure others do to. I double dare ya.
I don't know how anyone could lie about something they have not previously seen. It would at least be useful to know who would say that. More useful then these idiotic parameter playing 9-11 posts.
I don't think the question should be why 911 conspiracy researchers should admit they were wrong, I still think the case should be made why the FBI was at the hotel, CITGO, and the freeway cameras within minutes. And why is it that no one ever mentions who funds Judical Watch? It's a total right-wing group. Plus, once again, we have the peculiararity of the dates being wrong on the tapes. Also, if I do remember correctly, there was supposed to be two cameras in the parking lot. These releases show no such angle. There are still questions IMO.
Post a Comment