Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

At the time of the incident the authorities came in and scooped up all the video from every possible source.

I remember reading about this at the time and in the years after.

Where is the remaining video footage?

Why can't we see it?

And what's the justification for why we cant see it?

---

Haha. Dude, they already did a South Park episode on you.

AggiEE said:

---

We still don't have footage of the alleged hijackers entering all the required airport terminals

Why?

---

AggiEE said:

---

Our government still won't release thousands of JFK related documents 60 years after the fact.

There's absolutely no reason to withhold them unless it directly implicated three letter institutions

---

Using absolutes like this doesn't make it fact. The way you just said the above is why people make fun of Truthers or refuse to attempt a civil conversation with y'all.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Same. I don't understand how releasing video would expose any critical weaknesses or vulnerabilities at the Pentagon all this time later. Makes zero sense. It would shut a lot of people up...and I can't think of any risk or downside.

---

So the only way you and other Truthers are going to believe an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon is to have clear video evidence? No other reasonable evidence is going to suffice, including multiple eyewitness accounts and actual wreckage onsite?

---

No, not at all. Three 4K videos of the plane impacting could be released tomorrow and the truthers would question how there just so happened to be so many high quality cameras recording the exact place of impact.

Someone touched on it earlier but too many people look at the recording from today's perspective. Today I carry 4 cameras with a combined 121 megapixels and 4x optical zoom in my pocket any time I leave the house. Those 4 cameras are connected to 512 gigabytes of storage and 200 more on the cloud.

The first camera phone was the SCH-V200 which was released in 2000 and boasted 0.35 megapixels. The first camera phone released in the US came in late 2002, also with 0.35 megapixel and the ability to store 500 - count 'em, FIVE ZERO ZERO - phone numbers. The first iPhone launched in 2007 with 16 GB of storage and a 2 megapixel camera.

It should shock no one that the video we have is the best that we have.

---

So if something catastrophic happened at the white house or capitol building on that day instead, we would not have solid footage because they didn't have high tech enough cameras to monitor the most important government buildings in the world? Sorry, not buying it, this was 2001, not 1960. These types of buildings are under constant video surveillance, I can assure you.

No one is talking about lack of cell phone video. Maybe I am way off base, but I would imagine that the Pentagon, White House and Capitol had numerous security cameras monitoring the exterior back in the 80's.

---

If you can assure me, then tell me how many cameras the Pentagon had on 9/11/2001. Tell me the most common type of camera employed at the Pentagon on that day. How much storage was available to these cameras? What form was this storage? Oh you can't? Well I'm real assured.

Ted represented a company I was involved with durning it's BK. I can't believe we are still questioning 9/11. I was on the phone with guys when the 2nd plane flew right into their floor.

titan said:

---

agracer said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I don't know what idiot thought I was joking about how easy it is to fly the plane, and got my post deleted.

I'm 100% serious. All you people acting like this is some amazing feat of airmanship are talking out of your butt.

Trained pilots (they did have training) flying a modern aircraft into a building that covers 34 acres, isn't exactly Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier

---

One of the things the conspiracy nuts like to point out is the crazy, erratic flight path that Flight 77 took before it hit the pentagon. The flight path that not even the best pilot could follow but this low IQ terrorist who failed flight school was able to fly that 757 like Maverick. What they ignore is the flight path was so erratic and crazy because the terrorist was barely in control of the plane and just reacting to what was going on. It was not skill, it was dumb luck he even hit the pentagon to begin with (let alone find it).

If you've ever flown and instrument approach and suddenly start chasing the needles your path will look the same. My uncle got me into a Navy t-34 simulator in Corpus a long time ago and had me do an instrument approach. I got about 1/2 mile from the runway and was off a little bit and suddenly I was chasing the needles all over the place and the flight path was a zig zag mess and I crashed the plane...

---

Can you enlarge on that a little? Just guessing, but what kind of movement does "chasing the needles" produce --- a rocking of wings, or more an erratic right and left course shifting like a ship without a rudder steering by propellers? What does it look like from the cockpit--- would the pilot be able to easily keep the Pentagon facade ahead of him? (Presumably yes) Especially since not having to deal with any distractions like anti-aircraft fire or fighters?

---

Yes

I used the chasing the needles example to illustrate a point that when you get close to and focus on a target, you can lose sight of everything else and start reacting to inputs instead of being proactive to what's about to happen.

You're not paying attention to the big picture and suddenly realize you're left, or right or up or down and start turning or pulling up push down as a reaction instead of looking ahead.

Have you ever almost missed a turn or exit when driving and had to react? Instead of a smooth transition it's a jerk of the wheel and brake/gas.

The terrorist was trying to find the Pentagons and likely lost sight of altitude, speed, direction, etc and everything is a reaction to being to high or low or to fast or slow. He's not an experienced pilot and does not plan ahead.

agracer said:

---

titan said:

---

agracer said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I don't know what idiot thought I was joking about how easy it is to fly the plane, and got my post deleted.

I'm 100% serious. All you people acting like this is some amazing feat of airmanship are talking out of your butt.

Trained pilots (they did have training) flying a modern aircraft into a building that covers 34 acres, isn't exactly Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier

---

One of the things the conspiracy nuts like to point out is the crazy, erratic flight path that Flight 77 took before it hit the pentagon. The flight path that not even the best pilot could follow but this low IQ terrorist who failed flight school was able to fly that 757 like Maverick. What they ignore is the flight path was so erratic and crazy because the terrorist was barely in control of the plane and just reacting to what was going on. It was not skill, it was dumb luck he even hit the pentagon to begin with (let alone find it).

If you've ever flown and instrument approach and suddenly start chasing the needles your path will look the same. My uncle got me into a Navy t-34 simulator in Corpus a long time ago and had me do an instrument approach. I got about 1/2 mile from the runway and was off a little bit and suddenly I was chasing the needles all over the place and the flight path was a zig zag mess and I crashed the plane...

---

Can you enlarge on that a little? Just guessing, but what kind of movement does "chasing the needles" produce --- a rocking of wings, or more an erratic right and left course shifting like a ship without a rudder steering by propellers? What does it look like from the cockpit--- would the pilot be able to easily keep the Pentagon facade ahead of him? (Presumably yes) Especially since not having to deal with any distractions like anti-aircraft fire or fighters?

---

Yes

I used the chasing the needles example to illustrate a point that when you get close to and focus on a target, you can lose sight of everything else and start reacting to inputs instead of being proactive to what's about to happen.

You're not paying attention to the big picture and suddenly realize you're left, or right or up or down and start turning or pulling up push down as a reaction instead of looking ahead.

Have you ever almost missed a turn or exit when driving and had to react? Instead of a smooth transition it's a jerk of the wheel and brake/gas.

The terrorist was trying to find the Pentagons and likely lost sight of altitude, speed, direction, etc and everything is a reaction to being to high or low or to fast or slow. He's not an experienced pilot and does not plan ahead.

---

Thanks. Which has the effect of what was reported actually tends to confirm the nature of the terrorist pilot and he is flying in a reactive way by the sound of it. That looping around the Pentagon also sounds like overshot it. (The other theory, that headed for the WH don't buy because way too hard to line up if even the Pentagon was, and the Capitol on the other hand too easy to have required the course change back to the Pentagon)

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

titan said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

The 2020 election did not kill hundreds, have video, have "missing persons" from a regularly scheduled flight, ……

Reasonable doubt and questions is one thing, but……………

---

Correct. And its just the reasonable questions addressing. Not stuff like mid-flight substitutions, etc.

Some of this is driven by presumptions, and history and what actually is recorded/caught often doesn't work that way.

---

When the bigger picture alternative is something that negates thousands of eye witnesses, mountains of evidence and that would require a few hundred people to participate in a multilevel conspiracy and have nothing come out, all questions are unreasonable.

That's why truthers will never throw out any alternate theories. They are far too insane to suggest. But they will cling to the "just asking questions" mantra because they can't admit to themselves that they've been so insanely wrong for so long.

---

I can't believe so may posters actually engage truthers. They do not seem to have an ability to reason. It's like trying to reason with a child. I'm still waiting for one to offer a theory that doesn't make children laugh in disbelief.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Never mind the fact that highly experienced commercial pilots couldn't fly a simulated trajectory that was taken to hit the pentagon like that

---

Bulls**t.

It's 80 feet tall, well over a quarter mile wide, and covers 34 acres.

A 10-hour student pilot could easily hit it

---

Watch 57:33 through 1:13:20

Specifically, right before the ending of that time stamp it's discussed

Certainly no 10 hour student pilot could easily hit it, given the flight path.

2%er/New Army said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Our government still won't release thousands of JFK related documents 60 years after the fact.

There's absolutely no reason to withhold them unless it directly implicated three letter institutions

---

Using absolutes like this doesn't make it fact. The way you just said the above is why people make fun of Truthers or refuse to attempt a civil conversation with y'all.

---

There's no practical reason why they would continue to withhold these documents after so much time unless the "national security" issues is in relation to America's trust in its three letter institutions.

They were supposed to release ALL these documents ages ago, and continually push them back.

New World Ag said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

We still don't have footage of the alleged hijackers entering all the required airport terminals

Why?

---

---

1:16:43 Timestamp




Timestamped for you

Not a single image was released of any hijacker entering one of the planes

That picture is of the alleged hijackers entering a security checkpoint for a previous connecting flight (Maine to Boston), not the specific flight they allegedly hijacked from Boston.

There should be plenty of camera evidence of every single one of the hijackers, yet we were given so little.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

glad you arent a real ee
you're logic is atrocious

---

There's always Elementary Education.

sadly my first grade teach could argue better than this tin foil hat wearer

sadly all you can do is throw out insults rather than defending your own flimsy position

you don't have to believe in the conspiracy to want better answers from your government

clearly airports don't have very good security cameras so we can't manage to trace a significant portion of the hijackers

and clearly, the pentagon is just a normal building. there's not much footage there either

and yeah, covid was just some natural thing that happened in a wet market in china

and iraq had WMDs

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Same. I don't understand how releasing video would expose any critical weaknesses or vulnerabilities at the Pentagon all this time later. Makes zero sense. It would shut a lot of people up...and I can't think of any risk or downside.

---

So the only way you and other Truthers are going to believe an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon is to have clear video evidence? No other reasonable evidence is going to suffice, including multiple eyewitness accounts and actual wreckage onsite?

---

No, not at all. Three 4K videos of the plane impacting could be released tomorrow and the truthers would question how there just so happened to be so many high quality cameras recording the exact place of impact.

Someone touched on it earlier but too many people look at the recording from today's perspective. Today I carry 4 cameras with a combined 121 megapixels and 4x optical zoom in my pocket any time I leave the house. Those 4 cameras are connected to 512 gigabytes of storage and 200 more on the cloud.

The first camera phone was the SCH-V200 which was released in 2000 and boasted 0.35 megapixels. The first camera phone released in the US came in late 2002, also with 0.35 megapixel and the ability to store 500 - count 'em, FIVE ZERO ZERO - phone numbers. The first iPhone launched in 2007 with 16 GB of storage and a 2 megapixel camera.

It should shock no one that the video we have is the best that we have.

---

So if something catastrophic happened at the white house or capitol building on that day instead, we would not have solid footage because they didn't have high tech enough cameras to monitor the most important government buildings in the world? Sorry, not buying it, this was 2001, not 1960. These types of buildings are under constant video surveillance, I can assure you.

No one is talking about lack of cell phone video. Maybe I am way off base, but I would imagine that the Pentagon, White House and Capitol had numerous security cameras monitoring the exterior back in the 80's.

---

If you can assure me, then tell me how many cameras the Pentagon had on 9/11/2001. Tell me the most common type of camera employed at the Pentagon on that day. How much storage was available to these cameras? What form was this storage? Oh you can't? Well I'm real assured.

---

It's common sense to have surveillance out the ass at the most critical and most targeted government and military buildings in the world imo. You're right, I spoke in absolute terms, I could only assure you if I had proof. Should have said "you can bet your ass".

If we didn't have them, and don't have much better footage than the one horrible video we released, we were very sloppy and reckless….if it took something like this to finally monitor the pentagon from the outside, that's crazy.

Do y'all really believe we're not sitting on footage? Possibly for a valid and ethical reason?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Never mind the fact that highly experienced commercial pilots couldn't fly a simulated trajectory that was taken to hit the pentagon like that

---

Bulls**t.

It's 80 feet tall, well over a quarter mile wide, and covers 34 acres.

A 10-hour student pilot could easily hit it

---

Your testimony on this point is one of the important instances. Its a good example of it seems to be assumed its hard, but that building is epically massive. The WTC Towers were a harder target despite their prominence.

By contrast to prove your point another way, do you agree a hijacker that day with little skills probably will miss the WH -- its not easy to see, line up, etc. So the Pentagon choice kind of proves logical by proxy.

My favorite historian Richard Dolan had some interesting thoughts on the supposed conspiracy:

9/11

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Same. I don't understand how releasing video would expose any critical weaknesses or vulnerabilities at the Pentagon all this time later. Makes zero sense. It would shut a lot of people up...and I can't think of any risk or downside.

---

So the only way you and other Truthers are going to believe an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon is to have clear video evidence? No other reasonable evidence is going to suffice, including multiple eyewitness accounts and actual wreckage onsite?

---

No, not at all. Three 4K videos of the plane impacting could be released tomorrow and the truthers would question how there just so happened to be so many high quality cameras recording the exact place of impact.

Someone touched on it earlier but too many people look at the recording from today's perspective. Today I carry 4 cameras with a combined 121 megapixels and 4x optical zoom in my pocket any time I leave the house. Those 4 cameras are connected to 512 gigabytes of storage and 200 more on the cloud.

The first camera phone was the SCH-V200 which was released in 2000 and boasted 0.35 megapixels. The first camera phone released in the US came in late 2002, also with 0.35 megapixel and the ability to store 500 - count 'em, FIVE ZERO ZERO - phone numbers. The first iPhone launched in 2007 with 16 GB of storage and a 2 megapixel camera.

It should shock no one that the video we have is the best that we have.

---

So if something catastrophic happened at the white house or capitol building on that day instead, we would not have solid footage because they didn't have high tech enough cameras to monitor the most important government buildings in the world? Sorry, not buying it, this was 2001, not 1960. These types of buildings are under constant video surveillance, I can assure you.

No one is talking about lack of cell phone video. Maybe I am way off base, but I would imagine that the Pentagon, White House and Capitol had numerous security cameras monitoring the exterior back in the 80's.

---

If you can assure me, then tell me how many cameras the Pentagon had on 9/11/2001. Tell me the most common type of camera employed at the Pentagon on that day. How much storage was available to these cameras? What form was this storage? Oh you can't? Well I'm real assured.

---

It's common sense to have surveillance out the ass at the most critical and most targeted government and military buildings in the world imo. You're right, I spoke in absolute terms, I could only assure you if I had proof. Should have said "you can bet your ass".

If we didn't have them, and don't have much better footage than the one horrible video we released, we were very sloppy and reckless….if it took something like this to finally monitor the pentagon from the outside, that's crazy.

Do y'all really believe we're not sitting on footage? Possibly for a valid and ethical reason?

---

And with the ubiquity of cameras today, I would agree that the Pentagon is highly surveilled. Not so much 21 years ago. It would have been much cheaper and easier to pay guards to watch the Pentagon. Any cameras used would have been so a guard could watch a screen of 10 cameras at once and send someone to check out anything suspicious, not to document in great detail.

Could there be unreleased footage that is withheld for some reason? Of course there could be but I can't come up with any reason to withhold it that makes sense. Does it show classified info? Then it would be from inside and not show the plane approaching. Is it 4k footage and we don't want our enemies to know that 21 years ago we actually had really great security cameras? Does it show a bunch of gore? Then blur it.

Not watching your bullcrap conspiracy video

Completely reasonable

The WH is a much smaller target, surrounded by other buildings and trees. It's also sort of tucked off to the side, though one might be able to spot and aim a slower aircraft.

Screaming in at 500mph, not so much

Charles Hickson Knows said:

---

My favorite historian Richard Dolan had some interesting thoughts on the supposed conspiracy:

9/11

---

Thanks for posting this, always enjoy his thoughts and demeanor on various interesting topics.

Good to get a deep dive from him on 9/11

43rd Street Posse said:

---

Random, but I stumbled across one of those 9/11 "truther" threads on Instagram last night talking about how there was no evidence of a plane crashing into the pentagon...no wreckage that you would typically expect to see...engines, chunks of fuselage, smoldering wreckage etc. I am no physicist...is it possible for gigantic planes and everything on board to instantly vaporize upon high speed impact?

And then there is the issue of basically ZERO images or footage of an airplane crash/strike...at one of the most secured and protected buildings in the world. This is the part that gets me...and what fuels so much of the conspiracy stuff imo. You would think that there would be cameras and surveillance out the wazzoo on and surrounding the pentagon...providing open/shut PROOF of plane attack. If you think about it, the death toll was relatively low, compared to the evil Tuskegee experiments, and other past atrocities committed by our depraved government.

My question for those who would be much more in the know than me...Why was the Pentagon basically armed with just a single gas station camera at the parking lot entrance and not high tech cameras and other surveillance tools EVERYWHERE?

I was trying to debate against conspiracy loons online and just didn't feel like I had a lot of ammo, compared to these dudes who have been obsessing over this stuff for over 20 years lol. I can honestly kind of see why certain people will always think it could have been a cruise missile or something to that effect...given how little footage there is and the lack of wreckage you would expect to see. Obviously, something really warped would have had to be done with the plane and all of the people on board, which was my main argument against the theory...but why would this be any different or worse than downright evil/deadly stuff our government has engaged in in the past?

---

I actually know a physicist. If you are seriously posing this question then no one will ever confuse you with a physicist.

The Fife said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

the evidence at the scene is overwhelmingly lacking and inconsistent with a 757

---

How much experience do you have with commercial aircraft, or heavies on the military side for that matter? Design, fabrication, assembly, ops, quality, records, MRO, anything at all. I'm wrapping up my second decade in this exact line of work.

Any identifying mark containing at least the first four characters on parts found would make them immediately identifiable to anyone with Boeing commercial experience as being from a 757. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, and you don't know what that character is you should take the chance right now to exit this thread and try to save face. The claim I quoted is pure ignorance.

---

That would be great if there was any large and significant surviving and identifiable wreckage left consistent with a 757 striking the building. There wasn't. And what pieces were there is easy enough to be planted