4 ms·

Its been 16 years, why can't they release everything. I am sure they have video of the plane hitting from multiple angles.

sanswork 10y ago
Same reason a casino won't tell you if they caught the person picking your pocket on camera. You don't want to release where you have your secret security cameras when it will do nothing to help solve the crime. All releasing the video would do would be attempt to quell the doubts of conspiracy theorists who would immediately claim it was a jet dressed up like a plane or CGI anyhow since they don't want the truth since the truth is generally mundane.
- unabridged 10y ago
  >Same reason a casino won't tell you if they caught the person picking your pocket on camera. You don't want to release where you have your secret security cameras when it will do nothing to help solve the crime. I get it, but is it really a national security secret that the pentagon is surrounded by cameras.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    Not that it is but where they are and yes.
r00fus 10y ago
Too many then-important people still in power?
thinkmilitant 10y ago
No video would convince the conspiracy theorists. There would just be a fresh round of claims it was Photoshopped or filmed on a set or something. Now that doesn't adequately explain why they don't go ahead and release it anyways, but it's still worth noting, imo.
mikeash 10y ago
Remember that everybody wasn't carrying around video cameras 24/7 the way they are today. Security cameras don't tend to be aimed at the sky, and often use a low framerate, especially a decade and a half ago. The one "video" we do have was recorded at about one frame per second, and so is kind of lacking in detail. What other cameras do you expect to have recorded video?
- unabridged 10y ago
  >Security cameras don't tend to be aimed at the sky True, but this is the HQ of the most expensive, most technologically advanced military ever to exist. >What other cameras do you expect to have recorded video? Cameras every couple feet along the exterior of the pentagon. Cameras on every light pole in the lawn. Cameras on the fences. On buildings facing the pentagon. ... There may even be a live satellite video of the event. Or surveillance planes monitoring the area.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    What would be the purpose of putting up so many cameras? Why would Congress vote to spend so much money on it? The place has guards with eyes, why would you need a ton of cameras too? In any case, you can get pretty close to the place without any special permission. Various public roads go right past it, and there's a busy Metro station and bus terminal right outside the front door. I've been past there a lot and don't recall ever seeing this hypothetical mass of cameras on it. The idea that the Pentagon is super-important and therefore must have had a ton of high-quality cameras surrounding it is common, but appears to be based on no real-world evidence. If they were real, surely somebody would have posted a diagram and said, "this security camera, circled in red, should have captured video of AA77." > There may even be a live satellite video of the event. Or surveillance planes monitoring the area. This is absurd speculation. The US doesn't have live satellite coverage of the entire planet today, and certainly didn't in 2001. They wouldn't waste scarce resources surveilling the middle of a large American city. As for surveillance planes, people notice those when they're around, and as far as I know nobody has ever said they saw one on the morning of 9/11. Nobody anticipated this kind of attack. You will find massive surveillance systems geared toward detecting attacks they did expect. There are gigantic radar installations and fleets of satellites whose sole purpose is to detect incoming nuclear missiles, for example. But nobody thought of watching for a rogue airliner.
jcslzr 10y ago
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UyynjxAyw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UyynjxAyw

sanswork 10y ago

Same reason a casino won't tell you if they caught the person picking your pocket on camera. You don't want to release where you have your secret security cameras when it will do nothing to help solve the crime. All releasing the video would do would be attempt to quell the doubts of conspiracy theorists who would immediately claim it was a jet dressed up like a plane or CGI anyhow since they don't want the truth since the truth is generally mundane.

unabridged 10y ago
>Same reason a casino won't tell you if they caught the person picking your pocket on camera. You don't want to release where you have your secret security cameras when it will do nothing to help solve the crime. I get it, but is it really a national security secret that the pentagon is surrounded by cameras.
- sanswork 10y ago
  Not that it is but where they are and yes.

r00fus 10y ago

Too many then-important people still in power?

thinkmilitant 10y ago

No video would convince the conspiracy theorists. There would just be a fresh round of claims it was Photoshopped or filmed on a set or something. Now that doesn't adequately explain why they don't go ahead and release it anyways, but it's still worth noting, imo.

mikeash 10y ago

Remember that everybody wasn't carrying around video cameras 24/7 the way they are today. Security cameras don't tend to be aimed at the sky, and often use a low framerate, especially a decade and a half ago. The one "video" we do have was recorded at about one frame per second, and so is kind of lacking in detail. What other cameras do you expect to have recorded video?

unabridged 10y ago
>Security cameras don't tend to be aimed at the sky True, but this is the HQ of the most expensive, most technologically advanced military ever to exist. >What other cameras do you expect to have recorded video? Cameras every couple feet along the exterior of the pentagon. Cameras on every light pole in the lawn. Cameras on the fences. On buildings facing the pentagon. ... There may even be a live satellite video of the event. Or surveillance planes monitoring the area.
- mikeash 10y ago
  What would be the purpose of putting up so many cameras? Why would Congress vote to spend so much money on it? The place has guards with eyes, why would you need a ton of cameras too? In any case, you can get pretty close to the place without any special permission. Various public roads go right past it, and there's a busy Metro station and bus terminal right outside the front door. I've been past there a lot and don't recall ever seeing this hypothetical mass of cameras on it. The idea that the Pentagon is super-important and therefore must have had a ton of high-quality cameras surrounding it is common, but appears to be based on no real-world evidence. If they were real, surely somebody would have posted a diagram and said, "this security camera, circled in red, should have captured video of AA77." > There may even be a live satellite video of the event. Or surveillance planes monitoring the area. This is absurd speculation. The US doesn't have live satellite coverage of the entire planet today, and certainly didn't in 2001. They wouldn't waste scarce resources surveilling the middle of a large American city. As for surveillance planes, people notice those when they're around, and as far as I know nobody has ever said they saw one on the morning of 9/11. Nobody anticipated this kind of attack. You will find massive surveillance systems geared toward detecting attacks they did expect. There are gigantic radar installations and fleets of satellites whose sole purpose is to detect incoming nuclear missiles, for example. But nobody thought of watching for a rogue airliner.

jcslzr 10y ago

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UyynjxAyw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UyynjxAyw