The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: mrthumpy

"I'm challenging the assertion that the lack of video footage of an aircraft hitting the building is proof that an aircraft didn't hit the building."

So you don't think an an aircraft hit the building? Im confused now. Possibly my bad.

Because if it was not an aircraft that would mean it was something else, certainly something hit the building given the hole in the side of the thing and the rest of the extensive damage.

Im challenging the official line on the story because "There" version of events is full of holes, there are multiple different aspect that just don't add up. Or do you disagree?

What about the fact that multiple different Boeing pilot captains with decades of experience cannot repeat the flight on any given flight simulator and claim the trajectory altitude speed and attitude was beyond the flight capability's of the plane in question?

Where do you stand on that?

a reply to: andy06shake

Pentagon has a 24 hour guard force which patrols the grounds

Video cameras are focused on areas of interest like entrance/exits, parking lots , etc

Video of plane impacting Pentagon was taken by camera monitoring parking lot

Not on blank walls

a reply to: andy06shake

You want video of plane crash ....???

Wolfgang Staehle =artist

Staehle, as part of an internet art project, focus camera on WTC . Picture was taken every 3 seconds and live
streamed to art gallery for viewing

Caught approach and impact of American 11 into North Tower - one of 3 video known to exist

www.youtube.com...

Then of course is Naudet footage of Fireman in street watching AA11 impact North Tower

www.youtube.com...

You wanted pictures of plane crash .......

a reply to: firerescue

So there are no outward facing cameras that may have recorded the alleged plane incoming, no other cameras located on other structures, or traffic cameras?

No early morning tourists out and about with video cameras that managed to record the attack?

I find that hard to believe. Not saying it's impossible just rather improbable.

I imagine all areas directly outside the pentagon would be areas of interest not just the the doors, exits and entrances. Else there are your ungraded, unobserved points of ingress right there. Pretty stupid not to observe the whole, and certainly not beyond our technological capability back in 2001.

a reply to: firerescue

Unfortunately those pictures and video are from the twin towers incident not the Pentagon.

I certainly don't dispute the fact that two planes hit those buildings. I do however question the manner of the buildings destruction.

a reply to: andy06shake

What does.......

1) Lack of understanding the security at the pentagon, which is a glorified office building, was based more on access, manpower, and document control than security cameras.

2) Lack of understanding that footage from security cameras recordeding in secret areas of secret materials are handled as secret. (Point, less cameras recoding in secret areas equals less secret material generated.)

3) Lack of understanding security camera technology, footage storage, and video storage was more expensive and cumbersome 15 years ago.

Have to do with discrediting eyewitnesses that seen a passenger jet crashing into the pentagon, the discrediting of human remains and DNA of flight 77 passengers recovered from the pentagon, the discrediting of photographed and documented flight 77 wreckage at the pentagon, and discrediting the coroner's documentation and DNA analysis?

And what does lack of video have to do with proof the USA conducted an expensive overseas operation, heavy in manpower, and sophisticated in equipment deployment to steel a sunken Russian cruise missile. To repair the missile, train personnel to launch the missile, create an expensive and secret launch platform, to launch a missile at the pentagon?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
One thing I want to mention is a CNN video that was shown on cable that clearly showed a missile come in streak towards the pentagon, and then a few minutes later that video was never shown anywhere again

It this the elusive video?

Incidently it doesn't even look like a plane on the two official videos released by the Pentagon...



I especially like the little white out just after the projectile enters into view, obscuring what it is. This only happens on the 2nd, closer camera which would have had the best view of the carnage...

a reply to: djz3ro

Need to note some obvious things there like the frame rate at about 1 frame/sec which means an object travelling across the frame at 200+ metres/sec can only possibly appear in 1 frame, which it does. Also it's a wide angle shot so the white object that appears in both videos for 1 frame before impact is something very large, very fast and extremely close to the ground which tallies with eyewitness accounts. The 'whiteout' immediately after the impact is the camera trying to auto-adjust for the brightness of the initial flash then recovering in the next frame.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: djz3ro

Need to note some obvious things there like the frame rate at about 1 frame/sec which means an object travelling across the frame at 200+ metres/sec can only possibly appear in 1 frame, which it does. Also it's a wide angle shot so the white object that appears in both videos for 1 frame before impact is something very large, very fast and extremely close to the ground which tallies with eyewitness accounts. The 'whiteout' immediately after the impact is the camera trying to auto-adjust for the brightness of the initial flash then recovering in the next frame.

You would think, this being the Pentagon, they would have far higher res cameras available though, even petrol stations have better quality security cameras than those...

a reply to: djz3ro
Video recording systems for security applications have evolved quite a lot since 2001 with digital cameras and solid state recording allowing more real-time surveillance compared to the analog cameras and VHS tapes of the day. My workplace had one of those multiplexed analog systems with about a dozen cameras feeding back to a single control station that recorded all of the cameras to a single tape at 1 frame/second (each) which wasn't too bad for recording people on foot or slow moving vehicles in the parking area but that was about all they were good for. It did have a nifty feature of detecting motion in any camera's field of view and sounding an alarm.

If such an event took place now there'd be far better video of it.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Yes, speaking of obvious things, one would think that the pentagon would be one of the most secure locations on the planet, complete with state of the art surveillance systems.

It's also pretty obvious that by confiscating all the surveillance videos from surrounding hotels and other civilian buildings, the FBI had something to hide, something to protect.

It's also pretty obvious that if the FDR was not assigned to any particular airframe, there was some sort of hoax or misrepresentation going on.

If the story is so solid, if the authorities have nothing to hide, why are they hiding so much?

a reply to: Pilgrum

I suppose, that is a fair point, I'm likely misremembering how good cameras were back then.

Let#s just say that the whole 9/11 thing happened almost as we've been led to believe (indestructible passports and all), if it really was a missile that hit the Pentagon, would they have any reason to lie and say it was a jumbo jet? I mean a terrorist firing a rocket at the Pentagon isn't quite as bad as one flying a jumbo jet full of civilians into it. Other than to make things seem worse, I can't see a reason it would be covered up. But I agree with Salander, the lack of evidence combined with the confiscated footage certainly points to something the officials don't want in the public eye...

originally posted by: djz3ro
Incidentally it doesn't even look like a plane on the two official videos released by the Pentagon...

I especially like the little white out just after the projectile enters into view, obscuring what it is. This only happens on the 2nd, closer camera which would have had the best view of the carnage...

You'd better not use those YouTube videos, too grainy.
Use these in this page from 911Speakout, taken from the original .avi files, the two FOIA obtained videos :
911speakout.org...

Many people viewing these as still frames over the years (ourselves included) failed to see the plane. Initially only the video frames taken by the camera behind the foreground obstruction were released. People found it hard to believe that a small foreground obstruction could hide a Boeing 757. The lack of a visual image of the plane led to speculation that there was instead a small plane or a missile, and opened the door to speculation that there was no plane at all. The second video without the foreground obstruction was released much later, and by then no-plane speculation was well established in the 9/11 Truth movement.

To blink the pairs of images (showing video frames just before and just after the plane enters the view) move the mouse cursor onto and off of ALL the image areas without clicking. This works with both the full and magnified images. These PNG images are the ones provided directly in the FOIA release and have better color resolution than the earlier animated GIF images that were made from them. There has been no image enhancement from what was received in the FOIA request, only magnification for the zoomed image pair.

Here are these frames 22 and 23, and frames 84 and 85, not blinking (can't reproduce that at ATS), but below each other :

911speakout.org...


911speakout.org...


911speakout.org...


911speakout.org...


The Cam1-without and Cam2-without video screenshots are taken from these two video files their respectively numbered frames ( frames 22 and 84) :






(see also my posts www.abovetopsecret.com... and www.abovetopsecret.com... and www.abovetopsecret.com... and www.abovetopsecret.com... and www.abovetopsecret.com... ).

I wrongly observed years ago, a far too long length of that plane, see the right top cut-ins in my screenshot pictures in post :
www.abovetopsecret.com... .
I added at that time, to its by me guessed length, the purple streak to the left of the camera box in the viewing field, which is now however clearly not part of that plane, when you study the two FOIA (later obtained) .avi files by Nathan Flach in the 9/11Speakout page with their Blink-Comparator pictures, I linked to above.

A few remarks however :
--To me, those FOIA freed, two North parking lot security camera videos seem to be a tad bit too vague. Curiously enough, you can't read the texts nor numbers on the Pentagon Police cars that we see enter, nor make any guess who's the driver. That is not Security level sharpness, at all.
--When we suppose that parts of the Pentagon top-staff/-brass was involved in 9/11, then it's not far fetched to note that there was an awful lot of time to falsify those videos. To blur them up.
I first really thought they forgot this one simple comparison fact, it however seems they were clever enough to think about that too, during all those years they withheld those two videos, and added a 1.3 times longer plane than the height of the West wall at impact.

Thus, I am again only left with the to me, very convincing 25 eye witness reports about a North of the former CITGO gas station flying plane, seconds before it MUST have slammed at an angle of near to 90 degrees to that wall, into the Pentagon's West wall. Because it could have never flown into that wall at the officially endorsed 42 to 45 degrees angle, when coming from a North of CITGO flight path.

The length of the appearing plane is not 2 times as long as the height of the west wall at the supposed impact point, which would be an indication for a NoC flight path; however it looks more like 1.2 or 1.3 times as long, thus indicating a 45 degrees flight path, the official flight path angle for a SoC flight path.

Still, there are 25 eyewitnesses who swear that the plane they saw, flew North of the CITGO station, according to their remembered bank angle, thus at half the official airspeed, which curved path could only end in a circa 90 degrees impact angle on that West wall.

My acceptance of those 25 NoC-eyewitnesses is still damn strong.
Thus I doubt the validity of these FOIA freed videos, they must be somehow falsified, thus showing that blurred plane.

The moment someone can show me irrefutable proof that Pentagon Police Sergeants William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks, and Sean Boger the Helipad tower operator were all three totally wrong that day in their observation of that NoC flying plane, I will let the Pentagon case go.
If you view the 2006 CIT interview videos with these three guys, and read also the Library of Congress interviews by the Military History Units in 2002, you'll understand my strong conviction about the words of these three.

There should definitely be an investigation in this direction. Thanks for the research done and above all for sharing this post. Interesting post. This mystery revolving 911 has to come out and should be resolved. And Trump should definitely call for a fresh investigation. One cannot just brush aside such possibilities for the betterment of America.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

"I'm challenging the assertion that the lack of video footage of an aircraft hitting the building is proof that an aircraft didn't hit the building."

So you don't think an an aircraft hit the building? Im confused now. Possibly my bad.

Because if it was not an aircraft that would mean it was something else, certainly something hit the building given the hole in the side of the thing and the rest of the extensive damage.

Im challenging the official line on the story because "There" version of events is full of holes, there are multiple different aspect that just don't add up. Or do you disagree?

What about the fact that multiple different Boeing pilot captains with decades of experience cannot repeat the flight on any given flight simulator and claim the trajectory altitude speed and attitude was beyond the flight capability's of the plane in question?

Where do you stand on that?

Strawman again. How sad

a reply to: mrthumpy

Same lack of addressing peoples questions with opinions of your own even more sad.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: andy06shake

How does your lack of understanding of 2000's low quality time lapse security images and lack of understanding the pentagon security depends more on manpower for security have to do with proving the USA hijacked a sunken Russian missile from a sub salvage mission, how a missle would have created the damage at the pentagon, and how the passengers and crew of flight 77 ended up dead in the pentagon?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: mrthumpy

Same lack of addressing peoples questions with opinions of your own even more sad.

Have a nice day.

That's right run away. Silly little boy