New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released

Originally posted by dubiousone
The object enters the video (Video 2) at frame 24. The explosion occurs instantly at frame 25. If these frames are 1/2 second apart in time, isn't that too fast for a bright yellow/white fireball of that magnitude to erupt from the fuel contained in the plane's wings?

Use both videos the top one shows the tail outline as I and three others agree. The second video is only good for seeing the front or wing portion as it goes over the pylon near the parking gate.

There is no shadow of a plane or any part of a plane in frame 24. There is and cannot be a shadow of a plane in frame 25 because the entire object has already crashed into its target, the Pentagon.

See above it can only be seen in video one not video 2.

The object that appears in frame 24 is much too small to be a Boeing 757. It is obviously not a 757. It is clearly something other than what the government is saying it is.

Odd it sure looked like the correct size to me when viewing what appeared to be the tail section shadow within the explosion.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Don't you think that during this time they did renovations to it to help the building withstand a near-miss of a nuclear attack? Well, couldn't it be that these renovations included strengthening the walls of the Pentagon?

The had been doing major renovations. In fact the section hit was the only portion of the building that had just been completed and they had just moved back into that portion in Feb.

The renovation of the five floors in Wedge 1, approximately 1 million square feet of space, began in 1998. The project included major structural demolition, installation of new utilities, and the build-out of tenant areas. A phased move-in of tenants began in February 2001. The section of the Pentagon that was hit on September 11 was the first and only section of the Pentagon undergoing renovation to strengthen the building against a terrorist attack.
Source

In addition, as I understand it that was one of the reasons given for only having limited damage to the building.

Ok here is a question.... When are they going to release the video from the gas station across the street and the hotel video ??? If the Gov't was truly trying to make the people think it was flight 77 then they should have no problems releasing those two tapes !!!

Just my 2 cents...

What's funny is that very video has been on the net for years now, they didn't release anything the public already didn't have and we're still missing the time codes, and unless that 'plane' was doing some incredible speed that 30fps isn't going to catch over that distance, there's alot of frames missing. Imagine that.

Go check out the other threads on this, at 1.26 on a vid posted on the others clearly a nose of something can be seen, plane, rocket?
You tell me.

Originally posted by Indy
That plane that is supposedly flight 77 could be making daily trips between ORD and DFW today and nobody would know any different.

Except for the company that suddenly would have one more plane than they thought they did.

Who here knows the registration number of that jet? And would you know if the number was changed on that jet on 9/12/01? Who would know?

The mechanics that do the major work, and possibly those that do the run throughs of the planes at every airport, would notice. No doubt they would say something, as there would be no way that they could keep all of them quiet. Also, if they changed serial numbers (not the FAA registration numbers) I'm sure the mechanics would pick up on that too.

We've all seen what AA 757's look like. We've all seen the exterior of the Pentagon. SO where is the concern to national security?

Right, but the damage that was left over would show the construction of the Pentagon. That is what I said before when I said the potential to be a problem for national security.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
You may be correct here but that belies the fact that a major attack on the pentagon would do a lot to cripple the functioning of the US military.

I really fail to see how that would be. While the Pentagon is a major nexus of military command, the way the US military works is so redundant that it would just be a slight bump in the road. You can thank the Cold War for that.

Originally posted by Souljah
Why doesn't Pentagon want to show us that material?

ThePieMaN raised an excellent point about that. Maybe they're not releasing it so that there can be unboased video for when/if they catch Osama bin Ladin. Honestly, I think that that's the best reason so far, topping even my own.

Originally posted by Hvitserk
why only one entry point in the building before it collapses ? (the engines are the most resistant part of a passenger plane not the body, it makes no sense that the engines haven't left any trace of impact ) where are the engines ?

While the engines may be the strongest and most machined parts of the plane, the majority of the planes mass would be in the fuselauge. Have you ever seen a bird strike in an engine? It can completely decimate the engine, ripping it to shreads. Imagine hitting a building. My theory that the plane atomized upon impact is sounding better and better, isn't it?

the wings should have been ripped off by the lamp posts...

Doubtful, as the construction of the wings is quite strong. And at those speeds, they wouldn't have posed a problem to it.

Originally posted by Arctaurus26us
Also lost in the discussion is the fact that airplanes are like beer cans. They are hollow. The outer two or three inches of the fuselage is high-grade aluminum. It's strong, light and flexible. The interior is air, seats, and people. A plane is not solid, nor is it made of steel. That would make it too heavy and unable to fly. There may be some steel reinforcing braces but the majority is aluminium and composites. When the plane hit the Pentagon, the aluminum was crushed like a beer can. The wings disintegrated when the fuel exploded.

But what of the fact that cylinders are actually quite a strong design? Find an empty pop/beer/whatever can and see how much weight you can stack on top of it. My guess is that you'll either put a lot on before it crushes or you'll stack so much on top that it'll become impossible to balance.

Originally posted by Souljah
Why were America and the world never shown the video and photographs of the Pentagon, BEFORE the outer wall had collapsed showing only one 16 ft. hole. Many people do not realize that the outer wall did not collapse until a full 20 minutes after the initial impact!

How many cameras were trained on the Pentagon at the time versus how many were on the WTC? Where was more destruction? The WTC was the "bigger" story, and just got more air time.

Given that the outer wall of the Pentagon had not yet collapsed and the only hole is approximately 16 ft. in diameter - how does a jetliner over 44 feet tall and 125 ft. wide fit into that hole as shown in the crystal-clear and close-up photographic evidence from the Pentagon?

Have you seen ANY debris from the Boeing757; like Engines, Seats, Luggage - you know PARTS and PIECES of a JET AIRLINER? Oh yeah - it Disitingrated! Just like they do in the Movies, right?

Go back and read my post containing my idea of the plane atomized on impact.

Furthermore, can physics explain why there is no damage to the Pentagon's upper floors where the tail section would have hit?

Not physics, per se, but just knowing airplane construction and what happens in a crash. The tail is notoriously the weakest part of the aircraft. So, ironically, people seated in the tail section have a better chance of survival in a crash. Why is this? On impacts, the tail generally breaks off.

For example, look at this video of an MD-80 crashing. As you can see, the front gear collapses and the tail breaks off. And that was just from a hard landing, albeit a very hard one!

Anyway, so as the plane impacted the tail could have easily broken of, and then not hit the building with the vertical stabilizer being vertical. Even if it had stayed attached and hit normally, it probably would have atomized much in the same way that the wings did.

In the aftermath, it was reported by media sources that a giant 100 ft. crater was plowed into the front lawn of the Pentagon as the result of a powerful airliner crash? Why does photographic evidence overwhelmingly show that this was absolutely not the case? Why no crater? Why no skid marks? Why no burn marks? Why was the entire world deliberately mislead?

They were also saying anywhere from six to eight planes had been hijacked. Can you imagine that those darned journalists might make a mistake in their initial reports. Really, how could they be SO irresponsible!?

How does a Boeing 757, constructed from lightweight aluminum, penetrate over 9 ft. of steel reinforced concrete?

I believe "lightweight" is taken out of context there. Aluminum is "lightweight" as opposed to construction of steel. The construction of the plane, despite using aluminum, is still very durable. The skin of the plane is also a few centimeters thick in some parts. That source makes it sound as if planes are constructed of aluminum foil, which they are definitely not.

I hope that that all answers your questions.

More coming in a second post due to nearing the maximum character count.

[edit on 5/17/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by Dae
Leaks of national security on the designs of the pentagon?!? LOL Its in the shape of a pentagon. Aint it a bit late for national security now? Are you suggesting that showing how the terrorists did it may give ideas to other terrorists...?

Maybe if you had read all my post and not taken it out of context you would have understood what I meant. But, for some people, that's just too much to ask...

Originally posted by Jadette
Like, why is the plane riding parallel to the ground, as if it were traveling on its landing gear?

It very well could have been flying in its own ground effect.

Originally posted by shots
In addition, as I understand it that was one of the reasons given for only having limited damage to the building.

And I just went out on a limb by saying that. Lucky me for being on the right track!

Originally posted by twitchy
... and unless that 'plane' was doing some incredible speed that 30fps isn't going to catch over that distance, there's alot of frames missing.

Except the cameras were recording at two frames per second, or one every half-second.

Originally posted by W_Smith
The assertion that a choppy edited video is all they have is preposterous in my opinion.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
They must have better evidence then this because I doubt this crap evidence would ever be able to convict anyone of a crime. The quality looks like a 25.00 webcam.

Either you didn't read some of my previous posts, or you're allowing the illogical to run your minds.

Originally posted by ronishia
no way in hell was that a passenger plane its to small

To all those who think it is too small to be an airliner...

Please, show me your calculations of size and distance. I would really like to see how you're coming to the conclusion that the object in the video is too small to be a plane. If you're just eyeballing it, then your arguement holds as much water as a sieve. If you're actually facoring in the size of the plane and its distance from the camera using simple mathematic skills, then I'll start to listen to your arguements.

[edit on 5/17/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

pserver.mii.instacontent.net...

1.26 pause, far right in the middle.

Its a plane allright, no doubt about it.To bad we already knew that from the debris found near the pentagon and inside.
They just gave us something to chew on, like giving a bone to a dog untill its broken in little pieces and digested.
I hoped this would be the evidence that would prove it was in fact an airliner but instead this is just a tool to spread propaganda onto the masses.

Why are there no other vids released?
Why risk to lose so much credebility as a governement by not releasing the vids?

Sorry usa dont buy this crap and find a way for them to release the rest of these vids!

Originally posted by onbekend59
Its a plane allright, no doubt about it.To bad we already knew that from the debris found near the pentagon and inside.
They just gave us something to chew on, like giving a bone to a dog untill its broken in little pieces and digested.
I hoped this would be the evidence that would prove it was in fact an airliner but instead this is just a tool to spread propaganda onto the masses.

Why are there no other vids released?
Why risk to lose so much credebility as a governement by not releasing the vids?

Sorry usa dont buy this crap and find a way for them to release the rest of these vids!

The nose is really pointy, not like a plane no????

so u see what i see, im pullin me hair out as spotted this and noones picking up on it.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Maybe if you had read all my post and not taken it out of context you would have understood what I meant. But, for some people, that's just too much to ask...

You are saying I didnt read and understand yer post? ^^

Someone asked you why would the gov would release this 'new footage' now? You replied that it was a lawsuit. Then you gave you opinion on the why the gov didnt release this footage earlier, you said "maybe it was for secuirty reasons pehaps due to..." (im quoting from memory) I gave you my opinion that that was a funny and weak reason for not showing us this footage and more besides.

Originally posted by Denied

Originally posted by onbekend59
Its a plane allright, no doubt about it.To bad we already knew that from the debris found near the pentagon and inside.
They just gave us something to chew on, like giving a bone to a dog untill its broken in little pieces and digested.
I hoped this would be the evidence that would prove it was in fact an airliner but instead this is just a tool to spread propaganda onto the masses.

Why are there no other vids released?
Why risk to lose so much credebility as a governement by not releasing the vids?

Sorry usa dont buy this crap and find a way for them to release the rest of these vids!

The nose is really pointy, not like a plane no????

so u see what i see, im pullin me hair out as spotted this and noones picking up on it.

Could be anything, though i am convinced we are talking about the front of a plane (military or passenger plane) thats about to hit the pentagon.

Well to me it seemed like a cruise missile, but how come, on the screen shot version of this relaeased you dont this this screen grab, im trying to grab the screen i see and upload it, but im sure people can find it.......

I was pretty amazed i saw anything.

I've seen a lot better UFO footage than this stuff.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
ThePieMaN raised an excellent point about that. Maybe they're not releasing it so that there can be unboased video for when/if they catch Osama bin Ladin. Honestly, I think that that's the best reason so far, topping even my own.

That is your Argument?
Seriously dude, you could be a little more Creative then that. I mean, do you honestly think, that Osama even exists? I seriously DOUBT that. This is just one more, in the line of several excuses you and people like you, serve the public to make them even more confused. IF the Pentagon ha NOTHING to hide - Then I suggest they RELEASE all of the Confiscated Videos and shut us all UP!

How many cameras were trained on the Pentagon at the time versus how many were on the WTC? Where was more destruction? The WTC was the "bigger" story, and just got more air time.

Dude, are you telling me that only TWO cameras in the Entire Pentagon recorded that? I are you telling me, that the surroundings of the most important HQ in America is watched by TWO lousy 20 year old cameras, capable of few frames per second? Please - you are insulting my intelligence.

Go back and read my post containing my idea of the plane atomized on impact.

You mean like SF movies?

Not physics, per se, but just knowing airplane construction and what happens in a crash. The tail is notoriously the weakest part of the aircraft. So, ironically, people seated in the tail section have a better chance of survival in a crash. Why is this? On impacts, the tail generally breaks off.

You mean, that the Airplane has a Tail soooo weak, that it did not leave not even a scratch mark on the face of the building? Are you trying to tell me, that the tail - even if it is the weakest part of the airplane - is not strong enough to break a few windows, when a fully loaded Boeing757 crashed into them with immense speed?

Yeah right - and monkeys might fly outta my butt!

Anyway, so as the plane impacted the tail could have easily broken of, and then not hit the building with the vertical stabilizer being vertical. Even if it had stayed attached and hit normally, it probably would have atomized much in the same way that the wings did.

Atomized? I love that word!

They were also saying anywhere from six to eight planes had been hijacked. Can you imagine that those darned journalists might make a mistake in their initial reports. Really, how could they be SO irresponsible!?

You have seen the photos of Pentagon building, after the "Boeing757" crash right? What have you seen? Have you seen any parts of this BIG Passenger airplane? Have you seen a part of the Tail? Or maybe Wings? Or mabye an Engine? Passenger seats? A crater? Nope. And the entire Wing of Pentagon is still standing! Fireman are putting out the fires - and all you san see is a Hole in the Wall, with windows one floor up, barely touched - not even broken! OH yeah - ATOMIZATION!

I believe "lightweight" is taken out of context there. Aluminum is "lightweight" as opposed to construction of steel. The construction of the plane, despite using aluminum, is still very durable. The skin of the plane is also a few centimeters thick in some parts. That source makes it sound as if planes are constructed of aluminum foil, which they are definitely not.

So - if this Aluminium is "Very Durable", how come that the Tail did not create any marks on the front of the building? Or the WINGS, which I think are also very Durable? So, SOME parts of the plane CAN Atomize and do not create any damage on the building whatsoever - but Other parts can penetrate steel-concerete construction like a BUNKER BUSTER MISSILE? Yap, it makes perfect sense!

If you Ignore the Laws of Physics!

I hope that that all answers your questions.

Errr, not even one of them!

Alex Jones' site, PrisonPlanet.com has recently posted an article contending that the new release of video footage is part of a PsyOps campaign aimed at deflating the 911 Truth Movement in the near future. He argues that the footage is intentionally vague and only provided from the weak security cameras located at the Pentagon gates. His contention is that the goal is to get all of the folks who do not believe the "official 9/11 story" to analyze, re-analyze and over-analyze this footage such that they will contend that it still does not demonstrate that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Then, when the time is right, indisputable images from the hotel and gas station cameras will be released, putting to bed the "missle hit the Pentagon" theory and hopefully silencing a large swath of disbelievers.

Here's the link:
Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op

"The US government has released new video footage showing a plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11"

I haven't quoted this from any media outlet in particular, but this is the general headline coming from most news reports.

Bit misleading though isn't it?

I mean, where's the plane? I spat out my breakfast in a half angry, half amused shout - "WHAT THE....???".

There is an air of arrogance surrounding the release of this video; a big flashy headline to remind the sheeple that "we still live in a dangerous world" but no evidence to support it!? And who on earth thought this would "put the conspiracies to bed"??? If anything it adds fuel to the theory that a passenger jet did not hit the Pentagon on that fateful day. Not neccessaraly because of the video's content, but more because the US govt are still witholding the Gas station and Hotel footage, and that the video IS NOT NEW (despite what most of the headlines are suggesting)!!! Its been around for as long as I can remember! How the media have looked over this very simple fact is staggering.

I guess that those who don't like to question what they see on TV will be thinking something along the following:

"Damn conspiracy nut jobs!!! I'll bet that'll shut 'em up!"

Disinformation in action.

Originally posted by Souljah
That is your Argument?

Why is that a bad arguement? They only released these videos because of the lawsuit and because they were used as evidence in the Moussaoui case. Could it be so simple that other videos, especially the ones showing the plane in full, are being saved for Osama or other terrorists yet to be captured?

news.bbc.co.uk...

Judicial Watch filed the freedom of information request in 2004, but the Pentagon refused to release the video because it was part of the investigation involving al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui, the group said.

It's not a question of hiding anything, it's a question of the people receiving a fair and unbiased trial.

Dude, are you telling me that only TWO cameras in the Entire Pentagon recorded that? I are you telling me, that the surroundings of the most important HQ in America is watched by TWO lousy 20 year old cameras, capable of few frames per second?

No, I'm suggesting that they haven't released the video for the reasons I just posted above. If you'd like to use logic, you could go back and read my posts commenting on the quality of the cameras.

You mean like SF movies?

No, I mean like in the test video I showed earlier.

You mean, that the Airplane has a Tail soooo weak, that it did not leave not even a scratch mark on the face of the building? Are you trying to tell me, that the tail - even if it is the weakest part of the airplane - is not strong enough to break a few windows, when a fully loaded Boeing757 crashed into them with immense speed?

It's possible, like I said. Yes.

Yeah right - and monkeys might fly outta my butt!

You may be able to find a solution for that here. Good luck!

Atomized? I love that word!

You have seen the photos of Pentagon building, after the "Boeing757" crash right? What have you seen? Have you seen any parts of this BIG Passenger airplane? Have you seen a part of the Tail? Or maybe Wings? Or mabye an Engine? Passenger seats? A crater? Nope. And the entire Wing of Pentagon is still standing! Fireman are putting out the fires - and all you san see is a Hole in the Wall, with windows one floor up, barely touched - not even broken! OH yeah - ATOMIZATION!

It is a good word, isn't it? Very good adjective, especially for describing the situation at hand.

I feel you don't know the definition of it though, as you seem to be mocking my proper use of it. Maybe this will help you in your quest for understanding.

dictionary.reference.com...

at·om·ize
tr.v. at·om·ized, at·om·iz·ing, at·om·iz·es

1. To reduce to or separate into atoms.
2. To reduce to tiny particles or a fine spray.
3. To break into small fragments.
4. To subject to bombardment with atomic weapons.

I have bolded the two definitions that correspond to my usage of the word to avoid further confusion on your part.

If you Ignore the Laws of Physics!

Ah, so THAT explains why you still believe it wasn't a plane. Maybe you should stop ignoring those, no?

Errr, not even one of them!

What a shame. Maybe one day you'll start denying ignorance. I can understand what it's like though. There was a time in my life when I believed everything I read on the internet, and believed things for the sole reason that they were anti-establishment. Of course, then I encountered the real world and grew up.

Originally posted by onbekend59
Its a plane allright, no doubt about it.To bad we already knew that from the debris found near the pentagon and inside.

what debris? or am i missing something? maybe just me been a long day lol


ok iv went through this footage again paused it /played it repaused it rewinded it etc etc im sorry im still not convinced its an airliner, i still say it looks like a missle,the nose is pointy like one and it has a wing tip at the end
examples





the theory that it might have been one of them remote controll things is plausable i suppose but im not entirly convinced.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Why is that a bad arguement? They only released these videos because of the lawsuit and because they were used as evidence in the Moussaoui case. Could it be so simple that other videos, especially the ones showing the plane in full, are being saved for Osama or other terrorists yet to be captured?

WHY?
What Good would that help? I mean, everybody has seen these 5 or 6 frames of this 20-year old camera - Where are the REST of the Videos? Like the one from the Hotel for example? Just give us a Single Frame snapshot and I will shutup forever!

It's not a question of hiding anything, it's a question of the people receiving a fair and unbiased trial.

A FAIR and UNBIASED TRIAL? You mean like the detainees of Guantanamo are receiving as we speak?

No, I'm suggesting that they haven't released the video for the reasons I just posted above.

And I say that is one Pathetic Excuse.

I have bolded the two definitions that correspond to my usage of the word to avoid further confusion on your part.

Wow - it's all clear to me. Those parts of the Airplane, that are supposed to create some Visible damage on the face of Pentagon, that would convice all of us, who doubt the original story (Like the TAIL, WINGS, parts of AIRPLANE you know?) have ATOMIZED - but the rest of the airplane, which has penetrated several blocks of concrete-steel have not. Yep, all clear commander!

Ah, so THAT explains why you still believe it wasn't a plane. Maybe you should stop ignoring those, no?

I do not belive that a BOEING757 struck the Pentagon, since I have seen MANY Evidence against that official story then FOR it. The only evidence for it, is a few frames from a puny old camera, which could not be used in court to proove a Boeing really struck. To me it looks too point nosed aircraft for a Boeing.

What a shame. Maybe one day you'll start denying ignorance. I can understand what it's like though. There was a time in my life when I believed everything I read on the internet, and believed things for the sole reason that they were anti-establishment. Of course, then I encountered the real world and grew up.

So, you do not belive stuff written on the Internet, but you do belive stuff that the US Goverment writes down and buy all the "Evidence" they present you, despite the fact, that they have prooved numerous times to use Deception and good old Lies to gain approval of the Public.

Nope - I am not convinced at all...