It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A closer look at the pentagon camera footage

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by dillweed

nevermind - comment removed
edit on 13-10-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by hooper


That's all I have to say about that.

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 01:25 PM
For those that believe it was some sort of missile, because of the smoke trail, really need to do some research regarding missiles, especially cruise missiles. For starters, they dont leave behind a massive smoke trail:

Now then, if someone can show me a missile with the wingspan of a 757, body of a 757, and engines like the 757, then I'll listen to your ideas.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by hooperYes, very naive. Again, why would there be cameras there? Just because? CCTV is used as part of a system of security which, in the case of the Pentagon, included a huge security patrol. Stores, office buildings, etc., generally don't have large security forces. Its not like folks were driving up to the Pentagon, pulling on a ski mask, pulling out a revolver and stealing military secrets.

Here's a list of reasons to put cameras on the side of the Pentagon:

1. Graffiti and vandalism - huge problem everywhere. Shopping centres, service stations, office buildings etc often have cameras JUST because of this.

2. Yes, car/truck bombs approaching from the street. Pretty sure this has actually been tried before or at least is a well-known scenario for Terrorist activity.

3. To make sure the Helicopter landing pad is secure.

4. The US Military is the most heavily funded organisation in the world. US Military and security is literally the top priority of the nation. Surveillance is one of the top priorities of the US Government. You argue about cost meaning they wouldn't have cameras, but cameras are cheaper than people. If anything they would have less patrols and more cameras with a few people monitoring them from the inside.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:22 AM

Originally posted by GenRadekNow then, if someone can show me a missile with the wingspan of a 757, body of a 757, and engines like the 757, then I'll listen to your ideas.

If you can clearly show an object in these videos with the dimensions of a 757 then I'll listen to your ideas.

P.S. Missiles aren't the only things that can leave smoke trails. Lots of jet engines could if a 757 one can.

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:30 AM
Ok. The Pentagon scene was 'staged'. Now I know most of you know that's what I think but just to lay it out there for any newbies...

On another thread I started talking about witnesses and smoke trails and how none of the Pentagon witnesses mentioned seeing any smoke trail. No Pentagon witness said like: "Oh, I seen the plane cross the road, the right engine (from behind) hit a light pole and started smoking profusely..." Didn't happen. So now we have this little video, it has a smoke trail, some company did a Solidworks animated video of it, smoke trail looks big in animation and some 5m in height if we go by the blurry video. And no witness mentioned it. I find that seriously odd.

It's like I said, say some perp with a gun robs a Pizza Hut at lunchtime and 100 people are there, and in the police reports of the robbery, no one mentions the shotgun.That kind of odd.

So some people on here say not enough credit is given to eyewitness etc. It's hard for me especially because I know the Pentagon scene was staged. But I'm going to go with the witnesses for now. I think if there were actual witnesses one of them would've mentioned the prominent smoke trail over the Pentagon lawn on 9/11. Because none did then there wasn't one. (Hey, it's either that or the witnesses are phony or they failed to mention a shotgun, which seems implausible to me.)

But you will say, 'ok, but there seems to be one in the video...'

Right but how much are you people taking givens as givens? "Oh the witnesses said this, oh there's clearly a smoke trail on the video, oh look at that blotch it's surely big enough to be a 757, oh the FBI said there was nothing on those other 84 tapes," etc. etc. Whatever floats your boat.

The Pentagon scene was STAGED pre and POST crash. It was. And no amount of OSers on here chomping at the post bit and frothing at their keyboard mouths is going to change that or my awareness of it. 9/11 was ten plus years ago, why you all so hotheaded still about it? Some of you sound desperate frankly. Sounds like you all got fevers.

Ok, so now I'm questioning the smoke trail, is it real? Is the video legitimate? What evidence do we have that it is genuine or doctored? Do we have any?

I think 9/11 was extensively planned, therefore I think very little of it is either overlooked or a mistake. I think if something is released, due to the extreme planning, it is due extreme scrutiny. I'm going with the smoke trail being fake. That means I also think the blotch isn't a 757, missile or jet. Yeah that's right.

I want to talk a bit more about the video though, especially the end, where the little generator that could went puff puff puff all the way home. Look at the animated video right at the end, you will see the post impact. That little puffing engine that is the rightmost vertical puffer in the clip, is our little generator friend - puffing away. I call it Puffy McPuffPuff. (For obvious reasons.)

Oh it's all obvious to me.

Have a close look at it because TWICE Dave said I couldn't tell what was shown there at the end of the video. Look and post what you can see but be warned, if you say you can see it Dave will say you just simply cannot. Oh well.

You see, it's funny that that generator would go puff puff puff like that I think. Especially as it rests directly between the highway and the impact hole in the wall etc. Right? You follow? Not only is this thing only on the side of the Pentagon where the 'plane' hit. After the 'plane' hit all it does is puff puff puff smoke into the air.

Why in my book that's a TC - a Triple Coincidence.

1. It's on the side where the plane hit.
2. it gets damaged in the hit.
3. It starts puffing thick smoke after being hit.

and you might go QC and say

4. It just happens to be in the middle of the direct line between the impact hole and the highway. Hmm

Now how did it get there? Oh ya some company was working on the building... turns out it's also the same company that helped clean up Ground Zero... ...interesting. Well, I think it is.

Do watch the video till the very end and see it puff puff puffing away.

Now, think about this. What are the odds of it being there and being damaged in the 'strike' only enough for it to smoke profusely, considering on exactly where it happened to be? It wasn't missed or completely crushed or obliterated, no, it was struck in such a way at to only smoke like a steam engine. Hmm. Could you plan that with a 757? A missile? A military jet? With any projectile? I don't think so.

Therefore I think it had to have been set off to smoke exactly like that.

Think how incredible it is that it's there, it gets hit enough to smoke as opposed to missed or obliterated and it's directly in front of the hole from the main viewing angles... naw, no evidence of 'staging' in that. That's all natural OS!


posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:21 AM
reply to post by NWOwned

It really boggles the mind.....

The sheer mountains of evidence, yet some people persist in believing something that flies in the face of sanity, reason, facts and just simple critical thinking.

This short video clip opens with someone who is quite a kook, on the so-called "Truther" side of the equation, Jim Fetzer. For those who don't know, this man seriously makes the claim that somehow the two jets in NYC were "faked" fact, his Wikipedia article bio says he sticks to the claims of "no" airplanes at all, that day!!

Stunningly, there are actually people who take him seriously!! :shk:

I wish I knew what psychological term applies to those delusions, and deluded way of thinking....does *cognitive disconnect* fit the bill?

Back to the is bookended with Fetzer, but interviews the Minnesota Air National Guard C-130 pilot who saw American 77, by pure chance of timing after he made a normal departure from Andrews AFB enroute to home base in Minneapolis. Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

Particularly troubling, sad and amusing (and indicative of many "Truthers") is Jim Fetzer's stance of "no airplanes" on one hand, in some interviews. But what he says in this video interview is opposite, and is yet another hair-brained belief.....this sort of inconsistency is a trademark of much of the "Truth Movement", whether by intent, or just not having all the facts (or, ignoring facts that don't fit their pre-conceived, cherished "beliefs"):

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by NWOwned

Now, think about this. What are the odds of it being there and being damaged in the 'strike' only enough for it to smoke profusely, considering on exactly where it happened to be? It wasn't missed or completely crushed or obliterated, no, it was struck in such a way at to only smoke like a steam engine.

Weird s**t happens in accidents. Ask any police officer what happens in a motorcycle accident. The shoes/boots come off.

As to the smoking engine: Was it really smoke or was it fuel? What was the time and distance from the first light pole struck at 500mph? That is 733 feet per second. If the distance accross the lawn was about 1000 feet then we are talking a bit over 1 second. It's plenty of time for fuel to pour out but smoke?

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 07:52 AM
I think I may have figured it out.

Look at them again:

The smoke trail in the first one is nearly identical at the point where it is in the second image. In the second image, the white part is not the plane at all!

This means that the blue "ghost" which is somewhat present in the first image, but obvious in the second, is the plane, but the shutter speed of the camera couldn't capture it because it was moving too fast! The smoke was basically static once it was in the air, so the camera was able to gather the light quickly and clearly.

Here's an example of how motion blur will make some parts clear and others invisible:

It's all a matter of shutter speed.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 06:26 PM
reply to post by Varemia

at the pentagon ? pull the other one !.......... state of the art .........- it starts with them and the scraps are passed on to us ... look at the internet.... the tech at the pentagon is a billion times better than at your local papershop.

Shutter Speed

edit on 17-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by samkent

As to the smoking engine: Was it really smoke or was it fuel?

Most likely, yes.

This is what happens when a foreign object is ingested into the intake....if it's damaging enough, it will disrupt the proper airflow and cause what's called a "compressor stall". Very often, fire bursts out the exhaust, in regular spurts....this is incompletely burned Jet fuel that bypasses the combustion chamber, then ignites in the hot exhaust gases. Here, this event was from ingesting a bird. It is hypothesized that American 77's right engine ingest the light standard of one of the five lamp poles (#3) it hit (per the Mike Wilson animation).

On the other hand, it did hit lamp pole #1 first...on the right side. And, at that velocity (conservatively 750 to 800 ft. per/sec or more) the subsequent hit to pole #3 occurred in just a fraction of a second later. Would be hard to know exactly, but if the wing was punctured, or a fuel line attached to the engine torn loose, then fuel could gush out, and in that case, it would appear as "white smoke". As in this video, showing an emergency procedure, the dumping of fuel, and how the fuel atomizes in the air when it exits:

I could also possibly surmise hydraulic fluid, if a line was severed it would spew out, it is under 3,000 PSI pressure in normal operation. Lines from all three systems are present in the wing, as the various control surfaces receive hydraulic pressure. But, the 3 systems only hold a limited quantity, even when combined. Around 20 - 25 gallons all 3 tanks, if I remember correctly. But, wanted to toss that out for consideration anyway.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in