Inquiry - Pentagon 9/11

[Jetro]

Hey,

First time posting on this website, so please be nice

Do I believe everything the government tells me? Of course not, they've already admitted to testing on their own citizens without their knowledge, hoarding and rounding up citizens in times of war and peace. They've already admitted to attempting to overthrow foreign governments through unethical means and so forth. No need to get into specific examples of those, as anyone can easily dig up a fact or two of questionable government activity that in all likely hood was lied about until the years past and the truth was finally revealed, generations or two after the fact. So again, it's not far fetch for anyone rational to go, hmm, if someone knows too much that may expose the government or political party in power or even shake the very foundation any country is built on, they're most likely to have an "accident". Again, that's logical and not far fetch. Hold power at any cost.

With that said -

For sake of argument, the Towers dropped for the official reasons. Same with Tower 7. Let's also say that the passengers took down the plane in Penns. before it could strike it's true target. So far so good, nothing crazy. No aliens, government cover up. Just lots of bad luck, mixed in with some bravery. But the one thing that always struck me as odd and this is where hopefully folks that are more educated in these matters can enlighten me is why the crash at the Pentagon seemed less destructive than what it should have been.

Never mind the angle of the plane that hit the building or the payload or anything else like that. But just simply, why does the wreckage seem a little on the small side considering that it was a plane that hit the building. The argument I've heard is that the entire plane vaporized and there was nothing left but small and medium chunks of metal. And I'll be the first to say, hey, im no plane expert but we've all seen plane crashes on tv and the news and there's usually tons of wreckage, hence why I'm asking what I'm asking...

We (aka I) also know that the Pentagon is not your traditional building and it's reinforced for obvious reasons but would that reinforcement been enough to turn an out of control plane hellbent on it's destruction into bits and pieces while leaving the Pentagon looking more like a car with a fender bender?

Again, I'm sure there's a logical explanation and I would like to know what it is.

One last food for thought. What if there was a real incident that folks knew to be a cover up of some sort. Make one up, whatever. Those folks come out determined to expose the government for their lies and what not. How quickly and easily is it to paint them as tin foil wearing freaks? We've all grown up weary about what we've been told, what we've seen and what not. Now, sadly, how can we ever believe Chicken Little as he once said "that the sky is falling" when we've heard it so many times in the past that when the truth is actually being said, we'll all just brush it off as one more lunatic looking for their 15 minutes of fame, regardless if it's completely true.

Anyhow, thanks and look forward to hearing back from folks who have logical answers to my question.

Jetro

Edited February 14, 2010 by Jetro

[Q24]

We (aka I) also know that the Pentagon is not your traditional building and it's reinforced for obvious reasons but would that reinforcement been enough to turn an out of control plane hellbent on it's destruction into bits and pieces while leaving the Pentagon looking more like a car with a fender bender?

I think you identified an important point there – the section of the Pentagon which was impacted had recently been upgraded with steel reinforced concrete specifically to withstand bomb blasts. I don’t think it notable that only small pieces of the aircraft were recovered after high speed impact with such a structure. See this video for an example of what can happen: -

I think results of the impact were more than equivalent to a simple ‘fender bender’ but the The Pentagon Building Performance Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) documents actual damage so we can make up our own minds.

There is an awful lot more evidence that an airliner did impact the building if you want to hear it. Now if you want to talk about the identity of that aircraft, that’s a different matter…

[Jetro]

Hey Q24,

Thanks for the video post. Granted "fender bender" might not have been the exact choice of words but compared to every other building that had an airplane crash into it, fender bender seemed appropriate in terms of comparison.

Also, in terms of the video, it was interesting to see how an airplane handles a concrete wall but we both can agree that it was not exactly flying at that level when it smacked into the building but most likely dropping in altitude when it hit. The video was a controlled experiment (of course) while what had happened wasn't which still makes me wonder why there weren't additional pieces all over the place. Also, based off the video you linked, that looked like a fighter craft of some sort, smaller i imagine than what hit the Pentagon but your point is certainly valid.

However, I may be mistaken but wasn't certain parts of the Pentagon at that time undergoing renovations in terms of adding stability? Or was it just that one area that they completed while the rest of the building wasn't at the time (or vice versa).

And as for your final point as to the debate about whether or not it was the plane in question that did hit the building as you stated, could prove valid to my original question. Smaller plane, no wreckage? Bigger plane, better chance of wreckage I would imagine.

Again, not ruling out your valid point and closing my eyes and screaming la la la at the top of my lungs but this part of the pentagon story always struck me as...odd..

[Q24]

Thanks for the video post. Granted "fender bender" might not have been the exact choice of words but compared to every other building that had an airplane crash into it, fender bender seemed appropriate in terms of comparison.

I understand what you mean by the term when you look at it as you say in comparison to other plane impacts into buildings. Of these other comparisons (I’m thinking mainly the Empire State building, the Iran appartment blocks and of course the WTC), it remains that no other plane impacts have occurred with reinforced military installations such as the Pentagon. The best comparison would be the video that I posted above.

Also, in terms of the video, it was interesting to see how an airplane handles a concrete wall but we both can agree that it was not exactly flying at that level when it smacked into the building but most likely dropping in altitude when it hit.

By all accounts of those who believe an impact occurred at the Pentagon, the very final approach was low and approximately parallel to the ground with the pitch of the aircraft or projectile nearly level – this is supported by the light poles which were knocked down, security camera footage and damage path documented to the building itself.

Imagine the plane passing low enough to clip that light pole on its way to the Pentagon and we can see there was no steep dive.

The video was a controlled experiment (of course) while what had happened wasn't which still makes me wonder why there weren't additional pieces all over the place. Also, based off the video you linked, that looked like a fighter craft of some sort, smaller i imagine than what hit the Pentagon but your point is certainly valid.

There were small pieces of fuselage debris scattered over the Pentagon lawn. Ignore the large piece at the front and look to the background of this photograph: -

Larger debris such as the landing gear was recovered from within the building.

However, I may be mistaken but wasn't certain parts of the Pentagon at that time undergoing renovations in terms of adding stability? Or was it just that one area that they completed while the rest of the building wasn't at the time (or vice versa).

The location of the aircraft impact was the only section to have been renovated to withstand bomb blast and was not fully manned on 9/11 – had the impact occurred on another facing then damage and casualties would have been far more severe. This is confirmed in the LA Times report [link] from which this quote is taken: -

“This was a terrible tragedy, but I'm here to tell you that if we had not undertaken these efforts in the building, this could have been much, much worse,”

Evey said.

“The fact that they happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a wonderful gift.”

And as for your final point as to the debate about whether or not it was the plane in question that did hit the building as you stated, could prove valid to my original question. Smaller plane, no wreckage? Bigger plane, better chance of wreckage I would imagine.

In my opinion there is insufficient evidence of it being the specific airliner it was claimed to be – Flight 77.

[Jetro]

Hey Q24 -

Just a couple of quick thoughts:

1.) Piloting an airliner under a hostage control situation to bring it so close to the ground while avoiding the neighboring buildings takes some slick flying. As well as some luck. But of course, it's plausible.

2.) The picture in which you displayed the knocked over lamp post was of interest however I also thought it was interesting to see that the lamp posts that were near the Pentagon (behind the car and to the right) were still standing. Of course, entirely possible that the trajectory of the plane did not cross those lamp posts but the smaller of the two lamp posts in the background seems to be close enough to the impact zone that it should have been effected but again, depends on trajectory.

3.) Regarding the image containing the wreckage. I've seen that picture a few times and the first obvious question that jumps out at me is that's it? The second being the larger piece in the front of the picture seems chewed up, not burnt and mangled. If you understand what I mean. Of course, I'm no aviation expert or a crash expert, just a casual observation on my part. Granted, like you said, the larger pieces were pulled out from inside the Pentagon however based off of all the pictures I've seen, there just doesn't seem to be enough debris. Of course, you could be right and the entire inside of the Pentagon could be containing all of the larger pieces that are traditional to an airplane crash.

4.) As for the renovations of the Pentagon. You're link just confirms that we're both on the same page But thanks for reminding me that it was just that one portion.

I've heard the theory that it was a predator drone missile that hit the Pentagon which would imply that it was an inside job. Which of course, as you probably already know, are easier to control and navigate to hit a specific location, such as an area that has been reinforced. Whether I believe that or not, is not important as I'm trying to get a logical answer to the question about the Pentagon incident. But just like you, you believe that we're not getting told the entire story about what happened that day (or at least that's how I'm interpreting you're comments regarding which plane it was).

Either way, look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter, and actually more on your thoughts regarding the plane in question as that piqued my curiosity.

Jetro

[Q24]

1.) Piloting an airliner under a hostage control situation to bring it so close to the ground while avoiding the neighboring buildings takes some slick flying. As well as some luck. But of course, it's plausible.

This could be a whole topic in itself.

Starting with the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour, although he had obtained a licence, by all accounts was a poor pilot who had trouble controlling a small Cessna aircraft during landing manoeuvres. A former employee of the flight school attended by Hanjour is on record in the NY Times [link] as commenting: -

“I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon, he could not fly at all.”

Whilst a routine landing would obviously not have been required of Hanjour on 9/11, the fact remains that he would need to perform a descent, line up and control a large Boeing 757 at extremely low altitude on approach as it skimmed above the ground. To achieve the results seen, this required avoiding impact with the ground or overshooting the target which given the topography of the area would not be altogether straightforward.

A further point of consideration in regard to the aircraft control at such low altitudes is ground effect. Now I’ve had this discussion with individuals previously and an article was put forward in favour of the official story [link] to demonstrate that ground effect would not have prevented the aircraft approach and impact. An excerpt of the article states: -

“That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive.”

So we see that Hanjour may have had to make “adjustments” or “fine corrections” that required “finesse and familiarity with an aircraft’s flight characteristics” where at least a basic level of “expertise” was required to counter whatever level of ground effect there was. This is then relevant for consideration in the discussion.

Finally, regarding the level of skill involved, two pilots have attempted to recreate the flight path of the alleged Flight 77 in a training simulator. Whilst each of their attempts was indeed successful in impacting the Pentagon, it must be noted that the simulation was far from the real life circumstances as topographical features were not present in the programme and the approach altitude did not match with that on 9/11.

So that’s what we know of Hani Hanjour and what would have been required of him. Now for a further few points: -

• I categorically do not believe a missile impacted the building and the following is purely to show what guided systems are capable of. From the Boeing website, description of a cruise missile reads, “Speed: 500 mph” and “Flies complicated, low-altitude routes to a target by utilizing a terrain-contour-matching guidance system and GPS/INS”. Now compare that to the aircraft which impacted the Pentagon.
  
• Just over a year prior to 9/11, a form of GPS guidance - the Wide Area Augmentation System – was implemented. A feature of this system is the use of descending constant radius turns to line the aircraft up for final approach in landing. As with the point above, this compares favourably with the turn and descent of the airliner which impacted the Pentagon.
  
• An air traffic controller who witnessed the airliner shortly before impact is on record as stating, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” To avoid any abuse I will even link here to a pro-official story site for full explanation of the issue. The important point for me is that at the actual time of viewing, experienced air traffic controllers thought they were watching a military aircraft on radar.
  

So a poor pilot performing manoeuvres to be expected of guidance systems and military aircraft – well fancy that. Of course this is not impossible but each must decide for themselves which theory - the poor pilot or guided approach - is more plausible.

2.) The picture in which you displayed the knocked over lamp post was of interest however I also thought it was interesting to see that the lamp posts that were near the Pentagon (behind the car and to the right) were still standing. Of course, entirely possible that the trajectory of the plane did not cross those lamp posts but the smaller of the two lamp posts in the background seems to be close enough to the impact zone that it should have been effected but again, depends on trajectory.

This picture shows the approach and light pole damage: -

I don’t see any problems with it.

3.) Regarding the image containing the wreckage. I've seen that picture a few times and the first obvious question that jumps out at me is that's it? The second being the larger piece in the front of the picture seems chewed up, not burnt and mangled. If you understand what I mean. Of course, I'm no aviation expert or a crash expert, just a casual observation on my part. Granted, like you said, the larger pieces were pulled out from inside the Pentagon however based off of all the pictures I've seen, there just doesn't seem to be enough debris. Of course, you could be right and the entire inside of the Pentagon could be containing all of the larger pieces that are traditional to an airplane crash.

I know what you mean, my own initial reaction was that there’s a lack of debris. There are though a good number of photographs of the debris available online if you search. It wasn’t so much the large pieces that convinced me, rather the smaller white coloured debris apparent all over the lawn around the impact point that I indicated in my previous post. Trust, I am a big advocate of the Operation Northwoods document in these discussions so am well aware that certain aircraft parts can be planted to give the impression that a crash occurred – I just think there is too much debris, along with other arguments, to oppose a genuine impact in this case.

4.) As for the renovations of the Pentagon. You're link just confirms that we're both on the same page But thanks for reminding me that it was just that one portion.

Sure was lucky… or planned that way.

Either way, look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter, and actually more on your thoughts regarding the plane in question as that piqued my curiosity.

I’ll save the full details, suffice to say there has been no confirmation from either air traffic control, the FBI or the NTSB as to the identification of the aircraft. Recovery and DNA analysis is often put forward as evidence of positive identification though there is no available record of custody for this process. All of this is confirmed due to known records and Freedom Of Information Act request responses from the authorities involved.

[Jetro]

Hey Q24 -

Very interesting comments. Quick thoughts.

1.) Is there any possibility that a low inbound plane near street level (for sake of argument) cause damage to the surrounding area before impact? I.e. Shattered windows, etc. Asking only because I'm not familiar if there was any additional damage aside from the impact zone.

2.) The Wide Area Augmentation System that you mentioned in your post - would someone in flight school know about this would they as you stated it was just being implemented. That and I don't think (could be wrong) that the schooling this individual had was teaching their students anything more than your basic flying. Ie. Propeller planes, single engine, etc. Of course, he could have held a gun to the pilot and told him to put that into the computer "or else"...

3.) The air tower comments strikes me as interesting. Not because of what they said but because of what they thought. Don't planes have transponders or some sort of identification marking what aircraft they are? Again, I'm not an air traffic controller but it is my understanding that these planes are identified someway other than looking out the window..

4.) You're picture showing the flight path of the plane helps visualize the event a bit more but as the picture shows, the plane was still making it's descent, clipping the light posts near the highway (which I imagine would be elevated as most highways are, considering the on and off ramps in the pic). While I'm sure the speed of the aircraft limited the impact in terms of clipping those lamp posts and again, I don't know what these lamp posts are made out of, but they are normally sturdy enough to survive car crashes (again, a car crashing into it and an airplane crashing through one are different) but what I was trying to state is that the plane's wings would have slammed through 5 to 6 of these lamp posts (not counting those that were just clipped partially) before hitting it's target. Which leads me to wonder a.) wouldn't the damage from these lamp posts alter the course of the plane? ie. downward spiral into the ground b.) possibly tear huge chunks into the wings and even possibly become lodged in the wings themselves to the point that the added weight and structural changes in the plane (ie, hulking pieces of metal dangling from the wings) that losing control and slamming into the ground becomes plausible? Again not an expert and just my personal thoughts.

5.) We're both in agreement that something struck the Pentagon. There's too much debris, litter and what not for someone to go "okay, on cue, everyone run out and drop these chunks of metal all over the place". Which is certainly not what we're both thinking. The question is more, We know something hit the Pentagon but what was it? Was it the said plane in the official story or something else entirely? If it was something else entirely, then the entire story of what happened that fateful day needs to be re-examined. Why fabricate a part of what happened or hide anything if it was solely the work of extremist?

5a.) Operation Northwoods - I am sure you're also familiar with the document Project for the New American Century in which calls for a modern day Pearl Harbor which as I'm sure you're aware of already is what the media and everyone was calling 9/11 when it happened. Eerie coincidence or foreboding of things to come. (and they wonder why there are conspiracies about the government)

6.) Agreed with the "Lucky or planned that way" comment. See comments regarding air traffic controllers.

7.) Your last comment regarding the identification of the plane and passengers. That alone speaks volumes about why people question what happened that day. If it was so cut and dry and that it was just the actions of extremist hellbent on attacking America, why are we left with questions that should be answered easily. I mean, terrorist hit a target. Be it military or civilian. Once the names go out to the families and what not, this stuff becomes public record for everyone. Granted the Pentagon is a military target and that may apply but the civilians that were on those planes weren't and traditionally would be treated just like any other plane crash...

[SolarPlexus]

nice topic

[Q24]

1.) Is there any possibility that a low inbound plane near street level (for sake of argument) cause damage to the surrounding area before impact? I.e. Shattered windows, etc. Asking only because I'm not familiar if there was any additional damage aside from the impact zone.

As mentioned previously, there was damage where light poles were knocked down along the approach path of the airliner. In addition to this, a generator situated in front of the Pentagon showed evidence of damage and displacement due to impact. The heading that was necessary to cause both the light pole and generator damage also correlates with damage documented to the Pentagon and eyewitness statements further support these events (a bit more on the general eyewitness accounts later).

Regarding the possibility of shattered windows to surrounding buildings that you mention, I am unaware of any reports of this type. Whilst this could be expected in the case of jets capable of supersonic speeds, where upon breaking the sound barrier a shock wave (sonic boom) is created, the commercial airliners involved on 9/11 could not achieve this.

2.) The Wide Area Augmentation System that you mentioned in your post - would someone in flight school know about this would they as you stated it was just being implemented. That and I don't think (could be wrong) that the schooling this individual had was teaching their students anything more than your basic flying. Ie. Propeller planes, single engine, etc. Of course, he could have held a gun to the pilot and told him to put that into the computer "or else"...

I think you are right - Hanjour would not have been trained in such a system on the basic flying lessons that he undertook. It seems impossible that the hijackers “held a gun” to any of the pilots on 9/11 – if there had been time for this then it would have allowed the pilots to follow normal hijacking procedure and transmit the appropriate transponder squawk code alerting air traffic control of the situation. This distress call did not come from any of the aircraft.

3.) The air tower comments strikes me as interesting. Not because of what they said but because of what they thought. Don't planes have transponders or some sort of identification marking what aircraft they are? Again, I'm not an air traffic controller but it is my understanding that these planes are identified someway other than looking out the window..

Yes, aircraft have transponders which transmit identification and positioning information. Without this information it is obviously still possible to track aircraft as an unidentified ‘blip’ on radar.

In the case of Flight 77, by 8:56am, minutes after the suspected hijacking, the transponder had been switched off. Perhaps importantly, the airliner also disappeared completely from air traffic controllers’ radar screens (apparently moving into an area of low radar coverage). This was the last confirmed identification of Flight 77 and air traffic controllers therefore did not see the aircraft turn around or head East toward Washington.

At approximately 9:25am, air traffic control at Dulles International Airport noticed an unidentified blip on their radar screens [link]: -

“Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more.”

It is from here that the quote I provided previously regarding speed and manoeuvrability of the aircraft comes in.

4.) You're picture showing the flight path of the plane helps visualize the event a bit more but as the picture shows, the plane was still making it's descent, clipping the light posts near the highway (which I imagine would be elevated as most highways are, considering the on and off ramps in the pic). While I'm sure the speed of the aircraft limited the impact in terms of clipping those lamp posts and again, I don't know what these lamp posts are made out of, but they are normally sturdy enough to survive car crashes (again, a car crashing into it and an airplane crashing through one are different) but what I was trying to state is that the plane's wings would have slammed through 5 to 6 of these lamp posts (not counting those that were just clipped partially) before hitting it's target. Which leads me to wonder a.) wouldn't the damage from these lamp posts alter the course of the plane? ie. downward spiral into the ground b.) possibly tear huge chunks into the wings and even possibly become lodged in the wings themselves to the point that the added weight and structural changes in the plane (ie, hulking pieces of metal dangling from the wings) that losing control and slamming into the ground becomes plausible? Again not an expert and just my personal thoughts.

There were five light poles clipped and knocked down in total along with the generator collision. I agree that the aircraft would likely have suffered some minor damage due to these impacts though I very much doubt severe enough to have affected its performance in the final seconds. Perhaps it is possible these impacts would have affected stability of the aircraft to some degree, though with the momentum already attained upon approach and extremely short distance left to travel I think this would be negligible. Of course these things are well worth considering but I don’t see the issues as preventing the aircraft impact with the Pentagon.

5.) We're both in agreement that something struck the Pentagon. There's too much debris, litter and what not for someone to go "okay, on cue, everyone run out and drop these chunks of metal all over the place". Which is certainly not what we're both thinking. The question is more, We know something hit the Pentagon but what was it? Was it the said plane in the official story or something else entirely? If it was something else entirely, then the entire story of what happened that fateful day needs to be re-examined. Why fabricate a part of what happened or hide anything if it was solely the work of extremist?

I have theorised about missile strikes and military aircraft impacting the Pentagon but after researching all of the information, found that evidence of a large commercial airliner is overwhelming - the approach path, the Pentagon impact damage, the security footage and the debris all indicate this when studied closely. Rather than a full description of each of these, I will provide what I find is the single most convincing set of evidence, and that happens to be the eyewitnesses in this case: -

100+ eyewitnesses to aircraft at the Pentagon

Of all these witnesses not one reported seeing a missile and I believe there is a single account describing what was thought to be a smaller aircraft. All other accounts are compatible with a large commercial airliner, some even going so far as to state they thought it was a Boeing 757 or American Airlines plane. Many of these witnesses also confirm the light pole impacts and actual Pentagon impact itself. I find it immensely unlikely that such a great number of confirmed witnesses were lying or mistaken.

5a.) Operation Northwoods - I am sure you're also familiar with the document Project for the New American Century in which calls for a modern day Pearl Harbor which as I'm sure you're aware of already is what the media and everyone was calling 9/11 when it happened. Eerie coincidence or foreboding of things to come. (and they wonder why there are conspiracies about the government)

Those driving U.S. geopolitical strategy required “a new Pearl Harbor” and then it happenned upon them taking power in 2001 – make of it what you will.

[SolarPlexus]

history repeats itself

[Scott G]

Responding to this post from another thread not directly related to the Pentagon attack...

I had a look at the 9/11 forum, (great link thanks) and am looking through the pentagon high resolution pics and now i'm thinking what happened to the plane? maybe it is because of the angle the aircraft hit and the building being made of stone that the damage looks very missile-like? I saw some other pics somewhere else that showed people carrying pieces of what looked like aircraft so? I have so much other stuff to do that i have to restrain myself from putting too much time in as an amatuer forensic analyst!!! and yet here i am picking over these pics!

Yes, I'm no believer in the official story concerning the pentagon attack as well. And I also know your concern about trying to limit the amount of time one spends on 9/11 subjects, laugh :-). Here's some good threads regarding the pentagon attack though:

What truly happened at the Pentagon?

Here's a video that a brief video that I really liked on the subject:

http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm#Main

There's also CIT's videos on the subject, which can be seen here:

http://www.thepentacon.com/videoshorts.htm

And here is Pilots for 9/11 Truth's site and some videos of theirs as well:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

As you can see from this particular thread, there are those, even within what I'd call the truth movement (those who don't believe the full truth has been revealed by the government and mass media concerning 9/11) who generally accept the offical story regarding the pentagon attack. However, even with them, there are some questions that remain...

[SolarPlexus]

so many arguments against the official story and people still buy it ... the official story has so many holes that its hard to count them all xD

[aquatus1]

If you are stuck in the middle of the forest, it's hard to believe there's a place without trees.

[illuminol]

Responding to this post from another thread not directly related to the Pentagon attack...

Yes, I'm no believer in the official story concerning the pentagon attack as well. And I also know your concern about trying to limit the amount of time one spends on 9/11 subjects, laugh :-). Here's some good threads regarding the pentagon attack though:

What truly happened at the Pentagon?

Here's a video that a brief video that I really liked on the subject:

http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm#Main

There's also CIT's videos on the subject, which can be seen here:

http://www.thepentacon.com/videoshorts.htm

And here is Pilots for 9/11 Truth's site and some videos of theirs as well:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

As you can see from this particular thread, there are those, even within what I'd call the truth movement (those who don't believe the full truth has been revealed by the government and mass media concerning 9/11) who generally accept the offical story regarding the pentagon attack. However, even with them, there are some questions that remain...

i appreciate that! It was more likely a plane used as a missile and the missile theory weakens the mounting evidence of an inside job by sending people on a wild goose chase.

[illuminol]

Press conference for 9/11 investigation

Fire fighters for truth 9/11

you may have already seen these, good links.

Edited March 13, 2010 by illuminol

[Belial]

Why not release the 'other' CCTV videos from the hotel down the road, or the gas station opposite?

[War Eagle]

Why not release the 'other' CCTV videos from the hotel down the road, or the gas station opposite?

Maybe they still undecided on which classification before official release; Rated G or PG?

[aquatus1]

Has anyone asked that they be released? You have to specifically ask for one to be released, and give an explanation as to why it needs to be released.

I don't know what's on those types, but could a possible reason be that people who have done actual research on the matter have seen those tapes, and have determined that they don't contain anything of interest, and so never bothered to go through the major red tape that would get them released?

[Q24]

Has anyone asked that they be released? You have to specifically ask for one to be released, and give an explanation as to why it needs to be released.

They certainly have (more than one person) – there’s been quite a battle over it actually. The FBI have admitted that they have 85 videotapes in their possession, all of which have been requested through FOIA requests. To date the only releases have been from the Doubletree hotel, Citgo gas station and the two Pentagon parking lot security cameras.

I don't know what's on those types, but could a possible reason be that people who have done actual research on the matter have seen those tapes, and have determined that they don't contain anything of interest, and so never bothered to go through the major red tape that would get them released?

FOIA responses from the FBI have stated that most of the videos do not show the Pentagon and/or impact and/or were pointing in the wrong direction. The reason provided for not releasing all of the video tapes is that this “could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.” The Zacarias Moussaoui trial ended in May 2006 and there are no other ongoing cases so I don’t know what possible cause there could be for them still being withheld.

Apparently there are a number of security cameras around the rooftop of the Pentagon: -

I would like to know what they captured.

The available evidence indicates that a large airliner impacted the building.

What are they worried that the video footage will reveal?

I keep saying there is no evidence that the plane was Flight 77.

[frenat]

Why not release the 'other' CCTV videos from the hotel down the road, or the gas station opposite?

They did, as Q24 also mentions.

[illuminol]

I think you identified an important point there – the section of the Pentagon which was impacted had recently been upgraded with steel reinforced concrete specifically to withstand bomb blasts. I don’t think it notable that only small pieces of the aircraft were recovered after high speed impact with such a structure. See this video for an example of what can happen: -

I think results of the impact were more than equivalent to a simple ‘fender bender’ but the The Pentagon Building Performance Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) documents actual damage so we can make up our own minds.

There is an awful lot more evidence that an airliner did impact the building if you want to hear it. Now if you want to talk about the identity of that aircraft, that’s a different matter…

Good post! Great vid = I'd not thought of that before.

[SolarPlexus]

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt a government agency seize the surveillance videos of the cameras which are recording 24/7 in front of the pentagon?? If that is true, then they are obviously trying to hide something ...

Edited March 14, 2010 by SolarPlexus

[illuminol]

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt a government agency seize the surveillance videos of the cameras which are recording 24/7 in front of the pentagon?? If that is true, then they are obviously trying to hide something ...

Well did they? Because if that's so, it would mean exactly that.

Interesting article about the trial of Mr Mohammed and his alleged conspirators.trial security risk ? You would think New York would be inpenetrable by now?? or is it that they fear rioting and local protests and demand for a fresh inquiry? This is the mainstream media, so one has to read between the lines.

[Scott G]

They certainly have (more than one person) – there’s been quite a battle over it actually. The FBI have admitted that they have 85 videotapes in their possession, all of which have been requested through FOIA requests. To date the only releases have been from the Doubletree hotel, Citgo gas station and the two Pentagon parking lot security cameras.

FOIA responses from the FBI have stated that most of the videos do not show the Pentagon and/or impact and/or were pointing in the wrong direction. The reason provided for not releasing all of the video tapes is that this “could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.” The Zacarias Moussaoui trial ended in May 2006 and there are no other ongoing cases so I don’t know what possible cause there could be for them still being withheld.

Apparently there are a number of security cameras around the rooftop of the Pentagon: -

I would like to know what they captured.

In that, I agree with you wholeheartedly :-p. Anyone care to guess why they haven't revealed these videos to the public, or even mentioned them, for that matter?

Edited March 17, 2010 by Scott G

[aquatus1]

I'm still waiting to hear who applied for their release. Everyone seems convinced someone did, but no one seems to know who.