911 Pentagon Video Footage

[mrbusdriver]

OK, so what of Kukzinski'a claims of having direct orders to shoot down an airliner. Does this sound accurate to you, being as he's not controlling any fighters, and is not coordinating/communicating with NORAD or any Region?

"I had direct orders to shoot down an airliner" doesn't make any sense, coming from an E-3 flight deck. And the "alongside" phrase just isn't pilot talk for fighters maybe 100 or so miles away. I wish there was something from the MCC/BC on board that morning, that would be worth reading. I have no doubts about the AWACS/fighter package being put together...the prefect idea. I just question this off statement by the E-3 pilot (which wasn't part of any testimony, was it? Just comments to some little University newspaper...

[Babe Ruth]

Well gosh Mr. Bus Driver, I wonder why General McChrystal reported to Mary Tillman that "your son was killed by hostile fire?"

Are you suggesting that men in uniform always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth???

[Babe Ruth]

Yes Bee, Magic it is! An essential ingredient in the events of the day.

[skyeagle409]

Well gosh Mr. Bus Driver, I wonder why General McChrystal reported to Mary Tillman that "your son was killed by hostile fire?" Are you suggesting that men in uniform always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth???

If you want to bring truth into mix, why are you using websites as references that are notorious for lying, disinformation, and misinformation?

Edited August 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

Well gosh Mr. Bus Driver, I wonder why General McChrystal reported to Mary Tillman that "your son was killed by hostile fire?"

Are you suggesting that men in uniform always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth???

Another ignorant blanket statement.

Must be easy to run away to the whole "well people in uniform have lied before therefore you cannot trust EVERYTHING they say".

Take each individual's statement as an account to each individual. Don;t just resort to saying, well if it doesn;t agree with my theory, that person is obviously lying.

[Space Commander Travis]

Another ignorant blanket statement.

Must be easy to run away to the whole "well people in uniform have lied before therefore you cannot trust EVERYTHING they say".

Take each individual's statement as an account to each individual. Don;t just resort to saying, well if it doesn;t agree with my theory, that person is obviously lying.

Again, I think there's a difference between trusting or not trusting everything that they say and not trusting anything that they say. People always take it to extremes. Like with politicians, just because they may tell "damn lies" (for whatever reason, sometimes it may be necessary not to tell the absolute truth for good military or political reasons) sometimes, needn't mean that they tell Damn lies all the time.

[RaptorBites]

Again, I think there's a difference between trusting or not trusting everything that they say and not trusting anything that they say. People always take it to extremes. Like with politicians, just because they may tell "damn lies" (for whatever reason, sometimes it may be necessary not to tell the absolute truth for good military or political reasons) sometimes, needn't mean that they tell Damn lies all the time.

Unfortunately, that is the position BR has placed himself into.

The government lies often, so any testimony they give about 9/11 is obviously false, regardless if evidence backs it up because that evidence was planted to support their lies.

You see? The easy way out of any disagreements is to claim the "lair liar pants on fire" argument.

Edited August 21, 2012 by RaptorBites

[booNyzarC]

the conclusion of the 911 commission report was "911 was a failure of imagination".

did they fail to imagine that transforming event as the 911 commission report stated (headed by Philip Zelikow)

hmm, well let's go back to 1999 two years before 911 and see what that same philip zelikow wrote along with the head of the CIA and others as published by "Foreign Affairs" on the Council on Foreign Relations website.

"Imagining the Transforming Event"

http://www.hks.harva...nsforming Event

you'll see that they did imagine the event, it even "imagines" the destruction of the world trade centre and how the aftermath would affect society and government.

a bit curious don't you think.

seems more of a blueprint than a warning to me.

how will those that claim "government incompetence" reconcile the above god-like genius imaginings with their claims of "incompetence". will they shape their facts from their beliefs? or will they shape their beliefs from the facts?

Hi LittleFish.

Would you be so kind as to point out specifically where in your link it details any kind of blueprint for the 9/11 attacks?

I read the entire thing and didn't see what you seem to be referring to. It seemed more focussed on a general terrorist threat using WMD to me. It also seemed like it was recommending that this kind of threat is potentially emminent and that we should make changes before it happens if at all possible in order to prevent it from happening.

Please also point out where and how it imagines the desctruction of the WTC?

Thanks

[booNyzarC]

No, actually you can't. You are only seeing what you want to see, or what you have been told you can see, not what is actually there.

It is physically impossible for the point of impact to be seen in that video.

"A" indactes the location of the Doubletree Inn, approx

Blue Arrow indicates approximate flightpath of Flt. 77

Black Lines indicate approximate boundaries of the field of view (light yellow area) of the Doubletree security camera.

The Doubletree is located at 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. which is about 1/2 mile southeast of the Pentagon, and south of Highway 395. Look it up on Google Maps.

Highway 395 passes over S. Fern St., S. Eads St. and the Jefferson Davis Highway, all in proximity to the Doubletree.

Go the the Street View of the intersection of Army Navy Drive and S. Eads Street and face North. You'll see the overpass and by comparing it to the known or knowable heights of the vehicles there, you can estimate the height of the overpass at roughly 30 feet.

Street View of the intersection of Army Navy Drive and S. Eads Street, facing north.

Blue Line indicates the location of the S. Eads street underpass.

Yellow Line indicates the position of the "Hwy 395 North - Washington" sign

Red Line indicates the position of the overhead street signs on the Hwy. 395 overpass

Look at the video footage. You'll notice that the camera is roughly 10 feet off the ground (the camera also has a wide-angle lens which distorts the image, but we can ignore that for now).

Screen Cap of the Doubletree Security Camera extended video paused approximately 1 second before the fireball of the impact explosion becomes visible.

Blue Line indicates the location of the S. Eads street underpass.

Yellow Line indicates the position of the "Hwy 395 North - Washington" sign

Red Line indicates the position of the overhead street signs on the Hwy. 395 overpass

The Pentagon is less than 80 feet high, so the absolute very most you might be able to see would be just the very top of the roof of the building if the video were of sufficient quality (which it isn't).

The approach flightpath of Flt. 77 would similarly be hidden by the overpass

Given that we know that the aircraft (or whatever you personally believe it was that hit the Pentagon) hit the building around the second floor, there is no way whatsoever that the impact point is visible in that video, unless you are going to contend that the Doubletree's camera was able to see through a highway overpass and through the Pentagon itself since the impact point is on the other side of the building in relation to the Doubletree Inn.

But you don't have to believe me. You can do the work and prove it to yourself... I highly recommend you prove it to yourself, actually, since it is the only way that you can be sure.

If I'm wrong, show me how. Do the work. Look up the locations I've given you and that are freely available.

Don't hate just because you haven't done the work yourself...

ETA...

This also shows why the "Flyover Theory" is not possible, since an aircraft flying over the Pentagon would almost certainly have been seen in this video.

I guess some thanks should go to lliqerty for bringing this video to our attention again so that we could use it as proof against yet another conspiracy theory...

Cz

That's exactly what I'm saying. Even being generous, at the very most you'd maybe see just the top few feet of the roof of the Pentagon, if the video was of high enough quality to allow you to see that distinction between the roof and the overpass.

Yes, the plane did pass over that cloverleaf (I don't know the name of the exchange) and it is also on the other side of the Hwy. 395 overpass, and just at the edge of the approximate field of view of the Doubletree camera. That Hwy. 395 overpass is also higher than the cloverleaf and Hwy. 27, which can be seen again by using Street View.

Flt. 77 was flying at about 750 feet per second so it would only have been "in frame" for about 1.5 to 2 seconds maximum.

Flt.77 would have had to have been at or near 20 feet in altitude (maybe even a little less) when it would have entered the theoretical frame (if the camera could have seen it) which would make the highest point of the aircraft - the tail - only about 65 feet high at that moment, which is lower than the overall height of the Pentagon itself.

This is also about the altitude the aircraft would have had to have been to account for it having hit and damaged / destroyed the light poles along Hwy. 27, immediately to the west of the Pentagon, which would also be just on the "edge of frame" of the Doubletree camera.

I haven't done the math to figure out the angles, but my guess is that the aircraft would have had to have been at over 100 feet in altitude to have had any chance of being seen over the overpass in this video.

Cz

EDITED a bit for clarity...

Brilliant.

So what you are saying is that the Pentagon is not visible in the footage at all?

How low must the plane have been flying to be blocked by the overpass and for how long? It appears that the plane would have had to pass over a spaghetti junction of some kind as well.

I'm curious Professor, did you respond to Cz's diligent and very clearly layed out post and I just missed it?

Would you agree with what he has provided here or do you still maintain your originally expressed opinion on the matter?

[Professor Buzzkill]

Brilliant.

I'm curious Professor, did you respond to Cz's diligent and very clearly layed out post and I just missed it?

Would you agree with what he has provided here or do you still maintain your originally expressed opinion on the matter?

I am willing to admit that i may be wrong about the "point of impact" comments, but i stand by my comment that;

1. You can see the pentagon

2. you can see the explosion

3. you cannot see any airplane

This means that the aircraft must have flown at an altitude of (approx) 100-150 feet off the ground, whilst flying over the "spaghetti" junction, which itself must be at least 30-40 feet of the ground. I find it unlikely that there isn't any footage of a commercial airliner flying low over the most powerful and well defended city in the world. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Just think of all the UFO claims here that are rubbished because people didn't catch it on camera. I am keeping with the attitude of "pics or it didn't happen"

[booNyzarC]

I am willing to admit that i may be wrong about the "point of impact" comments, but i stand by my comment that;

1. You can see the pentagon

2. you can see the explosion

3. you cannot see any airplane

This means that the aircraft must have flown at an altitude of (approx) 100-150 feet off the ground, whilst flying over the "spaghetti" junction, which itself must be at least 30-40 feet of the ground. I find it unlikely that there isn't any footage of a commercial airliner flying low over the most powerful and well defended city in the world. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Just think of all the UFO claims here that are rubbished because people didn't catch it on camera. I am keeping with the attitude of "pics or it didn't happen"

So you can see the Pentagon in this image?

Can you save this image and then use MS Paint or some other image editing software to hi-light the Pentagon for me?

[Professor Buzzkill]

So you can see the Pentagon in this image?

Can you save this image and then use MS Paint or some other image editing software to hi-light the Pentagon for me?

Could you do the same and point out the commercial airplane?

[booNyzarC]

Could you do the same and point out the commercial airplane?

I haven't claimed that you can see a commercial airplane in the footage.

[Professor Buzzkill]

The easiest way to see the pentagon in the video is wait for the explosion. The first sign of an explosion is that there is a lateral "flash" before the fireball rises. This was when i thought i could identify the pentagon. If you can show that this is not the case I am open to being corrected.

Do you think its perfectly acceptable that there is no footage of an airliner crashing into the most heavily guarded building (outside of a warzone)? If so, why?

[booNyzarC]

The easiest way to see the pentagon in the video is wait for the explosion. The first sign of an explosion is that there is a lateral "flash" before the fireball rises. This was when i thought i could identify the pentagon. If you can show that this is not the case I am open to being corrected.

You need not do it right away (or at all really, your choice), but if you could take a snap shot of the point you are referring to and hi-light the Pentagon in some way i would appreciate it.

Do you think its perfectly acceptable that there is no footage of an airliner crashing into the most heavily guarded building (outside of a warzone)? If so, why?

But we do have footage from the security cameras by the Pentagon. It isn't great footage, but it does show the plane and the explosion.

[Professor Buzzkill]

But we do have footage from the security cameras by the Pentagon. It isn't great footage, but it does show the plane and the explosion.

Do you not find it somewhat implausible that we only have one frame of video footage of this incident?

I am at work atm (for the next 6 hours), i might be able to highlight the footage on Paint when i get home.

[booNyzarC]

Do you not find it somewhat implausible that we only have one frame of video footage of this incident?

I don't find it implausible at all actually. I do wish that we had better footage, but at the same time I'm not surprised that we don't.

I am at work atm (for the next 6 hours), i might be able to highlight the footage on Paint when i get home.

No problem, I'm in a similar position myself.

[bee]

I don't find it implausible at all actually. I do wish that we had better footage, but at the same time I'm not surprised that we don't.

hi booN.......I'm not surprised that we don't either.....I think the reason we don't is because any proper footage would show that no plane hit.

but from your perspective...why do you think they won't show the footage?

just ONE proper image (or footage) of a plane hitting the building could put the whole Pentagon thing to rest.

so there must be a good reason that this isn't provided. Probably because images of a plane hitting don't exist.

why else would the government put it's most loyal supporters....the ones who back up the Official Account, in such an awkward

position? If they have it but are witholding it...this would be too cruel....

and there seems to be a problem with the embaracingly rubbish CCTV frames that we do have....

(you might want to turn down the sound.... ..)

[media=]

[/media]

[booNyzarC]

hi booN.......I'm not surprised that we don't either.....I think the reason we don't is because any proper footage would show that no plane hit.

but from your perspective...why do you think they won't show the footage?

I think they've shown us all of the footage they have. I don't have any reason to believe that they are hiding any footage at all, and I don't think there is any legitimate reason to do so at this point.

just ONE proper image (or footage) of a plane hitting the building could put the whole Pentagon thing to rest.

so there must be a good reason that this isn't provided. Probably because images of a plane hitting don't exist.

why else would the government put it's most loyal supporters....the ones who back up the Official Account, in such an awkward

position? If they have it but are witholding it...this would be too cruel....

If they really wanted to be deceptive and support the official account, they could have easily fabricated footage or stills which were more definitive than what we have from the security cameras.

The overwhelming eye witness testimony in support of the official account, along with what footage we have, the FDR, the radar, the DNA results, the pieces of the plane in the wreckage, etc... seems to me to be pretty compelling evidience that the official account is the only one which stands up to scrutiny so far. It certainly is the best match with the available evidence at any rate.

and there seems to be a problem with the embaracingly rubbish CCTV frames that we do have....

(you might want to turn down the sound.... ..)

[media=]

[/media]

Glad you brought this up again. I watched it during my... erm.... vacation... and was chomping at the bit to reply, but had let it slip my mind. I'll need to get back to it though because I haven't done an adequate analysis. The short version; this clip is deceptive and does not accurately synchronize the frames where they should be.

Cheers

[bee]

I think they've shown us all of the footage they have.

purleeeeze....you see what I mean about it being cruel to put the supporters of the Official Account in this position.

where they are forced to say utterly illogical things like you just did.....

If they really wanted to be deceptive and support the official account, they could have easily fabricated footage or stills which were more definitive than what we have from the security cameras.

I don't think they could risk doing that....if found out it would be evidence of wrong doing probably resulting in prison sentences

Glad you brought this up again. I watched it during my... erm.... vacation... and was chomping at the bit to reply, but had let it slip my mind. I'll need to get back to it though because I haven't done an adequate analysis. The short version; this clip is deceptive and does not accurately synchronize the frames where they should be.

lol...when I put that video in the thread and no one took any notice of it...I actually thought..'where's booN when you need him...'

i will be interested in what you come up with......

Cheers

[RaptorBites]

Bee,

In your video, frame 19, bottom camera.

I can clearly see a white tail to the far right.

Looks familiar?

[preacherman76]

You cant clearly see a white tail on frame 19. Least I cant. Not even close.

[MID]

Yes Bee, Magic it is! An essential ingredient in the events of the day.

An essential statement; one which points directly to the mental mechanics which construct CTs.

In this case, "magic" is used as an essential ingredient in the events of the day.

I know...it's all pretty straight forward, what happened on 9-11-01, but the essential element here is that it had to be magic.

The HB fantasizes about varying scenarios, fabricates events, and all sorts of wild stuff, and calls it magic--

--because the events of the day, which many of us watched happen, are just too unbelievable, and too horrible to fathom. It can't be!

Thus, in order to cope with the facts, even after specialists and investigators have clearly (well, clearly to those of us who understand the sciences involved) described the events, they make up "theories" about what happened.

None of them have any merit or evidence to back them up , of course, but they get put out there, and get modified, and variations come forth, and people argue them ad nauseam.

It's like Obama "approving" commercial after commercial, calling Gov. Romney a murderer and telling some faction of the populus that he only paid 14% of his 2 million dollar income in taxes, which was less than folks like me.

Fantasy, in both cases (I paid 13%); somthing like CTs. Fantasy, repeated when the CT knows he's on the ropes. as Obama knows right now.

As I said previously, CT's Want To Believe, like Agent Moulder on the X-Files, and that poster behind his desk.

Mmmm Hmmm...CTs want to believe, something.

They're not much interested in knowing. But believing, as easy as it is, is preferred by them...

But I do wonder...

Is there a major CT in Japan, instituted by people who saw Hiroshima happen from several dozen miles in the distance. The fireball, the sun - like brightness and that massive, unbelievable cloud. It had to have been stunning, frighteneing, impossibly surreal...no one could've imagined power at that scale.

I wonder of they think their government perpetrated that upon their own people--that they killed a hundred thousand of their citizens for some unfathomable reason?

Of course, there is no such thing. Just musing, because that would be the same as the 9-11 nonsense we all hear in many variations.

[booNyzarC]

purleeeeze....you see what I mean about it being cruel to put the supporters of the Official Account in this position.

where they are forced to say utterly illogical things like you just did.....

What exactly is illogical about it?

lol...when I put that video in the thread and no one took any notice of it...I actually thought..'where's booN when you need him...'

i will be interested in what you come up with......

Very quick 'sketch' of what I mean. What the video maker has done is claimed to have synchronized between the two videos. Only, he did so out of synch.

Example sketch... This is what he claims is frame 6 in both videos. It isn't. The lower footage is ahead by at least two frames I'd say (would need a full analysis to be more definitive...).

Consider that the footage in the upper frame (I called it camera 1 in my pic...) was shot from one of the poles which are visible within the footage in the lower frame. Also notice that in frame 6, pictured here, the trunk of the car is fully lit in the upper frame and mostly in shadow in the lower frame.

If needed I supposed I could go into more detail, but this should at least somewhat clarify the inaccuracies that I'm talking about.

[skyeagle409]

You cant clearly see a white tail on frame 19. Least I cant. Not even close.

Check time line 0:25 here.