New 9/11 Pentagon Footage

[ollie]

Anyone have a link to the video? Here's the story:

Pentagon releases new 9/11 video

U.S. military officials released never-before seen videotape Tuesday of American Airlines Flight 77 slamming into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

The footage, taken by a security camera, shows the plane flying into a five-storey section of the building.

I'm guessing the conspiracy types will argue that it took the Pentagon this long to doctor the tape.

[bouche]

i tried to get it at 1 pm when it was released, but the page was dead. It had got hit by the DIGG effect!

[bouche]

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Department of Defense released a videotape to Judicial Watch at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon that shows American Airlines Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The Department of Defense released the videotape in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request and related lawsuit.

"This is in response to your December 14, 2004 Freedom of Information Act Request, FOIA appeal of March 27, 2005, and complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia," wrote William Kammer, Chief of the Department of Defense, Office of Freedom of Information. "Now that the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is over, we are able to complete your request and provide the video."

Judicial Watch originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to September 11, 2001 camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Department of Defense admitted in a January 26, 2005 letter that it possessed a videotape responsive to Judicial Watch's request. However, the Pentagon refused to release the videotape because it was, "part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui." Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on February 22, 2006 arguing that there was "no legal basis" for the Defense Department's refusal to release the tape.

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

"Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77. As always, our prayers remain with all those who suffered as a result of those murderous attacks."

A copy of the video is available on Judicial Watch's Internet site, www.judicialwatch.org.

Judicial Watch a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life.

[kookycanooky]

that is brutal to watch

thanks for posting

[Velvet]

The stills from the clip have been released previously.

Now, when I pause it at 24 seconds I can see the white tube coming towards the building. The conspiracy is that a missile hit the building and not a plane. Does this video prove to anyone that it was a plane and not a missile?

Consider that a 757 is almost as tall as the Pentagon.

[Freeker]

How can anyone claim that is a plane?

[jonyak]

the first thing that got me was how fast it was moveing. and I see no plane in that video.

[DevO]

Please have a look at this documentary video:

911 Loose Change

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

[bouche]

you can't see shit in that. If that was put in front of me without any prior knowledge I would have to guess a missle due to that one frame of - as velvet called it - a white tube showing itself.

Mind you, the frame rate of the video didn't capture anything of value, and you can't assume that the plane was coming in head first. You could be seeing an odd angle of a wing as a plane is coming in sideways for instance.

Still, whatever it was either vaporized or went into the structure.

[scottieking]

As a historian, I am both fascinated and wary of conspiracy theories. I've seen Loose Change and would love to see some counterpoint. It seems too strange.

BUT

I am convinced that whatever hit the side of the Pentagon that day was not a 757.

This new video does nothing to make me believe otherwise.

And even more ridiculous is the spin that news agencies were putting on this saying "Finally, a better shot". Of what. The low flying, too small to be anything but a missile explosion.

Curiouser and curiouser....

[bouche]

[bouche]

Here's my theory....outsidda the box.

They shot down a plane that was going for the pentagon, and after sending of a couple of missles that missed, the plane was shot down. Then one of the stray missles hit the Pentagon.

[color:#FFFFFF]

If they came out with that at the time, then the Admin and Dept of Defence would have looked terrible. But now the controversy has come to a point where people just want to know the truth so naturally, if they come out with that scenario the masses won't react so harshly.

Davinci was here.

[jay sanislo]

im no expert, but that definetly doesnt look like a plane.

[Freeker]

so what happened to the plane they shot down?

[payce-ley]

yeah!

keep seeing it on the news with announcers saying the Pentagon released the footage which disproves all the missile conspiracies etc

regardless of conspiracies, what plane?

building go boom is all I see

if I was still concerned about what hit the pentagon I would probably say that Disney could've put a little more effort into that clip, considering the amount of time they've had to work on it... to be honest I think at this point, people feel more caught off guard if they realize the White House actually is telling the truth about something

[mattm]

Pics from that video have actually been out for quite some time and one guy brought up a very good point which I will explain. I told my buddy about this (aerospace engineer so he knows planes) and he asked a prof of his and got the same answer as the conspiracy person said.

Here it is:

Now, take a look at the parts that I circled. You'll notice that in the top pic you can see the grass where the arrow points. In the second pic there is a white line.

Here's the conspiracy. An ariplane will have a white trail follow it but not at such a low altitude. The white line comes from it being very cold way up in the sky, not sure on the exact science here but you can look it up. The verdict is that a plane flying that low with engines like those in a 700 series plane (and similar craft) will not have a white trail of smoke after them. Go to an airport and you can physically observe it yourself.

Now, the speed at which a missle (or on of the no-pilot drones) as well as the size of the engines, etc, etc, will have a trailing line of smoke at that altitude.

Sorry I can't provide the actual science behind it and the pictures are screenshots from the video which is fairly poor quality. The pics I saw a while ago were much clearer.

Oh, found a better one and it also brings up another point.

In this pic, take a look at the right hand side. You can see that to the right of the box thing there is a trail of white smoke. This is the same pic as above but better quality (it's the one I originally saw). Now, not only will the giant plane NOT have a white trail of smoke, it also seems to have hidden behind that box thing. That must be one hell of a well camouflaged plane to disapear in such a small area.

Take a look here:

No smoke trail so it must have come from whatever hit.

hmmmmmmmmmm

It was actually this little piece of info that really started me thinking about what happened. I figured something was fishy but just look at the pictures, where's the damn plane? And to lie means to be guilty in this case since there's no reason that if a missle was used they would have just said that. The PR impact of an aeroplane is much more dramatic, though.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Guest

[M.O.B.E]

if you watch the video, the plane strikes at 1:27 there is a gap in the tape thst doesnt appear in the time the video runs. Ive watched it over and over and the tape has been cut. 3 times if my timing serves me...watch the time between the plane hitting the explosion and the fire...there is an initial explosion before the "plane" even comes into view.

[Deeps]

So they release this piece of garbage that in even the most staunch republicans eyes can't point to that being a plane, and no one is reporting that it may be bullshit?

I am dumbfounded by how complacent North American society and media has become. This is pretty insane no?

Deeps

[mattm]

One more funny thing about the video and the pics. Take a look at the shadows. The shadow from the Pentagon is at a different angle than the ones from the little boxes and pylons. This could mean that the bottom and right parts of the pic are different than the pentagon part.

It's the smoke trail that takes it. That just doesn't happen. Also look at the angle of the smoke in the pic. It's horizontal and VERY close to the ground. Doesn't mean much but that close to the ground would have been VERY noticable and would have taken out many trees and light posts on the way in (which, from what I read that isn't government originated, didn't seem to happen).

EDIT: Deeps, it's Graz I was reffering too. He knows all sorts about this whole thing from structural weirdness in the towers to the planes, etc, etc, so if you're real curious, mention it to him next time, it's pretty neat from an engineer's standpoint.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Guest