US to release "9/11 Pentagon tape'

[bigfootedfred]

right i posted this before, but the website went insane...and i dont know what happened.
Anyway.

The US defence department is to release a video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, legal rights group Judicial Watch has said.

The US will release the previously unseen footage at 1300 (1700 GMT).
American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the US military headquarters,
killing 184 people, after it was hijacked as part of an al-Qaeda plot.

The release of the video, taken from a Pentagon security camera, comes after a freedom of information act request.
Judicial Watch said it would release the footage as soon as it could, but it was not clear when that would be.
The group filed the 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.
Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit this February, arguing that there was "no legal basis" for the refusal.

source

So what do we think?
Will this lay to rest the 'did a plane hit the pentagon' argument?

[removeduser_487563287433]

There is bound to be criticism. Just depends on the worthiness of it.

[Garbarsardar]

It was released:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4987716.stm
Ypu can se it following the video link. It clearly depicts an airplane.

[Gwendylyn]

w00t. More footage for 'truth' organizations to make more 9/11 conspiracy videos!

Which is all this will do... because anyone who thought it wasn't a plane is certainly not going to accept footage released so much later after the CIA had plenty of time to doctor it.

[HunterKYA]

Don't know about you guys, but I didn't see a huge lumbering plane crash into the building. Only thing I saw was a pristine Virginia morning rocked by an explosion, no plane to be seen anywhere. What looks to be a "plane" is too ****** to be distinguishable by the human eye with such poor video quality, looks more like a cruise missile than anything.

[danzig]

For conspiracy nutjobs it wont mean a damn thing, they will find 1001 nonsense reasons on why its wrong the first one being ah ha its taken the CIA this long to create the video of the fake CGI airplane hitting the building...guess they should have hired Peter Jackson.

[Carach]

hmm ive been to the pentagon but i cant remember the surrounding area very well but..a largish plane like that supposedly hitting the pentagon would of had to of been flying at that low level for some time (would of taken ages to do that and pretty damn hard to manually do) and i dont think it could of done..and the police car or whatever that came thru like half a second before? it didnt hear a lumbering jet aircraft flying at extremely low level behind him?

and it does look pretty small to be a big passenger jet..although it could just be the very front that we see.

[Sétanta]

Was there ever "evidence" disproving a plane hitting the Pentagon?

I saw this too.

[Shazbot]

Was there ever "evidence" disproving a plane hitting the Pentagon?

I saw this too.

There wasn't any evidence against it, but there was a lack thereof of any evidence period. Apparently there was no wreckage or anything in the Pentagon...

Personally, I'm not sure if I can trust this. I mean I'm fairly sure that it is not doctored, but I would not be suprised if it was.

[Spiff]

This has been seen before im sure, its not really a new tape. From what i've seen, theres a white blob. Not a visible plane. Not that i would think it wasnt a plane - lets face it the plane that's supposed to have hit the pentagon must have gone somewhere, and then theres the phonecalls from people on the plane too..

[Gaius Baltar]

There wasn't any evidence against it, but there was a lack thereof of any evidence period. Apparently there was no wreckage or anything in the Pentagon...

Personally, I'm not sure if I can trust this. I mean I'm fairly sure that it is not doctored, but I would not be suprised if it was.

No plane wreckage at the Pentagon crash site??? Can you support that statement?

[Bwaho]

but you should know that all conspiracy nutcases will claim this is a fake tape...

[Hub'ite]

Hopefully this will shut up the conspiracy theorists.

[Lunar4]

Ive seen this video long before this was ever "released". Its not new at all.

[LSJ]

That video proves that what hit the Pentagon was a small high speed travel jet or a white cruise missile (which often have wings and are in the shape of small jets for long distance travel).

It obviously wasn't the type of plane they claim it is. The damage to the building could have been done by something of the craft size from the video, but not something like a 757. I don't know what hit it, but they should at least tell us something more believable than a 757 making only a 16 foot hole with no damage or burns marks where the wings and engines should have hit.
If it was a small jet, they should just say that it was. I could believe them.
The high altitiude phonecalls could be explained if it was a travel jet - they have the ability to contact sattellites and such. A big jet doesn't unless it has the module installed, which the "crashed" one didn't.

Unlike what the news reports say, the tape won't put down the other conspiracy theories.
If only the FBI and independant groups were putting out the information, it would be easier to believe for more people. Many people in Canada just don't trust the CIA.


*Also, I hate being called a nutjob for holding a controversial idea. Both ideas are controversial and have proof. I think that the people who believe that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon are almost nutjobs, but thats just my opinion and me being a bit hypocritical. :original:

[Gaidin]

I don't know what hit it, but they should at least tell us something more believable than a 757 making only a 16 foot hole with no damage or burns marks where the wings and engines should have hit.]

Noting that the plane struck the building from the picture's left(at an angle), you see a large black smear where the first engine collides directly. Afterwards, the plane decelerates in an extremely quick fashion and the next engine collides, forming the smaller smear to the right. Given the nature of plane construction and how light they must be, it is not unbelievable that when the wing structure collides with the pentagon, they would break and fold in on the main chasis itself. And unless those windows are no more than two to three feet wide, that hole was much larger than 16 feet. Dimensional Analysis ftw.

As for large debris itself. Well, given the light material it is made of, it is again, not surprising, that some crashes turn out more like this:

[Hanno the Navigator]

Noting that the plane struck the building from the picture's left(at an angle), you see a large black smear where the first engine collides directly. Afterwards, the plane decelerates in an extremely quick fashion and the next engine collides, forming the smaller smear to the right. Given the nature of plane construction and how light they must be, it is not unbelievable that when the wing structure collides with the pentagon, they would break and fold in on the main chasis itself. And unless those windows are no more than two to three feet wide, that hole was much larger than 16 feet. Dimensional Analysis ftw.

Good point, there's no point in arguing what a few pixels on an ancient video - freezeframes were released in '01 or '02 already and the quality is far too bad to make out anything, it's pure speculation - which snaps an image like what, every 2 seconds or so, might mean.

The hole is exactly the right size for the fuselage of a mid-sized passenger jet - the only major thing that could actually penetrate a reinforced concrete structure. There is a smaller more superficial impact hole where the left engine of a twin-engined passenger jet would have been. According to some reports, there is no such hole on the right side but a heavy generator that was standing in fromt of the building in the right position (at the edge of the concrete lot visible in the picture) was much dented and thrown over. The extent of the smudge marks is the right length for wings of passenger aircraft.

If I were judge, I would not have accepted the video as evidence. The quality is abysmal. Trying to see a jet or whatever is like reading the future out of coffee grounds.

The only thing of any worth that can be made out is a dark fireball rising vertically, but at an angle, in front of the building. This is somewhat meaningful. Basically, there are three popular alternatives:
- a mid-sized passenger jet
- a small one- or two-engine commuter plane, prop or light jet, or a RPV (drone)
- a cruise missile or similar military-style explosive.

The fireball is wrong for #3. Hitting even the Pentagon with an hi-ex warhead would result in a smaller explosion of a lighter color (containing more dust and debris) that does not so much "spill over" the roof in a continuation of the impacting body's path of movement, but blows upward and possibly outward (through windows) from the building. Using a AP penetrator, most of the explosion would occur well in front of the impact point even in a reinforced structure like this.

The fireball's size and persistiveness is wrong for theory #2.

The debris at the site is not in agreement with anything other than a medium-sized passenger jet, probably from AA.


The wrong date, btw, speaks against a conspiracy. These things (wrong settings) happen in real life, I recently had to restore the correct dates on a whole bunch of photos I made with my digicam since when the power cell ran out the thing reset itself for some reason. Had the entire thing been fabricated, one would expect a) a clearly discernible aircraft and b) the correct date. No use in creating footage to mask a conspiracy and then make it so conspicuous.

[Gwendylyn]

I think that the people who believe that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon are almost nutjobs, but thats just my opinion and me being a bit hypocritical. :original:

Tell that to the families of these people.

[Garbarsardar]

I agree, the term nutjob is banished from this thread, it will be considered a troll from now on, etc

Please use the alternatives:

Theorists
Supporters
Propagators

or if you are keen on internet clinical diagnosis (not advisable) use at least more up to date scientific concepts:
http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_m...ete_tables.htm

In that case I also expect a fully validated diagnosis. If not, it's a troll again...
:original:

[orange slice]

hmm... that's the Pentagon for sure, but i didn't see a plane fly into it... maybe it was going to fast no one could see it even if you slow it down to one frame.