Exposed !! Hidden Video Showing What Really Hit The Pentagon !!

Myself and 2 other friends from here in Ireland visited the east coast of USA in August 2001, approx 2 weeks before 9/11. We took in New York, Philadelphia, Washington and some other places.

One of the things we made a point of visiting was the Pentagon,and (working in IT and management of my firm's building security, CCTV, etc) I remember being impressed by the amount of cameras and security around the Pentagon. Of course it was no surprise, it was widely known as one of the most secure buildings in the world. I vividly recall the 3 of us going up some steps to one section to take a photo and this security guard appeared out of nowhere to ask what we were doing, we couldn't see a door or access point nearby and none of us could figure out where he had emerged from.

I've no idea what hit the Pentagon - was it a plane like the official story, or something else - but to this day I'm utterly mystified that they have no other footage of it.

On that note, it was a very surreal experience watching it all on TV 2 weeks after returning home. We had been on the top of the WTC and there it was crumbling down, maybe with the same staff inside that we'd had conversations with. My heart went out to them all.

Yeeh, look`s like it was Douglas A-3 Skywarrior with remote control.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
The "plane" was said to have came in level from the interstate

This is actually a super important point for this entire discussion that just never occurs to truthers.

Anyone here been to DC? Been on this highway? At this time of day, there are thousands of cars on this highway, meaning thousands of witnesses.

If it was a missile, thousands of people would've seen a missile.

If you were part of this cabal planning this inside job, is that what you would do? Fly a missile over thousands of people who could speak out and disprove your "official story?"

Makes no sense.

Numerous people have pointed out that the object in both the official video and this "new" video is much too big to be a missile. I know, I know, they're just parrots of the official story.

The thing is though, you don't have to believe them. Ya'll are all about doing your own research right? So try this:

The building is in the shot. The building has known dimensions. That means you can use the building for scale. Do the comparison yourself to determine the dimensions of the object and then try to find a missile from that time that has the dimensions of the object in the videos.

There isn't one.

Now sure, they could have purpose-built one just for this mission, but why would you? It would take years of R&D and testing. It's a lot easier--and faster--to just rig an actual airliner so it could be flown remotely.

Also, I know WhatIs pissed ya'll off, but just look at the blink comparison in this link he shared. It's quite obvious the object in the frames is the airliner. Could it be doctored? Sure. But they tell you exactly how they did it, using free software. So, again, do your own research. Grab that tech and do the blink comparison yourself.

You'll get the same results.

Sadly I doubt anyone here who "does their own research" will actually do it.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: WhatItIs

after you tried to compare cell phone cameras of the time

It was a reference to what technology was available at the time, and show digital video was very expensive at that time.

You still have not answered what recording medium would mostly been used by a large CCTV system. What frame rates would have been used, and how the video would be archived.


You

with every other cctv cameras?

Show how much farther ahead major CCTV systems were of cell phone video technology at the time. I bet you would find many still relied on tape recordings.

Oh and the Pentagon didn't have CCTV capabilities to film anything,

By all means quote and link to where I posted such a thing. Sad to see you resort to false insinuating over what I actually posted.

but a gas station did? That's how I know you weren't old enough or just technologically ignorant.

What large advance CCTV system from who was installed at the Pentagon. And what recording and archiving media was used?

I've wasted enough time responding to someone who wants to be the victim.

Why? You just make up things about what was actually posted anyway?

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

If you look, there is actually testimony from a guy that worked with the Pentagon CCTV system. Why don’t you research the individuals testimony?

I think I’ll look in a bit….

Anyone have the link for the alternate upload page? The regular one from the drop down menu up there isn't working^

As I recall there's an alternate isn't there?

a reply to: face23785

here ya go,

img.abovetopsecret.com...

So here is an extreme blowup of one of the frames of the original video that "doesn't show anything."

It is quite clearly a plane. You can see the tail. If you look really closely you can even see the distinct droop-nose of a 757.

And again, if you do a size comparison using the building for scale, the object is much too big to be a missile. If you discount the original video, this size point holds for the "new" video as well.

It's like pointing at a tank and demanding people believe it's a bicycle. Even someone with extremely blurry vision could tell, just by the size, it is not the object you're claiming it is.

It's not just not a missile, it's extraordinarily obvious it's not a missile.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: WhatItIs

after you tried to compare cell phone cameras of the time with every other cctv cameras?

One. Establish a reference point “mainstream” technology the time.

Two. Now we can compare and contrast this which took one internet search and 10 seconds of reading

The Pentagon Area Surveillance Camera Videos

www.9-11tv.org...

Most of the video cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question – the impact zone.

Most cameras and recorders were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which render distant objects at very low resolution, and which cause some geometric distortion to the image.

Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.

In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras rendered low spacial resolution images of at best 480i, and more often less. 480i is what is now called SD – Standard Definition.

In 2001, most surveillance cameras recorded video at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), often in the range of 1 to 8 frames per second. By comparison, US TV is most often recorded at 30 frames/second.

The high speed of the plane, which was accelerating to over 550 mph, resulted in image blurring in the video recording, and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (low temporal resolution) of 1 frame/second).

I don’t have any opinion on what it was. I just know there were plenty of cameras that provided a better view.

originally posted by: face23785

So here is an extreme blowup of one of the frames of the original video that "doesn't show anything."

It is quite clearly a plane. You can see the tail. If you look really closely you can even see the distinct droop-nose of a 757.

And again, if you do a size comparison using the building for scale, the object is much too big to be a missile. If you discount the original video, this size point holds for the "new" video as well.

It's like pointing at a tank and demanding people believe it's a bicycle. Even someone with extremely blurry vision could tell, just by the size, it is not the object you're claiming it is.

It's not just not a missile, it's extraordinarily obvious it's not a missile.

a reply to: face23785

If it was a plane, where were the landing gear? Engines? Tail section?

That's what's always puzzled me about these claims. The first people on site said that there was no debris, and those videos never saw the light of day again.

You can't vaporize metal at a 500 mph impact speed. If it was a plane, the engines should have been partially intact, the landing gear, wheels, and tires would have most likely remained intact, and there would have been a hundred pieces of luggage, seat frames, and all kinds of other debris that would have survived the impact, but none of that was observed.

Same thing for the "plane" that came down in PA. Just a smoking crater in the ground, no engines, wings, tail, landing gear etc. The explanation was that it all plunged into, like buried itself in the ground. I don't think so.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

Oral History Interview with Brian Austin and Steve Pennington
November 9, 2006 Reviewed by Brian Austin

Pennington: Assuming we can speak freely of the system that's there. There is a centralized
digital video recording system that was installed literally weeks before this occurred. The svstem was not even government property at the time that the images were running. We
basically were turning the system on. As we were turning the system on it's a pretty elaborate system--we decided we were going to start running the system and capture data for testing purposes. Currently they are recorded at either 3.75 or 7 1/2 images a second depending on wheretheya r e and what they do. At that time they were being recorded at oneimage a second.
That's why there wasn't a lot of information and big gaps in the data. It was a miracle that it was even being recorded because we had decided only days before to actually start recording data, since the system was a new system and wasn't even government property. It was installed at the facility but it had not yet been tested and turned over. That's why the images were being
captured at a slower than normal rate.

PDF download link..
history.defense.gov...

a reply to: face23785


Have ANY of those Alleged Witnesses Ever Attested that they Saw and Identified it as an American Airlines Boeing 757 ? Take your Time on your Answer , you have a lot of Research to do there........

a reply to: nerbot

Ive read through this...and after 20 years, can we not let these people rest?

originally posted by: face23785

So here is an extreme blowup of one of the frames of the original video that "doesn't show anything."

It is quite clearly a plane. You can see the tail. If you look really closely you can even see the distinct droop-nose of a 757.

And again, if you do a size comparison using the building for scale, the object is much too big to be a missile. If you discount the original video, this size point holds for the "new" video as well.

It's like pointing at a tank and demanding people believe it's a bicycle. Even someone with extremely blurry vision could tell, just by the size, it is not the object you're claiming it is.







It's not just not a missile, it's extraordinarily obvious it's not a missile.

" It is quite clearly a plane. You can see the tail. If you look really closely you can even see the distinct droop-nose of a 757."




Nope , Not seeing that at All Considering the Non Clarity of that Still Shot . Nothing " Clear " About it .

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: nerbot

Ive read through this...and after 20 years, can we not let these people rest?

Sorry , The TRUTH Never Rests............

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: face23785


Have ANY of those Alleged Witnesses Ever Attested that they Saw and Identified it as an American Airlines Boeing 757 ? Take your Time on your Answer , you have a lot of Research to do there........

Funny you ignore the radar data and evidence that is more accurate than eyewitness accounts.

Anyway. From this thread?

Tracked by radar to the Pentagon, complemented with an in air pilot sighting.

An airplane was detected again by Dulles controllers on radar screens as it approached Washington, turning and descending rapidly. Controllers initially thought this was a military fighter, due to its high speed and maneuvering.[43] Reagan Airport controllers asked a passing Air National Guard Lockheed C-130 Hercules to identify and follow the aircraft. The pilot, Lieutenant Colonel Steven O'Brien, told them it was a Boeing 757 or 767, and that its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. He had difficulty picking out the airplane in the "East Coast haze", but then saw a "huge" fireball and assumed it had hit the ground. Approaching the Pentagon, he saw the impact site on the building's west side and reported to Reagan control, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir."[23][44]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: nerbot

Ive read through this...and after 20 years, can we not let these people rest?

Sorry , The TRUTH Never Rests............

Probably why the majority of people know groups like pilots for 9-11 truth are charlatans…. Pushing conspiracy lies for fortune and fame.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: nerbot

Looks too big for a missile.

It is also a light color.

Thing that puzzles me about the official footage is the angle. It's not heading down at any kind of angle, but instead moving very low and parallel to the ground. It's only visible for 2 frames, but both show the object an equal distance from the ground. That suggests the object had already been moving at that height, parallel to the ground for some time before it enters the CCTV frame.

What kind of superhuman piloting can take a jumbo that low and then move along parallel at that speed? More importantly, why would it take that risk of crashing before impact, when it could simply head down at an angle towards its target?

Surely a plane that large and that fast would've been heading at the building at some small angle as it came down to its target; that would be the most straight forward, obvious way to hit that target. Why and how would it swoop down to just 1 or 2 stories some distance before reaching the target and then skim the ground to impact.

That's some really counterintuitive Luke Skywalker attacking the death star tactics that seem unnecessary and perhaps even impossible for a newly trained hijacker, or pilot at gun point.

Something more likely to take that trajectory is a surface to air missile