Pentagon video of plane crash

Hi all. Ive seen most of the videos regarding 911 as a government conspiracy, as well as their counter arguments. Unfortunately, the anti-officialversion-videos ask many logical questions, and the latter offers no real explanations.

If the government wanted to prove the "conspirasts" wrong all they would need to do would be release the FULL footage of the plane crashing. Either from the front lawn camera, in which we see the famous 5 frames....which dont show a plane....or from the video cameras that were further away that were aimed in that direction....The Department of Transportation video overlooking the highway (which was confiscated) or the one from the Sheridan (also confiscated).

Anyone trying to argue "the speed of the plane was to fast to be caught on camera" is shut out due to the fact that this other footage was taken and would easily show a huge plane crashing into it.

Appreciate any comments.

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
Hi all. Ive seen most of the videos regarding 911 as a government conspiracy, as well as their counter arguments. Unfortunately, the anti-officialversion-videos ask many logical questions, and the latter offers no real explanations.

If the government wanted to prove the "conspirasts" wrong all they would need to do would be release the FULL footage of the plane crashing. Either from the front lawn camera, in which we see the famous 5 frames....which dont show a plane....or from the video cameras that were further away that were aimed in that direction....The Department of Transportation video overlooking the highway (which was confiscated) or the one from the Sheridan (also confiscated).

Anyone trying to argue "the speed of the plane was to fast to be caught on camera" is shut out due to the fact that this other footage was taken and would easily show a huge plane crashing into it.

Appreciate any comments.

Perhaps you don't understand how these cameras work. Like most and as can be seen in the security camera, they only take a shot every second or so. They aren't running at 29.97fps like regular video. This east up too much space and the idea is to make an identification, not 500mph jets. So the chance of capturing anything usable is exteremely unlikely. Not only that but the chances of the traffic camera pointing at the pentagon. The hotel one is over 1.5 miles away and again with the gasstation one which like almost all security cams is only going to take a shot every second or so.

The frames from the security camera pretty much IS the video. The rest is before and after. I think maybe you are misunderstanding and thinking that the cameras capture realtime footage and that they just picked 5 frames out of 1000 to show. But in reality there were only 5 frames total that captured the incident. And perhaps had they installed th camera to capture incoming commercial jet liners they would have used something with real time frame rate and would have pointed it at the impact area. But unfortunately the camera is used to capture faces of motorists entering the gates and not commercial jet liners.

You are also making a great assumption that the other cmeras were on, pointed at the white house, and managed to capture the incident despite it being faster than the frame rates. They claimed there was nothing usable on the tapes, and had there been they would have been used in the trial just like the security camera was.

lastly, they have no interest in proving conspiracy theorists wrong let along acknowledging them. Most of the claims are so outragious that they simply cannot be taken seriously. Even most of the conspiracy sites won't even touch the pentagon because it's so far from reality to take seriously. The evidence is so utterly overwhelming that there is no need to show videos of nothing to people who ignore all the evidence and clearly want nothing more than for their to be a conspiracy.

There are a few of us here that believe 9/11 was an inside job, but the Pentagon was a sort of built-in defense mechanism of the whole day, revolving around the tapes, and I'll explain.

You can look at 9/11 from many different angles and see foul play, whether it be from all the intelligence warnings and no investigations, or the anomalies of the hijackers themselves (ie, a few on records as being trained at military facilities, hijackers living with FBI informants, living in extremely close proximity to intelligence offices, Atta protected from FBI by SOCOM, etc.), or what happened at the WTC, or Flight 93 or NORAD's reactions or the wargames, the FEMA exercise in Manhattan on 9/10, or any number of things that just add up to give the impression that something that day was horribly wrong, and not just because a bunch of Muslims randomly flew planes into some of our buildings.

Well, the Pentagon seems to have been particularly thrown in our faces immediately after 9/11. The earliest theory I remember reading, and I admit it did snag me, was the no-757 theory for the Pentagon. There are some interesting issues, and I wouldn't mind being shown how a 757 made the photographed hole just as well as the next person, but there are a lot of other issues when we look at the bigger picture. And I have to keep in mind -- if anyone could make a 757 do anything at all, it would be the US military.

What really got to me was the fact that the early stills that were released showed obvious signs of photoshopping. For example,



There is an obvious brightness difference between these two frames that would not have come from the camera itself, as in from the explosion. The increased brightness in the second image is uniform throughout the entire image, including the backs of objects that would otherwise have been shaded.

LaBTop, another member here, has recently posted a link to a presentation showing that many more Pentagon images were either the result of photo-ops on the site, or else digitally edited after the fact. These are trivial changes, too, like moving cars and firetrucks and all number of things this way and that all over the Pentagon site, or removing guard rails from images. It can be (and is) shown with only two or three photos that there are obvious frauds, as photos become mutually exclusive and plainly contradict one another. But the reasons why anyone would make photos so obviously flawed aren't immediately apparent.

Why would they do this? And why would they released still frames that have so obviously been tampered with? And why would they release frames that show absolutely nothing in regards to a plane, and yet parade the images as if they bring the whole matter to rest? And why was the "official story" of the Pentagon set up to be critically attacked so soon?


It seems to me that if they ever needed a quick way to insantly convert so many of us "conspiracy theorists" into diehard skeptics of any conspiratorial accusations thrown at the government, they would build to a climax within the public's interest and then whip out one or all of the confiscated videos or classified videos showing the impact.

By egging us on with frames that show jack crap while it's known that they have better vids, and showing us edited frames at that, and other photoshopped images and various photo-ops that make the official timeline of the Pentagon chronological nonsense, they're encouraging us to become skeptical of their own assertions of what happened there. Specifically, they're encouraging us to believe something other than a 757 hit that building. Or at least that's the way I feel, as does WCIP here at least, and researcher Jim Hoffman. I'm sure there are others, but I don't hang around the 757 threads very often, and more of us could certainly serve to have this idea kept in mind when dealing with 9/11 investigations. We don't want to chase the wrong issue and have it backfire in our faces, because this one aspect could end up ruining anyone's chances to settle any single one of the remaining unanswered questions regarding 9/11. And those abound whether or not you believe 9/11 was an inside job.


I would drop the whole issue, personally, and go with safer lines of inquiry, like more political ties, or the collapses of the WTC, or Flight 93's crash or any incriminating aspect that we haven't been purposefully and blatantly taunted on.

Snoopy,

I do indeed know how video cameras work as i am double majoring in film and journalism...you seem to know a bit as well ( regarding your knowledge of fps). However, COLOR cameras, especially security cameras, especially security cameras for the Pentagon, wouldn't capture anything less than 29.97 fps. As a matter of fact, my current summer job has black and white cameras and a very low tech (meaning recorded on VHS) surveilance security and they catch in real time. If you can figure out the system the pentagon has installed with sources, you might get me to believe they managed to find a color digital camera that doesn't record in real time....although i never heard of such a thing in exsistance. When it is common for most gas stations to record in real time, black in white (see an episode of americas dummest criminals), why would the pentagon say 'we'll take the model in color, and can you make it as low tech as possible.
I see your point however on the videos confiscated, but i'm pretty sure they were pointed at the pentagon otherwise why confiscate private property.