Penttbom's Scott Bingham- New Videos From 911 Including Pentagon Footage

From Penttbom.com:

November 7, 2008
This site is a follow-up to my original site, Flight77.info. At Flight77.info I documented the legal process to obtain the mythical video(s) showing what hit the Pentagon on 9/11. In March of 2006, Flight77.info's FOIA lawsuit forced the release of the most recent Pentagon security camera footage (although in the news media, Judicial Watch took the credit for our work), and Flight77.info also forced the release of the Double Tree hotel video footage. All of this documentation is still live at Flight77.info, although I let that site expire and someone else has kindly reposted all the old documentation.

penttbom.com...

And:

On November 3rd the FBI delivered 10 DVDs in response to our requests and persistence of my excellent FOIA attorney, Scott Hodes.

Scott is uploading the videos. So far all he has is second impact footage and some collapse footage. Most I haven't seen.

It looks like there are videos from the area around the Pentagon. None however that show the impact.

posted by ThroatYogurt
It looks like there are videos from the area around the Pentagon. None however that show the impact.

What impact? Of course there are none which show the impact since there was no impact.

Mod Edit: No need for the personal attacks

[edit on 12-11-2008 by alien]

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by ThroatYogurt
It looks like there are videos from the area around the Pentagon. None however that show the impact.

What impact? Of course there are none which show the impact since there was no impact.

Silly boy.

Are you sure you aren't the silly one?

SOMETHING hit the Pentagon that day, whether it be a plane or missle who knows.

Many people driving reported seing the object fly right over them, low enough to knock down light poles. There are even pictures of the light poles knocked over.

Originally posted by Diplomat
Many people driving reported seing the object fly right over them, low enough to knock down light poles. There are even pictures of the light poles knocked over.

Rather than drag this thread off topic, you should look at the main forum page where there are currently three active threads that discuss the light poles at the Pentagon.

Take your pick...
Lloyde and his taxi...
Alleged light pole damage to taxi...
How many witnesses saw the plane hit the light poles?

This thread should be used to discuss these new videos, right?

[edit on 10-11-2008 by tezzajw]

posted by Diplomat
Many people driving reported seing the object fly right over them, low enough to knock down light poles. There are even pictures of the light poles knocked over.

Is that right? You are really up to date on this light pole data then?



Is this about where you came in?

You seem to be talking about only 1 person, this Lloyde guy, who I am guessing is the Taxi cab driver, right?

Many other people saw the white plane/missle-looking object fly over them and hit light poles because it was so low.

This thread is about the new videos released by the FBI.

Please stay on topic. There are plenty of flyover theory threads to spam over there.

Thank you.

Agreed.

Let's try to keep the focus here, Folks.

Penttbom's Scott Bingham- New Videos From 911 Including Pentagon Footage

Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Nothing new about these videos. Been around for years.

Most of them are in such poor quality or and or spliced that they are useless for use as evidence for anything.

reply to post by IvanZana


Actually Ivan they are new. If you bothered to go to the site, you would know this. There will be several more added as Scott Bingham stated. 10 DVD's were released from the FBI that have not been released.

the purpose of these videos is to convince people that the 85 videos confiscated at and around the pentagon weren't actually 85 videos of the pentagon.

the government is releasing disinfo garbage.

there is no explanation why fbi agents in arlington were confiscating impacts of the south tower or footage of the towers. they weren't.

Many other people saw the white plane/missle-looking object fly over them and hit light poles because it was so low.

no one saw it. thats where there isn't any witnesses to it.

If you're going to make a thread about new videos being released...

Why don't you wait until the videos are actually released?

Now people have to speculate/guess/make crap up about what may or may not be in the videos. if there actually are new ones.

Still no new pentagon impact clips. Thanks for nothing except making the rest of us look like idiots ready to jump on the nearest mention of 'unseen' evidence.

reply to post by alaskan


If you bothered to read the OP you would know that there were NOT any impact videos.

Unfortunately, this release of 10 DVD's do not have any Pentagon videos at all. They all focus on the WTC impacts and collapses.

My understand was that there would be:

We requested 64 of the 85 videos. And now, 3 years after learning of their existence within page 5 of the Maguire statement - finally the first interim release of these videos is at hand. On November 3rd the FBI delivered 10 DVDs in response to our requests and persistence of my excellent FOIA attorney, Scott Hodes.

posted by ThroatYogurt
It looks like there are videos from the area around the Pentagon. None however that show the impact.

posted by SPreston
What impact? Of course there are none which show the impact since there was no impact.

Silly boy.

posted by Domenick DiMaggio
the purpose of these videos is to convince people that the 85 videos confiscated at and around the pentagon weren't actually 85 videos of the pentagon.

the government is releasing disinfo garbage.

there is no explanation why fbi agents in arlington were confiscating impacts of the south tower or footage of the towers. they weren't.

Of course it is just disinformation passed on to a gullible American public desperate to see any evidence which shows that 9-11 was NOT an INSIDE JOB Attack on America; passed on by disinformation specialists through their most cooperative disinfo agents on the forums. Sorry folks but no such evidence exists. They will have to manufacture it. If the multiple security videos from the roofs of the Pentagon and Naval Annex were added to the mix, there would be far more than just 85 videos showing what was going on in the background at the Pentagon.

WTC videos have absolutely nothing to do with the confiscated videos at the Pentagon, which the FBI was poised on site and ready to grab along with photos and cameras, long before the explosions went off at the Pentagon wall.

Who do you people think you are fooling? Here are some 'leaked' parking lot videos from before and this is called manufacturing evidence.

PENTAGON SECURITY CAMERA FAKERY
how can cam 1 with it's limited horizontal perspective and cam 2 with its wider horizontal perspective have videos that have matching perspectives on the background, fire , smoke, and roof line? Let alone (the cams) be x amount of distance away from each other?
(you might want to turn down the sound)

PENTASCAM - 911



PENTASCAM 2.0



Pentagon Parking Lot Securty Camera One (car is synched about 1:04)



Pentagon Parking Lot Securty Camera Two

Originally posted by SPreston
Who do you people think you are fooling? Here are some 'leaked' parking lot videos from before and this is called manufacturing evidence.

PENTAGON SECURITY CAMERA FAKERY
how can cam 1 with it's limited horizontal perspective and cam 2 with its wider horizontal perspective have videos that have matching perspectives on the background, fire , smoke, and roof line? Let alone (the cams) be x amount of distance away from each other?
(you might want to turn down the sound)

PENTASCAM - 911

SPreston,

A Video expert has already debunked this:

I don't quite get what the video is trying prove. It doesn't attempt to establish the distance between the two cameras; from using Google Earth, that seems to be about 20 feet. The distance to the car for video A was about 5 feet, the distance to the car for video B was about 25 feet. That involves a difference between the two of about 80%. But the distance to the impact site respectively was about 644 and 665 feet -- involving a difference of only 3.2%. And the "background object" used as a reference point in the video (the penthouse of the Potomac at River House) was respectively 4,290 and 4,310 feet -- involving a difference of only 0.5%. So why should one be surprised to find almost no perceptible difference between the placement of the "background object" in the two videos, a small amount in the case of the fireball/smoke plume, and a huge amount in the case of the car just a few feet away from the camera in video A?

Try taking a picture that the object is 500 feet away. Take 20 steps forward..take the picture again. Oh...don't forget to add a fish-eye lens on it. Show me the differences.

[edit on 11/11/0808 by ThroatYogurt]

Why would this person/people release videos 7 years later? I find that highly suspicious.

I have seen some of these videos through the Camera Planet Archive.

You can purchase some of the videos and better ones here. www.cameraplanet.com...

Camera Planet right after 911 allowed anyone to upload and or send in rare 911 footage available for public consumption. What ended up happening is that CameraPlanet closed public access and now sell hours and hours of rare footage on dvd for filmmakers.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by IvanZana]

posted by ThroatYogurt
SPreston,
A Video expert has already debunked this:
Try taking a picture that the object is 500 feet away. Take 20 steps forward..take the picture again. Oh...don't forget to add a fish-eye lens on it. Show me the differences.

ThroatYogurt I would not take your word on anything in a million years. I already know how a fisheye lens distorts an image. Where is your link to your external source? Who is your video expert;

Reheat or beachnut or jthomas? Bwahahahaha.

There was no white smoke trail on the lawn as shown in the faked videos. A white smoke trail would have lingered a few minutes as it dissipated from the air. The white smoke trail should have lingered a long time in both videos. Smoke would not be traveling across the lawn at the speed of the aircraft and disappearing into the fireball, but would be left behind. There was not one eyewitness reporting the trail of white smoke lingering above the lawn. The videos are faked.

We also already know the parking lot videos were faked for other reasons, because an aircraft did not fly low across the lawn and impact the Pentagon. That would be TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE with the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo.







[edit on 11/11/08 by SPreston]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by SPreston

ThroatYogurt I would not take your word on anything in a million years. I already know how a fisheye lens distorts an image. Where is your link to your external source? Who is your video expert;

I don't care what you take or don't take. It is obvious that you would NEVER look at facts as long as they don't agree with your fantasy.

In regards to who wrote it; does it really matter? Check into it. Tell me if it is correct or not.

If you already know how a fisheye lens works....why post that Youtube B.S.?

There was not one eyewitness reporting the trail of white smoke lingering above the lawn. The videos are faked.

Ohhhhh... so using that logic:

1. No witnesses to a fly over: Didn't happen

2. Sgt Lagassee saw the plane hit the Pentagon: Did happen.

You just debunked yourself.....

again.

Has the math been figured out for this path? Is it an aeronautical possibility??

[edit on 11/11/0808 by ThroatYogurt]