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

Originally posted by SPreston

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.

But you, CIT, and P4T still can't provide any evidence or eyewitnesses that support your claim that ANY jet flew over the Pentagon. Al you've got is a yellow line ending where AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Did you forget what low-flying, fast moving, Boeing 757s look and sound like and you want everyone to believe it was a stealth aircraft.

Here's a reminder what eyewitnesses would have heard and seen:

Click here to learn more about this warning.

That is enough of the off topic posts!

The topic of this thread is...

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

Any posts of previously discussed videos are considered off topic and therefore will be removed.

Please discuss any of the new videos being released. Thank you.

I don't see anything in the new videos that we didn't already know. They all just reinforce the evidence we already had.

There's a few things about some of the videos that don't sit right.

The first video:


Notice the woman said "Oh my god I just got an explosion, it's exploding" but she never says anything about the plane, and thats a pretty big plane don't you think she woul've said a plane just hit it?

Then the third video on that page is filming the North Tower but just before the second "plane" hits the video goes black, the sound is still there but it's a blackout, just like on the news footage of the second explosion.

I found the third video suspicious also Shocka.It seems like someone edited the last few seconds of the video.

Could it have been a close-up of the second plane?

reply to post by Shocka

First off if you didnt know a plane was about to hit you could easily miss it. It was in the frame for less then 1 second. Of course since you and I are expecting to see the plane hit the tower we can easily spot it. However, for her it would be more difficult to see the plane hit. Watch the video again. See how fast the plane is moving. Now tell me, If you didnt know a plane was about to hit and you were just filming the first tower and watching just that tower, not the second tower, would you see the plane hit. Remember, she was focused in on the tower that was already hit and likely saw the explosion in her peripheral vision, hence why she didnt see the plane.

reply to post by tide88


well i would think she would at least hear it and the plane is big even on the video so i think she would've seen it hit especially since the fact that she probably had her eyes trained on the buildings much as the camera was. I don't know it just seems strange to me. Even if she didn't see a plane she must've seen something hit the tower she should've said something just hit the other tower or something to that effect....

God help us if this thread turns into a no-planer debate. Please, no hologram talk.

Originally posted by Shocka
reply to post by tide88

 

well i would think she would at least hear it and the plane is big even on the video so i think she would've seen it hit especially since the fact that she probably had her eyes trained on the buildings much as the camera was. I don't know it just seems strange to me. Even if she didn't see a plane she must've seen something hit the tower she should've said something just hit the other tower or something to that effect....

As far as we know she doesnt even know what happened to the first tower. She never mentions that a plane hit it either. Also she seems quite far away so she very well might not hear anything. There are plenty of other videos out there that you can hear a plane slam into the building. One that is actually taken quite close. Also this is 2001, we have no idea what type of camera it is. She could have been looking through a camera lens which would make it more difficult to see anything hit. But if you feel that a plane didnt hit then I think I just need to end this debate right now. The no plnae theory has been debunked a million times.

Originally posted by tide88
Remember, she was focused in on the tower that was already hit and likely saw the explosion in her peripheral vision, hence why she didnt see the plane.

How do you know what she was looking at?

Both towers are visible in the picture, so who knows where she might be looking?

She never once mentioned a plane, did she?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by tide88
Remember, she was focused in on the tower that was already hit and likely saw the explosion in her peripheral vision, hence why she didnt see the plane.

How do you know what she was looking at?

Both towers are visible in the picture, so who knows where she might be looking?

She never once mentioned a plane, did she?

Guess you didnt watch the video. SHe was talking about the tower that was already on fire when all of the sudden she saw an explosion. She specifically talks about the tower that is already hit. If that doesnt imply what she was looking at I dont know what does. What tower do you think she was looking at? The tower that was already on fire or the tower that wasnt. If she was focused on the tower that was already on fire it is very plausable that she would not see the plane hit the other tower. Seeing that the plane is in view of her picture for less than a second. Some of you people never cease to amaze me with you theories. And no, she never mentioned the plane because she probably never saw it.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by tide88
Guess you didnt watch the video.

How would I know what she said if I didn't watch it? I guess you didn't consider that, huh?

SHe was talking about the tower that was already on fire when all of the sudden she saw an explosion.

Exactly. She didn't mention seeing a plane.

She specifically talks about the tower that is already hit. If that doesnt imply what she was looking at I dont know what does. What tower do you think she was looking at?

I don't know what tower she was looking at, as I wasn't there to see, nor can I ask her. At least I don't go and guess what she might have been looking at, based upon no evidence, other than my opinion.

Both towers were clearly in centre frame of the video. She wasn't exclusively zooming in on the North tower, was she?

Seeing that the plane is in view of her picture for less than a second.

How do you know? She never mentioned seeing an alleged plane. It doesn't mean that she did or didn't see it. How do you know that she didn't take her eye away from the camera and look at the larger scene while keeping her hand steady and filming? You don't know what she was looking at, or for how long.

She saw an explosion on the South tower and she never mentioned a plane. Why try and create excuses for her behaviour? She said what she said.

Some of you people never cease to amaze me with you theories. And no, she never mentioned the plane because she probably never saw it.

Some of you people never cease to amaze me with the way that you think you know what happened, when you weren't even there.

She never mentioned seeing a plane. She saw an explosion. Taking her recorded, eyewitness account at face value, she could be a no-plane witness, as she never mentioned seeing one, did she?

The two things that strike me most about some of these newly realeased videos is one the total lack of quality in them, this happened in 2001 and the videos look as if they were taken on a video camera from 1983. The colours are wayyy off and it looks as if the images were "dumbed down" so to speek.

Second is the one that has the tree branch flowing in and out of the frame at the the perfect moments to hide certain details of the impact but that CLEARLY show the "nose out effect" this is my eyes is an attempt to quash some of the tv trickery inconsistency's that have been noted. Also in that particular video there is an inexplicable shift in the brightness and hue at the moments leading up to and preceding the impact. This brightening of the image was done in my mind to hide the visible flashes going off in both buildings during the impact. Someone merely took the video into editing software and found the brightest flash and matched its brightness onto the face of the buildings in order to make all the flashes invisible.

reply to post by tezzajw


It's called common sense. I guess you must be lacking in that area. What about all the other videos of the plane hitting the second tower. Those are holograms. Are you saying no planes hit the tower that day.
Guess all these videos are fake too.
plane hitting second tower
MAN SAYS PLANE HITS SECOND BUILDING
You can find countless other videos that show the same thing. That is how I came to my conclusion about why she didnt say a plane hit it. It called putting two and two together. Quite easy when you use all the information available.

reply to post by tezzajw

How do you know what she was looking at?

Both towers are visible in the picture, so who knows where she might be looking?

I know what she was looking at because she says "It is the worse thing I have seen in my entire life. The whoe right side top of the building is gone." She stops talking at 6 seconds. That is how I know what she is looking at. I doubt she is looking at the other tower and talking about the one not on fire. And seeing she is actually filming it is quite clear what she is looking at when only 4 seconds later the plane hits the second tower.

reply to post by Retikx


They are VHS tapes too so they are not digital. Could explain why the picture is so crappy. Go stick a vhs tape in your vcr from 7 years ago and look at the picture quality. The quality is much poorer then we are use to today. Here is an example of a vhs tape recording and put on youtube from 2001. The quality looks just like these tapes.
2001 vhs recording on youtube
Let me guess. They lightened the video so they could alter some of these cheerleaders moves.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio


There never were "85 Pentagon" videos, which came about from Alex Jones's dyslexia or poor reading comprehension. His very own source debunks him, but since he doesnt know how to read or anything, he will never know. The source from www.flight77.info... says,

85 videos

The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.
In Summary:

* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.

A list of all the videotapes is available, which shows many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all. Instead, many have footage of the WTC, some are security video tapes taken from a Kinko's in Florida, etc. Some that show the Pentagon were taken days after the attacks, and some in the evening of 9/11/2001.

The security camera footage taken from around the Pentagon included the Citgo, the Doubletree, and the Pentagon parking lot. There was also video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Another video came from a DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. The camera was repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon.

Footage taken after the attack included home video filmed by a tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera, and video taken by a NBC4 Washington reporter.

A complete list of the videos and original documents are below.

And for those that are genuinely interested in finding out what those 85 tapes were all about, this can all be seen on the link provided.

Now all it takes is for the truthers and Alex Jones to be able to read and understand what is written. These are the only "85 tapes" ever mentioned and anyone else claiming there "hundreds" more all clearly showing the impact, is probably lying or purposely spreading disinfo in the name of the "twoof movement".
The only disinfo I see is from the so called "truthers".

reply to post by tide88


Its a little complicated trying to explain logical thinking to people that are lacking in it. That is the problem with so many truthers. Logic and critical thinking are non-existent in some minds. Not much you can do about it.

I totally agree with you on this fact. If I am paying attention to one thing and all of a sudden something else happens,I'll be a little delayed in seeing what just happened nearby. Its not every day you have not one but two planes hit two buildings within a short amount of time. Not seeing the second plane when you are so focused on reporting the first incident until you see the resulting fireball afterwards, all you'd think is "Woah, an explosion!" Until someone else says to you "Dude! I just saw another plane hit it! You missed it!" Its called common sense! And you know what they say about common sense, right?

Originally posted by tide88
It's called common sense. I guess you must be lacking in that area.

As I commonly type; common sense isn't that common anymore, is it? Common sense tells me not to presume what a person may or may not have saw, when I simply don't know where they were looking.

I know what she was looking at because she says "It is the worse thing I have seen in my entire life. The whoe right side top of the building is gone."

You know? Wow... great investigative work there.

She stops talking at 6 seconds. That is how I know what she is looking at.

You know? Wow... great investigative work there.

I doubt she is looking at the other tower and talking about the one not on fire. And seeing she is actually filming it is quite clear what she is looking at when only 4 seconds later the plane hits the second tower.

Twice you've stated that you know what she was looking at, but you only doubt that she's looking at the other tower? How can you both know and doubt something at the same time?

Four seconds is plenty of time for someone to drift their gaze elsewhere.

What about all the other videos of the plane hitting the second tower.

They're not relevant to this video and what this woman said. Unless you can produce another video, where this woman is also speaking on it? On this video she said that she saw an explosion and that she did not see a plane.

By definition, her face-value, first-hand evidence make her a no-plane witness. Of course her story should be verified, as any good investigator will agree.