The Pentagon Video Fraud

Posted on Friday, May 19 at 20:47 by Milton
In fact the material released does not show this at all. The lying mainstream media is using the old trick of telling the mark (the reader in this case) what they are about to see and then showing them something; the gullible mark will then believe they see what they have been told to see. The material released is little more than the five so-called CCTV frames released (or rather, "leaked") years ago, pictures which were quickly judged by astute observers as probably faked. Xymphora has a good commentary on the newly released material, in which he says: If you look at the video (I downloaded a copy from here), you can see that it is a collection of stills joined together, and of such bad quality that you cannot tell what hit the Pentagon. It is a manufactured product, and therefore can't be analyzed to provide any evidence as to the speed of the plane, and can't be analyzed to see if there are anomalies in the video. It is literally mostly smoke. It really is of no more use than the stills that have already been released, and the most amazing thing about it is that people claim that it now settles the issue of what hit the Pentagon. It certainly does not. ... Although Judicial Watch asked for all the recordings [the camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation], it pronounced itself satisfied after getting just one, one which did not, and could not, put to rest the conspiracy theories. One of Xymphora's readers left this sagacious comment: The recently released "video" is such a fraud that I had to laugh out loud when I saw the news coverage on CNN. You must be joking? I kept asking the screen. After the big buildup in the media, and after having had 4 1/2 years to play with their advanced digital technology, that's the best they could come up with? Grainy footage (or as xymph claims, a series of stills) that shows nothing conclusive? That's the most and best video surveillance footage that one of the most secure and highly-guarded buildings in the world could produce? I've watched it over and over again and whatever the whitish-grayish streak/nosecone/UFO is, it certainly doesn't strike me as a large, unwieldy 757 jetliner. Much smaller. The thing was positively streaking in at very high speed (within a second or so it goes from barely appearing at the right of the frame to massive fireball, with no intermediate shots of jetliner). It also had to have been traveling mere feet off the ground to come in at the level it did. Is it at all plausible that a large, unwieldy, 100+ ton jetliner, traveling at hundreds of mph, and piloted by (supposedly) an inept amateur who flunked flight training school on a small Cessna, and virtually skimming the ground to the point of taking out 5 lightpoles, making bystanders duck for cover, and clipping the antenna off a SUV (the Official Story), streaked into a flawless groundfloor impact of the Pentagon, without so much as leaving any recognizable debris at the scene? S-U-U-R-R-E. Rather than debunking the claims of conspiracy theorists, as the paid media shills so pompously and smugly claimed, this new "tape" merely reinforces my contention that the Pentagon was struck by a missile. No true skeptic of the Pentagon story will be persuaded by this sham, and it wasn't aimed at the gullible public who never doubted the Official Story. The real target was the skeptics, but it wasn't to debunk their claims — it was to act as CONFIRMATION of them. Yes, this is just another mindfuck from the national security state, a way for it to laugh and give skeptics the middle finger while saying, "Yes, you're right, we did stage the attacks and hit the Pentagon with a missile. And you know what? It doesn't matter. We got away with it." Score a big one for the bastards — if they feel confident and arrogant enough to taunt us this way, it spells big trouble ahead. leftdude | 05.17.06 Right. Four years and eight months after the murder of nearly 3000 Americans the murderers have not been exposed; they still sit behind their desks in the White House and the Pentagon, and appear on TV promoting their "War on Terror". They believe that the American people are such gullible fools, as shown by their acceptance of (if not belief in) the absurd and ridiculous official (cover) story, that they can continue to commit whatever further crimes they wish, including the "supreme international crime" of waging war on countries that present no discernible and likely threat (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq in the recent past, Panama earlier, with Iran now in their sights). In any half-civilized country with an uncorrupted police and judicial system these murderers would have been exposed years ago, and by now would have been tried, convicted and executed. But no, this is the United States in the early 21st Century, a nation which apparently knows no shame. This article was posted at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/video_fraud.htm

Note: http://www.serendipity....

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by avatar Milton
    Sat May 20, 2006 11:00 pm
    Here is a link for the photos/movie <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/pentagon-defence060516.mov">http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/pentagon-defence060516.mov</a><p>---<br><br />
    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."<br />
    (Albert Einstein)

  2. by DL
    Sun May 21, 2006 1:24 am
    Thanks Milton. The video was a laugh after the false claims in the headlines. I did a quick look at some headlines when the video story broke and the majority of MSM did make claims that the video showed flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. The white streak/anomoly was just a few feet off the ground and if anything I thought it reinforced the idea of a missile hitting the Pentagon, in stark contrast to the lame assed claim the the MSM tagged on to the video, that flight 77 can be seen hitting the Pentagon. How we can respect the media when they hold out a steaming handful of dog doo in their hands and bold as brass tell us it's chocolate cake. I agree with the comment that it bodes ill that they are confident in their power and/or the absolute brain dead state of the general public that they would even float that ridiculous fluff for public consumption.

  3. Sun May 21, 2006 6:45 am
    I'm amazed at the lack of thought that goes into posting in these kind of threads. Not just here, but on other sites.

    How fast is a normal 757 jet going? The stall speed is 262km/h, just to keep it in the air. What is the field of view of that camera? 100m? 262km/h = 72m/s. So the plane would have been in the field of view of the camera for less than 1 second, travelling at stall speed. At 3/4 flight speed of 500km/h, it would have been in the field of view for less than 1 frame.

    It's lucky that the camera even got a blur.

    ---
    "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

  4. by avatar Milton
    Sun May 21, 2006 2:04 pm
    How do you know the speed at which the camera was running? How far away was the camera? There is a vapour trail which appears behind whatever it was and this suggests that it was a missile and is evidence that it was not a jumbo jet. Also, why say that you have proof that a jumbo jet hit the building and then show a video which does not show it. Why would you confiscate all the videos from all the security cameras from all the businesses in the field of view of the crash site and then release a few individual frames from one camera?<br />
    <br />
    Have a gander at this <a href="http://philandrews.com/jp/xpentagon.swf">http://philandrews.com/jp/xpentagon.swf</a><p>---<br><br />
    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."<br />
    (Albert Einstein)

  5. by Patm
    Sun May 21, 2006 2:56 pm
    I'm undecided whether the attack was with an airplane or a missile. I would probably think it was a missile except for one nagging question:

    Why Bother?

    We know of three hijackings, two of which hit buildings, one which officially crashed although all evidence shows it to be have shot down (thats another nagging question: why deny shooting it down when 99% of people probably would have agreed with doing so?). Why bother making a plane "disappear" with all its cargo and passengers and yet simply use the planes as missiles in other attacks?

    I discussed this video and the pilot's apparent superiod flying skills with a friend who, like me, is somewhat of an aviation buff but who is also a trained aircraft mechanic. We came to the conclusion that a flight school drop-out simply could not fly such a precise flight path at only a few feet from the ground and put a 757 through the first floor windows. We did, however, accept the idea that a flight-school dropout COULD aim for the center ring of the Pentagon and screw it up badly, hitting the first floor of the outer ring instead.

    So, there are elements of the missile theory that make more sense, but there are also elements of the airplane theory that make sense.

    So, I remain undecided.

  6. by DL
    Sun May 21, 2006 3:12 pm
    I guess we all at one time or another are amazed at the lack of thought that goes into posts. The media claimed they had video of the plane hitting the pentagon, they offered up a blurr. I'm certainly not AS interested (in this case)in what created the blurr as I am in discrepency between the media claim and the proof offered to support it, and how unreleiable the messages can be that we recieve from the MSM. The video shows nothing to make conclusions on, and on a casual surf when the story broke, I found a only a couple of sources that reported that the video failed to show a plane or anything actually hitting the Pentagon. That's all you can really say from the facts presented, and yet the One line messages suggested proof positive of a plane hitting the Pentagon. The height of the plane was pretty low, and yes I do have a hard time trying to fit a large jetliner into that airspace, it that commentary is not up Vive's standards, then so be it.

  7. by Deacon
    Sun May 21, 2006 5:26 pm
    Dr C

    You neglected mentioning the ground effect and turbulence also associated with planes that size flying that close to the ground.

    Also, considering that the empty weight of a 757 is between 128,730 lbs and 141,330 lbs (depending on model) one is at a complete loss to explain exactly HOW an aircraft weighing between 64 and 70 tons at minimum, impacting at a speed roughly 300 miles per hour managed to do SO LITTLE damage.

    The offical story is a fraud and physics proves it.

    However if they're using cartoon physics, it might work...





    ---
    "and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

    "The Weapon" - Rush

  8. Sun May 21, 2006 7:25 pm
    Standard cameras record TV quality video at 30 Frames Per Second. Most CCD cameras, such as surviellance video run between 15 and 60 FPS. Slower or poorer quality to save videotape, faster if the want better quality and can afford better recording equipment.<br />
    <br />
    I gave the Penatgon cameras the benefit of the doubt, and assumed 30 FPS.<br />
    <br />
    Have a look at fast image cameras capturing a jet fighter hitting concrete at 500mph.<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html">http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html</a><p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

  9. Sun May 21, 2006 7:27 pm
    I whole heartedly agree. I'd like to see other video tapes from the area.

    However, I do tend to give some weight to people I've met who were in the area at the time, and say they heard or even saw a plane.

    ---
    "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

  10. Sun May 21, 2006 7:30 pm
    "one is at a complete loss to explain exactly HOW an aircraft weighing between 64 and 70 tons at minimum, impacting at a speed roughly 300 miles per hour managed to do SO LITTLE damage."

    See my link to video above. 6' of reinforced concrete is wonderful stuff. One wonders how 70 tons @300MPH did any damage at all.

    ---
    "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

  11. by avatar Milton
    Sun May 21, 2006 9:02 pm
    Have a look at this <a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=101385;title=APFN">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=101385;title=APFN</a><br />
    <br />
    What are the names of the people you met who were in the pentagon area at the time and saw a jumbo jet crash into it?<p>---<br><br />
    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."<br />
    (Albert Einstein)

  12. by Deacon
    Mon May 22, 2006 1:57 am
    One problem dude, the walls of the Pentagon at the location of the alledged plane impact were nowhere near being 6' of reinforced concrete.

    Office buildings generally don't house nuclear reactors anyway.

    That the front facia where the planes wings would have hit was barely even damaged speaks volumes, not to mention intact withdows made of non-reinforced glass.

    And besides, how would a 757's turbines which drive the fans in the turbofan engines shrink to under 1/2 their design size?

    Gotta love that cartoon physics.



    ---
    "and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

    "The Weapon" - Rush



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news