Film of Missile Going into Pentagon

[Evan Burton]

More witnesses:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-2060449182054801305&hl=nl

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-5999401120275115423&hl=nl

[Evan Burton]

Some more witnesses

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4694559309265468505&hl=nl

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-990941897004419365&hl=nl

[Evan Burton]

Even more witnesses:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=138145163275420585&hl=nl

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=211152160543144757&hl=nl

[Evan Burton]

Yep - still more witnesses:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-5203446254654262433&hl=nl

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=8936799830625901088&hl=nl

[Evan Burton]

OMG - still more witnesses:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=254279221882225281&hl=nl

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=3309483068500307799&hl=nl

[Evan Burton]

Oh, I do like this one. Featuring our very own Jim Fetzer:

[Duane Daman]

Sorry, but the list of "witnesses" you posted is proof of nothing, it's just a list of names with unsubstantiated claims.. Where are your "hundreds of eye witnesses"? .. All you supplied were a handful of witnessess who all had conflicting stories of what they supposedly witnessed .. The few witnesses who were inside the Pentagon never saw any plane wreckage .. Several witnesses heard several bombs going off and others said they never saw any plane hit the buiding but "were TOLD that it was a passenger jet"..One guy even claimed to have been told that the tail of the plane was sticking outside the side of the Pentagon but he never saw it because he was quickly ushered away by security forces.

One witness even claimed that he saw a small, unmarked, corporate 20 passenger jet hit the Pentagon, while a another saw a jumbo jet, but never saw it impact the Pentagon.. Only one witness claimed to see the impact of a jumbo jet, yet admitted that she couldn't see what was written on the jet because the TREES WERE IN THE WAY.

So all you have are a few unreliable witnesses who were TOLD what happened.. Which means you have nothing.. So much for your "hundreds of eye witnesses".

Now where's the DNA proof you claimed you have?.. So far you haven't answered any of my questions .. You might want to read what I asked for and try again.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Duane Daman

[Len Colby]

Sorry, but the list of "witnesses" you posted is proof of nothing, it's just a list of names with unsubstantiated claims.. Where are your "hundreds of eye witnesses"? .. All you supplied were a handful of witnessess who all had conflicting stories of what they supposedly witnessed

This page has a link to a spread sheet summary of 136 witness accounts and links to several witness lists which themselves have links to the original sources.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Some of the links are dead but most can be found on the Internet Archive

http://www.archive.org/

The few witnesses who were inside the Pentagon never saw any plane wreckage .. Several witnesses heard several bombs going off and others said they never saw any plane hit the buiding but "were TOLD that it was a passenger jet"..One guy even claimed to have been told that the tail of the plane was sticking outside the side of the Pentagon but he never saw it because he was quickly ushered away by security forces.

I’ve already asked to provide documentation for these claims

One witness even claimed that he saw a small, unmarked, corporate 20 passenger jet hit the Pentagon, while a another saw a jumbo jet, but never saw it impact the Pentagon

Yes 2 witnesses who were a good distance away said it was a commuter/corporate jet but more than 3 dozen witnesses who closer said it was large/a Boeing etc (see links above)

.. Only one witness claimed to see the impact of a jumbo jet, yet admitted that she couldn't see what was written on the jet because the TREES WERE IN THE WAY.

Completely false at least 104 witnesses saw the impact (see links above) several were very close by (ibid)

So all you have are a few unreliable witnesses who were TOLD what happened.. Which means you have nothing.. So much for your "hundreds of eye witnesses".

False, see above

"Now where's the DNA proof you claimed you have?.. So far you haven't answered any of my questions .. You might want to read what I asked for and try again."

Here are some articles about the identification of remains

http://www.dmort.org/DNPages/jan2002newstext.htm

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/223/1/7.full?vol=223&fp=7&view=full

[Ron Ecker]

Speaking of film, has there ever been any explanation of why, with all the security that must exist around the Pentagon, there was not a single security video or other type of video showing the plane hit the building?

Please don't cite the farcical parking lot video (which I believe is all that anyone ever came up with), which does not show any large airliner hit the building as seen by all those witnesses.

[Matthew Lewis]

Security cameras are most often placed near points of entry (doors). They would be less likely to point them at open fields. Cameras are also more used in retail situations where they can be useful for deterral of theft or retrieval of stolen property. To be most effective though they need to be monitored which takes manpower.

The Pentagon, while secure, has its more secure areas inside. While some of them may have cameras, more common methods of security are access cards, combinations, and/or armed guards.

In my 7 years in the Air Force, at 5 different bases, one of which was in a deployed location, I have only seen two security cameras that I remember. Unless you count the BX where there are more but again that is a retail situation. In both cases they were focused on doors to secure areas and used so that those who needed entry but did not already have the necessary access cards could be viewed from the inside so those inside could decide whether or not to let them in. One of those was not recorded it was only connected to a monitor inside the secure area. I don't know about the other.

Simply put, security cameras are just one possible method of securing an area and not always the best one. Even when used, they are often a slow frame rate (about a frame per second which aids in recording space) which is fine for capturing people but horribly inadequate for a fast moving object.

IMO, the vast majority of the offices in the Pentagon are likely protected only by a few locked doors and the soldiers checking IDs at the entrance. I would assume they use more cameras in the more secure areas but those are not in any position to view an incoming airliner.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

I agree. I can point to numerous bases where there are no surveillance cameras outside at all. There are some cameras at doorways, but the majority - if fitted - are internal. Perimeter fences and roving patrols take care of outside of a building.

[Duane Daman]

This page has a link to a spread sheet summary of 136 witness accounts and links to several witness lists which themselves have links to the original sources.

http://sites.google....evidencesummary

The link you provided only lists about 19 witnessess, not 136.. The ones inside the building only describe seeing a fireball, not a plane.. The only person who claimed to have seen a plane impact the building was Mary Ann Owens who was no where near the Pentagon, but rather driving her car at least 125 yards from the site .. Maybe she's the same "witness" who admitted that she couldn't see what was written on the side of the plane because the trees were in the way.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html

The other links you provided are either broken or just typical government disinfo sites, worded in such a way to continue fool only the fools who still believe the official version of 911.

Here are some articles about the identification of remains

http://www.dmort.org...002newstext.htm

http://radiology.rsn...&fp=7&view=full

These links don't show any proof of any DNA analysis of the passengers who allegedly crashed into the Pentagon .. Instead, your source states this.. "The views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Defense or the Departments of the Army, Air Force, or Navy."

Which means, like Burton, you have no real proof of your claims.

Security cameras are most often placed near points of entry (doors). They would be less likely to point them at open fields. Cameras are also more used in retail situations where they can be useful for deterral of theft or retrieval of stolen property. To be most effective though they need to be monitored which takes manpower

So I guess that means that Walmart has more security cameras than the Pentagon?

You failed to mention the securtity cameras belonging to businesses near the Pentagon, that showed what really hit the building .. The businesses who had their security video tapes confiscated by the FBI within minutes after the attack on the Pentapon.. Those tapes have still not been released to the public.

[Ron Ecker]

So that leaves the parking lot video, which I assume was released by the government. The video does not show the large airliner hitting the building, but some type of smaller aircraft that, based on the official story, we know wasn't there. What does this suggest?

[Matthew Lewis]

The parking lot video is debatable. what some say is a smaller aircraft looks to me more like smoke from a damaged engine. The plane itself was moving too fast and was too far away for the slow frame-rate camera to adequately pick up. I've seen an animated gif that compared successive frames from that camera and in front of the smoke you can see a very faint something that is vaguely airliner shaped. Some see it, some don't. If I find the gif I'll post it.

Edit to add:

Here it is

You can see there is something in front of the smoke.

Here's another with annotations.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

And another version with annotations

And one zoomed in without annotations but instead a scale 757 where they say it should be.

Even if you don't agree with the airliner point out you should be able to see that there is a change from one frame to the next IN FRONT OF the white area that some call a small plane but may be smoke.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Matthew Lewis