Jump to content
The Education Forum

Film of Missile Going into Pentagon


Recommended Posts

Thanks for the clips. As hard as I try, I can't see an airliner there. I can understand how it might be going too fast to be picked up by that camera. But why is there smoke rising in the air (over the lawn, not over the building) before anything supposedly representing the plane comes into view?

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree with Ron; personally I don't see it... but I don't have to. Over 100 witnesses, wreckage, bodies, etc, make pretty compelling evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :rolleyes:

Yes, very likely. Different systems for different purposes. Walmart is a retail institution that will use those cameras in theft prevention as opposed to the Pentagon which has much more armed guards, locked doors, access cards and combination locks to guard against instrusion and unauthorized entry.

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.

I didn't fail to mention anything. I just wasn't talking about it as that was not included in the question I was responding to. Are you actually following the discussion? But since you mentioned it, some of those tapes have been released. As expected they didn't show much for two reasons, they are pointed at their own business where they are actually usefull instead of some other building or empty lawn and they are slow frame-rate cameras not designed to capture fast moving objects. Can you prove any did not fall into those two categories and should have caught something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clips. As hard as I try, I can't see an airliner there.

Many can't. As I said, I see "something" blurry there in front of the white smoke which is vaguely airliner size and shape but I can't definitively say it is an airliner. I can say that the white area that many say is a small plane does not look like a plane to me but is more likely to be smoke especially as there is something in front of it.

I can understand how it might be going too fast to be picked up by that camera. But why is there smoke rising in the air (over the lawn, not over the building) before anything supposedly representing the plane comes into view?

The white area I and many others have called smoke? It is assumed to be from a damaged engine.

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to post
Share on other sites

The white area I and many others have called smoke?

No. There is a white blob and an orange blob in the sky, with what looks like a plume below the orange one. That is not smoke?

Since those appear static from one frame to the next I think they are something on the lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The link you provided only lists about 19 witnessess, not 136..

Is English not your first language Duane? I never said it had witness statements but rather “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.” If you’d bothered to look at the spreadsheet or look at the links you would have found dozens of witnesses statements including ones who saw the impact.

For example below are the ones just from the top third or so this page who said they saw the impact.

http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm

Susan Carroll "I was standing on the platform high above the airport awaiting a Metro subway train to my office in the heart of the district, on Constitution Avenue, admiring the lovely blue skies when I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon. At first, I didn't believe what I saw. At about the same time, the train approached the platform, and I remember turning to a fellow passenger and asking, 'What should we do?' "

jacksonville.com / Phillip J. Milano / Sept 11th 2002

Joe Hurst, is general manager of the Oval Room restaurant at Lafayette Square,

..." But he doesn't really complain about business. "I saw it go overhead, the plane," says Joe Hurst, describing the American flight that circled the White House.

His assistant saw it dive into the Pentagon as he drove to work.

"Last week, I was having flashbacks," he says.

Boston Globe, 9/21/01 article by Brian McGrory (Lexis Nexis)

(text mirror)

Lt. Col. Stuart Artman, 44, a licensed commercial airline pilot of the Army Reserve and engineer in Winter Haven, Florida, was walking near the Washington Monument when he saw a plane fly low over the city.

"I saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. It went behind some trees." Then he saw the smoke.

The Ledger, Lakeland, FL, 9/15/01 - by Joy Murphy (Lexis Nexis)

(text mirror)

Captain Joseph Candelario, USA a first year student in the Family Nurse Practitioner Program watched from the River by Fort McNair.

I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.

Steve Snaman, manager of the datacom division for Walker Seals, would usually be working at the Pentagon but happened to be watching from Fort McNair as the jetliner came in low at full throttle, banked left and smashed into the wall of the Pentagon.

"We saw the plane hit the Pentagon. My first reaction was to get on the Nextel to reach my men, but I couldn’t get a signal. They were in Wedge One."

... 'Electrical Contractor' Industry News article.

... Article from NECA News, October 3, 2001

Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.), Gresham,

"On Sept. 11, I was standing in a break room of an office . . . in downtown D.C., when I looked out the window to see an airplane descend into the side of the Pentagon, where the Navy offices where five friends and colleagues of mine were located." oregonlive.com /

James Mosley, 57, was four stories up on a scaffold, washing the windows of the Navy Annex building when the plane flew overhead.

``The building started shaking, and I looked over and saw this big silver plane run into the side of the Pentagon,'' said the ``It almost knocked me off. I couldn't believe it.''

... Story by Glen Justice, Laura Smitherman and Tony Capaccio in Washington at (202) 624-1984

with reporting by Dan Goldstein and John Rega. /wfs / Sept 11

mailto:gjustice@bloomberg.net

Sergeant Maurice L. Bease, 24, had worked around Marine aviation long enough to know what a fly-by was, and it sounded like one as he stood outside his office near the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Turning around expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards from where he stood.

.. 'Leatherneck' Marine's Magazine / By Maj Fred H. Allison, USMCR (Ret) / © 2001

Albert Hemphill, a BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization) staff member watched from from the Navy Annex:

As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.

The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5.

...Email posted to www.ournetfamily.com/WarOnTerror webmaster

Copy of message / Sept 12 4:20 PM

Scott Perry of Spotsylvania County heard a plane's engines rumbling above the NavyAnnex building where he works, so he looked out his window, which faces the Pentagon.

"It was coming straight into the wedge,"

"I saw it crash. There was about five seconds of disbelief, and the next thing I heard was, down the hallway, a friend of mine screaming."

"There's a picture in my mind that probably won't go away for a long time,"

... By ELIZABETH PEZZULLO and JANET MARSHALL / Sept 12, 5:36 am / © The Free Lance-Star Publishing Company.

Terry Morin, a former USMC aviator, Program Manager for SPARTA, Inc was working as a contractor at the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex.

Having just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO Federal Office Building (FOB) #2. He heard "an increasingly loud rumbling"

"One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening."

The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you. At once there was a huge cloud of black smoke that rose several hundred feet up. Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.

" ...the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building. "

La Verne Le Grand, 60, resident of Washington D.C., was riding in a car on the Columbia Pike "and saw the plane crash into the Pentagon." Since then, she has been admitted twice to Washington Hospital Center for treatment of severe anxiety.

Washington Post - October 14, 2001

Carla Thompson, works in an Arlington, Va., office building about 1,000 yards from the crash.

"I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building,"

... by Matea Gold and Maggie Farley / 9/12/2001 / from Los Angeles Times

Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today [

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11.

From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."

Posting to September 11th Message Board

Greg A. Lohr Staff Reporter, / © 2001 American City Business Journals Inc / Sept 14.

The ones inside the building only describe seeing a fireball, not a plane..

Did you bother to check more than one witness list, due to your false claim that only one person saw the impact that doesn’t seem to be the case. How many people on the impact side of Pentagon said they happened to be looking out the window at the correct angle the second the plane would have been within 800 feet or so of the building?

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

Once again you’re wrong, see above and below

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.

Wrong again, the link to the spreadsheet works as do the ones to 4 of the 6 witness lists, however as indicated the 2 dead links are cached on the Internet Archive, I note that you cut that out of your reply. I reserve judgment as to whether that was due to dishonesty or sloppiness. Here’s the cached links

http://replay.web.archive.org/20070204114445/http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

http://replay.web.archive.org/20090106090905/http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

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.

What exactly would satisfy you, do you want to see the actual profiles of the remains and next of kin? Those are private medical records but even if they were released you’d claim they were fakes.

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? :rolleyes:

Yes for reasons explain that probably is the case, not much shoplifting going on at the helipad. Provide evidence that there were security cameras in or around the building that should have capture the plane’s approach.

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.

You make a habit of being incorrect; several of those tapes were released. Provide evidence that there were security cameras in any nearby businesses that should have captured the approach but were not released.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You make a habit of being incorrect;

No, you're the one who has a habit of being incorrect and here's the evidence that proves it.

A Cruise Missile at The Pentagon

by Peter Wakefield Sault

"Apologists for the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ invariably misrepresent witness statements, characterizing them as “hundreds of eyewitnesses to a plane hitting the Pentagon”. This is, of course, the employment of a non-sequitur to mislead the unwary, the reality being that all such witnesses firstly saw the large plane and then quite separately heard an explosion after the plane had moved out of their fields of vision. The fact is that, with the sole exception of Mr Walter, none of them actually saw anything hit the Pentagon for the very simple reason that none of them could see the Pentagon. Two others who claim to have witnessed an AA 757 hit the Pentagon were at that time Pentagon employees, hence their testimony must be set aside because of the distinct possibility of it being spurious. In other words, they would say whatever their employer ordered them to say; an employer that is not exactly famous for telling the truth."

......................

"Before any discussion of the wreckage shown above can proceed, the reader must appreciate that we have clear evidence of a cruise missile in the ground-level approach and smoke trail shown in the security videos. Therefore it matters not which answer, if any, the reader chooses to the question of where the wreckage came from, for it will not affect the answer to the quite separate question of whether a cruise missile was involved in the strike. For this reason we need engage in only a perfunctory analysis of the wreckage.

There are only so many ways that the wreckage could have arrived on the Pentagon lawn:-

It is from a 757 in AA livery, perhaps even Flight 77, that crashed into the Pentagon. This theory might explain why some witnesses thought they saw an airplane wing gouging the ground. What they really saw would have been the smoke trail of the cruise missile as it passed beneath the wing of the airplane to strike first. It might also explain why other witnesses thought they saw an airplane explode before it actually hit the Pentagon. It does not explain why no airplane is visible in the security videos.

It is from a smaller plane than a 757, a substitute for Flight 77, disguised in AA livery and either remote-controlled or pre-programmed, that crashed into the Pentagon. This is another theory that does not explain the absence of an airplane from the security videos. In favor of it is the crash damage to the facade of the building, as analyzed by Dick Eastman. It is also a better option than the first because if there was a plane of any description, its arrival was clearly synchronized with that of the cruise missile and both were targeted at exactly the same spot.

It was planted. In favor of this theory is the fact that there are no photographs showing the wreckage before the scene was disturbed by fire tenders. Also in favor is the complete absence of any video evidence of an airplane arriving at the Pentagon. Lack of video evidence notwithstanding, this theory is not mutually exclusive with a small airplane of some description entirely disappearing into the Pentagon through the hole made by the missile. In fact the alleged "folding" back of the wings as the Pentagon swallowed it up becomes plausible if it had once upon a time been a US Navy carrier-based airplane ­­­— with folding wings.

It was photoshopped into the photographs which show it. In favor of this theory is the fact that no matter which photograph it appears in and no matter which direction the photograph was taken from the view of the piece of wreckage is identical, as are the shadows upon it."

.......................

"On May 16th 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released two short video clips to Judicial Watch, claiming that these videos show AA Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. What the DoD actually released to JW were MPEG digitizations of the video clips, at a very much degraded resolution of 352 × 240 pixels. As far as I am aware, JW has never been able to ascertain the original format, as recorded from the cameras, of the video clips although it is, however, difficult to believe that the Pentagon would employ the lowest possible video resolution for its surveillance footage. Moreover, anyone who claims he or she can see a Boeing 757 in these clips has either a very vivid imagination or an interest in spreading false beliefs through the power of suggestion.

There have been many attempts to ‘enhance’ frames from these video clips, some of which have amounted to outright forgery. Such attempts are at best fatuous and the reader must accept that the original images are as good as it gets. Throughout this piece I have employed high-quality JPEG reproductions of individual frames at their original resolution of 352 × 240 pixels, and this can be verified by comparison with JW's MPEG video clips. If the reader has difficulty making out small details in these images, then welcome to the club and beware of charlatans peddling ‘enhancements’. There is enough detail in the images at their supplied resolution to make a clear case for a cruise missile strike.

The best that can be offered here due to bandwidth considerations are 320 × 240 WMV renderings made from the Pentagon-supplied MPEGs. These should be viewable in most browsers."

And there's much, much, much, much more proof here that you're the one's who's incorrect about what really happened on 911.

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Duane you and Mr. Sault are incorrect. I know from experience you make a habit of it and assume he does so as well.

I posted several of the 100 or so accounts from witnesses who said they small the crash. Just saying they don't exist doesn't make it so. I posted the link to witness lists all you have to do is look at them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Duane you and Mr. Sault are incorrect. I know from experience you make a habit of it and assume he does so as well.

I posted several of the 100 or so accounts from witnesses who said they small the crash. Just saying they don't exist doesn't make it so. I posted the link to witness lists all you have to do is look at them.

You only assume that Mr. Sault is incorrect because I used him as a source to prove you wrong.

The only thing you posted is a list of several "witnessess" (not hundreds) who assumed they saw a passenger jet impact the Pentagon because that's what they thought they saw, and then were later led to believe that's what occured.. Unfortunately, what they really saw was just more CIA/US government smoke and mirrors that has not withstood any real scrutiny of the actual evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So hundreds of witnesses who SAW the aircraft are wrong, but a person who wasn't there is right?

<Sarcasm mode on>

Wow - pretty hard to argue against evidence of that calibre!

<Sarcasm mode off>

Link to post
Share on other sites

So hundreds of witnesses who SAW the aircraft are wrong, but a person who wasn't there is right?

<Sarcasm mode on>

Wow - pretty hard to argue against evidence of that calibre!

<Sarcasm mode off>

No, you're wrong for claiming there were "hundreds of witnessess" who SAW a passenger jet hit the Pentagon .. Several witnesses saw some type of plane flying towards the Pentagon, then saw a large fireball that coincided with a loud explosion at the Pentagon.. The rest of what these few witnesses "SAW" was understandable conjecture.

Unfortunately, eye witness accounts are the most unreliable evidence of all, considering the fact that no two people ever see the same thing.. It's examining all of the evidence after the fact, by investigators who weren't at the scene, that usually solves most crimes.. In this case, the crime being the governnment lies of what really hit the Pentagon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Duane you and Mr. Sault are incorrect. I know from experience you make a habit of it and assume he does so as well.

I posted several of the 100 or so accounts from witnesses who said they small the crash. Just saying they don't exist doesn't make it so. I posted the link to witness lists all you have to do is look at them.

You only assume that Mr. Sault is incorrect because I used him as a source to prove you wrong.

The only thing you posted is a list of several "witnessess" (not hundreds) who assumed they saw a passenger jet impact the Pentagon because that's what they thought they saw, and then were later led to believe that's what occured.. Unfortunately, what they really saw was just more CIA/US government smoke and mirrors that has not withstood any real scrutiny of the actual evidence.

No over 100 said they saw it. Not all these accounts are collected on one page but I provided you with links to several databases of witness accounts. The spreadsheet I provided you the link to combines all the accounts from the various lists and the total on it over 100.

Funny how you think witness account are reliable when it suits you but not when contradicts you over 100 said they saw the plane hit, other said they saw the plane approach. None said they saw a missile, drone or flyover.

And you have yet to admit you were wrong when you claimed only 1 distant witness saw the plane hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No over 100 said they saw it. Not all these accounts are collected on one page but I provided you with links to several databases of witness accounts. The spreadsheet I provided you the link to combines all the accounts from the various lists and the total on it over 100.

Funny how you think witness account are reliable when it suits you but not when contradicts you over 100 said they saw the plane hit, other said they saw the plane approach. None said they saw a missile, drone or flyover.

Apparently you only believe what suits you, instead of the truth.. So here it is again, not that it will matter to someone like you.

"Apologists for the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ invariably misrepresent witness statements, characterizing them as “hundreds of eyewitnesses to a plane hitting the Pentagon”. This is, of course, the employment of a non-sequitur to mislead the unwary, the reality being that all such witnesses firstly saw the large plane and then quite separately heard an explosion after the plane had moved out of their fields of vision. The fact is that, with the sole exception of Mr Walter, none of them actually saw anything hit the Pentagon for the very simple reason that none of them could see the Pentagon. Two others who claim to have witnessed an AA 757 hit the Pentagon were at that time Pentagon employees, hence their testimony must be set aside because of the distinct possibility of it being spurious. In other words, they would say whatever their employer ordered them to say; an employer that is not exactly famous for telling the truth."

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do understand Duane that just because someone says something that conforms with your preconceived beliefs doesn’t make it true. Unlike you I actually provide documentation for my claims.

“"Apologists for the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ invariably misrepresent witness statements, characterizing them as “hundreds of eyewitnesses to a plane hitting the Pentagon”. This is, of course, the employment of a non-sequitur to mislead the unwary”,

You should tell Mr. Sault not to use ‘big words’ if he doesn’t know what they mean. There is nothing non-sequitous “hundreds of eyewitnesses to a plane hitting the Pentagon” he seems to want to say it is ‘inaccurate’ or ‘erroneous’ .

“…the reality being that all such witnesses firstly saw the large plane and then quite separately heard an explosion after the plane had moved out of their fields of vision.”

Incorrect as the statements I posted demonstrated.

“The fact is that, with the sole exception of Mr Walter, none of them actually saw anything hit the Pentagon for the very simple reason that none of them could see the Pentagon.”

He provided no evidence in support of his extraordinary claim. To do so he would have to show that the point of impact was not visible from the reported locations of the witnesses who said they saw the impact.

“Two others who claim to have witnessed an AA 757 hit the Pentagon were at that time Pentagon employees, hence their testimony must be set aside because of the distinct possibility of it being spurious. In other words, they would say whatever their employer ordered them to say; an employer that is not exactly famous for telling the truth."

This is what is known as an ad hominem fallacy and an absurd one at that because:

1) we would expect the majority of witnesses to be DoD employees or contractors

2) your claim that Pentagon witnesses support your account which if true falsifies his presumption.

‘Good afternoon Mr. Daman. Your mission Duane, should you choose to accept it, is to go through the 104 names listed in the spreadsheet as having seen the impact and show that none of them actually said they saw it or were not in a position to have seen it. As always, should you or any of your Truther Force be caught in a lie or killed in debate, Mr. Griffin will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Duane.’

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...