New Video – Moon of Alabama

May 17, 2006

New Video

The administration has released what is said to be two security camera’s videos of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. Says the Washington Post:

This is video released by the Pentagon of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. Watch carefully as a plane enters the video from the right.

Watching carefully, I don´t see a plane entering the video. I don´t see a plane at all.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the group sought the videos to rebut conspiracy theories, which have circulated widely on the Internet, that the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a small plane.

That attempt was not successful.

So why exactly were these videos not released four and a half years ago?

Posted by b on May 17, 2006 at 05:16 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The first one just shows something pointy, could be a plane, could be a missle. The second has a form which is decidedly NOT that of a major passenger airline. It looks, in fact, like the front of a military jet, at least to my eyes.
For those who come after, the first video has the explosion around a minute and a half in, the second, about 20 seconds.

Posted by: Rowan | May 17 2006 6:12 utc | 1

From the linked Washington Post article:

Experts on national security and some relatives of Pentagon victims said they welcomed the videos’ release and that the images could help remind the public both of the terror of that day and the risk of another attack.

Boogie boogie boogie! They’re coming to geeeeeeeeet you! Better go hide under the bed and stop questioning the Pentagon!

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | May 17 2006 6:58 utc | 2

5.5 Ton Cocaine Bust Reveals New Details of 9.11 Attack
A MadCowMorningNews investigation into the ownership of the DC9 airliner caught carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine in Mexico last month has uncovered explosive new details about some of the many lingering mysteries still surrounding the 9.11 attack.
Oh, and I find it a tad bit Ironic they waited until the Moussaoui trial is over to release one of several vids; Of course, they didn’t release a video, they released a few frames, semantics… this will function as one gigantic, burning strawman one way or the other — and I think we all know which way that’ll be. This is all one big psy ops project.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 17 2006 7:18 utc | 3

It also seems strange to me that the plane, or whatever hit the pentagon, approached it exactly parallel to the ground. If it was a domestic, hijacked plane, wouldn’t it have come down at an angle? Maybe I just don’t know the logic of flying hijacked planes into buildings, but it seems to me that you would hit it from above at an angle, instead of landing the plane and hitting the side, which seems to me to be the only way you’d get a parallel plane that close to the ground.

Posted by: Rowan | May 17 2006 7:40 utc | 4

@Uncle $cam:

No, that’s how a lot of security cameras work — they hold a single picture for a few seconds, then update. (I’ve worked in a few places which had such systems.) So that’s a non-starter. But still, these don’t actually show anything, so why were they kept secret until now?

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | May 17 2006 9:08 utc | 5

For what its worth, here is a guy who trys to show that it is a passenger jet.
Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon? You be the Judge.
Personally, this film actually makes me more suspicious. As ‘The Truth … Corner It’ asks, why keep this secret?

Posted by: tgs | May 17 2006 12:16 utc | 6

tgs,
well THAT clears it up! Can this guy tell you fetal eye color from an ultrasound too?

Posted by: DrawMonkeyDraw | May 17 2006 15:09 utc | 7

If you were to freeze the single frame in each video which actually shows the craft in question, you’d confirm that it was no way a large passenger jet.
Combine this with the multiple smallish holes thru concrete walls, and no visible damage from wings or engines, and no identifiable rubble, and you know that what hit the pentagon was a missile or a small dummied-up airplane with a big warhead.
What is the argument?

Posted by: rapt | May 17 2006 15:10 utc | 8

On CNNI a reporter who was there that day says he himself saw and photographed bits of the airplane, some with identifying marks, and that he is quoted out of context on the Internet site citing him. On the “video” I could see on the right side of the frame a white nose, wings, maybe some blue markings, FWIW.
Were any remains of passengers recovered from the site? Wouldn’t *that* be conclusive evidence? There must have been some bits of DNA present for testing, I would think.

Posted by: Hamburger | May 17 2006 16:44 utc | 9

A missile or any other warhead would produce a different kind of explosion — the kind we see in the video looks to be a fuel (slow motion fireball) explosion, not inconsistant with the kind seen in the WTC.

Posted by: anna missed | May 17 2006 17:39 utc | 10

R I C H ‘ S – I N C R E D I B L E – P Y R O

Posted by: b | May 17 2006 18:02 utc | 11

Okay, now I’m really worried. Like most other Americans, I rather unhesitatingly accepted the official story about 9/11. Since then, as I’ve read more (although I’m by no means an authority), I began to have some doubts. These mostly centered around the fact that steel skyscrapers hit by airplanes don’t collapse like the World Trade Center towers did. I thought there was something weird about the whole Pentagon story, too, especially with how a jet airliner piloted by a rank novice came in so low and fast. I’d read the discussions of how the holes weren’t big enough, etc., as well. Again, though, I would like to stress that I am not a 9/11 conspiracy afficianado, much less a tin-foil-hat wearer. I just had some questions.
When I saw the news that the videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon had been released, I was actually a little relieved; okay, at least that part of the story was true, and I could start feeling a little less paranoid. Now, having watched the video multiple times, I am more confused than ever. I don’t see anything that looks like a large passenger plane coming in. I’m not an expert, but the explosion doesn’t look like a fireball from a large amount of jet fuel exploding, either. The whole point about the Twin Towers falling has always been about how hot the jet fuel was, and how that large an amount caused the steel to soften. Realizing that the security camera is taking a series of stills, rather than a video, I am still struck by how quickly the fireball in this explosion seems to dissipate. If this is how jet fuel behaves, I don’t see any way it could have caused the collapse of the Twin Towers. And if this isn’t jet fuel exploding, what is it?
I have deliberately avoided the whole topic of 9/11 here, precisely because the crazies seem to come crawling out of the woodwork whenever it’s raised. Now I’m starting to wonder whether I’m one of those crazies, too.
Thanks for posting this, b. Now please tell me to quit worrying and resume consuming, like good Americans are supposed to.

Posted by: Aigin | May 17 2006 18:34 utc | 12

well THAT clears it up! Can this guy tell you fetal eye color from an ultrasound too?
Sorry, ‘this guy’ can’t tell you that either.
No idea what the pic actually proves or doesn’t. Inconclusive but still worth taking a look at.
Personally I think it looks like a giant tube of toothpaste, but that could be for any number of non-nefarious reasons.

Posted by: Night Owl | May 17 2006 18:39 utc | 13

The height of the building at the foreground compared to the apparent height of the building (due to depth perception) at he point of the explosion would be consistent with the apparent size of the object entering the picture from the right and would also make it consistent with the size of a 757.
.02

Posted by: pb | May 17 2006 20:40 utc | 14

for all you tin-foil-hatters, The Attack on The Pentagon by Leonard Spencer — fascinating stuff.

Posted by: andrew in caledon | May 18 2006 0:45 utc | 15

This wasn’t the only camera viewing the crash. What about the gas station security unit across the street? You know, the gas station where Secret Service agents rushed in minutes after the explosion to take the tape of?
I agree with others in that I see nothing that looks like a nose of a 757. It’s interesting that there’s so little extra information presented in these frames, yet they were deemed classified until this particular moment. Interesting, indeed.

Posted by: Pyrrho | May 18 2006 0:45 utc | 16

On the morning of September 11, 2001 I (the Captain)flew a scheduled passenger flight into Washington National Airport. As our aircraft approached DCA airport, we were informed by tower that the ATC system was shutting down for an unknown reason. (We assumed it was a local radar outage at the time). Our approach was from the south, up the Potomac River. It was a very clear morning. As we crossed over the Woodrow Wilson bridge I scanned the skies ahead for traffic. There was none. None was reported by tower as we continued our approach. None was showing up on our onboard radar: TCAS. No one was taking off ahead of us. The pentagon was visible during our entire approach. So was the Washington monument, the Capitol, etc. The time was appoximately 9:35 am. We touched down on Runway 1 at DCA. Seconds after exiting the runway a huge column of black smoke began to rise to the northwest of the airport near the Pentagon. It wasn’t until we parked at the gate we were informed of the events occurring in NYC.
It would be interesting to see the radar tapes from DCA and Washington Center. The controllers on duty at the time could probably shed additional light onto what transpired. The black boxes on board all passenger jets are designed to withstand a crash of this magnitude. The recovered engines would also provide additional information regarding the impact.
I too reviewed the recently released video tapes from the government and I am unable to confirm whether a B-757 hit the pentagon. Neither my copilot or myself saw any aircraft in the vicinity. It’s possible there was an aircraft approaching the pentagon at the same time we were landing at DCA that neither of us saw. However, if there was, DCA tower would have more than likely informed us of this traffic closing on our position.

Posted by: Zim | May 18 2006 2:38 utc | 17

When these were first on CNN last night, and catching them out of the corner of my eye while fixing supper, the immediate impression was that they looked like one of our AutoCAD/Photoshop “fly-throughs”. Similar depth layering.
Growing up as an Air Force brat I know what a plane crash looks like, and I’ve dis-believed the Pentagon hit since the first broadcast news videos. The CNN guy was shown with bits of fuseluge left lying on the ground; none of the grass was burnt, bent, scraped. Things had simply been dropped from a basket, like setting out Easter Eggs for a child’s discovery.
And its taken how many years to release these meaningless videos? Or to create them?

Posted by: Allen/Vancouver | May 18 2006 2:40 utc | 18

Yeah, the timing is something of a head-scratcher… unless the point of releasing these stills was not to allay anyone’s suspicions in the first place, but to increase them. For my part, I think this release is as persuasive as the latest animatronic Osama tape, and with digital technology being what it is, they could not be otherwise.
If these had shown a picture-perfect 757 slamming into the Pentagon, I’d be prepared to swear they were photoshopped… otherwise, why not release them before now? Why classify photos of an event as public as this in the first place? But blurry pictures that do not show anything… well, that’s what we’re accustomed to, isn’t it? That’s all we ever get spoon fed from the MSM and I don’t think our skepticism at being shown something “conclusive” at this time would be unwarranted.
So to me, the question of what the pictures do or do not show is irrelevant. The question in my mind is why they are trotting this out right now knowing perfectly well that it won’t convince anyone of anything they haven’t already surmised. This release deliberately fogs up an already perfectly cloudy issue.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 18 2006 2:53 utc | 19

Aigin, enough time has elapsed for reputable people to speak up. Of course, since our beaches haven’t entirely eroded away there’s still plenty of sand for sticking yr. head in if you prefer.
Ask yourself how the most heavily guarded airspace in the history of the world can have 4 planes hijacked simultaneously & nothing is done about it. The Pentagon is even guarded by SAMS. And if it’s legitimate, and our country was actually Under Attack by a Foreign ENEMY, do you really think the response of the SecDef to the attack on the Pentagon would be – “It’s not my responsibility. I only worry about overseas issues.” as he continues on his way…Seriously..Get a Grip..
Why don’t you start by reading David Ray Griffin’s analysis of the official report. Then you might want to ask yourself what the very conservative Professor who was Chief Economist in Labor Dept. at the time knows that you don’t. Here’s his website
Here’s the first parag. from his bio:
Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Does he sound like a wingnut to you?
And, of course, to put it into context, if you haven’t read PNAC yet, this will motivate it for you. They couldn’t have enacted their agenda without it.
Which explanation is more plausible? And speaking of plausibility, give a more plausible explanation for why Chimpy in Chief did nothing when told the country would be attacked.

Posted by: jj | May 18 2006 3:16 utc | 20

I was going to inquire about the other security cameras whose film we know was confiscated, but someone already did that. Could a FOIA request produce them?
The alleged plane in the current film seems to be white; I’m sure AA planes can be just about any color, but I’m pretty sure that all the ones I’ve ever seen are silver.
And why does the flight 93 cabin film we recently heard end about 3 minutes before the plane crashed?

Posted by: Brian Boru | May 18 2006 4:13 utc | 21

And speaking of plausibility, give a more plausible explanation for why Chimpy in Chief did nothing when told the country would be attacked.
Because they didn’t tell him ahead of time that this was the day, and he thought he was gonna get whacked the minute he left the class room.
Think about it. If I didn’t know whether Cheney had decided to take over, I’d want to just sit there reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to a bunch of school kids also. Wouldn’t you?

Posted by: Night Owl | May 18 2006 4:50 utc | 22

@Night Owl: This was exactly my thought. That expression on his face from 911 still haunts me. That is exactly how I would have looked if I was a figure head for a group of guys that were as ruthless and determined as CheneyCo.

Posted by: PeeDee | May 18 2006 8:06 utc | 23

Nothing new in that vid. Stills from it (many) have been available for a long time. It has all been analysed to death already. (see 9/11 sites.)
The Gvmt. released nothing of any importance – it is just junk. The question is, where are the other vids. – there must be at least 5 – and could there be a chance of obtaining them?
The answer to that from me is: No – the other vids have been confiscated and/or destroyed and barring completely extraordinary events will never be seen.
Why is Juidicial Watch apparently proud (or satisfied) with this non-event?
—-
Bush didn’t know. While sitting there, he finally figured, My God, so that is what they were talking about. Then it was necessary to keep him in the air, touring about the US (just as the ‘terrorists’ did in the planes!) so that he could glom onto the inevitability of it all and realise that he could become, glory of glories, a WAR president.

Posted by: Noisette | May 18 2006 17:52 utc | 24

@Noisette, Perhaps they wouldn’t let him land until he had sex with a goat on camera or something so they could trust him to keep quiet and take the only role offered. He still doesn’t seem to quite be able to figure out what that role is, although he obviously liked the “Mission Accomplished” bit of it. Perhaps he’s been promised another one of those when “major combat operations in Iran” cease.

Posted by: PeeDee | May 19 2006 1:45 utc | 25

Back to Main