9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

Just to help the debate along a bit... here are some strange anomalies...

Eyewitness Statement by WJLA (ABC 7) Cameraman
on 9/11/01 in Washington DC
Wayne Madsen, an investigative reporter, talked with a cameraman for WJLA, ABC 7, in Washington DC, who had been driving to the Pentagon and came upon a woman standing beside her car in shock. The cameraman stopped and walked over to her. She could not speak, but pointed to the far side of her car. He went around the other side of the car and saw that parts of the passenger side had been sheared off and that there was a piece of a plane's landing gear on the ground nearby.



This is an anomaly, because I read no other mention of this piece of landing gear.  If he was a photographer, surely he would have taken photos?  Also, in my opinion, I would have thought a wheel, travelling at that speed and hitting a vehicle (even if slightly), would have taken the vehicle clean out, or at least shifted it a fair distance.

And now in relation to the C-130...

McClellan, Kenneth
The crew of a military cargo plane watched as a hijacked airliner plunged into the Pentagon, a defense official confirmed Tuesday.
          The report confirms the eyewitness account of two Hampton Roads residents who were near the Pentagon that day and said they saw a second plane flying near the doomed passenger jet.
          A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington "at an unusual angle," said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman.
          Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane "to let us know where it's going," McClellan said.
          But, he said, there was no attempt to intercept the hijacked airliner.
          "A C-130 obviously goes slower than a jet," McClellan said. . . .
          The C-130 pilot "followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon," he said.
          "He saw it crash into the building. He saw the fireball." . . .
          In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said.
          "It was very hard to get any information out," McClellan said.
"C-130 crew saw Pentagon strike, official confirms," by Terry Scanlon and David Lerman, Daily Press, 10/17/01
O'Keefe, John
"I was going up Interstate 395, up Washington Boulevard, listening to the radio . . . and from my left side, I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet," said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. "It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. . . .
          "The eeriest thing about it, was that it was like you were watching a movie. There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went `pfff.' It wasn't what I would have expected for a plane that was not much more than a football field away from me.
          "The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head, and it scared . . . me, because I knew there had been two planes that hit the World Trade Center. And I started jogging up the ramp to get as far away as possible.
          "Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.
"At the Pentagon: Airplane as a Bomb," New York Law Journal, 9/12/01

Rodriguez, Meseidy
Meseidy Rodriguez confirms "it was a mid size plane". His brother inlaw also saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary Rd. in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.
Dead link: http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170005.html
Link no longer relevant: http://www.spooky8.com/reviews.htm

Sucherman, Joel
Within about two minutes there were fire trucks on the scene. . . .
          Within a minute another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear whether that plane was trying to maneuver out of the way and out of the air space or if that plane was coming around for another hit as well. That plane ended up disappearing into the sky.
Real Player (Audio): "Joel Sucherman," USAToday.com
The above is linked to at: "Plane crashes in Pa.; unclear if related," USAToday.com, 9/12/01

Thompson, Phillip
Then a gray C-130 flew overhead, setting off a new round of panic.
"COMMENTARY: Familiar feelings as the unimaginable unfolds," by Phillip Thompson, Military.com, 9/11/02

Wheelhouse, Keith
Her brother, [Keith] Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach, spotted the planes first. The second plane looked similar to a C-130 transport plane, he said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.

Hemphill, Albert
We constantly scanned skyward with our "eyeball radar," noting the sound of every jet engine seemed to make us jump. Fortunately, the only aircraft noise was the crisp distinctive ripping sound was of Air Force F-16's or the roar and popping of the rotor blades of a Park Police UH-1 helicopter surveying the damage. The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading.
"RE: The flag was still there - Pentagon Eye-Witness account," e-mail by Albert Hemphill, TML September 2001 archive, lists.travellerrpg.com, 9/12/01
          As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal," Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west."
          Wheelhouse's account of a second plane is unlike everything else that has been reported about the attack. Some initial reports on television said a second airliner might be headed for the Pentagon, but authorities later dismissed that.
"`Horrific' Image Still Haunts Surry Woman - Disaster Viewed From Arlington," by Terry Scanlon, The Daily Press, 9/14/01


Edited by Geck0 - May 20 2006 at 08:47

Geck0 wrote: You are correct Mike, but aircraft (and large ones too) have also hit the ground at full speed and the tailplan has survived.  It doesn't happen in all cases, but it does happen.

Edited by Fitzcarraldo - May 20 2006 at 07:47

Yes Geck0 - it was Ghandi 2 not maani. I stand (sit) corrected.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Geck0 wrote: I wasn't referring to the towers, it's obvious that the tails wouldn't survive in that case.  I'm not even saying they'd survive in The Pentagon collision.  But it may have survived with the Pennsylvania crash.  I believe the tailplane on the Lockerby bombing survived. The difference is that one plane exploded mid-flight and then peripheral parts of the plane just fell to the ground, and the other crashed into the ground at full speed. BTW: I just spent 3 hours(!) reading the document that maani posted about the Loose Change video, and quite frankly: I'm amazed at how manipulative it is. I still encourage everybody to watch that video, but to also read the document. I think that you come to the same conclusion that I came to: It is much more likely that it happened like it was publicly reported than like the "conspiracy theorists" claim.

You are correct Mike, but aircraft (and large ones too) have also hit the ground at full speed and the tailplan has survived.  It doesn't happen in all cases, but it does happen.

If you mean the debunking of the Loose Change video... then Maani didn't post that link.

from wikipedia:

The September 11, 2001 attacks occurred during that year's Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian joint exercises. That year, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, Vigilant Guardian 'postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union' on North America. The Russian 37th Air Army was, in fact, conducting major bomber exercises across the Arctic and Atlantic at this time, amongst the largest carried out by them since 1993. Both the American and the Russian exercises were cancelled after the attack.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States investigated the possibility that Vigilant Guardian preparations compromised the military's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11. They concluded that the exercise may have had, in fact, the effect of expediting the response to the attacks. However, the report made no mention of Global Guardian or any other accompanying exercise.

FAA and military officials reported trouble discerning the war game operations from the actual attacks. After being notified of the first hijacking, General Larry Arnold originally thought it was part of the exercise,[1] [2] as did NEADS Commander Col. Robert K. Marr Jr.[3] and his deputy Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, who said "everybody" at NEADS first thought the attacks were part of Vigilant Guardian.[4] However General Ralph Eberhart told the 9/11 Commission “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation (note 116 to chapter 1).

As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.

Coincidence.

maani wrote: You might also want to ask yourself: who is funding the “de-myth” sites?  Did that ever occur to you?  We know who is funding the 9/11 truth sites: a wide variety of individuals, organizations, journalists, etc. who are simply troubled by the questions that remain, and omissions and distortions in the “official story.”  Yet if you track most of the “de-myth” sites, you will find that they are funded at least partly by government or quasi-government individuals and agencies.  Yes, each side has its “agenda.”  But consider what those agendas are: for the 9/11 truth movement, a more thorough investigation of 9/11 by a truly non-partisan commission that does not have myriad conflicts of interest; for the government and “de-myth” sites, the maintaining of at least partial fictions – if not outright lies – about what occurred on 9/11.

Ghandi 2 wrote: cobb wrote: Still too many questions, Fitzcarraldo. Why did they fall like a controlled demolition- no skyscraper has ever fallen down previously. I'm pretty sure that other skyscrapers have fallen down. However, even if no building has ever fallen down before, they weren't hit by a 100 ton 747 going 550 mph! Fact: These Buildings were designed to take a 7 series commercial airliner impact and no skyscraper has ever fallen in history, that wasn't purposely brought down Why was the Pentagon hit 1 hour and how many minutes after the intial event (this in itself is a damning epitath to America's readiness to defend itself)? We're not at war; we don't have planes constantly ready to scramble, as that is very expensive and Clinton cut back the military significantly to fund other things, such as Welfare. We had planes ready, but it takes a long time to get a plane from being ready for flight to actually getting it in the air. Fact: these same planes that remained grounded on 9/11 had 47 scrambles in the previous year up to 9/11 for airliners that had reported loss of radio, passenger trouble, etc Why were high officials warned not to fly on the day. The paper talks about this much better than I can.   Why did the President continue to look nonchalant in a classroom after an aide had told him "America is under attack"? It's called keeping up appearances. What was he supposed to do, make a mad dash for the limo? There wasn't really anything he could immediately anyway. Keeping up appearances. His aide told him America was under attack... Does keeping up appearances warrant here. Or did he already know what was going on.  Why did those who failed in their capacity and duty receive promotions? Because demoting people who failed during a tragedy is not politic. Yeah, that makes sense... cobb wrote: So I ask again, how quickly does an explosion occur. Look at the second video (new link in above post). Clearly 4 frames capture the explosion  Fire and smoke from an explosion rise much slower than 500 miles per hour.

I'll concede that - but still, why does the white blur not look like what they say it is. To me it looks a little like a missle.
    
    

Edited by cobb - May 20 2006 at 00:41

I quite agree Peter, but if this is fake, it opens up a massive can of worms about the American Government (I mean, it's obvious they're corrupt anyway, but this makes it very big indeed).

But we will never know, so we debate it until we bore everyone to tears.

The Loose Change video does err on occasion and maybe some of their witnesses were insignificant, but they still make mostly valid points.

And the CCTV Video is inconclusive and the document glosses over the 5 stills and has one cursory remark about frame rates...

I was reading on a forum about the frame rate issues and the film may have frames missing, or it has been manipulated in some way.  But of course, this is all conjecture.

But out of issues made, two stand out for me:

1. The way the two towers (as well as 7 WTC) collapse, appearing to be under controlled explosion conditions
2. The CCTV footage that should show a lot more, but shows nothing.  A 757 would fill more space, in my opinion

One last remark, but not aimed at any theories in particular, but just an obeservation...

You'l find in a lot of Aircraft crashes, that the tailplane survives relatively intact.

I have now been through parts of the "de-myth" site, and I must say I am somewhat underwhelmed.

 

First, their alleged claims re WTC 7 ring incredibly hollow.  One need only watch and listen to Larry Silverstein re his comment about "pullling" the building, and everything about his tone, body language, etc. indicates exactly what he means: "pull" means controlled demolition.  As well, the site wants us to believe that Larry Silverstein, a professional developer for over 50 years, would not know the industry term "pull?"  Give me a break - of course he would.  As for the damage to the building, it almost does not matter whether it was one fire, 2, 3 or 23, or how much of the building was on fire.  The manner in which it fell was simply not in keeping with a haphazard collapse.  The building fell at free fall speed into its own footprint.  And no matter how much spin anyone puts on it, that can only happen in a controlled demolition, because in order far a building to fall at free fall speed, the interior structure must be completely destroyed first – and the only way to do that is with explosives.  Period.  As well, they outright lie about the FEMA report: it does not state that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to the fires in the building.  Both the FEMA and NIST reports are “inconclusive” about the cause of the collapse.  That one is easy to find because both reports can be accessed.

 

So as far as their “de-mythification” of WTC 7 goes, they fail utterly.

 

Re wreckage at the Pentagon, they use photos and identify certain parts as those of a 757.  Yet Loose Change was far more specific about those parts: and that they could not possibly have come from a 757.  Indeed, Loose Change does a thorough report on at least three of those parts, including the supposed engine piece, down to the details of the structure of each piece.  The “de-myth” site gives nothing of the sort: all it gives is a perfunctory “identification” of the parts as belonging to a 757.  Poppycock.

 

I also want to add something about “witnesses” to the Pentagon crash.  First, I would completely disregard any statement made by a Pentagon employee, for obvious reasons.  Second, re people in cars on the highway, consider the following.  When you are in a car, what is your actual field of vision?  Unless you are in a convertible or have a sunroof, your vertical field is extremely limited.  And your horizontal field is limited to what you can see out the windshield and the side and back windows.  Are you telling me that someone in a car could identify an aircraft moving at 450+ miles per hour as, without question, “An American Airlines plane?”  First, it is unlikely that they would see much of the plane at all due to limited field of vision.  Second, even if they did see the plane, at that speed it would be little more than a blur, and they might see it for perhaps 5-10 seconds.  Third, unless they were positioned absolutely perfectly relative to the plane, there is no way they could identify the logo, due to limited field of vision and speed of the plane.  Thus, anyone who says, with absolute certainty, “It was an American Airlines plane” is highly suspect.

 

So far, the de-myth site has not changed anything for me.  Because Loose Change is only one of many 9/11 truth videos, books, etc. that provide an extraordinary wealth of facts, extensive research, frame-by-frame analysis of video footage, and other data re the 9/11 attacks.

 

You might also want to ask yourself: who is funding the “de-myth” sites?  Did that ever occur to you?  We know who is funding the 9/11 truth sites: a wide variety of individuals, organizations, journalists, etc. who are simply troubled by the questions that remain, and omissions and distortions in the “official story.”  Yet if you track most of the “de-myth” sites, you will find that they are funded at least partly by government or quasi-government individuals and agencies.  Yes, each side has its “agenda.”  But consider what those agendas are: for the 9/11 truth movement, a more thorough investigation of 9/11 by a truly non-partisan commission that does not have myriad conflicts of interest; for the government and “de-myth” sites, the maintaining of at least partial fictions – if not outright lies – about what occurred on 9/11.

 

Each of us needs to find our place in this by considering the totality of what all of this means, and not whether one site or another is more accurate than another site.  If your gut tells you that the “official story” is correct – that 19 Arab men with plastic knives and boxcutters foiled the entire military and airlines apparatuses of the United States – then by all means stick with your gut.  But if your gut – or your logic, common sense or discernment – tells you that “there is something rotten in the state of Denmark," and that the “official story” is so full of holes that you could….fly an airplane through it, then don’t keep it to yourself.  This is far too important to keep to yourself.

 

Peace.

Edited by maani - May 19 2006 at 23:12