This video is meaningless. They keep such "evidence" until some schlub demands to see it and it proves nothing. All you see is the truck traffic on the overpass. It looks more like a tractor trailer blew up the pentagon! This is the WRONG hotel video. The hotel surveillance video that showed whatever hit the pentagon is on the other side of the pentagon facing the impact point along with at least 3 highway traffic cams and the gas station cam, all of which were immediately seized by the supposed FBI agents in an incredible act of forsight. Seized within minutes of the impact, not after someone researched where these cams might be and find them. This nonsense will never stop. We are doomed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After a lawsuit they release one tape of dozens siezed, that they have no reason to have kept secret at all. Why not release them all? When will they provide the missing frames from the previous tape they released? I suppose alot could be explained by how the msm will jabber on about how this proves they weren't hiding anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't look like much of an explosion considering it was a fully loaded, fueled 757 going about 300 miles an hour, which of course you never see. Don't you think you would at least see the tail rudder sticking up over the crap in the foreground? Damn nice flying for that Saudi kid who couldn't fly a cessna.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... but a tactic ONLY for use when you don't want people to know the truth (whatever the hell that might actually be in this case)... make EVERY release a fight.. and when pressed release something meaningless that does nothing to answer any questions... that way the fight for a release has to start all over again... because you already released new documents.......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's totally worthless video since you'd want some footage from either a tall building in Rosslyn or a high point in Arlington Cemetary or the site of the new Air Force Memorial.

I'm surprised you can see anything at all from the front entrance of the Doubletree in Pentagon City. You've got 95 and the corner of two non-hit faces of the Pentagon in the way. And at that angle.

Did they just go out of their way to find some random video in Arlington? Hell, we had a better vantage on the other side of the river.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We don't really need the videos, although the effort to get them should continue.

This photo from the smithsonian collection tells us everything we need to know.

The back of that fire truck is melted. Notice the lack of scorching on the fire station and helipad control tower.

BTW, notice the difference in the fire ball between the new video and the old. Reminds me of the flying object that hit the south tower - the engines are placed further from the fuselage depending on which video you see!

All these videos are actually early take-outs from the original "The Incredibles."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't watch the video because I'm at work. Does the video pickup with the Pentagon already on fire or does it have a lead up to the explosion and you just can't see the plane? I'm picking up by the comments here that it's a "here's the Pentagon on fire" clip, no context.
If that's the case, I find it pretty damn convenient to have an "after" shot with no leadup into the explosion. I guess the cameras are explosion sensitive and only turn on when a fire is detected. One would expect to be able to see a jetliner crash from any reasonable distance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can see something watch the white tail hit and explode twice and this piece of film is looped twice.

My issue with the film is that when ever they release something it is always of such poor quality. Why are companies spending billions on security camera's and equipment if all you get are some very grainy, low light, crappy images.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Pentagon is behind the built-up, long mound of dirt on which the truck passes just before, during, and after the smoke rises, right?

The "plane" (or I believe, missile) flew at near ground-level, and therefore it wouldn't be seen anyway - it would be behind the long mound of soil that IS the base for the highway.
---------------
If this is legitimate video, it proves nothing and further promotes the valid criticism that the FBI is still trying to avoid the issue, the facts that weren't brought up during the faux-9/11 Commission's so-called "investigation".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To the little fella who comes around the corner, does a jig, than walks away to be followed by an identical little fella who also does a jig and walks away? The video tapes released by the FBI are so just dubious due to their source and the political motivations thereof. I'd love to think this wasn't anything untoward, but that video of the pentagon where they picked out five or six slides, none of which show any structure to the plane seem just destined to raise questions...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not... Can't see a da*n thing except some smoke. Apparently the gov't has something to hide, or they would release ALL the videos. The question is, WHAT exactly do they have to hide, and WHY? Congress should demand the release of ALL 9/11 videos and data since after all, it was mad Islamic suicide bombers, right? What's the big deal? If Congress DID succeed in forcing the gov't to release all 9/11 video and data, it would either be highly censored, "lost" or a combination of both. Besides, (duh) Congress won't do a da*n thing, they ARE the gov't....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There you have it, PROOF that the terrorist hijacked a truck and crashed into the pentagon ! what more do we need ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's pretty easy to see the plane fly in and hit the Pentagon from this video. You can see the tail and back section, (as noted above in another comment) come in just before the explosion. Not great quality, sure, but it seems like much more than the other video that was released showing a small white blur.
I'm sorry, I dislike Bush and his warmongering ilk as much as the next guy, but some of this conspiracy theory stuff is just crap. A plane hit the Pentagon, period. Whether or not the Administration knew about it is up for grabs, but it being a missile or anything else is just hogwash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The pentagon is the most protected building on the planet.
Why wasn't it shot down by the pentagon's defensive missles?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1) Can a heavy passenger plane fly very low at CONSTANT height from the ground?

2) Compared to the speed of the truck, the speed of the alleged plane does not appear to be enough for a heavy passenger plane in flight swooping down from the sky. How come?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, what ever happened to Barbara Olson, who was calling her husband (Atty. Ted Olson) on her cell phone from the airplane as it crashed?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1) not a pilot but i know from my understanding of basic physics that a fully loaded passenger plane can't (accurately) fly that low and maintain enough airspeed to stay airborne (for an extended period of time). it's called airspeed for a reason: it's in the air. they'd be better off trying to convince us that the plane rolled into the pentagon on it's landing gear.
2) the truck on the overpass couldn't be going more than 70mph and whatever hit the pentagon couldnt've been going more than twice that speed. again, i'm not a pilot, but i don't think a fully loaded passenger plane could maintain a such a low altitude at such a low speed and still hit the pentagon dead on, i've seen the pentagon and it's not that tall. but if you think about it, when landing, you are going relatively slow as compared to normal airspeeds but the best pilot ever in the history of the world died that day cuz nobody other than him could pull that move off. rest in peace best pilot, whoever you are.
3) questions? wouldn't a huge passenger plane swooping down from the sky do more damage than it did? linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I understand that at least one security camera from the Sheraton National (Airport) Hotel, at the top of the hill from the Pentagon, W. side of I-395, and above the Navy Annex for those familiar with the area, caught the crash, and some employees saw it before it was confiscated by authorities. Where is this video? It would be high enough up and far enough away to give a good panaramic view of the whole event.

As for witnesses, at the time of the event, local DC TV stations interviewed numerous motorists who were on roads around the Pentagon (including a reporter for WUSA-TV9) who did in-fact see a jetliner come overhead and hit the Pentagon. This was in the few hours immediately after the event, probably before anyone could "get to people" to start fabricating a story. I saw a number of these interviews on local DC TV that day. I have little doubt that a jetliner hit the Pentagon. I also have little doubt that the Bush Administration knew something was going to happen within a few weeks of 9/11, and chose not to stop it, so they could have their "Pearl Harbor like event", to allow them to drag us into the wars with Afganistan and Iraq that they wanted. I'm taking a middle ground here. There was a conspiracy, not to stage an attack, but to do nothing to prevent one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and convenience stores to spy on citizens (only in order to prevent 'crime' of course). But the only videos we can get from THE PENTAGON are of this quality? Come on. Get real.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It should have been clear a long time ago that our governmental bureaucrats and politicians are not interested in the truth at least not when it could unravel the real agenda. There are many of us who already know what happened that day. The evidence is so easy to find. People are wasting their time and energies suing for tapes or transcripts from 9-11-01 because anything significant has already disappeared or will never be released. These bureaucrats and politicians are masters at making we the people spin our wheels and go no where. There has to be a change of strategy if we are ever to succeed in justice because the same old same old just is not going to succeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this video has been discussed on 911blogger. Apparently, the tree in the foreground is not present on the satellite photos from that day, which leads to questions of this video's authenticity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Airplanes can in fact maintain low altitude flight. There's this thing called 'ground effect' that allows planes to fly very low, while carrying a LOT of weight.

The way it works is that when all planes create lift, they are also pushing air downwards along the wing tips. When you are close to the ground and pushing that air downwards, you create a 'cushion' of air that the plane floats on because the air hits the ground and bounces back. The amount of free lift created by this effect is very powerful and there are even special types of planes that are designed to explicitly use this effect. The Russians made some that can carry several tanks for very long distances using less fuel

Every plane experiences ground effect. When you land a plane, those huge flaps (on commercial airliners) that come up off the wings are there to disrupt the airfoil so that the wings don't create lift and the plane 'falls' to the ground. Otherwise ground effects would keep the plane in the air (until your speed drops too low and you fall out of the sky anyways).

Ground Effect and WIG Vehicles

To address the question of the amount of damage, the Pentagon has reinforced walls. 5 ft. thick concrete. The structural fortitude created by this makes the crashing of a passenger jet look like a skid mark in tighty-whiteys. Airplanes are really a lot more delicate than you might think. They are fine while operating within normal stresses, but running into a massive wall wasn't in the Boeing design spec for normal usage I'm guessing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Pentagon scrap, after 5 years, proves nothing. It should be abandoned as your main argument about 9-11. The fact that mainstream media focuses on this complaint, INSTEAD of mountains of more credible evidence, shows that you have fallen into a trap.

Far better evidence of government complicity in 9-11 exists.

See my articles at Crimes of the State for more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know what y'all are looking at, but I can clearly see the plane. It's the big shiny thing moving about twice as fast as the truck on the interstate.

A quick check of mapquest and the plane's flight path shows that the plane was moving at the same angle to the camera as the eastbound lane of the interstate, but at about 3 to 4 times the distance from the camera. So the plane's actual speed would be 3 to 4 times the apparent speed relative to the truck, which we can assume is going about 60mph. 120mph x 3.5 = 420mph, a perfectly reasonable flight speed for a passenger jet. Don't know what speed the authorities calculated, but they probably used a similar but more careful analysis of multiple videos.

As for controlling the plane at low altitude and speed: um, that's how you land an airplane, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, December 6, 2006

Actor James Brolin, the husband of Barbara Streisand, has today become the latest celebrity figure to publicly question the official story behind 9/11, after he encouraged viewers of a top rated ABC talk show to check out a 9/11 truth website.

Brolin appeared as a guest on The View Wednesday morning and according to e mails we have been receiving in numbers, towards the end of the show the actor questioned 9/11 and urged the audience to check out the website 911weknow.com, which is a website that purports to expose how the twin towers and Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, were brought down via controlled demolition.

We have received multiple reports that The View, which airs live from the West Coast in Pacific and Mountain time zones, was pre-empted by breaking news of the study group on Iraq in Eastern and Central time zones.

Brolin's lengthy cinema and TV history includes major roles in The West Wing with Martin Sheen, The Amytiville Horror, Capricorn One, and the upcoming Rambo movie.

He today joins film director and cult icon David Lynch in going public with his doubts about the official story behind 9/11. Lynch told Dutch television he thought WTC Building 7 was brought down via controlled demolition and that the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites were suspicious due to the absence of evidence that a plane crashed at either location.

Lynch and Brolin follow in the footsteps of other notable cultural figures who have spoken out on 9/11, such as Richard Linklater, Jesse Ventura, Matthew Bellemy, Ed Asner and Charlie Sheen.

Sheen was the first high profile celebrity to put his reputation on the line in the name of 9/11 truth and his courage should be saluted in opening the door for present and future individuals to follow his example.

www.prisonplanet.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

....Lynch and Brolin follow in the footsteps of other notable cultural figures who have spoken out on 9/11, such as Richard Linklater, Jesse Ventura, Matthew Bellemy, Ed Asner and Charlie Sheen.......

Well that's it.... It must be a government cover-up!... I mean with the likes of Sheen and Ventura, how can anyone doubt the obvious, 9/11 was an insde job!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pentagon Witnesses

Note many even identify it as an American Airlines passenger jet.

"We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running."

"About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd.," Harrington said. "It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something."

"It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it." "I didn't hear anything, but I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. The reason, I have some experience as a pilot and I looked at the plane. Didn't see any landing gear. Didn't see any flaps down. I realized it wasn't going to land. I realized what it was doing."

Many, Many, More, No Missile. A BIG frigging Jet liner.

But who are they to know what they saw, Joe Blow saw Losse Change 20 times and read all the 9/11 Truth sites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is an interesting little concept on the whole issue of the videos of 9/11.

Let say I am at the Pentagon on 9/11 and film flight 77 hitting the building. The authorities have the right to take my video as evidence of this crime BUT they do not have the right to release the video to the world without my permission. I still own the imagery and thereby hold the right to distribute or sell it to whoever I wish. I would assume the same hold true for any other video. Just something to consider.

I am sure someone at the Pentagon had to get permission from the Hotels company before letting the video out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is typical of the investigative skills of believers in the 9/11 truth movement. Buy rumors hook line and sinker, never asking the next logical question that any critical thinker would ask..... Does the Pentagon indeed have such missile batteries You don't have to look too far to find the answer. NO.

The idea that the Pentagon should have been defended by missile batteries was first proposed by French author Theirry Meyssan. Only problem is that there are NO missile batteries at the Pentagon. It was only after 9/11 the idea of putting air defense systems around Washington was proposed. There are several simple reasons for this, the BIG one is that the Pentagon is right on the flight path of Reagan National Airport, Plane fly close and low by the building all the time. Any missile defence system would be useless, an automatic system would be too likely to shoot down a wayward plane flying in or out of Reagan and a maned system would not have near enough time to pick out friend from foe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]