These pictures have been seen before..
Why don't they release some better footage?
There surely are more cameras around the Pentagon..

I tend to think it was a smaller, probably a remote-controlled
plane that hit the Pentagon..

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see some real evidence of a
passenger plane..

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

If the Pentagon's only surveillance video was this one angle from this one camera, it must be the least-surveilled facility in the nation. On this evidence, the NSA's call-monitoring program is many orders of magnitude more extensive than the defenses afforded our own Department of Defense. The lack of any cognizable information on this video tells us one of two things: that the Pentagon is essentially unprotected and laid open for attack, or that we're being made party to yet another of our national FOIAbles.

I'd like to see footage of the AIRPLANE ITSELF. Rumsfeld has a scrap of it on his desk - can its provenance be verified?

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

A bi-partisan committee signed off on this? This is it? I'm not impressed, and in fact, am more skeptical.

And holding this back to protect the case against Moussaoui? (Yeah, and BTW, I have a bridge to sell you ... or some land in Florida ...)

I'm not an attorney, but I fail to understand the rationale for not making this video tape public but allowing millions to see planes being flown into the WTC towers? Is there something else at play here from a legal standpoint that I'm not seeing? Somebody enlighten me. Are they concerned for biasing the jury?

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

Are these surveillance videos really only 1 second stills?????
Only on one frame of each of the "videos" could I see the nose of something at the right of the screen before it hit. It was much smaller than a 757 nose AND did anyone see ANY plane debris??????

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

Something occured to me as I watched this . . . It really doesn't go anywhere towards clearing up what happened at the Pentagon that September day - certainly no more than the super-grainy stills we have already seen but it has had the (I believe) intended effect of heightening skepticism. I mean why else release a video that does absolutely nothing to support their official story?

Expect to see a better resolution movie that supports the official version coming out just about the time this reaches a fevered pitch - BAM! Think letting the "conspiracy nuts" cry wolf while offering evidence that appears NOT to support the official version of events then deliver the KO blow by releasing a higher quality version from another vantage point. Conspiracy theory finally put to rest . . . buried under the very weight that sustained it this long. Don't suppose for one minute that actually means they weren't in on it . . .

Otherwise they don't have shit and this was a vain attempt to let people see whatever they want to see. If they tell us it was a 757 doing 500 mph 2 ft. off the ground then that is what it is . . .

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

I didn't believe the missile story before, but now that they show the video, it seems more like a missile than a boeing. two questions though:

(1) they had confiscated videos from nearby businesses too. where are those?

(2) why do all the news websites keep saying "video showing the flight 77 slamming into the pentagon". do you see the "77" on the "boeing" thats not even visible in the video?

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

but my understanding is they're pretty good-sized planes. I'm no expert, but the object in question in the video didn't look to me like a big airplane.

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

This is a video of something unidenified, but what?

We never found out who spread the anthrax; what caused the flaming crash of an American Airlines plane out of New York City, or a host of other weird happenings.

SOS

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

Does this administration really think people are that gullable? That video shows nothing more than the original except for a white streak before the explosion. They need to release the other video's from the hotel, gas station, & department of transportation for me to believe that is in fact a 757. To me that is either a missile, drone plane, or small jet. The previously released pictures of the Pentagon show no sign of debris or of the wings hitting the building or skidmarks, etc. Like someone said before, this opens up more questions than it answers.

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

Does anybody remember 2 of the hottest and still, then, heating up stories of 9/10 - the day before 9/11? They were:

(i) More and more data accumulating about how and just how dirtily Dubya stole the 2000 election; and

(ii) Something about a trillion dollar plus hole in Pentagon accounting which forced the resignation of Dov Zakheim (a dual Israeli/American citizen and a Shul Rabbi, who, over 25 yrs, set defense policy which influenced Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush Sr. and Jr. He was the controller (CFO for DoD) of the Pentagon when an audit discovered over a trillion dollars was missing). Still missing by the way. And more than was originally thought.

Note the following: Radar shows that Flight 77 - supposedly driven by a hijacker described by his flight instructor as someone who could not fly - executed a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, sources have said, it's clear there was NO fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The "jetliner" disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph flying approximately 2 feet off the ground.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. A Top Gun performance by a rookie civilian who hadn't graduated and was supposedly distracted with an ongoing struggle for a plane he had never flown before. Mi-IV, maybe.

Who Died? Lots of folks on the ground for sure. Interesting amongst those who perished were 2 sections housed where the plane hit:

(i) A large accounting group allegedly involved with investigating that trillion dollar hole; and

(ii) A Pentagon-based naval operations control center that would have been tracking the air and signals traffic surrounding 9/11, and would have been clued into the - at least - 4 air/ground exercises ALL being flown and acted out that morning (even FAA controllers werre noted to have been asking whether what they were seeing on their screens was "real" or part of one of the exercises).

The naval oeprations group would also have been determining what, and to some extent, "who" was "going on" that morning. Except, of course, they and their records were all incinerated ash. I've always wondered how come it was the case (assumed) that none of them saw F77 coming - but then again, at the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."

Neat huh? Theoretically of course, F77 solves a whole passel of problems in one, pardon the insensitive pun, hit. Makes you wonder. I'm not saying F77 in particular was there for those reasons; somebody else might connect those dots. It never hurts though to ask Qui Bono? [Who Benefits?] - from F77, to the whole insane 9/11, Afghanistan-Iraq trajectory. Too many cracks in the public story for it to be what, when reluctantly forced to comment, they claimed. "Cherchez la femme" is what we used to ask as teenagers, "Cherchez le Benefits" is what we ask when the dream ends. Sweet math and Dead folks.

Everything said here is publicly available over the Net. We saw this show 5 years ago, and still where, darn it, is the Boeing? There's not even a shadow of something that big (check out the light changes - or lack of, as in this case). 1 part of 1 video down, the rest to follow, and 84 more videos to go (though all, somehow, miraculously confiscated, one might observe, in an amazingly dextrous and synchronous coordination of seizures).

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

I looked carefully at the video at least 10 times. If there was a plane, it must have been a "stealth" plane.. joking of course. Seriously though, can anyone dispute that what is shown here is something OTHER than a LARGE passenger jet? Where are the engines? Where are the wings? They would not "vaporize" if 184 bodies were recovered. titanium alloy engines would not vaporize... and flesh and bones remain intact.. its just impossible.. Why is the msnbc site saying "the plane is shown as a small white streak of smoke prior to impacting the Pentagon"??? any thooughts? here are the dimensions of a Boeing 757, let me know what you think.. GOD SAVE THE COUNTRY.. Thanks Gman1960
boeing 757 dimensions:
The 757-200 dimensions:
Tail Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.6m)
Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)
Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in (38.05m)
Body Exterior Width: 12 ft 4 in (3.7m)
Fuel Capacity: 11,489 us gal (43,490l / 43,490kg)
Maximum Takeoff weight: 255,000lb (115,680kg)
Typical Cruise Speed: 0.80 Mach (573.6mph / 956kmh)
Engines used on a 757: Two 166.4kN (37,400lb) Rolls-Royce RB211-535C turbofans, or 178.8kN (40,200lb) RB211-535E4s, or 193.5kN (43,500lb) RB211-535E4-Bs, or 162.8kN (36,600lb) Pratt & Whitney PW2037s, or two 178.4kN (40,100lb) PW2040s, or 189.5kN (42,600lb) PW2043s. (source1) (source2)
Auxiliary Power Unit: Honeywell GTCP331-200

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

I have a friend who fled Austria in 1937. He's watched the Bush Administration over the years and it is all brutally familiar to him. There are many theories about what happened on September 11th, but there is no doubt, based on the evidence, that the official story is untrue. The object in this film is not a large plane, there is plenty of footage of multiple explosions taking place in the World Trade Center just as the buildings collapse, WT7 was clearly imploded by detonation, etc., etc.

The question is, as pointed out previously, why was this video released? The 5 frames of it that really matter have been seen before. What is the intent? Perhaps the forces behind this are currently in need of something to distract the public from what they're doing and not doing at present. Perhaps they welcome the "conspiracy theory" being brought further into the public consciousness so that they can then launch a counter attack at the appropriate time and play on all the same issues again.

Don't trust the release of this video. Watch carefully what results from it.

For some reading on this, check out

www.911-strike.com/reichstag.htm

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

That's a cruise missile. The only engine they 'found' was a small turbine. The question is why? maybe to scare some elements in the defense dept.? Also, did you all notice the bright flash a few moments after the missile hits? That is the warhead.

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

please watch

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

please watch
(won't let me post the link, google "loose change 2" for the video)
for more footage of the pentagon and for other evidence that refutes the official 9/11 story with indisputable findings. micheal moore only went halfway with F911.

there is simply no way that is a passenger plane in that video and i'm confused as to why they're bringing attention to a video that practically proves it.

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

I don't understand how this would dispel any conspiracy theories...

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

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it's...???

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

The recently released videos from Pentagon security cameras do not appear to conclusively prove that AA flight 77 struck the Pentagon. In fact, if one looks closely at the single frame in each video where the plane (or missile) that struck the Pentagon is visible and compares that to the previous frames, the object looks very pointy and missile-like.

Note that if you look only at the frames in which the object appears that it does look somewhat cockpit-esque. But the upper part of what appears to be the cockpit is actually stationary, as can be determined by watching the videos carefully and using the pause button to stop them on the frame where the moving object appears.

Here is a link to still pictures of the video frames in question, with enlargements of the critical area.

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

logic stated that the Nazis wouldn't burn down the Reichstag either...

i don't mean to sounds like a contrarian here, but with the lies and cover-ups that have gone on so far with this administration, you're gonna have a tough time convincing ANYONE who belives this was a major cover-up to believe otherwise, is that scientific proof against the gov't theory, nope...but neither is anything they have presented, these are easily side-stepped and hurdled excuses you've put out there, i'm not gonna say you're wrong, because if i knew, then i'd be rich, and obviously im not, otherwise i'd be sitting in a caribean island drinking rum instead of working at a state building, but let me ask you one thing, what evidence can you provide to dissuade the growing masses of people who think something is indeed rank in the state of denial?

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

That 757, if it is a 757 at all, is so close to the ground that the engines surely must have hit the ground, no? Yet we know that the engines did not hit the ground. And how is it possible that a plane can fly that low to the ground and not lose control and bounce? Or have either wing scrape along the ground?

I just want to know, is it even remotely possible that this is a 757?

And what's with the bright flash after the initial explosion? wth could have caused that?

I predict this footage will be in loose change 3. heh.

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

Why would the Justice Department pick this time to release these security camera frames? It's just a handy opportunity to debunk conspiracy nutcases in the mass media - just checked on Google - 550 news mentions, all across the spectrum. Right up there with NSA domestic spying. Why even bother republishing this? Why is this such hot news at this time? It's like Charlie Sheen going on CNN and stating that he believes the WTC was demolished - product placement by the public image professionals. Flight 77 not a hoax - what is next on the agenda? Are we all going to learn that Area 51 is not actually an alien landing zone?

If you want hot conspiracy topics, why isn't the domestic spying business involving NSA, DIA, FBI, local police and who knows else a subject of dedicated web sites? All of which fail to mention the central evidence - FBI briefings and the Aug 06 PDB - that Bush knew terrorist attacks were imminent and did nothing to stop them.

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

According to one news site, the camera is running at 2 fps not 25 fps. This alters the numbers a lot! In each frame, the plane travels 337 feet. The plane itself is half that length, so it could appear in only one frame. Sorry guys. Could have been a plane. Who has the original footage?

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

Did a little research...not hard mind you..in this age of transparency ..no one can get away with anything for too long

As it turns out .. Judicial Watch is essentially funded by Donations from 3 independent foundations. These foundations also give large amounts of money to conservative think tanks. Two of the the three foundations are essentially the same foundation set up by Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife (yes of the famous Mellons... Carnegie Mellon, tycoon etc.. ) he owes his fortunes to Banking, Aluminum, NewsMax media outlet and bum bum bum ... you guessed it Oil.

Scaife used his media outlet as well as donations to help start Judicial Watch in 1994 .. this was all an attempt to remove President Clinton from office for illegal fundraising activity.

The other foundation giving money to Judicial Watch is the John M. Olin foundation. Established by the owner of Olin Industries ...a Chemical and Munitions manufacturing business.. which at another point in time donated money to fund "studies" that argued for relaxing laws about concealed weapons.

This is the statement released from Judicial Watch:

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

"Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77. As always, our prayers remain with all those who suffered as a result of those murderous attacks."

Then i woke up.

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

where? what plane? are those reporters delusory??

I don't know about you guys but I trust my own eyes..

release other videos please.. There are plenty cameras facing the incoming "plane" on top of the Pentagon... plus videos from hilton Hotel, Citgo gas station and one highway traffic camera... I want to see them... my tax money bought those cameras on the Pentagon...
what is Pentagon hiding???
what nonsense from the media saying this is a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon...

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

Someone should ask B*N L*DEN what he thinks of the footage...

Someone should have honestly figured out what the hell is going on by now, this is just sickening.

The Iraqis know exactly what keeps falling from the sky, they know what hit them. Why don't we? There's too much confusion... I don't know.

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

There's no way that's an aifliner! No way in hell! I slowed it down and cleaned it up! That's a fucking Lear Jet or a USNavy cruise missle with a slick paint job! Either way it damned sure ain't a 757!

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

There are some things to consider here:
How could an aircraft 155 ft. (approx) or (47m) long disintegrate completely without leaving behind any large chunks of debris? The video seems to show the plane being sucked into the pentagon without a trace of its tail, but I believe the wall would have slowed the plane sufficiently for a portion of its rear to be sticking out shortly after the dissipation of fire and smoke
How could a low-flying 757 be piloted at such a low altitude without hitting any of the obstacles surrounding the pentagon (trees, houses etc) and not crash before hand? Was superman the pilot?
How come it took so long for this footage to be released? Were they hiding something?
The information on the plane, crash scene etc is something I got from a "conspiracy" docu. film I saw recently, can't remember the title, please look into though, it is worth your trouble and time.
Don't believe for one minute any comment about the U.S's vulnerability to other attacks as someone mentioned. That's disinformation.

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