[ The place to find all the real cutting edge information, news, and analysis on the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. ]
KEY DOCUMENTS ]
[ NEWS LINKS ]
[ LIVE AUDIO ]
[ Archives ]
TOTAL 911 INFO
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
New Pentagon video shows no Boeing airliner
Total911.info -- Following Freedom of Information Act lawsuits dating back to 2004, the Pentagon Tuesday released images recorded on the morning of 9/11 by two security cameras in the Pentagon parking lot. Five frames from one camera had previously been leaked in early 2002. No Boeing 757 airliner is apparent in any of the images.
The federal government had been using the Zacarias Moussaoui trial as an excuse to keep the images classified. The images were shown to jurors at the trial. 25% of the heavily-screened, pro-FedGov jury were not horrified enough by the images to lynch the retarded colored Frenchman on trial.
Whatever speed the cameras actually recorded at, the released video only contains two frames per second. The five frames of interest from one camera were previously released in 2002. They appeared to show an obscured missile-sized object approaching the Pentagon. The images of interest from the other, nearby, camera, are first, the nose of an aircraft (very similar to, say, an AGM-86A cruise missile) inching into the frame from the right, the next, a white blur blurring into an explosion. No passenger airliner is apparent in any image.
Meanwhile, the government refuses to release 84 other recordings in pending lawsuits. Among those are videos confiscated from a nearby Sheraton hotel and Citgo gas station. Cable news reporters gamely reported that those cameras were pointed the wrong the way and we would never see them. This is a lie, of course, as media reports indicated Sheraton employees watched the tape "in horror" before it was stolen by the FBI.
Presentation of this release on cablenews was preceded and accompanied by loathsome talking heads preening that "conspiracy theorists" would be proven wrong by the video. Though more than one admitted quietly that the new footage was "underwhelming."
Particularly loathsome was CNN's embedded Pentagon flack, Jamie McIntyre. McIntyre claimed up and down that he was at the Pentagon and saw the plane wreckage, that it was everywhere. Of course, his report filed on 9/11 said exactly the opposite -- and video of that report has been archived all over the web and transcribed by Total911.info, Later in the day, McIntyre attacked "conspiracy theorists" on the web, and took some of his own 9/11 report out of context in order to attack Internet researchers of taking his report out of context. McIntyre was sweaty, jumpy, and nervous -- as well he should be, given that the scope of his lies may impeach him as a war criminal.
Like Winston in Orwell's 1984, a boot beating down on his head until he agreed 2+2=5, the television showed us, between reports on the NSA spying on your phone calls, pictures of no Boeing 757 while .insisting they were showing you a Boeing airliner.
How much longer will this continue?
.....| Posted by Total at 11:18 PM | PERMA-LINK |
The 9/11 Pentagon Attack: Planes Simply Do Not Vaporize - Why Didnít They Show Us the Wreckage?
new video stills here
FOIA page here
Pentagon Judicial Watch to Obtain September 11 Pentagon Attack Video
heres a closeup
heres the real N644AA flight 77
Unfortunately it will take a little more time for all this to come out, but make no mistake its coming and no body can stop it. These fools are having a hard time running things covertly and to many fingers are in the dike trying to hold back the leaks. As the song goes "you have to know when to hold em and know when to fold them" , "Know when to walk away know when to run".The only question I have is who is going to be left holding the bag.
what is wrong with the concept of an UNMANNED DRONE(there are a couple hundred varieties,and several are large enough to carry over 1000 pounds of explosives and dive from high altitudes at higher speeds than a boeing 757) do the math and your homework. it was not a cruise missle,more likely a ufo shaped drone with tail fins simmilar to the old p-38 aircraft. these are also very stealthy and would disintigrate into smaller fragments. why is there no talk about a drone(unmanned)
charles buchanan 111
Tonight Jesse, editor of TvNewsLIES.org will talk about the Pentagon strike, Loose Change, Judith Millerís revelations ..etc.
Call in, Write or IM your comments and questions. NO SCREENER!
8 pm ET. 5/18
If I lost a loved one on 911 by now I would have lost my mind and went on a killing spree. What happened? I mean we lost every ounce of what this country stood for previously. The whole thing is gone they destroyed the economy and are lying like little kids to us.
These hidden fools one namely Cheney look so incredibly stupid, also the FBI is not viewed by me as anything to respect anymore. They seemed more concerned with blondes in Aruba than any common justice.
Yes I certainly feel for those poor 911 family members.I am currently slogging through the(useless ,lying ,obfuscating,self-praising) Kean commission Final Report. What garbage.Also ,I feel the same way about remote control planes,or"un-manned drones" Don't know much about them but I know they've been used successfully enough by the military for them to be considered for use in Operation Northwoods.This was back in the 60s.they could have only improved technology since then.There would be no other way.This was a crime not a jihad.No one kills themselves in a crime.Who could they get to fly those planes?nobody.Remote control planes would explain a lot.I don't know why the truth movement doesn't talk about them more.
Hold on folks,please be patient,everything is falling into place,like it needs to be.Talk again soon. S.G
These Pentagon cameras supposedly capture at one frame per second. Security cameras are also not known for being the "best quality equipment" either.
Just because you don't "see" a plane flying into the Pentagon doesn't mean it did not happen. It also doesn't mean it did happen.
A camera does not function like the human eye. The receptors in the camera have to "fill" with the picture. A target moving at 300+mph could appear as the thin blur we see.
I wouldn't have expected to see much in the way of debris anyway. After the jet fuel was spent burning away the jet itself and the pentagon, the pentagon structure acted as further fuel.
The pieces of a plane that you and I are most familiar with (the entire exterior, the interior seats) are also the most fragile and highly susceptible to the explosion.
Besides, if you search around a bit, there are numerous pictures of some debris. A few pieces of painted aluminum, a wheel and other random pieces of the plane structure.
It's still the taboo topic. You can talk about anything else....just about anything... but not 9/11. Daily Kos dumps you if you post any of the evidence that has been undearthed. None of the progressive sites covered the international 9/11 Truth Conference in Chicago last week.
So, let's pretend it isn't happening...and that there are no vital questions to be answered.
This blog raises a new question. Think about it:
Flying a Plane Into the World Trade Center? Why Not Fly Out of LaGuardia?
Here is a new, and so far unasked question about the badly debunked official explanation of the events of September 11th 2001. If you spend years planning a spectacular attack the World Trade Center in New York City, and you are a less than adequate pilot, and you wanted to ensure the attack would be completed without giving the U.S. air defense apparatus the chance to follow their normal procedures and intercept your plane, why would you choose to fly out of Boston? Why would you choose to risk getting lost or stopped as you try to fly 190 miles to your target when you can hijack a plane from one of three airports within sight of the target?
There are three airports that would enable a pilot or a hijacker to have visual contact with the World Trade Center within a minute or two of takeoff. With all the planning these so called hijackers must have made, how stupid would they have to have been to travel to Boston in order to attack NY? We have been told that the so-called hijackers were barely able to pilot even simple two seater aircraft, but we are supposed to believe that they felt confident enough to navigate to NY from Boston without the help of ground control. Are we to believe that i they would not have flown out an airport from which they had constant visual contact with their target? Also keep in mind that planes taking off from these NY area airports would have more fuel remaining in their tanks when they made contact. They would not have to burn off 45 minutes worth of destructive explosive fuel....
Here is why they had to fly out of Boston:
In respect of the explosions in the World Trade Towers just before the buildings fell, is it not possible that a decision was made to use such explosions to bring the buildings down vertically, instead of having them fall into other office blocks nearby, and thereby limting peripheral damage? The real question is, would there have been time to make such a decison between the collisions and the collapse of the towers? My memory is a little shaky here but didn't the second collision bring that tower down in a shorter time? Either someone thought to do this and rushed in and planted them in the right places (and that normally takes days of planning and hours of setting up), or they were already in place for such a collapse risk, which Fire regulations would list as some sort of Legal code and Fireighters would all know about.Post a Comment