Pentagon footage

Even though I’m confident we’re at one on many things on our side of politics, we’re certainly not on the events of 911 and when I posted that post yesterday, avoiding it today, everyone was polite and just let it pass – I thank y’all for yesterday.

It just remains to run one last post – it’s still scheduled for tomorrow morning, the 12th, it asks where you were on 911 and what you remember of it. That’s it.

That was my intention – Max Headroom would have brought the day to a close.

BUT

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch in the States had demanded, under FOI, that footage of the American Airlines plane slamming into the Pentagon be released, as he wrote, to once and for all bury ‘conspiracy theories’.  If it does, I’d be fine with that.

So I did watch and for you to watch, you could only do so on Twitter, unless you have some other source.  For those who do not wish to go that route, I’ll attempt to be impartial below in words and feel I can do that, not knowing all that much about the Pentagon story on 911.

I’m not sure what Tom was trying to debunk – was it the theory that nothing hit the Pentagon at all?  Because, watching this below, something sure seemed to hit the side and smoke then went up.

OK, here’s what I see:

There are only three frames in the first version I saw, which means that whatever it was was mighty fast. In the first frame, the plane/whatever comes into frame, in the second it passes from our right to left and the third is the impact. After that, it’s a smoking building.

All right, what’s the issue? The issue is that it could be a plane but it does seem too low for that.

You’re familiar with commercial planes and know that wherever the fuselage is, the undercarriage of the engines, leaving aside wheels for now, is what – eight feet below that? Six?

The fuselage is cigar like, I see no wings but of course, there might be, and I see no tail fin, this fuselage is running parallel to the ground at about six feet, maybe eight. If it was a plane, then the undercarriage was clearing the ground by about a foot or two unless in a hollow.

Also, where is the AA livery, although that’s not essential – they could have repainted.

I’m going to watch a fifth time and see if the above seems accurate.

Hmmmm, less clear on computer, let me go back to ipad.

Second time, I had what could have been a reflection off the window of the plane.

Third time, I noticed the land slightly raised where it came over, making clearance of the fuselage itself about – what – four feet? Trajectory dead flat, parallel with the ground. Where’s the tail fin?

Also, that one released by Tom is not slowed down sufficiently. The one I saw was dead slow and the object was there in three of them.

20 comments for “Pentagon footage

  1. Distant Relative
    September 11, 2019 at 20:28

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SL2PzzOiF8

    Not sure if TF is being sarcastic or what, tbh. Seen this twice – doesn’t look big enough to be the plane they claim it to be. Jmo. There’s more about this out there, just a matter of remembering where it is. 🙂

  2. Doonhamer
    September 11, 2019 at 20:43

    I have not seen any video or pictures but from this position of ignorance I would ask
    How did the camera scan its picture? This can cause weird effects – shortening, stretching, bending.
    Is there a shadow?
    Had the engines snapped off well before fuselage impact. They are designed to snap off before wing damage can occur.
    Was there any dust raised by the passage of the plane?
    Was there any post impact shock waves?

  3. Distant Relative
    September 11, 2019 at 20:48

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEMi0l2P6Y&list=PLzDhTe39HAZdmoC9yBd5xKqIMDhkqNob5
    “No Plane hit the Pentagon” – Gen. Albert Stubblebine”

  4. September 11, 2019 at 21:01

    Coming to this fresh this evening – hence not even realising this footage has been out there for donkey’s years, I watched one youtube wanting it to be a plane and yes, I could make out the longitudinal stripes, possibly tail but unclear.

    Against that – way too low, flat trajectory.

    This wing snappy offy thing – why would they? Plane flies through the air, about to hit something and before it gets there, wings snap off? That seems far-fetched to me.

    Against that, what if had lost its wings already and was travelling along its belly? What if it had already dipped over the obstacles and was grass surfing those last metres?

    But what of its engines and stability of trajectory? It seemed to me to be hugging the ground.

    I’d rather not get into who said what, which expert said this or that.

    The fisheye affect – watch the police car cross first and decide how much fisheye there is.

    I’m still 40-60 at this point.

    This is an anti-truther page:

    http://911speakout.org/the-pentagon/

    I was accepting that until I got further into the article and it was so anti-truther and so insistent on making its point, speaking of ‘intellectual rigour’, that it seems quite dodgy to me.

    I’m about 50-50 at this point.

  5. dearieme
    September 11, 2019 at 21:17

    If the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, where did it and its passengers go?

    • September 11, 2019 at 21:25

      Exactly. As the anti-truther site said – the Pentagon is covering up a whole lot. Which is what the truther site also said.

      • Stewart
        September 11, 2019 at 22:54

        There were also theories that the CIA was responsible for ‘fake’ truthers who promoted crazy-sounding explanations – such as hologrammatic planes and micro nukes – that were so improbable they simply *couldn’t* be true, in order to discredit the ‘real’ truthers. You could go round in circles thinking about it.

  6. dearieme
    September 11, 2019 at 22:10

    Maybe it’s just because I visit fewer blogs nowadays, but there seems to me to have been less 9/11 hysteria today compared to previous years.

    Its mildly surprising that a populist like Trump hasn’t started some sort of public investigation into the whole affair.

    • Mark Matis
      September 12, 2019 at 00:16

      Just WHO would they get to do such an investigation? The FBI? The DoJ???

      And if not them, who would the Media, Democrats, and Koch-sucking Rove Republicans accept???

  7. September 11, 2019 at 22:42

    Yes. Just watched a different version and I’ve now seen three different things.

    First this evening was something white, low, small, it was superslow, three frames. Sure looked like missile.

    Second was by the anti-truther site pushing the plane angle. It looked like plane.

    Third one now seemed to have some sort of rounded thing, maybe a jet, above near where a tail fin would be. Did seem a plane because of the bulge up towards the front (cockpit), maybe one wing.

    So I have no idea.

  8. Twisted Root
    September 11, 2019 at 23:17

    It’s enough to know that they have something to hide like Epstein’s solicitation of large donations from the very rich for university programmes on surveillance of the population.

    It turns out that there is no grand conspiracy, just a bunch of incompetent kiddie fiddlers who have to watch everyone else on the planet to make sure they don’t get found out.

    • dearieme
      September 12, 2019 at 00:20

      It’s odd. There are many jurisdictions in the world where the age of consent is, for example, 16. So why didn’t Epstein move to one and enjoy as many 17 year olds as he liked? Hell, Connecticut would have done. So would New Jersey. At a pinch New York would have done – age of consent 17.

  9. Andy5759
    September 12, 2019 at 00:32

    I’ve seen a lot of stuff on 911. At the time my immediate thought was Bin Laden. A bit too obvious looking back. I steer clear of the subject now, other than to make noncommittal noises. Certain things just attract conspiraloons; Elvis, JFK, moon landings, Dr Kelly, the list is long. Best to stick to known knowns rather than lose any credibility. You/we are on safe ground here James, whereas down the pub or in the bowls club bar we need to stand on firm ground.

  10. Wolfie
    September 12, 2019 at 01:10

    I’ve met a witness to the pentagon hit. I believed him to be an honest and credible witness and he was certain it was a commercial airliner.

    It’s the kinetic energy you see, everything gets pummelled to vapour.

    Still, I do think there are many facts withheld from the public on events of that day – the key events. I think they are as they seem.

  11. Mark
    September 12, 2019 at 03:50

    If it was a missile.

    What sort?

    Fired from where?

    What sort of terminal guidance?

    The sort that would be conceivable – some type of cruise missile – would have come in at quite a steep angle and the warhead, I don’t think would be large enough anyway to do what clearly happened to the Pentagon.

    A passenger aircraft is not an armour piercing shell. It will fly millions of miles in its service life and every unecessary excess pound over that period means wasted fuel.

    And as Dearieme points out if it wasn’t the aircraft, where did it go? Same place as the plane in the langoliers?

  12. September 12, 2019 at 06:49

    Bodies? Wreckage? Almost none. Some debris outside, some of it not from a Boeing 757. Skill level of the five? Narrow hole, no wing damage in wall?

    Let’s go with AA77 for now because for me, it hardly makes a difference – how, in heavily defended airspace? Think of the negligence or permissions to even get that far?

    But the biggy for me is modus operandi. From 911 to Sandy Hook to the birth certificate – unnecessary complication and anomaly upon anomaly. Schoolboy anomaly and error. It’s almost like provocation of conspiracy loons.

    One which is pointed out is that footage is always blurred or grainy – so amateurish. Same with all the UFO stuff – people argue for decades

    How did the five just ‘seize’ a commercial airline carrier? Because they were guided that way. A little like the prisoner who finds his cell door ajar, like Tommy Robinson.

    And the one which can’t be gone past is money – follow the money. I have no love for the cultural enrichers and can well believe they did this, though the trajectory for non fliers is bordering on the risible. To me, there had to be certain things waved through by left liberal Fonda types and/or other cultural enrichers.

    Look at that mayor now up on charges for helping the illegal crim escape ice – it’s common, look also at Trump’s gatekeeper just fired. Look at those protesters and the farmers beating them by surprise. Of course they would do it if they had a Great Satan, Little Satan mentality.

    Then the Mossad and Ashkenazi factor – it’s never absent. Sure I can buy Mark’s AA77 … but no way in isolation. As for missile – where from – from base of course, where the other ones are.

    The single greatest failing of patriot types is that they simply cannot buy deep collusion and so a whole lot of disdainful, scornful epithets are used. Over here we can call anyone not accepting the narrative whack jobs or tinfoil hatters. That covers more covert action than the old Act of God.

    One anti-truther site pointed out that while everyone’s arguing plane v missile, so many other things are not being focused on. Like the money trail.

    And I add one – sheer mischief. In support of that, look at CREEP in 72. Why so? The sheer delight of being able to.

  13. Distant Relative
    September 12, 2019 at 09:12

    I’m with this guy – it didn’t happen the way we’ve been led to believe. What did happen is known to only a few imo. https://letsexpress.me/2016/05/ah-john-not-that-again/

  14. Distant Relative
    September 12, 2019 at 13:34

    9/11 Whistleblowers – new playlist of 6 videos from the Corbett Report.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOWRLoNOhRs&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ9K3DiYvtEKlaYpBIH_PM_0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.