Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Better Pentagon Image

Apparently there were two videos released. Wizbang has a screen cap that shows quite a bit more of the plane. I'm trying to get the second video to play on my machine with Real Player, but there seems to be some problem (first guess is the servers are overloaded).

Here's the CNN coverage (which does not show the new videos). I like what Barbara Starr has to say about the CT crowd near the end.

This also is expected to put to rest some of the internet chatter, some of the sort of fringe comments that have been out on the internet for years now about whether or not a plane really hit this building, and of course a plane did hit this building.

A commenter over at Hot Air pointed us to this excellent debunking of the cruise missile theory.

Eyewitness accounts of folks who saw the crash located here, here and here. And here, which I believe was the one I was looking for in the first place.


At 16 May, 2006 15:20, Blogger nes718 said...

This picture contradicts the findings of that site you posted. It clearly shows 3 exit holes on the 3rd ring.

At 16 May, 2006 15:34, Blogger ScottSl said...

the videos are here


http://www.911myths.com/fl77-1_11094135.WMV and http://www.911myths.com/fl77-2_11094237.WMV

At 16 May, 2006 15:40, Blogger undense said...


If there are three exit holes, how could it have been a missile?

At 16 May, 2006 16:31, Blogger James B. said...

ROTFMLAO Wow,a perfectly rectangular exit hole. What are the odds? That isn't an exit hole genius, that is a door.

At 16 May, 2006 16:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems this is all rooted in the WTC 7 collapse, which I thought was well dealt with by the Popular Mechanics article.

Which is to say I don't think this will sway anyone from their previously held views.

At 16 May, 2006 16:43, Blogger undense said...

James. You might want to let him know that a rectangle has 4 sides, just in case. ;)

At 16 May, 2006 16:57, Blogger nes718 said...

If there are three exit holes, how could it have been a missile?

LOL! Look here for what could have caused 3 different holes, blast points, exit "wounds", whatever you want to call them.

The official conspiracy theory has us believe the plane was so fragile; it vaporized on impact, yet was strong enough to produce the 3 holes you see in that picture and through two rings of the Pentagon. You can't have it both ways.

At 16 May, 2006 17:00, Blogger nes718 said...

Wow,a perfectly rectangular exit hole.

Damn! You guys are dense. Look at all the wall sections, obviously, the surround of that section collapsed the way the wall was constructed. The one with the circular exit hole didn’t collapse like the others.

At 16 May, 2006 17:06, Blogger nes718 said...

Here's the "nose cone" we're probably seeing in the new videos:

AGM-86C/D Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile

At 16 May, 2006 17:25, Blogger roger_sq said...

ROTFMLAO Wow,a perfectly rectangular exit hole. What are the odds? That isn't an exit hole genius, that is a door.

Almost as ridiculous as a perfectly circular exit hole. What are the odds? That isn't an exit hole genius, that's... oh, wait. That is a perfectly round exit hole.

Never mind!

At 16 May, 2006 17:31, Blogger roger_sq said...

I love this... you guys will mock the assumptions made by the CT's. But... the government for inexplicable reasons refuses to release 3 frames of video that were already leaked, for 5 years, which produce a blurry image of something on one frame... and it's "see, there's the plane!"

HAHAHAHAHA. Dumb and dumber.

Ask yourselve these questions. your fearless government refused to release this because of the Moussaoui trial? Please explain why how the footage released today would have any effect on the trial, or anything else. It shows nothing.

At 16 May, 2006 18:21, Blogger Alex said...

I'm sorry, is there STILL idiots out there who beleive that a cruise missile can punch through a reinforced structure, detonate inside, then misteriously manage to continue on it's path after detonating, punch through another wall, detonate again, punch through two more walls, and then create three exit holes?

That calls for, what, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5-6 seperate warheads? Each one of which is able to penetrate through concrete and survive the explosion of neighbouring warheads?

Hell while you're at it you may as well suggest that they just shot up the pentagon with space-based lasers. Or maybe photon torpedoes.

At 16 May, 2006 19:01, Blogger stdnyc said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 16 May, 2006 19:15, Blogger stdnyc said...

This all just makes me so angry.

It's infuriating to hear someone quickly lump ALL people who have beliefs that stray from the "official story" into a category of "conspiracy nuts." I've seen "Loose Change." I think a lot of it is absurd. However, I think a lot of it deserves some honest discussion.

I don't believe every last tidbit the "tin foil hats" preach. I DON'T think the Pentagon was hit by a missile. However, I DO think WTC7 was demolished intentionally. I DON'T believe that United 93 is still in service. However, I also DON'T believe the heroic "let's roll" story. I DON'T believe that the government planned 9/11. However, I DO believe that they knew it was coming and let it happen.

When people who defend the official story so vehemently group skeptics of ALL degrees together as "wackos," it stinks of the same "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric that the administration has used to defend every piece of appalling legislation in the past 5 years. In fact...it makes bloggers like you sound just as paranoid as the crazies you try to discredit.

PS...roger_sq has a hell of a point. Can anyone really believe that these useless Pentagon frames released today had ANY value in Moussaoui's trial? Seriously? If you can believe THAT, then believing the passenger switcheroo in Cleveland isn't far behind...

At 16 May, 2006 19:30, Blogger Unknown said...


My strong but respectfully submitted opinion: The Popular Mech. Article didn't debunk anything.

At 16 May, 2006 20:17, Blogger Chad said...

BG - You're very mysterious. You leave these comments that just throw out your various opinions, but they never go on to explain your reasons for having them.

I just found this site today. Please explain to me WHY the PM article debunked nothing in your opinion.

At 16 May, 2006 21:25, Blogger nes718 said...

Please explain to me WHY the PM article debunked nothing in your opinion.

Not speaking for BG, but the PM article left out the various war games that were underway on that day. They are the corner stone of many in the truth movement feel NORAD stood down. There were no orders in place but there were sufficient "operations" going on that delayed their responses. This is all documented and strangely not even mentioned once in the PM piece.

At 16 May, 2006 21:47, Blogger Unknown said...

Why the PM article debunked nothing:

Debunking PM's supposed debunk of 9/11 Truth

At 16 May, 2006 21:53, Blogger Unknown said...

You do know, Chad, that there was a pretty big personnel shake up at PM 3 or 4 months before the hit piece.

You do, know, Chad, that they contacted Alex Jones prior to the story. The interviewed him for the story. They assured him that they were not writing a hit piece. They gave him no chance see or rebut the article.

If you have been studying 9/11 intensively as some of us had, the PM article didn't mean squat.

At 16 May, 2006 22:12, Blogger Unknown said...


For anyone like you, (new and hopefully open minded), check out
911 Eyewitness Video (Google Vid)

At 16 May, 2006 22:43, Blogger RanDomino said...

Again, eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate. Anything going hundreds of miles per hour would just look like a blur from close by. Witnesses certainly knew they saw something, but it wasn't until they spent the day hearing from the TV, radio, and people they talked to that it was an airplane that they could then 'remember' 'seeing' anything specific. I'm not blaming them, however, as this is a psychological phenomenon exhibited by everyone.

My point is, you can't rely on eyewitness testimony.

At 16 May, 2006 22:51, Blogger James B. said...

OMG that is a stupid theory. The Blue Angels visit Seattle every summer for Seafair. I have seen them perform several times, and even at the high speeds they fly, I have never once mistaken them for a Boeing 767. In fact I don't think even the most nearsighted Seattleite ever has.

A cruise missile is even more disimilar than an F-18.

At 16 May, 2006 23:15, Blogger nes718 said...

On the eyewitnesses; if you're going to be fair, why link them from "urbanlegends.about.com?" Here's are more complete account and as you can see; they include most of what people saw. From missiles to small commuter plane to the AA plane. Many people saw many different things.


At 16 May, 2006 23:29, Blogger James B. said...

No, one guy thought he saw a small commuter plane, everyone else thought it was a commercial jetliner. Not a single person claims they saw a missile. There are people who say it "sounded" like a missile, or "acted" like a missile, which I would imagine a jetliner crashing into a building at 500 MPH would. Please look up a dictionary and introduce yourself to the concept of a simile.

This does not make your case.

At 17 May, 2006 01:16, Blogger nes718 said...

Excerpts from an interview with Major Lincoln Leibner, who worked in Cables Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon.

"I was just about to make my turn up the sidewalk towards one of the entrances when I heard jet engines. It was not the normal jet track into National Airport, which is very, very different. I turned my head about maybe 90 degrees towards the sound of the engines, which were very loud. I fully expected to see A-10s or F-15s or something, and I saw the American Airlines airplane coming down. I watched the entire terminal descent into the building. It’s probably the loudest noise I ever heard in my life. I have heard artillery very close. I have heard rock concerts, but nothing came close to that noise. I watched the entire airplane go into the building. I was personally shook by whatever percussion, and not hit, and the fireball from my angle wasn’t as dramatic as I have subsequently seen on the file tape.

I got to the building. Remarkably, there was no debris from the airplane. In the immediate area around the Pentagon, the grass was all scorched and blackened. Windows were obviously knocked out and you could hear a fire inside the building but the fires weren’t that prevalent at that point. It was just smoke, and it wasn’t even all that bad.
One man in the ambulance with me had no idea what happened, kept asking whether it was a bomb.
I told them what I had seen and what I gather is that I was the first personal account that he had. Even at this point, I don’t believe the Secretary was confident that, in fact, a civilian airliner had hit the building. I think **they** still speculated about a bomb, a cruise missile, a small aircraft, but I was glad I was able to give useful information. I told them the plane came in full throttle, level, flaps up, wheels up, wasn’t crashed into the building, was flown into the building.
The Secretary was essentially incredulous, but, then again, maybe that was just his manner. He asked me if I was sure. And as I said, I was close enough to look into the windows of the airplane as it flew passed. There was no doubt in my mind what I had seen."

So who's this "they" he's talking about? Why so much speculation? Either a plane hit or it didn't, end of story.

At 17 May, 2006 01:21, Blogger nes718 said...


D. S. Khavkin - my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a **small** commercial aircraft.

Steve Patterson - He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.
The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon...

There are more, even one on Loose Change.

At 17 May, 2006 02:33, Blogger cypher said...

The 747-400 tail height is 63 feet 8 inches (19.4 m), equivalent to a six-story building.

The Pentagon is 77-feet high.

You do the math, if what you saw in the only frame where an aircraft can be seen is the nose of the plane, the plane itself would be about half the size of the building, but the tail of a 747 is already about the height of the entire building.

strangely, the boeing site does not provide details about the 757 anymore.

now, you still want to tell me this footage proves it's definitely a boeing 757 that hit the pentagon?

At 17 May, 2006 05:26, Blogger LT said...

"So who's this "they" he's talking about? Why so much speculation? Either a plane hit or it didn't, end of story."

Better yet, what does it matter? Here is a first hand, eye witness account from a field grade officer, who saw the entire thing, yet you casually brush it aside. Why do you think people would question his story? On Sept 11, when someone told me that a plane flew into the WTC, like NBC did that morning, i didn't initially believe that a jetliner hit it. I too, thought small plane, until the next one came roaring in and smashed into the second tower. This officer was at the scene, saw it all unfold, yet you guys just dismiss his story...if favor of others who think they saw a helicopter, a cruise missile whatever...With every argument, you guys sink further and further into lack of credibility...

At 17 May, 2006 06:31, Blogger Charcoal Moon said...

Boeing does provid specs on the 757:


The tail height is 44.5 feet; wingspan is 124 feet.

As a former Air Force officer (not a pilot, but an engineer working on air-to-air missiles) and an FAA consultant, there is something else about the Pentagon strike that bothers me: how could a 757 not following a flight plan (routing info required to be supplied to the FAA) disappear from FAA radar?

At the speed and altitude Flight 77 was reported to be traveling at, it should have been a red flag to the FAA and they should have had plenty of notice that it was flying toward DC. Given that, there was plenty of time to scramble fighters from Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77. There's no way this could have been a surprise to the government.

Also, the speed and altitude of Flight 77 would have made it extremely difficult to fly for seasoned pilots, let alone a neophyte terrorist who did not even know how to land it.

I find it highly unlikely that 1) the government did not see Flight 77 coming and did not do something about it; and, 2) that the terrorist had the ability to pilot it into the Pentagon.

At 17 May, 2006 08:26, Blogger undense said...

Uh huh. Because the government can make a snap decision to shoot down a commercial airliner loaded full of innocent passengers, even if they do believe it to be hijacked, without really knowing what the intent of the hijacker(s) is/are. Then if they determine it's going to be crashed into a building, where do they shoot it down as it's flying over D.C. or outlying areas so it does little to no damage?

Unfortunately, until the plane actually crashed the government would not possibly know the actual intent of the hijackers. You can also bet that if they would have shot it down that all the CTers would have some wild-eyed theory involving neocons, oil, big business, jews, etc. about that too, and why it SHOULDN'T have been shot down. Because that's the kind of nut-cases they are. Their reasoning is based on hate of the government, and not actual reason or analtical thought.

At 17 May, 2006 09:49, Blogger undense said...

LOL! Look here for what could have caused 3 different holes, blast points, exit "wounds", whatever you want to call them.

A link to some information about a cruise missile? Erm, sorry, but that link provides zero information on what caused your supposed 3 exit holes.

If anything, it seems like a reaching, desperate move to try to provide a response when you simply can't explain it. Instead you toss in a "LOL" and a BS link. iow, thanks for proving you don't know wtf you're talking about; as if we didn't already know that anyway.

At 17 May, 2006 10:40, Blogger cypher said...

thanks johnny, also, pentagon is protected by anti-missile systems afaik, which should have blasted to smitherens any incoming aircraft, even a missile right? Except, friendly missiles will send a signal identifying it as friendly, ie full of us technology inside, so only a friendly aircraft could have gone thru the defense system (unless those were switched off on that day, which would also lead to conclude to some kind of insider job)

At 17 May, 2006 10:45, Blogger cypher said...

@undense: considering the twin towers had been hit and another passenger plane was off its flight path, do you think they would have had any doubt of the "intent of the terrorists"?

Secondly, between the risk of the nations defense headquarters being destroyed and civilian casualties, as a head of state, which option would you choose if your country was already under terrorist attack?

Now, that seems to me some reasoned analytical thought.

At 17 May, 2006 11:05, Blogger undense said...


First, the Pentagon has no anti-missile batteries in place for protection. About a year after 9/11, Rumsfeld had some mobile batteries placed at the Pentagon when the terror alret level was raised. If there was already protection at the Pentagon, that would not have been necessary.

Second, would you, if President of the US, give orders to shoot down an airliner because you think (It would be a guess, at best. No way to confirm it.) it might be hijacked and might crash into something? Also, where do you shoot it down at as it's flying over densely populated D.C.?

At 17 May, 2006 11:15, Blogger LT said...

I have NEVER heard of missiles emitting IFF (identify friend or foe) squawks. In fact, aircraft (military aircraft) are equipped with the system, not missiles. And, as Undense said, no one could possibly have known the intent of any aircraft on that day. What if that aircraft were shot down, and it was later found that it was only trying to land at the nearest airport, or taking some sort of evasive action? Then you all would be critical of the US for snap judgment resulting of the death of innocent civilians. Sorry once again to "demystify" all this, and provide you with some accurate info (see above about IFF systems). I think Undense has it quite right. You guys just don't know wtf your talking about.

At 17 May, 2006 13:52, Blogger Alex said...

"The 747-400 tail height is 63 feet 8 inches (19.4 m), equivalent to a six-story building."

That's a 747 which is much bigger than a 757. It also happens to be the height of the aircraft (747) INCLUDING IT'S LANDING GEAR. I somehow doubt the hijackers lowered their landing gear before slamming into the building. You can subtract, at the very least, 10 feet for the landing gear, which would give you a height of 53 feet for a 747, and more like 30 feet for a 757. And even those numbers are more than likely too large since I'm just judging the height of the landing gear from the last time I stood beside one.

As for the nonsense about IFF transmitting missiles, please do us all a favour, firmly grab hold of the back of your head with an overhand grasp, and, with a smooth but firm motion, remove it from your posterior. An IFF system on a missile would be absolutely useless.

At 17 May, 2006 16:08, Blogger cypher said...

@undense: are u not concerned about your country's defenses if what you say is actually accurate????? no anti-missile batteries set in the pentagon? You have to be kidding me. This is the headquarters of the us defense you are talking here, if there is no anti-aircraft or anti-missile defense there, I'll attack the pentagon tomorrow. get real.

At 17 May, 2006 16:28, Blogger cypher said...

@alex - what was the exact size of the hole we're talking about again? even if a 757 is smaller than a 747 (by 19 feet btw) the numbers still dont add up. let's remove the landing gear, let's say, 1/4 of the entire size of the tail, that still leaves half the face of building being destroyed during impact. Size of the hole: 20 feet. Half-way off the mark.

As for IFF, it's used to avoid friendly fire, which we know is not working from several conflicts including the balkan war, desert storm, and operation iraqi freedom.

At 17 May, 2006 17:00, Blogger undense said...


I simply stated a fact. There was no indication at all, implied or otherwise, concerning my feelings about defense.

On your part, your reply was a very weak attempt to deflect from your ignorance about the Pentagon. Those sort of transparent motivations do you no credibility favors whatsoever.

At 17 May, 2006 19:05, Blogger cypher said...

@undense: so, let me get this right:
the usa, a country that has been on the brink of outright nuclear war with the ussr for the past 55 years NEVER had any anti-aircraft/anti-missile capability to defend its defense headquarters? Let's even assume this was dismantled when the ussr collapsed in the late 90s, what do you make of china's threat? Or for that matter North Korea or Iran's nuclear capability? Are you seriously believing the us had no way of preventing an attack on the very building that hosts its navy/air/ground army headquarters, and the secretary of defense?

now you tell me who does not know anything about the pentagon.

please feel free to provide verifiable facts about whatever you claim about the pentagon before dismissing anything I say, then I may take you seriously.

At 17 May, 2006 20:09, Blogger undense said...


It's your claim so the onus is on you to prove it. Please do provide some hard evidence that doesn't involve anecdotal BS and spurious speculation please. Thanks.

At 18 May, 2006 04:30, Blogger cypher said...

sure, I don't have the book here with me, but I'll get it at the weekend.

At 21 May, 2006 15:24, Blogger cypher said...

In The New Pearl Harbour, by David Ray Griffin, which you have no doubt read, p.33 "Although some news reports have said that the Pentagon, unlike the White House, has no such missiles, the Pentagon is in fact, Meyssan points out, protected by '[f]ive extemely sophisticated antimissile batteries.'" The reference to this quote is Pentagate, by Thierry Meyssan, p.112. Now, I haven't read Pentagate as yet, but have ordered it and will post the details of where Meyssan claims he got the information from regarding the 5 antimissile batteries at the Pentagon.

At 21 May, 2006 16:38, Blogger cypher said...

@It re your comments on missiles not being equipped with IFF, I recommend you read the following specification of the Hawk surface to air missile http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/hawk.htm
this antimissile battery, used by the US military since the 60s, "provides medium-range, low to medium altitude air defense against a variety of targets, including jet and rotary wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles".

"Units with HAWK missiles are teamed with acquisition radar, a command post, a tracking radar, an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, and three to four launchers with three missiles each."

"The TPS-59 radar [which] provides target detection, discrimination, and tracking."

At 01 January, 2008 18:00, Blogger francesco said...

..if you guys believe that those are clear videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon...well...i am sorry...ah ah ah ah ....OH My God...can't stop laughing...!!!

At 01 January, 2008 18:30, Blogger francesco said...

Can you exactly tell me where do you see a plane hit the Pentagon in those videos....those videos are an insult to people intelligence.

At 22 December, 2009 18:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

cell phonesThis phenomenom is typified by mobile phonethe rise ofbusiness. Incredible range of products available with China Wholesale “Low Price and High Quality” not only reaches directly to their target clients worldwide but also ensures that cheap cell phones wholesale from China means margins you cannot find elsewhere and China Wholesale will skyroket your profits.cosplay costumes
cheap cell phones
cheap cocktail dresses
Cheap Wedding Dresses
cheap jewelry


Post a Comment

<< Home