See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Pentagon Attack Footage The Suppression of Video Footage of the Pentagon Attack
Source:
911 Research
URL Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html
Published: Aug 3, 2010
Author: Not Given
Post Date: 2010-08-03 17:16:05 by Original_Intent
Keywords: Pentagon, suppressed, video, impact
Views: 4188
Comments: 193
The Suppression of Video Footage of the Pentagon Attack It is striking that there is neither video footage nor any photographic evidence in the public domain showing a jetliner approaching or crashing into the Pentagon. As of May, 2006, the only video footage of the crash that has been released are clips from two Pentagon security cameras north of the crash site, one the source of 5 frames leaked in 2002. With the release of the two video clips, the Pentagon claims to have supplied all of the footage it has of the attack. Although the number and positions of security cameras monitoring the Pentagon is not public knowledge, it seems unlikely that only two security cameras captured the attack. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of security cameras ringing the huge building that is the heart of the United States military establishment? Videos Outside the Pentagon Seized The Sheraton National Hotel may be the hotel from which the FBI seized a CCTV recording. Not only has the government refused to release footage that would clearly show how the Pentagon was attacked, it has also seized footage not belonging to the military. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Those recordings, if they still exist, might provide decisive evidence about the attack. * The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1 * The FBI visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack. 2 The NEXCOMM/CITGO gas station is just under the flightpath of the aircraft involved in the Pentagon attack. In addition it is likely there is other video footage that was either destroyed or is being withheld, given that the trajectory of the attack plane took it low over a large part of Arlington, Virginia. Lawsuits to Obtain Videos At least two plaintiffs have attempted to obtain videos seized by the FBI, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The first, documented at Flight77.info, began with a request to the FBI in October of 2004. The second, undertaken by the Judicial Watch, Inc. began with a request to the Department of Defense (DOD) in December of 2004. Following is a timeline of the requests and subsequent lawsuits. Entries relating to the second case are distinguished with dates colored gray. * October 14, 2004: Scott A. Hodes, on behalf of his client Scott Bingham, sends a request to David Hardy of the FBI requesting any videos "that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". The request letter mentions videotapes from the Citgo Gas Station and the Sheraton National Hotel. (1) Video camera recordings obtained by federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from a Nexcomm/Citgo gas station in the vicinity of the Pentagon on or about September 11, 2001. (2) Pentagon security video camera recording(s) showing Flight 77 strike and/or hit and/or crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. (3) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video camera recording(s) obtained by any federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the VDOT "Smart Traffic Center" on or about September 11, 2001. References 1. Inside the Ring, The Gertz Files, 9/21/01 [cached]
* November 3, 2004: The FBI replies to Bingham's request stating that their search "revealed no record responsive to your FOIA request".
* November 17, 2004: Hodes files an appeal of Bingham's FOIA request with the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ), citing evidence that the videotapes mentioned in the original request exist.
* December 15, 2004: Christopher J. Farrell of Judicial Watch, Inc. writes to James Hogan in the Office of Freedom of Information/Security Review of the DOD requesting that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOD, and FBI produce:
any and all agency records concerning, relating to, or reflecting the following subjects:
* March 7, 2005: The DOJ replies to Hodes' November 17 appeal, admitting that it did possess records responsive to the request but that it could release the records because such a release "could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings." * January 26, 2005: The DOD advises Judicial Watch, Inc. that it possesses a videotape responsive to the December 15, 2004 request but declines to produce the videotape, citing U.S.C 552(b)(7)(A).
* March 8, 2005: Bingham's attorney files a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stating that the FBI is in violation of the FOIA for "failing to adequately respond to plaintiff's FOIA request, including failing to adequately search for and release records that the plaintiff believes the agency is in possession of, and for failing to timely respond to the plaintiff's administrative appeal."
* April 18, 2005: The DOJ files a response to Bingham's March 8 lawsuit denying the plaintiff's request and asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
* April 19, 2005: District Judge Paul L. Friedman orders the defendants to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the case brought by Bingham on or before June 21, 2005.
* June 10, 2005: The DOD denies Judicial Watch's administrative appeal, claiming that the video is exempt as part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.
* August 1, 2005: Jeffrey D. Kahn, an attorney for the DOJ's Civil Division files a 23-page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Scans of the document are posted on Flight77.info.
* August 29, 2005: Hodes files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and a STATEMENT OF FACT ON WHICH THERE EXIST A GENUINE ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED in response to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment. * September 9, 2005: Kahn files a REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
* September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.
* September 26, 2005: Hodes files a request seeking "copies of 85 videotapes in the possession of the FBI described in the declaration of Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire dated September 7, 2005.
* October 20, 2005: The DOJ sends a letter to Hodes claiming that the requested material is exempt.
* October 24, 2005: Hodes appeals the DOJ's October 20 claim that its material is exempt.
* February 22, 2006: Judicial Watch, Inc. files a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Defense for its refusal to disclose records sought under the FOIA request.
* May 5, 2006: Judge Friedman orders the defendants to show cause on or before May 26, 2006 why their motion for summary judgment should not be denied as moot, noting that the criminal proceedings against Moussaoui have ended.
* May 16, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains two videos from the DOD, and posts them on their website. The site is down for about half of the day due to demand. * September 15, 2006: Judicial Watch announces the release of video from CITGO gas station. 3 The video consists mostly of views of the interior of the gas station and does not appear to capture the attack.
* December 2, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains a video recording from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video, which does not include a view of the Pentagon's facade, shows an explosion but does not capture an approaching jetliner. 4
2. Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12/11/01 [cached]
3. CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack, JudicialWatch.org, 9/15/06 [cached]
4. Hotel security video shows 9/11 Pentagon blast, but no plane, CNN.com, 12/2/06 [cached]
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 156.
#3. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator (#0)
Recursive (don't work) Outdated data from nine years ago Junk website Host document is not available. [Not Found The requested URL /cache/pentagon/evidence/cnn_doubletreevideo_files/sitecnncnn_pagetypearticlecnn_position160x600_rgtcnn_rollupworl. was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.] In effect, O_I, your thread agenda is just a shallow ring around the TWOOFER_FAERIE™ you know what..... your data sucks the BIG_ONE. However, in all fairness about security cameras ... do you know what their FPS is? I know what the Pentagon's is: 56FPS... now, I expect both references @ your 3 and 4 to be slower. Do you know what that means? Yes..... it *IS* probable they didn't capture a jet flying at 500MPH in any frame. Anyone want to debate?
Post #49 All links are working now. It doesn't really matter what you think of websites 1-4 as they are simply footnoted references re: these points: The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1 The FBI visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack. 2 September 15, 2006: Judicial Watch announces the release of video from CITGO gas station. 3 The video consists mostly of views of the interior of the gas station and does not appear to capture the attack. December 2, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains a video recording from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video, which does not include a view of the Pentagon's facade, shows an explosion but does not capture an approaching jetliner. 4 If the first drive-in movie feature released by the Pentagon is "smokey and the bandits", what should we call the 2nd releases? Looks something like a 2 part sci-fi flick. Also, what's with this date and timestamping for the first Pentagon video release? Ref: 911review.org: Officials could not immediately explain why the date typed near the bottom of each photograph is September 12 and the time is written as 5:37 p.m. The attack happened at about 9:37 a.m. on September 11. Officials said it was possible that the date and time were added the day after the attack when they may have been catalogued for investigative purposes..." NOTE: CNN wrote that "at 9:43 a.m., a hijacked Boeing 757 slammed into part of the 29-acre complex used by uniformed and civilian employees of the U.S. military", while Associated Press wrote it was about 9:37 a.m 9/Sept. 12 (1+2=3) = 93 (The Law in occult lingo) XX = Doublecross Missing sequence after (1) and (2) above = 20 = XX = Doublecross
ThaT HOTEL IS THE DOUBLETREE HOTEL.... the footage is shown here: This gets tiring to categorically prove every bullet item ... so I am stopping with one, above.
What a crock. Just as an example of the horsecrap in that video, the claim is made that a "contrail" is formed behind the jet as it approaches the Pentagon. Since you and your pal AG seem to know all about contrails when it comes to discussing "chemtrails", you should know that contrails are only formed by the hot exhaust of the engines heating up very cold moist air at high altitudes. They do NOT form at ground level. Then the video tries to allege it's from the "stressful manuevers" performed during its descent, causing an engine to smoke. Yet, both you and AG have INSISTED that the manuever was no big deal. It wasn't that big of a deal in terms of aircraft limits, but it WAS a big deal in terms of how commercial airliners are meant to fly versus how military aircraft are meant to fly. Your video also tries to block out the surrounding area of that single frame shot, superimposing an outline of an aircraft on top of what it alleges is Flight 77. You could superimpose that outline over virtually ANYTHING and claim that it is a 757 using that technique. How extraordinarilly unscientific. When I have more time I'd like to go over the video in more detail, but you can chew on the observations I've just made if you'd like. BTW, have you been able to figure out what happened to the Pentagon roof cam videos?
The spiraling contrail on the jet, came from the aircraft "ingesting" a piece of a lamp it clipped directly into the starboard engine, where it tore up the internal parts and caused smoking immediately as the engine itself was running at full speed. So the "stressful maneuver" was from flying full speed and clipping light poles in the process.
The spiraling contrail on the jet, came from the aircraft "ingesting" a piece of a lamp it clipped directly into the starboard engine, where it tore up the internal parts and caused smoking immediately as the engine itself was running at full speed. So the "stressful maneuver" was from flying full speed and clipping light poles in the process. And you know this speculation to be a fact how?
And you know this speculation to be a fact how? From being able to read grown-up reports instead of comic book web k00ktheories.
And you know this speculation to be a fact how? From being able to read grown-up reports instead of comic book web k00ktheories. Shill to English Translation: No response - just a vague and unsubstantiated reiteration of the "Official Fairy Tale™".
OInk says: "No links, no problem. They're out there somewhere" "If the links are dead the links are dead." ""So, given your use of Argumentum Ad Hominem and attacking dead links a Strawman Argument you actually have no rebuttal other than to attack side issues, but the facts remain. "Anyone can do a search and find fresh links. "Likely the URL's may have changed Original_Intent posted on 2010-08-03 20:44:46
I am not going to be drawn into a mud slinging exchange. Please to go fuck yourself. You are not really even worthy of the time it takes to dismiss you.
Unlike you I don't circle jerk over 8+ years of worthless useless k00kfodder. Since you are the one always initiating these exchanges you are claiming you will no longer address anything to me. Something....makes me think you are lying - again. In any case, your lie is now bookmarked.
He lost his own thread using old links PROVEN to be out of date. And he ended it using profane language.
Well, you know the drill. Start another thread, repeating the same bull$hit, the same attacks, the same hot air, with the same circle of 5-10 participators.
I really enjoy the constant change of venue on a single thread discussing a topic by the TWOOFER_FAERIES™. It just adds to the drama, the spin and the BS... to stay on topic. Lets' get back to basics: FACTS, DATA, WITNESSES, EVIDENCE. All I need is one little piece of data to climb with my automated webcrawlers .... to see if there is any reason about this stuff. This thread is busted.
Just as in your first post on this thread you repeat the same false Argumentum Ad Hominem tactic in an attempt to divert from the fact that neither you nor bloviator have at any time on this thread disproved ANY element in the original article beginning this thread. Instead you chuckle like a hyena congratulating each other on your brilliance in avoiding any issue which shows that your primary stock in trade are lies, diversions, and misrepresentations.
I assume you are conditioned by James, AB, and a few others to chime in to aid your stinky efforts. I don't or ever have agreed with anyone here or anywhere unless they are supported by FACTS. Unlike yourself, I don't need a slap on the back because of a post. As you told AG: go FUCK YOURSELF.
You love facts so much, you dance around them as if they were hot coals. Where are the Pentagon roof cam videos? Where are the Virginia Department of Transportation tapes? Those tapes have NOT been made public, and would definitively prove one way or another what exactly happened at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. Why are they still not being made available, 9 years after the fact?
Let's play cards, partner. Got any FACTS? Or are ya just bluffing again?
Where is the Citgo station video from the camera facing the Pentagon?
There are no replies to Comment # 156. End Trace Mode for Comment # 156.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestREFERENCES:
1. Inside the Ring, The Gertz Files, 9/21/01 [cached]
2. Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12/11/01 [cached]
3. CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack, JudicialWatch.org, 9/15/06 [cached]
4. Hotel security video shows 9/11 Pentagon blast, but no plane, CNN.com, 12/2/06 [cached]
#55. To: buckeroo (#3)
(Edited)
You: Yes..... it *IS* probable they didn't capture a jet flying at 500MPH in any frame. Anyone want to debate?
The plane was moving at 1.25 miles per second, that's over 400 feet per frame of video capture at a given 15 frames per second. The time of the video tape is off probably for the same reasons. The images cover a span of four one-hundredths of a second. That can't be right! At that rate, the security camera would be taking 125 frames per second! Movies are 24 frames per second and TV is 30 frames per second. Why the hell would a security camera have a framerate of 4-5 times that of movie and television? They must mean that each image itself covers a span of 4/100ths of a second, giving a total 2/10ths of a second for the entire sequence. If the captions document the date and time it was catalogued, why does the clock part read: (1) 17:37:19 (2) 17:37:19 (3) 17:37:21 (4) 17:37:22 (5) 17:37:23
37 = 3+7 = 10 = X (Roman Numeral)
19 = 1+9 = 10 = X (Roman Numeral)
#58. To: GreyLmist, AGAviator (#55)
The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1
#65. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, GreyLmist, Original_Intent (#58)
#87. To: FormerLurker (#65)
Then the video tries to allege it's from the "stressful manuevers" performed during its descent, causing an engine to smoke. Yet, both you and AG have INSISTED that the manuever was no big deal.
#95. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, James Deffenbach, all (#87)
Then the video tries to allege it's from the "stressful manuevers" performed during its descent, causing an engine to smoke. Yet, both you and AG have INSISTED that the manuever was no big deal.
#109. To: OInk, buckeroo, turtle, tom007 (#95)
(Edited)
So the "stressful maneuver" was from flying full speed and clipping light poles in the process.
#113. To: AGAviator, AGBloviator, AGSpincycle, AGovernmentShill, tom007, FormerLurker, wudidiz, all (#109)
So the "stressful maneuver" was from flying full speed and clipping light poles in the process.
#115. To: Oink, buckeroo, turtle, red007 (#113)
(Edited)
Shill to English Translation: No response -
#126. To: AGAviator (#115)
#128. To: OInk, buckeroo, turtle, tom007 (#126)
I am not going to be drawn into a mud slinging exchange
Please to go fuck yourself.
You are not really even worthy of the time it takes to dismiss you.
#129. To: AGAviator (#128)
Title: Pentagon Attack Footage The Suppression of Video Footage of the Pentagon Attack Source: 911 Research URL Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html Published: Aug 3, 2010 Author: Not Given Post Date: 2010-08-03 17:16:05 by Keywords: Pentagon, suppressed, video, impact Views: 580 Comments: 128
#133. To: buckeroo, turtle, tom007 (#129)
He lost his own thread using old links PROVEN to be out of date. And he ended it using profane language
#136. To: AGAviator (#133)
#142. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, Nostradumbass, abraxas, Critter, James Deffenbach, FormerLurker, wudidiz, IRTorqued, christine, AGBloviator, all (#136)
I really enjoy the constant change of venue on a single thread discussing a topic by the TWOOFER_FAERIES™. It just adds to the drama, the spin and the BS... to stay on topic.
#150. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, christine (#142)
nstead you chuckle like a hyena congratulating each other on your brilliance in avoiding any issue which shows that your primary stock in trade are lies, diversions, and misrepresentations.
#151. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, Original_Intent, christine (#150)
I don't or ever have agreed with anyone here or anywhere unless they are supported by FACTS. Unlike yourself, I don't need a slap on the back because of a post
#152. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, Original_Intent, christine (#151)
You love facts so much, you dance around them as if they were hot coals.
#156. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, Original_Intent, abraxas, wudidiz, James Deffenbach, IRTorqued, GreyLmist (#152)
Replies to Comment # 156.