[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Feds Raid Alfie Oakes’ Naples Home and Farm with Battering Ram

Democrats Have a New Leader: Kamala Is Out, Says GOP Strategist

The Colorado Voting Machine Fiasco

Trump Lawyer WARNS Letitia James, Vows RETRIBUTION After Trump Win: 'We'll Put Your Fat A** In JAIL'

Tucker Carlson:11/7/2024 "now that Trump is president, i can tell you everything"

Fear-Stricken Pharma Big-Wigs Convene Emergency Teleconference to Thwart RFK Jr.

Judge strikes down Joe Biden administration program aimed at easing citizenship pathway for some undocumented immigrants

CNN faces another defamation lawsuit after appeals court sides with Project Veritas

These Hollywood Celebrities Swore They'd Leave America If Trump Won All Talk, No Walk

Blaze News original: Border Patrol whistleblower's career on the line after spotlighting trafficking horrors

Dems open can of worms by asking about millions of 2020 Biden voters who somehow disappeared in 2024

Deadline: US says Israel failing in aid efforts. What happens now?

Kash Patel, Rumored Pick for CIA Chief, Announces Massive Declassification Will Occur

Hezbollah unveils ‘Fateh 110’ ballistic missile in targeting Israeli sites

Pentagon running low on air-defense missiles as Israel, Ukraine gobble up remaining supplies

An Open Letter To Elon Musk

Is this why Trump was allowed to win?

This Is The Median Home Price In Each US State

Alex Soros Shocked That the Incumbent Political Order Is Being Crushed Around The Globe

Beverly Hills Lawyer Disbarred Two Years After Admitting He Paid a Ringer to Take the Bar

Lumumba: 'I am not guilty, and so I will not proceed as a guilty man.'

Lauren Boebert Wins House Election After Switching to More Conservative Colorado District

AIPAC Boasts of Influence Over Congress, Ousting 'Eleven Anti-Israel Candidates'

Police Searching for 40 Escaped Monkeys After Mass Breakout from South Carolina Research Facility

"You Don't Deserve Any Respect!": Steve Bannon Goes Scorched Earth On Democrats On Election Night Livestream

Putin's ready to talk now that the mentally ill homosexuals have been brushed aside

Trump, the Economy & World War III: Col. Douglas Macgregor

Ex-Top Official Catherine Austin Fitts: Inside Trump’s Victory, RFK Jr., and the Deep State

10 Big Losers That Weren't On The Ballot

Elon’s first day working for the Federal Government


9/11
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: 4243
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.
* 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:

(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.

* 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

References

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]

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 58.

#3. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator (#0)

REFERENCES:

1. Inside the Ring, The Gertz Files, 9/21/01 [cached]

Recursive (don't work)

2. Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12/11/01 [cached]

Outdated data from nine years ago

3. CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack, JudicialWatch.org, 9/15/06 [cached]

Junk website

4. Hotel security video shows 9/11 Pentagon blast, but no plane, CNN.com, 12/2/06 [cached]

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?

buckeroo  posted on  2010-08-03   18:32:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: buckeroo (#3) (Edited)

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

You: Yes..... it *IS* probable they didn't capture a jet flying at 500MPH in any frame. Anyone want to debate?

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:

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

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)
37 = 3+7 = 10 = X (Roman Numeral)
19 = 1+9 = 10 = X (Roman Numeral)

XX = Doublecross

Missing sequence after (1) and (2) above = 20 = XX = Doublecross

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-04   12:30:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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

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.

buckeroo  posted on  2010-08-04   12:39:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 58.

#62. To: buckeroo (#58) (Edited)

I'm posting this video to compare the moving target type thing at the top of the WTC to the moving target type thing at the Pentagon. [Ref: 2:08 in your posted video]:

9- 11 phone call from Kevin Cosgrove

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-04 12:59:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, GreyLmist, Original_Intent (#58)

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?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-08-04 13:14:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: buckeroo (#58)

Your own video says: "it can't be said for sure whether or not the object is Flight 77." All it does is try to declare something it aknowledges is too small and too slow as a match.

The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1

Do you think they're lying about that?

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-04 13:36:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 58.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]