The Pentacon: Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed (Smoking Gun Edition)


Hat tip to Floridian for blogging it earlier today, and to Joe for submitting this as a news item.

Please keep your comments civil, and take debates to a message board or debate via email, thanks.



Please watch it first.

So that your comments are informed.

According to this website...

..."The Pentacon" is government disinfo:

I've yet to see the film (am doing so now), so cannot comment further.

You can view the higher quality...

I didn't say this was disinfo...

...I simply pointed to an opposing view to the film, for discussion by those who had seen it. If that is somehow offensive to anyone, by all means, keep voting the post down :)

Having seen the film, the only problem I have off-hand is with the audio and general amateurishness. But I really hand it to these guys for finding these witnesses - which makes me wonder why, after five years, they're the first to interview them (that I know of).

A couple of things bother me about this...

I watched the entire film earlier and a couple of things bothered me.

I was more than a little surprised that both of those cops were allowed to be interviewed on camera.  The cop named Legasse also seemed a little too smug, especially when it came to being an expert in aviation and demolition.  He also said he had seen stuff on the Internet.  What exactly did he mean?  However, his memory clearly was not perfect.  He had to be reminded where he was standing when he witnessed the "American Airlines" jet.

I'm not convinced.  I say WT7 should lead our movement, not the Pentagon.

I agree

And it was interesting how the officer's story did change in terms of his exact location. So could he really speak with absolute certainty? If that really comes down to splitting hairs, so be it.

But consider that the drawing and the line of impact practically was identical among both officers. This is important. If the officers were correct, then the line of impact was more perpindicular to the facade of the Pentagon. If that is to be accepted, then the width of damage would have been much different than the official story.

In other words, a perpindicular crash would have meant a shorter width of damage, whereas an angled crash would have produced a longer width of damage.

Remember that what was there was just a single hole. They want us to believe that the wings and tail section of the plane folded neatly behind the fuselage.

I disagree

their words, actions, and contradictions should lead the movement, not some speculation.

the point is to get an investigation into these words and actions, the rest will fall into place with that.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

see, this is the problem. "i

see, this is the problem. "i think that WTC7 should LEAD and not the pentagon". why does either have to LEAD? FACT:the pentagon has caused scores of people to question 9/11 or become 9/11 activists themselves. but yeah, lets completely ignore the pentagon and pretend that nothings wrong there. activism is about waking as many people up as possible and causing as many people to see things your way as possible. im a 9/11 activist, my purpose is to cause as many people to question the offical story of 9/11 as possible. the Pentagon has served me very well in that respect.

I think picking one to lead

I think picking one to lead has more to do with what is more convincing to those who are not drawn to initiate investigation on their own. I was also puzzled by the Pentagon in the week after 911--the local paper had this diagram that would make you believe the aircraft not only penetrated the entire complex, but implied the wreckage was sitting right in the middle. Then the photo came out--how do you get it THAT wrong?

So I would agree, if speaking to someone who was VERY doubtful, WTC7 is much more complelling TO START WITH.

As you know, it doesn't end there... ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Grounds for further research.

One of the policemen suggested getting the police report from Arlington police station. Have the filmmakers done that?

They backed off of showing exactly where the taxi was found with the lightpole. I would need to go through all of the eyewitnesses to draw any conclusions about this evidence.

It seems plausible that the plane overshot its turn, and made a wider corkscrew, thus accounting for being north of where it was planned to pass. If the light poles were rigged or planted, and the angle of the "impact" designed around the wrong trajectory -- that could account for all the video camera footage being confiscated immediately, and possibly doctored.

If the plane never passed where the perpetrators wanted it to pass, and had rigged a staged event based on the wrong trajectory, then this could account for things like the entry hole not matching a 757.

My main concern with the pentagon crash is: where did the engines enter? Show me. (I don't think anyone can, and it remains unproven).

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

this is unconvincing

Most important, the star witness here swears on his life that the plane hit the Pentagon. That would seem to demolish the filmmaker's "it flew over the Pentagon" theory. But even if it doesn't (like maybe that guy was mistaken), there are a few moments in this film when you realize how unreliable witnesses can be (and no, there is no comparison between firefighters witnessing massive secondary explosions in the towers, and some security guards seeing a plane at distance for a split second).

I also don't find their theory of planted bombs at the Pentagon convincing. Are they suggesting the perps had to time a plane flying overhead with prepositioned explosives, and create a fake swath of destruction inside the Pentagon along with a punch out hole? Please. And then in broad daylight the perps littered the Pentagon lawn with plane parts? Right.

I guess there is something of note here, the apparent discrepancy of flight paths. But there's also a good deal here that just seems to add more confusion rather than clarify a conspiracy.


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, staff of the Director of the National Security Agency:

"There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked Pentagon, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage one would expect from the impact of a large airliner... this visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ' missile ' ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of contact ~ no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon .. all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected was not evident .. the same is true with regard to the damage we expected .. but I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 0r 40 minutes, with the roof remaining relatively straight .. The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would have expected if a missile had struck the Pentagon "

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski;s opinion is one that I completely believe and respect. Also since she worked with the OSP at the Pentagon she has spoken out time and time again about the false info her dept. was forced to include in their reports regarding Iraq's WMD. See the documentary "Why We Fight".

This lady is a true patriot.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Show "i don't like this film...." by wolfowitz in sh...

I enjoyed the film. People

I enjoyed the film. People are scared shitless of the Pentagon, whatever. All four witnesses clearly place the plane at odds with the OCT. Congrats to the filmmakers and Pilots for Truth for tracking down the witnesses. If all four are mistaken? Doesn't really matter; we have more smoking guns than Wild Bill; pentagon is just icing.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I am convinced that the

I am convinced that the producers and the witnesses were honest and credible.

The video establishes one important point. That the plane came from north of the Citgo station. So the official flight path is wrong.

But it doesn't solve the enigma of the Pentagon event.

Pandora's Black Box ?

Pandora's Black Box - the raw data from the Black Box analysed also places the flight path north of Citco.

Here's my problem...Where did whoever found the Black Box FIND THE BLACK BOX??? And HOW DID IT GET THERE???

What plane was it assigned to???

evidence like black boxes

will remain suspect because there is no source that can validate their contents independent of the government.

I'm confused by this whole "flight paths" controversy. On what was that government video shown to the 9/11 Commission based? If they knew they were going to release the flight recorder data (showing the north of Citco path), why would they concoct a video for public display that shows something else? I'm guessing the answer I will receive is, "Because they had to account for the downed light poles."

That doesn't make sense to me. The light poles could be explained after the fact any number of ways, whether true or false. If I were faking a Pentagon attack and had to lie about the poles, I would just say the turbulence from the plane (or whatever that's called at ground level) ripped up some light poles not directly in the plane's path. How would anyone take issue with that? Wouldn't spectators have to assume that the evidence of a plane crash supersedes the evidence of some uprooted light poles?

On the other hand, this video reminds me of something odd about the Pentagon video. The video from the parking lot doesn't show anything discernible hitting the Pentagon; but if it shows anything, it shows something approaching the building straight on (not on the angle suggested by the downed light poles). So, maybe the government's video supports the Pentacon witnesses? I don't know. I'm confused.

This video confused me

And the reason is that I've been doing research on the Pentagon strike. Particularly on the eye-witness testimony.

Now lets go through the possibilities. Here is what we know did happen on 9/11.

There was a massive traffic jam so bad that many described it as "stand-still". Right next to the Pentagon. I have more than 20 statements to back this fact up. There were knocked down light poles.

Question #1: What would be the motive to fake light pole damage? Why not just leave them standing? Why risk this if there was a massive traffic jam. This isn't something you can fake easily without getting caught.

Question #2: According to this movie 4 people claim that the plane did not go where the light poles were. HUH? Is it possible that they are wrong? Of course it is!

Who has a better view of what happened? A gas station pretty far away or a highway jam packed with cars right next to the pentagon. I would suggest the highway had better witnesses and not only that--these comments are 5 years later from the Gas Station. If they had recorded their statements on 9/11 stating what they saw, I would be more inclined to believe them.

So the dilemma is:

1. These people at the Gas station are correct, and they faked light pole damage

2. These people are incorrect and the light pole damage was not faked.

Until someone proves to me how they faked this damage and provides a sensible motive for why it was faked I'm inclined to believe #2. It's not enough to speculate that it was faked. If you want to prove it in a court of law... prove it with credible evidence. I'm very skeptical of the "taxi driver" evidence because I haven't looked at it yet. If anyone can prove to me how they faked this... then I'll listen. We have to have strict standards of evidence if we want to prove anything.

"We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

To say the least

I agree with you Arabesque that the info is completely contradictory between the flight paths. However also remember that it is not just either the Citgo vs highway witnesses but also that the FDR from the NTSB also shows the flight path to be north of the station. While some may argue that the black box is faked/untrustworthy we cannot simply assume that it is until, as you say we prove that it is not. I have no reason to suspect that the FDR is faked, plus the fact that the witnesses were dead sure that the plane was to the north, a major detail that is unlikely to have been forgotten with time. At this point if we accept the FDR/Citgo witnesses and we accept the highway witnesses/flight poles then we have a major discrepancy to which I have no clue how to remedy. Just to make sure that a northerly path of the Citgo and the downing of the light poles are mutually contradictory I went back and studied the ASCE BPAT as well as the photos and the recent simulation of F77's hit on the Pentagon. Indeed it seems very unlikely that the plane could both be north of the station and further hit the poles (which were to the east south east) and then hit the Pentagon in a north easterly direction from the light poles. At 300 mph the turning radius of the plane is simply not tight enough to allow this, let alone the piloting skills (ala Hani).

I agree that the film also draws far to strong conclusions (plane didn't hit, pulled up, light poles faked, etc.) from the evidence. The only thing they established was the flight path discrepancy. The issues with the C-130 and E-4B seen in the area are still curious, but no fruit has yet been borne from these areas of investigation. As such the Pentagon, as always, remains a morass and further investigation is still needed to draw any conclusions that F77 did not hit. Until then, I am of the belief that it did.

Good Points. I say: stick to what we can prove

I have looked at the NSTB reports and I admit the Pentagon is really starting to make me scratch my head...

The release of the Pentagon Videos would answer alot of questions. As for the un-answerable questions... I propose we avoid those.

It can't be proven for example that planes were switched at the Pentagon... so let's avoid talking about it. Until someone proves how light pole damage was faked and why... I don't see how speculating on this issue will help us.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

saddleup@ride After viewing

After viewing this film, and pondering my thoughts as the credits rolled by.......did I see Dylan's name?

saddleup@ride It is also my

It is also my FIRM belief that the perps will eventually release clear and precise PROOF that the Pentagon was hit by a commercial jet. When their asses are finally pinned to the carpet, they will excercise their ace in the hole....thereby putting the final spin to their cover-up. The majority of the sheep will then discount the rest of the 911 truth movement as hogwash. These are very brilliant people running this show. They did not plan this over night....they planned this decades ago as a chapter to the full overthrow of our Republic.
Get the ropes and keep your powder dry.
I agree with the earlier post...KEEP THE PRESSURE ON SILVERSTEIN. Bring him down and you place a mortal wound upon the body of the entire beast. It will then cause the beast to strike against parts of it's own body. Now a few of the weaker ones will seek cover from the Truthers, and will start to talk.
That's when we'll need the ROPES!

About the approach path

I agree that it is best to concentrate on what happened at the WTC - also because of that possibility. The collapse speed of the WTC skyscrapers cannot be faked.

I liked the interview parts of the video (although very amateurish). The witnesses seemed credible. But I didn't like the way the authors seemed to jump to the conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Why would the perps have staged the knocking down of the lamp posts? In other words, why would the plane have needed to follow a particular path into the Pentagon?

To provide tangible evidence of a large plane having hit the building? Not much of the plane remained after the crash, so was the lamp post damage needed to buttress the case? And the plane then failed to follow the intended route, but plan B was deployed and the lamp posts were knocked down anyway?

How would they do ii? And when?

Vesa, you asked: "Why would the perps have staged the knocking down of the lamp posts?" As shown in the title to my post, how on earth could they do this?

Planting light posts takes time, big equipment, and a seasoned crew that is trained for that particular job. The delivery truck coming in would itself be an event. But you'd also need a crane or a winch or some other big piece of equipment for hoisting them up.

Would 't it take a whole day, minimum? I don't suppose anyone would notice someone planting damaged light posts around the Pentagon. No one would ask anyone else why these damaged light posts were needed. Right?

Or would they do it at night, to keep the operation from view? Again, no one would notice of course. Everyone's asleep. Do it fast so that the night watchmen don't see. Anyway, security at the Pentagon is lax. Right?

Crews planting damaged light posts at night... it's just normal... happens all the time... Right?

To me this stinks a bit.

But what if you loosed

But what if you loosened bolts, scored the base, or in some otherway compromised the standing strength of the poles? Just enough that if a smaller aircraft flew by they'd be wrenched over?

I'm not married to this thesis--just dating it. ;-) Something that popped into my head last week.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Broken poles

Jenny, the photos seem to show lamp posts that got sheared somehow. Have you taken a look at them? They look like broken candy-canes.

Extending your suggestion though, I suppose that crews could maybe score them half-way up the poles, so as to make them weak.

Vesa's question is a good one: Why do that?

My question is: Wouldn't even that odd behaviour be seen and noted?

Stay altert

Cowpoke, I am quoting the second sentence of your posting, so as to emphasize it: "It is also my FIRM belief that the perps will eventually release clear and precise PROOF that the Pentagon was hit by a commercial jet."

Like everyone else here, I have no way to know what happened at the Pentagon. Like everyone else I do also have a theory about it. But one thing is quite obvious, and needs no theory: we are being given bizarre and conflicting pieces of evidence, or faked evidence. That warns me to stay alert and not jump to conclusions.

I also like this idea of yours: "KEEP THE PRESSURE ON SILVERSTEIN. Bring him down and you place a mortal wound upon the body of the entire beast."


I'm new here, but wanted to chip in to express some caution.

There seems to be some good stuff here regarding the eyewitness testimony both attesting to a plane and that its flight path differed from the route given in official records. This needs to be rigorously checked against primary sources. It would be an anomaly worth bringing attention to if it can indeed be established 1) they are correct and 2) that the light poles popped out in an area impossibly far from that path. The film seems to go a long way towards that much, and may prove valuable for that reason.

Yet William Pepper's advice rings in my ears: to stick with *only* solid evidence on which to build your case slowly. There will continue to be many attempts to sway the movement's attention, especially in ways that are easily torn apart by analysis. I don't mean to impugn the integrity of the film-makers--I accept they may be entirely well-intentioned and offer them kudos for their hard work and gumption--yet whatever good intentions are involved, this film in its current form has my fish-o-meter blinking red. It will be easily ridiculed under scrutiny.

Just one example (there are many). At the film's pivotal point the voice-over tells us (in weird phrasing):

"In light of this quadruple corroborated testimony it makes no sense to continue to suggest that the plane flew on the south side of the station [true enough, if one accepts that everything has been checked and independently verified.]

"Therefore it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the physical damage was staged and that the plane couldn't have really hit the building at all [ What?? This is just the kind of logical leap the hacks love to accuse 9/11 researchers of. How does the flight path being different "demonstrate beyond doubt that the plane couldn't have hit the building?" Sure it could have: just having come in at a different angle. I'm not saying I have an opinion on what happened; just that the reasoning is flawed.]

"The notion that all four witnesses are so completely incorrect about such a simple right or left detail during an event of this magnitude is simply not a viable consideration [OK, as long as the witnesses do stand up to scrutiny etc.]

"Clearly all of the witnesses were convinced the plane hit the building, but we know if where they all placed the plane is remotely true, that this cannot be what really happened. [What? There it is again. How do we know this?]

"So how were they fooled? [ Now we're moving forward on the basis of a demonstrably speculative assumption.]

"Naturally this question seems to be a difficult one to answer, but in light of this groundbreaking eyewitness testimony it's necessary to hypothesize how this operation of deception was carried out." [Why is it "necessary to hypothesize" in light of the testimony--however true it is? It has not been demonstrated that this "operation of deception" (ie, tricking the witnesses into thinking they saw the plane hit the building) happened. Yet onwards the film proceeds...]

If I were a sceptic--which I am not--watching this would convince me of two things: 1) There was an AA plane that hit the building and 2) The film makers (and by extension all "Truthers") don't know how to make reasonable conclusions.

There are many similar problems with the presentation in this film.

Once again, I don't wish to critisize the film makers' motivations. I have no reason to doubt they are well-intentioned and, presuming so, I thank them for their efforts. It's just that we really need to be ever more careful as this movement now garners more widespread attention than ever before.

It's easy to picture marginalized "conspiracy buffs" debating angles, theories and testimonies 40 years from now. The legally actionable evidence is what needs to be focused on, from what I can see. And when we do use speculation, it needs to be handled with care and reason. Thanks for listening. Good luck, everyone.



I enjoyed the Pentacon, but ultimately, I was left with more questions than answers.

Apart from the evidently inconsistent flight path, surprisingly it seems to confirm the pentagon was hit by an airliner. But then the producers tells us some elaborate stunt was carried out so the plane could simply fly over. For what purpose exactly? Why not simply crash the plane? Doesn't make any sense.

As Vesa stated: "Why would the perps have staged the knocking down of the lamp posts? In other words, why would the plane need to follow a particular path into the Pentagon?" Exactly.

Sgt LaGrasse also states that it clearly hit the Pentagon, he felt the impact and even saw it swivel just before impact (which would then explains the angled entry of the plane into the wall). But the producers of the Pentacon don't even address these aspects of his testimony. Why? Why would they leave this all unexplained and then go into exposing some elaborate flying stunt for which they have no backing evidence for, or for that matter, any sensical reason why it was done.

Maybe the 'Researcher's Edition' will cover this. I'm suspicious though, that they wouldn't address these blatant questions in the original documentary.

Disinformation? Who knows. At least they seem to have elucidated the correct flight path. But why surround it with all the other untenable hypothesis and unaddressed questions. Maybe they have good justifications for these, but we're just left hanging.

They lost me at the flyover

"In light of this quadruple corroborated testimony it makes no sense to continue to suggest that the plane flew on the south side of the station."

"Therefore...the physical damage was staged and that the plane couldn't have really hit the building at all."

That's exactly where they lost me. I found the eyewitness testimony credible, and even the error of where he parked his car reasonable considering his focus was on the plane and its crash, not on filling up his tank. I think they did some good research with these interviews, and the burden is on others to prove the eyewitnesses were wrong.

But to establish that your witnesses are pretty much in complete agreement, then jump directly to disproving that what they said they saw is not very convincing. I think instead of jumping to "the plane flew over the building" they should have instead transitioned to talking about how the damage didn't match the flight path they've established the witnesses saw. They shouldn't have brought up the "flyover" unless they were willing to back that up with eyewitnesses or other credible evidence.

The film incongruously mixes solid evidence with complete speculation.

Legally actionable evidence

Hey, CBuzzowitz, this first post of yours is good.

I will quote your final paragraph, to give it emphasis:

"It's easy to picture marginalized "conspiracy buffs" debating angles, theories and testimonies 40 years from now. The legally actionable evidence is what needs to be focused on, from what I can see. And when we do use speculation, it needs to be handled with care and reason. Thanks for listening. Good luck, everyone."


Investigation Lacking

How did Zelikow miss Brooks and Degasse? These guys were eyewitnesses at the Citgo station and Pentagon Cops. So the Citgo videotape is released after being in protective custody for five years, and we're supposed to believe these guys weren't even worth intensive interviews for sixty fricken months? No, something stinks real bad about this, even if you think it's disinfo. Theorizing about the planting of bombs in the pentagon is kinda like mental masturbation, but the Officers' account clearly contradicts the official story.

I consider this to be

I consider this to be another piece of evidence, but not the best or most convincing one.

After watching the video

After watching the video only two things have been cleared up.
1) That a large plane, possibly an American Airlines flew into the Pentagon.
2) The Flight path is not that of the official report.

I believe the officer's in the video were forth right in what they saw that morning. To suggest a fly over would be a real stretch as it would involve split second timing in order to pull off a deception like that. Way to risky as you would only have one crack at it to get it right or the whole gig would be blown.

The Officer's testimony does lead credence to what the real flight path was and coincides with the NIST flight recorder data. Why would that the official report differ? That to me is enough to reopen an investigation and to ask some hard questions. I strongly believe there is something being hidden here. Although I do believe a large plane crashed into the pentagon I don't believe it was flight 77 flown by an amateur pilot. I strongly hope those in the movement would stop trying to show anything other then a PLANE crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It takes away from the questions that really need to be answered.

Get the Exact DOJ Files of What Hit the Pentagon

Below is the information on the bit-identical files that show some object hitting the Pentagon which the U.S. Department of Justice released to .

11094135.mpg (33523700 bytes) MD5 checksum: a19be7dde91bc8ae6c13a36bbab359f9

11094237.mpg (35394520 bytes) MD5 checksum: 6a947fd57ed6249fa332f7c25ccf21af

I downloaded my files directly from, but in order to do that you have to send an email to the webmaster requesting that he provide you the link.

Below is a link where one can apparently find torrents to download the above bit-indentical files:

Just make sure that the file information matches what I provided above, otherwise you have gotten an altered copy.

One can also do search engine queries to try to find other places that have the above files (e.g., search on the file names, etc.).

Based upon video 11094135.mpg , the front portion of the object looks like a military jet (see frame 2592)--it most certainly *does not* look like an American Airlines Boeing 757-223. It looks like the front portion of a Douglas A-3 Skywarrior or something similar in appearance.

And one can see the object in that frame fairly well, especially when it is properly extracted in a lossless format and then interpolated to increase its size.

As well, frame 2624 of that video shows a white-hot and extremely bright explosion, quite unlike the jet fuel explosions seen from the planes hitting the towers--as if high explosives were used.

One can use the "Extract Videorange" feature of the GIMP Animation Package (GAP) to extract the frames in a lossless still image format such as the GIMP's XCF format, and then losslessly convert that to the PNG format.

These videos are weird in how they are formatted, in that about 30 frames are used for each still frame from the original surveillance video tapes, hence making the videos much larger (bit-wise) than they need to be.

Below are the two frames discussed above, extracted in the manner described above using GAP:

frame 2592:

MD5: 26e8a315352df9d115dfad16c2b94785

frame 2624:

MD5: 7927436919e980ea4a03ca77e475da66

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006

They're even odder than that

It's not exactly 30 frames per 1 frame of motion. Sometimes it is more, sometimes less. It also has analog VCR-like distortion on the sides--those bumps you can see on the side of those images, but those bumps sometimes change even though the image doesn't. It makes it appear like they used digital surveillance cameras, ran it through a VCR, then at some point edited portions out, then converted it back to digital.

I'd really like to see a detailed analysis by a video expert of it's source and likely processing it received. I only know enough to know that the video is fishy. Perhaps I should do a write-up if none exists.

Blog it?

Benthers, you said, "Perhaps I should do a write-up if none exists."

Even your brief post gives helpful insight. Would you have time to submit a write-up here as a blog? I am assuming that dz and the crew here will post it, if you do decide to submit something.

Tampering with evidence would be yet another crime. We i.e. someone will need a legal handle to grab on to, so as to get an investigation going.


Like this?

or this?

I believe also had a good analysis, but they are currently offline (too bad :() so I can't check up on this.

Thanks for the links Richard

That's the type of thing I was talking about. The first link seems to agree that the tape was "digitized, deinterleaved, manipulated extensively, recombined into one video and then recorded back onto a VHS (or other analog format) cassette. This version was then digitized again and released to Judicial Watch."

The second link takes that even further to mention some missing frames, which I had also noticed. I ran the videos through a frame differencing process as well, to discover how much difference each frame had and try to extract the unique frames and how often they appeared (the variable framerate), as well as identify anomalies. Unfortunately I've lost some of that work so I will analyze it again and take a closer look at that second analysis and blog it here or on my site. I still wonder if Steven Jones or anyone else found a professional video expert to analyze these videos.

Just something i noticed

about the first witness. He saw the plane coming almost over his head. And he was at the south of Fort Myers. So he is actually confirming the offcial story more then the flightpath the makers from this video point out, which is alot more to the north.

Yes, it's interesting to

Yes, it's interesting to hear a few contrasting accounts, but the question that will immediately be asked(by myself as well) is, so what did all those people on the highway see when it flew right over them? I'm not saying the official account is correct, but there is an obvious discrepancy, and I don't believe for one minute that light poles were planted without anyone noticing. The main issue with the Pentagon, and the more realistic one to be answered is where the hell is the black box? Is this one of the first plane crashes in history where the black box was never recovered(aside from the planes at the WTC, of course)??? Why has did no one at the time even think to bring up the issue of black boxes? We're just going in circles with this contrasting eye witness testimony and there's no way to prove it by simply putting out more eyewitnesses.

This would be the NTSB's

This would be the NTSB's area, would it not? Or at least under normal protocol. But as we know, normal protocol went by the wayside that day.

It is weird

The problem is we can't necessarily trust the black box data. The Pandora's Black Box video shows what the data shows. But can we trust the data?

This keeps on looking like intentional confusion-making to me.

The governent has supplied us (the public) with two very weird sources of data, the black box data and the five video frames. Both (intentionally?) contradict the official story of a commercial airliner hitting the pentagon.

The black box

from flight 77 was revovered. How do you think the NTSB got the flightpath?

the black box is

Pandora's Black Box 2

The film presents the same flightpath from the BB data, North of Citco. The BB data also ends a second too soon. Was the Black Box planted at the Pentagon?

Not a classic...

Sorry, this video doesn't prove any points. I was convinced that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon by :

1. Pictures of the roundish hole +combined with+

2. No 757 obvious debris outside this small hole.

3. No marks on the lawn.

These 3 points make the thought of a passenger liner hitting the Pentagon impossible. If there is the one hole, then there should be material outside the hole that could not have possibly entered the building.

Again, it is basic logic. That we are still arguing this point 5 years after the fact really makes me depressed about humanity. And I guess I've been overly optimistic about the truth getting out there, our local Norcal weekly had a letter to the editor offering the "debunker" websites as a "balanced" view. And most non-truthers will believe those thousands of words of treasonous offal because they don't want to believe what we consider to be truth.

"Witnesses" 5 years later are not going to convert the deniers. Respect the attempt, but debunkers can tear this video apart. We need strong material-like getting that Pentagon round hole out there into the public's mind, with a picture of the clean lawn. How sad that we are trying to prove the lie of such an obvious hoax. The video of Gen. Stubblebine is much stronger material:

people have to stop repeating the misinformed idea

that there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. There was.

I agree the hole looks too small, and the punch out hole looks suspicious, but the evidence and eyewitness accounts overwhelmingly support the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon.

NOSE of plane would not punch through...

while the two massive engines on the wings would have.
Simple as that. Not a plane ..a missle.

Pentagon conflicting evidence.

I don't believe the pentagon crash is strong evidence, and it has been usd to discredit skeptics in the past. I wouldn't put it front and center in any argument for the general public.

However, there are real anomalies. Real head scratching anomalies that might yield some results down the line.

Someone said:

"For what purpose exactly? Why not simply crash the plane? Doesn't make any sense."

It does if you're located on the other side of the complex and you chicken out. No one wants a 100 ton aircraft accidently landing on their head.

"As Vesa stated: "Why would the perps have staged the knocking down of the lamp posts? In other words, why would the plane need to follow a particular path into the Pentagon?" Exactly."

If the crash itself was faked with explosives, then they would be faked to show a particular vector.

"Why would they leave this all unexplained and then go into exposing some elaborate flying stunt for which they have no backing evidence for, or for that matter, any sensical reason why it was done."

The flight data recorder is the "backing evidence" for this theory. This is from the Pilots for 911 truth website:

"(Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations)."

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

National Georgraphic animation

"If the crash itself was faked with explosives, then they would be faked to show a particular vector."

Couldn't they have faked a crash with explosives without faking a particular approach vector?

I just watched the preview clip of In Plane Site:

It claimed that the National Geographic had shown a computer animation of the plane's approach path very soon after the Pentagon crash (the narrator said, hyperbolically I assume, "seconds after"). The animated path corresponded with that described by the CITGO eyewitnesses -- am I correct?

The clip also seemed to confirm that none of the large Boeing motors (2.7 feet in diameter) were found on the site.

Seems legit overall, but I wonder . . .

Are police officers allowed to do videotaped interviews in uniform about on-duty activities without permission from their supervisors, especially about incredibly controversial topics like contradicting the offical story of 9/11? I would assume that there are stringent rules for that kind of thing. I'm not a police officer, but where I work that's a big definite no-no.

Also, has anyone studied the actual police reports? One of the most interesting comments was the cop saying "The only real "official story" is the police report.

another striking thing . . .

I saw the Loose Change guys interview of the cab driver who got the pole slammed into his car. He seemed legit too. If I recall, that story contradicts what they're saying in this video.