Blink Comparator shows Plane at the Pentagon

In March 2002, five frames from a Pentagon surveillance camera (which we shall call Camera 1) were released. It showed a smoke trail but no apparent plane. Any plane would have had to be hidden behind a foreground obstruction, and it seemed intuitively implausible to many people that a 757 would fit behind that obstruction. This series of frames did much to launch theories of the Pentagon attack asserting no plane, or a small plane rather than a 757, or a missile. More frames from the same camera and a second series of frames from a nearby camera (which we shall call Camera 2) were released in 2006, but they did not get the attention they deserved. The Pentagon had become a contentious issue in the 9/11 Truth Movement by then and many of us were focusing our attention on the World Trade Center and seeing the Pentagon as a diversion.

Recently, while searching online for Pentagon images for his new film, Ken Jenkins discovered images of the plane in a frame from a higher quality version of the Camera 2 video. The plane had not previously been noticed by any of us. Ken did further testing to confirm the legitimacy of what was seen in that frame, and experimented with toggling the frames to simulate a blink comparator. (Blinking is a technique used in astronomy to emphasize subtle changes in pairs of astronomical photographs such as studying variable stars, identifying novas, and detecting the motion of asteroids.) I came on board with his project at that point and we created a number of blinking animated gif images. Given the clarity of what we were now seeing it was hard to understand why most people (ourselves included) had initially failed to see the plane. The reasons must be partly because of low contrast between the plane and the background, partly because of overestimation of the expected size of the plane, partly because of the degraded resolution of many of the copies of the video that have circulated on the Internet, and partly our erroneous early beliefs that the surveillance videos showed no plane. has original files provided by the FBI through a FOIPA request that includes the surveillance videos from these two cameras in the native CCTV format. Working from the original files Nathan Flach was able to convert the video to a more user-friendly format and extract clear, good quality PNG images of the individual frames. Nate's videos and PNG images can be downloaded here:

The trouble with GIF images is they have limited color resolution, which is undesirable given the low contrast of the plane and its background. So I created a set of JavaScript roll-over images to achieve the same effect with the lossless PNG images. When the mouse cursor hovers over the image, one image is shown. When the cursor is moved away, the other image is shown. The viewer can thus manually blink the images at any desired rate.
I have posted three zoomed-in blinked image pairs: the plane as seen from Camera 1, the plane as seen from Camera 2, and the images that show the plane alternating from Camera 2 to Camera 1, showing the motion of the plane over a fraction of a second. I also have blinked pairs of the un-zoomed frames showing the much smaller plane images in context.

It is hoped that this direct visual evidence for the presence of a large plane at the Pentagon will help resolve the long-standing dispute in the 9/11 Truth Movement on this question.

The blinked images can be seen here:

A matter of scale

Good catch!-It's clear that something is there, but I'd like to see some analysis of the scale of the observed flying object.

Re: A matter of scale...

I'm working on transforming the image to eliminate the barrel distortion. One result is objects near the edge of the view (including the plane) are longer than they appear in the distorted view.

Great. We can all get back to

Great. We can all get back to debating what did or didn't hit the pentagon now. Wonder how that'll end up.

ETA I remember an apparently wise man once telling me that the fish were biting at WTC 7, so why cloud the issue with the unknown ridden pentagon issue. This is scatter bait, no more.
The issue of the Pentagon is not only a dead end for our movement, but also a nice pristine lawn for us to spin our wheels on for a few more years.

Pentagon debate

Although the video is old, the ability to see the plane is new evidence. We have seen that leaving the Pentagon to one side hasn't worked very well. It is fertile ground for speculative theorizing. The alternative is to work through the conflict to a solution based on evidence. Probably tens of thousands of words have been written arguing about the presence of a plane. It's nice, for a change, to be able to set aside the words and actually see an image.

gerrycan1 - I track with you 100%


Nice work

This is very interesting, thanks!

Your resolution is far better than in a previous, unconvincing blink image from Camera 2 (part way down, on right):

In addition to the scale analysis mentioned by 7man, it would be interesting to know how much image blur would be expected over the camera integration time, and if that's consistent with the image. That's no high-speed camera, and the plane was fast.

".. because our own erroneous

".. because our own erroneous beliefs.."

I came to the same conclusion, years ago, and after many discussions with "snocrash" on this site. The facts are undeniable when your honest to yourself and put all beliefs aside. This is not religion, follow the facts.

Thank you Ken and David for being willing to approach this subject again, for yourselves, with honesty.


I would like to move away from the fuselage blink issue for a moment, mainly because it is of such poor quality. I do not believe this is a direct, no loss copy of the original.

We have something that is much easier to see with the naked eye, that just doesn't make sense technically.

Perhaps someone with video analysis skills can explain it for us.

There were two parking gate camera videos released to Judicial Watch.



#1 has a clear view of the lawn. #2 has the box obstruction in the foreground.

In the #2 video, at the 0:25 mark, you see the smoke trail on the right. The fireball erupts one second after the smoke is seen. A full eight seconds later, @ 0:34 we see a flash that covers the whole screen.

In the #1 video, at the 1:26 mark you see the smoke trail on the right. Just one second later we see a flash that covers most of the screen. (some blue sky is still visible) The fireball and the flash are simultaneous.

Why is there an eight second difference for each camera to capture the flash?

Physics - Forces - Aerodynamics - 530mph ground level effect

I don't like to stir the pot about the Pentagon.
Sometimes, I think too much effort is spent on debating things when that "debate" time and energy would be well served to just get the word out about "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" to people around the world. If some of these folks who "debate" would spend just 10% of that time towards giving out DVDs and Ae911Truth literature, we as a movement would be so much further ahead.

Regardless, in light of "The 28 Pages" again in the media showcase, I am curious about studies involving the aerodynamics and physics and forces involved at ground level with a speed of 530 mph for a 757's structural and flight dynamics capabilities..

Too much time indeed. I was

Too much time indeed.

I was amazed at how little I knew when I entered into a debate.

For instance, Tom, are you aware of the Pentagons "ring" construction @ ground levels? Please describe it.

Rules (again)

"Keep your comments relevant to the blog entry. Post useful (sourced) information and commentary"

"Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread."