Pentagon - Overview

[Rumpl4skn]

DOD Crash video, frames 1 and 2:

This is the video from the Pentagon parking lot kiosk, from which the Military has graced us with a total of 5 frames (initially, then another stopframe after a FOIA request from Judicial Watch).

Note the differences between the 2 frames:



The first, most obvious difference is the smoke trail. In frame 1, it is a relaxed, curling, thick white smoke trail, that appears to not be coming from a very fast-moving object. In order to justify the plane's speed, the NTSB said it was traveling 530 MPH, which is roughly the speed it would take for a 60-ton aircraft to penetrate into the 3rd ring, crashing through 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete, at 30g of deceleration. (Assuming an aluminum framed nose cone could even possibly do that.)

Later, black box data was said to have reported that the speed was actually 345MPH, which trashes the NTSB's "reverse engineered" flight speed, so that was never brought up again, and luckily, no one seriously questioned it's disappearance.

At any rate, neither speed would seem to be slow enough to produce this curly-q'd smoke trail (then add in the fact that jets do not leave smoke trails at this low of an altitude on a clear, dry Autumn day in the first place, and we're now dealing with very bizarre general circumstances.)

In Frame 2, this thick white smoke trail has flattened out and has almost disappeared into nothing, at the moment the 'thing' strikes the building.

Thirdly, note that - quite oddly, indeed - the surrounding dome of the camera's glass window has changed fairly drastically. The metal ring of the window is bent outward, protruding into the picture. Someone commented a while ago that perhaps the blast wave affected the window - but common sense would tell you that the window would move inward, not outward from the camera, if affected by a blast wave. (Also, given the fact that between these 2 frames, the jet has traveled about 1/4 the distance, at over 300 MPH, then even in the lowest estimate, the blast wave would have to travel - in order to reach the camera windwo in the same amount of time - at roughly 1200 MPH, or Mach 2, which is impossible for all but a very massive HE detonation, one that would create a much larger display of destruction. And this is supposed to be a simple jet plane crash. But I welcome dismissals of the "window theory" by any govt apologists who wish to pursue HE involvement here.)

Anyway, the camera window should be bending inward, out of the frame, if it is moving at all. Personally, I don't think it should change at all, because changing perspective would demand a change in the distance between camera lens and window, which would imply that the camera and window are not in any way attached, via the kiosk building itself, and I find that nearly impossible to reconcile.

Not only that, but more importantly, the picture point of reference moves, slighty to the right and lower, from frame 1 to frame 2, suggesting that not only has the window distance changed, but so has the camera angle, ever so slightly.

My conclusions: regarding the 2 anomalies - (a) the changing shape of the camera window (and accompanying lens movement), and (b) the oddly thick, curling smoke, with it's immediately flattening, I am left with only one scenario that could account for these anomalies. The first frame is from a different moment (or perhaps day), when the camera angle was slightly askew, for whatever reason, and the "smoke" trail in Frame 1 was graphically added to the picture (along with the darkened tail silhouette) in order to fudge the appearance of a quasi-airplane in the frame. The time stamp was copied to the same moment, because at high speed, there would not be a full second elapsing between these 2 events. (More on the airplane tail silhouette in Part3 of my increasing boring series on this subject. Stay stewed.)

Therefore, also - Mike Wilson's 3D crash presentation was "reverse engineered" to fit Frame 1 of this video. Which I shall show in my next post, Part 2. (I'll bet you all can't wait.)

[Continuity]

Well - I'm looking forwards to it, anyway - I don't know what that says about *me* - prolly best if I don't know....

Anyhoo - I can't see anyone saying that somehow the blast-wave somehow affected the camera, firstly coz, as you pointed out it would have to be travelling *really, really* fast, and secondly - wouldn't those traffic cones have been affected first/more, becasuse they're closer, and have a bigger surface area to whack?

Just a thought...

[Rumpl4skn]

Correct about the cones, they would have blown over from any shock wave strong enough to move a kiosk window. Good point.

I generally don't buy the shock wave thing, even though it would demand evidence of this not being a simple plane crash, but an HE detontation.

[Rumpl4skn]

Part 2: The 3D Video Recreation
According to the preliminary results of a new study I've undertaken, Mike Wilson's 3D recreation of the Pentagon crash is incorrect in the least, and a deliberate scam in the extreme. Notice (if you watch it again) how he does NOT keep the aircraft model in the shot as he zooms from it to the inside of the parking lot kiosk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

A truly impartial, questioning investigator would have swung his viewpoint so that the onlooker was inline with the kiosk's camera hole, the pylon in front of it, and the airplane in the distance, which would have immediately shown the size relationships prefectly (similar to my alignment below). He does not do this, I believe, for a good technical reason - as he zooms inside the kiosk to show the fish-eye lens view of the plane hiding behind the pylon, I believe his 3D rendering program is shrinking the plane to fit behind the pylon.

(NOTE: the image of the 757 is for length comparison only. The attitude of the plane is from due port, not the cocked angle it would appear in it's trajectory on approach.)

Here's how I have deduced this, from a new diagram (oh no!) I just started this week:



This is a rough draft, and I was even generous with the size of the pylon, so as not to be accused of shinking it to deliberately make the hidden area smaller. This hidden arc is roughly 90 feet across, or about 65' short of being able to hide all but the nose of Flight 77 (a Boeing 757-200).

A criticism I would like to dismiss in advance is the "fish eye lens effect of this kiosk camera creating the changing plane size." Yes, objects around the circular perimeter of a fish eye lens will shrink somewhat in size. However, a fish eye lens simply balloons the inner portion while shrinking the outer circumference. It does not bend light around objects - therefore, what cannot be seen behind an obstruction still cannot be seen. It cannot possibly detract from the accuracy of the layout in the diagram - the sections of a 757-200 that would protrude beyond the edges of the pylon will still protrude, whether seen through a fish eye or normal lense.

Deflection 2: the location of the kiosk camera. There is no way to determine, solely from Pentagon photographs, the exact location of the kiosk camera, other than it's vertical position, which is roughly even with top of the pylon, since it looks flatly across the top of this object. Therefore, I have chosen to use Mike Wilson's location, slighty to the right of the kiosk center - but shifting this left or right would yield basically the same coverage, in relation to the pylon and aircraft. I will also show, eventually, that in order for the pylon to successfully cover up a 155' long airplane, the camera lense would have to be located roughly in the middle of the driving lane, about 4-5' in front of the kiosk. Which obviously, it is not.

[Rumpl4skn]

The Pentagon has released the Citgo gas station video, and it shoes essentially nothing.

It's a four-way split creen, and only the top right section shows outside the gas station. And, to add mystery to it, the top area of that section is, of course... blurred out. Which I find not suspicious at all.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Longsought_911_videotape_didnt_capture_attack_0915.html

Now we can argue about whether or not that is significant for another 5 years.

[Continuity]

You've gotta be shitting me! How the fuck did Judicial Watch *know* to ask for the FOIA relase of quite possibly THE SHITTIEST PIECE OF 'VIDEO EVIDENCE' ON BOG'S EARTH?!?

Now, it's not my specialist field, but I did used to work for a place that manufactured hi-res CCTV systems, colour, B&W, infra-red etc - the type that're used in large commercial locations, and also used by the local government. (You should see just *how many* CCTV cameras we have over here in the UK...!)

I would have thought that a facility that close to an institution like the Pentagon would have been made to have, not only a state-of-the-art CCTV/recording system, but also would have been tought/made to use it properly.

This CITGO tape appears to me to have been (re)recorded onto VCR tape that looks like it has been re-used quite possibly since the crucifixon of Christ. The guidelines for actually using VCR tape (most post-2000-ish, certainly if they were installed around that time use digital means, like internal hard-drives, not shitty analogue VCR tape to record the frames, anyway) is that you should use Chrome or Metal VCR tape, and that it should *not* , preferably, be re-used at all. If you insist upon re-using a VCR tape that contains nothing of consequence, you should not re-use it more than once, or maybe twice, to prevent the kind of pathetic, grainy, unanalysable image that we're seeing in the CITGO tape.

Suspicious, moi?!? Nah, surely not... :roll:

Also, there's the matter of the timestamp (now, where have we seen *that* before?) - it shows 01-01-93. WTF?!? I realise that still some ppl do not know how to set a VCR, and put up with the famous 'blinking 12.00', but *this* is ridiculous!

I'm *no* lawyer, but I would have strongly thought that having the *wrong* date/time-stamp on any CCTV footage would render it useless to be used in any court proceedings etc., that's if you *could* make out anything on it at all of evidentiary value - which you can't....

This is bullshit! This is the PENTAGON'S GAS STATION we're talking about here!

[DeepLogos]

Thanks Rumpl, for posting this. I read it at 4 am this morning (CET), and when I awoke I was sure I had been dreaming.... but no.

Agree, this is the crappiest piece of CCTV footage I have ever seen. I haven't studied it in it's minute detail, but their releases, which again really shows nothing, is so deliberate in it's obfuscation it's painful. Seems like too many CCTV cameras have the wrong date, which, I agree with C, would probably render the footage useless in a court of law (at least as time-related evidence). But the year '93?? Come on...

I want to see the traffic cameras, and if there is any truth to the story of the Sheridan Hotel footage of the crash, that as well... Not to mention other cameras owned by the Pentagon, i.e. the Amercan people. I'm not sure where and by which means the Pentagon CCTV recordings are saved, maybe C can help me with that, but I would assume that it is recored onto one medium somewhere secure (i.e. somwhere not easily destroyed by outside forces), and if nothing of interest is displayed on the footage, the tapes are reused. If any of the rumered footage (over 80 cameras around the Pentagon, was it?) has been deleted, destruction of evidence again seems to be an important part of the MO of the coverup.

As for Judicial Watch, it would be strange if a FOIA request for the above mentined videos has not been filed. Does anybody know? Are they part of the over 400 open record requests filed by them?

The letter from the Dep. of Justice/ FBI:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/FBILtrCitgoVideo.pdf

-DL-

[Rumpl4skn]

Endlessly argumentable peculiarty #49:

If you look closely, you'll notice that a very small 9-11-01 timestamp in a small black box appears to have been strangely added in the top middle of the video.

So it has 2 timestamps, one normal sized and wrong, one tiny and "correct."

[Continuity]

DL said:

[Rumpl4skn]

Here's another vivid example of how we are continually being conditioned with bullshit about things such as the Pentagon strike.

Here is the "entry diagram" from that "official" 3d recreation:



Here's the reality of the facade of the building before it collapsed. Note the incredible accuracy it lends to the Mike Wilson video diagram.



Horseshit. Unfortunately for the Pentagon officials: (a) support columns aren't hinged to snap back into place, (b) 6-ton steel and titanium engines make substantial holes in concrete, and (c) foam spray on a window does not qualify as "damage."

This is why I maintain that a Boeing 757 did not strike this building. Not in a universe still governed by the laws of physics.

[Jerry Fletcher]

Does anybody know of any pictures of the Pentagon just before the alleged attack? I think I've seen some, but I can't remember now.

Are there any pictures of the cable spools and other crap in the way? It would be interesting to see if there is a picture of the pentagon with all the current elements except the 'plane or no plane'.

We all know there were teams of people carting crap all over the place immediately following the attack.

Maybe they' weren't all taking things away.

Let's think about this from the reverse angle and see what the devil's advocates might have to say. What if we pretend to be the 'planners' of this psyop and see what - ... woah, what's happening? ...everything's getting blurry and wavy and ... oh god no, not a fantasy sequence..."

*sound of cascading whole tone harp glissandos...*


*ring ring*
"Hello?"
"Rump? It's Jerry, I need another little favor ..."
*CLICK... dial tone*
*sigh*


*ring ring*
"Hello?"
"WAIT! Don't hang up! C'mon, you'll like this one - it's a real thinker! I want to crash a 757 into the pentagon, but I don't want to take the rap for it. I've got kind of a bad reputation as a liar already, so if I say I didn't do it, everybody will assume I'm lying as usual. So, what do I need to do in order to pull this off, confess, and convince everybody my confession is a lie? When I say 'I did it', I want to look real dumb.

What's it gonna take to pull that off?"
*CLICK... dial tone...*
*sigh*

*ring ring*
"Hello?"
"Hey Continuity, it's Jerry..."
*CLICK... dial tone...*
*sigh*

*ring ring*
"Hello?"
"Donny? It's Jerry, listen, I need a favor, but, uh, hey, is your office anywhere near that new remodeled part, you know with the reinforced walls and ..."

[Rumpl4skn]

Jer - as soon as my home brain augmentation kit arrives, I'm going to give that one another read through.

[Fintan]

[Rumpl4skn]

Looks to me like the spools in the recreation are conveniently huddled together within 10 feet of the tree. In the pic below, one of those spools appears to be where an engine would have passed through.

Then again, it could have moved from the blast. But a picture from before the impact would go a long way to settling thius, as Jerry suggested. I haven't seen one. Who would have been snapping pictures before anything happened?

And it looks to me like there's foam on them there windows.

[Jerry Fletcher]

Sorry -

I'm trying a new medication to prevent spontaneous uncontrollable fantasy sequences - it doesn't seem to be working.

My point was yes, by appearances it is nearly impossible to believe a commercial airliner plowed into the Pentagon.

You don't need to convince me the official story is a bit of a stretch for common sense.

Now, just for fun, try to imagine what would be necessary to actually fly a plane into the pentagon, and then spin the evidence somehow so that curious liberals such as yourself become convinced that it couldn't possibly have happened.

I'm trying the old 'think like the perp' perspective switch to come up with other possibilities of 'where' the plane went.

The HTB theory just feels like it arrived on the internet in a Krispy Kreme box, and it never leads anywhere helpful.