FBI re-releases dozens of 9/11 Pentagon photos when a plane crashed into it: See pics

[Panther 57]

This prove nothing really. The point is, no one denies that there was blast at pentagon, BUT was it caused by the plane hitting the building or something else. To this date, no credible evidence have been shown to suggest that it was indeed the plane that hit the building.

1. No damage caused due to wings?
2. No engine? Normally in air crashes engine / big portions of engine are recovered. In this case engine should have been inside pentagon.
3. If the aircraft was flying so low to have impact in center of wall and aligned to the wall, it was not job of a low experienced person. And was it dragging on ground before impact

Burn marks on third building? rest all around is in good condition? Probably this will remain as X-files.

 

[Muhammed45]

This is the most horrible image after 9/11 attack

People jumping out of the windows, poor souls

 

[gambit]

Sure, BUT

Have you done your due diligence on this piece of aircraft wreckage which the likes of you are flaunting as the "smoking gun". How difficult it would be to the deep state or establishment to put some random parts from junkyard, take a pic of them , and present to the gullible lot as "hey look, here is the proof"!!!

The problem for you is the sheer number of people involved. All this time, none in this conspiracy, which must be at least in the thousands, have stepped forward. Not just the government, but we are looking at the airlines, from the airport workers all the way to the top execs.

Random parts ? We can conclude that you have no experience in aviation. Many parts of an aircraft are serially controlled, meaning the part's serial numbers are tracked, and in public transportation like airlines, an item can be in one aircraft in one yr and in another aircraft the next yr.

Of course, your default position will always be the conspiracy itself, making it impossible to convince you no matter how much logic and evidence presented.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

The problem for you is the sheer number of people involved. All this time, none in this conspiracy, which must be at least in the thousands, have stepped forward. Not just the government, but we are looking at the airlines, from the airport workers all the way to the top execs.

Random parts ? We can conclude that you have no experience in aviation. Many parts of an aircraft are serially controlled, meaning the part's serial numbers are tracked, and in public transportation like airlines, an item can be in one aircraft in one yr and in another aircraft the next yr.

Of course, your default position will always be the conspiracy itself, making it impossible to convince you no matter how much logic and evidence presented.

Listen, its a simple case, pentagon is perhaps the most highly guarded and under survelience building in America with CCTV cameras all around. Why America cannot come up with a clear CCTV recording video showing the impact of this so called aircraft. Surely there must be hundreds of such cameras working all over the building and surrounding areas?

I am not even going to go into how this DOES NOT look like a plane crash site rather a bomb or missile attack. The people like yourself who are completely intoxicated with exposure to lies through state controlled media and what not, will not question these anomalies.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am just not an idiot. I am open minded, and unless there is a clear open evidence to prove American state stance, it will be considered as the most stupid and badly choreographed false flag operation in the human history. Had they said that it was a missile attack by Al Qaeeda, world would have believed it, but they messed it up big time on this. They should have kept it to twin towers only. By bringing Pentagon in this, they have screwed up the attack on twin towers which was conducted more professionally.

1. No damage caused due to wings?
2. No engine? Normally in air crashes engine / big portions of engine are recovered. In this case engine should have been inside pentagon.
3. If the aircraft was flying so low to have impact in center of wall and aligned to the wall, it was not job of a low experienced person. And was it dragging on ground before impact

Burn marks on third building? rest all around is in good condition? Probably this will remain as X-files.

1- There is no wings debris. No marks of wings impact on the building.
2- There is no engine debris.
3- There is no tail debris.
4- Impact itself looks like a bomb or missile blast.
5- and yes how come the middle building is not effected and the one behind got burned?

These fox news and American deep state fan boys will not question as to how their state killed so many of their own kind for using this as a pretext of launching wars on other countries in which more of their kind lost their lives. Mind boggling!

 

[hunter_hunted]

The most horrific part of this disaster was the people who jumped(Slipped) escaping the hellish inferno

 

[gambit]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am just not an idiot. I am open minded,...

Yes, yes, and no.

CCTV systems do not have high resolutions because of storage problems. You did not know that ?

https://www.lorextechnology.com/sel...apacity-and-storage-capacity-tips/R-sc2900029

There are plenty of public information on how much CCTV systems can retain their recording. Essentially, the higher the resolution, the greater the storage need. Further, most CCTV systems have low resolution because of the subject matter, meaning it is about people who do not move at several hundreds miles per hour.

http://www.cctvcad.com/Files/the_principles_of_cctv_design_in_videocad_part5.pdf

So for the majority of the needs out there, low resolution are good enough to record people moving at pedestrian pace. Then when we have an object that moves at several hundreds miles per hr, of course that recording is going to be blurry.

I am not even going to go into how this DOES NOT look like a plane crash site...

Are you speaking from personal extensive experience as an aviation mishap investigator ?

 

[jhungary]

Listen, its a simple case, pentagon is perhaps the most highly guarded and under survelience building in America with CCTV cameras all around. Why America cannot come up with a clear CCTV recording video showing the impact of this so called aircraft. Surely there must be hundreds of such cameras working all over the building and surrounding areas?

CCTV in 2001 did not have that high resolution, even today, on H264 codec (which is very popular CCTV format of today, resolution does not goes more than HD. Because.

1.) As Gambit Said Storage problem, you can have at best 500 hours of footage for you to access and if you go Full HD mode (1080 50p). a standard 1TB hard drive can get you 166 hours of footage (roughly 40 minutes for 4 GB storage) and if you want 1080 50i, it's 4 Gb/23 minutes.

This is a commercial CCTV footage in and around 2001 era

2.) Access time, being multiple access, unless you can find a way to disrupt the bottleneck, you will see frames in stead of video for a CCTV. In fact, many CCTV in that era will only take several picture at a time interval.

3.) The speed of the aircraft. The speed of the aircraft may have exceed the maximum framerate (which is about 21 frame per second) which mean if the plane can travel quicker than the frame rate, what you got is a jump cut.

In 2001, top gear have tried to out run a speed camera, where the car they use travel up to 173 mile per hours and the camera failed to capture the car, a plane goes a lot faster than that....

I am not even going to go into how this DOES NOT look like a plane crash site rather a bomb or missile attack. The people like yourself who are completely intoxicated with exposure to lies through state controlled media and what not, will not question these anomalies.

umm, actually, most explosive expert would agree the pentagon is not a missile or bomb attack, because the explosive is internal for the Pentagon (which the structure cave in) where the debris felt inside the building, it is either a bomb that exploded INSIDE pentagon, or as explained, an aircraft slice thru the building and exploded inside, but the bomb theory does not hold water because to have that big of a structure collapse, you will need a very big bomb, one that have to be bigger than the jet to have a ground burst destroy that much of a building.

Missile attack however, will be a directional strike, because the missile itself is running (travelling from one point to impact) which mean the damage will be done to a direction you can actually see on the picture that followed.

Here are the damage done to the Pentagon after 9/11

Notice how the outside of the building (non-collapsed part) is not damage bar from the burn out roof right side of the crater? If this is a missile strike, the missile will be impact from outside of the collapsed part exploded into the inside, you will see a debris trail going from outside of the building to the inside of the building

Like so.

See how the burn mark on the missile strike iss after the missile detonation area (Next to the fan/exhause) if the pentagon is attacked by Missile, the debris and damage will go behind being carried on by the kinetic energy of the missile.

How about a bomb?

Bomb exploded in a radial pattern, (like above) which mean if the pentagon is hit by bomb, the area surrounding the collapse part will all be damaged and covered by debris, because the explosion will lift the earth on the ground zero crater and "redistribute" it around the ground zero in a random fashion.

No damage to anywhere other than the collapse part suggest it was not a bombing attack.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am just not an idiot. I am open minded, and unless there is a clear open evidence to prove American state stance, it will be considered as the most stupid and badly choreographed false flag operation in the human history. Had they said that it was a missile attack by Al Qaeeda, world would have believed it, but they messed it up big time on this. They should have kept it to twin towers only. By bringing Pentagon in this, they have screwed up the attack on twin towers which was conducted more professionally.



1- There is no wings debris. No marks of wings impact on the building.
2- There is no engine debris.
3- There is no tail debris.
4- Impact itself looks like a bomb or missile blast.
5- and yes how come the middle building is not effected and the one behind got burned?

1.) There are many crash that an aircraft wing simply disintegrated.

This is what happened when El-Al 1862 crashed into an apartment building in Netherland, can you locate the wing, the tail and the engine debris for me in this photo? Ask @Penguin Also, was this photo remind you of a similar incident??

The blast pattern is virtually the same as the Pentagon, now look at the pentagon damage photo again

2.) Read above

3.) Read Above

4.) Already explained to you why this is not at all a Bomb blast or missile.

5.) That's because the building was not damages and "intruded" into that part of the building, You can see form the El-Al Crash the 747 is slicing thru the apartment building almost in a vertical fashion. And in the pentagon, it's quite clearly the aircraft entered into pentagon in a horizontal fashion.

The explosion have to be INSIDE the building. And to have a large building collapse, it would simply not make sense that there is any kind of bomb inside

These fox news and American deep state fan boys will not question as to how their state killed so many of their own kind for using this as a pretext of launching wars on other countries in which more of their kind lost their lives. Mind boggling!

Although you yourself claimed that you are not a conspiracy theorist, but judging from what you just said, you are.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Yes, yes, and no.

CCTV systems do not have high resolutions because of storage problems. You did not know that ?

So the most sensitive building run by American establishment got storage problem! Which day and age you are living in?

Are you speaking from personal extensive experience as an aviation mishap investigator ?

Its not rocket science, trust me. It is just a matter of using common sense.

 

[spinghar renacido]

Yes, yes, and no.

CCTV systems do not have high resolutions because of storage problems. You did not know that ?

https://www.lorextechnology.com/sel...apacity-and-storage-capacity-tips/R-sc2900029

There are plenty of public information on how much CCTV systems can retain their recording. Essentially, the higher the resolution, the greater the storage need. Further, most CCTV systems have low resolution because of the subject matter, meaning it is about people who do not move at several hundreds miles per hour.

http://www.cctvcad.com/Files/the_principles_of_cctv_design_in_videocad_part5.pdf

So for the majority of the needs out there, low resolution are good enough to record people moving at pedestrian pace. Then when we have an object that moves at several hundreds miles per hr, of course that recording is going to be blurry.


Are you speaking from personal extensive experience as an aviation mishap investigator ?

this make sense, but the term resolution is wrong in this context, it's actually video fps frame per second, which are low in CCTV. recording video is just like taking burst pictures and then joining them. your mobile camera make 30 pictures in a second, 30 fps, while most CCTv camera by default are set up at 10 fps or even low. there is now way it can record a speedy plane.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

1.) As Gambit Said Storage problem, you can have at best 500 hours of footage for you to access and if you go Full HD mode (1080 50p). a standard 1TB hard drive can get you 166 hours of footage (roughly 40 minutes for 4 GB storage) and if you want 1080 50i, it's 4 Gb/23 minutes.

This is a commercial CCTV footage in and around 2001 era

Who is asking for crystal clear HD clips? Go and watch the clip again which you posted. There is a clear chain of events which can be easily established after watching the video. Till this date, American establishment havent come up with the video recording of the CCTV camera in and around pantagon which can establish their version of the story.

2.) Access time, being multiple access, unless you can find a way to disrupt the bottleneck, you will see frames in stead of video for a CCTV. In fact, many CCTV in that era will only take several picture at a time interval.

Read above.

3.) The speed of the aircraft. The speed of the aircraft may have exceed the maximum framerate (which is about 21 frame per second) which mean if the plane can travel quicker than the frame rate, what you got is a jump cut.

Depends on which angle and distance you are capturing the video. The CCTV cameras facing the aircraft would have easily captured the approach and trajectory including the time just before impact and stored the date file in central storage. That is the whole point of CCTV cameras that even if they are destroyed, the video stream is saved on the data storage.

umm, actually, most explosive expert would agree the pentagon is not a missile or bomb attack, because the explosive is internal for the Pentagon (which the structure cave in) where the debris felt inside the building, it is either a bomb that exploded INSIDE pentagon, or as explained, an aircraft slice thru the building and exploded inside, but the bomb theory does not hold water because to have that big of a structure collapse, you will need a very big bomb, one that have to be bigger than the jet to have a ground burst destroy that much of a building.

Missile attack however, will be a directional strike, because the missile itself is running (travelling from one point to impact) which mean the damage will be done to a direction you can actually see on the picture that followed.

Here are the damage done to the Pentagon after 9/11

Notice how the outside of the building (non-collapsed part) is not damage bar from the burn out roof right side of the crater? If this is a missile strike, the missile will be impact from outside of the collapsed part exploded into the inside, you will see a debris trail going from outside of the building to the inside of the building

Like so.

See how the burn mark on the missile strike iss after the missile detonation area (Next to the fan/exhause) if the pentagon is attacked by Missile, the debris and damage will go behind being carried on by the kinetic energy of the missile.

How about a bomb?

Bomb exploded in a radial pattern, (like above) which mean if the pentagon is hit by bomb, the area surrounding the collapse part will all be damaged and covered by debris, because the explosion will lift the earth on the ground zero crater and "redistribute" it around the ground zero in a random fashion.

No damage to anywhere other than the collapse part suggest it was not a bombing attack.

This is perhaps the only available CCTV footage of the attack taken from the security check post. (makes one wonder why they are not releasing the footage from the CCTVs installed on the building)

Notice @ 1:26

One can spot a certain projectile following a absolute horizontal trajectory, literally just above the ground where the angle of attack must have been more between 20 to 30 degrees from the ground for a aircraft like boieng 757-223.

This was the actual aircraft (registration N644AA).

Now compare the size of projectile which hit pentagon with the actual plane, while keeping the pentagon building and its size as reference, it really a case of "holding by straws" to the fanboys of American establishment. There is no chance of size of the aircraft flying literally at grass level by some rag tag "muslim" terrorists, even the best of the pilots cannot pull this off. You need to have a certain angel of attack to achieve your objectives and ensure success, if you are hell bend to taking our own life and others as well. Its a no brainer.

On the images itself:

I will let you ponder over this.

Seems like you are professional, please enlighten us, what kind of fire or explosion will burn the building in this way? And while you are doing that, refer back to the actual explosion clip which I linked. The extent of damage shown here is disproportional to the blast and its radius. AND, for this damage to have occured, we have to assume, that all internal fire suppression mechanism and sprinklers in the building miraculously malfunctioned, just like the CCTVs!! Ofcourse unless, pentagon didnt have the fire suppression systems installed at that time, a possibility!!

As a Pakistani, its not my domain to poke my nose into internal American politics, but here in Pakistan we do from time to time get to hear the unexplained fires in government building which on almost all occasion, burn the confidential and sensitive files and records. Maybe, it will be worth checking into what data, files and records were saved in this section of the building.

 

[Hindustani78]

Remembering 9/11

 

[Penguin]

LOL, being stupid is one thing and insisting on stupidity is like taking the biscuit.

You didnt get the point I was referring to. How difficult is it for the Pentagon to release the video of the jet ramming into the building, from all the angles with countless CCTV all around the building?

Once again, mr Charming himself. Perhaps in future, if you do have a point, you should make it?

Actually, for starters, besides resolution (discussed by Gambit), you would need to have cameras with a sufficient frame rate (f/s or fps) to capture a high speed event like we are talking about. If one flew between 565 to 885 km/h, that's between 157m/s and 246m/s. A CCTV camera might have any of the following frame rates: 1 FPS (= 157-246m flown per frame) vs 5 FPS (31-49m flown per frame) vs 7.5 FPS (21- 33m flown per frame) vs 15 FPS (10.5-16.4m flown per frame) vs 30 FPS (5-8m flown per frame). As with resolution, data storage issues tend to lead to attempts to limit frame rate to what is strictly necessary for the security purpose.

See https://www.cctvcamerapros.com/CCTV-Video-Frame-Rate-Comparison-s/739.htm

The footage often showed clearly has low FPS (noticeable choppiness suggests less than 7.5 fps) , and cannot therefor capture meaningfull imagery. What makes you think other camera's e.g. from the hotel and gas station would be any better?

As for the three main reasons for the suppression of evidence in this case, read the last paragraph and conclusion of this http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/

Also, could you please explain to us all why the Pentagon / Government would have to release video material at all? Or why it would be in the (US's) people's best common interest to prove conclusively that it was a 757 in general and flight 77 in particular?

PS:

With respect to the speeds I mentioned, here's where I got those from:

A pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try the kind of low approach as apparently took place at the Pentagon in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so. But safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.
One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "... People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

TAP Airbus A310 Low Pass Turn - Portugal Airshow 2007, Evora. (Watch the first 7 seconds)

Boeing 757 - High Speed Low Pass! All Out.

Aerosur gets a new Plane and makes an Amazing Show Of A Boeing 747 Low Pass through the runway

Boeing 727 Varig Log - Low Pass - ExpoAeroBrasil 2004

In aviation, autoland describes a system that fully automates the landing procedure of an aircraft's flight, with the flight crew supervising the process. Such systems enable aircraft to land in weather conditions that would otherwise be dangerous or impossible to operate in.
Autoland requires the use of a radar altimeter to determine the aircraft's height above the ground very precisely so as to initiate the landing flare at the correct height (usually about 50 feet (15 m)). The localizer signal of the ILS may be used for lateral control even after touchdown until the pilot disengages the autopilot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

A less experience pilot could use an autoland system to crash into the Pentagon. It could allow the terror-pilot to focus on lateral control only, thus simplifying the job. Or, if a groundbased signal is indispensible, one could revert to the older practice of "auto-flare". The earliest experimental autopilot-controlled landings in commercial service were not in fact full auto landings but were termed "auto-flare". In this mode the pilot controlled the "roll" and "yaw" axes manually while the autopilot controlled the "flare" or pitch. The BAC Trident's autopilot, for example, had separate engagement switches for the pitch and roll components, and although the normal autopilot disengagement was by means of a conventional control yoke thumb-button, it was also possible to disengage the roll channel while leaving the pitch channel engaged.

Autopilots in modern complex aircraft are three-axis and generally divide a flight into taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise (level flight), descent, approach, and landing phases. Autopilots exist that automate all of these flight phases except taxi and takeoff. An autopilot-controlled landing on a runway and controlling the aircraft on rollout (i.e. keeping it on the centre of the runway) is known as a CAT IIIb landing or Autoland, available on many major airports' runways today, especially at airports subject to adverse weather phenomena such as fog. Landing, rollout, and taxi control to the aircraft parking position is known as CAT IIIc. This is not used to date, but may be used in the future. An autopilot is often an integral component of a Flight Management System.

The autopilot in a modern large aircraft typically reads its position and the aircraft's attitude from an inertial guidance system. ... The six dimensions are usually roll, pitch, yaw, altitude, latitude, and longitude. Aircraft may fly routes that have a required performance factor, therefore the amount of error or actual performance factor must be monitored in order to fly those particular routes. The longer the flight, the more error accumulates within the system. Radio aids such as DME, DME updates, and GPS may be used to correct the aircraft position.

A midway between fully automated flight and manual flying is Control Wheel Steering (CWS). Although going out of fashion in modern airliners as a stand-alone option, CWS is still a function on many aircraft today. Generally, an autopilot that is CWS equipped, has three positions being off, CWS and CMD. In CMD (Command) mode the autopilot has full control of the aircraft, and receives its input from either the heading /altitude setting, radio and navaids or the FMS (Flight Management System). In CWS mode, the pilot controls the autopilot through inputs on the yoke or the stick. These inputs are translated to a specific heading and attitude, which the autopilot will then hold until instructed to do otherwise. This provides stability in pitch and roll. Some aircraft employ a form of CWS even in manual mode, such as the MD-11 which uses a constant CWS in roll. In many ways, a modern Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft in Normal Law is always in CWS mode. The major difference is that in this system the limitations of the aircraft are guarded by the flight computer, and the pilot can not steer the aircraft past these limits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

 

[Penguin]

 

[gambit]

So the most sensitive building run by American establishment got storage problem! Which day and age you are living in?

That is true of any place that install CCTV systems. Just because you do not like it, it does not make it not true.

Its not rocket science, trust me. It is just a matter of using common sense.

Why should we trust you ? This is pretty much an admittance from you that you do not know what you are talking about. Just because you use the phrase 'common sense' that does not automatically make what you say technically correct. In fact, the less technically knowledgeable you are, the more likely that what you call 'common sense' will mislead you.

An aircraft, civilian or military, is actually not a very 'solid' object as 'common sense' would initially lead a person to believe. Look at the cross section above. Structurally speaking, there is less than one meter between you and death. Look at the engine. The bulk of an airliner's jet engine is made up of the forward fan section. That is the section the moves the most air to create propulsion.

Would this help to give you perspectives...???

The DIAMETER of the core of the jet engine, even for the F119 for the F-22 Raptor fighter, is actually smaller than the man's height. The core is where air and fuel are mixed, compressed, and burned. The core is the most dense area -- in terms of individual components -- of the jet engine.

This is why people who have military aviation experience -- like me -- and jet engine mechanics were not surprised at the lack of large jet engine debris at the WTC towers and at the Pentagon.

Your 'common sense' failed you.

 

[gambit]

There is no chance of size of the aircraft flying literally at grass level by some rag tag "muslim" terrorists, even the best of the pilots cannot pull this off. You need to have a certain angel of attack to achieve your objectives and ensure success, if you are hell bend to taking our own life and others as well. Its a no brainer.

Really ? Are you speaking from personal extensive experience at flying ?

First...The terrorists were not 'rag tag' Muslims. They were educated and sophisticated urbanites, and sufficiently financed. The fact that you used 'rag tag' means there is an intention to mislead, which means you already made up your mind, which means you are exactly what you claimed not to be -- a conspiracy theory believer.

Second...Back in WW II, the Japanese suicide pilots were barely trained. In fact, they were trained only for take off and to maintain stable flight. Their targets were much smaller than the WTC towers and the Pentagon, were moving, and were shooting back. Still, many of them managed to hit those targets.

Third...Just because AA 77 hit the Pentagon that way, that does not mean that was intentional. There is no way to know for certain that was exactly how the terrorists planned to hit the Pentagon. Many pilots, especially the military types, suspects that the Pentagon hit was nearly a failure precisely because of how 77 hit the Pentagon.

Although the Pentagon is a much lower building than the WTC towers, it has a much larger VISIBLE footprint from an airborne position. The towers had high protrusion into the air, which made focusing on them easier. The Pentagon has wider ground layout, which made it easier to target from the air. Logic -- from decades of dropping bombs -- would favor a higher AOA approach to the Pentagon. The fact that 77 hit the SIDE of the Pentagon is highly suggestive that the terrorist pilot made a near catastrophic error in the initial descent set up. He came in too low and at the approach speed he barely had time to recover.

Or, in assuming that the terrorists did researched their targets, they would know that the outermost E ring is where senior DoD officials has their offices, which mean the terrorist pilot Hani Hanjour would have trained in his simulator on the best low AOA approach in order to do the most damages to the building and hopefully kill a few senior ranking officials of the US DoD.

Whether the hit was calculated or a near miss, in no way does it mean the Pentagon was an impossible feat and aviation history bears this out. So the comment that not 'even the best of the pilots cannot pull this off' is sheer ignorance based hyperbole and proved you are a loony conspiracy theory believer.