1. MIKE WOLSKE
   Friday, May 19 May 19, 2006

   NEVER TRUST PEOPLE WITH TO MUCH POWER, MONEY,AND TIME ON THERE HANDS THAT TELL PEOPLE GOD TALKES TO THEM.

2. Matt
   Friday, May 19 May 19, 2006

   I found it interesting how different media reported on the release of the 9/11-Pentagon-video: While the major Austran newspapers had their doubts about whether the video could prove the official case, the internet-edition of “Der Spiegel”, Germany´s biggest news magazine, wrote that the video “documented” the Attack on the Pentagon, “showing how the American Airlines Airliner with the Flight No. 77 dashes into the Pentagon at an approximate Speed of 850 miles per hour…”

   On the same page, they had the video to see for everybody. Actually it was six images taken from the video, which showed the event as it unfolded When I watched it, every single image, surprise! No Flight No 77, no signs of an AA Airliner. Nothing, except for an explosion at the Pentagon´s west wing. They said the camera took only 2 shots a second, and on one of them one can see the airplane´s nose. Why the heck didn´t they publish the decisive video-shot with the airplane´s nose on it? Why publish all the other shots showing everything before and after the one thing you want to prove, if you keep withholding the one single shot that could do it all?

3. Katharine Nigh
   Friday, May 19 May 19, 2006

   I saw no signs of an airplane in the video, which makes me think that a bomb may have exploded at the Pentagon, but not a plane.

   Thanks for making this available to the public.

4. MJP
   Thursday, May 25 May 25, 2006

   Watch it again. On the center median there are 2 pillars, a shorter one on the left and a slightly taller one on the right, with 3 orange cones, at 25 seconds on the movie counter, look just a hair to the right of the taller pillar, there is what asppears to me to be a very low & fast flying “something” that is in the frame for just a second, entering the frame from the right. Is this a Boeing jet airliner?? Does it look like one? I don’t think it looks big enough, but there is definately SOMETHING there. Check it out.

5. LL
   Saturday, May 27 May 27, 2006

   Hello, I noticed the same as MJP,if you watch it frame by frame : there is definitely something white entering on the right of the screen (its height may probably be aproximated with the distance). On the next frame the explosion allready begins and the fireball is quiete big, but at that time the end of the white thing (wich seems to be long enought to be a flying object) is still outside, and it disapears on the next image.

   That is what puzzles me the most: I dont know much about jetfuel but can a fireball occur when there a large part of the plane is still uncollapsed? not mentionning that something similar occurs int the WTC crash: fire allready appears in the towers when the very edge of the nose comes in contact (or close to). in any case it might look a little too much like explosive head weaponry (or modified planes) than an erratic crash… doesnt it ?

6. Joee
   Sunday, May 28 May 28, 2006

   If anything, the release of this video does support the voices that do not believe the official story than that of the government. I find it just too much that most Americans (average herd-like mentality) believe anything that their news media adn governemnt tells them.. Thank God for the few brave men and women who are willing to take the heat as they point out that the emprorer HAS NO CLOTHES!.
   This is a damn inside job no matter what anyone says.

7. JackN
   Sunday, May 28 May 28, 2006

   I have looked at the frame at second 25 over and over again. Note the angle of the shadows from the buildings. They forgot to put the shadow in under the “plane”, which should have been obvious even at this resolution. The dark streak under the “plane” is not a shadow associated with it because it appears in every frame. That dark streak could not be masking the shadow because it is too far into the foreground. The shadow of the smoke is evidence of that. IMHO the “plane” was photoshopped in by an amateur or amateurs who only worked with one frame and thought he/she/they could get away with the foreground streak to be the shadow of the “plane”. BTW, can I interpret the “overexposures” at frames 26 and 34 as the effects of EMP’s generated by powerful explosions? They don’t have to be nuclear. What is that strange object on the lower left in frames 53 and 54?

8. Bobhulo
   Tuesday, May 30 May 30, 2006

   Wake Up. I fly a lot and this was a Missile, especially flying at 850+, wouldn’t you see a plane? A 757 is a large aircraft, it is atleast 30 feet tall. How can an entire 757 disappear?

9. sweetdude49
   Wednesday, May 31 May 31, 2006

   I think its either a missile or a global hawk spy recon plane. If you look at the video its going very quickly and a global hawk would show up on radar at the altitude they said the plane was supposedly at when it supposedly came back on radar

10. Irienow
    Monday, June 12 June 12, 2006

    This was not a commercial jet.

    Fact one: The initial hole was very small, not even breaking the second floor windows on the pentagon.

    Fact two: A 757 can not fly that fast and low without hitting electric lines and trees.

    Fact three: There are many many videos of this event seized and never released that would clearly show what happened.

11. You Wish
    Tuesday, June 13 June 13, 2006

    Tomahawk
    “Although most publications list the Tomahawk accuracy at 30 feet the real truth lies in the computer guidance system. Tomahawk is designed to fly through a one meter square window on earth at a predesignated time.”

    http://www.softwar.net/bgm109.html

12. cornfused
    Friday, July 7 July 7, 2006

    Looks like a cruise missile hugging the ground to me.

13. J.Ed
    Saturday, February 10 February 10, 2007

    Never trust people who cannot spell correctly.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.