Why isn't there any footage of the Pentagon getting hit?

Joe

The only known footage shows a blurry image that is consistent with a plane traveling at 521 MPH. Most of the other cameras didn't capture anything because that's almost 3 football fields per second.

However, the lack of footage is unimportant since there is plenty of evidence it was a plane, as follows:

( 1) Dozens, if not hundreds, of people stuck on I-395 saw the low-flying plane & their testimony is well-documented in the press. The following is a direct quote from Wikipedia; the footnotes give you the source in media:

... Steve Riskus witnessed the plane crash into the Pentagon, as he was driving along Washington Boulevard and stopped to take photographs moments after the impact.[21] Mary Lyman, who was on I-395, saw the airplane pass over at a "steep angle toward the ground and going fast" and then saw the cloud of smoke from the Pentagon.[22] Jim Sutherland, also on I-395, witnessed the plane pass 50 feet overhead, heading in a straight line into the Pentagon.[23] Mary Ann Owens, of Gannett News Service, was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when she saw the airplane pass 50 to 75 feet overhead and crash into the Pentagon.[24] Another witness, Daryl Donley, saw the crash as he was driving on Washington Boulevard. Among debris that was scattered as the plane crashed, he found a "scorched green oxygen tank marked 'Cabin air. Airline use'" on the road.[24] Mr. Donley also had a camera with him, and took some of the first photographs after the crash.[25] USA Today reporter Mike Walter, while driving on Washington Boulevard, also witnessed the crash.[26] He recounted to CNN, "...looked out my window. I saw this plane, the jet, American Airlines jet coming. And I thought, this doesn't add up. It's really low. And I saw it. It just went â€” I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings, it went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion."[13]
( Wikipedia, American Airlines Flight 77)
(I've omitted half of the eye-witnesses to save space)
================
2) Clear wreckage of a plane was found & photographs were printed in all the papers. Here's a nice photo from 9/11 that clearly shows plane wreckage:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...
(scroll down after clicking)
================
3)Yes, the hole in the Pentagon was somewhat smaller than the diameter of the plane. This is explained by Professor Mere Sozen, a â€œKettelhut Distinguished Professor Civil Engineeringâ€ at Perdue University. Sozen says that itâ€™s the energy of the plane, not its size that determines the size of the hole. The plane is not a cartoon character that punches out its outline. Moving at 531 MPH it more fluid than solid and this explains why you get the hole you got. (Sozen quoted from Pop Mech book)
=====
4) The competing theory, that American Airlines Flight 77 disappeared into thin air with all its passengers, is not too convincing.
===
5) The reason you can see the planes in the twin tower attack is because the cameras were consumer video cameras at a distance. The 1 camera at the pentagon was a security camera (going slowly) & it was way too close.
....

h h

There is footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

It was taken from a parking lot camera. The camera shows a huge white blur hitting the side of the building. Since the plane was traveling at 500mph or so that makes sense.

Each and every 9/11 conspiracy theory was proven wrong by Popular Mechanics theory by theory.

That magazine has no political ties, it is simply a magazine centered on engineering and science.

The damage wasn't proportional with the WTC center because the Pentagon unlike the WTC was designed as a hardened structure, it was designed to resist an attack.

Sean C

You want to know what happened? I have the e-mail adress of a U.S. Army Colonel who would be more than happy to tell you the entire story. Only because he was IN the pentagon when a PLANE flew into it.

This is the real world kid. We are not in some Steven Segal movie or another season of Alias.

grumpyoldman

Your avatar name says it all huh? We are growing conspiracy theorists young now?

Sway_27

try again, there is.

Pfo

My friends in DC, who are liberal, saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Lavrenti Beria

They did release the footage, which was taken at a slow duty cycle to save tape and missed seeing the plane in the process of striking the Pentagon. It really wouldn't matter if it had anyway since conspiracy nuts would swear it was doctored from now 'til doomsday.

PV2 Lake

it was caught on camera I can't give you a link to it right now because I am at school and the school computers block it
this is the best I can do http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

desertviking_00

I lost two people I knew who were on the plane which hit the Pentagon. Their mortal remains were recovered and I went to their funeral. They weren't riding a missile! It's not an academic exercise to me. It was real and it happened. The plane also struck a part of the Pentagon that contains a lot of areas used for secret and top secret work. That's why a lot of the military dead from the building worked in intelligence and information systems.
Don't get me wrong. You are in high school and it is apparent to me that you don't do your homework or research anything better than the tin-foil hat brigade members who keep up this crap!

kimmyisahotbabe

Here's the footage:
http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/05/16/pentagon-plane/

You can't see the plane coming because the camera took about 2 frames per second. The plane was flying full speed and crashed directly into a concrete wall that was VERY thick (at least 10 feet thick), and the plane demolished upon impact.

What's the point of a missile? How would that be coordinated with the attack on the WTC, and what would be the point? If it was a missile, what happened to the plane the government "says" hit the pentagon?

The damage is different because the pentagon is designed to survive an attack, the walls are something like 10 feet thick of concrete. I went to the pentagon a few weeks after, and you could see how thick the walls were. The WTC were not designed to withstand an attack by a large airplane. The planes didn't disintegrate when they hit the WTC, They went through the buildings somewhat intact, coming to rest within the buildings.

The reason there isn't more footage is because there really isn't anything around the pentagon, it's pretty isolated. Like I said, I went there. There are lots of people in NYC, at any time there are lots of cameras on the skyline. There may have been cameras in the pentagon that caught the plane on its way in, but they would have been destroyed.

If you want to know what happened, you should read the Popular Mechanics analysis. You can do it online! Here's the link:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

The article quotes emergency response people who found plane parts, and human body parts.

Hokie

The WTC were two very tall towers, and the Pentagon isn't as tall as the two towers and was built to resist attack. A camera did catch the plane hitting the Pentagon, if you knew how fast a plane moves, you would understand that it would look like a big white blur. Do some research child before you start spewing this stuff.

jmaximus12

here- i'll help you out...

~takes off hand, gives it to malcontent~

now slap yourself with it...

~takes hand back~.

thanks...you are young, and i admire your willingness to question things, but your intelligence comes into question when you refuse to accept facts for what they are. pay attention.

Rukh

There is footage of the crash into Pentagon, that being said...

Forget the whole "missle hit" conspiracy theory, in wasn't a missle or bomb. I find this conspiracy theory HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

I think the truth behind why there isn't much footage showing the Pentagon crash is because of a MILITARY COVER-UP. The military is trying to save face, because tragic mistakes were made.

The Pentagon was a high priority target for Russia during the Cold War, and before ICBMs became more prevelant, the main threat were bombers and other aircraft that manage to make it past our early intercept defense fighters.

As such the Pentagon would have been protected by Anti-Aircraft and SAM sites to shoot down incoming enemy aircraft that slip through. Which means that they should have been able to shoot down the suicide airliner before it had a chance to crash into the building.

I don't know what the deal is for why this never happened? I'm pretty sure there would have been AA/SAM sites and I remember coming across something in the news metioning their existence at one point in time.

Were they dismantled because ICBM's replaced, and out numbered bombers as the prime threat? Probably... in which case the government and the "Pentagon Brass" don't want to admit they took the systems offline.

If the AA/SAM systems were still operational that means the military made the tragic mistake of not activating the defenses. Perhaps, they got lax in their alert response training since, again, bombers and enemy aircraft were reduced to much lesser threats because of ICBMs and the ending Cold War. Maybe the systems were improply maintained and were unable to properly target the incoming jet.

Regardless of why, I smell more of a cover-up of mistakes and/or incompitence, not conspiracy. I think the government and Pentagon Brass have classified most of the camera footage because they don't want to look worse than they already do, for what happened on 9-11-2001.

look the only footage they got was from close circuit footage from security cams. One thing is their is no missiles on that day or they plant explosives on the twin towers dont believe in that conspiracy stuff that day was a tragedy. If it was a missile it would have left a more bigger damage than that. And Osama dont have that technology to send missile from afghanistan to here nor they able to smuggle it in. Its hard to ship a gun w/o getting in trouble how about a missile??? Today we all know the names of the terrorist that board that plane so its obvious.

rotorhead

If you do not believe the Pentagon was hit by an airliner, you have some very serious reality issues to deal with.

conranger1

If it was a missile where was it launched from??

It would have had to have been something bigger than a cruise missile for it to even register on the camera at two frames per second.

Aluminum can and does burn itself when ignited and reaches a very high temperature, that's why M.113 tracked vehicles hit with R.P.G.'s burn until a little fine white ash residue is left, plenty of pictures exist of burned M.113 from Vietnam era.

British Royal Navy Ships constructed of Aluminum hit by Argentinian Exocet missiles during the Falklands Campain caught fire and melted as well.

It was a plane, and it virtually exploded into tiny pieces when hitting the Pentagon, which was a purpose built Bomb Proof structure constructed in WW2.

USA

there are pictures and video.

Victor Bout

Proof liberals truly are stuck on stupid...

whiskeycharlie

I think you already know the answer to this question, keep it up though

To the person below, wasn't the planes that hit the WTC going around the same speed, which I could tell was a plane, but the white blur at the pentagon couldn't be made out. You can make out the outline of the planes hitting the WTC in video or in still photography. Also, wheres the wreckage? those huge engines should have been there.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: