Were the Pentagon videos released fakes and if so what does that imply?

[philb]

The Pentagon videos are an important issue and I haven't seen this discussed since I've been here.

The videos from the 6 cameras on the wall of the West Wing haven't been publically released. Why? and why hasn't someone done something about this? Is it important?

Likewise the private security videos of the gas station and hotel were confiscated by the FBI and haven't been released. Why? What national security reason could there possibly be?
I hear there is a FOI request for the tapes that a decision is due on. Anyone know anything about it?

One set of Pentagon videos were released unofficially. Why? And are they fakes like many have concluded? If this is so, why was it done? Wasn't it likely it would be noted?

911Research says:
Pentagon Videos Obvious Fakes to Cause Confusion,
but fire color(white & red) not consistent with gasoline fire

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html

Anyone disagree with 911Research?

Both 911Research and Eastman and etc. say the explosion(white,then red) is consistent with high explosives- not gasoline explosion.
http://bedoper.com/eastman/rumsfeld.htm

Anyone disagree?

[spooked911]

1. The video was discussed several times previously--

for instance in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=30416&mesg_id=30416

[philb]

2. I've only been here a couple of months; here is only reponsive post

I found on that thread by a camera expert:

The apparent plane mostly obscured by the foreground structure in the first frame is much too small to be a Boeing 757.
The apparent vapor trail behind the apparent plane could not have been produced by the turbofan engines of a jetliner. It is consistent with the exhaust plume of a missile.
The white color of the explosion in the second frame cannot be explained as the combustion of jet fuel. It indicates the use of explosives.


What do the Five Video Frames Show?
The five frames from the Pentagon security camera have played a critical role in the theories of skeptics of the official story. They are reproduced on nearly all the in-depth websites of such skeptics, and in most cases are used to support variants of the missile and drone theory.

A common interpretation of why the frames were released and what they show about the attack is exemplified in the video Painful Deceptions. It suggests that the frames were released in order to quell a growing chorus among skeptics that no plane hit the Pentagon. The images became public not long after French researcher Thierry Meyssan published his book, L'effroyable Imposture (The frightening Fraud), explaining his theory that the damage to the Pentagon resulted from a truck bomb rather than a plane crash. These skeptics were quick to point out that, rather than supporting the official story, the frames show three important facts:

The apparent plane mostly obscured by the foreground structure in the first frame is much too small to be a Boeing 757.
The apparent vapor trail behind the apparent plane could not have been produced by the turbofan engines of a jetliner. It is consistent with the exhaust plume of a missile.
The white color of the explosion in the second frame cannot be explained as the combustion of jet fuel. It indicates the use of explosives.
Skeptics seized on the video as evidence that the Pentagon was struck, not by a jetliner, but by a small plane, such as a remotely controlled drone, and that a missile was also involved in the attack. The failure of officials to release additional frames, ones that might show the plane clearly and reveal the first moments of the explosion, seemed to validate the five frames. Although peculiarities in the timecodes on the bottom of the cropped versions of the frames were widely noted, few bothered to ask whether the imagery in the frames had been edited.

Painful Deceptions suggests that the Pentagon officials responsible for releasing the frames were simply too stupid to anticipate that skeptics would use them to attack the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But were the people covering up such a meticulously planned crime really so careless? We will revisit this question after examining the images for tampering.

Evidence the Images Were Edited
There are many peculiar features of the video images. Some have possible explanations, such as the red glow in front of the helicopter control tower being the result of ionized air from the explosion. We note three features that appear to have no explanation other than that the images were fabricated. In the following we refer to the individual frames using the captions in the cropped set: plane, impact, #2 impact, #3 impact, and #4 impact.

impact has an elevated brightness throughout the image, not just in areas that would be illuminated by the explosion.
impact has peculiar patches of color on the pavement.
#2 explosion shows a roughly conical explosion whose vertical axis lies deep within the building.
#3-#5 explosion show sunlight-illuminated lawn that should be darkened by shadows from the explosion.
Several of these these points were originally raised in the analysis of Guardian, mirrored here. Guardian's analysis, at times brilliant, suffers from some errors, such as the contention that enhanced edges in shadows are evidence of fabrication. In fact such features are common artifacts of digital cameras.

Uniformly Elevated Brightness

The image in impact is much brighter than any of the other 4 images. The brightness is higher throughout the image, not just in regions that would be illuminated by the bright explosion. There is no evidence of shadows from the explosion that is supposedly the source of the heightened brightness. Note the setback in the facade in the middle of the images to the right. The setback is considerably closer than the explosion, yet it casts no shadow on the portion of the facade just in front of it. There is also an absence of any evidence of even faint shadows from other objects, such as the structures in the vicinity of the camera. The sky is also brighter and a different hue, as if an explosion could brighten a clear sky.

Peculiar Patches of Color

The Guardian article has the following about the the impact image:

Notice that, the "impact" picture has clearly been touched up. Notice that, the green tinge on the left has been partly (and amateurishly) erased and that the top left corner has probably been erased. These areas have been outlined in blue. It is possible that the effect in the top left corner is due to over exposure, caused by the sun, but then, why is this effect not visible in the photos taken just before and just after this one.


Shape of Explosion Relative to Building

The last three frames show an explosion with a shape that is roughly axially symmetric around a vertical axis. The center of the impact zone lies approximately behind the center of the helicopter control tower. That places the central axis of the explosion well inside of the building -- easily 100 feet behind the facade. But the part of the building above the impact hole did not collapse until well after the impact and explosion. How could an explosion evolve in such a symmetrical manner around the obstacle of the building without reflecting the shape of the building? The only plausible explanation is that the explosion imagery was superimposed on the building through image manipulation.

Missing Shadow From Explosion


By the last of the five frames, the explosion, which appears to extend to at least four times the building's height, has become dark with soot. Yet the huge explosion casts no shadow from the sun on the lawn below it. Shadows of other objects show that the sun is low in the southeast, as one would expect at 9:40 AM in September. The Pentagon's wall, which faces almost due west, casts long shadows extending to the left and toward the camera. But there is sunlight-illuminated lawn directly left of the huge explosion. The uppermost swath of white in the enlargement to the right is part of the heliport, which was directly under portions of the explosion. Yet it is illuminated by direct sunlight.

Motive for Fabrication
The clear evidence that the video frames were manipulated further discredits the idea that the release of these images was just a miscalculation on the part of people involved in the cover-up. The source of these images must have known that they show a vapor trail, an obscured aircraft that is clearly not a 757, and an explosion that could not have resulted from jet fuel combustion alone. It is unreasonable to think that this set of five frames is anything other than a planned part of the cover-up. They fueled theories that the Pentagon crash involved a small plane and a missile, rather than a jetliner such as Flight 77. The perpetrators have have correctly predicted that controversy between people rejecting and insisting that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon would divide skeptics.

[Kevin Fenton]

3. Faked Pictures

The guardian article is here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

I think the video stills were obvious fakes - the explosiion in the later frames is coming out of the roof, which was not damaged by the original impact.

As for the reason, that's harder to figure out.
Three alternatives:
(1) Some bozo did them at home on his PC, sent them to the media, the media asked the Pentagon, at the Pentagon some bozo was assigned to check them and figured they were the real pictures (hey, there's an explosion, they must be real) without really looking at them. So he confirmed their authenticity.
(2) It's disinfo designed to confuse 9/11 sceptics regarding the Pentagon attack, which really was faked.
(3) It's disinfo designed to keep 9/11 sceptics arguing amongst themselves about the daft no-757 idea, instead of focusing on other issues which would resonate more deeply with people outside the sceptics' community (and which might actually be true).

I pick (3).

[spooked911]

5. "I pick (3)." What a surprise!

Actually, I think the frames with the explosion are real-- but I think they have cut out frames that clearly showed the "plane" because it wasn't a Boeing 757.

[Kevin Fenton]

9. Real explosion?

In the later frames the explosion is coming out of the roof, which was not damaged by the initial explosion. Also the centre of the explosion moves from one frame to the next. There are lots of other points which show they are fakes. See here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm
The section entitled "Explosion At The Pentagon" about half way down.

[philb]

13. jean-pierre.desmoulins agrees with you on this; and he is an engineer

and pilot, who has a good site representing a lot of research.
He did a lot of research on the slides. But he says the slides were also doctored and some of the info like the plane tail and the contrail was fake.

He concludes that a big plane hit the pentagon and was likely flown by remote control. One of his versions is the C130 that followed the other plane in was involved in the remote control

[StrafingMoose]

6. FOX News...

Who put the frames first online, THEN officials confirmed they were true. According to FOX's article. You all know what kind of source is FOX anyways :P

Anyways, the "national security" issue really wouldn't hold water here. I mean, don't 'they' ALREADY know how to fly planes into building. It's not like it would give the "Evil Terrorists (C) 2001" any NEW ideas.



LINK: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/photos_77.htm

[rman]

26. Explosion coming out of the roof? - I don't see that.

What i see is the explosion starting some distance away from the wall and directed towards the wall, as though it is a directed (shaped charge?) explosion.
Then the explosion cloud rizes up against wall and subsequently above the level of the roof, logically because it has no other place to go.

[Kevin Fenton]

29. Roof

"What i see is the explosion starting some distance away from the wall and directed towards the wall, as though it is a directed (shaped charge?) explosion.
Then the explosion cloud rizes up against wall and subsequently above the level of the roof, logically because it has no other place to go."

If it's a directed explosion, then it really isn't directed very well. Also, shaped charges are usually timed to go off after the missile penetrates the outer wall, so that maximum damage is caused. Why set off a shaped charge outside a building?
I'm no expert in explosives, but I think the explanation you give is possible, but not likely. I look at the last picture and I see an explosion that is rising without being impeded by any building. To me it seems to be superimposed on the Pentagon picture.

I look at the photos and I see a bunch of terrible fakes. For example:
(1) The first two pictures have the same wrong time stamp: Sep. 12, 2001, 17:37:19.
(2) On the impact picture the explosion does not actually cast a shadow.
(3) On the impact picture the brightness has clearly been increased, even for the areas which should be in shadow.
(4) Initially, the fireball engulfs the heliport control tower, but then shrinks back behind it, even though the explosion is expanding.

This guy:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm
says it all so much better than me. The part about the photos (Explosion at the Pentagon) begins just over halfway down.

[MrSammo1]

4. The only issue

that matters is the pre-collapse wall. Everything else before and after that physical fact.........don't matter.

[StrafingMoose]

7. The fact...

that they won't release the tape and the behavior around it, the memos, cables that might get declassified in the future about this issue are stronger than any physical evidence IMO. But yea, kudoos to those who investigate physical evidences...

[philb]

14. The damage is consistent with Eric Bart's plane bomb theory

that the plane that hit the Pentagon had shape charges set off just before it hit the wall, which facilitated penetration but destroyed a lot of structure of the plane. This is also consistent with some of the witness statements of those who had the best view. As Eric Bart's site shows.

perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/

http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/witnesses.html

[zapperlot]

8. they were faked

Hello from Germany,
the frames from the impact are obviously faked. I think the pictures of the cam were made in spring 2001. (Before the Pentagon Renovation Program)

If you take a look on these pictures:
http://wtc.achilles-os.de/viewtopic.php?t=60
you can see following: Rumsfeld short after the attack walking at a crosswalk.(first picture)
Please notice the position of Rumsfeld on the crosswalk - stripes. The last stripe of the crosswalk ends clearly AFTER the drainage pit.

If you compare this picture, (which is original from http: // www. dtic. mil /dps/ images/secdefpsu.gif) with the pictures from the pentagon security cam you can see the difference: On the cam pages (2,3,4) the last stripe of the crosswalk ends clearly BEFORE the drainage pit.

Greetings

Zapperlot

[seatnineb]

10. Excellent observation Zapperlot!.....

.....and welcome to DU!

:toast:

[philb]

16. Rumsfeld video shows square and round covers, which is impact one?

What is the discrpiency that is being talked about and is it real or imagioned?

[seatnineb]

18. Hope this clarifies.......

Here is the drain in question.Note the big black stripe to the right of the drain.



And here is that same drain in the photo with Rumsfeld.(Note the white strip that is to the right of the drain)



Now in order to reconcile the 2 photos together,should not the black stripe to the right of the drain in the surveillance photo, make the photo featuring Rumsfeld look like this.(I apologize for the crudety of my photoshopping!)

[k-robjoe]

19. O.K.... Got you. Got to have a closer look tomorrow. n/t

[demodewd]

20. different angles

The photo of the initial explosion gives the impression that the stripe doesn't surpass the drain because of the angle the photo was taken. Just my take. Not saying that I'm right.

[k-robjoe]

12. Not too sure

Think there are two drainage pits (?)
Look again at the pic at the bottom of your link.
There´s one just by the cross walk stripes as well.

( I think J.P.Desmoulins´ argument about these pics is the most interesting ; if they are real, a 757 could never have come that close to the ground just after hitting the lampposts as high up as it did. (Also considering the topography.(Downhill)) )

On edit : Yes, I´m sure there are two. In the CCTV pic that seatnineb posted, you can see the "glip"/"hole"/"shadow" where the second pit (the one also in the Rummypic) is.

[zapperlot]

22. I can´t see two drainage pits

There is just one pit. And the position of the pit Rumsfeld passes you can catch with the end of the sidewalk.

There is imho no second pit. Maybe I missed something?

Greetings

Zapperlot

[Ice4Clark]

11. Rumsfeld Parade Magazine transcript.........a slip?

"They and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."


and the missle to damage this building? this building being the pentagon?

Here's the source of the paragraph above, Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

[philb]

15. He's made a lot of slips; predicted WTC and Pentagon

has said several times that missiles were involved in the attack.

[philb]

17. Eastman uses witness statements like this one to argue for 2 plane theory

Lagasse, William Sgt. William Lagasse, a pentagon police dog handler, the son of an aviation instructor, was filling up his patrol car at a gas station near the Pentagon when he noticed a jet fly in low. I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. The reason, I have some experience as a pilot and I looked at the plane. Didn't see any landing gear. Didn't see any flaps down. I realized it wasn't going to land. . . . It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. . . .I got on the radio and broadcast. I said a plane is, is heading toward the heliport side of the building.
http://web.lexis-nexis.com...
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/lagasse1.txt


Eastman compiles witness locations and argues that the big plane that Lagasse and others saw came in across the Naval Annex building, right over the gas station, and north of the official flight path that connects the down light poles to the punched out spot. He argues that the plane that hit the light poles and Pentagon is different. Have the witness statements that he quotes been looked at and do others disagree with the big plane's path?

http://bedoper.com/eastman/rumsfeld.htm

[philb]

21. The explosion in the impact video is consistent with high explosives

what caused the silvery blast and brilliant ball of fire outside the building, http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/inv4.html

and the huge shockwave?

The blast
A forceful gust of wind :
• "It shot me back in my chair. There was a huge blast. I could feel the air shock wave of it" Marc Abshire
• "Sheraton Hotel , the whole hotel shook, I could feel it moving" Deb & Jeff Anlauf
• "The blast lifted Beans off the floor" Michael Beans
• "Garofola's desk literally rose straight up several inches then slammed down" Peter M. Murphy
• "The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit" Donald R. Bouchoux
• "The shock wave threw me against the wall" Lisa Burgess
• "The employee "was thrown about 80 ft down the hall through the air" Wayne T. Day
• "A strange sucking, whirring sound, like a loud vacuum cleaner" Dan Fraunfelter
• "It blew me 10 feet" Peggy Mencl
• "heard a whoosh and a whistle and she wondered where all this air was coming from" Sheila Moody
• "less than one mile from the Pentagon ... I heard a tremendously loud crash and books on my shelves started tumbling to the floor" Plaisted
• "One mile away from the Pentagon ... The house shook, the windows were vibrating" Rob Schickler
• "It threw him backward over 100 feet" Noel Sepulveda
• "felt a giant gush of air" William Sinclair

[DemInDistress]

23. I have a problem with the 5 photo's

Before the missile strikes the Pentagon if you look across the Pentagon's roofline you cant help but see the roof had already collapsed Am i the only person who sees this? Please help me out..

[philb]

24. Which picture are you looking at? I don't see that?

whose version? which slide?

Here is another analysis of the slides:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/cctv.html

[DemInDistress]

25. image no.1

prior to the missile striking the Pentagon look down the Pentagon's roofline.past the middle where the strike will impact,to me that roof already shows it collapsed.Its not a straight and uniform roofline.
Phil,use that link go to "images set and origin and help me out.Secondly and strangely the date display shows the following day.My eyes see a collapsed portion of the Pentagon before the missile strike the building
:toast:

[rman]

27. and the date, don't forget the date

the security cam footage says "Sep. 12, 2001"
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

[philb]

28. the dates weren't on the original slides; they were put on afterward

but also remember that 911Research and Desmoulins both looked at the slide evidence and concluded they were manipulated and fraudulent. Those are both pretty solid sites.

That doesn't mean there isn't some useful info in them, just that you have to be careful with them. They indicate what they think was manipulated.

I don't think the first slide shows a collapsed roof. Notice one section extends further out than the other. then zags back.

Does anyone else see the collapsed roof that I was asked about?

[Kevin Fenton]

30. Roof is fine

I don't think the Pentagon is supposed to be straight here. A section seems to jut out a metre or two. Perhaps this is what is being confused with a collapsed roof.