|
|
|
|
Frequently Asked Questions
>> Doesn't the Pentagon security
gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building? Five still frames from this video were originally "leaked" in 2002, while the "full run-time" (with an additional camera view) wasn't officially released by the Department of Defense until 2006. Here are official statements from Pentagon spokesperson Cheryl Irwin, published by the Washington Post on March 7, 2002 (copy of article here), denying any association with the original 5 frames:
Here is Another Washington Post
article announcing the official release of the video over four years later in 2006. WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon on Tuesday released the first video images of
American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the military headquarters
building and killing 189 people in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Within the context of an investigation into government involvement on
9/11 it is not logical to automatically accept information that has been controlled and
provided solely by the suspect in question. In this case, this
dubious government-supplied video cannot be accepted as valid in light of
the fact that it is contradicted by
conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence
proving that the plane did not hit the building, and most certainly
did not show up low and level over the lawn as depicted in the
one frame that supposedly shows a blurry "plane". There is also zero
independent, verifiable evidence (or any evidence at all for that matter)
corroborating the alleged "smoke trail" seen in this video. We were
not able to find a single witness who saw such a thing, including the
witnesses who were (allegedly) right in front of the building. Regarding this third point: According to the
2002 Washington Post article cited above, "Officials
say the date may reflect when the
images were catalogued by investigators since they are not the actual date
of the attack." Later it says, "officials said the dates and times
shown on the photos were added the day after the attack, when they may
have been catalogued for investigative purposes." So this video,
which the DoD, DoJ, and FBI at the time all claimed that they did not
disseminate and did not even acknowledge as valid, "may" have been
catalogued for investigative purposes, and these time stamps
"may" reflect that time at which this "may" have been done --
at least according to unnamed "officials". |