Unreleased Pentagon 9-11 footage, possible C-130 overflight

Edit: thanks to brady4747 for the link to this article (also here thanks to MattR) which corrects my belief that the military had been denying the presence of the C-130 in the area on 9-11. I'm not going to delete my comments below which mention that, but I do stand corrected. I think this is still an interesting piece of history.

A long time ago I posted a short 1-minute clip of footage I shot next to the Pentagon on 9-11. I never properly labelled the tape, so I was not sure where the footage was hiding, but I just got a 500GB drive so I could start capturing everything on every tape I've ever shot, and within a day I'd found the footage buried between a bunch of shots of people in DC nightclubs.

So, thanks to YouTube I can easily post the whole thing and not worry about hosting bandwidth and such. Funny thing though--when I captured the whole clip, I noticed much more clearly than before that I had about 30 seconds of footage showing a plane turning over the Pentagon just after the airliner hit. From the one angle where you can see the whole plane, it looks rather like a C-130. It enters the frame from the upper-left around 1:47, you need to view in high quality to see it.

So I have posted both a full-length normal resolution clip of the entire footage, and also one at 400% zoomed in for the 30 seconds where the plane is visible, because it's hard to make out through the compression on YouTube. Watch both clips in high quality for best results. I'm not saying this means anything, but I have a feeling that the "there was no plane that hit the Pentagon" conspiracy theorists might feel otherwise. I felt that at least this footage deserved to be seen, so people could make up their own minds, and to show what it felt like to be there.

•  I don't really

  need the mojo...but I'll take it.

  Please deposit here.

  by MLDB on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:25:33 PM PDT

  •  oh thanks for jacking my post

    I haven't been active enough recently to hide-rate your comment, but I would if I could

    by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:27:10 PM PDT

    •  so what

      are you saying is going on in the video?

      by taylormattd on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:33:50 PM PDT

      •  I asked this below

        But would it be controversial if there WERE a plane flying overhead when the Pentagon was hit? Has anyone denied such a thing as a possibility?

        (Not freighted questions--I'm truly curious.)

        by JoeW on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:37:25 PM PDT

        •  Imagine, a plane flying over the DC area.

          by melvin on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM PDT

        •  It's a valid quesiton

          I think -- but odn't know -- that it would be odd. There's always been a no-fly zone over some specific buildings and nothing below 18K feet over the Pentagon if I remember (but only hearsay form a long-ago converation).

          SO it could be a military plane or the distorted perspective of a commercial plane that's flying as it should.

          by PBnJ on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:42:13 PM PDT

          •  I would guess that restricted air space

            would not apply to military aircraft .  It was more than 10+ years ago, but I have a pretty clear memory of watching a helicopter land at the Pentagon as I was driving by on the way to work.

            by MattR on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:47:51 PM PDT

          •  From my recent memory

            It appeared to me that many, many planes fly very close to DC.  I was just there a couple weeks ago, but I remember thinking that there were a lot of planes flying very close to the city.

            I'm from Seattle, and our metro airport is not too far, but very close to the city is the Boeing Airfield where many planes land.  

            by otto on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:09:24 PM PDT

            •  National Airport is right down the river from

              the Pentagon.  Bolling Air Force Base is right across the Potomac adjoining Anacostia Naval Station.  So plenty of local candidates for air traffic.

              BTW - I refuse to call National by its new name.  Ronald Reagan put a smiley face on a bunch of ugliness and helped launch this lurch towards fascism that is blossoming under bu$h/cheney.

              by kbman on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:00:53 PM PDT

              •  I live in the DC area also.

                And I too REFUSE to call in "Reagan."

                by Bulldawg on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:45:28 AM PDT

                •  I refuse to call the Orange County California

                  airport "John Wayne International."  It's just too creepy.  

                  by martydd on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:19:00 AM PDT

        •  I don't know

          I'm curious to what the diarist is saying, that's all.

          by taylormattd on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:45:37 PM PDT

          •  seems pretty clear

            diarist just wants to present the video

            I'm not saying this means anything, but I have a feeling that the "there was no plane that hit the Pentagon" conspiracy theorists might feel otherwise. I felt that at least this footage deserved to be seen, so people could make up their own minds.

            by BentLiberal on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:57:59 PM PDT

  •  Wrong

    to present as tip jar when not tip jar

    by swampsparrow on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:27:55 PM PDT

    •  It's late, but

      where does my comment say 'tip jar'?

      by MLDB on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:28:50 PM PDT

      •  What an ass.

        by melvin on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:29:36 PM PDT

        •  I know...

          can you believe the guy?

          by MLDB on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:31:16 PM PDT

          •  I could

            HR your shit, but I won't...you made a poor decision and that is it.  I think of it as more of a lesson in etiquette and would encourage those who did HR your post to rethink their decision.  Those donuts could be sprn in a much better way

            by swampsparrow on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:51:19 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, I agree...I think he though this was a

              conspiracy video...which it sure seems to suggest.

              by David Kroning on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:52:23 PM PDT

            •  sprn=spent n/t

              by swampsparrow on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:53:03 PM PDT

              •  heh

                how?!  :)

                by socratic on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:21:18 PM PDT

            •  No

              I HR'd it because it is against the rules not just bad manners.

              by Demena on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:21:15 PM PDT

          •  ok, that was pretty funny

            by subtropolis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:58:33 PM PDT

        •  Kinda piling on here...I think he assumed

          that this was gonna be an unpopular diary...

          by David Kroning on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:51:33 PM PDT

          •  An apology would help his case then ... n/t

            Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

            by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:09:35 PM PDT

      •  You need mojo???

        so you say basically "FIRST" and proclaim need for mojo?  Just say first, and don't ask for mojo on someone elses diary

        by swampsparrow on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:32:02 PM PDT

        •  No, I specifically

          said I do not need mojo

          by MLDB on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:33:26 PM PDT

          •  grow up - - - n/t

            by sara seattle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:34:08 PM PDT

          •  Sigh

            

            by swampsparrow on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:38:04 PM PDT

          •  You might want to quit digging. nt

            by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:39:10 PM PDT

      •  You know better...

        by Phil S 33 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:37:02 PM PDT

      •  Disingenuous. Donutted. n/t

        by Ahianne on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:07:48 PM PDT

      •  Tip jar, n.

        1. A comment intended for people to deposit mojo.

        You said "Please deposit [mojo] here."

        Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

        by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:13:21 PM PDT

  •  zero for being an asshole

    by melvin on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:31:01 PM PDT

  •  PLEASE BACK OFF MLDB

    OK, the guy goofed, but he doesn't deserve autoban - he is a diarist of some substance. Just leave it alone ...

    by Stranded Wind on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:59:31 PM PDT

    •  As I said above

      I agree.  Was dumb, but not really HR worthy

      by swampsparrow on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:02:19 PM PDT

      •  Well, it needs to be *hidden.*

        Hence the hide ratings.

        Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

        by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:06:35 PM PDT

    •  Agreed...up-rated.

      The diarist was being coy...read his comments in the diary, he's clearly pushing a conspiracy theory.

      by David Kroning on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:04:13 PM PDT

      •  MLDB isn't the diarist. n/t

        Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

        by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:06:00 PM PDT

        •  He thought it was a kook diary...on second look

          it probably is.

          by David Kroning on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:06:37 PM PDT

          •  ?? Fake tip jars are not cool, period ... n/t

            Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

            by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:07:58 PM PDT

            •  It was not a fake tip jar, period.

              by David Kroning on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:09:20 PM PDT

              •  "Please deposit [mojo] here."

                How is that not a tip jar?

                Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

                by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:10:20 PM PDT

              •  David

                it was...someone who quickly reads this diary and goes to the first comment, usually tip jar, and glances and sees "mojo" without scrolling up to see the name of the diarist...c'mon.  Doesn't really deserve HR though

                by swampsparrow on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:13:04 PM PDT

                •  I know, I know...but his point was to call it...

                  foul.

                  by David Kroning on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:13:57 PM PDT

                •  Fake tip jars *absolutely* deserve HRs,

                  even if somehow accidental (which is a dubious proposition at best). The comment needs to be hidden. That's the whole point.

                  Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

                  by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:14:36 PM PDT

                  •  Good lord...go out and smoke a cigarette.

                    Don't take it all so seriously.

                    by David Kroning on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:18:06 PM PDT

                    •  I don't smoke.

                      (But I'm really not taking it that seriously anyway :-) )

                      Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

                      by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:19:20 PM PDT

                    •  Or

                      Check the FAQ

                      by Demena on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM PDT

                    •  Maybe you should?

                      You've expressed your point about 10 times on this issue?

                      by BentLiberal on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:36:28 PM PDT

            •  diarist should be banned

              since you are citing the rules, the diarist is presenting a CT diary.  I don't know why we are worried about his mojo.  Putting up a fake tip jar in a troll diary is dangerous, but not HR'able offense.

              by unterhausen on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:02:03 AM PDT

              •  this is not CT

                and if you actually read it and watched my videos you would know that.

                by 2501 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:57:16 AM PDT

                •  watched the videos

                  and here is why I say it's CT.  There is no purpose in posting this now except to elicit CT comments, and that did happen and you got at least one person riled up and HR'd.  You took this video 7 years ago, it's hardly new.

                  by unterhausen on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM PDT

                  •  so if they discover a new

                    mummy's tomb, that's not newsworthy? I just found this video after losing it for the past 7 years, and as far as I know it is the footage showing the earliest shots of the Pentagon after the attack (except for any security footage that exists from inside, which we might not ever see).

                    I just don't understand why so many people seem to need to waste so much time accusing me of spreading conspiracies when all I did was post some video, which in fact led to (as far as I am concerned) clearing up a question about the plane in the video.

                    if anything, I think this footage confirms "the official story" about the plane, rather than adding to the conspiracy theories, though I will admit I wasn't  certain of that at the time I posted it.

                    thanks to other people who were actually willing to intelligently discuss the matter, though, I think we arrived at a useful conclusion. sorry if that information is lost in the sea of meta-arguing about whether I should have posted the diary in the first place or not.

                    by 2501 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:13:47 PM PDT

      •  and the new first sentence does not help n/t

        by MattR on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:06:57 PM PDT

    •  Who's autobanning?

      MLDB posted a fake tip jar. Whether it was inadvertent or not, it gets hidden. Period.

      Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

      by Jyrinx on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:34:18 AM PDT

    •  he will

      never hit autoban because of three hidden comments in the same diary. I've seen people with 37 hiddens in one diary who aren't banned.

      by taylormattd on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM PDT

•  tips for a piece of history?

  again, even if this is a C-130, there could be a perfectly innocent reason for it being there, so please don't flame me for that.

  I have spoken to a person who was in the Pentagon on 9-11 who only survived because he was in a secure room when the plane hit, and he said he saw the plane, so I will always believe that it really did hit the building. that doesn't entirely eliminate the possibility of something sinister going on, though.

  by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:26:23 PM PDT

  •  Not a C-130

    I can positively identify that craft as an alien spaceship in a cloaked-mode. This one has been buzzing my house recently. Should I post a diary too?

    by Bronxist on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:40:48 PM PDT

    •  Not fair, dude. Disagree, but don't ridicule.

      by WattleBreakfast on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:25:17 PM PDT

  •  This doesn't look like a C-130 profile to me

    but why would a C-130 be relevant?  A cargo carrier is not likely to be sent up to protect Washington.

    The video is so shaky that I would suspect that this is an airplane that was on approach to Reagan and waved off to go around as the hijacked plane hit the Pentagon.

    I don't see much here and would like a better explanation of what significance you think this has.

    by captainlaser on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:44:05 PM PDT

    •  Just saying...C-130's are not just cargo planes.

      Some varients carry advanced electronics and others carry big bad ass machine guns.

      by David Kroning on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:50:41 PM PDT

      •  You mean advanced like this? ...

        Behold the AC-130 gunship with all its bells and whistles:

        by ImpeachKingBushII on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:40:32 PM PDT

        •  I'd join the military

          if they would guarantee me I could fly one of those.

          though, sadly, they would probably make me shoot at people and not just junked tanks, so that would take all the fun out of it

          by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:47:04 PM PDT

        •  1 round per square foot in a mile square is what

          that is....

          Darfur could be protected quite nicely with a single squadron of those flying CAP over the refugee camps.

          by skippythebox on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:56:23 PM PDT

    •  if you stop just a few frames into the closeup

      you can see a profile of an aircraft with wings too straight to be a commercial jet.

      it is entirely possible that a C-130 taking off from Andrews Air Force base would have been in the area, but even military aircraft are restricted from flying directly over the Pentagon. the only thing that makes it weird is that the military denied a C-130 being in the area at the time.

      if you read the comments on YouTube, someone suggests they are "painting the target with lasers", which I again would argue is nuts.

      the entire reason this is weird is that the Pentagon denied a C-130 was there. if this was one, it would simply mean they felt there was some reason to lie about it--which might have nothing to do with the plane hitting the building other than the fact that they worried it would look suspicious.

      I guess I don't understand why it's not even allowed to discuss something like this, if only for the purposes of explaining why it's just an innocent plane, after all.

      by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM PDT

      •  how many wrong statements

        have been made about the events of that day regarding the timeline of when officials were notified, the actions taken and/or who authorized them.  Why would the existence of a C-130 over the Pentagon despite a denial by this administration be interesting let alone shocking?

        by MattR on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:01:35 PM PDT

      •  YouTube comments?

        Dude, if you're reading YouTube comments on this stuff ... well ... consider the source.

        by Stranded Wind on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:06:09 PM PDT

        •  do note I said "which I think is nuts"

          I am receving all the comments, though, since it's my video

          by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:18:00 PM PDT

      •  It could be a commuter turboprop

        there are a few that sorta match that silhouette.. but then again the pentagon really could be under the impression that they did not have a C-130 up at the time and in the area.

        They do lose stuff every now and again...

        Hell they lost an whole freaking H bomb in either Georgia or South Carolina...

        by skippythebox on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:58:40 PM PDT

  •  something sinister?

    During the Bush Administration? No way.

    by minorityusa on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:53:31 PM PDT

  •  The amount of smoke would indicate aircraft

    and not missile strike... there is a WHOLE lot more then paper and furniture burning there which would be a lighter color for one and not as thick or voluminous.. that is thick rolling black smoke from a large amount of fuel burning.

    A missile would leave you with a much different smoke type and pattern.

    NOTE:  The pentagon as a stone and concrete structure would have to be burning paper and furniture to produce smoke; it's not like a house fire where the structure itself is burning.  So how much paper or furniture could logically be expected in a section of the building?  Not enough to provide that volume of smoke and certainly it would be a much lighter color.

    by skippythebox on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:53:10 PM PDT

•  Did Kos give you an OK on this

  subject??

  by sara seattle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:26:55 PM PDT

  •  this is footage I shot

    I am not advancing any theories. I am just posting my footage. you can go to youtube and see that it is my account there under which these are posted, and I have previously posted the shorter version of this footage. It is my voice you hear speaking on the phone in these clips.

    I was sitting in traffic next to the Pentagon on 9-11. Where were you?

    by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:29:09 PM PDT

    •  You might want to check the FAQ

      and really really read the whole thing - kos has very clear thoughts on this -- last time it involved banning - so read it and decide what to do with this diary ---- just saying

      Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", e.g., "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

      by sara seattle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:32:32 PM PDT

      •  I provided evidence

        there is a plane visible in this footage. that's all I am saying, and the video backs it up. how is that a violation of the faq?

        by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:33:59 PM PDT

        •  You obviously did not read what it said

          your choice -

          after banning -- there is no coming back

          by sara seattle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:36:10 PM PDT

          •  what am I missing exactly?

            I said there was a plane in this footage, and there is a plane in this footage. what else do I need to do, then?

            by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:37:56 PM PDT

            •  from the FAQ - from kos himself

              Fri Jul 08, 2005

              Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.

              I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.

              I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories

              your choice

              by sara seattle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:42:12 PM PDT

              •  how does my post violate that?

                you have yet to illustrate how me posting video that I shot myself, and describing what is in that video, violates those terms.

                by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:44:42 PM PDT

                •  I honestly don't care what photo you took

                  or when

                  if we start having diaries about planes in the sky - showing nothing - just because you took the video

                  well big woop -- good for you

                  we have seen it - since that was your purpose --

                  how about deleting it now then - thanks

                  by sara seattle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:47:52 PM PDT

                  •  I'd have to agree with 2501

                    Not that I think this really warrants a diary, but he certainly isn't advancing any conspiracy theory, so the FAQ and banning in no way applies, unless I am missing something.

                    I thought the video was interesting. I don't care at all about the plane and I don't think it is necessarily meaingful that there was a plane there, but the video kind of gives you a "what it would have been like to be there" kind of feeling.

                    I think you are wayyy overreacting with this banning nonsense. I think he made it very clear he isn't saying there is any kind of conspiracy here, or that this is proof of anything nefarious.

                    Calm down.

                    by THEpersonal ISpolitical on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:51:26 PM PDT

                    •  I agree

                      9/11Truthers are very annoying, but I don't really see this is being a kind of 9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB WAKE UP SHEEPLE thing.  Seems like more of an observation, mostly harmless, and kind of pointless

                      by swampsparrow on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:59:12 PM PDT

                  •  A tad bit

                    ideologically pure, don't you think? The original poster goes rather out of his/her way to make it clear that the video might or might not have interest for the conspiracy theorists. He/she isn't, to my reading, putting forward anything as to what the video, if real, might suggest. What's more, the original poster has responded to your condescending posts and none-too-veiled threats about permanent banning with respect and openmindedness. Why don't you do the same?

                    by Spron on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:58:25 PM PDT

                    •  thank you n/t

                      by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:03:07 PM PDT

                  •  Temper temper

                    maybe Kos will swoop down and hold forth your valorous defense of the good, the true and the eternal verities of life in blogotopia.  

                    Then again, maybe not.  

                    by crescentdave on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:46:00 PM PDT

                  •  And I spit on physics too!

                    I don't want to know how fast a certain building, of a certain height, constructed of certain materials, can so call 'fall' when it collapses 'on fire'!

                    Dear god, don't you know this site is for "REALISTS"? We prefer to muse about the 1000 secret stategies of Pelosi and Reed as they continue to capitulate to Bush et al...you know, how in the end they actually have a brilliant plan and all.

                    I mean, THAT is certainly reality, not some 9/11 'film' by someone 'who was there'.

                    9/11 has nothing whatsofricking ever to do with Bush.

                    Don't you forget it!

                    by Anna Sukrana on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:37:19 PM PDT

                •  It doesn't!

                  But you know what, the dKos FAQ on the 9/11 is disingenuous.  It says that Kos bans 9/11 ct because they offer no proof.  Most, not all, but most conversations and diaries about 9//11 truth contain massive extraordinary proof.  

                  I will respect the dKos policy on banning 9/11 conspiracy theories only when and if it is corrected to say that they don't want to talk about 9/11 ct because they don't want it on the site and/or disagree with it, not "they don't offer proof".  Again the policy is disingenuous and it reflects badly on dKos as a whole.

                  There, I said it.

                  by WattleBreakfast on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:37:36 PM PDT

              •  There doesn't seem to be any *claims* made by

                the diarist one way or the other. I agree there is not much substance, but there is at least as much substance as in the slinkerwink  diary currently on the rec list.

                It appears the mist heat in this diary is going to be in this sub-thread.

                by parakinesis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:11:51 PM PDT

                •  Read the diarist's comments in the threads...

                  by David Kroning on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:13:02 PM PDT

                  •  I'm going on the same info sara seattle had

                    when she started this sub-thread and am replying to her comments about the diary content.

                    by parakinesis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:00:30 PM PDT

        •  so there is a plane visible

          How is that in any way relevant or diary worthy?  What is gained from this other than, as you note, advancing a conspiracy theory?

          by MattR on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:36:21 PM PDT

          •  Only

            That the USAF said there were none there.

            by Demena on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:28:04 PM PDT

            •  Debunked:

              http://www.ratical.org/...

              by Eternal Hope on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:37:06 PM PDT

              •  Okies, withdrawn, sry. (n/t)

                by Demena on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:50:58 PM PDT

      •  I'm going back and forth on this one.

        It's not really a conspiracy theory.

        Have people denied that there WERE any planes that might have been flying overhead? Right around this time, wasn't the staff of the White House evacuated because of what turned out to be a military jet in the area?

        by JoeW on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM PDT

        •  Me too.

          I have little doubt that it is in some way an effort to encourage ct discussion, but it doesn't really cross the line.

          by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:37:38 PM PDT

        •  Why wouldn't there be airplanes in the sky on 911

          The significance of this is lost on me. At the moment in time that the Pentagon was hit, thousands of planes were still in the sky. Jets were being scrambled from nearby military bases. Its likely that a nearby base commander sent over a small plane to provide some intel on the skies over Washington and the Pentagon. No big deal.

          by Explorer8939 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:38:30 PM PDT

          •  nothing is supposed to fly over the Pentagon

            there have been disputed accounts that there might have been a C-130 in the area at that time, but the Pentagon has denied them.

            so, the only thing that would make it odd would be the fact that they denied it, but it turned out to be true.

            BUT AGAIN. please read my first comment. I have no doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9-11. I do not believe it was a missile or any of that BS. But it's still odd they would deny a plane was there, if in fact it was.

            by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:42:04 PM PDT

            •  The plane's not over the Pentagon

              It's well past the Pentagon. The plane also doesn't look like a C-130 to me. It looks like a regular jet, viewed from the back. The sweep of the wings wouldn't be very noticable at that point of view.

              Furthermore, from the angle of the photo it looks like the plane just took off from Reagan Natl, and is making the turn to the South to keep over the Potomac.

              Nothing to see here folks.
              

              by pdrap on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:42:50 PM PDT

              •  just for the record

                look at the very first few seconds of the closeup video and you will see the wings are not swept back.

                by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:49:29 PM PDT

                •  Not so clear

                  You're assuming a certain angle of view on the plane which you really can't determine. If you assume you're looking at a planform view but you're not, then the length of the plane would be shortened, and the sweep of the wings would not be visible. That is why you're thinking you're seeing a C-130.

                  by pdrap on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:07:07 AM PDT

    •  GOD FORBID

      U post anything like this. I once hit the rec on a Charlie Sheen story & had to jerk off Kos to stay in here! God forbid I did that, it was announced that he was on GMA..WOW!

      Let all the clueless wonders flame you & call you out and ask if you have permission to post this while bitching about Bush doing the same thing they are doing. Sorry folks I call it as I see it.

      by dynamicstand on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:52:15 PM PDT

•  I WANT TO BELIEVE

  

  by Trix on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:28:39 PM PDT

  •  It's been a while since

    I've seen you, Trix.  You're looking well, as ever.  ;0)

    by Dreaming of Better Days on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:32:00 PM PDT

  •  is that some kind of WTC structural experiment?

    Seriously, i've seen some pretty kooky attempts at justifying there, well … kooky ideas.

    If not … what is it?

    by subtropolis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:02:01 PM PDT

    •  That's exactly what it is

      Click on the image for the Democratic Underground thread documenting the experiment's results.

      :-)

      by Trix on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:06:21 PM PDT

      •  ooh, i'll bet this is gonna be good (nt)

        by subtropolis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:02:31 PM PDT

      •  omfg!

        Holy shit! That is just so goddamned stupid!

        by subtropolis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:09:19 PM PDT

        •  Exactly :) n/t

          by Trix on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:16:08 PM PDT

          •  Actually, i wouldn't say, "exactly"

            Honestly, the words for that are just so much more than what i just pronounced it to be. It's … it's …

            Damn, that's just so goddamned stupid!

            ;-)

            by subtropolis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:20:49 PM PDT

            •  It represents stupidity of epic proportions

              That's why I post that pic/link in every 9/11 conspiracy diary I see.

              Anyone who's seen it before gets it immediately.

              :-)

              by Trix on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:22:36 PM PDT

•  I think you might go fly a kite

  with this suggestion. Like Thomas Jefferson would have said "Here's the key to the door, don't let it hit you in the butt on your way out."

  by Polly Syllabic on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:30:41 PM PDT

  •  what suggestion?

    seriously, what do you imagine I'm suggesting? there is a plane in this footage. it's hard to make out in many places, but it is really there, and this is my footage. I'm not suggesting anything.

    by 2501 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:32:31 PM PDT

    •  I think you might want to update what conclusions

      you are drawing f