I think Walloon is showing that the linked page isn’t the only page with eyewitness testimony, that there are more pages linked on the left.
Rick, in post #33 above, said that the link I supplied, for eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack, did not work. So I supplied a correct link. My point being that conspiracy theorists relying entirely on the (non) appearance of the jet in the security camera video, to advance a claim that a missile actually hit the Pentagon, have to ignore a whole lot of eyewitness testimony.
Conspiracy theorists don’t care about the truth. All they care about is painting a picture of an American government gone mad.
Thanks for the corrected link. It was 0’dark:30 at casa de Rick and I was too sleepy to discover why the link did not work. 
This thread OP asked about if any picture showed the plane the instant before impact, and why the video doesn’t show a plane clearly.
AFAICT, there have been 0 conspiracy theorists in this thread.
Heres a frame by frame analysis of the stills - but as the OP said no clear picture of the plane
http://hotair.com/archives/top-picks/2006/05/17/pentagon-video-postscript-moment-by-moment/
I saw three stills, from the parking lot camera, on TV news. The first showed what appeared to be the nose of the aircraft, the second was the long white flash that they identified as the fuselage and the third was the beginning of the fireball.
The only way a missle could strike at such a low angle would be if it were fired from point blank range, a few hundred yards away at most, virtually impossible to do w/o detection.
Actually, I feel kind of silly for pointing out something that obvious. Especially since a conspiracy theorist is always going to offer some far fetched alternative explanation.
These guys, the Al Queda agents, got lucky, in large part due to poor communications and bureaucratic bumbling by several gov’t. agencies.
Still, excellent analysis - that black triangle has got to be part of the plane.
Obviously the missile was shaped like a plane. :rolleyes:
OT, but why is everybody arguing with a bunch of conspiracy-believers who aren’t here?
I for one am glad to have the links for talking with acquaintances of mine who’ve gone off the deep end on this one.
Here’s the thing: there really isn’t a genuine need to capture it on film. We know what happened, becasue there’s a giant hole in the building and a missing plane. Aside from a few nutjobs, there really isn’t any point to capturing it on video. It’s not like getting a description of the pilot or getting a shot of the license plate is at all useful here.
[Conspiracy Theorist Voice]
"Wow, that sounds like Roswell (aside from the “hole in the building part”)! No need to capture it on film. We know what happened, because there’s a military record of recovering a UFO and alien bodies. Aside from a few nutjobs, there really isn’t any point to capturing it on video. It’s not like getting the name of the pilot or getting a shot at their Intergalactic Driver’s License is at all useful here.
[CTV]
Sorry…there was a complaint about no conspiracy theorists in this thread…I felt obligated to help, is all…
At the risk of being redundant . . .
I don’t want to believe the conspiracy theorists. That being said, I hope, as someone that has put their security in the hands of the US goverment and military, that the Pentagon [the most obvious symbol of US military might] is under surveilance to a level that is at least equal to a Wal Mart parking lot.
Your Wal-Mart has security capable of detecting, tracking and recording things moving at 500mph? I know Wal-Mart is supposed to be the new Evil Empire™® but I didn’t realise they were that impressive.
Little did you know that’s the real function of the greeter… those vests conceal high-speed film cameras. I understand they’ve even captured prices in the act of falling.
I heartily disagree. If it had been a truck bomb, the license plate and truck markings would’ve been incredibly useful. If it’d been a riot, good quality shots of the people would’ve been useful. I can’t think of an attack scenario where a good visual wouldn’t be useful in the analysis later.
Not talking about placating nutjobs, either - would the Kennedy assassination have been tougher to analyze without the Zapruder film? Hell yeah! Of course, it doesn’t satisfy the conspiracists, but that film is still a useful tool for the rest of us.
I’m just really surprised there isn’t better quality visual surveillance all around the Pentagon.
bup: That’s JSexton’s point. If it had been a truck bomb, then the video of the license plate would be of some assistance. In this case, there’s no need to have a video to know hwat happened–an airplane was crashed into the building. There’s no need in this instance to have the video to know what happened.
Well, if the invisible pink unicorn goes apeshit, there wouldn’t be a lot to film…
I think any of those would have been adequately captured by a perfectly normal standard-res low-rate camera like the one which provided the footage under discussion, no? If something like that happened I’m sure there would be plenty of interesting video footage to look at.