June 13, 2014
By Craig McKee
A single frame gives it away.
All but one frame of two sets of surveillance videos purporting to show the impact of Flight 77 into the western face of the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 appear to show the same thing. But it’s that one frame that tells the tale. It shows that evidence was falsified and that a deliberate plan was carried out to fool the public into thinking that a plane hit the building when it did not.
This, combined with other key evidence (including the nature of the damage to the building, the lack of debris outside the building, and the on-camera accounts of credible witnesses who put the plane on a different flight path that the one required to produce the damage path), proves that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash and that 9/11 was an inside job.
The falsifying of the video evidence is explained in the impressively comprehensive 2013 documentary film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, produced and directed by Italian filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco. The video analysis itself was originally carried out by researcher Pier Paolo Murru, who has worked with both Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizen Investigation Team.
In 2002, the Department of Defense released five frames of video that it claimed showed a 757 flying just above ground level across the Pentagon lawn followed by an explosion that appeared to have been caused by the plane hitting the building. The camera that recorded the image was located in a parking booth located to the north of the alleged impact zone, and it was pointed south offering a view across the Pentagon western face and lawn.
In the image, we see what appears to be the dark tail of a plane sticking up, but most of what would be the plane is blocked from view by a concrete barrier at the entrance to the parking area, just a few feet from the camera. The alleged shape of the plane is followed by a white trail, generally believed to be smoke from the plane. The following frame shows a large fireball and black smoke billowing from the facade of the building; we don’t actually see any impact at all.
In the response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI and Department of Defense for all video footage that may have shown the impact of Flight 77, we learned that there were 85 videos that could “potentially” have met this criterion. But the response to the request also stated that only one of those videos actually showed the crash. This was, of course, the famous five frames we had already seen.
It would take until 2006 before we would find out that this wasn’t true. That’s when the Department of Defense released a second set of frames from almost the exact same angle along with an extended version of the first set of frames. It turned out there was another camera in the very concrete parking barrier that blocked us from seeing the whole plane in the 2002 footage. Without a barrier to block the view of the plane, the second video should have given us a clear and definitive view of it.
But it didn’t.
As explained in the Mazzucco film, the two sets of videos, which recorded images at roughly one-second intervals, were synchronized using a centralized system called multiplexer or TLR so that the frames could be matched to each other with precision. This was easy to determine by comparing the shape of the large, billowing smoke clouds in each. Although the 2006 video begins a few frames before the one released in 2002 (and ends a few frames sooner), it is possible to perfectly synchronize all the equivalent frames – about 100 in all.
The one that shows the plane. Or at least the one the government claims shows a plane.
Frame 23 in the film’s comparative analysis is clearly and irreconcilably different. In the second video sequence, with the concrete barrier no longer blocking the view of the alleged plane, we now see that the shape that appeared to be the plane’s tail is simply gone, and now the white “smoke” trail is what appears to be the plane just coming into frame.
In fact, the analysis shows that the white blur in the second video is actually present in the first one, but it appears a whole section has been added to it. I know this is not easy to picture, so I strongly recommend that you watch this section of Mazzucco’s film – the section on the Pentagon surveillance videos starts at the 17-minute mark of DVD 2.
So, 100 frames in each of two angles are perfectly synchronized – and just one frame doesn’t match. How could this possibly be explained by anything other than tampering with the video?
Of course, the issue could easily be cleared up if the 85 other videos were released, but the government has refused to do this. There’s also the issue of the confiscated tapes from area businesses. Attendant José Velasquez from the former Citgo gas station across the street from the Pentagon has stated that the FBI arrived within minutes of the alleged impact and confiscated footage from the station’s surveillance camera. Velasquez was quoted as saying that the footage would have shown the alleged impact. In 2006, footage taken at the station was released showing nothing conclusive.
Other video footage was confiscated from the nearby Sheraton National Hotel, the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Va., and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Doubletree tape was later released. It showed the explosion but no airliner. And who knows what we might learn from cameras places inside the Pentagon.
If a plane had actually hit the Pentagon it would be impossible to believe that none of the video cameras in and around the building on 9/11 would have shown this. And if the videos did show the crash, then it would make no sense that the government would withhold them.
And if, as the evidence shows, the video frames that were released were falsified, then there can only be one conclusion: there was no plane impact, and this was just one more deception on a day filled with deceptions.