# CBC shows Pentagon impact video.



## Enzo (16 May 2006)

Waking this morning I was interested to see that footage of the impact by flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11 was to be released to the public in order to quell the conspiracy rumours that have surfaced in abundance on the internet, etc...

It's shortly before noon (PST) and the *"new, never before seen"* security footage was shown. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen this footage before. It's been on the net for some time. It's 5 frames that simply show a shadow in the lower right, then a fireball. I googled "flight 77" and this is the first website: 





> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm


 and there is the same footage mid way down the page. This is a conspiracy site, so I am skeptical of the information, but unless I'm mistaken, hasn't this footage been available for some time?

I guess I was expecting to see something absolute. Since the Moussaoui trial has concluded, the US government says that the footage is no longer restricted by security issues, so this is the best that they can do? To sort this out once and for all, shouldn't there be something that settles this question?

I suppose I'm just surprised. I'd expect that there would be more than this.

Thoughts?


----------



## Enzo (16 May 2006)

Ok, I am confused. Did the _CBC_ just show the wrong footage? Check this out:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/

March 7, 2002. _CNN_ is showing the same _"new"_ footage that _CBC_ is showing currently?

I'm really confused now. And Henry Champ is continuing to tell me what I'm seeing, that of a nosecone. Uh, all I'm seeing Hank is the same security camera footage that has been available for 4 years. And I'm not sure, but I don't actually see the plane in question? He's now saying that there is other footage that was requested, but it hasn't been released as of yet. I'm thinking that it should be.

I wonder if this is going to be cleared up in a couple of days as the _CBC_ researchers realize that this *"new"* footage isn't what they're selling it as?


----------



## Wookilar (16 May 2006)

You are assuming, of course, that they care. As long as they can spin it, and the majority of people buy it, it will remain "new, previously unreleased footage." But maybe I'm jaded.


----------



## Enzo (16 May 2006)

I'm wondering why the need for the spin? Why is Hank sitting there telling _"the viewer"_ what they are seeing when nothing new or substantial is actually being shown?

Am I missing something? What is the gain here?


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2006)

It's kind of like "New and Improved" Tide; you run out to buy it, even though it is the same old Tide with a different scent.

Quick aside: the frame rate on the security camera was too slow to capture the aircraft; it was designed for foot and vehicle traffic moving at @ 50mph max, not an airplane going 10 times as fast. We all got to see the end results, though.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (18 May 2006)

> the frame rate on the security camera was too slow to capture the aircraft; it was designed for foot and vehicle traffic moving at @ 50mph max, not an airplane going 10 times as fast. We all got to see the end results, though.



Yet one has to wonder why they did not show any of the footage from the abundance of other security cameras they seized after the plane hit....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 May 2006)

..and how do you know what was seized?


----------



## paracowboy (18 May 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and how do you know what was seized?


aye, there's the rub!
There have been far more *dumbass* conspiracy theories than fact in the past couple years. So many, that much of the blatant *crap* spewed out has become accepted as fact by the gullible.


----------



## Enzo (19 May 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and how do you know what was seized?



Apparently there was footage from a gas station across the street and a hotel nearby. The Feds have this and other evidence which they used for Moussaoui's trial. Since the trial has concluded, they were going to release this evidence to the public. This is why the CBC and other news agencies carried this story. Henry Champ did say that they were promised the new footage that shows more detail, but that it wasn't released and so they went with what they showed. The DoD has acknowledged possession of the video.

I feel the need to clarify this thread. My initial surprise came simply with the recycling of evidence. That's it. It caught my eye and I wondered about it. I don't see a conspiracy, just shoddy journalism and I had hoped for more from the CBC. As a rule, I enjoy the freedom to be a sarcastic cynic about everything, especially conspiracies. The only conspiracy I've ever been wary of is marriage ???

Since I posted this, I've been referred to as a member of the _*"tin hat"*_ crowd. That pissed me off, since I don't have the time or energy to waste on that nonsense and I'm in no way interested if there was one in this example anyway since I view it as an issue for the authorities in the US. A chain of events was initiated that day that takes precedence over the minutiae of the sites themselves and I'm not losing sleep over it.

So, in summation. I was expressing disbelief at what I took to be poor journalism. To those who grouped me in with the _"Elvis is living in a retirement home in Oak Bay"_ crowd. Bite me. 8)

Cheers...


----------



## xenobard (19 May 2006)

Personally, I enjoy entertaining conspiracy theories, for that's just what they are - entertaining.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 May 2006)

In order to add further comment on journalistic approaches to this, contact a mod.  Any discussion of conspiracy theories can go here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2763.0.html


----------



## paracowboy (19 May 2006)

I'm including this post from a friend I trust on another site because it's relevent.



> I spoke today with Navy Lieutenant Leon LeFlore, who was formerly an enlisted yeoman who worked in the deputy CNO's office in the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11. His office was six windows down from where the tip of the plane's port wing hit the building. From their office window, he and his coworkers watched the plane come in wheels-down. The wheels skidded off the top of another building, which threw off the original angle of approach, which was originally toward the area of Joint Chiefs' offices. Minutes before impact, he had been on the phone with some of the people who were killed in the blast. He was one of the men who pulled out bodies and picked up airplane fragments. If he lied to me, he must be one of the world's best liars. Conspiracy theorists can go eat Alpo.



And I want to say to Lieutenant LeFlore: thank you for your Service, thank you for your work on that terrible day, and my sincerest sympathies for the horror you witnessed.


----------

