Yes troofers are clueless on truth... that's why you're a troofer who is also clueless on motion or F=ma... you toofers make very simple laws into complex theory's that you can't prove or provide one shred of conclusive evidence for your accusations... maybe you require more time... looks like 16 years isn't enough... maybe you should learn some basic laws & not from David Chandler who started the troofer movement with inaccurate math & misleading conclusions...Chandler made a 100 fold mistake in the forces involved in the collapses of the WTC towers misleading all you conspiracy nuts causing mass stupidity... get over it already or change the known laws of physics within the scientific method... maybe you troofers shouldn't have blindly followed a high school teacher. from the start...

All along I've been on this thread conducting a research project in psycho-sociology with the objective of helping brainwashed individuals to recover their sense of values and to begin thinking for themselves.

Studies of this kind often require a control group. The control group are those left untreated or unexposed to some procedure and then compared with treated subjects in order to validate the results of the test. In the case of 9/11 conspiracies, the control group are those who are so thoroughly brainwashed that no exposure to reality no matter how compelling will help them. This group is the yard stick with which we can measure the limits in human ability to overcome the debilitating effects of brainwashing. IOW, the control group are those for whom there is no hope. You are in this group.

Fortunately, a great majority of those who question the "official story" about 9/11 do not believe it was an inside job or that Israel was involved or that the towers were destroyed with explosives. The questions these folks have are in regard to the failure of the government to prevent the attacks. Why the intelligence agencies of the US and other countries didn't heed the warnings--even though some in the intelligence communities did, in fact, see something big coming.

Nobody is putting an "anonymous shill spin" on everything you post. There is no way to spin a thing that is already spinning out of control.

9-11TV DVDs by and for the 9/11 truth movement

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras

According to the FBI, there were 85 video surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have captured some parts of the Pentagon event on 9/11. The FBI confiscated some of the recordings from those cameras very shortly after the event, and the rest over the following days. This act by the government fueled the suspicions of those questioning a large plane impact into the Pentagon. It is known that the FBI confiscated much 9/11 evidence, including evidence at all four crash sites; thus their confiscations at the Pentagon were typical, not unusual. However, since the two videos that were released do appear to contain useful information about what hit the Pentagon, we should not automatically assume the FBI is being dishonest here.

Why very few cameras captured the impact event

There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event.

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).

History

The well-known “5-frames” from a Pentagon surveillance camera were first released in March of 2002. The only frame that appears to include the plane has a post obstructing the camera’s view of almost everything but the tail fin.

In December 2004, Judicial Watch, a public interest group, filed a FOIA request on behalf of Scott Bingham. The request was for surveillance camera footage that might show the plane approaching and/or hitting the Pentagon.

The FBI identified 85 surveillance cameras that were located in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have revealed the plane. After the Zacarias Moussaoui trial ended in 2006, the Department of Defense released 4 of those videos2, including a 200 frame extended version of the 5-frame sequence first released in 2002.

Completely new to the public in 2006 were the 183 frames that were released from a second identical surveillance camera located adjacent to the first camera within the same security checkpoint. One of these new frames provided an unobstructed view of the plane, but at such low contrast and resolution it was not initially noticed or reported as such. Instead, what appears to be the same white smoke seen in the crucial frame from the first camera (released in 2002) is also seen at the edge of the second camera’s crucial frame. The shape of the white smoke was mistakenly identified in news media as the plane’s nose.3

What the two Pentagon camera recordings reveal

Both of the two Pentagon surveillance cameras were in a security check point located about 833 feet north of the impact point. Both cameras show what appears to be white smoke trailing the approach of a rapidly moving object. The frames that followed the impact of that object show a massive orange fireball, quickly followed by a rising column of black smoke, and then debris fragments raining down and landing near the two cameras six to nine seconds after the impact.4

The second Pentagon camera had an unobstructed view, and has one frame which appears to show a plane near the right edge of the frame, and appears to have the same white smoke trail that is seen in the 5-frame sequence. In a way similar to the identical first (5-frames) camera, the recordings from this second camera yielded a low resolution image of distant objects due in part to their wide-angle lenses, so the images do not make clear what is revealed by the second camera’s frames either. But what does appear in the crucial frame from the second camera resembles a somewhat out-of-focus airliner, including the tail fin and trailing smoke as seen in the adjacent “5-frame” camera.