He'd have to be videotaped at a frame rate greater than 30 frames per second to capture the movements of his hands.

Here you go swampgirl and cobalt... I am in NO WAY a proponent of the conspiracy theories surrounding the attack on the Pentagon, but from what I've gathered here are some of the main points leading people to believe there is a cover-up afoot;

- the "secrecy" surrounding videos of the crash; FBI agents secured a number of video tapes from nearby businesses that could have captured the event, and upon litigation for their release under the freedom of information act only the two 1-frame-per-second videos taken from the entrance gate were handed over. This has been explained as the request not being specific enough, and could be the FBI being overly cautious to release to the press footage they don't hold copyright to (they got in trouble for the JFK footage). As with anything held classified, people's imaginations tend to wander, and beliefs that they're hiding a terrible truth begin to form.

- the plane was not intercepted, and there was what appears to be a complete breakdown in what the FAA and the Airforce were supposed to do in this situation.

- the side of the Pentagon that was attacked was "under construction" and not fully staffed; also it was opposite the side occupied by the higher-ups, like Rumsfeld.

- the plane skips over the White House in favor of the larger Pentagon, and is then noted (I have not read the official accounts) to have quickly dove thousands of feet while banking a large turn in order to hit the Pentagon, and this maneuver would be difficult if not impossible in that aircraft, certainly for a pilot of little experience (again, this is what they say, and I don't know what the officially tracked flight path was).

- this huge plane was piloted extraodinarily well by the hijackers (as morbid and terrible as that is to say), and hit the building at practically ground level, after diving very low and clipping a number of highway lights, while flying 350mph, leveling off, and not hitting the ground.

- there is a line of dead grass in the lawn of the Pentagon before the attack that is only a few degrees off of tracking the direction in which the airplane struck (I thought this was an interesting coincidence, and is clearly visible in a video I submitted before, but has very reasonable explanations; http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=2812 )

- the appearance of the crash site: looking at pictures of the event, you don't see much of an airplane, nor any damage to the ground, nor much of a hole in the building (atleast at first, before fire crews begin tearing away damaged sections). This lead to accusations of a missile attack or a smaller airplane piloted remotely and precisely. This is the claim that this video is addressing; that the appearance of the site actually matches what could be expected in a computer model.

So there you go. Pretty lame, I know, but those are the big ones. If anybody knows ones I missed, I guess you could share them if you feel like it.

there were two gate cameras aimed in this same direction; the earlier released frames are from the other gate camera, which we can now view the full footage from and catch a larger, more tantalizing blur than this 'nose cone'. the frame rate is terrible, like 1 or 2 frames per second. No way is this 30f rames per second, deathcow, look at the smoke.

These new videos are a big let down for me. If it was a plane, and they have 30 fps footage of it, that has to be soo crazy looking. They're the Pentagon, they have to have better surviellance footage.

The plane was travelling about 513 feet per second. If the video source was about 30 frames per second, the plane would have moved 17.1 feet per frame of video. I think it should show better than it does.