-62 votes

AA 757 Hits Pentagon-Video

This copy was released in 2009 following FOIA requests for the original re-recordings used by the 9/11 Commission. It is higher resolution, clearer, and better quality, hence why you can see the airliner.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This footage celarly proves it is fake

And if this is all they can produce for the $billions spent on Pentagon video cameras, etc., we want our money back. Any more amount spent on 'defense' stuff is complete waste.


why are all the other several videos taken from businesses and street cameras still classified?

fireant's picture

I think that is one of those "factoids" repeated over and over,

but turns out to not be true.
First, there is the Maguire Declaration. All but two of the tapes were not oriented in a direction to capture the event, per the FBI report.
Second, I've read the tapes are available at 911datasets.org. I haven't verified yet, but will advise when I do.
As an added thought, if you were running the Pentagon, would you want to release data which would compromise your security information? I can't really blame the Pentagon for not wanting to.
Bottom line, this may be the best we have, and it does show an object close in shape and color to an AA 757, as well as it shows a smoke trail from the lamp pole damaged engine forming a vortex consistent with a low traveling airfoil. Combined with the plethora of other evidence and thousands of people involved who would otherwise have to commit a felony, there is no doubt AA77 hit the Pentagon. None.

Undo what Wilson did

where are traces of the plane?

The plane mystically folded up it"s wings micro seconds before impact into the fuselage. the tail section should have been sheared off and lying on the ground. No parts were found. But instead they want us to believe the Pentagon just turned into a black hole and sucked an airplane into another dimension!

What the hell was everyone smoking that day, and I believed this bull crap!

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

fireant's picture

Thousands of parts were found.

Based on the impact damage above the main entry hole, the tail section did impact there, and likely was already breaking from the fuselage. There are big holes where the engines went in. The wings were tilted to port, with clear wing damage undercutting on the left and right sides, and further damage higher on the right, indicating the starboard wing was breaking apart after impacting the generator. Bodies were found still strapped in their seats. All recovered bodies and body parts were recorded as to location. Personal affects were found, Bodies were DNA identified (all but one infant). This is all accounted for and documented by hundreds of workers and witnesses. All damage to the Pentagon is consistent with a fast moving large aircraft with a lot of fuel in it's wings.
The evidence goes on and on. I don't know what you need to show it was AA77 which hit the Pentagon. The only way you can deny it is to say all the evidence is cooked up. Now you are getting into the thousands of personnel who committed felonies. Report after report, radar tracks, ATC recordings, NORAD recordings, other communications, were all counterfeited. Ain't gonna happen. Thousands of agency personnel are capable of many things politically, but they are not going to risk their careers and commit a federal felony.

Undo what Wilson did

The difference between evidence and proof...

...conspiracy theorists provide evidence, some poignant, some easily debunkable. Some debunkers provide evidence, some poignant, some undebunkable(ok I'm really making up words now.) There are plenty on both sides of the issue that find what evidence they have as irrefutable. This video, to an asshole skeptic such as myself, leaves questions. I'd be more than happy to hear the answers. I'm not committed to either side, just gathering information.
Some very layman questions.1)only one frame showing the plane? 2)Based on the blurred single frame image,I've never seen an aircraft attempt a land so parallel to the surface of the ground; based on updraft I would think the nose would have to be pointing up at say, a thirty degree angle, to maintain control of the aircraft, and keep it from falling out of the sky 3) the near full profile of the blur is identical to your example image of the plane. Not angled away or toward the viewer. Coincidence? Probably. Maybe? Hmmm. 5) would it be relatively easy to superimpose an image into a frame of film? A blurry image at that? 6)if it is indeed from a 'fish eye' camera wouldn't the blur be less linear and form more of a distorted arc considering it's in the outside periphery of the lens?

How many pilots have to say "That is impossible?"

A lesson in language:
A LAW can NOT be broken. Codes and regulations can, but Natural Laws may be temporarily defied, but not broken. Can you disobey gravity? Physics? Aerodynamics?
I am not an expert, but when experts tell me "That is impossible" I try to understand. There are many pilots who have given detailed explanations of why the Pentagon could NOT have been a plane as large as the one that supposedly hit the Pentagon.
What happened? How the hell am I supposed to know? All I know is the "official story" does not hold water. I have seen MANY shots of airplane crashes and NEVER have I seen the plane disintegrate. Well, except on 9-11, when steal frame building ceased to be able to withstand fire, too.
A correction: Natural Laws cannot be broken, except on 9-11 by "terrorists."

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

fireant's picture

At the speed and altitude it was traveling, the wings would have

to decrease angle of attack (nose level or down) in order to avoid ground affect. If it were landing speed, yes, it would have to be nose up in order to maintain lift.

If this were a superimposed image, wouldn't the internet sleuths have discovered it by now?

Undo what Wilson did

You are a complete idiot fireant

When the frame is blown up for a closer look it is not even focused on the object that barely comes into the frame at the far right. That object from that frame on the far right never got anywhere near wear the idiot is outlining a jet out that is not there in the middle of nowhere matter of fact it never moved from it's original position ON THE FAR RIGHT.

"hence why you can see the airliner."

You are pretty weak pushing this ultra-lame vid that shows NOTHING.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

fireant's picture

PollMan, why would you expect a camera designed to snap liscense

plates, and operates on a one second per frame basis, be able to focus on a 460 knot airplane?
And you are incorrect. You don't even have to blow it up. I've watched over and over. Here is how to see it.
First, go to 0:55 and stop. Study the tree line on the horizon to the right. Focus on the area of trees just left of the white building on the far right. Memorize the trees, color, pattern, etc. Advance to 0:57 and stop. Do it over several times. It is clear an object eerily similar in shape and color to an AA 757 occupies the space previously taken by the trees. For the sake of seeing the plane, pay no attention to the white smoke that comes into the picture. You are looking left of there.
There is no doubt; not unless someone can show forensically this video is a fraud.
Open thy eyes.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

Why do you have to make it personal?

I'm going to start addressing this. Calling someone an idiot, or any of the other names I have been subjected to on DP, is absolutely unbecoming of the gentleman, Dr. Ron Paul. How do you ever expect us to spread a message of honor with such behavior. Make your point, but leave the personal attacks for elsewhere.

Undo what Wilson did

A comment like this

regardless of the person speaking it, should not be downvoted on this site.

Not one person here knows what really happened on 9/11, and their opinions are formed solely by the "research" done on other people's research. We may never know all of the facts of that day, but life must go on. Don't forget about 9/11; keep searching for the truth, but focus on getting elected or getting the right people elected in local government. That goes for you too, fireant. All you ever post here is "the official story is accurate" stuff.

With liberty and justice for all...who can afford it.


Nothing personal just stating a fact.You sir are either delusional or working for some govt agency or just some sick person pulling everyones chain here for promoting this and trying to convince people that there is a jetliner in the frame filmed by a camera that "operates on a one second per frame basis" and distorts images.

The nose of the missile likely a Global Hawk never moved from it's original reference point at the far right of the frame.

And remember jets do not leave white vapor trails at 10' altitude as seen in the entire 4 frame clip so you are not getting anywhere with this.

You are trying and failing I might add to get people to imagine they see something nothing that is not there.

Keep trying and we will keep debunking your nonsense as usual.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

fireant's picture

Nothing enters the picture in the first frame. Impossible.

The plane is traveling over 700 feet per second, and the camera is 1 second intervals. Even if a missile, as you claim, it would not have entered the picture in the first frame.
There is nothing on the far right to see. It is only background, and does not change when the plane enters the picture, to the LEFT of the white contrail (smoke), which is likely engine damage from hitting the light poles.

Undo what Wilson did

this is personal!

PollMan- Thanks for taking the time to answer this imbecile. I simply cannot muster the effort to smack down idiocy but am grateful you do. Its a pleasure having someone take the time to point out the obvious to Capt. Moron here.

You are welcome eric2223 the sad thing is that he will prattle

on forever about the phantom jet he claims is there.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

in anycase if you dont belive the physical evidence...

in anycase if you don't believe the physical evidence... look at the money.

Donald Rumsfeld announced a 2.3 trillion budget anomaly THE DAY BEFORE... and where was this investigation happening? the same area where the "airplane" hit. An airplane without 4 ton turbine holes and "wings" that didn't even brake windows within the predicted flight path.

and that is just touching the surface of a billion questions not answered but the 'conflict of interest' 9/11 commission.

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

fireant's picture

All of those questions are answered.

And what physical evidence? I'm the only who has presented any.
Windows most certainly were broken due to wing and stabilizer impact. It's clear where the engines impacted as well. All you have to do is look. Damage analysis is all right here: http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html
More here: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

Donald Rumsfeld thinks, "Gee, we have 2.3 Trilion gone, we're,

going to eliminate the office hot on our trail tomorrow, hmmm, what do I do? Wait! It just hit me! Announce to the world 2.3 Trillion is missing!!!

Undo what Wilson did

CNN report - no plane hit Pentagon

Here is a CNN report clearly stating that there was NO PLANE hitting Pentagon:


Nobody ever saw ANY Plane (not just the 757) hitting Pentagon.

I only have 1 thing to say

I only have 1 thing to say about this. The Law of Physics says a jetliners this size cannot travel at the speed required to punch a hole as deep as the pictures of the Pentagon. In short, the atmosphere at 20-200 feet above the ground will not allow a B 757 to travel at that speed. This video is completely bogus.

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

fireant's picture

You may want to read this report.

It is completely within the "Law of Physics" for AA77 to have flown the pattern it did. Here's just a sampling:
"Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes."

If that isn't enough, look up Phillip Marshall. He and others have flown that pattern many times now with ease.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

In order for that to be true...

Stop and think.

Thousands of personnel from these agencies would all have to have knowingly committed felonies:
Occupants of the building.
Firefighting units.
EMT first responders.
Lab technicians.
Federal court (Moussari trial).
NTSB technicians.
FAA radar technicians.
Flight Control operators.
Recovery and transport crews.
Each of those people would have to have put their felony in writing, subjecting themselves to potential Federal imprisonment.

All radar transcripts, flight recording data, radio and telephone transmissions, their supporting written reports, would have to have been counter-fitted.

All the photos we have would have to be fake.

Thousands of airplane parts, some with AA identification numbers, charred bodies, and personal belongings of passengers would have to have been slipped into the Pentagon unnoticed.

Hundreds of airplane parts on the lawn would have to have been placed there immediately upon impact.

Someone would have to have broken the light poles and quick strew them around the highway while no one was looking.

This can go on and on and on. How far does it have to go before you see how utterly silly it is?

Undo what Wilson did

Pentagon employee says plane did not crash into building

I'll take April Gallop's word on this since the explosion came really close to killing her.

Pentagon Employee Says Plane Did Not Crash Into Building

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

fireant's picture

Has anyone bothered to pinpoint on a map where her office was

located and what route she took out of the building? All I can find is E Ring 1st floor, but no specific location. Surely she couldn't be talking about this hole: http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage_files/h...
She would have been burned up. Is it just possible she came out in an area there were no plane parts or bodies?

Is this the same April Gallop who settled with American Airlines for damages? How credible is a witness who would settle yet claim there was no airplane?

Undo what Wilson did

Smelling desperation



It seems that it is the smell of crushed fireant.

How did they explain that little hole in the wall?

Everyone's cameras making object appear smaller?

hell where are the hits and

hell where are the hits and damage to the wall from the wings?


We "know" how tough those wings are!

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?