-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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00&feature=plcp




Comment viewing options

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

Well documented here:

As Humanac has so aptly pointed out...

The "evidence" is very clear...the evidence of eye-witnesses who were NOT, in any way attached to media or governmental organizations (Federal) have placed the planes approach on an impossible flight-path if we are to believe what we were told originally. The damning testimony of April Flowers in the blast zone, the Arlington Cemetery Workers, The cops at the gas station, those attending the funeral all attached to the comments of the cab driver and most importantly, the telephone interview of the Southside Loading Dock Guard (who would never speak again) throw such a monkey wrench into this thing...

For those of you who have never listened to all of these interviews yet have "an opinion" ...shame on you... When that loading dock guard explains how his kiosk was literally less than 10 paces from the loading dock door and that, upon hearing and feeling the explosion, he drew his weapon and ran for the door only to see a large plane banking out of the South Side parking lot...well...

Then there is the Russian and Victor Blount connection to stolen russian cruise missiles that further muddy the waters. At this point, the stench is amazing

The Pentaconned was an act of love and should be viewed in its entirety.

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

fireant's picture

See my reply to humanic below.

The path described in that doc does not correspond with forensic evidence. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2

Undo what Wilson did

LOL!!!!

Forensic huh? You bet it doesn't.

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

bump

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFewUG3rSY

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

fireant's picture

Whoever made that should go back and get the angle of attack

right. Lol, he has it hitting the wall at a 90 degree angle.

Undo what Wilson did

You can see whatever you want in this footage.

I could make the same video with one of these:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cruise+missile&hl=en&client=...

The "white nose" and "engine" are light reflections, blue and red stripes are PAINT and can go on anything.
Most of all, this whole thing is open to interpretation, while the crimes of 9-12 are beyond dispute. How about we focus on the FELONIOUS destruction of the crime scene?

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

fireant's picture

Nice pics!

The only problem is it would have to be a cruise missile with 100 foot wing span and carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel. I don't think they have any like that.

Undo what Wilson did

Yeah. And about that crime scene destruction?

?

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

fireant's picture

What crime scene destruction?

We have more forensic evidence of the Pentagon than would be needed to prove AA77 crashed there.

Undo what Wilson did

Let an expert explain it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=338_1306431156&comments=1

It matters not what evidence they left intact, destroying ANY evidence is a crime, and they destroyed big piles of it.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Nonsense....

There was images of plane debris fromm the crash site. Same with the plane that went down in Penn. There are OBVIOUS plane debris if you actually look up images of plane debris from those crash sites....

.... HOWEVER, I will be posting a thread when I have some time explaining that I am a long time NON believer in 911 conspiracies of 911 being an inside job. I have watched almost every 911 conspiracy documentaries out there, except the most recent one posted in this forum for the first time had me start to think that maybe 911 was an inside job. I would need someone who knew as much as this person who made the most recent documentary that links Bush sr and bad financial dealings to the events of 911 and try to debunk it to TRULY believe one way or the other, but given the information he had was at least 60% correct, I, for the first time am beginning believe more than not, that 911 was an inside job. More on this later

Ron Paul 2012

fireant's picture

May I recommend a book?

I've got an extra copy I'll mail to you if you wish, no charge. They are only $10 something on Amz.
The author makes some very interesting connections along those lines, and shows where the Bush Adm. blocked vital data from the investigative commissions. "The Big Bamboozle" by Phillip Marshall.
I agree there may be inside implications. If there are, financing and planning is the route to finding out for sure.

Undo what Wilson did

The explanation of the construction of the Pentagon:

Using the construction of the Pentagon in a previous post, we're to believe that, an aluminum cylinder can crash through the exterior wall, damage how many rings in that part of the Pentagon, and the engines, which are constructed of Titanium don't even make a pimple on the face of the outside wall?

C_T_CZ's picture

The Pentagon is hardly a normal building....

My opinion: The 757 did hit the pentagon. Why the "lack" of damage that an airliner would normally cause hitting a building? Why such a small hole? Why no damage from where the wings struck?

Because the pentagon is hardly a normal building. This is an incredibly strong building, made of incredibly strong concrete (likely with ultra hardened composite materials specifically designed by our military), with enough strength to withstand nuclear blasts and still function. You can hardly look at any damage an airliner impact caused, and draw any comparisons to damage expected from an airliner impact against any other building.

This is not a normal building that the airliner hit, and that is reflected in the damage we witness.

Again, my opinion.

rEVOLutionary Ads: It's Better Than Sitting On Your Rump Doing Nothing™

An opinion is usually formed after analyzing facts

You have created an idea of what you think something might be and call it an opinion. Be careful with that, reality often doesn't match our imaginations.
Find out from a credible source if your idea holds any water, then form and opinion. Until then all you have is a guess.

The video is a proven fraud. The plane did not hit.

There was a plane on the scene, as attested to by scores of witnesses. No one saw a missile. However, according to all witnesses in the best positions to judge, the plane flew nowhere near where it HAD TO BE in the finals seconds before it reached the buliding in order to hit the downed light poles and cause the directional damage to the building itself. Meanwhile, it would have had to fly OVER many other poles and obstacles an instant before reaching the building, supposedly virtually at ground level. It did not hit the building, continued on after the explosion, and was seen flying away by multiple eyewitnesses. This is why the damage has always seemed inconsistent with a 757 impact.

Watch the documentary National Security Alert here to see the evidence proving this: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com

As explained, the evidence was gathered during an "exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day."

Check out the Evidence and FAQ sections after you watch the documentary for more details and evidence. For example...

Frequently Asked Questions >> "Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?"
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-security_video.html

fireant's picture

I'd be happy to entertain the notion of it being a fraud,

but only based on forensic evaluation of the video itself. I am aware of none. Surely after 3 or 4 years now someone would have discovered misplaced pixels?
You can't say it's a fraud based on only some of the witnesses. There are plenty of other witnesses who saw the plane strike the building, and their vantage point confirms the flight path.
But putting the witnesses aside, the flight path of the plane is confirmed by the damage to the building, the fence, the generator, and the spools, as well as the damage to the building, not even counting the light poles. In the face of that kind of evidence, it is impossible to rely on the report you cited in order to draw conclusions.

Undo what Wilson did

Sorry but you are not correct..

You claim that, "There are plenty of other witnesses who saw the plane strike the building, and their vantage point confirms the flight path."

Please name and quote the "plenty" of the witnesses who could see the gas station and say they watched the plane fly by the south side, where it absolutely had to be.

CIT responding to a similar statement:

If we were "cherry-picking" witnesses then the witnesses who "erroneously" place the plane on the north side would be greatly outnumbered by the witnesses who "correctly" place it on the south side. It would therefore be much easier to find south side witnesses than north side witnesses. And yet, in nearly four years since the release of The PentaCon and our four initial north side witnesses... none of our detractors, who have spent a combined total of countless thousands of hours arguing against the north side approach online, have been able to locate and interview a single one. Meanwhile, every person that we have interviewed since releasing The PentaCon who could see the Citgo gas station corroborated the initial north side reports... Why do you think this is?

Furthermore, all witnesses are not created equal regarding their ability to answer the question of which side of the gas station the plane was on. The majority of the witnesses could not see the Citgo as the plane flew past it. We have interviewed the witnesses who, out of the entire known witness pool, were in the absolute best locations to judge where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo, and they consistently said that it was on the north side.

This is not a fluke. The plane was on the north side. If you have not watched National Security Alert in full yet please do so before writing any more responses. The north side approach and impact are mutually exclusive. The plane was seen flying away by multiple witnesses.

The story told by the cab driver whose vehicle was allegedly speared by "Light Pole #1" is a blatant fabrication, and he even cryptically admitted his involvement when he didn't realize he was being recorded after being confronted with the evidence, as seen in National Security Alert. Likewise for his FBI employee wife. There are zero witnesses who saw the plane knocking over light poles, zero witnesses who saw the pole inside his cab, zero witnesses who saw him removing this long heavy pole (~30 ft/250 lbs), zero pictures of it, zero damage to his hood, and so on.

See also:

Frequently Asked Questions >> "What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?"

Frequently Asked Questions >> "Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe with explosives, or by the vortex of the plane or a missile or something?"

Frequently Asked Questions >> "How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?"

fireant's picture

I've seen that documentary.

It was several years ago, and I have to say in retrospect, it prevented me from looking objectively at the forensic evidence.
Since it conflicts with other eye witnesses, you have to go to the forensic evidence. All forensic evidence proves AA77 went into the Pentagon. Bodies were recovered and all DNA (except one infant) has been identified. It's overwhelming. The only way you can deny it is to claim thousands of people employed in different agencies have knowingly committed felonies, and the abundance of photos are all fake.
Given that forensic evidence, the only thing to conclude about your documentary is either it is incorrect, or there was some other plane in the area. There is no question AA77 struck the Pentagon on the path indicated by the broken light poles and it's trajectory through the building. Nothing more can be concluded, and that is a stretch since there is no radar track for this plane north of the Citgo.
Here is a site worthy of study. It has more data than you can digest in a week. Photos, eye witnesses, and more: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2

Undo what Wilson did

All DNA (except one infant) has been identified?

This is pretty interesting considering some of the highjackers were known to be alive after 9/11.

fireant's picture

There is no proof any are alive. Those stories were due to mis-

identification due to same name. Some of the hi-jackers' DNA was identified from matches of samples taken at their known residences, but not all.
Bottom line though, please show evidence any are alive. I've looked at it and can find nothing to confirm any of the stories.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

Conclusion---we have two choices.

From this video, there clearly is something which moved into the picture which resembles in shape and color an AA airliner. It's there in one frame, not there in the next. We can either believe what we see, or we can say the video is a fake. Are there any other choices? I can't think of any.
Since this video was released in 2009, there has been plenty of opportunity for video analysts to review and let us know if they think it a fake. I am not aware of any such reviews, and would welcome links accordingly. This leads me to believe an object similar in shape and color to a 757 travelling at a high rate of speed is indeed what this video shows.

Undo what Wilson did

Unless we realize

an airplane flying that low to the ground would have it's engines ripped off...do you see any evidence of that?

fireant's picture

Yes. The first contact with the ground is from the left engine.

It scraped a piece of curbing just in front of the building. Scroll down to photo "#4 The Daryl Donley photo (ca. 9:40am)". The author did not point this out, so I'll have to describe it. Look on the left side where he has arrows which state, "Center Impact hole". Now look down from there almost to the bottom. There is an angular strip of concrete curbing running between the spools. Note the gouge. That is where the left engine first hit the ground.
http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html

Undo what Wilson did

It's a missile

The plane flew OVER the building to the airport behind it.

fireant's picture

That would be fine if the damage were consistent with a missile,

(overlooking the fact the flight recorder track for 77 ended right at the Pentagon).
The damage just does not show a missile strike. It is consistent with a large air craft hitting it.

Undo what Wilson did

The alleged "FDR Data" is bogus

It has been analyzed by professional pilots, and they have determined that the data has the plane much too high to hit the building low and level as required by the physical damage. It would require an impossible 34G pull-up. See this video by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, or at least watch this clip if you don't have time right now to watch the full video.

Also, the bogus FDR data has the plane on a heading that is contradicted by the witnesses on the ground.

Also, it has the plane flying 460 knots, which is 110 Knots over a 757's max operating speed at/near sea level.

The data is not from the FDR of Flight 77. It's a fraud.

fireant's picture

Are you aware FDR operated on a continuous sequence of 4 second

data frames?
That being the case, the plane arriving at a variance of 100 or so feet in altitude or distance from the target is well within tolerance. A lot can happen in 4 seconds at 400+ mph.
The speed and maneuvers are not impossible. Airline Captain Phillip Marshall plugged all the data into a 757 simulator and flew each of the planes' paths. He has stated he was not able to execute the 77 loop the first few tries due to the airplane nosing up when accelerated. He said it took all his strength to hold the yolk down, but he was successful eventually, and can make the maneuver easily now.
If you haven't reviewed the NTSB reports on Flight 77 FDR yourself, you should.

Copies of NTSB Flight 77 reports:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf

Undo what Wilson did