Video of Missile Hitting the Pentagon?

If it were a cruise missile, where's AA Flight 77?

the 10 year anniversary of the biggest false-flag operation in all history.

One thing is for sure, no 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.

what we should have seen, but didn't because it didn't happen. (Not this is CGI, not real, of what we should have seen if it went down like they said it did.)re

The laughter, but how DO you account for a 16 foot hole and a 160 foot aitliner with two massive solid turbine engine outriggers on the strongest member of the airliner?

Hawkeye is here all the time, wasn't he the guy with the important job?

Just googled "Pentagon plane witnesses" and have spent the last few minutes listening to the televised eyewitness accounts of several people who actually saw the aeroplane approach and then hit the Pentagon. They are being interviewed outside the burning building. That took me about five minutes in total. ]

Just the fact that they showed some hundreds of videos on the web of planes or whatever hitting the trade center and NEVER releasing the videos from the cameras at and around the pentagon except some frames with missing frames from one camera shows deception.

Ive had the undesirable opportunity to be at about fifteen different airplane wrecks in the past. We went to a site where an f-111 went down on a rocky NV ridge once. The MAIN impact area was only about three feet wide by six feet long, accompanied by a debris field of scattered tiny pieces that went for about two hundred yards. The were NO wing strike markings or anything of that nature- the only thing for sure about high speed jet impacts is that there is nothing for sure.

I heard that it was a drug-laden Lockheed Lodestar that was radio controlled by rogue elements of YOSAR. The purpose was to divert attention away from the Wings of Steel controversy. Werner, can you confirm or deny that there was a secret meeting in one of the YOSAR tent cabins at Camp 4 on the evening on September 10, 2001 where the attack was planned?

If it were a cruise missle, where's AA Flight 77?

Simply, there is no evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon:

Simply, there is no evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon:

And the remnants of the plane, complete with seral numbers on the parts.

Did you even bother to look at the links provided just above?
    Jaytee

But many many witnesses actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

They haven't shown any of the videos yet.

Just one with a few frames with missing frames. Big ass red flag.

Even after congressional committees requesting them.

graniteclimber, the still frames that were released were dated Sept 12, 2001. For some reason, I find that odd.

Take a look at the link I posted, it shows the number of security cameras around the side of the Pentagon where the explosion occurred. Also, video was confiscated shortly after the event, even as folks were watching it.

Why is the "official" video released of the Pentagon crash dated 9-12-2001

Are you gonna fly it thru that wall in that flight pattern?

Hypothesis, theory and then experiment, science!

Instead no experiment, and then speak all nonsense .....

Because of the absence of public evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and assertions that damage to the building and crash debris were inconsistent with the crash of such a large aircraft, speculation has flourished about what really hit the Pentagon on September 11th. Most such speculation ignores, discounts, or misrepresents the abundant eyewitness evidence that a jetliner flew into the building and exploded.

I wanna know how this big ass plane could do what it did.

When does the experiment start?

The bodies of the poor unfortunates on that flight were spread over the building and identified painstakingly by DNA forensics. Google some information on that.

Why no impact zone where the tail should have hit?

He couldn't even fly a Cessna properly.

Why no impact zone where the tail should have hit?

No experiment, then

You're blowing smoke .....

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you.

That is correct we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.

However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.

Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you. This is an "outgoing only" email address. If you 'reply' to this message by simply selecting the reply button, we will not receive your additional comments. Please assist us in providing you with a timely response to any feedback you have for us by always sending us your email messages via AA.com at http://www.aa.com/customerrelations.

Sincerely,
Chad Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines

They have the videos of whatever hit the pentagon but they won't release them even after congressional committees request them.

United States v. Ted Olson

In the course of doing research for this article, we learned, to our amazement, that even if, contrary to our evidence, Flight 77 did have functioning onboard phones, the US government has now said, implicitly, that Ted Olson’s claim about receiving two calls from his wife that morning is untrue.

As we mentioned earlier, the FBI report on phone calls from AA planes on 9/11 does not cite records from the DOJ showing that any calls from AA 77 were received that morning. Instead, the FBI report refers merely to four “connected calls to unknown numbers.” The 9/11 Commission, putting the best possible spin on this report, commented: “The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office.”27 That is, it must be said, a very strange conclusion: If Ted Olson reported receiving only two calls, why would the Commission conclude that the DOJ had received four connected calls from his wife?

That conclusion is, in any case, starkly contradicted by evidence about phone calls from Flight 77 presented by the US government at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006.28 Far from attributing all four of the “connected calls to unknown numbers” to Barbara Olson, as the 9/11 Commission suggested, the government’s evidence here attributes none of them to her, saying instead that each of them was from an “unknown caller.” The only call attributed to Barbara Olson, moreover, is an “unconnected call” to the Department of Justice, which was said to have been attempted at “9:18:58” and to have lasted “0 seconds.” According to the US government in 2006, in other words, Barbara Olson attempted a call to the DOJ, but it did not go through.29 The government itself has presented evidence in a court of law, therefore, that implies that unless its former solicitor general was the victim of two faked phone calls, he was lying.

It may seem beyond belief that the US government would have failed to support Ted Olson’s claim. We ourselves, as we indicated, were amazed at this development. However, it would not be the first time that the FBI---surely the agency that prepared this report about phone calls from the flights30---had failed to support the official story about 9/11. We refer to the fact that when Rex Tomb, the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, was asked why the bureau’s website on “Usama bin Laden” does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted, he replied: “[T]he FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”31

In any case, an interesting question about the government’s claim concerning the four “connected calls” from AA 77 is whether they were supposedly made from cell phones or passenger-seat phones. The government’s Moussaoui-trial evidence does not explicitly say. We can, however, make an inference based on its evidence for phone calls made from United Flight 93.

Although it had been generally believed that there had been approximately ten cell phone calls from UA 93---including the four widely publicized calls reported by Deena Burnett from her husband, Tom Burnett---the government’s document on this flight identifies only two calls as cell phone calls: those made at 9:58 by passenger Edward Felt and flight attendant CeeCee Lyles. One might conclude from this information, to be sure, that the government simply remained neutral on some of the other calls that had been thought to be cell phone calls, such as the Burnett calls, leaving open whether they were from cell or onboard phones. But that is not the case. A reporter at the Moussaoui trial wrote:




In the back of the plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls to family members and airline dispatchers, a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified Tuesday.32




The government explicitly said, therefore, that only two of the calls from UA 93---which were identified in the government’s report on this flight as being from Felt and Lyles33---were cell phone calls.

We can infer, therefore, that because these calls from Felt and Lyles are the only two calls from all the flights that are identified as cell phone calls, all the calls from the other flights are now said by the government to have been made from onboard phones.34

The distinctive thing about the calls from Felt and Lyles is that they reportedly occurred at 9:58, after United 93 had descended to about 5,000 feet. By limiting the cell phone calls from all four flights to these two from UA 93, the government is no longer, even implicitly, supporting the view that high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners are possible. The government has thereby implicitly overcome, by conceding the point, one of the 9/11 movement’s main arguments against the government’s conspiracy theory.

This is a rather amazing development. Much of the official story about 9/11 has been based on the assumption that high-altitude cell phone calls were made. The film United 93, for example, portrayed five cell phone conversations. The 9/11 Commission Report, discussing UA 93, said: “Shortly [after 9:32], the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.”35

Four cell phone calls from UA 93 were, as mentioned earlier, supposed to have been made by Tom Burnett.36 His wife, Deena Burnett, repeatedly said Tom used his cell phone. She knew this, she said, because the Caller ID identified his cell phone as the source.37 Her testimony has been repeated countless times in the media. For example, a special segment about her on CBS’s Early Show said: “Tom Burnett made four cell phone calls from Flight 93 to Deena Burnett at home, telling her he and some other passengers were going to ‘do something.’” In a letter published in the National Review, Tom’s father spoke of “Tom's four cell-phone calls from Flight 93 to his wife, Deena.”38

The government’s evidence presented in 2006 at the Moussaoui trial, however, implies that she was mistaken, even though, given her statement that she saw her husband’s Caller ID number, the government’s new position means that she was either lying or, as we believe, the victim of a faked call using a device that, besides morphing her husband’s voice, faked his Caller ID number.39

However, although the government has undercut much of the basis for the official and popular accounts of 9/11 by denying the occurrence of any high-altitude cell phone calls, it has, by paying this price, protected itself from the 9/11 truth movement’s charge that the official story is falsified by the fact that such calls are impossible.

We come now, in any case, to the implication of the government’s Moussaoui-trial evidence about phone calls for the government’s position on whether AA 77 had onboard phones. According to this evidence, there were five connected calls from AA 77: one from Renee May and four from “unknown callers.” Given what we have learned from the government’s evidence about calls from UA 93---that all calls not identified as cell phone calls are said to have been made from onboard phones---we can conclude that, by virtue of not identifying any of the five “connected calls” from this flight as cell phone calls, the government is implying that this plane did have onboard phones. It does not, therefore, support our view on this issue.

Nevertheless, whether one accepts our evidence, which indicates that there were not any onboard phones on AA 77 from which calls could have been made, or trusts the government’s evidence presented at the Moussaoui trial, the conclusion is the same: The two conversations reported by Ted Olson did not happen.

Some of you people are just crazy....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods


6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.[15]


7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.


9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down, a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.[17]

Simply put, the plane did not fly where it absolutely had to be to match the government reports and cause the directional damage inside and outside of the building. The eyewitnesses’ accounts prove that it could not have, and indeed did not, strike the Pentagon. It was seen flying away by multiple witnesses immediately after the explosion.

I was across the Potomac from the Pentagon on 9/11. I'd just come out of a building, where I'd watched the attacks on the WTC on TV. I was looking in the direction of the Pentagon. The Pentagon itself was blocked by buildings in the foreground. A jet that looked the size and shape of a 757 came in at extremely high speed from the N/NE (roughly - following the Potomac), streaking downward.

It went out of sight for a second, blocked by the foreground, and then the sound and flames of the explosion leapt up from behind the buildings in the foreground. It was clear it had hit the Pentagon. It was an awful sight, knowing a plane full of people had just been deliberately steered into a building full of people.

There is no way it was a cruise missile.

Not to mention the "STANDARD" security policies of the PENTAGON...

Anybody got an explanation as to why they would use a cruise missile instead of just using the plane that they had to make disappear anyway?

Why not just crash the plane into the pentagon like they did with the WTC towers?

Not only has the government refused to release footage that would clearly show how the Pentagon was attacked, it has also seized footage not belonging to the military. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Those recordings, if they still exist, might provide decisive evidence about the attack.

The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1
The FBI visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack. 2


At least two plaintiffs have attempted to obtain videos seized by the FBI, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The first, documented at Flight77.info, began with a request to the FBI in October of 2004. The second, undertaken by the Judicial Watch, Inc. began with a request to the Department of Defense (DOD) in December of 2004. Following is a timeline of the requests and subsequent lawsuits. Entries relating to the second case are distinguished with dates colored gray.

October 14, 2004: Scott A. Hodes, on behalf of his client Scott Bingham, sends a request to David Hardy of the FBI requesting any videos "that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". The request letter mentions videotapes from the Citgo Gas Station and the Sheraton National Hotel.

...

Why couldn't a fighter jet travel 250 miles in over an hour to intercept the fourth, obviously errant flight, as had been supposedly ordered by Cheney?

Even had a conversation with a lady whose brother was an AA pilot and she told me it is generally well known in Airline circles that the plane was shot down.

This is from United Air Lines Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret.) who actually flew these planes during his career.

Well, we don't use statute miles! We use KNOTS! So, this translates to about 460 Knots, which is exactly 110 knots ABOVE Vmo of 350 Kts at about 1000' above MSL (sea level)!

To truly critically think this issue you have to look at it from the other side- if what you are saying is true then flight schools, airport video, 1000s of witnesses, hijacker families, long historical trails, not to mention the complicity of every single person in government since then( Obama) and 10, 000's of other silent people.

Nobody is more closed-minded than people like him, that have a fixed belief and refuse to look at evidence that contradicts their prejudices.

We were talking the other day about how your mind becomes wired to react in certain ways to specific stimuli. For example, when somebody walks into a room that you love or hate, your mind goes down a pre-configured path that dictates how you feel. This is not pseudo science, this is a real physiological thing that happens. People must take an active roll in breaking the patterns that their minds have set up for them.