The pentagon also lost some trillion dollars from that "plane" crash. And they didnt even bother trying to get it back. Plus no plane parts were found a all. It seems pretty obvious to someone who is a little more intelligent, that terrorist dont just decide to attack another country.
Of course ABC news did not use it. They are payed of buy those that need the public to hate the middle east to justify a war to take over the #2 largest oil producers in the world. At the same time they get to upgrade north com. The NDAA bill is later result. Then SOPA is cumming in some form or another to shut down people that think,research & talk to much. Then then they use the NDAA to have people like me whacked,silenced,put down.Be safe my friend !
Can you see that black plane to the left of the smoke possibly making a huge circle around the pentagon. If this really was shot a minute after then could it be the missle was shot from that plane or that plane saw what actually happened? I work in Crystal City right across from the pentagon. I drive in almost everyday and see planes land at Ronald Regan Airport. Never seen a black plane before. Even the united planes you can tell are navy blue.
kinda strange 1:53 seconds though, the pentagon is a 50 mile radius no fly zone, and you have something there flying above the pentagon during the worst attack in human history, how long was it smoking before you started filming?
Buffalo and the 1990's prior to the war It seems that some had a feeling that USA had not cared due to war would be "overseas" solely. So they came into the borders and onto domestic soil. They flew over Kane, PA and how many people had not contacted the one HUD employee w/same last name? All. I did take Economics 200 level as well as 600 level. I passed with A's I could NEVER believe IT !! And I'm tedious like...Kindergarten began the church (enemies of US hoped 4) discrim.1966
IT SEEMS that they had not helped hud employee back in 1990's due to the church having set up people to (1) get mad (2) go on their tv shows/studios crusades (3) complain (4) insinuate that they, themselves, are not as holy as elders/priests (5) they get a job doing some small things or big (6) they get paid ..sometimes/many times alot (7) then charges are granted & courtroom bcse they had like extortion data on them..and then expected payment & then accepted it. Some chrged immediately/jail
The television stations played images of a plane hitting the wtc for years. Why weren't they given the footage of the pentagon as well, regardless of what hit it. I don't believe the USA defence force is that incompatent they could not have prevented at least 1 out of the 4 attacks that day.
Actually a Plane is still there at 1:50 look to your right in the middle ontop of the smoke. It looks like its flying away. Maybe its true about the missle story.
@swrdpt_proLlc Thank you to all of our servicemen and women in the police departments, fire and rescue squads, and armed forces for your courage, bravery, loyalty, and sacrifice to God and country. Each and every one of you are truly a blessing from God and we are so appreciative of everything you and your families sacrifice for our freedom.
If anybody here truly care about people who died on 911, watch this film. It's great. You will never get this from watching FOX NEWS on TV. ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11 watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ
One more thing... support Truth Movement that 911 victims' families are involved in.
I find it disrespectful to the people who died or lost their family and friends in the attack that you'd suggest the government did it. Also, they are fucking photos of debris from a passenger airplane right next to the pentagon on fire, go look it up.
@porkchop112699 Uh yes there us, go on wikipedia and search for American Airlines Flight 77, you'll find photos showing debris scattered on the ground.
To the idiots who say it wasn't a plane: four hijacked 9/11 planes and all the people on them disappeared that day. Where did they go? You're stupid and/or crazy. You should shut off your computer and just sit quietly in a dark room.
@HelderTeixeira100 Yeah, guy in van totally oblivious to huge explosion and smoke cloud right behind him, acting goofy because he sees me pointing a video camera.
@x2501x You may have caught them on tape! He is holding up the devil horns - the sign of the illuminati. They are attempting to bring a one world govt, a one world system of laws, one world currency, ruled by one great ruler - lucifer. Many believe that 9-11 was meant to trigger this based on the Rosecrucian calender - Busg Senior made the new world order speach on 9-11-91. Don't you find it bizzare that someone would behave that way as the terrorist attacks were underway?
@whoandtheha Just wish I will live to the day the US goverment comes and tells everyone "sorry you've been had the whole time" this was a lie this was a lie and that was a lie also... I would feel much better when this happens
are you Anthony Tribby? you do realize that this is minutes late and is actually a c130 cargo plane? turn the timestamps on next time u capture evidence. And before i'm flamed , yes it was an inside job, but this isnt evidence, and presented as such, actually constitutes disinformation, which abounds.
The Pentagon was hit almost one hour AFTER the Twin Towers. One hour...and they still got past what's supposed to be the most sophisticated air defense system in the world ?
9/11 was done by criminal elements of the US and israeli governments, not muslims, to get the people to support wars for oil and opium in a desperate attempt to reverse the crumbing US economy, weak dollar, overpopulation and lack of oil. Its very blatant and the whole world knows it, its a shame that some people arent overly concerned about this. It will happen again, only worse, these criminals will think nothing of slaughtering their own citizens for personal and financial gain!!!
That's odd. The plane I saw and commented on two years ago is no longer in this video. The plane I saw was NOT the black object flying around in the smoke. It was a jet liner, white and was flying up and away from the Pentagon. I distinctly remember this because I watched the video over and over and over, frame by frame. The black object was there as well, but it was there in addition to the white airliner. ABC did run this video. Did they pay you well to join the coverup? So sad.
@Onlymanolos Why are people upvoting this moron? This is my video, the same one I posted originally, and there was never a white plane visible. Upvoting someone because they made something up??
@x2501x My original comment from three years ago is still here. At 2:15 I point out a mysterious white plane that could be seen in the far distance. It was white, the nose was pointed upward and it was climbing up and away from the Pentagon. Why are you angry and calling me a moron? It is your video and I was fascinated you caught something that the people of America needed to see that the media was not showing. Now, the plane isn't shown and you are hostile when confronted.
@Onlymanolos Because you imagined you saw something then does not mean that it was there. This is the same video that has been up here the entire time, how would I have replaced the video even if I had wanted to?
@x2501x I'm not going to argue the point. If I imagined it, then so did the dozens of other people I showed it to. Also, I showed it to my best friend who, coincidentally at the time, was the General Manager of an ABC station in Tampa FL. He saw it too. I'm not trying to discredit you, but it was there. I remember it clearly, when you zoomed in, the street lamp was also in the shot. I have been looking over the video again, frame by frame and it just isn't there anymore. It is what it is.
@x2501x This is the first time i watched this vid. What I can see from 1:48 is a dark color aircraft barely seen behind the smokes. Then emerge passed the smokes and flying away. The wings were angled suggesting that it has just made a turn. Could that be a the aircraft that dropped the bunker buster on Pentagon. The documentary "911 In Plane Sight" shows no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon.
@sirstar45 Thank you. I am trying to locate an old memory card I had in my camera at the time. We took screen shot photos of the plane seen in the video a couple of years ago.
if it were a commercial jet that hit the pentagon .. it wouldhave torn half through that building....and the fire would have been alot more fierce than shown ... i guess we are all idots ... i guess the one thing to do is believe what ever they tell us to .....
...And yet NOBODY claims to have reported witnessing a big ass passenger airplane, almost stop mid air (I'm SURE somebody would notice an erratic flying passenger jet at damn near stall speed), and then careen into the ground at a speed that is little more than double the speed at ground impact during normal landing? Which, I know you can't blink when watching those 757s land..their just a blur..
And that's at 500 feet or better altitude. Something else this tells me is that if the plane is coming in from a high bank, and hit's at 350 mph which is 200 whole mph SLOWER than average flight speed, then they are going to gain MASSIVE SPEED WHILE COMING IN AT THAT ANGLE...What? How is it possible to gain such velocity and yet be so far under cruise speed prior to plunge? To gain to 350 mph at impact the plane would have to damn near STALL before the plunge!
from a speed of 567 miles per hour from the time it begins it's descent to the moment of touchdown. Now, "they" say there was no way to see the plane because it was traveling at upwards of 350 mph. If that is the case I should in no way be able to see the transcontinental jumbo jets landing at Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport as their landing path is right above me and at speeds of 200+ mph about 2 miles from landing. I mean, even at that speed they look like they are stationary.
Notice clearly that the videographer states that a explosion just occurred at the top of the Pentagon...if he saw the initial explosion, why then, if it was a jumbo jet, did he not say "yes, I just saw a large airplane crash into the pentagon? From my understanding the aircraft that hit the pentagon came in from a high angle. SO, it would be from steep up, to steep down..how did he miss this? A 747 generally lands doing around 150..that's at touch down. So it's slowing while in the air...
@singingcowboy674 Why would they use a missle to hit the Pentagon and then try to make it look like a commercial jet hit it? Why not just fly a commercial jet into the Pentagon like they did the WTC?
@NowKillYourself Good question. Haven't got that part figured out yet but I do have my ideas. Assuming it took explosives planted within the towers to actually bring them down, a fully fueled cross country passenger jet wasn't enough, then, I suppose the Pentagon had to be built even sturdier than the towers. I mean it was built to withstand a direct attack and not fall. So, it's possible that a missile may have been the only thing available to do the kind of damage they wanted.
@NowKillYourself Secondly I'd think it might have something to do with readiness. I mean there are arsenels placed around the perimeter of the Pentagon for protective purposes such as in the case of an attack. Don't know if that's what they used, but saying that availability of ordinance may have come into play. Otherwise, there's an airport right across the interstate pretty much, why wouldn't they just steal a plane and fly it straight into it. Just a thought.
Collateral damage. The impact zone was contained to the newly reinforced zone of the Pentagon. A remote 747 would have caused tremendous destruction of necessities, and they knew it. That's the reason.
Plus, the maneuver claimed to have been pulled off by the plane was impossible.
@7Epitaph Except the reality is: a Boeing 757 slammed into the Pentagon. Two Boeing 767's hit the WTC and a 757 crashed in Shanksville Pennsylvania. Where did you get 747's from??
Does this not further reinforce my argument? Most people ignore the exact specifications of the plane and collectivize them all as '47s. Yes, I am well aware of the official story; but, why are you pointing this simplification out?
@7Epitaph I have NEVER heard anyone say ANYTHING about 747's on Sep 11th 2001.. How exactly does this reinforce your argument? What exactly do you think happened that day anyway? Government inside job? LOL!
Does not the fact that the planes were LARGER than 747's reinforce my argument? You clearly have little experience on this subject, like most, so generalizing the aircraft into what most people understand seems easier.
Of course, for someone who obviously has their head in the ground, you have done little to no research on the subject. This is apparent because you laugh at the idea of a corrupt system carrying out a false flag operation much like Rome and Germany.
@7Epitaph Please tell me you're not serious. The Boeing 747 is the LARGEST commercial jet in the world. The 767 and 757 are smaller. The 747 has 4 engines while the 767 and 757 have two. Please, do some fucking research before you start jumping to conclusions. Goddamn man.. And don't tell someone they have their head in the ground when you're the one who things a 757 and 767 is larger than a 747 LOL! Do you even realize how DUMB you made yourself look?
I'm terribly sorry for the mix-up; I am working out several different conversations. As for ignorance, I was referring to the idea of a corrupt government. Get off the meaningless details. It's well established. Focus on concepts as the purpose of the entire debate is.
Unless you wish to bring up another completely random subject to focus on.
I find it funny that the same people who tell us that jet fuel burned down the WTC's would have us believe that the supposed plane crash at the pentagon wouldn't have the same kind of problems. If a 747 crashed into the pentagon wouldn't it's jet fuel leak throughout and burn uncontrollably for hours on end heating to levels high enough to melt steel? The kind of heat it was proposed to create as well as the length of time it takes to fully burn away is inconsistent.
Note: You clearly misunderstood my intention of comparing the metal to a car. I never said anything about paint nor am I suggesting the scraps were from a car. I am merely illustrating the frail characteristic of the "plane shreds". No plane explodes into a million bite-sized shards. If you believe this, YouTube some plane crashes...
Oh no, no, no, you are sorely mistaken. Please reference this source as I have heard none of these claims besides the "engine".
"Most of the tail section" - What tail section? The entire plane "vaporized".
"1 of the 2 engines" - Are you referring to the wire spool or the cylindrical component to the building. Both of these are much smaller, and unbelievably lighter than airline turbines. Plus, how is it that they only fine "one" of those enormous things?
Please elaborate. You are probably referring to the scraps of metal scattered in the tiny crash radius. I cannot believe how gullible the American public is to accept these few thin pieces of what obviously is not a plane for a 757. Nothing at the site was identifiable as belonging to a plane. Each shred could have just as easily been from a car.
"I heard they found a few parts". Shouldn't they have found a bit more than "a few"? Where did the other 128,729.999 lbs go exactly?
@7Epitaph If you were given a piece of material from a car and a piece of material from a 757, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference bud. Unless you are an Aerospace Engineer or a metallurgist of a very high calibre. Which I doubt very much.
Actually, it's the size of the pieces that does not logically suggest airplane crash. However, in specific analysis, aircraft manufacturers identify each and every part of the plane with a serial number. Not only do professionals in manufacturing and maintenance not agree with the "parts" found at the site, but no serial numbers were found on any pieces of metal suggesting that they originated on Flight 77 - let alone any public transportation aircraft.
@7Epitaph As a "professional in manufacturing and maintenance" I can tell you a) the study of aviation accidents is a completely different field b) those you mentioned wouldn't have adequate access to the evidence as it was part of a federal investigation c) anybody qualified to make such conclusions shouldn't be stupid enough to second guess such an investigation unless they have very good legal representation and/or no fear of being labelled as "unemployable due to an unprofessional attitude".
@7Epitaph I think you will find that there are many parts of the aircraft identifiable as belonging to that particular aircraft perhaps not released as part of the investigation; as well as several independent witnesses to the event who will disagree with your view that it wasn't an airliner that struck the pentagon.
@7Epitaph Then there are the photographs of aircraft wreckage at the scene freely available if you as a twoofer can bear to look them up and not commit suicide afterwards for being so silly.
Either you have little to no knowledge about this case, or you are purposefully attempting to re-direct the argument because you, yourself, have no proof. Perhaps you didn't read my former post, in which case, let me restate: "...no serial numbers were found on any pieces of metal suggesting that they originated on Flight 77 - let alone any public transportation aircraft..."
If this logic is flying over your head, please URL me a photo
@7Epitaph It takes 5 minutes of googling to have more knowledge about this case than you. If it is a question of proof, I find you lacking, all you throw around is hearsay and baseless assumptions without references or logical definition to back it up. You only have to follow some of the links on the suggestions pane to find watch?v=ae63iivRHt8&feature=related, which has plenty of evidence to suggest that it was flight 77.
If I make you smile, I would urge you to find a better sense of humour
@7Epitaph If you had followed the link I left in my colleague you would have seen bodies plus aircraft parts including engine turbine fans made of titanium that survived the crash. So fail.
Actually, I did, in fact, view the link - which might have been useful if we were on the subject of Flight 93. I assumed you misinterpreted the video. Last I checked, we were arguing about the Pentagon attack, in which (i repeat) there were no bodies, identifiable debris or confirmed (note: confirmed) engine parts.
Did you watch the video yourself? Or did you hastily search for something that looked like it supported your void proposition? I'm guessing the latter. So, fail.
@wierdwesterner excuse me, if your talking about the pentagon, no bodys were found. if there is no plane, what exactly makes you think that there would be bodies?
@wierdwesterner well then your the only person to ever do that. the only people found worked at the pentagon. the ''plane'' was gone. go find me a video of this 757 hitting and ill believe you, but you wont. my dads company help build the memorial, he said him self''its hard to build this thing when the only bodies found were pentagon employees'' ? the only video showing anything was a BLUE blur. and yes i know there a little blue on an American airline . if it was a 757 the blur would be bigger
@stingray8881 As I pointed out on the video the titanium compressor fan blades from Flight 77's engines survived the crash and have been photographed at the scene, as had part of the fuselage. Both of these photos are in the video I put a link to in a previous comment. I couldn't care less if your Dad's company built the memorial, it's got nothing to do with it, he's just a contractor, he wasn't a witness or an expert on the incident, he's just some guy who heard a rumour at his work, wowee.
@wierdwesterner rumors dude? he said it himself lol. the Rolls Royce company even said they didnt recognize the engine as there's. and your not an expert. you listen to the same people who lie to you, like are you serious? you listen and watch videos on it by the same people who are lying about it?
Well, it is obvious to me that the circular crater in the middle of the field in Pn. was not caused by any aircraft whatsoever. The Flight 93 story is the most ridiculous, illogical incident of 9/11. Not only could phone calls have been made from the cabin, but the plane wasn't even scheduled to fly at that time (along with 77 and 175 not being scheduled the entire day).
The emotional story of citizens thwarting a terrorist strike was a perfect heart-tugger, but fictional.
Plus, we all know, thanks to Norman Mineta, that Cheney was tracking Flight 77 all the way to the Pentagon, right up until it crashed.The question is,was it Flight 77?, or was he tracking a substitute plane/craft.Why didn't he notify the Pentagon when it was nearing,so that those poor people in the building could get out?Over one hundred people were killed in the building,&who knows how many injured.Cheney knew it was heading in that direction.The White House evacuated,so why not the Pentagon?
The video they released of this "thing" hitting the Pentagon is ridiculous.You can't make anything out. You can kind of see a tail, but the entire aircraft or whatever it is, is way too SMALL to be Fight11.If they had a video of a real plane hitting the Pentagon, they would have released it already, so obviously they don't. I will never believe that the only camera at the Pentagon that day that captured the 'plane' was the one near the security booth.
well,55feet wide hole with a 77feet wide plane? keeping in mind fuel is in the wings, and not a single part of airliner was secured.same way it took just a few minutes for DNA test where it takes 7-10 days 2/22 2011.Bush destroyed the economy and Great nation of USA,the money they earned with blood and sweat.WTC falling down with in a matter of minutes,where many architects dont agree & thats what i study in architecture myself. I am from Pakistan, May GOD bless USA and all and guide the misled
‘Tuesday Morning in September’The most complete video account, from a single source and vantage that exists.Yes, from that day covering the 9/11 attacks, in REAL TIME; as it happened. Runtime: 130 minutes
@TylerTheT Why would there be a fighter jet looking plane flying over the pentagon right after it got hit???????????? Where did you want the air force to fly? Over a McDonalds somewhere in Buttfuck Idaho?? The Pentagon had just been hit!!! Jeez man some people need to remember to engage their brain before they begin typing...
It's funny how the Pentagon is the most secure building in the world, yet there's only one fottage of this so-called plane, and the footage is like 3 frames a second, literally. And police car cameras ten years earlier had better quality than a Pentagon security camera? You know there is something wrong there.
Here ya go these 17 videos have the witnesses, go to drjamesfetzer's youtube homepage where you have to click on "see all" on the right side list.
All witnesses including police officers have great memory that conflicts with the govt. "official" report... this is the smoking gun! No wonder they won't release any video from the pentagon.
Evidence of a Cruise missile from one direction and decoy plane from off angle. The big question is what is under the blue tarp?
@guaryno Cruise missile 1500mph.. Boeing 757 500mph... No way any of the 136 eye witnesses had mistaken a difference of 1,000 mph. They wouldn't even see a Tomahawk Cruise missile.
@NinjaSaiden theres a flaw in what ur telling me, that video shows an f-4 (a much lighter aircraft) hitting a solid block of concrete, its not the same as hitting a building, not even close. since your watching that video, as you can see it debunks the myth of the flash before the plane hit the twin towers. just sayin
Well actually it proves the cruise missile theory wrong. Personally I believe it is much more likely (and practical) that explosives were placed prior to the event and were detonated as the plane flew over (simulating a plane crash without damaging necessary utilities in the building). Research about the section that was destroyed at the Pentagon, you might be surprised.
@7Epitaph what about the dozens of wittnesses who saw it hit, the radar info that said it was low enough, the aircraft debri, and the fact the cloud from the after math looked nothing like an explosive cloud and the fact that if there was an explosion inside the building the debri would have been shot in every direction for miles but all the debri was contained in a small area only to the center. and one more there was no explosive chemicals left behind
1. Re-read my previous point. Apparently you skimmed over it.
2. Information would be referenced by the government, who's official account has been repeatedly disproven and questioned in many areas. Therefore, it is debatable on the grounds of an unreliable source.
3. This is a wild assumption and does not refute the claim.
4. The explosion expands outward in all visible directions. This indicates an interior explosive, whereas a crash would flow in the direction of inertia.
1. You can easily goolge Pentagon attack witnesses statements or Pentagon 9/11 witness list
2. As opposed to so called experts who claimed it was a ballistic attack.
3. Not a wild assumption, it's a given fact. There have been many plane crashes in the past that brake up into pieces from falling a short distance trying not to crash. Here, the crash was intentional ripping the plane into fragments.
4. The WTC's suffered the same impact and explosion of the Pentagon with the one exception. The Pentagon was made of different material. Not to mention a ballistic attack, missle or bomb, would have caused ruptured eardrums in a 60ft radius caused by the shock wave. Ballistics cause shock waves that ripple the air and can be seen camera. Fiery crashes dont cause shock waves, just loud booms.
@7Epitaph Ironically enough a pro Inside Job video actually shows a picture where the wing did enter the building. It's called a plane did not crash into the Pentagon. The first picture you can see columns missing, some were pushed inward towards the building. It also crashed at an angle, not head on.
@7Epitaph Unfortunately the wings aren't particularly strong and having been damaged by hitting the light poles upon approach they would have been destroyed. Let me ask you this, how would a cruise missile zig zag to hit 5 lightpoles, then partially destroy a generator then carry enough force to break through re-inforced concrete and penetrate 3 rings of the Pentagon? Again, the Truthers dismiss fact with fiction...also look up Mike Walters interview on here and he's a news reporter!!!
So, by this you are suggesting that the wings were strong enough to take down light poles, yet too weak to leave a mark on the impact zone - all the while, they maintained the stability to both keep the plane in the air and remarkably nimble. Right. This is as ludicrous as suggesting that a plane could crash without lawn damage.
You may not be familiar with the official story, because the scenario it presents is outrageous.
(Note: I do not believe the cruise missile theory.)
@7Epitaph A lightpole is a lot weaker than re-inforced concrete. Also one of the eyewitnesses said one of the engines was smoking from damage before impact. Also how much stability is needed when you're travelling at 500mph with the intention of flying a plane into a building? The lawn damage has been put forward by truthers who claim the plane bounced on the ground before impact. None of the eyewitnesses said the plane bounced. So sorry it's not ludicrous, it's a fact. However good luck to you
I haven't found any articles about a reliable witness who saw the point of impact. It makes no sense that the pilot would have the expertise to fly a commercial airliner close enough to the ground to knock over light-poles (which, by the way, have been proven historically to easily rip planes apart), and not even scratch the lawn. I said nothing about a "bounce", nor did I claim it was as strong as concrete. Common sense in regard to TOTAL lack of debris leads me to my disbeliefs.
@7Epitaph Well I would suggest you haven't really looked, if you google pentagon debris images, they have countless photos on there and as I said look up Mike Walters on here. Again, you're just choosing to ignore because it contradicts your belief and there's no point discussing it with you. Farewell.
Countless photos of what exactly? Plane debris? Hardly. A seven year old can tell that plane structures don't just disappear into nothing.
For the record, I have researched flight 77, specifically, for many months. I know the official story almost by heart. What many "believers" refuse to acknowledge is that editing the Official story to support probability is "debate suicide". You cannot theorize what is allegedly fact.
No parts, seats, luggage, bodies, or even frames. Fact.
sumthing about sept 11 i think if this happen on sept 11 and the twins fell on sept 11 well i guess the goverment might of had sumthing to do with it the world is gettin to small for ppl so y not do a disaster to make space. they say if the world has more then 200 million ppl we fukd so just wer ya raincoats on ya junk bois
The real criminals that committed this conspiracy needs to be indicted immediately..they are not abrabs!! they are fucking traitors committing treason against the American people!!! I want to see justice for every single humanbeing that lost their lives because of these events!!!! The criminals must be arressted and put to capital punishment!! Who are they? They are every president since Nixon to obama, all the way down to Israel, and other govrnmts complying with Globalization!! They all NTBBD
The pentagon also lost some trillion dollars from that "plane" crash. And they didnt even bother trying to get it back. Plus no plane parts were found a all. It seems pretty obvious to someone who is a little more intelligent, that terrorist dont just decide to attack another country.
BobetoSlim 11 hours ago
I am always amused by the paranoid fantasies of mentally deranged people.
ukkfayooyay 2 days ago
Of course ABC news did not use it. They are payed of buy those that need the public to hate the middle east to justify a war to take over the #2 largest oil producers in the world. At the same time they get to upgrade north com. The NDAA bill is later result. Then SOPA is cumming in some form or another to shut down people that think,research & talk to much. Then then they use the NDAA to have people like me whacked,silenced,put down.Be safe my friend !
justinwoolee 6 days ago
Can you see that black plane to the left of the smoke possibly making a huge circle around the pentagon. If this really was shot a minute after then could it be the missle was shot from that plane or that plane saw what actually happened? I work in Crystal City right across from the pentagon. I drive in almost everyday and see planes land at Ronald Regan Airport. Never seen a black plane before. Even the united planes you can tell are navy blue.
enjoiwrx 2 weeks ago
kinda strange 1:53 seconds though, the pentagon is a 50 mile radius no fly zone, and you have something there flying above the pentagon during the worst attack in human history, how long was it smoking before you started filming?
natqoh 3 weeks ago
@natqoh
I was just thinking the same thing....All of the planes were grounded by then, and I don't think our military jets made it there that quickly...
schmidtkid 2 weeks ago
@natqoh 50 miles? Wouldn't that render DCA, IAD, and BWI all inoperable?
pk33617 1 week ago
thumbs up for ur mk2 vw
lentez187 1 month ago
JoseCleveland 1 month ago
IT SEEMS that they had not helped hud employee back in 1990's due to the church having set up people to (1) get mad (2) go on their tv shows/studios crusades (3) complain (4) insinuate that they, themselves, are not as holy as elders/priests (5) they get a job doing some small things or big (6) they get paid ..sometimes/many times alot (7) then charges are granted & courtroom bcse they had like extortion data on them..and then expected payment & then accepted it. Some chrged immediately/jail
JoseCleveland 1 month ago
The television stations played images of a plane hitting the wtc for years. Why weren't they given the footage of the pentagon as well, regardless of what hit it. I don't believe the USA defence force is that incompatent they could not have prevented at least 1 out of the 4 attacks that day.
dozer3955 2 months ago
9/11 an inside job?
NO FUCKING SHIT.
THIS IS OLD NEWS.
DramaBlock 2 months ago
You didn't actually see the Missile er... Airplane then?
PhilbyDorro 3 months ago
Actually a Plane is still there at 1:50 look to your right in the middle ontop of the smoke. It looks like its flying away. Maybe its true about the missle story.
Macmittens411 3 months ago
Pause @ 2:14....that isnt a seagull.
Mannixxx 4 months ago
Why is there something flying above the smoke cloud? How long after impact is this?
I know there was a fighter up to radio back to a CO what he could see, but it does seem a little odd.
All footage was confiscated by the FBI. Is this what they don't want us to find out, that a fighter fired a missile at the Pentagon?
(Yes, I do believe 9/11 was an inside job, basic physics & experts tells us that)
FamousNoName 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FamousNoName Look at (Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77) it's kinda long but it explain's alot and only has 192 views.
FABRIC8TIONUNLIMITE1 4 months ago
Try 1:32
anse69 4 months ago
@swrdpt_proLlc Thank you to all of our servicemen and women in the police departments, fire and rescue squads, and armed forces for your courage, bravery, loyalty, and sacrifice to God and country. Each and every one of you are truly a blessing from God and we are so appreciative of everything you and your families sacrifice for our freedom.
SwordPointProduction 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If anybody here truly care about people who died on 911, watch this film. It's great. You will never get this from watching FOX NEWS on TV. ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11 watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ
One more thing... support Truth Movement that 911 victims' families are involved in.
Ganseblumchen12 4 months ago
I find it disrespectful to the people who died or lost their family and friends in the attack that you'd suggest the government did it. Also, they are fucking photos of debris from a passenger airplane right next to the pentagon on fire, go look it up.
Tinewashere 4 months ago
@Tinewashere there is no evidence of any commerical airliner wreckage, sorry
porkchop112699 4 months ago
@porkchop112699 Uh yes there us, go on wikipedia and search for American Airlines Flight 77, you'll find photos showing debris scattered on the ground.
Tinewashere 4 months ago
To the idiots who say it wasn't a plane: four hijacked 9/11 planes and all the people on them disappeared that day. Where did they go? You're stupid and/or crazy. You should shut off your computer and just sit quietly in a dark room.
ukkfayooyay 4 months ago
@ukkfayooyay you're telling me bodies and planes can't be disposed of?! good god i've been living my life all wrong..
JMcMac21 2 days ago
?! wtf!! pause at 1:31
HelderTeixeira100 4 months ago 21
@HelderTeixeira100 What is it?
BassmrDK 4 months ago
@HelderTeixeira100 Yeah, guy in van totally oblivious to huge explosion and smoke cloud right behind him, acting goofy because he sees me pointing a video camera.
x2501x 4 months ago 3
@x2501x You may have caught them on tape! He is holding up the devil horns - the sign of the illuminati. They are attempting to bring a one world govt, a one world system of laws, one world currency, ruled by one great ruler - lucifer. Many believe that 9-11 was meant to trigger this based on the Rosecrucian calender - Busg Senior made the new world order speach on 9-11-91. Don't you find it bizzare that someone would behave that way as the terrorist attacks were underway?
asuwish0000 1 month ago
@asuwish0000 OH my GOD - look at the name on the side of the truck! "American Air Services" That says it all!
asuwish0000 1 month ago
@asuwish0000 its an air conditioning company you fucking fool
xjustin523x 3 weeks ago
@asuwish0000 you people are as dumb as rocks.. it was an air conditioning company.. read the van
xjustin523x 3 weeks ago
@asuwish0000 lmao wow you need to up your meds dosage
zeppelin67637 4 days ago
@x2501x illuminati
hazardouzCup 2 days ago
@HelderTeixeira100 There's nothing at 1:31?
Eldytho 4 months ago
@HelderTeixeira100 Is he flashing the horned beast symbol???
Twilight008 2 months ago
Hey, you know what would be even better?
Release a video of a P-L-A-N-E hitting the building. There are dozens of cameras that caught it.
You have to wonder why they haven't done so yet...
whoandtheha 4 months ago
@whoandtheha because such videos don't exist.
JMcMac21 2 days ago
No wonder they didn't air it - you didn't see shit.
FLICKtheUSA 5 months ago
Truthers and liberals did it.
LT1HILLINGHOE 5 months ago
@LT1HILLINGHOE
No, it was Israel. Kikes don't consider gentiles as humans.
FLICKtheUSA 5 months ago
@FLICKtheUSA Well you're not human, that's for sure.
ukkfayooyay 4 months ago
@ukkfayooyay
LOL...
FLICKtheUSA 4 months ago
Jesus, the tin-foil hat 9/11 " troofers" have crawled out from under their rocks again.
You're not real smart, but you're entertaining.
SFCMAC57 5 months ago
@SFCMAC57 please do some research instead of being such a douch. Support the 9-11 victims:
watch?v=3XXEMwhizCE
The911watch 5 months ago
@SFCMAC57 Show me/us a video if a plane hitting it and we'll go away... Oh, that's right, you haven't seen one either.
whoandtheha 4 months ago 3
@whoandtheha Just wish I will live to the day the US goverment comes and tells everyone "sorry you've been had the whole time" this was a lie this was a lie and that was a lie also... I would feel much better when this happens
eujeeves 2 months ago
watch?v=sICfza-0mrk
ManchurianMushroom 5 months ago
INSIDE JOB!!!
The911watch 5 months ago
are you Anthony Tribby? you do realize that this is minutes late and is actually a c130 cargo plane? turn the timestamps on next time u capture evidence. And before i'm flamed , yes it was an inside job, but this isnt evidence, and presented as such, actually constitutes disinformation, which abounds.
ForestSongUnLTD 5 months ago
The Pentagon was hit almost one hour AFTER the Twin Towers. One hour...and they still got past what's supposed to be the most sophisticated air defense system in the world ?
nerblebun 5 months ago
thank god for random video camras that cant be found by the government :P finaly some goddamn proof of what really happend
masivemurder 5 months ago
at 1:53 you can see the plane that shot the missile fly away.
EvilIntentions01 5 months ago
Comment removed
Cyaneyed77 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@azar783408
I'm not a fag. Look someplace else dumbfuck.
stupid conspiracy theorists
taledarkside 6 months ago
@azar783408
I'm not a fag. Look someplace else dumbfuck.
taledarkside 6 months ago
@x2501x Did you see the Plane before it hit??? I was in New York this time, i saw the planes hit the Twin's!
74pbg 6 months ago
@74pbg Do you believe that Lincoln was shot? There's no video of it.
ukkfayooyay 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not stock footage, but is a chronicle of that day..
It is compositionally sound.. in that it is experienced in a
way that it can hold you for 130 minutes, because it feels
like you are there, but not in the unrelenting adrenaline rushed
way that so many other programs about 9/11 do.
This 9/11 story/chronicle is a human portrait of that day.
'Tuesday Morning in September' Available now on DVD.
TuesdayMorningInSept 6 months ago
I find it very odd, that plane flying away? Does nobody else find that strange?
mjwible27 6 months ago
9/11 was done by criminal elements of the US and israeli governments, not muslims, to get the people to support wars for oil and opium in a desperate attempt to reverse the crumbing US economy, weak dollar, overpopulation and lack of oil. Its very blatant and the whole world knows it, its a shame that some people arent overly concerned about this. It will happen again, only worse, these criminals will think nothing of slaughtering their own citizens for personal and financial gain!!!
wellifthemediasaysit 6 months ago
that was no plane it was a Reagan smash
n8tivguitar 6 months ago
you see that the smoke gets up and if it a airpalyne the smoke gets from the side....
Beatathlet 6 months ago
That's odd. The plane I saw and commented on two years ago is no longer in this video. The plane I saw was NOT the black object flying around in the smoke. It was a jet liner, white and was flying up and away from the Pentagon. I distinctly remember this because I watched the video over and over and over, frame by frame. The black object was there as well, but it was there in addition to the white airliner. ABC did run this video. Did they pay you well to join the coverup? So sad.
Onlymanolos 6 months ago 9
@Onlymanolos Why are people upvoting this moron? This is my video, the same one I posted originally, and there was never a white plane visible. Upvoting someone because they made something up??
x2501x 4 months ago
@x2501x My original comment from three years ago is still here. At 2:15 I point out a mysterious white plane that could be seen in the far distance. It was white, the nose was pointed upward and it was climbing up and away from the Pentagon. Why are you angry and calling me a moron? It is your video and I was fascinated you caught something that the people of America needed to see that the media was not showing. Now, the plane isn't shown and you are hostile when confronted.
Onlymanolos 4 months ago
@Onlymanolos Because you imagined you saw something then does not mean that it was there. This is the same video that has been up here the entire time, how would I have replaced the video even if I had wanted to?
x2501x 4 months ago
@x2501x I'm not going to argue the point. If I imagined it, then so did the dozens of other people I showed it to. Also, I showed it to my best friend who, coincidentally at the time, was the General Manager of an ABC station in Tampa FL. He saw it too. I'm not trying to discredit you, but it was there. I remember it clearly, when you zoomed in, the street lamp was also in the shot. I have been looking over the video again, frame by frame and it just isn't there anymore. It is what it is.
Onlymanolos 4 months ago
@x2501x This is the first time i watched this vid. What I can see from 1:48 is a dark color aircraft barely seen behind the smokes. Then emerge passed the smokes and flying away. The wings were angled suggesting that it has just made a turn. Could that be a the aircraft that dropped the bunker buster on Pentagon. The documentary "911 In Plane Sight" shows no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon.
vyper6426 4 months ago
@vyper6426 Check out, pilots for 9/11 truth, and learn more on sept 11.
dozer3955 2 months ago
@Onlymanolos There is no way to edit a video without removing it fully...
sirstar45 4 months ago
@sirstar45 Thank you. I am trying to locate an old memory card I had in my camera at the time. We took screen shot photos of the plane seen in the video a couple of years ago.
Onlymanolos 4 months ago
@Onlymanolos what the hell is that plane doing!! dropping off the cruise missle
porkchop112699 4 months ago
@porkchop112699 I AGREE!
Onlymanolos 4 months ago
@porkchop112699 Look at (Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77) it's kinda long but it explain's alot and only has 192 views.
FABRIC8TIONUNLIMITE1 4 months ago
@Onlymanolos I can't see ANY plane in the distance. Your camera is pointed up and there is nothing in the frame except smoke and the sky.
robbob100 3 months ago
if it were a commercial jet that hit the pentagon .. it wouldhave torn half through that building....and the fire would have been alot more fierce than shown ... i guess we are all idots ... i guess the one thing to do is believe what ever they tell us to .....
craneraaudiovideo 7 months ago
This is fantastic footage. You're lucky you didn't get it confiscated by the authorities.
ChaosDynamics 7 months ago
...And yet NOBODY claims to have reported witnessing a big ass passenger airplane, almost stop mid air (I'm SURE somebody would notice an erratic flying passenger jet at damn near stall speed), and then careen into the ground at a speed that is little more than double the speed at ground impact during normal landing? Which, I know you can't blink when watching those 757s land..their just a blur..
singingcowboy674 7 months ago 2
And that's at 500 feet or better altitude. Something else this tells me is that if the plane is coming in from a high bank, and hit's at 350 mph which is 200 whole mph SLOWER than average flight speed, then they are going to gain MASSIVE SPEED WHILE COMING IN AT THAT ANGLE...What? How is it possible to gain such velocity and yet be so far under cruise speed prior to plunge? To gain to 350 mph at impact the plane would have to damn near STALL before the plunge!
singingcowboy674 7 months ago
from a speed of 567 miles per hour from the time it begins it's descent to the moment of touchdown. Now, "they" say there was no way to see the plane because it was traveling at upwards of 350 mph. If that is the case I should in no way be able to see the transcontinental jumbo jets landing at Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport as their landing path is right above me and at speeds of 200+ mph about 2 miles from landing. I mean, even at that speed they look like they are stationary.
singingcowboy674 7 months ago
Notice clearly that the videographer states that a explosion just occurred at the top of the Pentagon...if he saw the initial explosion, why then, if it was a jumbo jet, did he not say "yes, I just saw a large airplane crash into the pentagon? From my understanding the aircraft that hit the pentagon came in from a high angle. SO, it would be from steep up, to steep down..how did he miss this? A 747 generally lands doing around 150..that's at touch down. So it's slowing while in the air...
singingcowboy674 7 months ago
@singingcowboy674 Plus theres no way a plane that big could come in that fast at that trajectory; it would literally have to be "on top" of I-395.
civilengsi 7 months ago
@singingcowboy674 Why would they use a missle to hit the Pentagon and then try to make it look like a commercial jet hit it? Why not just fly a commercial jet into the Pentagon like they did the WTC?
NowKillYourself 6 months ago
@NowKillYourself Good question. Haven't got that part figured out yet but I do have my ideas. Assuming it took explosives planted within the towers to actually bring them down, a fully fueled cross country passenger jet wasn't enough, then, I suppose the Pentagon had to be built even sturdier than the towers. I mean it was built to withstand a direct attack and not fall. So, it's possible that a missile may have been the only thing available to do the kind of damage they wanted.
singingcowboy674 6 months ago
@NowKillYourself Secondly I'd think it might have something to do with readiness. I mean there are arsenels placed around the perimeter of the Pentagon for protective purposes such as in the case of an attack. Don't know if that's what they used, but saying that availability of ordinance may have come into play. Otherwise, there's an airport right across the interstate pretty much, why wouldn't they just steal a plane and fly it straight into it. Just a thought.
singingcowboy674 6 months ago
@NowKillYourself
Collateral damage. The impact zone was contained to the newly reinforced zone of the Pentagon. A remote 747 would have caused tremendous destruction of necessities, and they knew it. That's the reason.
Plus, the maneuver claimed to have been pulled off by the plane was impossible.
7Epitaph 6 months ago
@7Epitaph Except the reality is: a Boeing 757 slammed into the Pentagon. Two Boeing 767's hit the WTC and a 757 crashed in Shanksville Pennsylvania. Where did you get 747's from??
NowKillYourself 6 months ago
@NowKillYourself
Does this not further reinforce my argument? Most people ignore the exact specifications of the plane and collectivize them all as '47s. Yes, I am well aware of the official story; but, why are you pointing this simplification out?
7Epitaph 6 months ago
@7Epitaph I have NEVER heard anyone say ANYTHING about 747's on Sep 11th 2001.. How exactly does this reinforce your argument? What exactly do you think happened that day anyway? Government inside job? LOL!
NowKillYourself 6 months ago
@NowKillYourself
Does not the fact that the planes were LARGER than 747's reinforce my argument? You clearly have little experience on this subject, like most, so generalizing the aircraft into what most people understand seems easier.
Of course, for someone who obviously has their head in the ground, you have done little to no research on the subject. This is apparent because you laugh at the idea of a corrupt system carrying out a false flag operation much like Rome and Germany.
Done?
7Epitaph 6 months ago
@7Epitaph Please tell me you're not serious. The Boeing 747 is the LARGEST commercial jet in the world. The 767 and 757 are smaller. The 747 has 4 engines while the 767 and 757 have two. Please, do some fucking research before you start jumping to conclusions. Goddamn man.. And don't tell someone they have their head in the ground when you're the one who things a 757 and 767 is larger than a 747 LOL! Do you even realize how DUMB you made yourself look?
NowKillYourself 6 months ago
@NowKillYourself
I'm terribly sorry for the mix-up; I am working out several different conversations. As for ignorance, I was referring to the idea of a corrupt government. Get off the meaningless details. It's well established. Focus on concepts as the purpose of the entire debate is.
Unless you wish to bring up another completely random subject to focus on.
7Epitaph 6 months ago
@guaryno If you talk about details like speed it will be better to look first if your statement is right.
There is no official technical spacification that a CruiseMissile whatever type of will fly supersonic.
All western CruiseMissiles are subsonic.
I only know the indian/russian BrahMos that speeds up to Mach2.8.
But if you realy think your information is right, you know more than normal persons could get from generally accessible sources...............
MrToolUndertow 7 months ago
I find it funny that the same people who tell us that jet fuel burned down the WTC's would have us believe that the supposed plane crash at the pentagon wouldn't have the same kind of problems. If a 747 crashed into the pentagon wouldn't it's jet fuel leak throughout and burn uncontrollably for hours on end heating to levels high enough to melt steel? The kind of heat it was proposed to create as well as the length of time it takes to fully burn away is inconsistent.
jrtien 7 months ago 2
@TheIcering41
Note: You clearly misunderstood my intention of comparing the metal to a car. I never said anything about paint nor am I suggesting the scraps were from a car. I am merely illustrating the frail characteristic of the "plane shreds". No plane explodes into a million bite-sized shards. If you believe this, YouTube some plane crashes...
7Epitaph 7 months ago
@TheIcering41
Oh no, no, no, you are sorely mistaken. Please reference this source as I have heard none of these claims besides the "engine".
"Most of the tail section" - What tail section? The entire plane "vaporized".
"1 of the 2 engines" - Are you referring to the wire spool or the cylindrical component to the building. Both of these are much smaller, and unbelievably lighter than airline turbines. Plus, how is it that they only fine "one" of those enormous things?
7Epitaph 7 months ago
@TheIcering41
Please elaborate. You are probably referring to the scraps of metal scattered in the tiny crash radius. I cannot believe how gullible the American public is to accept these few thin pieces of what obviously is not a plane for a 757. Nothing at the site was identifiable as belonging to a plane. Each shred could have just as easily been from a car.
"I heard they found a few parts". Shouldn't they have found a bit more than "a few"? Where did the other 128,729.999 lbs go exactly?
7Epitaph 7 months ago
@7Epitaph If you were given a piece of material from a car and a piece of material from a 757, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference bud. Unless you are an Aerospace Engineer or a metallurgist of a very high calibre. Which I doubt very much.
wierdwesterner 7 months ago
@wierdwesterner
Actually, it's the size of the pieces that does not logically suggest airplane crash. However, in specific analysis, aircraft manufacturers identify each and every part of the plane with a serial number. Not only do professionals in manufacturing and maintenance not agree with the "parts" found at the site, but no serial numbers were found on any pieces of metal suggesting that they originated on Flight 77 - let alone any public transportation aircraft.
There was no 77.
7Epitaph 7 months ago
@7Epitaph As a "professional in manufacturing and maintenance" I can tell you a) the study of aviation accidents is a completely different field b) those you mentioned wouldn't have adequate access to the evidence as it was part of a federal investigation c) anybody qualified to make such conclusions shouldn't be stupid enough to second guess such an investigation unless they have very good legal representation and/or no fear of being labelled as "unemployable due to an unprofessional attitude".
wierdwesterner 7 months ago
@7Epitaph I think you will find that there are many parts of the aircraft identifiable as belonging to that particular aircraft perhaps not released as part of the investigation; as well as several independent witnesses to the event who will disagree with your view that it wasn't an airliner that struck the pentagon.
wierdwesterner 7 months ago
@7Epitaph Then there are the photographs of aircraft wreckage at the scene freely available if you as a twoofer can bear to look them up and not commit suicide afterwards for being so silly.
wierdwesterner 7 months ago
@wierdwesterner
Your response actually made me smile.
Either you have little to no knowledge about this case, or you are purposefully attempting to re-direct the argument because you, yourself, have no proof. Perhaps you didn't read my former post, in which case, let me restate: "...no serial numbers were found on any pieces of metal suggesting that they originated on Flight 77 - let alone any public transportation aircraft..."
If this logic is flying over your head, please URL me a photo
7Epitaph 7 months ago
@7Epitaph It takes 5 minutes of googling to have more knowledge about this case than you. If it is a question of proof, I find you lacking, all you throw around is hearsay and baseless assumptions without references or logical definition to back it up. You only have to follow some of the links on the suggestions pane to find watch?v=ae63iivRHt8&feature=related, which has plenty of evidence to suggest that it was flight 77.
If I make you smile, I would urge you to find a better sense of humour
wierdwesterner 6 months ago
@wierdwesterner
Baseless assumptions? Here are some objective facts.
No bodies found at the crash site (or even DNA).
No identifiable (serial numbered) debris present to conclude it was an airliner.
An insufficient amount of debris consistent with a plane crash.
No confirmed engine/turbine parts.
A "pinball effect" of clean puncture holes throughout the structure.
An unscathed lawn not consistent with any historical crash.
No clear footage of the crash (with 4 private videos confiscated).
7Epitaph 6 months ago
@7Epitaph If you had followed the link I left in my colleague you would have seen bodies plus aircraft parts including engine turbine fans made of titanium that survived the crash. So fail.
wierdwesterner 6 months ago
@wierdwesterner
Actually, I did, in fact, view the link - which might have been useful if we were on the subject of Flight 93. I assumed you misinterpreted the video. Last I checked, we were arguing about the Pentagon attack, in which (i repeat) there were no bodies, identifiable debris or confirmed (note: confirmed) engine parts.
Did you watch the video yourself? Or did you hastily search for something that looked like it supported your void proposition? I'm guessing the latter. So, fail.
7Epitaph 6 months ago
@wierdwesterner excuse me, if your talking about the pentagon, no bodys were found. if there is no plane, what exactly makes you think that there would be bodies?
stingray8881 6 months ago
@stingray8881 Erm, I used to proof to state that there WAS an aircraft and there WAS bodies.
wierdwesterner 6 months ago
@wierdwesterner well then your the only person to ever do that. the only people found worked at the pentagon. the ''plane'' was gone. go find me a video of this 757 hitting and ill believe you, but you wont. my dads company help build the memorial, he said him self''its hard to build this thing when the only bodies found were pentagon employees'' ? the only video showing anything was a BLUE blur. and yes i know there a little blue on an American airline . if it was a 757 the blur would be bigger
stingray8881 6 months ago
@stingray8881 As I pointed out on the video the titanium compressor fan blades from Flight 77's engines survived the crash and have been photographed at the scene, as had part of the fuselage. Both of these photos are in the video I put a link to in a previous comment. I couldn't care less if your Dad's company built the memorial, it's got nothing to do with it, he's just a contractor, he wasn't a witness or an expert on the incident, he's just some guy who heard a rumour at his work, wowee.
wierdwesterner 6 months ago
@wierdwesterner rumors dude? he said it himself lol. the Rolls Royce company even said they didnt recognize the engine as there's. and your not an expert. you listen to the same people who lie to you, like are you serious? you listen and watch videos on it by the same people who are lying about it?
stingray8881 6 months ago
@7Epitaph since you think the same way i do, i want to ask, what is your take on flight 93?
stingray8881 6 months ago
@stingray8881
Well, it is obvious to me that the circular crater in the middle of the field in Pn. was not caused by any aircraft whatsoever. The Flight 93 story is the most ridiculous, illogical incident of 9/11. Not only could phone calls have been made from the cabin, but the plane wasn't even scheduled to fly at that time (along with 77 and 175 not being scheduled the entire day).
The emotional story of citizens thwarting a terrorist strike was a perfect heart-tugger, but fictional.
7Epitaph 6 months ago
Plus, we all know, thanks to Norman Mineta, that Cheney was tracking Flight 77 all the way to the Pentagon, right up until it crashed.The question is,was it Flight 77?, or was he tracking a substitute plane/craft.Why didn't he notify the Pentagon when it was nearing,so that those poor people in the building could get out?Over one hundred people were killed in the building,&who knows how many injured.Cheney knew it was heading in that direction.The White House evacuated,so why not the Pentagon?
molitor2005 7 months ago
The video they released of this "thing" hitting the Pentagon is ridiculous.You can't make anything out. You can kind of see a tail, but the entire aircraft or whatever it is, is way too SMALL to be Fight11.If they had a video of a real plane hitting the Pentagon, they would have released it already, so obviously they don't. I will never believe that the only camera at the Pentagon that day that captured the 'plane' was the one near the security booth.
molitor2005 7 months ago
@molitor2005 Gotta make a correction, I said Flight 11, but I meant to say Flight 77.
molitor2005 7 months ago
well,55feet wide hole with a 77feet wide plane? keeping in mind fuel is in the wings, and not a single part of airliner was secured.same way it took just a few minutes for DNA test where it takes 7-10 days 2/22 2011.Bush destroyed the economy and Great nation of USA,the money they earned with blood and sweat.WTC falling down with in a matter of minutes,where many architects dont agree & thats what i study in architecture myself. I am from Pakistan, May GOD bless USA and all and guide the misled
MeisterKlassisch 8 months ago
Comment removed
MeisterKlassisch 8 months ago
Comment removed
MeisterKlassisch 8 months ago
The plane flying above the cloud looks like a UFO to me.
somebodysvids 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
asault charge where i come from WOW..watch this short youtube vid
US Congress/Gov. Controlled by AIPAC/Israel/Dual Citizen Jews and Zionist Freaks Out
pederman15 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘Tuesday Morning in September’The most complete video account, from a single source and vantage that exists.Yes, from that day covering the 9/11 attacks, in REAL TIME; as it happened. Runtime: 130 minutes
TuesdayMorningInSept 8 months ago
Why would there be a fighter jet looking plane flying over the pentagon right after it got hit?
TylerTheT 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TylerTheT Why would there be a fighter jet looking plane flying over the pentagon right after it got hit???????????? Where did you want the air force to fly? Over a McDonalds somewhere in Buttfuck Idaho?? The Pentagon had just been hit!!! Jeez man some people need to remember to engage their brain before they begin typing...
PapaWolfman 8 months ago
It's funny how the Pentagon is the most secure building in the world, yet there's only one fottage of this so-called plane, and the footage is like 3 frames a second, literally. And police car cameras ten years earlier had better quality than a Pentagon security camera? You know there is something wrong there.
CookiesAndGuns95 8 months ago
why is the smoke look frozen, like it doesnt move for most of the video??
vickymil93 8 months ago
Here ya go these 17 videos have the witnesses, go to drjamesfetzer's youtube homepage where you have to click on "see all" on the right side list.
All witnesses including police officers have great memory that conflicts with the govt. "official" report... this is the smoking gun! No wonder they won't release any video from the pentagon.
Evidence of a Cruise missile from one direction and decoy plane from off angle. The big question is what is under the blue tarp?
watch?v=gPhw-Q7DD-Y&NR=1
hydroxygenman 8 months ago
@hydroxygenman There's no smoking gun. And there are plenty of reasons why it was not a missile.
godzilla1077 8 months ago
LOL The freak at 1:31 :P
lebanese996 8 months ago 12
@lebanese996 devil horns...he's telling us the illuminati were here!
Cyaneyed77 5 months ago
TomaHawk 100% not Plane!!!!
guaryno 9 months ago 7
@guaryno tomahawk= little axe thing. if you threw that at the wall it wouldnt splode
benry200 8 months ago
@guaryno Cruise missile 1500mph.. Boeing 757 500mph... No way any of the 136 eye witnesses had mistaken a difference of 1,000 mph. They wouldn't even see a Tomahawk Cruise missile.
NowKillYourself 7 months ago
@guaryno
missles don't leave a hydrocarbon fire.
conspiracy idiots
taledarkside 6 months ago
@taledarkside Haha you poor brainwashed child, so naive
lebello 6 months ago
@lebello
And you have an engineering degree that says different?
taledarkside 6 months ago
All black smoke means is that the fire is burning something. Whether it's a building or trees. It doesn't matter what started the fire.
Dizzyerin9999 9 months ago
I saw your footage on Nat Geo I think last year (2010).
Dizzyerin9999 9 months ago
That Black Air Craft Didn't Even Shape A News Chopper So it Was Either OXcart or Black hawk hovering over that area.... thats what i think.
DonnieGQ 9 months ago
this proves consoiracy theorist wrong, ive seen cruise missles explode and that cloud looks nothing like the after math of one
M11ty 9 months ago
@M11ty and planes at 500mph hitting a building can vaporize.
NinjaSaiden 9 months ago
@NinjaSaiden it didnt vaporize
M11ty 9 months ago
@M11ty /watch?v=y4IwRlfZZMI
NinjaSaiden 9 months ago
@NinjaSaiden theres a flaw in what ur telling me, that video shows an f-4 (a much lighter aircraft) hitting a solid block of concrete, its not the same as hitting a building, not even close. since your watching that video, as you can see it debunks the myth of the flash before the plane hit the twin towers. just sayin
M11ty 9 months ago
@M11ty
Well actually it proves the cruise missile theory wrong. Personally I believe it is much more likely (and practical) that explosives were placed prior to the event and were detonated as the plane flew over (simulating a plane crash without damaging necessary utilities in the building). Research about the section that was destroyed at the Pentagon, you might be surprised.
7Epitaph 8 months ago
@7Epitaph what about the dozens of wittnesses who saw it hit, the radar info that said it was low enough, the aircraft debri, and the fact the cloud from the after math looked nothing like an explosive cloud and the fact that if there was an explosion inside the building the debri would have been shot in every direction for miles but all the debri was contained in a small area only to the center. and one more there was no explosive chemicals left behind
M11ty 8 months ago
@M11ty
1. Give me an article about witnesses who *saw* the point of impact.
2. Radar information is highly debatable.
3. Aeronautics experts have refuted every piece of handheld debris posed as "aircraft parts"
4. You must not be familiar with various military grade explosives (more bright, less might).
5. What chemicals would you expect?
Furthermore, a three year old could figure out that the triangle (plane) does not fit in the square (impact zone).
7Epitaph 8 months ago
@7Epitaph
1. It was over a 100 witnesses who saw the plane, not a dozen.
2. It's not debateable.
3. If the so called experts are from PilotsForTruth9/11, they're a bunch of money grubbing idiots.
4. Even with the more bright less might aspect, the explosion is not similar to any ballistic attack, this was a fiery crash.
5. The hole that was punched through is 16ft in diameter. The cabin size of a commercial liner is anywhere between 14-16ft in diameter.
godzilla1077 8 months ago
@godzilla1077
1. Re-read my previous point. Apparently you skimmed over it.
2. Information would be referenced by the government, who's official account has been repeatedly disproven and questioned in many areas. Therefore, it is debatable on the grounds of an unreliable source.
3. This is a wild assumption and does not refute the claim.
4. The explosion expands outward in all visible directions. This indicates an interior explosive, whereas a crash would flow in the direction of inertia.
7Epitaph 8 months ago
@7Epitaph
1. You can easily goolge Pentagon attack witnesses statements or Pentagon 9/11 witness list
2. As opposed to so called experts who claimed it was a ballistic attack.
3. Not a wild assumption, it's a given fact. There have been many plane crashes in the past that brake up into pieces from falling a short distance trying not to crash. Here, the crash was intentional ripping the plane into fragments.
godzilla1077 8 months ago
@7Epitaph
4. The WTC's suffered the same impact and explosion of the Pentagon with the one exception. The Pentagon was made of different material. Not to mention a ballistic attack, missle or bomb, would have caused ruptured eardrums in a 60ft radius caused by the shock wave. Ballistics cause shock waves that ripple the air and can be seen camera. Fiery crashes dont cause shock waves, just loud booms.
godzilla1077 8 months ago
@godzilla1077
5. Interesting fact. Unfortunately, the plane would have to be flying without any wings to support the theory.
7Epitaph 8 months ago
@7Epitaph Ironically enough a pro Inside Job video actually shows a picture where the wing did enter the building. It's called a plane did not crash into the Pentagon. The first picture you can see columns missing, some were pushed inward towards the building. It also crashed at an angle, not head on.
godzilla1077 8 months ago
@7Epitaph
1. I found the site about the witnesses and thier testimonies. Its on webcitation
dot org under Pentagon Witness Accounts.
godzilla1077 8 months ago
@7Epitaph Unfortunately the wings aren't particularly strong and having been damaged by hitting the light poles upon approach they would have been destroyed. Let me ask you this, how would a cruise missile zig zag to hit 5 lightpoles, then partially destroy a generator then carry enough force to break through re-inforced concrete and penetrate 3 rings of the Pentagon? Again, the Truthers dismiss fact with fiction...also look up Mike Walters interview on here and he's a news reporter!!!
hornetgags 8 months ago
@hornetgags
So, by this you are suggesting that the wings were strong enough to take down light poles, yet too weak to leave a mark on the impact zone - all the while, they maintained the stability to both keep the plane in the air and remarkably nimble. Right. This is as ludicrous as suggesting that a plane could crash without lawn damage.
You may not be familiar with the official story, because the scenario it presents is outrageous.
(Note: I do not believe the cruise missile theory.)
7Epitaph 8 months ago
@7Epitaph A lightpole is a lot weaker than re-inforced concrete. Also one of the eyewitnesses said one of the engines was smoking from damage before impact. Also how much stability is needed when you're travelling at 500mph with the intention of flying a plane into a building? The lawn damage has been put forward by truthers who claim the plane bounced on the ground before impact. None of the eyewitnesses said the plane bounced. So sorry it's not ludicrous, it's a fact. However good luck to you
hornetgags 8 months ago
@hornetgags
I haven't found any articles about a reliable witness who saw the point of impact. It makes no sense that the pilot would have the expertise to fly a commercial airliner close enough to the ground to knock over light-poles (which, by the way, have been proven historically to easily rip planes apart), and not even scratch the lawn. I said nothing about a "bounce", nor did I claim it was as strong as concrete. Common sense in regard to TOTAL lack of debris leads me to my disbeliefs.
7Epitaph 8 months ago
@7Epitaph Well I would suggest you haven't really looked, if you google pentagon debris images, they have countless photos on there and as I said look up Mike Walters on here. Again, you're just choosing to ignore because it contradicts your belief and there's no point discussing it with you. Farewell.
hornetgags 8 months ago
@hornetgags
Countless photos of what exactly? Plane debris? Hardly. A seven year old can tell that plane structures don't just disappear into nothing.
For the record, I have researched flight 77, specifically, for many months. I know the official story almost by heart. What many "believers" refuse to acknowledge is that editing the Official story to support probability is "debate suicide". You cannot theorize what is allegedly fact.
No parts, seats, luggage, bodies, or even frames. Fact.
7Epitaph 8 months ago
No plane, No Gain
StickHits 9 months ago
2 things i saw..... 1 i hear the numbers in black ops and 11 looks ike the twin towers
madsongh 9 months ago
probably a news plane....god i get goose bumps watching these videos......
popsnacks2 9 months ago
sumthing about sept 11 i think if this happen on sept 11 and the twins fell on sept 11 well i guess the goverment might of had sumthing to do with it the world is gettin to small for ppl so y not do a disaster to make space. they say if the world has more then 200 million ppl we fukd so just wer ya raincoats on ya junk bois
sk8shit93 9 months ago
@sk8shit93 that doesn't make sense..
ianoshy 9 months ago
10 people died in 9/11
sartanko 9 months ago
mikavettel
Stop using drugs....
LVEbonys 9 months ago
The real criminals that committed this conspiracy needs to be indicted immediately..they are not abrabs!! they are fucking traitors committing treason against the American people!!! I want to see justice for every single humanbeing that lost their lives because of these events!!!! The criminals must be arressted and put to capital punishment!! Who are they? They are every president since Nixon to obama, all the way down to Israel, and other govrnmts complying with Globalization!! They all NTBBD
unoitaliano 9 months ago
Arshad Khan negotiated Good Friday Agreement in Ireland.
justicepartyuk 10 months ago