New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

This is the first documentary that focuses solely on the Pentagon that is presented in such a way that should wakeup a lot of people after viewing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Click on a question to view the answer. This area is a work in progress. Many more questions will be answered here over time, and a number of the current responses will be expanded. Be sure to hit Control F5 each time you visit this page to refresh it and see any new links that have been added.

1. If Flight 77 did not hit the building what happened to its passengers and crew?

2. Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the building?

3. What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?

4. Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

5. Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?

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

7. How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

8. Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?

Source

Thank you for posting this.

I hope it will be seen by many.

But more importantly, I hope it will actually be seen by those who KNOW the truth, because they need to understand that the days of governing people as if they are all booze swilling, pot smoking pro-wrestling fanatics and ignorant rubes are over.

They need to stop trying to convince us we are stupid. And they need to realize that we are at least as smart as they are... even perhaps to go so far as to learn to fear the inevitable truth, that many of us are in fact smarter than they are - despite their zealous conviction that we are simply human resources for their exploitation.

reply to post by SPreston


www.911myths.com...


'Nuff said.

[edit on 6/25/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


(This won't edit in, so I'm replyingto add):

aal77.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


My understanding is that the C-130 was quite a distance from AA77 and that if AA77 flew over the Pentagon at the exact moment of an explosion, it would be easy for the pilots of the C-130 to believe that AA77 struck the Pentagon. Or, these recordings could've been fabricated by the government altogether. We have no idea.

Suffice it to say that the evidence CIT has gathered in the above video is very compelling, to say the least.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


'fabricated'??!!

No. Listen to the tape. There's a longer version, too.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread shows why there was no "fly-over". But, if you simply Google Map you'll see why. Pay particular attention to where Andrews Air Force Base is. Then know that 'GOFER06' took off to the North, made an immediate left turn to heading 270 (magnetic). By the time the traffic (AAL77) was pointed out to him, he was just about over the Potomac.

When you thought he was too far away to see clearly, the traffic (AAL77) was only five miles West of his position, and approaching. GOFER06 was told to turn and follow the jet!!! Of COURSE he could see the AAL77.

Immediately after the impact, GOFER06 asks to CIRCLE the Pentagon! He was right there!

Back to the "fly-over"....how was that possibly done, and no one saw it? Immediately east is the Mall, the WH...and the Prohibited Area P-56.

TRACON was tracking the primary target, you can hear the chatter in the background of the recording, as they discuss P-56. A magical "fly-over" airplane would need to pull off a disappearing act to escape detection!!!

Sorry but O'Brien admitted he was so far away when he first saw the explosion that he could not even tell that it was coming from the Pentagon!

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC.
-C-130 Pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

The Pentagon is MASSIVE compared to a 757. If he couldn't tell the explosion was coming from the Pentagon, there is no way he would be able to see the plane at all.

Of course this jives perfectly with the fact proven by video, photographs, and multiple honest eyewitnesses on the scene that he was not in the airspace until 3 minutes after the attack.

Plus you will not find a quote from O'Brien ANYWHERE where he claims he watched the plane hit.

Furthermore we know for a fact that he approached from the northwest in complete contradiction to the RADES data. This is independently corroborated by Russell Roy, Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, AND Erik Dihle as you can here in this interview.

The debate is over.

The independent evidence proves the 9/11 official narrative a fabrication.




[edit on 25-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Actually, reading the transcript reminded me of something. I remember someone snapped a picture in D.C., in it, there was a plane flying far in the distance. The C-130 was visible in the photo, the other plane was not identified. The mystery plane was blown up, and in it's outline, 4 engines were clearly visible, and the outline resembled a 747 a lot.

So far, I've yet to hear anyone identify this aircraft. I will try and find the pictures.

Edit, found them on rense:

Mystery Jet

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Evil, that was a 747, military flavor, don't know its mission, maybe someone does?

Its callsign was "WORD31"

Another ATS member, 'LaBTop", has rather extensive threads that touch on it...there were confusions about the call sign..."SWORD" or "WORD", but on the copies of the Flight Strips I see "WORD" and in the ATC tapes I hear "WORD"....

In the stresses of being a controller (especially that morning) they often get call signs wrong. Example is "GOFER06". Controller often misspeaks and calls him "eight-six" Very common occurrence.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks for the heads up. Can you link me to the thread discussing it? I would appreciate it, as this is the first time I've heard of anyone actually identifying it.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf



Here's one of LaBTop's threads: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It bears examination, both the work, and even the flaws. BUT, it was a process of discovery.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You misinterpret/misquote O'Brien's words just like you misinterpret most everything else you comment about. He DID NOT say he was too far away to see AA 77, he said:

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC.
-C-130 Pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

If you knew anything at all about flying you would know that the sun was in his eyes and he was looking down into ground clutter, not that he was too far away.

This is a prime example of you putting words into someone's mouth to make it mean what you want as opposed to what was actually said.

If the 757 had pulled up to flyover the Pentagon O'Brien and his crew would have had a plan form view of a huge honkin' 757 out of ground clutter which even a partially blind man could have seen very easily. There was no flyover simply because he could not have missed it in spite of your desperate spin to make it so.

Your further spin is indicative of your "cult like" delusion to spin a fable. The Pentagon is a dull drab gray and blends in with the surrounding terrain, an American Airlines 757 is mostly a bright polished aluminum making it stand out like a sore thumb in plan form view with the sun glinting off of that bright aluminum if it had pulled up to fly over.

The whole O'Brien tape destroys your delusion. It was not fabricated as all of the data from Andrews Tower Records, to the ATC tape, to the Radar data, to the Tribby Video, and Looney Photographs all agree that your delusions are WRONG.

Your crap has been shown to be wrong in multiple ways in addition to the above, but you keep spinning like a stuck record simply because all you have are delusion and a cult of a few followers. Your attempts to smear are a complete and fraudulent failure. Apparently, you are so deluded you don't know it yet.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Reheat]

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


I identified that white 747 at the original Loose Change forums back in 2006 and am one of Mr. Gaffney's sources. We have 4 of those E-4B's in our inventory and 3 of them were in the air on 9/11 "allegedly" participating in the many wargames and other exercises that were in operation on 9/11.


*edit to add the word "allegedly"*

[edit on 25-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Evil, that was a 747, military flavor, don't know its mission, maybe someone does?

Its callsign was "WORD31"

That 747 was an National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) that took off from Andrews. The Radar tapes indicate he DID NOT transit either P-56 A or P-56 B, he flew around them and then held over Richmond for awhile. The AF won't release it's mission, but there is speculation that he was airborne in support of the President's return to Washington. That did not occur and he eventually landed back at Andrews.

Regardless of his mission, it was not a bad idea at all for those assets to be airborne on 9/11 once an attack was identified. There was nothing nefarious about it's presence or it's launch from Andrews at all in spite of Conspiracy Theorists attempts to make it into something mysterious.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Back to the "fly-over"....how was that possibly done, and no one saw it?

I have to ask, have you taken the time to watch the above video yet? Your questions are answered in the video.

Thanks for the link. very informative (though messy and sometimes a bit uncivil). I suppose the mystery then, as you stated, would be what exactly that plane's particular mission/purpose was that day, and why it flew so close to the white house, scaring the crap out of people.

Edit: Just saw the previous posts, posted afterwards. Thank you both for further input.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Your reference to "war games" is more appropriately call training. What do you think all branches of our military do on a day to day basis, play "tiddle de winks"?

The answer is they train. Sometimes the training is local and sometimes it involves large Command Level exercises involving many assets. There is nothing strange about planned exercises on 9/11 as that is what the military does on a daily basis. Pick any day of the week and there are exercises through the entire military whether that day is Sept 9 or or Oct 9.

Aircraft were built to fly, not sit idle on the ground. And fly they do. If they sit for a day or two they tend to break more frequently than if they fly often. Therefore they fly enabling the crews to maintain proficiency at what they do and keeping the aircraft in a flyable "combat ready" condition.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

...have you taken the time to watch the above video yet?

I have to admit, not yet. I saw it's 90 minutes, and needed to slot it in. AND get pen and paper for notes!!!


EDIT: Already, only two and a half minutes in, and I can already see the delusion begin. Comparing pictures of the Air Garuda crash!!?? (Bet Craig doesn't even know the source of his crash 'comparison' photos nor why they are completely irrelevant to AAL77).

Now, I'm gonna need popcorn and a diet coke.....

Four minutes in, and it's still a load of buffalo flop. Cherry-picked damage photos, disingenuous 'assumptions', i.e., the PfffT claim of the 'impossibility' of the pull up from the 'dive'...well, then, if they wish to advocate a "fly-over" theory, how did this alleged "fly-over" occur without a pull-up afterwards?? (and a suddenly magically invisible airplane). Wonder Woman?

But wait, there's more! Insisting on the strike at the ground floor, when that is only coming from ONE possibility that was made into a computer simulation. Looking at the aftermath from the day or two after, NOT the one that Craig provides ten days later, you can see that the airplane impacted at floor two or three....

It's like watching one of those 'Creationist' videos trying to disprove evolution.....

(donning flame-retardant undies...)

Now, after clicking the 'YT' link, I have a conspiracy question: I thought YT had a max of 10 minutes for videos on its site???

[edit on 6/25/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Reheat


Sure, they train. But damned near every usable plane on the Eastern Seaboard out on exercises, exercises that eerily mirrored the scenario that was taking place? On the same day? Especially when the government had already recieved several warnings that something like this was gonna go down?

I don't think so.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Sure, they train. But damned near every usable plane on the Eastern Seaboard out on exercises, exercises that eerily mirrored the scenario that was taking place? On the same day?

This is total unadulterated nonsense. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Especially when the government had already recieved several warnings that something like this was gonna go down?

Warning that were not specific nor actionable. Have you ever in your entire life ever seen an actual Intelligence Report on anything? That's a rhetorical question as I know the answer.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I don't think so.

You may think what you want, but that doesn't mean it's any more credible than my grandson's opinion that "boogers" are hiding under his bed.