911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77
Uploaded by: mikejwilson
Video Description:
A short animation with video and photos illustrating the final moments of Flight 77 on September 11, 2001.
Tags for this video: 77 9/11 911 boeing case conspiracy flight flight77 global jet missile pentagon plane politics solidworks study truth war
Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by mikejwilson
| American Flight 77 | 9/11 Pentagon Attack: A Closer Look | 9/11 pentagon coverup conspiracy - no 757 |
 |  |  |
| Rare Pentagon 9-11 Surveillance Camera Video of Impact | PENTAGON ATTACK: WHERE IS THE PLANE??? | Boeing vs Truck |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
"Now lets NOT FLY ON THAT ANGLE."
----
What crash? Do you have a confirmed report of a military plane crashing in Ohio during the time A/A 77 was off radar?
Now let's not hijack flight 77 until 8:50, then fly blind for 40 minutes, hoping to spot the Pentagon before US military stops us.
Stupid. But coz thinks a "mistake" by a criminal is PROOF they didn't do it, so he could not believe flight 77 was hijacked.
Got a question for ya.
What happened to A/A 77 that landed in Ohio?
What did they do with the plane? Where is it?
If all the debris was collected and identified as coming from flight 77, then you have solid evidence.
But not one piece has been, not one. So there is no evidence it was flight 77. You decide to believe it was 77, knowing there is no evidence to confirm that belief.
pheil
"As I told you yesterday when you claimed this exact same thing.
They were told the crash was a military test plane and weren't allowed anywhere near the site."....really?.. got a link for that??....Maybe a nws clipping or a local tv braodcast???...or is just more bullshit you made up??
So... really?
A new investigation will answer your questions
it would not have been a mistake had they not cut down the poles idiot.
They would not have cut the poles if they intended to fly on the official path. THE PLANE would be the proof. NOT THE POLES.
-wake-
That is a bunch of BS. You said they brought the real box from 77 which crashed in Ohio. Proving it was 77. Now there is "no evidence" again. -Contradict yourself much?-
Sorry kid, can't have it both ways.
I just want to clairfy that you do not know what happened to A/A 77 if it landed in Ohio or what they did with it? Correct?
So... really?
---------
Really coz? He lived along the approach, 40 minutes east in Ohio all the way to the Pentagon? Really?
maybe they cut the poles down, so they could claim the plane was low enough to hit poles, so ANYONE WHO SEES IT FLIES OVER is told that the plane that "hit" the poles also "hit" the Pentagon.
I can explain it to you for a few more days if you need me to...but if you can't understand, I don't see the point.
But it didn't. It flew north of Citgo and hit zero poles.
The poles are down to claim the plane was low enough to hit the Pentagon.
Pretend Lagasse sees the plane and then chases after it and never blinks. He sees it fly over.
So he reports this. Then is told the plane that hit flew south of Citgo, hitting poles, and the fly over plane was in pursuit of the 757 that Lagasse must've missed seeing...
Get it yet?
Sorry kid, can't have it both ways.
---------
Coz, I know you are slow of mind.
No, the black box was never identified as coming from 77.
you said if "one piece" of debris was proven to be from 77, then it is impossible for them to fake the crash.
I said wrong, they "could have" planted one piece of debris.
You don't think.
And you don't understand the importance of exact details and wording.
They "could have" done something, doesn't mean they actually did it. Do you understand?
------
Wrong, idiot. See, the plane never flies low enough to hit poles, and never hits any.
Get that?
So, if it flew the "official path" and hit no light poles, but flew level over the lawn, that would be impossible. Get it?
So multiple reasons why it makes sense to remove the poles.
But if the plane flew the pole path, Lagasse couldn't see thru the Citgo station, and uses specific landmarks NoC as to where he sees it, so he can only see it NoC.
Pole 1 couldn't be hit, since the plane was north of Citgo. So, why did this pole spear the cab?
"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area, I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."
He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon.
He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area.
"Out of my peripheral vision,
I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower."
"If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car."
"I thought, that is a big plane."
"Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board".
"I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it."
Let me get this right:i accuse you of ignoring human error as a possible explanations for two events; the reported finding of an 'extra' flight data recorder and ATC reporting that they believed(note: BELIEVED not KNEW) that AA77 crashed/landed in Ohio, and your best response: evade by querying the ASCE report?
At least have the decency to admit when you're wrong.
...I saw it hit the building....
...The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away."...
...I saw an American airlines jet come overhead and slam into the Pentagon....
...The plane came from behind us and banked to the right and went into the Pentagon....
...I just watched it hit the building. It exploded....