lack of a Pentagon boeing video

Tell me again how the surveillance of the Pentagon would be restricted to low-caliber cameras hooked up to VCR's. Even if tapes were used along the line, digital storage was available, and the 'cost' of tapes would hardly be an issue for the Pentagon.

I'm a little confused about the argument here considering a tape exists that showing an American Airlines 757 hitting the Pentagon.

So how many tapes would be needed to convince you guys that it happened? Would 2 tapes do it? How about 3 tapes?

In addition, as has been pointed out several times in this thread and pretty much ignored, there are dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the plane and literally mountains of physical evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Are we really supposed to believe that with a couple more videos you guys would be saying "OK, yep, it happened. We were wrong."

Call me suspicious, but somehow I doubt that would be the case.
 
Btw one little piece of info that debunks the whole flight 77 thing is that a plane of that size cant fly at 15 feet above the ground well going 500km/h even the best test pilots would have to stay at 60 feet because of ground effect you would just get sucked to the ground unless we are dealing with alien terrorists probs dint happen. Also the wake turb from those massive engines would dig holes in the ground.

The plane knocked over lamp posts.
 
Btw one little piece of info that debunks the whole flight 77 thing is that a plane of that size cant fly at 15 feet above the ground well going 500km/h even the best test pilots would have to stay at 60 feet because of ground effect you would just get sucked to the ground unless we are dealing with alien terrorists probs dint happen. Also the wake turb from those massive engines would dig holes in the ground.

Clearly you're incorrect.
 
Btw one little piece of info that debunks the whole flight 77 thing is that a plane of that size cant fly at 15 feet above the ground well going 500km/h even the best test pilots would have to stay at 60 feet because of ground effect you would just get sucked to the ground unless we are dealing with alien terrorists probs dint happen. Also the wake turb from those massive engines would dig holes in the ground.
There have been arguments made in other threads suggesting it would be possible to stay airborne at such a height, but I've wondered myself about the lack of any apparent evidence of jet-engines leaving trails in the ground leading up to the collision site. I may be wrong here, but as I understood it a fair deal of pressure and heat is blown out behind those things. I'm reminded of this.
 
There have been arguments made in other threads suggesting it would be possible to stay airborne at such a height, but I've wondered myself about the lack of any apparent evidence of jet-engines leaving trails in the ground leading up to the collision site. I may be wrong here, but as I understood it a fair deal of pressure and heat is blown out behind those things. I'm reminded of this.


What are you expecting to see? A pair of furrows in the ground?
 
What are you expecting to see? A pair of furrows in the ground?
Some charred, wilted, dried, or otherwise disturbed grass on the lawn leading up to the site of impact reflective of where the jet engines passed by running so hard at such a height?
 
Im quite familiar with flying, when going average speeds and not turning you don't really get any effects until around half your wingspan. Theirs no way a 150 foot airliner hit something well being 15 feet in the air going 500km/h you would instantly loose all vortices because of the ground obstruction and the induced drag would shoot you straight into the dirt before hitting your target.
 
Some charred, wilted, dried, or otherwise disturbed grass on the lawn leading up to the site of impact reflective of where the jet engines passed by running so hard at such a height?

Does your jet have downward vectored thrust?
 
Im quite familiar with flying, when going average speeds and not turning you don't really get any effects until around half your wingspan. Theirs no way a 150 foot airliner hit something well being 15 feet in the air going 500km/h you would instantly loose all vortices because of the ground obstruction and the induced drag would shoot you straight into the dirt before hitting your target.

And the lamp posts? Engine? Landing gear? Passengers? Seats? Airframe? How did they end up in the Pentagon?

Could you please clarify you vortices argument as it makes no sense, by which I mean I think you have a language problem, rather than you are wrong...
 
If any one is good with vectors and functions its not to difficult to calculate. Also to knock over all those lights he would need to be flying at a dangerously low height for a prolonged time, on a low winged aircraft this would create up and down wash which will make your aircraft not read its speed properly. This is something that can only be done in specific types of jets. flight 77 is built for high altitude pressure gradients
 
If any one is good with vectors and functions its not to difficult to calculate.
I'm good with vectors and functions, why don't you show your math.

Also to knock over all those lights he would need to be flying at a dangerously low height for a prolonged time

Really? How long exactly would that be? At 400 mph to cover the 0.2 miles between the first light pole and the pentagon that would be less than two seconds.
 
And the lamp posts? Engine? Landing gear? Passengers? Seats? Airframe? How did they end up in the Pentagon?

Could you please clarify you vortices argument as it makes no sense, by which I mean I think you have a language problem, rather than you are wrong...


How many things dint end up their? where talking about a 100 tonne plane and fuel, I have seen the video compare it to the size of the initial explosion in any tower its about 10% of the size and it does not burn like kerosene or any fuel I know of even the air force jet fuels are kerosene mostly it should be light yellow-orange in the video it was a dark red color and you could not evens see the 150 foot plane going in. Another issue is that the entrance hole is way to small, If you look at pictures before the collapse you know their is no way a plain can fit, even if physics allowed it to fly that low, theirs also no wing damage I would expect them to break off leaving the building in bad condition but some how windows less than 50 feet from the centre impact are in perfect condition. Also their is no way it could make it all the way through the building leaving some strange hobbit hole like exit at the end with the body of the plane missing. Apart from the few small bits of frame and stuff on the lawn in front of the crash their was nothing else recovered.

Also the grass their was just a little dry the engines would be shooting out air at extremely fast their would be no grass.
 
Also the information on pole replacement is available to any one because of the freedom of information act people have checked this out and the Virginia department of transportation is in control of the light pole maintenance and when asked about it they denied having any documentation to the exact location of the poles that were allegedly downed on 9/11 and later replaced. I have not researched the poles as it would be impossible to hit them all on flight 77. the ground is not very even and you would probably end up flipping over cars which I have not heard reported.
 
anonname, have you actually looked up the explanation of these things? Have you read the official report on what happened?

You are asking questions that were asked ten years ago, and have been answered hundred of times things.

There's noting wrong with asking questions. The problem is when you ignore the answers.
 
How many things dint end up their? where talking about a 100 tonne plane and fuel, I have seen the video compare it to the size of the initial explosion in any tower its about 10% of the size and it does not burn like kerosene or any fuel I know of even the air force jet fuels are kerosene mostly it should be light yellow-orange in the video it was a dark red color and you could not evens see the 150 foot plane going in. Another issue is that the entrance hole is way to small, If you look at pictures before the collapse you know their is no way a plain can fit, even if physics allowed it to fly that low, theirs also no wing damage I would expect them to break off leaving the building in bad condition but some how windows less than 50 feet from the centre impact are in perfect condition. Also their is no way it could make it all the way through the building leaving some strange hobbit hole like exit at the end with the body of the plane missing. Apart from the few small bits of frame and stuff on the lawn in front of the crash their was nothing else recovered.

Also the grass their was just a little dry the engines would be shooting out air at extremely fast their would be no grass.

Again, Im not sure why you imagine the jet thrust to be pointed down, and why you would think that hot exhaust passing over grass at 400mph would burn it...? Id also humbly suggest that your ground-effect analogy is incorrect. I have some hours in a light aircraft and do not claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that the ground effect increases lift and reduces drag, which I think is the opposite of what you are claiming, which is that the plane would be 'sucked' into the ground.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood...
 
Then what did all the eyewitnesses see? A Hallucination? A hologram? Then explain the NOISE of a plane they heard?

Have you asked any pilots? Or are you just believing what someone says?
 
Originally Posted by BombDr
No you are correct that the opium production has increased - how does that prove that it is an evil western plot, by the Queen, or Illuminati or whichever boogyman is perpetrating it this week?

It is simply too simplistic to say that Taliban 'eradicated' the poppy harvest, they simply regulated it. It is now one of their sources of income. The other reasons its has been able to flourish are firstly it is not ISAF's priority to deal with it, something I disagree with, secondly it is believed that to take income from impoverished farmer will more likely turn them to the insurgency - again, something I do not agree with and finally, the corruption of the Afghan government allows such things to occur.

I know there are fileds of it, I have walked through it. It is one of the few places I am safe, because the Taliban rarely place IEDs anywhere near their income crop. I don't have any figures to hand on arrests, but they do occur, usually if they are of a rival clan to the local Police chief, and it is mostly transported by livestock or truck accross to Pakistan.

It certainly does not pass through the hands of ISAF.


Glad we can agree on something, (at least to some extent), at last :)

Maybe ISAF will be able to agree a proper production process in the upcoming meetings with the Taliban, (once the delay is sorted out).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/afghanistan-talks-taliban-qatar-cancelled

I expect the 'for profit prison companies' want to be included to ensure that levels are not too low and it doesn't detract from their 'customer base'.



Hmmmm, would the people who use c130s to smuggle tonnes of heroin and cocaine into the USA be honest when it comes to a DVD. If their was a tape it has been destroyed or is held by one or a few people as collateral. If it was a plane they would just release the video.


Anonname, I couldn't help but note that you made this rather outlandish claim about western military jets being used to ferry drugs from the middle east without providing a shred of evidence [but preferring to refer us to YouTube videos which in my humble opinion are NOT a credible source of independently verifiable evidence], yet when the guy on the field in Afghanistan has provided a clear and succinct explanation of what the actual position is, you simply make no comment but move on to the issue of flight 77 and vortices.

My question to you is this: Oxy appears to agree with the explanation given by Bombdr, what is your position on the matter? Do you now agree that you were wrong to have made such claims? I would be interested to know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a little confused about the argument here considering a tape exists that showing an American Airlines 757 hitting the Pentagon.

So how many tapes would be needed to convince you guys that it happened? Would 2 tapes do it? How about 3 tapes?

In addition, as has been pointed out several times in this thread and pretty much ignored, there are dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the plane and literally mountains of physical evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Are we really supposed to believe that with a couple more videos you guys would be saying "OK, yep, it happened. We were wrong."

Call me suspicious, but somehow I doubt that would be the case.

I would love to see a tape showing an actual 757 hitting the Pentagon to clear this matter up... would you please post it?
 
Oxy, do you actually think it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon? Or are you simply arguing for arguing's sake?
 
Originally Posted by Rafterman
I'm a little confused about the argument here considering a tape exists that showing an American Airlines 757 hitting the Pentagon.

So how many tapes would be needed to convince you guys that it happened? Would 2 tapes do it? How about 3 tapes?

In addition, as has been pointed out several times in this thread and pretty much ignored, there are dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the plane and literally mountains of physical evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Are we really supposed to believe that with a couple more videos you guys would be saying "OK, yep, it happened. We were wrong."

Call me suspicious, but somehow I doubt that would be the case.



I would love to see a tape showing an actual 757 hitting the Pentagon to clear this matter up... would you please post it?


Oxy, even if you see such a tape, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that you will argue that it was staged. I'm sorry, if that sounds blunt.

What is really the point of your argument? Some popular argument is that the government orchestrated the planes that flew into the WTC buildings - we all saw the planes penetrate the WTC buildings. If the 'evil' government could achieve that tell me what you think stopped them from sending just one more plane into the Pentagon, fixing CCTV pointing to the sky to capture it all for their credibility and for the CTs' viewing 'satisfaction'?

Why do you hang on to this shred of evidence in the face of a huge body of credible evidence such as the pieces of the craft, the witnesses, and living relatives of the dead? If you are really after the truth, my suggestion is that you visit with the living relatives of the dead please. Maybe that will satisfy your curiosity, but do remember that this is their reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would love to see a tape showing an actual 757 hitting the Pentagon to clear this matter up... would you please post it?

What about the eyewitness accounts of Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

Steve Anderson:Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.
Deb Anlauf:
Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on. "Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."
Arlington police transmission:
Motor 11: There is visible smoke coming from that area...high, visible smoke.
Dispatcher: Motor 11 direct.
Motor 14: Motor 14, it was an American Airlines plane, uh, headed eastbound over the Pike (Columbia Pike highway), possibly toward the Pentagon.
Dispatcher: 10-4. Cruiser 50 direct.
David Battle:
Earlier Tuesday, Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."
Gary Bauer:
I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.
Maurice Bease:
Sergeant Maurice L. Bease had worked around Marine aviation long enough to know what a fly-by was, and it sounded like one as he stood outside his office near the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Turning around expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards from where he stood. Immediately, a ball of flame shot up the side of the building, followed by smoke, lots of it.
Paul Begala:
Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed an explosion near the Pentagon. "It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball," he said in an interview on his mobile phone.
Mickey Bell:
Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened.
Susan Bergen:
Susan Bergen was sitting in a hotel room near the Pentagon on Tuesday morning, glued to TV news coverage of the World Trade Center attack. Out of the corner of her eye, she saw a plane outside the window of her 11th floor room. She turned just in time to see a big jetliner skim the treetops and slam into the side of the Pentagon, less than a half mile from her hotel room. It looked like the plane sped up just before hitting the building, she said.
Brian Birdwell:
LTC Brian Birdwell. He was just heading back down the hall to his office when the building exploded in front of him. ... Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs.
Ed Blunt:
Engine 101 actually saw the jetliner plow into the northwest side of the Pentagon. The radio crackled, “Engine 101—emergency traffic, a plane has gone down into the Pentagon."
Sean Boger:
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."
Donald Bouchoux:
Donald R. Bouchoux, 53, a retired Naval officer, a Great Falls resident, a Vietnam veteran and former commanding officer of a Navy fighter squadron, was driving west from Tysons Corner to the Pentagon for a 10am meeting. He wrote: At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards (should be more than 150 yards from the impact) in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit.
Pam Bradley:
I work in Washington DC area, and was on my way to work, in my car, sitting on a bridge, and saw the plane hit the Pentagon. I am in a complete state of shock.
Chris Braman:
The lawn was littered with twisted pieces of aluminum. He saw one chunk painted with the letter "A," another with a "C." It didn't occur to Braman what the letters signified until a man in the crowd stooped to pick up one of the smaller metal shards. He examined it for a moment, then announced: "This was a jet."
Mark Bright:
"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "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." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon. He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "

Omar Campo:
It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane, Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire."
Joseph Candelario:
As I was looking across the river towards the direction of the Pentagon, I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.
Susan Carroll:
I was standing on the platform high above the [Washington Reagan] airport awaiting a Metro subway train to my office in the heart of the district, on Constitution Avenue, admiring the lovely blue skies when I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon.
James R. Cissell:
''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, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. ''I remember thinking, 'The World Trade Center was just the beginning, there's going to be more.' '' He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.''
Allen Cleveland:
Allen Cleveland of Woodbridge Virginia looked out from a Metro train going to National Airport, to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. "I thought, 'There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,' " Before he could process that thought, he saw "a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics."" . . a silver pasenger jet, mid sized"
Dan Creed:
He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," Creed recalls.

Content from External Source
This has been posted before. You must have read it.
 
Oxy, even if you see such a tape, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that you will argue that it was staged. I'm sorry, if that sounds blunt.
By all means, be as blunt as you feel necessary. Quite literally ('nothing' is beyond the realms of possibility), so your conjecture as to how I would react were I to see a tape as discussed... could possibly be correct, albeit only one of an infinite number of other possible reactions.

However, as Rafterman is mistaken and apparently no such video exists, let alone one or two other versions as suggested... we will never know what my reaction would have been.

What is really the point of your argument?
What argument are you referring to? Rafterman said there was a video... I asked him to post it... he ignored the request presumably because he has no copy of such a video.
Why do you not ask Rafterman why he is making false claims on a debunking site... it can give visitors the impression that debunkers present bunk statements, (which patently they sometimes, (inadvertently) do).

Some popular argument is that the government orchestrated the planes that flew into the WTC buildings

Yes that is quite a popular argument.

we all saw the planes penetrate the WTC buildings. If the 'evil' government could achieve that tell me what you think stopped them from sending just one more plane into the Pentagon, fixing CCTV pointing to the sky to capture it all for their credibility and for the CTs' viewing 'satisfaction'?

I don't know... it is not a theory which I personally subscribe strongly to... but possibly it could have been a missile... what do you think?

Why do you hang on to this shred of evidence in the face of a huge body of credible evidence such as the pieces of the craft,

Not one part of which, is undoubtedly part of an appropriate aircraft.

the witnesses, and living relatives of the dead? If you are really after the truth, my suggestion is that you visit with the living relatives of the dead please. Maybe that will satisfy your curiosity, but do remember that this is their reality.

Nice try.... not gonna happen :cool:

See: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/36049
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is an entire thread about this. If I remember you claimed the engine came from a missile and that other debris was 'planted'.
 
Or that they did NOT catch it on camera.

FOIA requests for footage resulted in no footage, and lots of details of the available footage that the FBI got, and what it showed.

Can you explain where you would expect cameras to be that would have caught the impact and survived?
I think there are 4 at least on top of the side of the pentagon that was hit and Citgo station
 
A general comment, not directly on topic (the OP speculates on the content of existing security cam recordings, and why these recordings were not released; my question hits the base a bit lower):

Why would anyone need a clear video recording to be convinced a certain plane crashed at a certain site? Most plane crashes are not recorded by even one camera, and there are often no eye witnesses, and yet doubts hardly ever arise if a plane crashed at all, provided it was tracked by radar to it crash site, its wreckage is found, the remains of its passengers and crew recovered and identified?
And yet, in the case of AA77, we have two video recordings and over a hundred known eye witnesses!
 
The problem with this one is that it HAS to be a conspiracy. We can't have a massive conspiracy in one location and then the other not be so. That won't work. If a plane crashed into the pentagon, then maybe, just maybe, the towers weren't brought down by explosives, or thermite, or laser beams. With the claim that the wreckage was planted means that I HAVE to see a video to believe it. Even though any intelligent human being will know how hard it would be to "sneak" in the "fake" wreckage. If a few people out of those over 1 hundred witnesses say something that sounds like there might be something fishy going on, it makes MUCH more sense to go with that theory than the one that over a hundred people corroborate on.

Somehow, it is more believable to some that even though NO ONE saw a missile fly into the building; it makes more sense than a guy who couldn't fly real good flew a jet into the building. Never mind that the missile caused a massive explosion on the façade, yet still penetrated as far into the building as it did, and no missile fragments were found. Or, that a second plane flew into the building, while this one flew past un-noticed and then this guy that couldn't fly a Cessna somehow successfully landed somewhere else so that the passengers could be secretly unloaded and killed or convinced to abandon their lives and keep quiet about the whole thing, or maybe just held somewhere for the last 15 years.

Makes sense to me until I see a video. Oh wait, NO, it makes more sense the way that the more than on hundred people say.... A plane hit the building. Lack of video is odd, but not a smoking gun.
 
Last edited:
The problem with this one is that it HAS to be a conspiracy. We can't have a massive conspiracy in one location and then the other not be so. That won't work. If a plane crashed into the pentagon, then maybe, just maybe, the towers weren't brought down by explosives, or thermite, or laser beams. With the claim that the wreckage was planted means that I HAVE to see a video to believe it. Even though any intelligent human being will know how hard it would be to "sneak" in the "fake" wreckage. If a few people out of those over 1 hundred witnesses say something that sounds like there might be something fishy going on, it makes MUCH more sense to go with that theory than the one that over a hundred people corroborate on.

Somehow, it is more believable to some that even though NO ONE saw a missile fly into the building; it makes more sense than a guy who couldn't fly real good flew a jet into the building. Never mind that the missile caused a massive explosion on the façade, yet still penetrated as far into the building as it did, and no missile fragments were found. Or, that a second plane flew into the building, while this one flew past un-noticed and then this guy that couldn't fly a Cessna somehow successfully landed somewhere else so that the passengers could be secretly unloaded and killed or convinced to abandon their lives and keep quiet about the whole thing, or maybe just held somewhere for the last 15 years.

Makes sense to me until I see a video. Oh wait, NO, it makes more sense the way that the more than on hundred people say.... A plane hit the building. Lack of video is odd, but not a smoking gun.
Lack of video is not odd considering it was 2001. I had a cell phone then. It did not take video as was the case with most cell phones.
 
I think u might have missed some sarcasm....at least I hope you did....I thought I saw quiet a lot of it.....
 
Lack of video is not odd considering it was 2001. I had a cell phone then. It did not take video as was the case with most cell phones.

Apparently camera phones weren't available until 2002

In Dec 2005 a small plane landed on I-75 near Detroit, in a gap in traffic, and no one got a picture. I even remember being annoyed about that.
 
Apparently camera phones weren't available until 2002

In Dec 2005 a small plane landed on I-75 near Detroit, in a gap in traffic, and no one got a picture. I even remember being annoyed about that.

I know I'm a bit "late' to this discussion...but allow me please to post a visual re-creation that the NTSB made, to display the entire flight of American Airlines 77:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vqDDlS9Hyw


I am sorry that the full video is 90 minutes long....but it shows the full history of that flight, not in convenient short "sound-bites"....

The graphics should be self-explanatory, but anyone with questions is welcome to contact me, and I will explain.
 
Back
Top