911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 - video

[greyl]

Mike J. Wilson: A short movie illustrating the final moments
of American Airlines flight 77. Key points include lamp pole evidence,
security cam view analysis, generator damage and actual photos.
Witness new video and photos never seen before until just recently.



YouTube link

[MervinFerd]

1. Bump. Because there are people who need to see this.

[ThePentaCon]

2. This animation is just wrong

I am sure Mike is a very well intentioned guy. At least I hope he is.

First and probably most important problem is he has the plane on the wrong side. The plane was on the North side of the gas station(left of the bridge) and did not even come close to that bridge or hitting the light poles.



This is being generous,placing the plane near poles 4 and 5. It still cannot it those poles, because the others are untouched.





Second, in his "official story impact" he does NOT have the plane tilt it's right wing up and left wing down, hitting the ground and trailer, as told in the "official story".

Third, he does NOT represent the damage the way it actually looked. He represents it with color coding, which is deceptive and you all know it.

If he were honest with his presentation he would represent the plane entering a hole like this...



Fourth, he also references the same debris more than once.

There are only 3 pieces of shiny polished aluminum. He repeats these images mistakenly thinking there was a lot of AA "fuselage wreckage".
We can through these pieces if anybody wants to.

Again people report it as diving, so how did it come level across the lawn? The plane would have been on a low descent towards those light poles. Not...

...diving in at an unrecoverable angle -James Robbins


or Top 20 corrupt Congressman Rick Renzi who just happened to be on the highway overlooking the Pentagon...

"The jet creamed in at a dive bombing angle"
VIDEO: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1590000/video/_1593685_pentagon17_biles_vi.ram


We have another clip that is more damaging. Rick Renzi originally was listed as a "law student" and on the other clip we have he is wearing a tight white t-shirt, and gives an even more detailed and peculiar account. He again mimics with is hand the plane in a "suicide bomber, but I'm not saying it was a bomb or anything"(yes he said that), but actually has it in this steep dive and hitting "short", "not on top of". Slamming into the wall, "fireball spraying up on the wall"

So did it dive or did it come in low level across the lawn? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[TheWraith]

5. That witness is obviously mistaken.

The damage track through the building, the radar track, and the damage to the ground installations all clearly agree on the path taken by the plane. There's a principle in forensic science that when a witness and physical evidence disagree, the physical evidence is right. This is because it's easy for eyewitnesses to be mistaken--misremembering, forgetting details or having their brain fill in details that they didn't really see.

However, I do apprecciate some of your images. The last one, particularly, shows quite clearly the size of the plane's main fuselage versus the size of the impact holes, and the damage caused by the thicker portion of the wings. It pretty obviously debunks the "too small to be a plane" meme.

[ThePentaCon]

12. Wraith...

The damage track through the building, the radar track, and the damage to the ground installations all clearly agree on the path taken by the plane.

Wrong. What radar are you referring to? The only that is clearly agreed is that they always have conflicted with the witness accounts and have never been 100% clear, accurate and documented.


There's a principle in forensic science that when a witness and physical evidence disagree, the physical evidence is right. This is because it's easy for eyewitnesses to be mistaken--misremembering, forgetting details or having their brain fill in details that they didn't really see.

That's fine. But the 'physical evidence' was what was caused the questioning in the first place, now you have evidence to support why we were seeing the anomlies that we all couldn't agree on.

However, I do apprecciate some of your images. The last one, particularly, shows quite clearly the size of the plane's main fuselage versus the size of the impact holes, and the damage caused by the thicker portion of the wings. It pretty obviously debunks the "too small to be a plane" meme.

Well it is too small for a boeing 757.

[The Lone Groover]

9. Pentacon,

Who knocked down the lampposts.
When?
Why?

Why go to all that trouble when you could have had the approach angle easily missing them?

That's not to say there are not a lot of questions that still need answering about Flight 77.

[ThePentaCon]

10. I do not have all the answers only ONE FACT

I gave you a link to a theory on the poles.

Would you have a plane approach the light pole path and risk the planes wings ripping off and it turning into cartwheeling fireball on the lawn?

Or would you risk a plane flying low in the official flight path through the already downed light poles and risk the plane wrecking before it hit the wall or even risk a much more visual pull up?

[ThePentaCon]

4. Mervin/Grey

Any comments on mine?

[greyl]

6. Yes, but I'm in no hurry.

Why, do you need help editing?

[MervinFerd]

8. Any comment on your video? --..--..-- No.

And that -is- a comment.

[ThePentaCon]

11. No the counter info I posted

Not my video, the information I posted.

[Twist_U_Up]

3. Release the Pentagon Videos

We know they have them . The Pentagon is surrounded by cameras. It is ludicris that they give us this garbage and expect the people looking for answers to just go away.
Insane and if you accept this you are just a part of the problem.

Scabs

[MervinFerd]

7. You would claim they were fake.

What's the point?

FWIW, surveillance videos aren't going to show the plane; the frame rate is only 1 or 2 fps.

And the Pentagon -never- releases pictures. Never has, never will. They're the Pentagon.

Any remaining videos are not material to any actual question.