Animation Video for Pentagon Proof, best ever made - and why it's wrong.

The subject of this thread is the video 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

Some of you may know me as a strong proponent of the 9/11 Truth movement, meaning I believe the events of 9/11 were not due to a hijack-crash situation, but rather an inside job of some sort. I am the author of ATS thread Absolute Proof: A Pentagon Picture Montage from Start to Finish which has gone on for 90+ pages with a great number of in-depth back-n-forth arguments along the way.

Something happened on page 92 that made me step back and say "maybe I was wrong... maybe an airplane really did hit the Pentagon?". The video that made me say that is THE BEST video animation of the Pentagon crash I have ever seen (I say crash, but what I really mean is explosion or alleged crash; I'll say it in the "positive" for ease of communication).

After watching the video twice and thinking of a few questions I wondered who was behind this video - who made it?
The answer, a company called Integrated Consultants inc, a defense contractor. One of their specialties happens to be CAD Reverse Engineering (or taking a result, and making a computer aided design to match the result). The owner David Aberizk also happens to be a member of the National Defense Industrial Association.
so these guys are BIASED - working defense contractors, but it's a great video so I wanted to really check the details.

I'll post the video at the end, but first a few explanations and comparison pics:
The video is a slow motion, step-by-step animation of the last seconds of American Airlines flight 911. I'm not sure where Integrated Consultants inc got the data to make such a video but it's NOT from the Flight Data Recorder released by the National Traffic Safety Board [NTSB] (under FOIA request DCA01MA064 ) because the flight data shows AA 77 (N644AA on 9/11/01) as in a long continual descent until the end of the data, whereas this 911 video shows it in a flat parallel-to-ground trajectory similar to the NIST report. Since that has been an issue up for MUCH debate I'm fine skipping that and just checking out the video for what it's worth.

I hope you're sticking with me on this, it really is the BEST video I've ever seen showing AA 77 hit the Pentagon and obviously a lot of OUR tax dollars went into making it!

The main question I wanted to check out is why, in the 911 Case Study video [911CS], did they fail to show much damage to the outside wall of the Pentagon. To answer this we first need to know the precise location 911CS showed the airplane to be.


911CS shows AA 77's right engine flew through the chainlink fence near the generator, and the left engine clipped a piece of cement on the ground just left of the undamaged reels of cable; they claim the fuselage went between the chainlink fence and the cable reels.

As seen in this picture that certainly seems impossible, but it could be a matter of perspective so we need a few more angles.


REMINDER: 911CS shows an EXACT, extremely precise location indicating broken cement where the left engine hit, and a precise hole in a fence where the right engine made contact (likely so precise because their specialty is back engineering). Given their precision ANY variation disproves their video, but let's be extra sure.

In 911CS's animation the airplane enters the Pentagon behind the untouched cable reels completely entering the building, with the tail of the plane cutting into the building up to the THIRD FLOOR (US floor counting style).


It looks great - wait til you see the video! You'd never expect it was just your tax dollars hard at work making yet another lie... why is it a lie? Maybe because there was not any actual physical damage where they show the plane hitting!


This latter picture shows the exact same angle as in the video, it shows the fencing hole, the exact trajectory from the video... but wait... where's the damage?

911 Case Study shows very clearly that the fuselage and tail of AA 77 went THROUGH the wall right behind the location of the cable reels. This picture from the scene shows without doubt that that is not the case.

Another mystery is history! There was NO AIRPLANE at the Pentagon that day.

Just in case that's not quite enough for you, take a look at this:
The entry "hole" where this best video ever claims the airplane went through is a few sporadic holes in the Pentagon façade, and clearly shows the Pentagon support columns blown outward - meaning even IF an airplane managed to get inside this building through the tiny holes, it would have blown up INSIDE, proven furthermore by the fact that basically no airplane wreckage is outside the building. If the airplane blew up inside the building, then all the forward momentum and kinetic energy from the mass of the airplane would now be travelling OUTWARD in all directions, and NO LONGER in a straight line... a straight line is MANDATORY because the debris burst through at least SIX walls of the Pentagon in a straight line before punching a round hole in the C-ring. The scenario is impossible - there was no airplane because even if it did end up inside, then blew up, the shrapnel would not travel in a straight line.

Watch the video but remember, these guys were likely paid by our government to reverse engineer "proof" that 9/11 was a hijack/crash situation. It was NOT. Be the Media! Tell everyone you know, put it on Facebook. We cannot allow this type of propoganda to continue, because one of these days our loving government is gonna release a bunch of faked video footage from hotels and highway cameras and then our fight for justice will be lost.



I welcome anyone operating under the auspices of Anonymous to check out Integrated Consultants and tell them how things are nowadays.

Here's one of the many pictures showing the columns blown OUTWARD conrary to what would happen if a plane crashed INTO the Pentagon...

none of my links are working, not sure why. I double checked everything and they are all written correctly. Try google searches if you'd like to check on them. Sorry.

It never occured to you that the cable reels would most likley be inside the generator fence on edge next to the generator. When the generator was struck by the starbord engine it moved. This pushed the cable reels and they rolled to the position shown in the photos after the plane passed.

That would be a simple explanation how AA77 missed the cable reels. Duh!

I love Truthers simple things elude them and complex things baffel them.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Here's one of the many pictures showing the columns blown OUTWARD conrary to what would happen if a plane crashed INTO the Pentagon...

What I see in that picture is columns 15 16 and 17 are pushed to the left at an angle. Coincidentally AA77 Impacted to the left at an angle.

Originally posted by waypastvne
...That would be a simple explanation how AA77 missed the cable reels. Duh!...

You made an alternative scenario for ONE point, yet you act like you just proved the OP wrong.

Sorry, but you have a lot more explaining than that to do mate.

Good thread Thermo...

reply to post by Thermo Klein


yes I recall a video of 2 cruise missiles coming at 12feet above ground or less. They move so fast you can only see them in 2 frames. They're white and maybe 9 feet long or so...?
but you have to ask yourself, what was the coverup for really?
I think that we needed the bad guys to think they'd won, and maybe there we not so many people killed as we thought, that they are just in hiding with new names now. Sure it sounds far fetched, but worse fetched would be the idea that Bush meant to hurt honest Americans. I think not. I know slick willy murdered over 10 innocent citizens while in office, that guy was made of plastic. Bush is too sensitive a person to do such an immoral act.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

This latter picture shows the exact same angle as in the video, it shows the fencing hole, the exact trajectory from the video... but wait... where's the damage?

The only thing that I can say here is that it would definitely appear to be a different angle, showing the building farther to the right and closer than in the simulation above. The water and mist thereof is also concealing a lot of the building, which makes it difficult to ascertain with certainty what the extent of the damage was.

Here's a little work I did using the windows to judge the size of things:



Just to clarify some of the stuff in the picture, as I just realized it might be kind of confusing:
Red is big damage
Blue is minor damage
Yellow dotted line is obscured area

Great thread Thermo! I can't wait for certain members to finish their coffee and come here to ignore everything you just said. I've always thought that the events that transpired at the Pentagon were the most easily recognizable as different than what we are told. Let the beating begin!

reply to post by Thermo Klein


And yet, another completely pointless, and clueless "truther thread" shoots its own foot off:

The scenario is impossible - there was no airplane because even if it did end up inside, then blew up, the shrapnel would not travel in a straight line.

You really need to get out more.

This entire waste of time? Just another notch in the belt of distractions....the "TM" is famous for. AND, completely misunderstanding science and physics, and completely IGNORING the vast amounts of very damning evidence that blows this nonsense out of the water.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

I have a general request from the OP. Actually, anyone who wants can answer.

The OP states that a descent is not shown in the animation, therefore that makes it invalid. Why is that? What is it about a descent or not that makes what the animation shows invalid?

reply to post by Varemia


From 911CS animation - cable reels and fuselage entry location


Actual evidence - cable reels



Actual evidence - open window is good reference point. Notice no damage above ground floor. They expect you to believe that an airplane hitting a wall at that speed... and it DIDN'T EVEN BREAK THE WINDOW!!


From 911CS animation - tail damages area above, left of reels



he video is precise and shows exactly where the plane must have been, due to cement breakage we have the airplane location down to the inch. YET the damage they show in the video is made up, it IS NOT THERE in reality. Therefore, the video is wrong.


[

The one discrepancy I noticed was when they show the view from the parking lot camera they circle a dark area and call it the tail of the plane yet the same dark feature is there several frames later after the smoke begins to dissipate.
Good thread Thermo.
No doubt there is more to this story than the 911 Commission report has to say about it.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
he video is precise and shows exactly where the plane must have been, due to cement breakage we have the airplane location down to the inch. YET the damage they show in the video is made up, it IS NOT THERE in reality. Therefore, the video is wrong.

You show a photograph labeled as where an engine hit and label it as no damage. However, that IS NOT where the animation illustrates where an engine hit at all. Why are you doing that?

You show a window apparently with no glass and label it as open. How do you know it was open as opposed to all of the glass being removed by the impact? Do you know why many of the windows do not have apparent damage? Do you know what the Building Performance Survey had to say about the windows?

The only question I have left- Why would the government feel the need to have a "forensic audit" of the situation close to 10 years after the fact?

When you lie you have to lie to cover up the lie, and then make up more lies to cover up the original lie, until continuing to lie becomes so frackin hard that the very truth at the center is so distorted the liar cant even distiguish a reality from it. Perhaps this is how they sleep at night, in self made ignorance~

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
The one discrepancy I noticed was when they show the view from the parking lot camera they circle a dark area and call it the tail of the plane yet the same dark feature is there several frames later after the smoke begins to dissipate.

No, it isn't. You're looking at a freaking tree.....
Put on your glasses and look at it again....

Originally posted by TrgiclyHip
The only question I have left- Why would the government feel the need to have a "forensic audit" of the situation close to 10 years after the fact?

When you lie you have to lie to cover up the lie, and then make up more lies to cover up the original lie, until continuing to lie becomes so frackin hard that the very truth at the center is so distorted the liar cant even distiguish a reality from it. Perhaps this is how they sleep at night, in self made ignorance~

true - and SADLY it's really well done! We on ATS can look and this and say "Gosh, they say the tail hit there but the glass didn't even break"... but if I saw this video in a court room without comparison pics I would believe the lie. Is this our America??

reply to post by Thermo Klein


This isnt our America, and it hasnt been for a long time

It's "their" America.... and i shudder to think that things seem to be going according to "their" plan

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Ah, I see. I definitely made a mistake in my perspective.

Have to go to class quickly, but after I go and get checked out at a hospital for a non-related diet issue, I'll come back to the thread and see what I can analyze. At the moment I still cannot accept any theory completely because of the amount of building being covered by water, mist, and steam.