9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[SAYIT]

.....Nonetheless it is the so far out-of-the-box "reasoning" of a typical "Truther" that is so far out-of-the-box as to be not just monumentally improbable but downright half-assed and stupid. I wonder what happened to the planes? Unless the CT's ever-expanding list of co-conspirators includes everyone at the 2 major airlines involved, the 4 planes fueled, loaded and took off but never landed. Where are the planes?

Mentally ill, not stupid. They appear to have at least average intelligence or higher (let's not forget both Ted Kaczynski and John Nash were very intelligent), but in this particular area, their ability to reason is compromised. It's like a blind spot. They could behave and seem normal to everyone except when it comes to these beliefs of a global conspiracy.

I'm not saying all or even most "Truthers' are stupid, although 7Forever and 9/11HandJob (now LA Ram) are both more than a few fries short of a happy meal. I am saying that anyone (like Phoenyx or Smith) is capable of some stupid and even not-entirely-stupid peeps can think and post some really stupid shit. I do agree that whatever has driven otherwise normal people to spend serious time in the 9/11 conspiracy rabbit holes has the power to drive them bat-shit crazy. Like you, I find many of them have a bad (and seemingly incurable) case of "The Jooo Did It!"

Former CT royalty Charlie Veitch had an interesting take on the "Truther" Movement and those in it. He was roundly trashed and threatened by his former comrades after posting his mea culpa:

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
But, while some believers could be dismissed as harmless crackpots, there was a malevolent undercurrent to many of the theories.

In essence, the modern conspiracy narrative is the same as the one that has existed since at least the 19th century: that the few (often termed the “Illuminati”) control the many. This, of course, is the nucleus of the dangerous anti-Jewish myth. When he was an insider, did he experience anti-Semitism? His eyes open wide: “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says...

All of which has damaged him. “I don’t have the same love for people as I did,” he says. “I’ve become a misanthrope and I’ve become very cynical. I hope it goes away.” Looking back, he describes the conspiracy community as an “evil-worshiping paranoia. As someone who’s been deep in it, and seen the hatred and the insanity, I think big terrorist attacks will come from conspiracy theorists.” He can envisage an assassination or a bombing carried out by a conspiracy believer who has lost all contact with reality.

 

[phoenyx]

Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits.....

You seem to be assuming that the plane that approached the Pentagon is the same plane that the official story posits approached the Pentagon. If it was a different plane, I think it becomes rather clear why they wouldn't want to crash it into the Pentagon- people might notice it wasn't the same plane.

But no other plane (and no missile) approached the Pentagon that morning...

Your contention that the plane that approached the Pentagon had to be Flight 77 is a common belief, but it's actually an assumption with little evidence to support it. To be sure, the 9/11 Commission has tried to cover this up, in part by spreading a falsehood. Woody Box explains:

**I would like to illuminate the fate of Flight 77 after it vanished from radar because it looks to me that many people don't know much about it, despite its importance.

At 8:56, the blip of Flight 77 vanished from the radar screens of Indianapolis Center, the responsible ATC facility, and at the same time radio communication was lost. This is a well known and well confirmed fact. Just take a look at the ATC transcript:

http://0911.site.voila.fr/transcript.htm [Unfortunately, that link is now dead]

The controllers thought it had crashed and submitted their assessment to other ATC centers, FAA headquarters and American Airlines. This caused the top AA management to believe that Flight 77 crashed into the South Tower - they believed it until the Pentagon strike! There were also rumors going around that a plane crashed near the Ohio-Kentucky border (as confirmed in Richard Clarke's "Against all enemies"), which is exactly the area where Flight 77 vanished (take a look at the Flight Explorer animation in the transcript link).

For sure, the controllers activated primary radar as soon as they lost Flight 77 to look for him, but this measure was obviously not successful. Flight 77 was not detected by any controller until it was picked up at 9:32 by Dulles TRACON controllers. (The only man who knew its position at 9:25 was Norman Mineta...)

For someone who's aware of Operation Northwoods this stinks of a plane swap: Flight 77 crashed or landed somewhere near the Ohio-Kentucky border, and the plane that was detected by the Dulles controllers was not Flight 77.

The 9/11 Commissioners are surely aware of Operation Northwoods, but advocate another theory:

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 9:05, east of its last known posi-tion. The target remained in Indianapolis Center's airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's airspace at 9:10.As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected path, not east-where the aircraft was now heading. Managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.143

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.144

So the Commission thinks that at first, Flight 77 slided into a radar hole and was therefore not visible to controllers. This raises the question why the controllers, who surely were familiar with the position and extent of this alleged radar hole, were so quickly convinced that Flight 77 had crashed.

After that, the Commissions surprises us with their finding, obtained through "radar reconstruction", that Flight 77 reemerged at the radar screens of Indianapolis controllers, but was missed by them, because they were looking into the wrong direction.

Someone here who has the same little trust in the competence of professional controllers?

Then the Commission continues with the claim that Flight 77 crossed the border to Washington Center at 9:10, heading eastwards. But the Washington controllers didn't detect the plane either, because they were "not told to look for primary targets."

This is a breathtaking claim. Of course, Washington Center was informed by Indianapolis pretty early about the loss of Flight 77. Did the controllers expect it to reappear with full transponder data, and did they refrain from activating the primary radar routine for this reason?

The claim is not only an insult to the intelligence of the controllers, it is also wrong. Here is a transcript snippet between Washington Center and NEADS which proves that they were indeed looking for AA 77 for a long time:

09:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

Bottom line: Whatever happened to Flight 77, it's official flight path after 8:56 is pure speculation, and the evidence suggests that it didn't fly back to Washington at all. To those who say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or are agnostic on this question, this is another serious blow.**

Source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8139

 

[phoenyx]

Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits.....

You seem to be assuming that the plane that approached the Pentagon is the same plane that the official story posits approached the Pentagon. If it was a different plane, I think it becomes rather clear why they wouldn't want to crash it into the Pentagon- people might notice it wasn't the same plane.

But no other plane (and no missile) approached the Pentagon that morning...

I've laid the assumption that Flight 77 had to be the plane approaching the Pentagon to rest in my previous post. As to your next statement...

and no plane was seen pulling up and flying away as AA77 tore into the Pentagon.

Actually, some people have testified that they -did- see the plane pulling up, while Erik Dihle stated that some had yelled that "a bomb had gone off and the plane kept on going". Here's CIT's list of individuals it believes suggest that the plane did in fact pull up and fly away:
**
Flyover/away witnesses and connections:
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".
**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

Additionally, the passengers, crew and AA77 have all been missing since 9/11/01.

There are a bunch of anomalies concerning the alleged passengers and hijackers of the 9/11 planes. Here's a few articles on the subject:
September 11 - Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists

9-11 Research: Passenger Lists

What happened to Flight 77's passengers and crew? | 9/11 Pentagon

http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

In summation, we may never know what happened to the alleged passengers of Flight 77, but that's no reason to assume that they died crashing into the Pentagon.

 

[phoenyx]

But easier to pull a f-14 tomcat pull up at the last minute with a passenger jet and fly up and over the pentagon at the last moment as a massive fiery explosion rakes at its underbelly? All while faking massive amounts of physical evidence, convincing hundreds of impromptu co-conspirators to join in the conspiracy with perfect secrecy for a decade and a half? Difficult if not impossible describes your entire theory.

I like the fact that you seem to atleast be acknowledging that it's -possible...

That's your standard? That it's possible?

My standard of what?

I mean, it's also possible that the earth is flat, that man never walked on the Moon and that the Moon is therefore made of Jarlsberg Cheese but no rational adult believes such silliness.

Personally, I -don't- believe it's possible that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of Jarlsberg cheese. I also don't believe the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is possible, but you're free to try to persuade me otherwise. I think it's -unlikely- that a man never walked on the moon, but I don't rule it out.

What rational adults do is apply the same level of skepticism to the myriad of possibilities - including the many conflicting 9/11 CTs - to determine the most (and least) possible.

I can agree to that, sure. I hope you're aware that the OCT has changed over time as well.

 

[phoenyx]

Why go to such absurd lengths to plant faked evidence, hide the airliner with all passengers inside it, get DNA from them and transport it to the scene in time to plant it

First of all, do you know who it was, precisely, that claimed that they got this DNA evidence? Secondly, even assuming that DNA was obtained from the people that the government claimed it was obtained from, that doesn't mean that they got that DNA from the Pentagon.

You have evidence to support that theory?

I most definitely don't support the official conspiracy theory, no. I am questioning some of its tenets above. You might try to do the same sometime.

If, for example, explosives were involved rather than AA77, why do the whole exotic Pentaplane thing at all? Why add layers of complexity and risk of mistakes or exposure when the explosives could have been blamed on Islamic terror-rats

It's one thing for islamic terrorists to hijack a commercial airliner. It would be something else for them to gain access to the Pentagon and wire a section of it with explosives. Have you ever heard of misdirection in magic tricks? Wikipedia defines it thusly:
**Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another. Managing the audience's attention is the aim of all theater, it is the foremost requirement of theatrical magic.**

Source: Misdirection (magic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many believe that those who were truly behind 9/11 misdirected the public's attention away from the true causes of what happened on 9/11, in order to benefit themselves. It's what is always done in false flag operations.

and, as you would know if you really cared about the truth, the damage was not at all consistent with an explosion

Perhaps not with a single explosion, but certainly with multiple explosions. Another point: the damage was -not- consistent with what a plane crash would do:
How could Flight 77 have caused bizarre pattern of interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?

 

[phoenyx]

I'll just leave my blog here..

9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77

Nice to meet you all,
Chris

That page comes up blank for me.

What caused this damage if not a plane...

Explosives perhaps?

 

[phoenyx]

And it doesn't explain why there were no lamp posts taken down by the plane along the path you claim the plane flew.

According to the eyewitnesses with the best vantage points, the plane was always too high to hit any light polls.

All irrelevant now that we have the Citgo video which proves the plane flew south of it.

Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.

"Darkened pixels?" WTF??

Perhaps you can see a fully formed shadow, but yes, all I could see were a few darkened pixels.

You agreed it was the shadow from the plane when you thought the shadow proved the plane was on the north side of the Citgo...

I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit. CIT believes the same thing if memory serves. Thing is, if the plane was actually on the South of Citgo flight path, there would have been no shadow of the plane anywhere near the Citgo gas station...

Actually, I said that CIT believes there may have been a shadow on the tape(s) if memory serves. Also, in the very quote of mine you mention, I make it clear that CIT believed the shadow, if there was one, supported their North side flat path.

And of course it's the plane shadow. It appears at precisely the moment the plane would have been passing the Citgo. We know this because something inexplicably falls over without being touched at the same moment the shadow appears; which matches the description of the service station attendant who said the plane flying over felt like an "earthquake."

I'm not denying the possibility that the Citgo cameras may have recorded a shadow of the plane passing by. I did a bit of digging to find something from CIT supporters who claim that the shadow -supports- the North side path, and found this:
NEW pentagon video

 

[Faun]

Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits.....

You seem to be assuming that the plane that approached the Pentagon is the same plane that the official story posits approached the Pentagon. If it was a different plane, I think it becomes rather clear why they wouldn't want to crash it into the Pentagon- people might notice it wasn't the same plane.

But no other plane (and no missile) approached the Pentagon that morning...

Your contention that the plane that approached the Pentagon had to be Flight 77 is a common belief, but it's actually an assumption with little evidence to support it. To be sure, the 9/11 Commission has tried to cover this up, in part by spreading a falsehood. Woody Box explains:

**I would like to illuminate the fate of Flight 77 after it vanished from radar because it looks to me that many people don't know much about it, despite its importance.

At 8:56, the blip of Flight 77 vanished from the radar screens of Indianapolis Center, the responsible ATC facility, and at the same time radio communication was lost. This is a well known and well confirmed fact. Just take a look at the ATC transcript:

http://0911.site.voila.fr/transcript.htm [Unfortunately, that link is now dead]

The controllers thought it had crashed and submitted their assessment to other ATC centers, FAA headquarters and American Airlines. This caused the top AA management to believe that Flight 77 crashed into the South Tower - they believed it until the Pentagon strike! There were also rumors going around that a plane crashed near the Ohio-Kentucky border (as confirmed in Richard Clarke's "Against all enemies"), which is exactly the area where Flight 77 vanished (take a look at the Flight Explorer animation in the transcript link).

For sure, the controllers activated primary radar as soon as they lost Flight 77 to look for him, but this measure was obviously not successful. Flight 77 was not detected by any controller until it was picked up at 9:32 by Dulles TRACON controllers. (The only man who knew its position at 9:25 was Norman Mineta...)

For someone who's aware of Operation Northwoods this stinks of a plane swap: Flight 77 crashed or landed somewhere near the Ohio-Kentucky border, and the plane that was detected by the Dulles controllers was not Flight 77.

The 9/11 Commissioners are surely aware of Operation Northwoods, but advocate another theory:

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 9:05, east of its last known posi-tion. The target remained in Indianapolis Center's airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's airspace at 9:10.As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected path, not east-where the aircraft was now heading. Managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.143

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.144

So the Commission thinks that at first, Flight 77 slided into a radar hole and was therefore not visible to controllers. This raises the question why the controllers, who surely were familiar with the position and extent of this alleged radar hole, were so quickly convinced that Flight 77 had crashed.

After that, the Commissions surprises us with their finding, obtained through "radar reconstruction", that Flight 77 reemerged at the radar screens of Indianapolis controllers, but was missed by them, because they were looking into the wrong direction.

Someone here who has the same little trust in the competence of professional controllers?

Then the Commission continues with the claim that Flight 77 crossed the border to Washington Center at 9:10, heading eastwards. But the Washington controllers didn't detect the plane either, because they were "not told to look for primary targets."

This is a breathtaking claim. Of course, Washington Center was informed by Indianapolis pretty early about the loss of Flight 77. Did the controllers expect it to reappear with full transponder data, and did they refrain from activating the primary radar routine for this reason?

The claim is not only an insult to the intelligence of the controllers, it is also wrong. Here is a transcript snippet between Washington Center and NEADS which proves that they were indeed looking for AA 77 for a long time:

09:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

Bottom line: Whatever happened to Flight 77, it's official flight path after 8:56 is pure speculation, and the evidence suggests that it didn't fly back to Washington at all. To those who say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or are agnostic on this question, this is another serious blow.**

Source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8139

Here's that transcript.... where in there do the controllers suggest AAL77 crashed?

AAL77Transcript

 

[Faun]

I'll just leave my blog here..

9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77

Nice to meet you all,
Chris

That page comes up blank for me.

What caused this damage if not a plane...

Explosives perhaps?

Where in that photo of the dented generator do you see evidence of explosives? Also, the generator was outside of the Pentagon and no one reported any explosions on it. Lastly, what would be the purpose of blowing up the generator?

Next guess...?

 

[Faun]

And it doesn't explain why there were no lamp posts taken down by the plane along the path you claim the plane flew.

According to the eyewitnesses with the best vantage points, the plane was always too high to hit any light polls.

All irrelevant now that we have the Citgo video which proves the plane flew south of it.

Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.

"Darkened pixels?" WTF??

Perhaps you can see a fully formed shadow, but yes, all I could see were a few darkened pixels.

You agreed it was the shadow from the plane when you thought the shadow proved the plane was on the north side of the Citgo...

I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit. CIT believes the same thing if memory serves. Thing is, if the plane was actually on the South of Citgo flight path, there would have been no shadow of the plane anywhere near the Citgo gas station...

Actually, I said that CIT believes there may have been a shadow on the tape(s) if memory serves. Also, in the very quote of mine you mention, I make it clear that CIT believed the shadow, if there was one, supported their North side flat path.

And of course it's the plane shadow. It appears at precisely the moment the plane would have been passing the Citgo. We know this because something inexplicably falls over without being touched at the same moment the shadow appears; which matches the description of the service station attendant who said the plane flying over felt like an "earthquake."

I'm not denying the possibility that the Citgo cameras may have recorded a shadow of the plane passing by. I did a bit of digging to find something from CIT supporters who claim that the shadow -supports- the North side path, and found this:
NEW pentagon video

Your, "if memory serves," comment was in regards to CIT. In regards to the shadow being cast from the plane, you said, "I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit."

You believed it was the plane's shadow when you thought that proved the plane flew north of the Citgo. From the moment I showed you the plane's shadow proves it was on the south side of the Citgo, which lines up perfectly with the lamp posts and the damage to the Pentagon, it transformed from "the shadow of the plane" to "darkened pixels."



Thanks for the laugh!

 

[phoenyx]

....This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 ......

So what do you think happened to the passengers and crew of AA flight 77?

I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

That's actually one of the dumbest explanations I've read yet. Over 200 people gave up their lives to go into hiding?

Where does it say that 200 people gave up their lives to go into hiding? Don't make stuff up -.-

 

[phoenyx]

I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

I'm sure it gives you comfort to know what happened when everyone else is falling for the lies of ZOG.

When did I say I "know" what happened? Apparently no one is actually reading what I'm writing (or linking to) -.-. I said (and I quote): "I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible..."

 

[phoenyx]

I've gone over your video. I see a few pixels darken. If you want to believe that's the shadow of a plane, be my guest. Personally, I believe that testimony from Lagasse and Brooks, who were both at the Citgo gas station at the time the plane flew by, who both testified that the plane came from the north side, is far more compelling:

That's what they said many years later. They didn't say the plane flew north of the Citgo when offering their testimony in the days following 9.11.

Probably because no one asked him. From CIT's website:
**
No questions were asked pertaining to the location of the plane or the flight path during this Library of Congress interview. Nothing Sgt. Lagasse says in this interview contradicts what he told us in the interview we filmed with him on location at the gas station in 2006, excerpts from which appear in National Security Alert. An extended version of this 2006 interview can be seen in The PentaCon: Smoking Gun Version.

As explained in National Security Alert, Sgt. Lagasse is on record as far back as 2003 saying that the plane was on the north side of the gas station when he told 9/11 researcher Dick Eastman that he was on the "starboard side" of the plane. The starboard side of the plane is the right side. The only way Sgt. Lagasse could be on the starboard side of the plane is if it were on the north side flight path.

Here is the flight path Sgt. Lagasse drew for us during our 2006 interview. As seen in National Security Alert, he told us he was "100 percent certain that the plane flew on the north side of the station, and said he would "bet [his] life" on it.

Sgt. Lagasse has been made aware of the implications of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station. He still stands by his account, and has said that he would testify to the plane flying on the north side of the station in a court of law.**

Source: Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon

And since you like to rely on conjecture as fact...

Says the guy who says a few darkened pixels is "proof" that the official story is true -.-...

...such as asking how do we know the lamp posts were not intentionally taken down and planted....

That's a question, not conjecture. Google defines conjecture as "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information". Kind of like believing the official story has been proven based in a few darkened pixels...

how do we know CIT didn't pay those witnesses to say they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo and draw the path with a marker indicating that?

Dick Eastman would have had to have paid Lagasse as well. But to answer your question- I don't "know" that they didn't. That being said, I find it highly doubtful. A large part of the reason is that it's not just Lagasse and Brooks who are saying that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station. Turcios was at the gas station as well and he also stated that the plane flew North of the Citgo gas station. And then there's the long line up of other witnesses that CIT interviewed that also placed the plane as flying north of the Citgo gas station. Now compare that to the one "witness" who, despite having had his car allegedly speared by a light pole, claims to have never seen the plane himself. Furthermore, when he realized that all the other witnesses placed the plane North of the Citgo gas station, he insisted that he -too- was in a position that would have placed the plane on that trajectory. The evidence is overwhelming that his car was photographed at a position that would have placed the plane on the South of Citgo flight path though. So why was he so adamant that he wasn't there?

Again, not a single witness stated they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo in the days after 9.11.

Are you aware of any witnesses who were -asked- if it had at the time?

 

[Divine Wind]

I hadn't even heard of Valuejet #592 before you mentioned it, but I did a little research, and came back with the following: you see that body of water in that picture you posted above? In theory, the plane could have submerged in there. There is actually a bit of skepticism concerning the official story on that plane, but there is, atleast, the -possibility- that the plane buried itself underwater. Let me know if you see any water on the Pentalawn, aside from what's come out of the hoses of fire trucks:

The anomaly of the Amazing Pentalawn (tm), not suffering a scratch even though simulations of the crash suggest the engines would have been making gouge marks on it, is just one more point to consider. The following video goes into this and other points:

I was working in Miami when it happened. I didn't see the accident, but was there for the investigation including seeing DOT Secretary Federico Pena stand on a Everglades dike and declare Valuejet was a safe airline. His support shot down his career just as fast as Critter 592 dove into the Everglades.

CNN - Pena says ValuJet followed safety rules - May 12, 1996

The crash site is on a 5 mile final with RWY12 at MIA. The crater was about easily visible from the air. The Everglades are about 8 feet of water over 18 feet of silt lade over rock/coral. The airliner smashed straight into the ground at about 400 knots like a raw egg dropped off a two story rooftop. It splattered and spread under the 18 feet of silt making recovery very difficult. The FDR and CVR in the tail were recovered, but, IIRC, the crash site is treated like a grave site and entry is prohibited.

CRITICS OF FEDERICO PENA SAY HIS CAREER WENT DOWN WITH VALUJET

Aviation Safety Network > Accident investigation > CVR / FDR > Transcripts > CVR transcript ValuJet Flight 592 - 11 MAY 1996

Valujet 592 air crash

 

[Faun]

....This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 ......

So what do you think happened to the passengers and crew of AA flight 77?

I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

That's actually one of the dumbest explanations I've read yet. Over 200 people gave up their lives to go into hiding?

Where does it say that 200 people gave up their lives to go into hiding? Don't make stuff up -.-

What happened after Cleveland is anyone's guess. All air traffic was closed. If any planes flew, it is doubtful there was recordings of them, especially if they contained the passengers from any of these 4 flights. All that lied ahead of them at this point is their new lives and new identities. And as pointed out earlier, it is possible some real passengers were added to the planes, but this is beyond the scope of my research and beyond the scope of this article.

 

[Divine Wind]

When did I say I "know" what happened? Apparently no one is actually reading what I'm writing (or linking to) -.-. I said (and I quote): "I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible..."

Waffle all you like but the fact remains your multiple posts on the subject postulate a vast conspiracy where thousands of Americans are not only traitors covering up mass murder, but also keeping it a secret. OTOH, there are people like me who apply Occam's Razor.....and also Hanlon's Razor.
The dear readers of this forum are free to choose and research their own answers to these disasters.

 

[phoenyx]

Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.

Of course you will believe only the eyewitnesses who say what you want to hear;

No, I'm believing the vast majority of eyewitnesses in a good position to ascertain whether the plane flew North or South of the Citgo gas station. All of them concord with Lagasse and Brooks- the plane flew North of the Citgo gas station.

while ignoring the majority of eyewitnesses who say something different,

Sigh -.-. If you want, we can go over your eyewitnesses again, you seem to have forgotten what terrible positions they were in to ascertain where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo gas station.

while ignoring the physical evidence which supports the plane flying into the Pentagon, and while ignoring the visual evidence which also supports it.

Ignored? I've gone over every single piece of evidence you've ever thrown at me, and pointed out their clear or potential flaws. But throw some of it at me again if you like, it gets easier to do this every time.

Even worse, you cling to the nonsense of the flyover despite there being zero eyewitnesses who say they saw that happen

Except for the eyewitnesses whose testimony suggest they saw just that...
**Flyover/away witnesses and connections:
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".
**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

and zero videos, out of 3 which capture the explosion, but fail to capture the plane fly over the Pentagon.

They fail to capture more then a few pixels worth of an object that approaches the pentagon at ground level before the explosion. For anyone familiar with computer graphics, I think they'd agree that it wouldn't be too hard to put in an object to satisfy people that yes, an aircraft -did- hit the Pentagon. As to the other 80+ video feeds, nothing to see here folks -.-...

 

[phoenyx]

Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits.....

You seem to be assuming that the plane that approached the Pentagon is the same plane that the official story posits approached the Pentagon. If it was a different plane, I think it becomes rather clear why they wouldn't want to crash it into the Pentagon- people might notice it wasn't the same plane.

But no other plane (and no missile) approached the Pentagon that morning...

Your contention that the plane that approached the Pentagon had to be Flight 77 is a common belief, but it's actually an assumption with little evidence to support it. To be sure, the 9/11 Commission has tried to cover this up, in part by spreading a falsehood. Woody Box explains:

**I would like to illuminate the fate of Flight 77 after it vanished from radar because it looks to me that many people don't know much about it, despite its importance.

At 8:56, the blip of Flight 77 vanished from the radar screens of Indianapolis Center, the responsible ATC facility, and at the same time radio communication was lost. This is a well known and well confirmed fact. Just take a look at the ATC transcript:

http://0911.site.voila.fr/transcript.htm [Unfortunately, that link is now dead]

The controllers thought it had crashed and submitted their assessment to other ATC centers, FAA headquarters and American Airlines. This caused the top AA management to believe that Flight 77 crashed into the South Tower - they believed it until the Pentagon strike! There were also rumors going around that a plane crashed near the Ohio-Kentucky border (as confirmed in Richard Clarke's "Against all enemies"), which is exactly the area where Flight 77 vanished (take a look at the Flight Explorer animation in the transcript link).

For sure, the controllers activated primary radar as soon as they lost Flight 77 to look for him, but this measure was obviously not successful. Flight 77 was not detected by any controller until it was picked up at 9:32 by Dulles TRACON controllers. (The only man who knew its position at 9:25 was Norman Mineta...)

For someone who's aware of Operation Northwoods this stinks of a plane swap: Flight 77 crashed or landed somewhere near the Ohio-Kentucky border, and the plane that was detected by the Dulles controllers was not Flight 77.

The 9/11 Commissioners are surely aware of Operation Northwoods, but advocate another theory:

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 9:05, east of its last known posi-tion. The target remained in Indianapolis Center's airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's airspace at 9:10.As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected path, not east-where the aircraft was now heading. Managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.143

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.144

So the Commission thinks that at first, Flight 77 slided into a radar hole and was therefore not visible to controllers. This raises the question why the controllers, who surely were familiar with the position and extent of this alleged radar hole, were so quickly convinced that Flight 77 had crashed.

After that, the Commissions surprises us with their finding, obtained through "radar reconstruction", that Flight 77 reemerged at the radar screens of Indianapolis controllers, but was missed by them, because they were looking into the wrong direction.

Someone here who has the same little trust in the competence of professional controllers?

Then the Commission continues with the claim that Flight 77 crossed the border to Washington Center at 9:10, heading eastwards. But the Washington controllers didn't detect the plane either, because they were "not told to look for primary targets."

This is a breathtaking claim. Of course, Washington Center was informed by Indianapolis pretty early about the loss of Flight 77. Did the controllers expect it to reappear with full transponder data, and did they refrain from activating the primary radar routine for this reason?

The claim is not only an insult to the intelligence of the controllers, it is also wrong. Here is a transcript snippet between Washington Center and NEADS which proves that they were indeed looking for AA 77 for a long time:

09:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

Bottom line: Whatever happened to Flight 77, it's official flight path after 8:56 is pure speculation, and the evidence suggests that it didn't fly back to Washington at all. To those who say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or are agnostic on this question, this is another serious blow.**

Source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8139

Here's that transcript.... where in there do the controllers suggest AAL77 crashed?

AAL77Transcript

Here:
**
934 — Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate:
all right this is Henderson there was an American eleven departed off of uh New York goinh to L.A.
got hijacked American 77 departed off of Dulles is going to L.A. dispatch doesn't know where he's at
and confirmed that two airplanes have been uh they crashed into uh the world trade center in New York
so as far as American 77 we don't know where he is
but they say uh American eleven was hijacked off of a new york airport going to lax and uh
**

And here:
**
930 — Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate:
as far as what we know that's that's all we know I talked to dispatch and that's what they relayed
and they confirmed it here that I guess two airplanes about crashed into the the trade center.
**

Henderson mentions that Flight 11 was hijacked and Flight 77's gone AWOL, and also mentions that 2 planes crashed in New York. What do -you- think that suggests?

 

[Faun]

I've gone over your video. I see a few pixels darken. If you want to believe that's the shadow of a plane, be my guest. Personally, I believe that testimony from Lagasse and Brooks, who were both at the Citgo gas station at the time the plane flew by, who both testified that the plane came from the north side, is far more compelling:

That's what they said many years later. They didn't say the plane flew north of the Citgo when offering their testimony in the days following 9.11.

Probably because no one asked him. From CIT's website:
**
No questions were asked pertaining to the location of the plane or the flight path during this Library of Congress interview. Nothing Sgt. Lagasse says in this interview contradicts what he told us in the interview we filmed with him on location at the gas station in 2006, excerpts from which appear in National Security Alert. An extended version of this 2006 interview can be seen in The PentaCon: Smoking Gun Version.

As explained in National Security Alert, Sgt. Lagasse is on record as far back as 2003 saying that the plane was on the north side of the gas station when he told 9/11 researcher Dick Eastman that he was on the "starboard side" of the plane. The starboard side of the plane is the right side. The only way Sgt. Lagasse could be on the starboard side of the plane is if it were on the north side flight path.

Here is the flight path Sgt. Lagasse drew for us during our 2006 interview. As seen in National Security Alert, he told us he was "100 percent certain that the plane flew on the north side of the station, and said he would "bet [his] life" on it.

Sgt. Lagasse has been made aware of the implications of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station. He still stands by his account, and has said that he would testify to the plane flying on the north side of the station in a court of law.**

Source: Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon

And since you like to rely on conjecture as fact...

Says the guy who says a few darkened pixels is "proof" that the official story is true -.-...

...such as asking how do we know the lamp posts were not intentionally taken down and planted....

That's a question, not conjecture. Google defines conjecture as "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information". Kind of like believing the official story has been proven based in a few darkened pixels...

how do we know CIT didn't pay those witnesses to say they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo and draw the path with a marker indicating that?

Dick Eastman would have had to have paid Lagasse as well. But to answer your question- I don't "know" that they didn't. That being said, I find it highly doubtful. A large part of the reason is that it's not just Lagasse and Brooks who are saying that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station. Turcios was at the gas station as well and he also stated that the plane flew North of the Citgo gas station. And then there's the long line up of other witnesses that CIT interviewed that also placed the plane as flying north of the Citgo gas station. Now compare that to the one "witness" who, despite having had his car allegedly speared by a light pole, claims to have never seen the plane himself. Furthermore, when he realized that all the other witnesses placed the plane North of the Citgo gas station, he insisted that he -too- was in a position that would have placed the plane on that trajectory. The evidence is overwhelming that his car was photographed at a position that would have placed the plane on the South of Citgo flight path though. So why was he so adamant that he wasn't there?

Again, not a single witness stated they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo in the days after 9.11.

Are you aware of any witnesses who were -asked- if it had at the time?

"Says the guy who says a few darkened pixels is "proof" that the official story is true -.-.."
LOLOLOL

Need I remind you? You agreed it was the plane's shadow before you denied it; when you thought it bolstered your north side approach nonsense.

As far as not a single eyewitness reporting seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.... that's absurd, even for you. People were being interviewed by the news all day, many of whom recalled what they saw without being asked specific details. Some were simply asked something along the lines of, can you tell me what you saw.

Even worse for this nugget of nutbaggery from you .... all signs pointed to a plane being flown into the building... if someone actually saw the plane flying over the Pentagon, and not into it, they would have been screaming bloody murder about it to the reporters. And they wouldn't have needed to be asked to report seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Even worse.... to this day, 15 years later, not one single person on the entire face of the planet Earth has stepped forward to say they were there that day and saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Ever.

Not one.

That should provide you a clue as to just how insane the flyover theory is. And that's not even factoring all the other reasons it couldn't have happaned.

 

[phoenyx]

I'll just leave my blog here..

9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77

Nice to meet you all,
Chris

That page comes up blank for me.

What caused this damage if not a plane...

Explosives perhaps?

Where in that photo of the dented generator do you see evidence of explosives?

I'm not an explosives expert. That being said, a moderator at Pilots for 9/11 Truth started a thread suggesting that explosives may well have been used for the trailer, and also suggest that there's evidence that explosives were used at the Pentagon as well:
Explosives at/in the Pentagon? - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

Now let's turn this around- where do you see evidence in that photo that a plane hit it?

Also, the generator was outside of the Pentagon and no one reported any explosions on it.

Was anyone looking at it at the time it was damaged?

Lastly, what would be the purpose of blowing up the generator?

Perhaps the same reason that the light poles were downed- to add credibility that a plane did the damage.