9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[Faun]

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 -.-...

Eyewitnesses often recall events . Even Sgt. Legasse didn't accurately recall where the downed lamp posts were.

And video evidence doesn't have a foggy memory like the Citgo witnesses have. And the video evidence proves the plane flew south of the Citgo, no matter what your paid or lying actors claimed many years later.

 

[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

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?

That doesn't say AAL77 crashed anywhere.

It says AAL11 crashed into the WTC -- it did.

It says two plane's crashed into the WTC -- they did.

It says AAL77 is still missing -- it was.

No wonder I couldn't find where in there they mention AAL77 crashing.... they didn't. By 9:10am, it was known at least 3 plane's had been hijacked. Several minutes later in that transcript, they were asking if they heard from AAL77. Why would they be asking that if they were conveying the message that it had already crashed into the WTC?

950 — Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate:
and you have you heard anything from American 77.

 

[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?

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.

Sure, turn it around... to me, it looks like something very large hit it. It doesn't look like it was blown up with explosives. Oh, and get this... something very big did hit it -- the plane that flew into the Pentagon hit it. You see (or maybe you don't see) all of the physical evidence adds up to the same story. All you have to counter that are suppositions, guesses, and lies.

But you admit you have no idea what caused it, so we'll just leave it at that.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

Correct.

In regards to the shadow being cast from the plane, you said, "I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit."

Sometimes, in the interests of brevity, we may take for granted that our audiences understand what we mean and not fully qualify our statements. That's what I did above. What I -meant- was that I can certainly agree that it was -possible- that your darkened pixels may have been caused by the shadow of a plane. I never agreed I thought that they were proof or even strong evidence that they were, however.

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."

I -hope- that you now understand that I never "believed it was the plane's shadow", I just considered it to be a possibility. As I mentioned in the post you were responding to, CIT supporters do believe that there is evidence of a shadow that suggests that the plane flew on the North of Citgo flight path. I don't even know if they're the same darkened pixels you're referring to. However, judging by the fact that I couldn't see the darkened pixels from the video they posted, just like in your case before you painstakingly pointed them out to me, it may well be the same darkened pixels. Feel free to take a look and see if they are, indeed, the same darkened pixels:
NEW pentagon video

 

[SAYIT]

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... 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 happened.

Not only has no one come forward to say they were there that day and saw AA77 fly over the Pentagon, no camera or radar recorded such an occurrence, no one with first-hand knowledge of some other cause for the Pentagon damage has come forward, and no one witnessed anything like the silliness Phoenyx so desperately clings to.

Yet the plane, it's passengers and crew certainly disappeared on 9/11.

Furthermore, slamming AA77 into the Pentagon would have caused the damage that occurred. So why would the perpetrators add layer upon layer of complexity and risk of mistakes and exposure by adding a myriad of perfectly timed features and thousands of co-conspirators?

All just coincidence or clear evidence of a fantastic (and perfectly executed) gov't conspiracy to give people like Phoenyx an excuse to act like flaming idiots?

You decide.

The glaring question is: WHY? Why would any rational person spend the kind of time Phoenyx has watching YouTubes or reading the twisted speculation of those who took advantage of our 9/11 tragedy to achieve some measure of fame and glory and then spend countless hours on message boards regurgitating the same old mis & disinfo 15 later? I mean, there is nothing new about what today's "Truther" Movement's stragglers say or post. It was fully vetted a decade (or more) ago and found to be at best wanting and at worst ludicrous. Many of those who in past years made the same claims Phoenyx has made here for months have been outed as simple-minded Nazi scum determined to pin 9/11 on the Joooo (2 "Truthers" - LA Ram and RacialReality - are currently trying to pin the JFK assassination on them on another thread).

So what drives Phoenyx?

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
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.

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

 

[phoenyx]

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

I took a look at the documentary video you provided. In that case, there was a lot of evidence that yes, the plane crash landed. There was Daniel Mulholdt (sp?) watching the plane peter out from his small plane and Chris Oseola (sp?) going to the place he saw the plane go down and smelling the diesel fuel from the hole the plane left. You yourself gave a very good reason why so little was recovered from the plane:
**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 Pentagon is -not- a swamp where planes can get swallowed up.

 

[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 -.-

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.

Just as I suspected, your "200 people" number is one you came up with, not one Phil Jayhan actually stated. Ironically, you even include evidence against your own assertion in the very quote you use. It's right there, right after your bolded sentence:
"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."

Sorry to say, but fake passengers don't actually count.

Now let's go a little deeper:
Raytheon Employees were on every 9/11 flight that hit a target? - Democratic Underground

Raytheon involved in 9/11 ???

A chat with a former Raytheon employee- what are they saying

 

[SAYIT]

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

So a mod at some "Truther" forum suggests "that explosives may well have been used" and you consider that to be evidence? Where is the hyper-skepticism you employ when judging the NIST report, other gov't pronouncements, and the tons of legit witnesses and evidence that contradict your theories?

An explosive powerful enough to do that damage to the Pentagon would have to have been placed outside - the exterior wall and the interior damage all occurred from the outside in) and would have done far more damage out there (and to the outer wall) than was done.

FACT: There is no evidence of explosives nor is any of the damage consistent with a controlled demo and no one involved in prepping an explosive or placing it has come forward. The damage to the Pentagon is however, consistent with a large and powerful missile or a large and fast-moving jet.

There is no evidence of a missile (and in 15 yrs no one has come forward to admit they witnessed or had some part in prepping or firing a missile at the Pentagon) being fired but plenty that AA77 was fueled, loaded and took off and that it eventually slammed into the Pentagon. AA77, it's crew and passengers have not been seen since.

Do you have any other "Truther" silliness you'd like to post in the matter?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html
“I was a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” he started. “That it was not in any way as the official story explained. But, this universe {the "Truther" World} is truly one of smoke screens, illusions and wrong paths..."

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

 

[Divine Wind]

I took a look at the documentary video you provided. In that case, there was a lot of evidence that yes, the plane crash landed. There was Daniel Mulholdt (sp?) watching the plane peter out from his small plane and Chris Oseola (sp?) going to the place he saw the plane go down and smelling the diesel fuel from the hole the plane left. You yourself gave a very good reason why so little was recovered from the plane:
**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 Pentagon is -not- a swamp where planes can get swallowed up.

If you don't believe Critter 592 dove into the Everglades after an onboard fire, what do you speculate happened to it? Bermuda Triangle? It flew to the secret base where all supposed airline crashes go? Space aliens?

As for the Pentagon and AA77, it's clear the hijacked aircraft was flown into the Pentagon just as the other hijacked aircraft were flown into the WTC.

The notion that not only are thousands of Americans traitors and covering up a "false flag"/other fake event, but that they have successfully done so for 15 years is amazing in its naivete'.

 

[hadit]

Ultimately, the whole flyover/flyaway theory falls when you ask WHY?

We clearly disagree on that.

You can disagree, but to do so requires you to ignore crucial evidence and concoct elaborate schemes that are much more difficult to pull off successfully than to just fly the planes into the buildings.

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.

Again, more complexity. Now they would have to obtain the DNA and somehow get it included in the evidence from the scene with no one noticing.

place explosives in the exact configuration to LOOK like a plane hit the building

They did a poor job of it:
How could Flight 77 have caused bizarre pattern of interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?

Not when you consider the angle of the strike and the damage from it. Also, since you are questioning the official account, why do you take at face value the description of the interior damage to the Pentagon? That is one place the powers that be have zero interest in allowing you access. It seems that you are picking and choosing the evidence you will accept.

while not alerting those working inside

This was probably made easier by the fact that the wing that was struck had been under construction shortly before 9/11.

Still, no one, and I mean no one, found ANY evidence of planted explosives. No extra wires, no unexploded detonators, no explosives residue, nothing.

(and while not being able to guarantee that the plane would actually approach that exact spot at that angle),

Few things are guaranteed in life, but if those who were behind the planting explosives in the Pentagon were the same people controlling where the plane that approached the Pentagon, then they could atleast have a good probability of things meshing together well.

Again, far simpler to just fly the plane into the building than to set up an elaborate series of explosives then hope the drone doesn't get blown off course or the highjackings don't go south.

You want a conspiracy theory? You want a way that the US government planned this whole thing and pulled it off? Here's the easiest way it could have been done. One of the trolls in the elaborate military industrial complex, perhaps Bubba Clinton himself, collaborates with Osama bin Laden to train suicide troops. He gets them into the country and funds their flight training, knowing that once they have control of the planes, there's no way we could or would stop them.

There is certainly some evidence that some of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. bases. You may be interested in reading the following story from Newsweek, published just 3 days after 9/11:
Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases

That being said, that doesn't mean that they actually flew planes into buildings.

So now we're ratcheting the complexity quotient up again. Now we go through the trouble of bringing the terrorists into the country, training them to fly the planes, get them to highjack the planes, and then do nothing? If they did not fly the planes into the buildings, where did they land? I thought the terrorists weren't trained in how to land the planes.

On Sept 11, the highjackers take over the planes and fly them into the buildings. Sick, isn't it? But if you insist that the government would plant explosives and pull off an extremely elaborate scheme to kill a bunch of Americans on 9/11, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense that it happened that way...

Initially, I believed the official story concerning all aspects of 9/11. It was definitely easier to just believe whatever the government said on the matter. But once I started looking at the -evidence-, I found that various assertions regarding the official story just didn't make sense. This was also the case concerning the Pentagon attack. Admittedly, it took me longer to come to this conclusion regarding the Pentagon. While many in the truth movement questioned the official story regarding the WTC buildings, many seemed reluctant to question the official story regarding the Pentagon attack. But some kept on bringing up discrepancies regarding the official story regarding the Pentagon attack that I felt were too important to dismiss. That's the short answer to your question. It'll take me a lot longer to explain all the details as to why I eventually rejected the official story regarding the Pentagon attack, but if you stick around, you may find out, and perhaps begin to harbour a few doubts of your own.

The bottom line remains that there are some questions about the official account and there always will be, because nothing is ever as neat and clean to put together as we would hope and sometimes we can't state something absolutely. Creating an alternative explanation that is magnitudes more complex, more difficult to pull off, and full of more logic and evidentiary holes than the other, however, is not the answer.

 

[phoenyx]

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

Don't confuse your misunderstanding with reality. I'm not "waffling". I've never said that I know what happened for sure in this instance.

...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.

I've done no such thing. I certainly believe that a few people would have had to have been involved, and others may have been used and then killed once they unknowingly fulfilled their function. Certain Raytheon employees, allegedly on 3 of the 4 9/11 flights, come to mind. Others who undermined the official story concerning 9/11 after the fact also died deaths that I and others deem to be suspicious.

The dear readers of this forum are free to choose and research their own answers to these disasters.

Indeed.

 

[Faun]

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.

Just as I suspected, your "200 people" number is one you came up with, not one Phil Jayhan actually stated. Ironically, you even include evidence against your own assertion in the very quote you use. It's right there, right after your bolded sentence:
"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."

Sorry to say, but fake passengers don't actually count.

Now let's go a little deeper:
Raytheon Employees were on every 9/11 flight that hit a target? - Democratic Underground

Raytheon involved in 9/11 ???

A chat with a former Raytheon employee- what are they saying

Read your own links, would ya?

He said the passengers were, for the most part, in on the conspiracy; but that it is possible there were some real passengers as well. He also totalled up the number of passengers among the 4 planes and came to a total approaching 200. Add crew and you're over 200. That's 200 more conspirators in this twisted plot of yours who have to remain 100% silent to pull this off. No person is going to concoct such a cockamammie plan that can so easily fall apart if even one participant talks; and there would be thousands of such people -- when they could just as easily just fly the planes into the buildings and achieve the exact same results.

 

[Faun]

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.

Correct.

In regards to the shadow being cast from the plane, you said, "I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit."

Sometimes, in the interests of brevity, we may take for granted that our audiences understand what we mean and not fully qualify our statements. That's what I did above. What I -meant- was that I can certainly agree that it was -possible- that your darkened pixels may have been caused by the shadow of a plane. I never agreed I thought that they were proof or even strong evidence that they were, however.

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."

I -hope- that you now understand that I never "believed it was the plane's shadow", I just considered it to be a possibility. As I mentioned in the post you were responding to, CIT supporters do believe that there is evidence of a shadow that suggests that the plane flew on the North of Citgo flight path. I don't even know if they're the same darkened pixels you're referring to. However, judging by the fact that I couldn't see the darkened pixels from the video they posted, just like in your case before you painstakingly pointed them out to me, it may well be the same darkened pixels. Feel free to take a look and see if they are, indeed, the same darkened pixels:
NEW pentagon video

Make up all the excuses you want, you called it the plane's shadow when you thought it proved the plane flew north of the Citgo and then you called darkened pixels when it was proven to you it wasn't.

Everyone here watched you switch your position on the evidence to fit your agenda. Best proof yet that you're not interested in the truth, you're only interested in propping up your flyover nonsense.

And best of all... there's nothing else those "darkened pixels" can be but the plane's shadow. It appears at precisely the exact right moment at the exact right location in the exact right angle of approach to what we know the real truth to be. Nothing else could have cast a shadow that large and appear/disappear so quickly than the plane headed directly for the Pentagon.

 

[Divine Wind]

...I've done no such thing. I certainly believe that a few people would have had to have been involved, and others may have been used and then killed once they unknowingly fulfilled their function. Certain Raytheon employees, allegedly on 3 of the 4 9/11 flights, come to mind. Others who undermined the official story concerning 9/11 after the fact also died deaths that I and others deem to be suspicious.....

Sure, a handful could have carried out the act, but I'm talking about the thousands involved in the investigation and, according to you, the cover-up.

In order for your theory of the Pentagon crash to be true, either all those who worked in the Pentagon, who investigated the accident and were friends and coworkers of those who died would have to be completely stupid or part of the conspiracy. Hence why thousands would have to be involved to make this conspiracy theory work.

 

[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?

"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;

No, I agreed it was -possible- that it was the plane's shadow. I see such nuances such as the difference between possible and definitely are lost on you though -.-

when you thought it bolstered your north side approach [theory]

I still think it might. I even pointed out a thread wherein CIT supporters suggested there was a recorded shadow that would support the North side approach.

As far as not a single eyewitness reporting seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.... that's absurd, even for you.

I don't really understand what you're talking about, but just in case you missed it, CIT came up with a list of people whose testimony suggest that a plane flew over the Pentagon:
**
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

 

[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 -.-...

Eyewitnesses often recall events.

Something tells me you forgot to add a word in that sentence.

Even Sgt. Legasse didn't accurately recall where the downed lamp posts were.

We've gone over this before. Originally, Lagasse claimed he couldn't even -see- the light poles:
**
Craig Ranke: Did either of you actually see the plane clip the light poles, I just want to ask this question again to reiterate it…

Sergeant Lagasse: Like I said, you can’t really see the light poles from here, so I didn’t see it hit ‘em...
**

Only later, when told that light poles that were clearly outside of the range of the North side flight path, does he state that, in fact, the light poles hit were not those ones. I think this strongly suggests that he was trying to reconcile what he knew he saw (the plane flying north of the Citgo gas station) with what the official story states happened (light poles being hit).

Lagasse knows that his view regarding the North side flight path has been challenged. Here was his response to detractors:
**
Lagasse has been challenged on his view. This was his response:

"Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station."

CIT has a video exclusively dedicated to Lagasse's testimony, along with commentary, which you may like to see:

And video evidence doesn't have a foggy memory like the Citgo witnesses have.

Please don't assume that the Citgo witnesses have a foggy memory just because they don't concord with your viewpoint. Also, remember that the Citgo witnesses aren't the only ones that corroborate that the Pentaplane flew North of the Citgo gas station.

And the video evidence proves the plane flew south of the Citgo...

You talking about the pixelated 4 frame video that was leaked on to the internet? You standard of proof is depressingly low when it comes to evidence that fits into your worldview -.-

 

[phoenyx]

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?

That doesn't say AAL77 crashed anywhere.

No one is saying that AA77 actually crashed. The 9/11 Commission stated that Air Traffic Controllers -thought- AA77 had crashed. Please, carefully read what I quoted above. Statements from the 9/11 Commission are in blue.

It says AAL11 crashed into the WTC

Does it?

It says two plane's crashed into the WTC

Yes, -that- ATC Henderson does say.

It says AAL77 is still missing -- it was.

Agreed.

No wonder I couldn't find where in there they mention AAL77 crashing.... they didn't.

Agreed.

By 9:10am, it was known at least 3 plane's had been hijacked. Several minutes later in that transcript, they were asking if they heard from AAL77. Why would they be asking that if they were conveying the message that it had already crashed into the WTC?

They wouldn't. It seems you've lost track of what the initial subject was- namely that AA77 had disappeared from radar screens starting at 8:56am if memory serves. The 9/11 Commission -assumes- that the dot that appeared on their screens later on going in the -opposite- direction that AA77's dot had been going when it dissapeared was, in fact, AA77. There's no strong evidence that that was actually the case though.

 

[Divine Wind]

No one is saying that AA77 actually crashed...

I am. The FAA is. The 9/11 Commission is. The NTSB is. Lot's of people are saying AA 77 actually crashed into the Pentagon. You are free to believe thousands of people are lying, but there should be no dispute that they are, in fact, saying AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon.




The Story of the Pentagon 9-11 Flag > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Article
...The day after the terrorist attack on the Pentagon, the scene was still chaotic. Only essential military and civilian workers were required to come to the building. Parking was at Reagan-National Airport, as all U.S. airspace was still closed. As employees got off the Metro train, Pentagon police stood with weapons examining everyone’s badge. Those without a Pentagon ID were told to keep traveling on. The conversation in the building was about friends who remained missing......

AS IT HAPPENED - The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

911 Attack Images

http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/SPC0201.pdf
September 11th terrorist attacks in New York, Virginia, and in Pennsylvania (more than 3,000 fatalities). Responded to the Pentagon for American Airlines flight 77, Pennsylvania for the crash of United Airlines flight 93, New York City for the crashes of American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175. Staff supported the FBI; other federal, state and local agencies; American and United Airlines at all crash sites; and the Dover, Delaware Air Force Base Mortuary (victims of the Pentagon attack were taken there for identification).

https://web.archive.org/web/20121010093205/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/AAL77_fdr.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/2007092...artments/Fire/edu/about/docs/after_report.pdf
From the moment American Airlines Flight #77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. on September 11, and for the succeeding 10 days, this was a major fire and rescue incident, the responsibility of the Arlington County Fire Department (ACFD).

USATODAY.com - American Flight 77 victims at a glance
A Boeing 757 en route from Dulles International Airport near Washington to Los Angeles. The plane was carrying 58 passengers, four flight attendants and two pilots. It crashed into the Pentagon about 9:40 a.m. ET.

 

[SAYIT]

With C.I.T being at the heart of some CT arguments here, I thought it relevant to dig a bit deeper.

C.I.T. is the baby of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis whose agenda is (or was) to discredit the official report by carefully selecting a small number of interviews which seem to cast doubt on the official findings while excluding the many more that do not.

As an unintended consequence - or perhaps intended - their theories created a serious split in the 9/11 "Truther" Movement causing many prominent "Truthers" - Gage for one - to disavow C.I.T. and many more to specifically denounce its findings (Ashley) as "reliant on biased interpretations of broad statements made by less than 20 witnesses to the attack, 8 years after the event."

The split (or splits) pitted one school of CT thought against another as they finally looked critically at the others and realized their theories conflicted or were even diametrically opposed.

What ensued was a free-for-all as each side complained that the other (or others) within the "Truther" Movement were actually mis or disinfo agents whose intention was to discredit the Movement itself. That certainly seems to have been the result as the Movement has been dying (or dead) since 2008 with nothing new since and a steady stream of former "Truthers" slithering out the door.

Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11Truth - U of Albany, had the integrity to say something about the 9/11 CT World as he left it:

Confessions of an Ex-Truther: Letter of Resignation (Scroll Down for Newer Posts)
My "change of heart" didn't happen overnight. This has been a process that has been eating away at me for the past month and a half. I wanted to act strategically as far as "coming out" as a means to perhaps transition the 9/11 Truth group on campus to one that was less focused on strictly 9/11-related issues (aka more truthful ones). However, I was exposed to something that truly angered me deep down in the wee hours of this morning, which I'll get to later. I was so outraged that I can no longer keep my mouth shut.

For whatever reasons at the time, I no-showed the 8/11 truth action our group was doing in Albany. Instead, I watched a movie called Screw Loose Change. I expected it to point out a few corrections in some minor details of the film. To my surprise, it contested just about every claim in the entire movie. I was a bit shocked.

I was a true believer of all this controlled demolition nonsense for a time. I never cared about the physics or the claims of pseudo-"experts." What always did it for me was the fact that there was never a decent response to any of these questions by the government. Even the hit pieces you'd see on 9/11 were always personal attacks. The mainstream never contested the actual "facts" movies like Loose Change presented.

Or so it seemed. After watching Screw Loose Change, I delved into the world of 9/11 Truth debunking. Among my favorites are the Screw Loose Change Blog and 9/11 Myths Finally, someone was answered all these pertinent questions with something that was a bit foreign to me... facts agreed upon by the experts.

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.

 

[phoenyx]

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?

Sure, turn it around... to me, it looks like something very large hit it. It doesn't look like it was blown up with explosives.

Are you an expert on what kind of damage explosives can do?

...you admit you have no idea what caused it, so we'll just leave it at that.

I was being a bit sarcastic when I said "Explosives perhaps?". I believe it was explosives.