9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[phoenyx]

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?

There's a saying from Sherlock Holmes:
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Based on the evidence that I've seen, I believe that the Pentaplane simply couldn't have hit the Pentagon. Since I've deemed that to be impossible, whatever possibilities remain must be the truth. Explosives seems to be the most plausible alternative. There is certainly evidence that the Pentagon -itself- was rigged with explosives. Here's an excerpt from an article at Truth and Shadows:

**
Gallop later told Army officials that she thought her computer had triggered a bomb, saying that the only fire she saw was coming out of computers.

NPH Revisited (page 101), lists several people who claim they thought bombs had gone off in the Pentagon. Among those were Michael J. Nielsen, a civilian auditor for the Army (heard people running through the corridors yelling that bombs were going off); and Lt. Nancy McKeown (yelled “bomb!” as ceiling tiles fell) Also, journalist Steve Vogel, author of The Pentagon: A History, said in the book that almost no one he talked to had any idea that a plane had hit the building; they all thought it was a bomb.

But the most interesting account is that of Don Perkal, the deputy General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Perkal reported that he clearly smelled cordite after the explosion and after he exited from his office: “Even before I stepped outside, I smelled the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.”

And crucially, he also reported leaving the building after two explosions went off a few minutes apart. Despite this, Perkal believes that a plane hit the building.

This was echoed by Pentagon attorney Gilah Goldsmith, who reported that after hearing a loud boom she saw a large black cloud of smoke. She said she also smelled cordite or gun smoke. This account can be found in NPH Revisited and in Eric Bart’s extensive Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation.
**

Source: Evidence points to bombs inside the Pentagon on 9/11

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.

How would you know? Are you an explosives expert?

...no one involved in prepping an explosive or placing it has come forward.

You honestly expect the culprit(s) would have come forward by and confessed -.-?

 

[phoenyx]

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?

Please read what I wrote concerning 592 again. Carefully this time.

As for the Pentagon and AA77, it's clear the hijacked aircraft was flown into the Pentagon

If your argument is going to be "I'm right and you're wrong", our conversation isn't going to last that long.

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'.

Straw man argument. I never said there were thousands covering up the truth.

 

[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;

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 -.-

Well when you thought it proved the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo, you referred to it as the "shadow from the plane;" and since you realized it proved the plane was on the south side, you now refer to it as "darkened pixels."

Don't think this flip-flop, and its implication, of yours has gone unnoticed.

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.

What you posted was the Doubletree video, not the Citgo video. What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the plane's shadow.

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...

You tried to insinuate it's reasonable nobody reported seeing the plane fly over the building because no one was specifically asked that question. That's absurd. I'll repeat what I said, maybe I'll get lucky and you'll understand this time...

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.​

, 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

Roosevelt Roberts'

Says he ran out about 10 seconds the explosion and saw a commercial jet approaching the Pentagon over one lane in the south parking lot. This cannot possibly be the plane flying over as you describe since what you describe has the plane flying over the Pentagon at the same time of the explosion in what you referred to as a distraction.

Dewitt Roseborough

Never said he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Says he looked up and saw the plane flying so low, he thought it would hit the highway. It obviously didn't. Next thing he saw was a fireball come from over the Pentagon -- but no plane.

Erik Dihle

Did not even see a plane. He was across the highway at Arlington National Cemetery and says he heard conflicting accounts with some people saying a bomb hit the building and a jet kept on going while someone else corrected them and said the plane hit the building. Now he doesn't recall even saying that and has no idea who did say it. Whomever said it was a bomb and a plane kept on going is unidentifiable and no one knows what they actually saw, or thought they saw, or what made them say what they said.

Witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter

Have no idea who you're talking about.

Maria De La Cerda

"And as I'm walking towards Arnold Street, Towards MacArthur intersection, and the buses had just departed, maybe 8:40 at this point, [inaubible], somewhere between 8:40, um, I hear what I think is a flyover, over my head because that's standard. Lots of times you have missing man information sometimes you won't, and I looked, I looked directly up for it, and I also had some tree cover so I wasn't able to see. But I was facing the pentagon and I saw something really fast going to the pentagon with a swoosh and ill never forget it, It was so fast, and then a huge fire ball explosion and smoke, and they said there was a huge sound, but I don't recall, I just remember it being just it was like a clap, And I just remember it being so fast, And I screamed, no, or oh my God, and right, I think right then at that point I'm at the intersection and still constantly walking toward my car." ~ Maria De La Cerda

She didn't see where the plane crashed nor did she say she saw the plane after seeing the fireball. How could she? Her view would have looked something like this from the intersection of Arnold and McCarthur in ANC.

So as usual ... you have nothing. No eyewitnesses said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. You have to imagine them saying it from what they actually say to reach that conclusion.

 

[phoenyx]

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...

What crucial evidence do you believe I'm ignoring?

...and concoct elaborate schemes that are much more difficult to pull off successfully than to just fly the planes into the buildings.

I agree that it would certainly have been easier for the Pentaplane to just crash into the Pentagon, although based on what I've read, it would have been impossible for the Pentaplane to have crashed in the are of the Pentagon that the official story posits that it crashed in, atleast if it had actually been a 757 aircraft.

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.

Who watches the watchers? For that matter, who -are- the watchers? So far, all we've got is "they". Tell me, have you ever heard of a woman named Sibel Edmonds?

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.

You didn't read the article linked to above, did you?

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.

We can only go by the information we have access to. Essentially, what I and many other researchers do is this: -If- the government gave us accurate information regarding x, the official story makes no sense because of [reasons].

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.

You're mistaken:
Evidence points to bombs inside the Pentagon on 9/11

How could Flight 77 have caused bizarre pattern of interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?

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?

Oh, they certainly did -something-. They provided those truly behind 9/11 with the scapegoats required to help avoid the true culprits from getting caught, while also giving a reason to unleash the draconian Patriot Act as well as multiple wars of aggression after the event.

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.

You're making an assumption that the alleged terrorists were actually the ones flying the planes to begin with. Since this thread is about the Pentagon attack, let's take a look at one of the alleged terrorist pilot who flew the Pentaplane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour. At least one trainer said he couldn't fly at all:
**
Hanjour, by the way, was known to the Federal Aviation Administration several months before 9/11. As reported in the New York Times (“A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” May 4, 2002), Hanjour’s flight instructors in Phoenix, Arizona told the FAA that his skills as a pilot and his ability to speak English were so poor that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine.

A former employee of the flight school said: “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

Hanjour tried to rent a Cessna from Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland (about 20 miles from Washington) just a month before 9/11, but was refused because his piloting skills were so weak. Instructor Sheri Baxter says that she and another instructor took Hanjour for three test runs and found he had a hard time just controlling and landing the Cessna. They refused to rent him the plane.

So now Hanjour and his buddies are running the show with their box cutters while the passengers and crew are captive in the back of the plane. Despite not having the skills to fly a Cessna, Hanjour flies the 757 west to the Ohio/Kentucky border before turning 180 degrees and heading back to Washington. The plane was invisible to radar from shortly after the alleged hijacking until it returned to Washington airspace headed for the Pentagon. That’s Washington D.C., by the way, the most secure and heavily defended airspace in the world. Hmm, it wasn’t that day.

Hanjour manned the controls for about 45 minutes from the time of the hijacking until the alleged crash. Did he fly straight at the Pentagon, sending the plane into a dive and hitting the most sensitive part of the Pentagon, including the offices of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld?

No, he had a better idea.

Hanjour initiated a 330-degree descending spiral that pilots with decades of experience flying 757s say would have been next to impossible. First of all, they say, the plane would not have stayed in one piece with the stress that manoeuvre would have placed on its frame. Secondly, Hanjour did not have the skill to manage such a feat.

Air traffic controllers at Dulles International have said that they didn’t know the plane that appeared on their radar was Flight 77 because of the way it was moving.

“The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don’t fly a 757 in that manner,” said controller Danielle O’Brien.

Hanjour is supposed to have reduced his altitude very rapidly (dropping 7,000 feet in just two and a half minutes) until he was flying parallel to the ground and low enough to knock over five light posts before hitting the side of the building between the first and second floors – without doing any damage to the Pentagon lawn.
**

Source: Why ‘hijackers into the Pentagon’ story can’t fly

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.

We clearly disagree on what explanation is more logical, but that could change given enough time.

 

[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.

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.

This isn't a question of Lagasse not seeing the poles when they were hit -- it's a matter of where he thought they were when he rushed to the Pentagon and saw them on the ground. He remembered them further north than they actually were. He remembered England's taxi being further north than it actually was. So naturally, he remembered the plane flying further north than it actually was. Lagasse's recollection of where the light poles were actually lends credibility to the official account.

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 -.-

Who cares if it's pixelated? We know it's a low quality surveillance camera. But that shadow appears at the exact right time, at the exact right location, at the exact right angle; to match up perfectly with the plane flying south of the Citgo, clipping the light poles, hitting the generator, and flying into the Pentagon at a 42 degree angle.

You're only counter to that is "nuh-uh" and to call it "darkened pixels" after calling it the "shadow from the plane."

 

[Faun]

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.

No, I'm not an expert on explosives. I'm also not a weatherman but I know when it's raining outside. There's nothing about the damage to that generator that appears to have been blown up. No one ever said they saw it blow up. There's no visible sign of any additional explosions on the Pentagon surveillance video. You're actually making shit up now because reality interferes with your unwitnessed conspiracy nonsense.

 

[Faun]

What crucial evidence do you believe I'm ignoring?

Well for one .... Lloyd England.

You insist he staged the pole driving through his windshield but you have no evidence he's lying. You tried to claim it would have been impossible for that pole to spear his car without hitting the hood, yet he was there and explained how that occurred while you were not there and can't refute his claim.

Even worse for you -- if England (with or without help) staged that incident ... he wouldn't have removed the pole, sight unseen. He would have left it in place so the whole world could see the plane hit a light pole and drove it into his vehicle. But leaving evidence you claim was staged was not on his mind.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

How would you know? Are you an explosives expert?

Wait ... let me be sure I understand you correctly. You post a link from Craig McKee - not an explosives expert - at something called Truth & Shadows (woooo) who gathered some random quotes - also from non-experts - and you conclude it was a controlled demo? And you want my credentials? Really? Where is your rampant skepticism when you truly need it?

Perhaps you should consider what the experts at the American Society of Engineers concluded ... unless, of course, you want to add them to your ever-growing list of co-conspirators:

On September 11, 2001, a hijacked commercial airliner was intentionally crashed into the building in an act of terrorism. One hundred eighty-nine persons were killed and a portion of the building was damaged by the associated impact, deflagration, and fire.

That same day the American Society of Civil Engineers established a building performance study (BPS) team (that included one NIST researcher) to examine the damaged structure and make recommendations for the future. Team members possess expertise in structural, fire, and forensic engineering. The BPS team's analysis of the Pentagon and the damage resulting from the attack was conducted between September 2001 and April 2002.

The members of the BPS team inspected the site as soon as was possible without interfering with the rescue and recovery operations. They reviewed the original plans, the renovation plans, and available information on the material properties of the structure. They scrutinized aircraft data, eyewitness information, and fatality records; consulted with the urban search and rescue engineers, the chief renovation engineer, and the engineer in charge of the crash site reconstruction; and examined the quick, focused assessments of the disaster conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Pentagon Renovation Program staff.

The BPS team concluded that the impact of the aircraft destroyed or significantly impaired approximately 50 structural columns. The ensuing fire weakened a number of other structural elements. However, only a very small segment of the affected structure collapsed, approximately 20 minutes after impact. The collapse, fatalities, and damage were mitigated by the Pentagon's resilient structural system. Very few upgraded windows installed during the renovation broke during the impact and deflagration of aircraft fuel.
Pentagon Building Performance Study 2001

 

[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

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.

I did read a fair amount of Phil's article, but it's a long article. He makes a lot of points and postulates various theories. Some of his theories I find more plausible than others. I find his claim that the 9/11 passengers were all or atleast mostly willing participants, and that the goal was for them to assume new identities, to be a tenuous assertion. What I find far more interesting is pretty much everything else in the article, starting with the opening paragraph:

**Most people are not aware that there are issues with the 4 groups of people who flew on the 4 flights of 9/11 from 3 locations. There are so many issues it would take a newsroom full of dedicated reporters a long time to sift through it all. There are problems with the boarding of passengers on 3 flights. And on the 4th flight we find 2 boardings, an unusual event to say the least. Two of the aircraft, we are to believe didn't even take off on 9/11, as this is what registers in the BTS database for flights 11 & 77 on 911. Two of the aircraft that allegedly struck the towers, can be plausibly shown to be drones, calling into question both passenger and crew from those respective flights. (11 & 175) While flight 77 obviously didn't crash at the Pentagon from all evidence shown, and flight 77 is one of the 2 flight which BTS shows no departure time for. While flight 93 wasn't even a regular flight on 9/11, it was created in the last 2 hours before it flew. And as you will see are good reasons to believe Flight 93 was boarded twice at Newark. If this sounds confusing, it is because it was meant to be so. But I believe this article shows it is possible to make some simple sense out of the days events and tie them all together.**

 

[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.

"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.

I said (and I quote): "I certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit. I thought you would understand the context within which I said it- that is, that I thought it was -possible- that there was video evidence of the Pentaplane passing the Citgo gas station. I never said that I believe that it proved that the Pentaplane flew north of the Citgo. Another point to consider- I was pretty much taking it on faith that there -was- evidence of a plane's shadow. As you may recall, you had to painstakingly point out a few darkened pixels to me, because prior to you doing so, I couldn't see anything that could even remotely be construed as a shadow of any kind.

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.

Meanwhile, some CIT supporters believe there's video evidence of a shadow near the Citgo gas station that provides evidence that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station:
NEW pentagon video

 

[phoenyx]

...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.

I moved my response to a thread that deals with all aspects of 9/11, as I felt we're leaving the realm of the Pentagon alone...
9/11: What really happened on that day?

 

[phoenyx]

No one is saying that AA77 actually crashed...

I am. The FAA is. The 9/11 Commission is. The NTSB is.

Sorry, I was deeply involved in my discussion with Faun and failed to contextualize my statement for other readers. I meant to say that none of the Air Traffic Controllers were saying that AA77 actually crashed in the AA77 transcript page that Faun helpfully dug up. I was telling Faun that I -agreed- with him on this point.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

No it wasn't -.- They had heard various rumours, such as the notion that a missile had hit the Pentagon, and they set out to Arlington, Virginia, to try to find out what really happened. What they discovered from the interviews you mentioned was that yes, a plane -did- approach the Pentagon, but the flight path the witnesses with the best view approaching the Pentagon all said that the plane approached from a flight path that took it North of a Citgo gas station near the Pentagon, instead of south of this Citgo gas station, which was required in order to down the light polls and cause the damage found at the Pentagon.

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."

It's true that their findings caused a split within the Truth Movement. This is probably one of the reasons I like the subject so much- it's one of the most controversial areas to tread on 9/11, as even many in the Truth Movement disagree as to what happened there.

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.

There is some truth to what you say. I think it's unfortunate.

 

[Divine Wind]

Sorry, I was deeply involved in my discussion with Faun and failed to contextualize my statement for other readers. I meant to say that none of the Air Traffic Controllers were saying that AA77 actually crashed in the AA77 transcript page that Faun helpfully dug up. I was telling Faun that I -agreed- with him on this point.

It's well documented that ATC followed the flight into the Pentagon.

Air Traffic Controllers Recall 9/11
Across the nation, air traffic controllers watched as four airliners disappeared from radar screens as they were taken over by hijackers determined to cause death and destruction......"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."...

I'm sure the second paragraph causes the CTers to go all atwitter, but note that it says it's unsafe to maneuver a 757 in that manner, not that it can't do it.

 

[hadit]

Sorry, I was deeply involved in my discussion with Faun and failed to contextualize my statement for other readers. I meant to say that none of the Air Traffic Controllers were saying that AA77 actually crashed in the AA77 transcript page that Faun helpfully dug up. I was telling Faun that I -agreed- with him on this point.

It's well documented that ATC followed the flight into the Pentagon.

Air Traffic Controllers Recall 9/11
Across the nation, air traffic controllers watched as four airliners disappeared from radar screens as they were taken over by hijackers determined to cause death and destruction......"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."...

I'm sure the second paragraph causes the CTers to go all atwitter, but note that it says it's unsafe to maneuver a 757 in that manner, not that it can't do it.

Actually, when you consider that the highjacker was NOT a seasoned pilot, it makes sense that he would be flying the plane in ways a seasoned pilot would not, meaning rapid descents and tight turns instead of long, gradual, carefully planned approaches.

 

[Faun]

"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...

​

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.

I said (and I quote): "I certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit. I thought you would understand the context within which I said it- that is, that I thought it was -possible- that there was video evidence of the Pentaplane passing the Citgo gas station. I never said that I believe that it proved that the Pentaplane flew north of the Citgo. Another point to consider- I was pretty much taking it on faith that there -was- evidence of a plane's shadow. As you may recall, you had to painstakingly point out a few darkened pixels to me, because prior to you doing so, I couldn't see anything that could even remotely be construed as a shadow of any kind.

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.

Meanwhile, some CIT supporters believe there's video evidence of a shadow near the Citgo gas station that provides evidence that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station:
NEW pentagon video

That video doesn't capture the Citgo, the plane, or its shadow. How on Earth do you contend it may prove the plane was on the north side of the Citgo?

 

[SAYIT]

It's well documented that ATC followed the flight into the Pentagon. Air Traffic Controllers Recall 9/11
I'm sure the second paragraph causes the CTers to go all atwitter, but note that it says it's unsafe to maneuver a 757 in that manner, not that it can't do it.

Actually, when you consider that the hijacker was NOT a seasoned pilot, it makes sense that he would be flying the plane in ways a seasoned pilot would not, meaning rapid descents and tight turns instead of long, gradual, carefully planned approaches.

Meanwhile, some CIT supporters believe there's video evidence of a shadow near the Citgo gas station that provides evidence that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station: NEW pentagon video

That video doesn't capture the Citgo, the plane, or its shadow. How on Earth do you contend it may prove the plane was on the north side of the Citgo?

What is made crystal clear in the above exchanges with Phoenyx is that he isn't about an honest appraisal of 9/11 events but rather all about defending his CT belief system ... his religion.

 

[phoenyx]

"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 -.-

Well when you thought it proved the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo you referred to it as the "shadow from the plane;" and since you realized it proved the plane was on the south side, you now refer to it as "darkened pixels."

Don't think this flip-flop, and its implication, of yours has gone unnoticed.

As mentioned in Post #270:
I said (and I quote): "I certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit." I thought you would understand the context within which I said it- that is, that I thought it was -possible- that there was video evidence of the Pentaplane passing the Citgo gas station. I never said that I believe that it proved that the Pentaplane flew north of the Citgo. Another point to consider- I was pretty much taking it on faith that there -was- evidence of a plane's shadow. As you may recall, you had to painstakingly point out a few darkened pixels to me, because prior to you doing so, I couldn't see anything that could even remotely be construed as a shadow of any kind.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

What you posted was the Doubletree video, not the Citgo video.

That may well be true. CIT supporters were suggesting that a recorded shadow would support the North side approach. I didn't check to see if they were referring to the Citgo video or another video.

What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the plane's shadow.

Just because -you- don't think what the CIT supporters saw may have been the Pentaplane's shadow doesn't mean it wasn't.

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...

You tried to insinuate it's reasonable nobody reported seeing the plane fly over the building because no one was specifically asked that question.

Please quote the passage where you believe I "insinuated" this.

 

[phoenyx]

, 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

Roosevelt Roberts'

Says he ran out about 10 seconds the explosion and saw a commercial jet approaching the Pentagon over one lane in the south parking lot. This cannot possibly be the plane flying over as you describe since what you describe has the plane flying over the Pentagon at the same time of the explosion in what you referred to as a distraction.

Roosevelt Roberts' testimony can be a bit confusing- both I and Craig Ranke believe that he got his cardinal directions confused. Below Craig Ranke explains his testimony. I think the most important detail to remember is that he refers to the plane as having come from the direction of the "first plane" that hit the Pentagon. The thing is, the only other plane to get even remotely close to the Pentagon (a C130) was so high that the pilot of said plane couldn't even make out what the Pentaplane had hit- if he couldn't make out the Pentagon, it's hard to believe that Roosevelt would have made out the C130.

**Your interpretation is not what he is describing. Yes he was confused regarding cardinal directions while relaying this over the phone during an off-the-cuff, surprise interview while he was driving. That is typical for any human and to be expected.

But when he used landmarks it tells a different story.

"coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC"

And then later:

It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- (indistinguishable) came in. . . uh. . . almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction.


So the plane came from the alleged impact side where he thought the "first plane" "flew into the Pentagon". This is clear. Yet he called that "southwest" and the blast site is NOT southwest of him.

That's because he was confused when relaying cardinal directions during an off the cuff interview which is quite normal.

No big deal.

And then when asked about where it banked the LANDMARK he used was the Mall entrance side.


Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around


Again that is not southwest, it is north.

We have said from day one that Roosevelt's account is not 100% clear and we regret that he clammed up after he got scared and backed out of the on-camera interview he later promised.

But for YOU to parse his words and poke holes in what is admittedly not perfect testimony can be for no other purpose but to suggest he completely fabricated his account and is LYING even though he is corroborated by ALL the north side witnesses who prove with scientific fact that the plane did not hit.**

Source: Roosevelt Roberts Interview - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum