9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[phoenyx]

Aside from the fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna...

Hani Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a "satisfactory" rating from the examiner.

Please name the person who gave him a "satisfactory" rating.

I'll be happy to once you provide substantiation to your claim that "Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna."

Easy enough:
**Further suspension in logic exists in the 'official story's' narrative as to who flew Flight 77 so expertly into the Pentagon's west wing. Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane's pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all." Other source. And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot.**

Source: Hani Hanjour and Flight 77's Unexplained Expert Maneuvers

 

[SAYIT]

Aside from the fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna...

Hani Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a "satisfactory" rating from the examiner.

Please name the person who gave him a "satisfactory" rating.

I'll be happy to once you provide substantiation to your claim that "Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna."

Easy enough:
**Further suspension in logic exists in the 'official story's' narrative as to who flew Flight 77 so expertly into the Pentagon's west wing. Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane's pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all." Other source. And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot.**

Source: Hani Hanjour and Flight 77's Unexplained Expert Maneuvers

Uh-huh. So two 9/11 CT sources claim unnamed flight instructors at an unnamed airfield found Hanjour "could not fly at all." No wonder you cling so desperately to your "Flyover" CT ... you believe anything from any source that serves your agenda.

It was Loose Change that created the lie (Shocking, eh? A 9/11 CT source that lies) that Hanjour couldn't fly. In fact they used a snippet of an interview they conducted with the flight trainer - Marcel Bernard - who went on to say "there is no doubt in my mind that once flight 77 got going he could have pointed that plane at building and hit it." Of course, Loose Change left that part of the interview out which brings us back to what I find to be the most revealing aspect of your whole (and long defunct) 9/11 CT Movement: that all of the theories that were spawned by its rabid members were built on half-truths, distortions, mis & disinformation, and outright fabrications.

TRACES OF TERROR: THE F.B.I.; For Agent in Phoenix, the Cause of Many Frustrations Extended to His Own Office

 

[Faun]

CIT's gone through pretty much all of the witnesses, I've gone over all the named witnesses you've mentioned. Regarding Lagasse, did you actually listen to Lagasse? The plane went right above his head; couldn't have been easier for him to know the exact location of the plane;

That's odd -- in his original taped statement -- he said he could see the shades of the windows were pulled down. How is that possible if he later claimed the plane "went right above his head??"

Interview with William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 4, 2001

Good point. I'm thinking I got mixed up with Terry Morin's testimony. As you may recall, Terry -did- see it go right over his head. In Lagasse's case, he clearly had the plane to his left.

...and in case you never bothered to click on the video clip, he was standing -at- the Citgo gas station. Can't have a better vantage point then that when it comes to determining whether the plane flew north or south of said Citgo gas station.

Yes, let's take a closer look at that video. I encourage others here to check this out as well. Take note at the 4:41 mark in the video...



Watch it full screen and pay particular attention to the second camera down from the top left. The one labeled, "single pump side."

At the 4:41 mark, notice that something appears to fall (and doesn't get picked up for the remainder of the video)....

You have to watch the video in full screen mode because it's almost not noticeable at regular size.

Within seconds of that, on the bottom portion of the screen, though it's fuzzy, you can still make out people running to the door to on the right.

I contend that was the moment the plane flew past the Citco. Lagasse recalled the force of the plane knocked him into his car as it flew past. That could explain something getting knocked down in the image I posted above. At a hundred feet or less, the sound would have been deafening, which could explain the people in the store rushing to the glass door to look out.

And which direction did their instincts lead them to where the noise came from...??

The door on the southeast side of the Citco.

That video's pretty blurry. I think Lagasse and Brooks' testimony is much more solid.

Sorry, but Lagasse and Brooks' testimony does not trump video evidence.

And just because you can't see it doesn't mean others can't.

The employee at the Citgo described the plane flying by him as an "earthquake." At about 4:41 in the video I linked, you can see something fall over. Well, I can see it even though you can't. That matches Lagasse's statement that the plane flying by knocked him into his car. A couple of seconds later, you can see the Citgo employees running to the door to where the heard the jet fly. Well, again ... I can see it even though you can't.

Furthermore, there is a shadow caught on camera at the precise moment something was knocked over in the photo I posted, as the plane flew by the Citgo. It could very well be the shadow from the plane...

 

[Faun]

This video also tries to impugn Walter's eyewitness account; but Walter never said he saw the plane hit the building. He said he saw it flying toward the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. He also said he saw the plane clip a lamp post. How does he see that if they were planted, as you suggest?

The same way Lagasse stated that certain light poles were downed, when they weren't. Memory isn't perfect, and it can morph a bit when confronted with information that appears to contradict their actual recollections. Things can be added in order to make things 'fit'.

That's true, memory isn't perfect. Especially many years after the fact. Still, Lagasse recalled the light poles were "obviously" clipped by the plane; only the light poles weren't actually where he recalled them actually being. Indicating where he recalled seeing the plane fly isn't where it actually flew.

Speaking of memories, do you remember what Lagasse first said in the clip below when Craig Ranke asked him about the light poles? I've transcribed part of their conversation, beginning at around 5:40 in the posted video below:
**
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…

Lagasse: Like I said, you can’t really see the light poles from here, so I didn’t see it hit ‘em, but obviously it did ‘cause…

Craig Ranke: Ok, as I was mentioning to Sergeant Lagasse, the official story says the plane came on the south side, and hit the light poles right here.

Lagasse: No chance.

Craig Ranke: What’s that?

Lagasse: There’s no chance. If, and as a matter of fact, I know for a fact, that this light pole, well you can’t really see if there’s a light pole here that was knocked down, and there was a light pole here that was knocked down, not any over here. They were here. And there’s no way that the plane was over here. If anything, the only indisputable fact is the angle was different, that it was closer this way, but it had to be on this side.

Craig Ranke: It had to be on the north side…

Lagasse: There’s no way it could be on the south side, I can’t see, I don’t have eyes in the back of my head…
**
Source:


As you can see, he starts off stating light poles couldn't be seen from his location that day, even though he believes they "obviously" did, for a reason that I didn't catch. Once Ranke mentions that the official story has the plane coming on the south side of the Citgo gas station, along with light poles that could only be hit from a south of the Citgo flight path, Lagasse halfheartedly attempts to claim that light poles -were- hit on the North side approach, but it's a lukewarm attempt at best, once again beginning with "you can't really see if there's a light pole here...". The one thing he -never- changes his stance on, however, is whether the plane came from North or South of the Citgo gas station.

That he's sure the plane came from north of the Citgo is irrelevant

Hardly, considering that he was -at- the Citgo gas station, not a considerable distance from it. The only other witnesses who have come forward from the Citgo gas station all place the plane as coming from the north side of the station as well.

as there are also many witnesses who are sure it came up Columbia Pike.

It -did-. But around the time it approached the Navy Annex, it had crossed over to the north side of Columbia Pike, as mentioned by Edward Paik. Terry Morin, who was -at- the Navy Annex stated that it went over his head, and even you seemed to find his testimony credible. Further along the plane's flight, at the Citgo gas station, you have Brooks, Lagasse and Turcios all claiming that the plane flew -north- of the Citgo gas station. And the witnesses they interviewed at the Arlington cemetary, as well as those at the Pentagon itself all place the plane as coming from North of Columbia Pike as well. Only after it had gone north of the Citgo gas station does it begin to turn southwards again, but by that point, there was no way that it could have gone southwards quickly enough to hit the light poles and do the damage found at the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth make this clear in the following video:

The two camps of eyewitness accounts can't both be right,

Please list the witnesses in your "camp".

None of the witnesses recalled seeing a fly over.

So you say. Meanwhile, -some- of us still think it'd be worth trying to find the people who Erik Dihle mentioned in his interview with the U.S. Army's Center of Military History. You know, the ones he stated had said "were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Putting the plane above the Navy Annex on the southeast side where Morin claims he saw it, puts the plane on a direct course for the Pentagon. Even worse according to you -- at that point, the plane is heading directly for a pre-planned point at the Pentagon where bombs were set and ready to detonate ... and directly over where you claim lamposts were staged.......

But then, according to your nonsense, the pilot turns away from his target which is already lined up perfectly ... to veer away from the predetermined spot at the Pentagon and veer away from the lamp posts you claim were purposefully taken down and staged, only to have to make a sharp right turn at about 100-150 feet at about 400-450 MPH.

There's no sane reason on Earth you can invent to explain why someone would do that.

 

[phoenyx]

An anonymous video where you can't even see the person is not much to go on.

That it's anonymous doesn't discount it as the person was clearly present and clearly describing what he claims to have witnessed. It stands as an eyewitness account even if you don't like it.

You don't even know who it was. But by all means, provide some evidence that any of the following assertions you make on this person are true.

Squeaks the person who says there was a flyover because Dihle heard someone make a suggestion which you construe to be a flyover. While Dihle's mystery person was not pixelated, their own personal account was still conveyed first hand. And witnesses need not be identified to believe what they're saying they saw. That's merely a measure you wish to go by in order to eliminate those who disagree with your agenda.

I think you got mixed up above, it doesn't make much sense. Dihle is a person who can be found and asked to testify as to who told him. You can't get pixels to testify to anything. Furthermore, Dihle's testimony is only one of -many- aspects of the Pentagon event pointing towards a flyover. If it were only Dihle, we wouldn't be engaged in this very large discussion over all of the evidence.

Dihle can't name names. In the last interview I saw with him, he didn't even recall saying what other people said as far as a "bomb" and a "jet kept on going."

Good point, I'd forgotten that he'd forgotten. That being said, he could be asked who he had talked to about the events that day, and go from there.

There are some issues with Joel Sucherman's testimony, which CIT gets into here:

That video, like virtually everything you rely on, is nothing but unsupported supposition. In this video, the person(s) who made it claims the USA Today reporters' eyewitness accounts are questionable because there were 6 of them on there way to work that morning. Even worse, they claim that ALL of those reporters were late for work because ONE of them was. But in reality, the maker of that video has no proof the others didn't go into work until 10am. So once again, CIT fails miserably to prove their point.

Alright, perhaps you're right on that particular point. That being said, I can't help but wonder if Sucherman actually saw the pentaplane fly away from the scene. Why do I think that? Because of this part of his statement:
**USA Today editor Joel Sucherman:
-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. **

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Website

He was clear he saw two planes. One he says he saw fly into the Pentagon; the other veered away. We know there were two planes. We know that a C-130 briefly tailed AA77 just before it crashed and then was told by the control tower to head off at 270º, away from the Pentagon.

That's an explanation that CIT has already refuted, in the very same article I was quoting above, no less:
**Eventually researchers would explain away the accounts of the "second plane/jet" as being regarding the C-130 piloted by Lt Col Steve O'Brien who we now know never shadowed or chased the plane. He actually lost sight of it after it passed in front of him and he turned around. He was not near AND/OR over the Pentagon at the time of alleged impact (explosion & fireball). In fact it would have been physically impossible for him to keep up with a 530 mph jet, when a C-130 can only travel maximum 379 mph. He didn't show up to the scene until approximately 3 minutes later at a much higher altitude.

We learned from an e-mail exchange with him and Pilots for 9/11 Truth that he was too high and far away to even see the Pentagon!

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-C-130 Pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email to Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757 so if the pilot could not see the Pentagon there is no way he could see an impact or flyover/away and he clearly wasn't "shadowing" the attack jet proving Keith Wheelhouse's account false. This is further demonstrated with video evidence taken by Anthony Tribby from highway 395.

There is a significant difference between the witness accounts above that were used by the media in the subsequent propaganda to sell the official story when compared to the independent witness accounts that we have uncovered. Specifically workers from Arlington Cemetery who were right next to where Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw the C-130, yet report a very different story. Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle all saw the C-130 approach significantly after the explosion and report that it was on a different flight path from the attack jet having approached from the northwest.

When looking at the C-130 pilot's account, the video evidence from Anthony Tribby, and the corroborating independent witness accounts from the Arlington Cemetery workers it becomes clear that the C-130 was not in the airspace until minutes after the explosion, and that the media accounts of this C-130 were mutated to bring it closer to the event than it really was to serve as cover for the flyover.

*For the full-length video recorded on location witness interviews of the Arlington Cemetery workers establishing the true approach time and flight path of the C-130 see "The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed".

*For more details regarding the C-130 and the E4B including an in depth flight path analysis and exclusive on camera interview with Keith Wheelhouse please see "The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off".

*For a video short including excerpts of our interviews with Keith Wheelhouse, Joel Sucherman, and Vin Narayanan see "The 2nd Plane Cover Story".
**

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Website

We have the pilot of the C-130 recorded in communication with the ATC.

ATC: Gofer06, traffic is 11 o'clock and 5 miles northbound fast moving type and altitude unknown.

C-130: Gofer06. We have the traffic in sight at 12 o'clock.

ATC: Ok, you have the traffic... do you know what kind it is? Can you see?

C-130: Looks like a 757, sir.

ATC: A 757. Can you estimate his altitude?

C-130: Looks like he's at co-altitude right now, sir.

ATC: Gofer86, thank you.

C-130: That traffic from gofer06 is still in a descent now and looks like he strolled out northeast bound.

ATC: Alright, thank you.

ATC: Gofer86, climb and maintain ... turn right and follow the traffic please.

ATC: Gofer86, turn right heading 0-8-0, we're going to vector you for the traffic.

C-130: Ok, 0-8-0, gofer06.

ATC: Dulles, I'm keeping gofer86, um, 06, with me for a while.

C-130: Washington, this is gofer06.

ATC: Yes, gofer86, go ahead.

C-130: The aircraft is down. He's in our 12 o'clock position. Looks like it's just to the northwest of the airfield, at this time, sir.

ATC: gofer86, thank you. Descend and maintain 2000.

C-130: Ok, we're down to 2000.

C-130: This is gofer06... it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.

ATC: gofer86... gofer06, thank you.

C-130: Understand, you still want gofer06 to descend to 2000, sir?

ATC: Gofer06, you can maintain 3000 and turn left, heading 2-7-0.

C-130: Ok, left turn to 2-7-0, gofer06. Any chance we could circle around the Pentagon, sir, on our zero 2-7-0 turn?

ATC: Gofer06, approved as requested.

C-130: Gofer06.

ATC: Gofer06, ok, they're asking if you would go ahead and move away now towards the west. 2-7-0 heading and 2000 for now.

C-130: Roger. We're climbing to 3000, sir. It looks like that aircraft has impacted the west side of the Pentagon.

ATC: Alright, thank you.

Starting @11:40 - ​

... that was real time, first hand eyewitness account. No mention of the "traffic" flying over the Pentagon and flying off.

Thanks for the transcription. I believe you erred when you put "co-altitude", a term I've never heard of, pretty sure he said "low altitude".


And there is possibly no eyewitness with a better view than the bird's eye view from that C-130, which saw the plane go down at their "12 o'clock" position. Anyway, Steve O'Brien never said that he -saw- the plane crash into the Pentagon. This is what O'Brien -did- say:

**"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-C-130 Pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email to Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757 so if the pilot could not see the Pentagon there is no way he could see an impact or flyover/away and he clearly wasn't "shadowing" the attack jet proving Keith Wheelhouse's account false. This is further demonstrated with video evidence taken by Anthony Tribby from highway 395.

There is a significant difference between the witness accounts above that were used by the media in the subsequent propaganda to sell the official story when compared to the independent witness accounts that we have uncovered. Specifically workers from Arlington Cemetery who were right next to where Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw the C-130, yet report a very different story. Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle all saw the C-130 approach significantly after the explosion and report that it was on a different flight path from the attack jet having approached from the northwest.**

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Website

 

[phoenyx]

I also don't hear where Dawn says the plane was white? I only heard her describe it as an American Airlines 757.

Perhaps CIT interviewed her independently.

If you have a link to such an interview, then post it....

I've now found out that Dawn declined to be formally interviewed, so we only have CIT's word that she said it. Aldo Marquis, one of the 2 members of CIT, states it here:
**It always benefits one to look before they leap.

Actually it is true. Do you know why? Because we went to her home and spoke with her. Not only that, but we filmed and photographed her POV from her apt. She and her husband were gracious people that allowed us into their home. She told us multiple times that the plane was white, but for some reason had fused the AA into it, perhaps becuase of news reports, perhaps because of her roomate, Timmerman.

She had a row of buildings in front of her, so when she caught the plane it was headed toward to Arlington National Cemetery [not the Pentagon] before it banked-which she did not see. Clearly she was looking towards the direction of ANC and did not see the flyover/flyaway-she more than likely only looked toward the Pentagon when she saw fireball shooting up from the Pentagon. She COULD NOT debunk the north side or the pull-up, and frankly seemed to yield to the fact that she COULD NOT debunk a flyover, because frankly it was pretty evident that she would have, could have, and more than likely DID miss the flyover/away. Hence why she was unsure of her final position on the matter. That is soley my impression.

As for the coaching aspect, many have said that and you can hear a man in the background, Hugh "Tim" Timmerman, telling her what to say. He says it, she repeats it. Is that not coaching?

I, of course, only THEORIZED on this BEFORE I met her and was able to speak with her. But the fact remains, he says it, she repeats it.**

Source: Dawn Vignola and Hugh "Tim" Timmerman (CIT Research Forum)

Claiming the NoC witnesses had a better vantage point because you believe that's where the plane went is again, circular logic.

It's way beyond that. First of all, all 13 of CIT's initial witnesses -corroborate- each other. The same can't be said for many of yours. Not to mention the fact that even some of yours suggest the plane was indeed coming from an NoC approach. Furthermore, some of them wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all if the plane had actually taken an SoC flight path.

If the plane went south of the Citgo, then there were others with a better vantage point.

And yet, the ones who claim it was so close to them all seem to be NoC witnesses. Fancy that, eh?

And ALL of the physical evidence points to the plane being south of the Citgo.

There were some downed light poles and some Pentagon at the damage. Many things could have caused that damage. CIT has gone over these points before, as I know you know, but for those in the audience who may just be coming across this post, please feel free to check out the following links:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon

Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

As far as Dawn's (and Tim's) vantage point. While much of their view seems to have been obstructed by other buildings, their view of the Pentagon was not...

With that elevated view, they absolutely would have seen a plane flying over the Pentagon.

That certainly does seem to be quite the view. Apparently, much larger then what would actually be seen at Dawn's place. I imagine it's Erik Larson's picture (it looks just about identical), and blown up even further. Craig goes into a bit of detail on it below:
**Before linking his video with the blatantly fraudulent title he prefaced it with this statement, "In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person."

After linking the video he posted this admittedly zoomed-in image from Dawn's apartment:

The problem is that Larson is very careful never to mention throughout his entire article that in 2007 we also provided virtually the exact same image, only not zoomed-in as you can see here:

Source: 2007 CIT research trip report

This is absolute proof that we were not deceptive about her point of view in our 2007 report (which was basically the extent of our formal public reference to Vignola's account at all). Since later in the article Larson references this same report it proves that he was well aware that we had published that image and therefore that he deliberately lied by refusing to acknowledge this fact and fraudulently titling his video "The View from Vignola’s Contradicts CIT".**

Source: Dawn Vignola’s Account vs Erik Larson’s Methods by CIT

And then, ofcourse, there's the fact that witnesses reported seeing a plane seconds -after- the explosion, which means that most people's attention would probably be focused on the fireball, especially if they were miles away from the scene and weren't looking at said scene with a telephoto lens...

 

[candycorn]

CIT's gone through pretty much all of the witnesses, I've gone over all the named witnesses you've mentioned. Regarding Lagasse, did you actually listen to Lagasse? The plane went right above his head; couldn't have been easier for him to know the exact location of the plane;

That's odd -- in his original taped statement -- he said he could see the shades of the windows were pulled down. How is that possible if he later claimed the plane "went right above his head??"

Interview with William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 4, 2001

Good point. I'm thinking I got mixed up with Terry Morin's testimony. As you may recall, Terry -did- see it go right over his head. In Lagasse's case, he clearly had the plane to his left.

...and in case you never bothered to click on the video clip, he was standing -at- the Citgo gas station. Can't have a better vantage point then that when it comes to determining whether the plane flew north or south of said Citgo gas station.

Yes, let's take a closer look at that video. I encourage others here to check this out as well. Take note at the 4:41 mark in the video...



Watch it full screen and pay particular attention to the second camera down from the top left. The one labeled, "single pump side."

At the 4:41 mark, notice that something appears to fall (and doesn't get picked up for the remainder of the video)....

You have to watch the video in full screen mode because it's almost not noticeable at regular size.

Within seconds of that, on the bottom portion of the screen, though it's fuzzy, you can still make out people running to the door to on the right.

I contend that was the moment the plane flew past the Citco. Lagasse recalled the force of the plane knocked him into his car as it flew past. That could explain something getting knocked down in the image I posted above. At a hundred feet or less, the sound would have been deafening, which could explain the people in the store rushing to the glass door to look out.

And which direction did their instincts lead them to where the noise came from...??

The door on the southeast side of the Citco.

That video's pretty blurry. I think Lagasse and Brooks' testimony is much more solid.

Sorry, but Lagasse and Brooks' testimony does not trump video evidence.

And just because you can't see it doesn't mean others can't.

The employee at the Citgo described the plane flying by him as an "earthquake." At about 4:41 in the video I linked, you can see something fall over. Well, I can see it even though you can't. That matches Lagasse's statement that the plane flying by knocked him into his car. A couple of seconds later, you can see the Citgo employees running to the door to where the heard the jet fly. Well, again ... I can see it even though you can't.

Furthermore, there is a shadow caught on camera at the precise moment something was knocked over in the photo I posted, as the plane flew by the Citgo. It could very well be the shadow from the plane...

Also, without sworn notarized statements, we can just assume CIT made them up.

 

[phoenyx]

Some issues with Mike Walter's testimony:
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11705[/I]

I don't see anything in there inconsistent with Walter's claim he saw a lamppost clipped by the plane.

I took a look at Mike Walter's alleged location at the time he states he saw the plane:

He was south of both the North flight path -and- the south flight path. Given this, he's hardly a good witness to describe which flight path the plane took, just as Don Wright wasn't, because he was -North- of both flight paths.

More stawman nonsense as I don't believe he indicated the path when giving interviews on 9.11.

Agreed. I'm simply stating it because I believe that it's much easier to determine whether the plane took a flight path that was North of south of the Citgo gas station then it is to determine if the plane crashed into the Pentagon or flew over it.

The salient piece of information he contributed was that he saw the plane clip a lamp post.

He may have heard that the plane clipped light poles and imagined he saw it. Craig Ranke of CIT noticed something interesting though:
**An interesting thing he told us at dinner is that he saw the plane make a "graceful bank" before increasing speed and hitting the pentagon.

He even told us that the FBI questioned him on this particular claim after the fact.

Of course there would be no visible bank on the physical damage flight path to anyone on route 27.

But there definitely IS a bank on our eyewitness flight path.

hmmmmmmmmmm.

**

Source: Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Mike Walter, USA Today Reporter, "Speaks Out"

So you and CIT and the eyewitnesses have AA77 coming from every which way but none saw it fly over the Pentagon.

The original 13 witnesses that CIT interviewed all corroborate an NoC flight path. The plane couldn't have hit the the Pentagon coming from that direction.

Why do you persist in promoting a silly 9/11 CT that no one saw?

Some may well have seen it. Quoting a line from Erik Dihle in his testimony to the U.S. Army's Center of Military History:
"Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going."

 

[phoenyx]

There are zero witnesses who said they saw a plane fly over it.

No one to my knowledge has said "I saw a plane fly over the pentagon". That being said, there are certainly some witnesses who have said things that would strongly suggest that the plane did just that.

Yeah, sure... if you contort what people said they saw.

Erik Dihle stated (and I quote): "Some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going". He says a lot more as well. Here's a partial transcript of his interview with CMH (Center for Military History):

**
CMH Interviewer: “We're going to be recording people, we wanted to hear your story, ok, what you just said. Could you repeat what you just said?”

Erik Dihle: “What I said was that a number of us, as we were working building 123 right after the explosion, it was like a double boom you know, kind of shook us, almost knocked us out of our chairs.

We got up and ran outside, and the first few seconds, very confusing, we couldn't even tell, some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going and somebody else was yelling, no no no, a jet ran into the building, the smoke was so black, we couldn't really see the hole or anything at that point. And um, and then as we’re all kind of talking the first few seconds, another plane is coming in, very steep, kind of dive bombing, right down just to this end of the, south end of the cemetery. I recognized it as being the 4 engine, overhead wing turbo prop plane, and we, and I even called in the radio, and I said, “This may, here comes another one!”, ‘cause we thought it was another terrorist jet or something, but what it turned out to be was, what I can tell, the final approach of this regular commuter plane that comes in, and he had to do a real steep bank and go off, veer to the north, to avoid hitting the jet, or avoid going through the fireball…”
**

Source: http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

Again, Dihle said he heard conflicting events. In the confusion, he heard some say it was a bomb and a jet kept going and someone say it was a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Yes, -multiple- people said a bomb had hit the pentagon and a jet kept on going, but only -one- person insisted that a jet had run into the building. Clearly, it would be nice to know who all of these people were.

Worse for you is YOUR standard that witnesses who can't be questioned don't count.

How are you so sure they can't be questioned?

You're hypocritically relying on hearsay from people who can't be identified;

How are you so sure they can't be identified?

while rejecting eyewitness accounts from those whose accounts reject your nonsense under the guise (as if it matters) that they didn't give names (even though "Barbara" could be).

There are witnesses whose first and last names are known and who have given videotaped interviews at the location where they at the time of the Pentagon attack- the witnesses CIT interviewed. They are clearly more reliable then witnesses whose real existence has yet to be verified.

There still remains a grand total of ZERO eyewitnesses who say they saw a plane fly OVER the Pentagon.

It's true that Erik Dihle's testimony that some people were "yelling that a bomb hit the pentagon and a jet kept on going" makes no mention of the jet going over the Pentagon. But when you combine his testimony with the fact that everyone agrees that multiple witnesses agree that the plane had gotten to the Pentagon before the explosion, barring technology that would allow it to make a 90 degree turn or something to that effect, the only way the plane could have "kept on going" is if it flew over the Pentagon.

That includes folks among the hundreds on the highways surrounding the Pentagon on all sides ... all of the eyewitnesses who stepped forward to publicly record their accounts ...

You can speculate all you like that hundreds of people should have seen the flyover. Without actual evidence, that's all it will be. According to some, there were 104 impact witnesses. CIT has refuted that, and gone into great detail as to what all the witnesses -did- see here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

Its first category of witnesses is what it calls the flyover witnesses. They are:
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".

 

[phoenyx]

Perhaps because they were busy driving? Even the people who were -not- busy driving could have been fooled, though. CIT explains how:

**Special note: Many detractors to the information we present suggest we are wrong because the witnesses at the CITGO station believe the plane hit the building. This is what true critical thinkers call circular logic. We claim the fact that the witnesses place the plane on the north side of the station proves it was used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion because it is impossible for a plane in that location to have created the physical damage. In other words, the intended goal was to fool witnesses into believing the plane hit the building. The fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived exactly as the perpetrators intended does not prove that they are incorrect in their placement of the plane. Quite the opposite is true. Their placement of the plane proves that they were deceived in regards to the impact.

Watch this demonstration exposing the secrets behind a successful sleight of hand ironically from pseudo-skeptic official story supporters Penn & Teller:


1. Palm: To hold an object in an apparently empty hand.

(In essence this means to set up the illusion. This was done on 9/11 by showing the 2nd plane crash into the south tower in Manhattan on live TV. This mentally conditioned everyone in Arlington to instantly expect a low flying airliner headed fast towards the Pentagon to hit the building.)

2. Ditch: To secretly dispose of an unneeded object.

(Flight 77 was lost on radar as early as 8:56 while the alleged impact was not until just after 9:30. This gave the perpetrators approximately 30 minutes to “ditch” the original plane for the flyover drone.)

3. Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object.

(The plane swap was initiated as the flyover drone was launched and took over the flight path of the ditched original plane.)

4. Load: To secretly move a needed object to where it is needed.

(The drone passenger jet was put on course to the Pentagon and flown treetop level over Arlington.)

5. Simulation: To give the impression that something that hasn’t happened, has.

(The plane reaches the Pentagon with a perfectly timed explosion and fireball creating the impression that it hit the building.)

6. Misdirection: To lead attention away from a secret move.

(The massive fireball and smoke plume divert attention from, and help conceal, the flyover drone as it flies away.)

7. Switch: To secretly exchange one object for another.

(The C-130, E4B, and additional flying craft in the area are introduced to serve as cover and confusion for anyone who may have witnessed the drone fly over or away from the building.)

*Click here for details regarding the 2nd plane cover story.

**

**

Some of the witnesses described themselves as stuck in traffic that morning. I believe at least one of them said there was an accident slowing traffic down. That they were driving does not discount their accounts.

Most driver's main focus is on the road; if that changes, they risk accidents. In contrast, most of the witnesses CIT interviewed were -not- driving and so could focus more closely on what the plane was doing.

In reality, you have no idea what catches a person's attention while they're driving. In congested traffic, no less. With a 757 flying insanely low over the highway.

I think an explosion at the Pentagon would do nicely, but we're not getting anywhere with this. There is certainly a lot of other evidence to discuss, let's get to that...

So there remains many eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

Around 25, according to CIT. They go into detailed explanations as to how many of them could have been confused into -thinking- that the plane crashed into the Pentagon, when it actually flew over it. The graphic above is illustrates how witnesses could be fooled from a certain viewpoint.

I am not bound by what [insult removed] CIT decide is a valued eyewitness.

Why state the obvious? Let's just get on with the evidence...

But here's the best part ... even if there was only one eyewitness who saw the crash (and there are more)

There is more then one person who -believes- they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, certainly. CIT counts 25 such eyewitnesses. They also explain how those witnesses could have been fooled and the evidence which strongly suggests (or proves, depending on your belief) that it would have been impossible for the plane to have made the damage on the South of Citgo flight path if almost all the witnesses in the best position to see place the plane's flight path taking a course that flew North of the Citgo gas station.

There are zero witnesses who said they saw a plane fly over it.

No one to my knowledge has said "I saw a plane fly over the pentagon". That being said, there are certainly some witnesses who have said things that would strongly suggest that the plane did just that.

Yeah, sure... if you contort what people said they saw.

Erik Dihle stated (and I quote): "Some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going". He says a lot more as well. Here's a partial transcript of his interview with CMH (Center for Military History):

**
CMH Interviewer: “We're going to be recording people, we wanted to hear your story, ok, what you just said. Could you repeat what you just said?”

Erik Dihle: “What I said was that a number of us, as we were working building 123 right after the explosion, it was like a double boom you know, kind of shook us, almost knocked us out of our chairs.

We got up and ran outside, and the first few seconds, very confusing, we couldn't even tell, some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going and somebody else was yelling, no no no, a jet ran into the building, the smoke was so black, we couldn't really see the hole or anything at that point. And um, and then as we’re all kind of talking the first few seconds, another plane is coming in, very steep, kind of dive bombing, right down just to this end of the, south end of the cemetery. I recognized it as being the 4 engine, overhead wing turbo prop plane, and we, and I even called in the radio, and I said, “This may, here comes another one!”, ‘cause we thought it was another terrorist jet or something, but what it turned out to be was, what I can tell, the final approach of this regular commuter plane that comes in, and he had to do a real steep bank and go off, veer to the north, to avoid hitting the jet, or avoid going through the fireball…”
**

Source: http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

I don’t see sworn affidavits from Dihle. So CMH could have typed down whatever she/he wanted.

CMH's interviews were actually audio recordings, not typed out. Furthermore, many of the witnesses that were interviewed by the center were later interviewed again by CIT and confirmed many of the things that they had said.

 

[phoenyx]

I got as far as, "provide an explanation for the people who saw the flyover..."

Again -- no one said they saw that.

Just because they didn't say it doesn't mean they didn't see it come from [the direction that the pentaplane had approached the Pentagon from]. In general, it seems they thought it was a second plane. The thing is, there was only one plane in the immediate vicinity at the time.

There were hundreds of eyewitnesses -- not one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.

Not one that we know of, but I'm certainly not alone in believing that Erik Dihle's testimony suggests that some people may have said just that. But far more damning to the official story is all of the evidence that there is no other way to account for all the evidence that the plane couldn't have left the South of Citgo damage because it simply hadn't flown from that direction.

Erik Dihle's hearsay evidence is not verifiable...

How would you know? Have you launched a well funded investigation into finding the people he mentions in his testimony and come up empty?

 

[Faun]

I got as far as, "provide an explanation for the people who saw the flyover..."

Again -- no one said they saw that.

Just because they didn't say it doesn't mean they didn't see it come from [the direction that the pentaplane had approached the Pentagon from]. In general, it seems they thought it was a second plane. The thing is, there was only one plane in the immediate vicinity at the time.

There were hundreds of eyewitnesses -- not one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.

Not one that we know of, but I'm certainly not alone in believing that Erik Dihle's testimony suggests that some people may have said just that. But far more damning to the official story is all of the evidence that there is no other way to account for all the evidence that the plane couldn't have left the South of Citgo damage because it simply hadn't flown from that direction.

Erik Dihle's hearsay evidence is not verifiable...

How would you know? Have you launched a well funded investigation into finding the people he mentions in his testimony and come up empty?

I know because I'm going by what you said. Nameless witness can't be interrogated and therefore, are ignored.

You do play by your own rules, right?

 

[phoenyx]

...the physical evidence, all of which points to a south side approach, you claim is fake and/or staged.

The damage close to and at the Pentagon doesn't match up with the 9/11 Commission report data, the NTSB flight data, allegedly gathered from the black box of American Airlines 77, or the multiple witnesses found by CIT which corroborate each other in describing the pentaplane's final approach as coming from North of the Citgo gas station. There is also very little evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon as well, and even that evidence is suspect.

The witnesses who say the plane flew north of the Citgo are not believable because there are more witnesses who say it flew south of it

I've never heard that assertion before. I'm currently not aware of -any- witnesses stating that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station. Please list the witnesses who say it flew south of the Citgo gas station.

 

[Faun]

That it's anonymous doesn't discount it as the person was clearly present and clearly describing what he claims to have witnessed. It stands as an eyewitness account even if you don't like it.

You don't even know who it was. But by all means, provide some evidence that any of the following assertions you make on this person are true.

Squeaks the person who says there was a flyover because Dihle heard someone make a suggestion which you construe to be a flyover. While Dihle's mystery person was not pixelated, their own personal account was still conveyed first hand. And witnesses need not be identified to believe what they're saying they saw. That's merely a measure you wish to go by in order to eliminate those who disagree with your agenda.

I think you got mixed up above, it doesn't make much sense. Dihle is a person who can be found and asked to testify as to who told him. You can't get pixels to testify to anything. Furthermore, Dihle's testimony is only one of -many- aspects of the Pentagon event pointing towards a flyover. If it were only Dihle, we wouldn't be engaged in this very large discussion over all of the evidence.

Dihle can't name names. In the last interview I saw with him, he didn't even recall saying what other people said as far as a "bomb" and a "jet kept on going."

Good point, I'd forgotten that he'd forgotten. That being said, he could be asked who he had talked to about the events that day, and go from there.

That video, like virtually everything you rely on, is nothing but unsupported supposition. In this video, the person(s) who made it claims the USA Today reporters' eyewitness accounts are questionable because there were 6 of them on there way to work that morning. Even worse, they claim that ALL of those reporters were late for work because ONE of them was. But in reality, the maker of that video has no proof the others didn't go into work until 10am. So once again, CIT fails miserably to prove their point.

Alright, perhaps you're right on that particular point. That being said, I can't help but wonder if Sucherman actually saw the pentaplane fly away from the scene. Why do I think that? Because of this part of his statement:
**USA Today editor Joel Sucherman:
-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. **

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Website

He was clear he saw two planes. One he says he saw fly into the Pentagon; the other veered away. We know there were two planes. We know that a C-130 briefly tailed AA77 just before it crashed and then was told by the control tower to head off at 270º, away from the Pentagon.

That's an explanation that CIT has already refuted, in the very same article I was quoting above, no less:
**Eventually researchers would explain away the accounts of the "second plane/jet" as being regarding the C-130 piloted by Lt Col Steve O'Brien who we now know never shadowed or chased the plane. He actually lost sight of it after it passed in front of him and he turned around. He was not near AND/OR over the Pentagon at the time of alleged impact (explosion & fireball). In fact it would have been physically impossible for him to keep up with a 530 mph jet, when a C-130 can only travel maximum 379 mph. He didn't show up to the scene until approximately 3 minutes later at a much higher altitude.

We learned from an e-mail exchange with him and Pilots for 9/11 Truth that he was too high and far away to even see the Pentagon!

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-C-130 Pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email to Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757 so if the pilot could not see the Pentagon there is no way he could see an impact or flyover/away and he clearly wasn't "shadowing" the attack jet proving Keith Wheelhouse's account false. This is further demonstrated with video evidence taken by Anthony Tribby from highway 395.

There is a significant difference between the witness accounts above that were used by the media in the subsequent propaganda to sell the official story when compared to the independent witness accounts that we have uncovered. Specifically workers from Arlington Cemetery who were right next to where Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw the C-130, yet report a very different story. Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle all saw the C-130 approach significantly after the explosion and report that it was on a different flight path from the attack jet having approached from the northwest.

When looking at the C-130 pilot's account, the video evidence from Anthony Tribby, and the corroborating independent witness accounts from the Arlington Cemetery workers it becomes clear that the C-130 was not in the airspace until minutes after the explosion, and that the media accounts of this C-130 were mutated to bring it closer to the event than it really was to serve as cover for the flyover.

*For the full-length video recorded on location witness interviews of the Arlington Cemetery workers establishing the true approach time and flight path of the C-130 see "The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed".

*For more details regarding the C-130 and the E4B including an in depth flight path analysis and exclusive on camera interview with Keith Wheelhouse please see "The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off".

*For a video short including excerpts of our interviews with Keith Wheelhouse, Joel Sucherman, and Vin Narayanan see "The 2nd Plane Cover Story".
**

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Website

We have the pilot of the C-130 recorded in communication with the ATC.

ATC: Gofer06, traffic is 11 o'clock and 5 miles northbound fast moving type and altitude unknown.

C-130: Gofer06. We have the traffic in sight at 12 o'clock.

ATC: Ok, you have the traffic... do you know what kind it is? Can you see?

C-130: Looks like a 757, sir.

ATC: A 757. Can you estimate his altitude?

C-130: Looks like he's at co-altitude right now, sir.

ATC: Gofer86, thank you.

C-130: That traffic from gofer06 is still in a descent now and looks like he strolled out northeast bound.

ATC: Alright, thank you.

ATC: Gofer86, climb and maintain ... turn right and follow the traffic please.

ATC: Gofer86, turn right heading 0-8-0, we're going to vector you for the traffic.

C-130: Ok, 0-8-0, gofer06.

ATC: Dulles, I'm keeping gofer86, um, 06, with me for a while.

C-130: Washington, this is gofer06.

ATC: Yes, gofer86, go ahead.

C-130: The aircraft is down. He's in our 12 o'clock position. Looks like it's just to the northwest of the airfield, at this time, sir.

ATC: gofer86, thank you. Descend and maintain 2000.

C-130: Ok, we're down to 2000.

C-130: This is gofer06... it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.

ATC: gofer86... gofer06, thank you.

C-130: Understand, you still want gofer06 to descend to 2000, sir?

ATC: Gofer06, you can maintain 3000 and turn left, heading 2-7-0.

C-130: Ok, left turn to 2-7-0, gofer06. Any chance we could circle around the Pentagon, sir, on our zero 2-7-0 turn?

ATC: Gofer06, approved as requested.

C-130: Gofer06.

ATC: Gofer06, ok, they're asking if you would go ahead and move away now towards the west. 2-7-0 heading and 2000 for now.

C-130: Roger. We're climbing to 3000, sir. It looks like that aircraft has impacted the west side of the Pentagon.

ATC: Alright, thank you.

Starting @11:40 - ​

... that was real time, first hand eyewitness account. No mention of the "traffic" flying over the Pentagon and flying off.

Thanks for the transcription. I believe you erred when you put "co-altitude", a term I've never heard of, pretty sure he said "low altitude".


And there is possibly no eyewitness with a better view than the bird's eye view from that C-130, which saw the plane go down at their "12 o'clock" position. Anyway, Steve O'Brien never said that he -saw- the plane crash into the Pentagon. This is what O'Brien -did- say:

**"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-C-130 Pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email to Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757 so if the pilot could not see the Pentagon there is no way he could see an impact or flyover/away and he clearly wasn't "shadowing" the attack jet proving Keith Wheelhouse's account false. This is further demonstrated with video evidence taken by Anthony Tribby from highway 395.

There is a significant difference between the witness accounts above that were used by the media in the subsequent propaganda to sell the official story when compared to the independent witness accounts that we have uncovered. Specifically workers from Arlington Cemetery who were right next to where Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw the C-130, yet report a very different story. Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle all saw the C-130 approach significantly after the explosion and report that it was on a different flight path from the attack jet having approached from the northwest.**

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Website

Sounds like "co-altitude" to me, but regardless, it proves the C-130 was following AA77 and was in the vacinity; which also matches the description of many of the eyewitnesses.

But mostly, it dispels the notion that a plane flew over the Pentagon because possibly no one had a better vantage point of the view over the Pentagon than O'Brien and he did not say he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

 

[Faun]

...the physical evidence, all of which points to a south side approach, you claim is fake and/or staged.

The damage close to and at the Pentagon doesn't match up with the 9/11 Commission report data, the NTSB flight data, allegedly gathered from the black box of American Airlines 77, or the multiple witnesses found by CIT which corroborate each other in describing the pentaplane's final approach as coming from North of the Citgo gas station. There is also very little evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon as well, and even that evidence is suspect.

The witnesses who say the plane flew north of the Citgo are not believable because there are more witnesses who say it flew south of it

I've never heard that assertion before. I'm currently not aware of -any- witnesses stating that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station. Please list the witnesses who say it flew south of the Citgo gas station.

That would be the folks who said the flight came up Columbia Pike or 395. None of whom, to my knowledge, stating they saw the plane bank away from the Pentagon.

 

[phoenyx]

I'd argue I've provided a lot of evidence that did exactly that...

Arguing that is getting you nowhere.

I actually agree with you on this one. If only you'd realize the same. You stating that "There is no evidence" isn't going to get us anywhere. You've got to deal with the evidence I provide. And by evidence, I mean information that -I- believe is evidence. I routinely look at information that -you- believe is evidence. I could, ofcourse, go your route and say that the evidence you provide isn't evidence. But that would be disingenuous. Why? Because our beliefs are -based- on what we consider to be evidence. If we don't deal with this information, we will never persuade each other.

You could say the evidence I'm posting isn't evidence; but you'd be lying.

I could also say the same thing to you. This is tiresome. Please try to understand what I just said.

Whereas I can say you're not posting evidence; because you're not.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Never argue with someone who knows they're right"?

And you're not posting evidence because there is no evidence a plane flew over the Pentagon.

You do realize that statements like that one are conversation killers, right? You've stated that belief of yours time and again. I could say the same thing to you in return, but unlike you, I -realize- it's a conversation killer and I would like to continue discussing the evidence. I'll skip some of what you said now, it's just more of the same conversation killer type material...

What you need to do is prove your case.

What you want is for me to prove my case -to you-. As mentioned, based on past experience with those who believe some flavour of the official story, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to do that. And I sincerely doubt that you'll ever be able to prove -your- case to me. I suggest we focus on something which is a lot easier to do- to "inject doubt", as you say, into each other's version of events.

Of course I want you to prove your case to [me]. That's the purpose of this exchange -- to determine the truth.

I can agree with that, but as mentioned previously, getting people with very disparate views on a subject to agree is not exactly easy. As the years have gone by, I've come to lower my expectations of getting those who strongly disagree with my views to come around to my side, and have settled for coming to agreements on smaller issues and perhaps getting them to doubt some of the beliefs they have, if only a little. I suggest you do the same, it may save you a lot of aggravation in the long run.

Me? I have plenty. The remains of a plane ...

Dealt with here:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

the remains of the passengers and crew ...

Dealt with here:
Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon

the plane-shaped damage to the exterior of the Pentagon ...

Dealt with here:
Why does it matter which side of the gas station plane flew on? | 9/11 Pentagon

two separate videos ...

One dealt with here:
Security gate cam video | 9/11 Pentagon

a debris field consistent with a plane flying into a building

Dealt with here:

radar ... black boxes ...

Dealt with here:
**Here are three conflicting official Government produced flight animations of American Airlines Flight 77's approach to the Pentagon on 9/11. The angle of the damage through the building - from the initial impact hole through to the "C" Ring punch-out hole - requires the approach path where the five light poles were downed - which is the 9/11 Commission's version.

However the NTSB (whose specific job it is to analyze air disasters) Black Box Recorder animation has the aircraft much too high and too far to the left and in a constant 4,600 feet-per-minute dive up to the point where the animation ends two-seconds before reaching the Pentagon - not skimming the lawn as the "Official" 9/11 Commission narrative requires. And, the FAA/NORAD animation also has the aircraft much too far to the left - but in this case - in a constant right banking turn to impact, which would have dug the right wing into the ground well before impact with the building.

Both the NTSB and the FAA/NORAD version have the plane approaching at an angle which could not possibly have created the damage to the building nor hit the light poles. If the Official NTSB flight animation is correct it raises the question of "what" did hit the Pentagon?**

Video that goes along with that text:

Great, nothing but more unprovable denials.

This us going nowhere because you're not posting proof.

I never said I had any.

Casting doubt on the known evidence is not proof.

I never said it was.

Posting you don't think there were enough remains of AA77 does not prove the plane parts found were planted.

It's much more then there not being enough remains. In terms of the remains that were clearly photographed at the Pentagon, the remains were all quite small. There were other photographs of a few larger parts, but they were not photographed in a way that makes it unclear as to where they were photographed. There are certainly many photographs of airplane parts online.

Posting they don't look like they came from a 757 doesn't prove it.

True, though I believe that, atleast in the case of a certain wheel rim, there's evidence that it didn't come from a 757.

And why do you approach this argument with doubt in lieu of evidence?

I've already made it clear that we don't agree as to what constitutes evidence. I suggest you consider whatever information your opponent believes supports his or her beliefs to be -their- evidence, and whatever you believe supports -your- beliefs to be -your- evidence.

 

[Faun]

I also don't hear where Dawn says the plane was white? I only heard her describe it as an American Airlines 757.

Perhaps CIT interviewed her independently.

If you have a link to such an interview, then post it....

I've now found out that Dawn declined to be formally interviewed, so we only have CIT's word that she said it. Aldo Marquis, one of the 2 members of CIT, states it here:
**It always benefits one to look before they leap.

Actually it is true. Do you know why? Because we went to her home and spoke with her. Not only that, but we filmed and photographed her POV from her apt. She and her husband were gracious people that allowed us into their home. She told us multiple times that the plane was white, but for some reason had fused the AA into it, perhaps becuase of news reports, perhaps because of her roomate, Timmerman.

She had a row of buildings in front of her, so when she caught the plane it was headed toward to Arlington National Cemetery [not the Pentagon] before it banked-which she did not see. Clearly she was looking towards the direction of ANC and did not see the flyover/flyaway-she more than likely only looked toward the Pentagon when she saw fireball shooting up from the Pentagon. She COULD NOT debunk the north side or the pull-up, and frankly seemed to yield to the fact that she COULD NOT debunk a flyover, because frankly it was pretty evident that she would have, could have, and more than likely DID miss the flyover/away. Hence why she was unsure of her final position on the matter. That is soley my impression.

As for the coaching aspect, many have said that and you can hear a man in the background, Hugh "Tim" Timmerman, telling her what to say. He says it, she repeats it. Is that not coaching?

I, of course, only THEORIZED on this BEFORE I met her and was able to speak with her. But the fact remains, he says it, she repeats it.**

Source: Dawn Vignola and Hugh "Tim" Timmerman (CIT Research Forum)

Claiming the NoC witnesses had a better vantage point because you believe that's where the plane went is again, circular logic.

It's way beyond that. First of all, all 13 of CIT's initial witnesses -corroborate- each other. The same can't be said for many of yours. Not to mention the fact that even some of yours suggest the plane was indeed coming from an NoC approach. Furthermore, some of them wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all if the plane had actually taken an SoC flight path.

If the plane went south of the Citgo, then there were others with a better vantage point.

And yet, the ones who claim it was so close to them all seem to be NoC witnesses. Fancy that, eh?

And ALL of the physical evidence points to the plane being south of the Citgo.

There were some downed light poles and some Pentagon at the damage. Many things could have caused that damage. CIT has gone over these points before, as I know you know, but for those in the audience who may just be coming across this post, please feel free to check out the following links:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon

Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

As far as Dawn's (and Tim's) vantage point. While much of their view seems to have been obstructed by other buildings, their view of the Pentagon was not...

With that elevated view, they absolutely would have seen a plane flying over the Pentagon.

That certainly does seem to be quite the view. Apparently, much larger then what would actually be seen at Dawn's place. I imagine it's Erik Larson's picture (it looks just about identical), and blown up even further. Craig goes into a bit of detail on it below:
**Before linking his video with the blatantly fraudulent title he prefaced it with this statement, "In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person."

After linking the video he posted this admittedly zoomed-in image from Dawn's apartment:

The problem is that Larson is very careful never to mention throughout his entire article that in 2007 we also provided virtually the exact same image, only not zoomed-in as you can see here:

Source: 2007 CIT research trip report

This is absolute proof that we were not deceptive about her point of view in our 2007 report (which was basically the extent of our formal public reference to Vignola's account at all). Since later in the article Larson references this same report it proves that he was well aware that we had published that image and therefore that he deliberately lied by refusing to acknowledge this fact and fraudulently titling his video "The View from Vignola’s Contradicts CIT".**

Source: Dawn Vignola’s Account vs Erik Larson’s Methods by CIT

And then, ofcourse, there's the fact that witnesses reported seeing a plane seconds -after- the explosion, which means that most people's attention would probably be focused on the fireball, especially if they were miles away from the scene and weren't looking at said scene with a telephoto lens...

Claiming the scene at the Pentagon was staged is meaningless given the lack of proof. One could make up any concoction imaginable for hoe those light posts were knocked down, for how one speared England's car, for how AA plane debris was scattered about, how the debris field matched a plane flying at about 40 degrees, how DNA from passengers and crew was found, how black boxes were found....

Proving it is quite another leap of reality. One, in my opinion, you have fallen far too short to consider to have factually established.

ALL the physical evidence points to AA77 flying into the Pentagon.

..... and then there's that pesky Citgo surveillance video which shows the employees running to the SOUTH just after the plane flew by.

 

[SAYIT]

Source: Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Mike Walter, USA Today Reporter, "Speaks Out"

So you and CIT and the eyewitnesses have AA77 coming from every which way but none saw it fly over the Pentagon.

The original 13 witnesses that CIT interviewed all corroborate an NoC flight path. The plane couldn't have hit the the Pentagon coming from that direction.

Interviewed them when ... years after? As we have seen with all your 9/11 CT sources, they very much depend on cherry-picking, mis and disinforming, altering pix and outright lying.

There is no evidence that AA77 flew over your Cuckoo's Nest nor any of the ensuing possibilities you imagine. There is no evidence of a controlled demo or Cruise Missile at the Pentagon (or the WTC) but literally tons of hard evidence that AA77 and AA11 and UA175 and UA93 all crashed exactly where the NIST report said they did.

Why do you persist in promoting a silly 9/11 CT that no one saw?

Some may well have seen it. Quoting a line from Erik Dihle in his testimony to the U.S. Army's Center of Military History:
"Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going."

Some people "may well" have seen Silent Ninja Demo Warriors planting invisible explosives that leave no trace or Spiders from Mars or Floating Black Orbs armed with Destructo Rays - drugs can be dangerous - but no one saw anyone plant any of the hard evidence found at the sites that you so eagerly reject and no one saw a very large passenger jet charge at the Pentagon only to pull up and fly away exactly as an explosion rocked the building. No one. An explosion, BTW, that traveled into the building unlike any explosive would have done but eerily similar to how a projectile - such as AA77 - would have done. And just in case you are wondering, no one saw AA77 (perhaps specially designed with Transformer capabilities?) turn into a Cruise Missile as it slammed into the Pentagon.

No one saw what you want to believe. No one.

It exists only as a figment of your overly-active imagination.

 

[Faun]

Arguing that is getting you nowhere.

I actually agree with you on this one. If only you'd realize the same. You stating that "There is no evidence" isn't going to get us anywhere. You've got to deal with the evidence I provide. And by evidence, I mean information that -I- believe is evidence. I routinely look at information that -you- believe is evidence. I could, ofcourse, go your route and say that the evidence you provide isn't evidence. But that would be disingenuous. Why? Because our beliefs are -based- on what we consider to be evidence. If we don't deal with this information, we will never persuade each other.

You could say the evidence I'm posting isn't evidence; but you'd be lying.

I could also say the same thing to you. This is tiresome. Please try to understand what I just said.

Whereas I can say you're not posting evidence; because you're not.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Never argue with someone who knows they're right"?

And you're not posting evidence because there is no evidence a plane flew over the Pentagon.

You do realize that statements like that one are conversation killers, right? You've stated that belief of yours time and again. I could say the same thing to you in return, but unlike you, I -realize- it's a conversation killer and I would like to continue discussing the evidence. I'll skip some of what you said now, it's just more of the same conversation killer type material...

What you need to do is prove your case.

What you want is for me to prove my case -to you-. As mentioned, based on past experience with those who believe some flavour of the official story, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to do that. And I sincerely doubt that you'll ever be able to prove -your- case to me. I suggest we focus on something which is a lot easier to do- to "inject doubt", as you say, into each other's version of events.

Of course I want you to prove your case to [me]. That's the purpose of this exchange -- to determine the truth.

I can agree with that, but as mentioned previously, getting people with very disparate views on a subject to agree is not exactly easy. As the years have gone by, I've come to lower my expectations of getting those who strongly disagree with my views to come around to my side, and have settled for coming to agreements on smaller issues and perhaps getting them to doubt some of the beliefs they have, if only a little. I suggest you do the same, it may save you a lot of aggravation in the long run.

Me? I have plenty. The remains of a plane ...

Dealt with here:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

the remains of the passengers and crew ...

Dealt with here:
Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon

the plane-shaped damage to the exterior of the Pentagon ...

Dealt with here:
Why does it matter which side of the gas station plane flew on? | 9/11 Pentagon

two separate videos ...

One dealt with here:
Security gate cam video | 9/11 Pentagon

a debris field consistent with a plane flying into a building

Dealt with here:

radar ... black boxes ...

Dealt with here:
**Here are three conflicting official Government produced flight animations of American Airlines Flight 77's approach to the Pentagon on 9/11. The angle of the damage through the building - from the initial impact hole through to the "C" Ring punch-out hole - requires the approach path where the five light poles were downed - which is the 9/11 Commission's version.

However the NTSB (whose specific job it is to analyze air disasters) Black Box Recorder animation has the aircraft much too high and too far to the left and in a constant 4,600 feet-per-minute dive up to the point where the animation ends two-seconds before reaching the Pentagon - not skimming the lawn as the "Official" 9/11 Commission narrative requires. And, the FAA/NORAD animation also has the aircraft much too far to the left - but in this case - in a constant right banking turn to impact, which would have dug the right wing into the ground well before impact with the building.

Both the NTSB and the FAA/NORAD version have the plane approaching at an angle which could not possibly have created the damage to the building nor hit the light poles. If the Official NTSB flight animation is correct it raises the question of "what" did hit the Pentagon?**

Video that goes along with that text:

Great, nothing but more unprovable denials.

This us going nowhere because you're not posting proof.

I never said I had any.

Casting doubt on the known evidence is not proof.

I never said it was.

Posting you don't think there were enough remains of AA77 does not prove the plane parts found were planted.

It's much more then there not being enough remains. In terms of the remains that were clearly photographed at the Pentagon, the remains were all quite small. There were other photographs of a few larger parts, but they were not photographed in a way that makes it unclear as to where they were photographed. There are certainly many photographs of airplane parts online.

Posting they don't look like they came from a 757 doesn't prove it.

True, though I believe that, atleast in the case of a certain wheel rim, there's evidence that it didn't come from a 757.

And why do you approach this argument with doubt in lieu of evidence?

I've already made it clear that we don't agree as to what constitutes evidence. I suggest you consider whatever information your opponent believes supports his or her beliefs to be -their- evidence, and whatever you believe supports -your- beliefs to be -your- evidence.

You admit you have absolutely no proof to corroborate your claims. You admit you have no eyewitnesses to corroborate a flyover.

So why are you wasting anyone's time with this bullshit?

 

[SAYIT]

Of course I want you to prove your case to [me]. That's the purpose of this exchange -- to determine the truth.

...As the years have gone by, I've come to lower my expectations of getting those who strongly disagree with my views to come around to my side, and have settled for coming to agreements on smaller issues and perhaps getting them to doubt some of the beliefs they have, if only a little. I suggest you do the same, it may save you a lot of aggravation in the long run.

Faun doesn't seem to believe that just creating some doubt is either productive or intellectually honest.
Evidently you do.

There are dozens of websites dedicated to "proving" the lunar landing was a fraud. Where's the honesty in that?

As repeatedly noted in this thread, it really isn't enough to impugn the work and reputation of the professionals who investigated 9/11 and reported their findings. In fact, given that you have already admitted you know little about them, it's downright cheapshot-ish.

Great, nothing but more unprovable denials. This us going nowhere because you're not posting proof.

I never said I had any.

Casting doubt on the known evidence is not proof.

I never said it was.

Which brings us to the crux of the biscuit!

You have no proof of pretty much anything you believe but you are dead sure you believe it!

Wow ... just wow.