9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[Faun]

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.

Which leads us to the reason they're euphemistically referred to as Twoofers.

 

[hadit]

After hearing all of the arguments, my conclusion remains that the official explanation of 9/11 is most likely what really happened.

I see.

It's not perfect and there will always be elements that can't be fully explained, but it is the simplest explanation that requires the least amount of fanciful leaps of imagination.

Well, it's certainly easy to simply accept what the government tells you...

Unfortunately, when eyewitness testimony conflicts with physical evidence, the eyewitness testimony has to take the back seat,

If the physical evidence was compelling and there wasn't a slew of witnesses that corroborated the north of Citgo flight path, that'd be one thing. I and others don't believe that's the case here, however.

The physical evidence is compelling. What you are doing is simply ignoring it or claiming it's faked.

 

[phoenyx]

I've copied and pasted CIT's explanation on how the perpetrators of 9/11 made it appear as if it had, without actually crashing the plane into the Pentagon in post #571 in this thread, so you don't even have to leave this site to see their explanation.

Their explanations also amount to, nuh-uh.

The excerpt I provided was over 400 words in length. Did you even read it? You seemed to only respond to what -I- had said, not to what they had said.

Yes, I read it and it was laughable. As I said, it amounts to, nuh-uh. And it easily falls apart to pieces when inspected. They ridiculously compare the fly over to a Penn & Teller magic trick. Their problem is, unlike Penn & Teller, their "audience" wasn't sitting only directly in front of them.

Which is why some people may well have caught on to the trick. You know, what Erik Dihle said about some people saying that "a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going"?

Dilhe's hearsay is inadmissible according to your own stated standards.

When did I say that what someone heard (aka hearsay) is inadmissible.

They provide a cheesy animated gif to demonstrate it. However, unlike real life, they remove the image of the jet from the animation, which only runs for one or two frames following the fireball.

The jet wouldn't have been visible from the angle shown after the explosion, and thus it's quite like 'real life'.

You're still ignoring all of the eyewitnesses who weren't directly lined up behind the fireball.

You think fireball was only visible from a single viewpoint?

You're ignoring all of the eyewitnesses who watched from an elevated position and who could clearly see the roof.

You mean a few eyewitnesses miles away who would probably have focused their attention on the fireball?

You're ignoring the Doubletree video which caught the explosion from the back side and did not capture a plane flying over.

Not at all. It's just that, unlike you, I don't blindly trust that the government didn't manipulate the video footage...
9/11 Pentagon Doubletree Hotel Video Manipulated - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

You're ignoring the pilot of the C-130 who had a bird's eye view of the roof of the Pentagon and he did not see a plane fly over the Pentagon.

Again, you are mistaken. Lt Col. Steve O'Brien specifically stated he couldn't see where or what the pentaplane had impacted:
**"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**

Source: Topic 5

In real life, there were witnesses on all sides of the Pentagon.

I'm not sure about that, but there certainly do seem to be some people who believed that a bomb went off and the jet kept on going. If only the 9/11 Commission had thought to interview the person who mentioned them. Ah well, eh?

Of course there were witnesses on all sides -- the Pentagon is surrounded by highways.

No one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.

No one said those exact words, though Erik Dihle's testimony of people yelling that "a bomb hit and a jet kept on going" sounds an awful lot like a flyover to me. Others mention a non existent "second plane", without ever having seen the "first": Joel 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."

Maria de la Cerda initially told the Center for Military History that the plane hit on the "other side", but later settled for the plane hitting "on top" of the Pentagon, strongly suggesting she briefly saw the Pentaplane above the Pentagon. And there are a few others I've mentioned over time as well...

Had a bomb (or bombs) been used, there would have been damage outside the Pentagon as well as inside.

There was.

There were no bombs.

Prove it.

There is no evidence of bombs.

Actually, there is:
Evidence points to bombs inside the Pentagon on 9/11

There is evidence there were no bombs.

Let's hear it then.

Bombs blow up indiscriminately, not directionally. Even planting multiple bombs, while you can create a field of damage, you can't reproduce the directional damage caused by a 757 traveling at some 400-450 MPH.

You have yet to show evidence that the damage at the Pentagon could only have been caused by a 757. If you have such evidence, by all means present it.

We have at least two witnesses who said the plane knocked over lamp posts

I imagine you're thinking of Lloyd England and Mike Walters. Of the 2, I believe only Lloyd England has some serious looking evidence to back up his claim that he saw it; his cab was allegedly speared with a pole. It's for this reason that CIT went down to Arlington Virginia to interview him. I believe their documentary on him was quite revealing...

I've seen that video and I see nothing in it which convinces me England was lying.

It would be one thing if there were no witnesses that contradicted Lloyd's account. As a matter of fact, however, the majority of eyewitnesses saw the plane approach the pentagon from a North of the Citgo gas station approach, not a South of the Citgo gas station approach. When Lloyd became aware of the fact that so many eyewitnesses were contradicting his statements, he declared that he, too, was in a position to see a North of the Citgo gas station approach. However, even official story believers who've done a little homework know that this must be untrue; there are pictures of him shortly after the event with his taxi cab and its broken windshield in a place that would only have been able to see the plane coming in from a South of the Citgo gas station flight path. CIT pointed this out to him, but he refused to change his story. There are many things that Lloyd has said that suggest that he knows that what he's saying isn't true. I'll leave you with a bit of transcription that I obtained from transcribing what was said in CIT's videotaped documentary with him, starting at 40
**
Lloyd: No I wasn't supposed to be involved in this. This is too big for me man this is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening, I'm a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff.
CIT: But you said. Lloyd, what do you mean?
Lloyd: Well I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I don't have nothing.
CIT: So your point that these people that have all the money..
Lloyd: This is their thing.
CIT: This is their thang.
LLoyd: This is for them.
CIT: Meaning they're doing it for their own reasons.
Lloyd: That's right. I'm not supposed to be in it.
CIT: But they used you, right?
Lloyd: I'm in it.
CIT: You're in it.
Lloyd: Yeah, we came across, across the highway together.
CIT: You and their event.
Lloyd: That's right.
CIT: But they must have planned that.
Lloyd: It was planned.**

-- and we have downed lamp posts.

As well as a plausible theory as to how they got there without the aid of a plane...
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon

Those are not plausible theories.

By all means, attempt to prove they're not plausible theories then. I believe they are the most plausible theories.

We have witnesses who said the saw the plane fly into the building

As well as a plausible explanation for how they could have been fooled into believing this happened even if it didn't...
What about the "hundreds" of supposed 9/11 Pentagon "impact" witnesses? | 9/11 Pentagon

More unsupported conjecture with no proof to lend them credibility.

Again, we disagree, but feel free to try to prove that it is "unsupported conjecture".

 

[phoenyx]

We have witnesses who said the plane came up in the vicinity of Columbia Pike/395

Many of whom specified the plane came up the -North- side of those roads, and those even closer to the Pentagon, that it came from the North side of the Citgo gas station...

Again......
There are witnesses who said it went north of the Citgo while others said it went south.

Give me a list of witnesses that stated that it went south of the Citgo gas station then.

The physical evidence

...is viewed by many to not be a persuasive argument for the official narrative on the Pentagon attack.

And speaking of Lagasse, as far as your flyover nonsense -- Lagasse says he saw an American Airlines jet fly into the Pentagon.

Ah, well then, problem solved! Oh wait, the plane -couldn't- have crashed into the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side of the Citgo gas station, because all the damage couldn't have been made coming from that angle. And oh yeah, he could have been fooled into -believing- the plane had hit the building, when it actually flew over it. It all coming back to you now? Here's a refresher, just in case:

Topic 5

Now you're saying your star eyewitness was seeing things.

Thanks for that tacit concession!

It's one thing to realize whether a plane is on your left or right side of you. It's another thing to know whether a plane heading towards the Pentagon was consumed in a fireball or whether the fireball simply occurred around the same time as the pentaplane arrived at the Pentagon. After a little initial confusion as to what happened at the Pentagon, the official story had set in that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon; clearly, this would affect anyone who wasn't sure as to what happened.

 

[Faun]

We have witnesses who said the plane came up in the vicinity of Columbia Pike/395

Many of whom specified the plane came up the -North- side of those roads, and those even closer to the Pentagon, that it came from the North side of the Citgo gas station...

Again......
There are witnesses who said it went north of the Citgo while others said it went south.

Give me a list of witnesses that stated that it went south of the Citgo gas station then.

The physical evidence

...is viewed by many to not be a persuasive argument for the official narrative on the Pentagon attack.

And speaking of Lagasse, as far as your flyover nonsense -- Lagasse says he saw an American Airlines jet fly into the Pentagon.

Ah, well then, problem solved! Oh wait, the plane -couldn't- have crashed into the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side of the Citgo gas station, because all the damage couldn't have been made coming from that angle. And oh yeah, he could have been fooled into -believing- the plane had hit the building, when it actually flew over it. It all coming back to you now? Here's a refresher, just in case:

Topic 5

Now you're saying your star eyewitness was seeing things.

Thanks for that tacit concession!

It's one thing to realize whether a plane is on your left or right side of you. It's another thing to know whether a plane heading towards the Pentagon was consumed in a fireball or whether the fireball simply occurred around the same time as the pentaplane arrived at the Pentagon. After a little initial confusion as to what happened at the Pentagon, the official story had set in that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon; clearly, this would affect anyone who wasn't sure as to what happened.

In case you haven't noticed, you're done. I actually believe you've noticed, you've simply chosen to ignore it. The evidence you know you're done is by you responding to almost every post of mine except for post #22

That would be the post you dismissed out of hand as one you can't see anything because it's too blurry for you. Meanwhile, I see evidence of the plane flying by the Citgo, followed by employees rushing to see where the noise came from ... and the noise came from the south of the Citgo.

 

[phoenyx]

I give far more credence to those who recalled what they saw minutes later than I do those scratching at their memory many years later.

It's true that recollections can fade or be distorted over the years. This is probably why CIT was careful to include the testimony of some of their witnesses that had been recorded only a few months after 9/11 by the Center of Military History and the Library of Congress. But there's another element that can cause distortions that I note you've been very cavalier about- namely, the distance people are to the scene of the crime.

CIT also claims that 100% of the witnesses who were at the Citco or on the north side of it gave the north side approach.

That's not true.

They also interviewed Keith Wheelhouse who was among those north of the Citco. Like so many other witnesses, he said the plane came up Columbia Pike, south of the Citco. So no, not all of the witnesses they interviewed said flight #77 approached from north of the Citco.

Keith Wheelhouse also said that a second plane shadowed the Pentaplane, even though no other witnesses so close to the Pentagon claim seeing 2 planes practically right next to each other.

Dismissed since not seeing something others saw is not evidence it didn't exist when others said they saw it and radar picked it up.

"Others"? Who, other then Wheelhouse, claim to have seen 2 planes practically humping each other? And can you provide evidence that radar picked up these humping planes?

But regardless, the salient point you're ignoring is that CIT lied. They said ALL of the witnesses from the Citgo and ANC said the plane flew NoC.

LIE -- At least one didn't.

Wheelhouse wasn't one of the original 13 witnesses they interviewed. As to your point, I think another online poster has already addressed it fairly well, after he'd seen a video of a debate between Adam Larson and Craig Ranke (which is, unfortunately, no longer available for viewing):
**Craig raised an excellent point on the issue of "proof" and the validity of eye-witness testimony. I work on the basis of "weight of evidence" whereby if 3 people say x but 10 people say y, then y is likely to be correct, but I'd look at why 3 people said x. From that I'd determine if x or y is correct (or most likely) based on z evidence.

In this instance, there are far too many witnesses saying the same thing. The few witnesses that tow the official story are dubious due to who they work for, were the only version published in newspapers, and if you read their numerous reports carefully, are full of basic factual differences in each version of their account. In the case of the CIT witnesses, they're basically the same with respect to the main details in each account.

It was interesting to hear that only one person reported seeing the light pole in the cab after the event, yet no-one reported seeing the light poles actually getting hit, and further, wouldn't even testify that they saw them actually being hit, even though they had an otherwise good view of this.**

What I pointed out is that no one (possibly even Dihle) knows who said that and what they experienced to lead them to say that.

Is that a bit of doubt I'm detecting? You start off confident "no one" but then add, in brackets, that Dihle may -possibly- know who said that and what they experienced to lead them to say that. But, ofcourse, the 9/11 Commission is over, and you yourself have stated that you don't think it's worth reopening the investigation. We may never know just what Dihle knows...

Yet you cite him as a verifiable witness while you dismissed "Barbara" because she didn't say her last name.

Erik Dihle is a known witness, yes, though he only heard an explosion, he didn't see the plane. The people he -mentions- aren't known witnesses, no. Neither is "Barbara", there are plenty of Barbaras.

You don't even know if they were co-workers -- he doesn't say (so asking about his co-workers is merely you extending your imagination again).

I had heard it was his co-workers elsewhere, perhaps from CIT. That being said, upon reviewing an audio clip of him mentioning his famous comment, I have noted that you are right. That being said, the beginning of his "jet kept on going" sentence suggests that his coworkers were the ones involved: "In 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". Note the "we". If not his coworkers, who do you think would fit into that description?

You're missing the point. It's irrelevant if it was a co-worker. I merely pointed out that you (and possibly Dihle) don't know if it's a co-worker or not because the person is never identified.

Not yet, no...

Not yet???

Not ever.

Dihle doesn't remember saying that so there's no chance of him recalling who said it. Yet you still cling to Dihle's hearsay as gospel.

Your overconfidence is your weakness. Don't make assertions you can't back up. Or are you saying you can prove that we will never know who Dihle was referring to? Dihle doesn't need to remember any of it, an investigation could simply ask him who he believes he was talking to that day about the events occuring, as well as who he might have been talking to, and go from there.

You claimed earlier that Dilhe could identify the person if needed;

I'm not sure if I claimed I was -sure- that Dihle could identify the person, or persons, who he was referring to. But I certainly think it's -possible-.

According to Dihle, it's not possible. He says he doesn't remember saying that.

If an investigation were to ask him who he believed he had talked to that day, and those people were interviewed, they might say something like, "Why yes, -I- was the one who thought the jet kept on going!". I'm already thinking I have atleast one idea as to one person he may have heard it from: Maria de la Cerda. True, there is no recording of her saying that "a bomb went off and a jet kept on going" but she -is- recorded as saying that the plane crashed "on the other side" and even now still maintains that she believes that the plane crashed "on top". Perhaps originally, she had simply thought the jet kept on going before the official story modified her views on the subject.

You don't know what they saw -- he doesn't say.

He says what others thought had happened- that a bomb went off and a jet kept on going.

First and foremost, what he heard others say is second hand hearsay.

We're not at the court phase of this investigation here. It's a lead. If there ever is another investigation, they could ask him if he recalled were the people he was referring to...

They could ask him but I see no reason he would deliver an answer any different than the last time he discussed that -- and revealed he doesn't remember saying it.

He doesn't need to remember saying it. He only needs to remember who he was talking to that day. Heck, even if he can't remember that, investigators could still do some digging to find out who he was likely to have been talking to that day.

Secondly, Dihle himself never echoes that sentiment to my knowledge.

Agreed on that count. But then, he doesn't even claim to have seen the plane approach the Pentagon at all. He does say something rather interesting -after- mentioning what these people thought they saw. To whit:
**
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…”
**

I fully admit this doesn't seem to make any sense. I believe Erik Dihle was at the Arlington Cemetary. He seems to be suggesting that the explosion went off and -then- the pentaplane approached the Pentagon. I know he says "another plane", but CIT has made it abundantly clear that there was only one plane and Erik fully admits he never saw the 'first'. It's certainly strange.

I believe you're mistaken about that. If I'm not mistaken, Dihle was inside the Pentagon when the plane flew into it.

I think you're mistaken. Dihle was an employee for the Arlington National Cemetary:


Maria de la Cerda wasn't, but she was in Arlington National Cemetery at the time of the event:
North Side Flyover

And CIT is batshit insane to deny there was a C-130 in the vicinity.

CIT doesn't say that a CIT wasn't in the "vicinity". The issue is how close. The answer is, not very.

There is solid evidence it was following flight #77.

• It was on radar
• There is voice recording of communication with the ATC
• There are many witnesses who said they saw it in addition to the plane which flew into the Pentagon.

Indeed, but only Wheelhouse says it was anywhere near the pentaplane. The pilot of said C-130 couldn't even make out where or what the pentaplane allegedly crashed into.

And you have to ignore the second part of his statement where someone corrected the claim of a bomb and a plane flying away as being false.

Care to do some quoting, and perhaps a clip of this second part?

Of course. But before I do, let me demonstrate the dishonesty of those with whom you place your trust and respect....

Truth And Shadows quotes Erik Dihle's comment....

“Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going.” ~Erik Dihle, ANC worker

​

You'll note that the end Dihle's commentary immediately after quoting his say he heard someone say a bomb hit and a jet just kept on going. I don't know how you can trust and respect them when you see the part I highlight below in red which was Dihle's very next comment....

“Some people were yelling that 'a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going' ... somebody else was yelling, 'no, no, no, a jet ran into the building.'” ~

Erik Dihle, ANC worker

That's the second lie I've seen Truth & Shadows tell. That you trust and respect them makes me doubt your integrity.

I imagine that Craig Mckee (the main author of Truth and Shadows) understands that his audience doesn't want to spend all day trying to figure out what he's trying to convey. In the interests of brevity, I think he made a good point. But adding the next line, in my view, doesn't take away from the conclusion at all. Far from it- clearly, -someone- had to stick up for the official story, and there's no time like immediately after to get it positioned into people's heads. Ask yourself, why is it that people who claimed that a bomb hit and a jet kept on going, but only one person who claimed that what would soon become the official story was the truth?

That's just a [insult removed] answer...

Yes, it is an answer. I and others believe it's a plausible one.

Also, speaking to not recalling events exactly as from years earlier, he is adamant in this later recording that he saw the C-130 come from the NNW ... until Ranke points out that radar indicated it came from the SW.

I believe I remember hearing CIT state that some of the radar data may have been faked. One thing's for sure: the 9/11 Commission Report, damage near and at the Pentagon, and NTSB black box data all conflict with each other.

I don't understand why I keep having to remind you -- that's not evidence.

If it's true that they all conflict (something I know you have contested in atleast one case), it would actually be -proof- that atleast 2 of the 3 official stories concerning the Pentagon attack aren't real.

 

[SAYIT]

Dihle doesn't remember saying that so there's no chance of him recalling who said it. Yet you still cling to Dihle's hearsay as gospel.

Your overconfidence is your weakness. Don't make assertions you can't back up. Or are you saying you can prove that we will never know who Dihle was referring to? Dihle doesn't need to remember any of it, an investigation could simply ask him who he believes he was talking to that day about the events occuring, as well as who he might have been talking to, and go from there.

What you read as "overconfidence" is actually just confidence that is derived from years of reading off-the-wall 9/11 conspiracy theories that make no sense and have no basis in fact, truth or reality. The theories you and "The Movement" have offered the past 15 years are the single most compelling proof that the official findings are as close to truth as we can possibly get (and I thank you for that).

You have admitted you have no proof of any of your foil-hat claims and have trashed the investigators despite having admitted knowing little about them. Clearly yours is not a search for truth but rather for validation of your goofy conclusions and the promotion of what seems to be a nefarious agenda.

Your overly active imagination is your greatest weakness (among many).

 

[phoenyx]

There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:



For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.


The first is from Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT for short. This team of investigators, which have primarily been composed of Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, worked for many years on uncovering what really happened in the Pentagon attack. They went down to Arlington, Virginia, to video record the witnesses they found were in the best position to know exactly what happened during the Pentagon event. What they found out surprised them. Essentially, they found out that all the witnesses they found to be credible had the plane flying a path that took it North of a Citgo gas station that was directly east of the Pentagon at the time, instead of south of the Citgo gas station, which is what the official narrative had posited at that point in time. This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 could not have been caused by an airplane that flew in a path that took it North of the Citgo gas station before approaching the Pentagon. The conclusion was as inevitable as it was stunning: the Pentaplane must have flown over the Pentagon. CIT has done many videos, all of which I believe focus on the testimony of atleast 1 witness who claims to have seen what happened at the Pentagon from a good vantage point, recommends that for just diving in to their work, that they see National Security Alert, so this is the video I have put up below:




The second video is from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This group, founded by current or former pilots, and whose core is the same, have focused on what occurred with the 4 planes that were allegedly hijacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. They have also done many documentaries on the subject of these planes. I feel that the best video specifically regarding the Pentagon attack that they have made is 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon. The video incorporates the work done by CIT and its many points of its own as well. It was uploaded to the internet by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and can be found here:



I am hoping that people who participate in this thread watch atleast one (or part of one) of the videos from CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth that I have linked to above, and comment in a constructive manner as to whether they agree or disagree with the points made, and why.

Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother?

Answering that question is a lot harder then determining the most plausible explanation for what happened. That being said, when you add some facts together, I believe a plausible theory emerges. The first question one can ask is, why was the Pentagon hit in the particular spot it was hit. Here's an article that gets into this:
The Pentagon Attack: Why Was the Office of Naval Intelligence Targeted? | The Blog of the WTC Demolition Site

Here's the thing:
It would have been difficult if not impossible for a plane to have actually crashed into that part of the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains why in the following video:


There is also a discussion on the subject here:
G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible, page 1

There is also another factor: that the plane approaching the Pentagon was quite likely not a 757. If it had crashed there, that could have become clear.

If explosives were planted at the Pentagon, they could avoid the above issues, with the plane still providing the needed cover for what really happened.

 

[Faun]

I give far more credence to those who recalled what they saw minutes later than I do those scratching at their memory many years later.

It's true that recollections can fade or be distorted over the years. This is probably why CIT was careful to include the testimony of some of their witnesses that had been recorded only a few months after 9/11 by the Center of Military History and the Library of Congress. But there's another element that can cause distortions that I note you've been very cavalier about- namely, the distance people are to the scene of the crime.

CIT also claims that 100% of the witnesses who were at the Citco or on the north side of it gave the north side approach.

That's not true.

They also interviewed Keith Wheelhouse who was among those north of the Citco. Like so many other witnesses, he said the plane came up Columbia Pike, south of the Citco. So no, not all of the witnesses they interviewed said flight #77 approached from north of the Citco.

Keith Wheelhouse also said that a second plane shadowed the Pentaplane, even though no other witnesses so close to the Pentagon claim seeing 2 planes practically right next to each other.

Dismissed since not seeing something others saw is not evidence it didn't exist when others said they saw it and radar picked it up.

"Others"? Who, other then Wheelhouse, claim to have seen 2 planes practically humping each other? And can you provide evidence that radar picked up these humping planes?

But regardless, the salient point you're ignoring is that CIT lied. They said ALL of the witnesses from the Citgo and ANC said the plane flew NoC.

LIE -- At least one didn't.

Wheelhouse wasn't one of the original 13 witnesses they interviewed. As to your point, I think another online poster has already addressed it fairly well, after he'd seen a video of a debate between Adam Larson and Craig Ranke (which is, unfortunately, no longer available for viewing):
**Craig raised an excellent point on the issue of "proof" and the validity of eye-witness testimony. I work on the basis of "weight of evidence" whereby if 3 people say x but 10 people say y, then y is likely to be correct, but I'd look at why 3 people said x. From that I'd determine if x or y is correct (or most likely) based on z evidence.

In this instance, there are far too many witnesses saying the same thing. The few witnesses that tow the official story are dubious due to who they work for, were the only version published in newspapers, and if you read their numerous reports carefully, are full of basic factual differences in each version of their account. In the case of the CIT witnesses, they're basically the same with respect to the main details in each account.

It was interesting to hear that only one person reported seeing the light pole in the cab after the event, yet no-one reported seeing the light poles actually getting hit, and further, wouldn't even testify that they saw them actually being hit, even though they had an otherwise good view of this.**

What I pointed out is that no one (possibly even Dihle) knows who said that and what they experienced to lead them to say that.

Is that a bit of doubt I'm detecting? You start off confident "no one" but then add, in brackets, that Dihle may -possibly- know who said that and what they experienced to lead them to say that. But, ofcourse, the 9/11 Commission is over, and you yourself have stated that you don't think it's worth reopening the investigation. We may never know just what Dihle knows...

Yet you cite him as a verifiable witness while you dismissed "Barbara" because she didn't say her last name.

Erik Dihle is a known witness, yes, though he only heard an explosion, he didn't see the plane. The people he -mentions- aren't known witnesses, no. Neither is "Barbara", there are plenty of Barbaras.

You don't even know if they were co-workers -- he doesn't say (so asking about his co-workers is merely you extending your imagination again).

I had heard it was his co-workers elsewhere, perhaps from CIT. That being said, upon reviewing an audio clip of him mentioning his famous comment, I have noted that you are right. That being said, the beginning of his "jet kept on going" sentence suggests that his coworkers were the ones involved: "In 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". Note the "we". If not his coworkers, who do you think would fit into that description?

You're missing the point. It's irrelevant if it was a co-worker. I merely pointed out that you (and possibly Dihle) don't know if it's a co-worker or not because the person is never identified.

Not yet, no...

Not yet???

Not ever.

Dihle doesn't remember saying that so there's no chance of him recalling who said it. Yet you still cling to Dihle's hearsay as gospel.

Your overconfidence is your weakness. Don't make assertions you can't back up. Or are you saying you can prove that we will never know who Dihle was referring to? Dihle doesn't need to remember any of it, an investigation could simply ask him who he believes he was talking to that day about the events occuring, as well as who he might have been talking to, and go from there.

You claimed earlier that Dilhe could identify the person if needed;

I'm not sure if I claimed I was -sure- that Dihle could identify the person, or persons, who he was referring to. But I certainly think it's -possible-.

According to Dihle, it's not possible. He says he doesn't remember saying that.

If an investigation were to ask him who he believed he had talked to that day, and those people were interviewed, they might say something like, "Why yes, -I- was the one who thought the jet kept on going!". I'm already thinking I have atleast one idea as to one person he may have heard it from: Maria de la Cerda. True, there is no recording of her saying that "a bomb went off and a jet kept on going" but she -is- recorded as saying that the plane crashed "on the other side" and even now still maintains that she believes that the plane crashed "on top". Perhaps originally, she had simply thought the jet kept on going before the official story modified her views on the subject.

You don't know what they saw -- he doesn't say.

He says what others thought had happened- that a bomb went off and a jet kept on going.

First and foremost, what he heard others say is second hand hearsay.

We're not at the court phase of this investigation here. It's a lead. If there ever is another investigation, they could ask him if he recalled were the people he was referring to...

They could ask him but I see no reason he would deliver an answer any different than the last time he discussed that -- and revealed he doesn't remember saying it.

He doesn't need to remember saying it. He only needs to remember who he was talking to that day. Heck, even if he can't remember that, investigators could still do some digging to find out who he was likely to have been talking to that day.

Secondly, Dihle himself never echoes that sentiment to my knowledge.

Agreed on that count. But then, he doesn't even claim to have seen the plane approach the Pentagon at all. He does say something rather interesting -after- mentioning what these people thought they saw. To whit:
**
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…”
**

I fully admit this doesn't seem to make any sense. I believe Erik Dihle was at the Arlington Cemetary. He seems to be suggesting that the explosion went off and -then- the pentaplane approached the Pentagon. I know he says "another plane", but CIT has made it abundantly clear that there was only one plane and Erik fully admits he never saw the 'first'. It's certainly strange.

I believe you're mistaken about that. If I'm not mistaken, Dihle was inside the Pentagon when the plane flew into it.

I think you're mistaken. Dihle was an employee for the Arlington National Cemetary:


Maria de la Cerda wasn't, but she was in Arlington National Cemetery at the time of the event:
North Side Flyover

And CIT is batshit insane to deny there was a C-130 in the vicinity.

CIT doesn't say that a CIT wasn't in the "vicinity". The issue is how close. The answer is, not very.

There is solid evidence it was following flight #77.

• It was on radar
• There is voice recording of communication with the ATC
• There are many witnesses who said they saw it in addition to the plane which flew into the Pentagon.

Indeed, but only Wheelhouse says it was anywhere near the pentaplane. The pilot of said C-130 couldn't even make out where or what the pentaplane allegedly crashed into.

And you have to ignore the second part of his statement where someone corrected the claim of a bomb and a plane flying away as being false.

Care to do some quoting, and perhaps a clip of this second part?

Of course. But before I do, let me demonstrate the dishonesty of those with whom you place your trust and respect....

Truth And Shadows quotes Erik Dihle's comment....

“Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going.” ~Erik Dihle, ANC worker

​

You'll note that the end Dihle's commentary immediately after quoting his say he heard someone say a bomb hit and a jet just kept on going. I don't know how you can trust and respect them when you see the part I highlight below in red which was Dihle's very next comment....

“Some people were yelling that 'a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going' ... somebody else was yelling, 'no, no, no, a jet ran into the building.'” ~

Erik Dihle, ANC worker

That's the second lie I've seen Truth & Shadows tell. That you trust and respect them makes me doubt your integrity.

I imagine that Craig Mckee (the main author of Truth and Shadows) understands that his audience doesn't want to spend all day trying to figure out what he's trying to convey. In the interests of brevity, I think he made a good point. But adding the next line, in my view, doesn't take away from the conclusion at all. Far from it- clearly, -someone- had to stick up for the official story, and there's no time like immediately after to get it positioned into people's heads. Ask yourself, why is it that people who claimed that a bomb hit and a jet kept on going, but only one person who claimed that what would soon become the official story was the truth?

That's just a [insult removed] answer...

Yes, it is an answer. I and others believe it's a plausible one.

Also, speaking to not recalling events exactly as from years earlier, he is adamant in this later recording that he saw the C-130 come from the NNW ... until Ranke points out that radar indicated it came from the SW.

I believe I remember hearing CIT state that some of the radar data may have been faked. One thing's for sure: the 9/11 Commission Report, damage near and at the Pentagon, and NTSB black box data all conflict with each other.

I don't understand why I keep having to remind you -- that's not evidence.

If it's true that they all conflict (something I know you have contested in atleast one case), it would actually be -proof- that atleast 2 of the 3 official stories concerning the Pentagon attack aren't real.

Seems you are correct that Dihle was at ANC. Regardless, he didn't identify who said it was a bomb and now says he doesn't even recall that. Which, according to you, nullifies the account of a bomb...

"I've already mentioned why they may have excluded the account of "Barbara"; she has only been mentioned as "the wife of a friend of mine" by the reporter mentioning her, and was given no last name. Put simply, her account is impossible to verify."​

Simply put.... whomever said it was a bomb is impossible to verify.

Now that you've once again demonstrated you have zero eyewitnesses to the flyover .... the post you keep avoiding ... post #22

 

[Skylar]

There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:



For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.


The first is from Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT for short. This team of investigators, which have primarily been composed of Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, worked for many years on uncovering what really happened in the Pentagon attack. They went down to Arlington, Virginia, to video record the witnesses they found were in the best position to know exactly what happened during the Pentagon event. What they found out surprised them. Essentially, they found out that all the witnesses they found to be credible had the plane flying a path that took it North of a Citgo gas station that was directly east of the Pentagon at the time, instead of south of the Citgo gas station, which is what the official narrative had posited at that point in time. This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 could not have been caused by an airplane that flew in a path that took it North of the Citgo gas station before approaching the Pentagon. The conclusion was as inevitable as it was stunning: the Pentaplane must have flown over the Pentagon. CIT has done many videos, all of which I believe focus on the testimony of atleast 1 witness who claims to have seen what happened at the Pentagon from a good vantage point, recommends that for just diving in to their work, that they see National Security Alert, so this is the video I have put up below:




The second video is from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This group, founded by current or former pilots, and whose core is the same, have focused on what occurred with the 4 planes that were allegedly hijacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. They have also done many documentaries on the subject of these planes. I feel that the best video specifically regarding the Pentagon attack that they have made is 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon. The video incorporates the work done by CIT and its many points of its own as well. It was uploaded to the internet by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and can be found here:



I am hoping that people who participate in this thread watch atleast one (or part of one) of the videos from CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth that I have linked to above, and comment in a constructive manner as to whether they agree or disagree with the points made, and why.

Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother?

Answering that question is a lot harder then determining the most plausible explanation for what happened.

No, its not. Your argument and your theory are uselessly complicated and pointlessly elaborate while being contradicted by overwhelming physical and eye witness evidence. Your argument fails on evidence, fails on logic, and fails Occam's Razor.

Quite simply, its an awful explanation.

That being said, when you add some facts together, I believe a plausible theory emerges.

Your theory isn't plausible. Its ludicrously implausible, poorly thought through, and wildly inconsistent with the evidence.

Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits.....with none of the absurdly costs, risks and pointless elaboration that your theory mandates.

It would have been difficult if not impossible for a plane to have actually crashed into that part of the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains why in the following video:

But easier to pull a f-14 tomcat pull up at the last minute with a passenger jet and fly up and over the pentagon at the last moment as a massive firery explosion rakes at its underbelly? All while faking massive amounts of physical evidence, convincing hundreds of impromptu co-conspirators to join in the conspiracy with perfect secrecy for a decade and a half?

Remember, this didn't happen in a field in the middle of Pennsylvania. But in broad day light within a few thousand yards of Reagan International Airport with the plane flying over I-395 during rush hour.

Difficult if not impossible describes your entire theory. Its a joke.

 

[SAYIT]

There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:



For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.


The first is from Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT for short. This team of investigators, which have primarily been composed of Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, worked for many years on uncovering what really happened in the Pentagon attack. They went down to Arlington, Virginia, to video record the witnesses they found were in the best position to know exactly what happened during the Pentagon event. What they found out surprised them. Essentially, they found out that all the witnesses they found to be credible had the plane flying a path that took it North of a Citgo gas station that was directly east of the Pentagon at the time, instead of south of the Citgo gas station, which is what the official narrative had posited at that point in time. This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 could not have been caused by an airplane that flew in a path that took it North of the Citgo gas station before approaching the Pentagon. The conclusion was as inevitable as it was stunning: the Pentaplane must have flown over the Pentagon. CIT has done many videos, all of which I believe focus on the testimony of atleast 1 witness who claims to have seen what happened at the Pentagon from a good vantage point, recommends that for just diving in to their work, that they see National Security Alert, so this is the video I have put up below:




The second video is from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This group, founded by current or former pilots, and whose core is the same, have focused on what occurred with the 4 planes that were allegedly hijacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. They have also done many documentaries on the subject of these planes. I feel that the best video specifically regarding the Pentagon attack that they have made is 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon. The video incorporates the work done by CIT and its many points of its own as well. It was uploaded to the internet by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and can be found here:



I am hoping that people who participate in this thread watch atleast one (or part of one) of the videos from CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth that I have linked to above, and comment in a constructive manner as to whether they agree or disagree with the points made, and why.

Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother?

Answering that question is a lot harder then determining the most plausible explanation for what happened.

No, its not. Your argument and your theory are uselessly complicated and pointlessly elaborate while being contradicted by overwhelming physical and eye witness evidence. Your argument fails on evidence, fails on logic, and fails Occam's Razor.

Quite simply, its an awful explanation.

That being said, when you add some facts together, I believe a plausible theory emerges.

Your theory isn't plausible. Its ludicrously implausible, poorly thought through, and wildly inconsistent with the evidence.

Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits.....with none of the absurdly costs, risks and pointless elaboration that your theory mandates.

It would have been difficult if not impossible for a plane to have actually crashed into that part of the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains why in the following video:

But easier to pull a f-14 tomcat pull up at the last minute with a passenger jet and fly up and over the pentagon at the last moment as a massive firery explosion rakes at its underbelly? All while faking massive amounts of physical evidence, convincing hundreds of impromptu co-conspirators to join in the conspiracy with perfect secrecy for a decade and a half?

Remember, this didn't happen in a field in the middle of Pennsylvania. But in broad day light within a few thousand yards of Reagan International Airport with the plane flying over I-395 during rush hour.

Difficult if not impossible describes your entire theory. Its a joke.

Phoenyx is promoting conspiracy theories for which he admittedly has no proof, not in search of the truth but rather - as he says - to create doubt.

Ironically his machinations (and those of the entire 9/11 CT Movement) - dismissing what is by far the most likely 9/11 scenario and replacing it with absurdly complex theories - have served to validate the official findings as not only the most plausible but as virtually the only explanation.

 

[Faun]

There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:



For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.


The first is from Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT for short. This team of investigators, which have primarily been composed of Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, worked for many years on uncovering what really happened in the Pentagon attack. They went down to Arlington, Virginia, to video record the witnesses they found were in the best position to know exactly what happened during the Pentagon event. What they found out surprised them. Essentially, they found out that all the witnesses they found to be credible had the plane flying a path that took it North of a Citgo gas station that was directly east of the Pentagon at the time, instead of south of the Citgo gas station, which is what the official narrative had posited at that point in time. This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 could not have been caused by an airplane that flew in a path that took it North of the Citgo gas station before approaching the Pentagon. The conclusion was as inevitable as it was stunning: the Pentaplane must have flown over the Pentagon. CIT has done many videos, all of which I believe focus on the testimony of atleast 1 witness who claims to have seen what happened at the Pentagon from a good vantage point, recommends that for just diving in to their work, that they see National Security Alert, so this is the video I have put up below:




The second video is from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This group, founded by current or former pilots, and whose core is the same, have focused on what occurred with the 4 planes that were allegedly hijacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. They have also done many documentaries on the subject of these planes. I feel that the best video specifically regarding the Pentagon attack that they have made is 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon. The video incorporates the work done by CIT and its many points of its own as well. It was uploaded to the internet by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and can be found here:



I am hoping that people who participate in this thread watch atleast one (or part of one) of the videos from CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth that I have linked to above, and comment in a constructive manner as to whether they agree or disagree with the points made, and why.

Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother?

Answering that question is a lot harder then determining the most plausible explanation for what happened.

No, its not. Your argument and your theory are uselessly complicated and pointlessly elaborate while being contradicted by overwhelming physical and eye witness evidence. Your argument fails on evidence, fails on logic, and fails Occam's Razor.

Quite simply, its an awful explanation.

That being said, when you add some facts together, I believe a plausible theory emerges.

Your theory isn't plausible. Its ludicrously implausible, poorly thought through, and wildly inconsistent with the evidence.

Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits.....with none of the absurdly costs, risks and pointless elaboration that your theory mandates.

It would have been difficult if not impossible for a plane to have actually crashed into that part of the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains why in the following video:

But easier to pull a f-14 tomcat pull up at the last minute with a passenger jet and fly up and over the pentagon at the last moment as a massive firery explosion rakes at its underbelly? All while faking massive amounts of physical evidence, convincing hundreds of impromptu co-conspirators to join in the conspiracy with perfect secrecy for a decade and a half?

Remember, this didn't happen in a field in the middle of Pennsylvania. But in broad day light within a few thousand yards of Reagan International Airport with the plane flying over I-395 during rush hour.

Difficult if not impossible describes your entire theory. Its a joke.

Phoenyx is promoting conspiracy theories for which he admittedly has no proof, not in search of the truth but rather - as he says - to create doubt.

Ironically his machinations (and those of the entire 9/11 CT Movement) - dismissing what is by far the most likely 9/11 scenario and replacing it with absurdly complex theories - have served to validate the official findings as not only the most plausible but as virtually the only explanation.

It's even worse than that. For his unprovable theory to be true, any evidence pointing to the contrary has to be fake. And that would be ALL of the physical evidence. And ALL of the eyewitnesses, some of whom never gave their version of events until many years later, because not one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. And it defies all lucid rationale for why a pilot, who's job is to fly over the Pentagon at 42° and who's already looped around once to line up perfectly to fly over staged lamp posts, veers off course at the last possible moment to fly north of the Citgo.

 

[phoenyx]

...I agree that the plane that approached the Pentagon was smaller then a 757, but I think that's about as far as we agree on that point. ...

Corroborated eyewitness testimonies that were gathered and recorded for posterity on the day of the incident cannot be ignored or discounted, particularly when what they "corroborated" flew in the face of the official narrative from the get-go. That's true, because we can reasonably preclude such accounts from the list of likely fabrications.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I strongly believe that atleast one of the alleged eyewitnesses that day was a plant: Lloyd England. CIT actually made an entire documentary of him, which can be seen here:

Lloyd England's account may well have been coerced, but it almost certainly wasn't fabricated with the intention of fatally contradicting the official storyline.

I have responded to this post of yours in the new thread I have created that specifically deals with the Pentagon Flyover Theory, which can be seen here:
9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

A theory, which as we've discussed, is pointlessly elaborate

You made the argument that it was pointlessly elaborate, yes, but I responded to that argument with evidence that it wasn't in post #88 in this thread.

The transponders from Flight 77 was pulled from the pentagon,

I haven't seen this to have even been claimed. Certainly not on Wikipedia's entry of Flight 77. Could you like to an article that claims this happened?

as were the bodies of the passengers on the plane.

No one has claimed that anyone who was allegedly on Flight 77 was identified by their bodies at the Pentagon. Instead, the military allegedly analyzed body parts and found the DNA of almost all of the passengers that way. As to -that- evidence, I believe that CIT makes a good argument that it is highly suspect:
**These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building.**

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

Engine parts matching the model of plane ordered by American Airlines were found inside the Pentagon.

They were certainly -alleged- to have been found inside the Pentagon. Even if they were actually found there, however, CIT makes a good case for how they could have been planted:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

Records both within the plane and tracking the plane confirm that Flight 77 impacted with the Pentagon.

The Flight Data Recorder allegedly recovered from the Pentagon is highly suspect:
9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

As a matter of fact, none of the debris of all 4 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11 have been positively identified as coming from the planes they were alleged to have come from:
NTSB: No Records Pertaining To Process Of Positive Identification Of 9/11 Aircraft Wreckage

 

[hadit]

Ultimately, the whole flyover/flyaway theory falls when you ask WHY? 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 (remember that the flight was on radar until the crash), place explosives in the exact configuration to LOOK like a plane hit the building while not alerting those working inside (and while not being able to guarantee that the plane would actually approach that exact spot at that angle), place broken off poles in strategic locations without alerting any of the thousands of people who routinely go through that area, when it's MASSIVELY simpler to just fly the darn plane into the building?

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. 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 instead of coming up with ever more elaborate, less plausible ways for things to happen that require you to deny physical evidence?

 

[Skylar]

Corroborated eyewitness testimonies that were gathered and recorded for posterity on the day of the incident cannot be ignored or discounted, particularly when what they "corroborated" flew in the face of the official narrative from the get-go. That's true, because we can reasonably preclude such accounts from the list of likely fabrications.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I strongly believe that atleast one of the alleged eyewitnesses that day was a plant: Lloyd England. CIT actually made an entire documentary of him, which can be seen here:

Lloyd England's account may well have been coerced, but it almost certainly wasn't fabricated with the intention of fatally contradicting the official storyline.

I have responded to this post of yours in the new thread I have created that specifically deals with the Pentagon Flyover Theory, which can be seen here:
9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

A theory, which as we've discussed, is pointlessly elaborate

You made the argument that it was pointlessly elaborate, yes, but I responded to that argument with evidence that it wasn't in post #88 in this thread.

No, you didn't. As crashing the plane into the pentagon would have provided every effect you described. Your elaboration provide absolutely nothing. Nor have you provided a single reason why anyone would go to such pointlessly complicated lengths......when they could simply crash the plane and get the exact same results.

Your theory is contradicted by overwhelming physical evidence, overwhelming eye witness evidence, contradicted by overwhelming recorded evidence. Worse, your conspiracy adds nothing but cost and ludicrously implausible elaboration.

Your conspiracy is simply a horrible explanation.

 

[7forever]

Without sworn affidavits, you can't be sure any of those people were actually interviewed or said what was reported . Massive fail

They were interviewed on camera. Stop trolling.

 

[Faun]

Without sworn affidavits, you can't be sure any of those people were actually interviewed or said what was reported . Massive fail

They were interviewed on camera. Stop trolling.

Hey, look who's back. I thought for sure you were abducted by secret government agents and flogged. Where have you been?

 

[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." 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.

Next time, you might try clicking on the link(s). That's where you tend to get more details. I'll do it for you this time:
**
Although the authorities say none of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were tied to an F.B.I. intelligence alert issued by an agent in Arizona two months earlier, one hijacker, Hani Hanjour, had come to the Federal Aviation Administration's attention earlier last year, when he trained in Phoenix.

Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.

Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz. Previous and sometimes contradictory reports said he failed in 1996 and 1997 to obtain a license at other schools.

''The staff thought he was a very nice guy, but they didn't think his English was up to level,'' said Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the Pan Am International Flight Academy, which operated the center in Phoenix. Ms. Ladner said that the F.A.A. examined Mr. Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate and that an inspector, by coincidence, attended a class with Mr. Hanjour. The inspector also offered to find an interpreter to help Mr. Hanjour, she said.

''He ended up observing Hani in class,'' Ms. Ladner added, ''though that was not his original reason for being there.''

Company officials briefed members of Congress about the case, including Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota, who made public some of its general details in December.

The aviation agency did not return a call for comment.

Pan Am International, one of the largest pilot schools in the nation, also operated the flight school in Eagan, Minn., near Minneapolis, where the instructors' suspicions led to the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, the man whom the authorities have said was intended to be the 20th hijacker.

Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.

''There was no suspicion as far as evildoing,'' Ms. Ladner said. ''It was more of a very typical instructional concern that 'you really shouldn't be in the air.' ''

A former employee of the school said that the staff initially made good-faith efforts to help Mr. Hanjour and that he received individual instruction for a few days. But he was a poor student. On one written problem that usually takes 20 minutes to complete, Mr. Hanjour took three hours, the former employee said, and he answered incorrectly.

Ultimately, administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. ''He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course,'' the ex-employee said.

Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''**

Source: A Trainee Noted for Incompetence | The New York Times

In case you're interested in digging a little deeper:
NILA SAGADEVAN ~ 9/11 : The Impossibility Of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

 

[phoenyx]

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...

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...

 

[SAYIT]

In case you're interested in digging a little deeper:
NILA SAGADEVAN ~ 9/11 : The Impossibility Of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Veterans Today?
Invariably you reveal the sources of your lunacy - quack websites. That you aren't bright enough to avoid such BS comes as no surprise.

Gordon Duff, senior editor of VT claims he lies so the gov't won't kill him ... really. He admits to publishing 30%-40% BS. I'm guessing the lying fuck is just lying again and the number is closer to 90%. You CT loons are all inveterate liars.

“About 30% of what’s on Veterans Today is patently false. About 40% of what I write is at least purposefully partially false. Because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive. I simply have to do that.” - Gordon Duff