9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[SAYIT]

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?

Isn't 7forever a subscriber to the "alien black orbs with destructo rays" theory?

 

[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...

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...

Huh? I'm glad we agree on the shadow, but you think the plane's shadow shows the plane was the north side of the Citgo? Explain that logic?

And what about the employees rushing to the SE door after the plane flew by?

 

[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?

Isn't 7forever a subscriber to the "alien black orbs with destructo rays" theory?

LOLOLOLOL

Sure is.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

No one is disputing that the plane approached the Pentagon. The issue is what flight path it took, as the flight path determines whether the damage at the Pentagon was caused by the plane, or something else. Paik, who saw the plane before Morin, puts the plane going northeast:

Morin continues this approach. A post in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum explains it well:
**CIT has made it abundantly clear that if the plane flew over the Navy Annex, it was on the NOC flight path.

In Terry Morin's account, he points out how the plane flew OVER the Navy Annex otherwise known as the BMDO/FOB or FOB #2 (Federal Office Building).

He clearly states that the plane:

-Flew "right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB"
-Was "50 ft above the FOB"
-"Cleared the 8th wing"
- Was involved in a "FOB flyover"

This is EXACTLY the flight path that Edward Paik describes...

**
Source: Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Noc Witness: Terry Morin

Witnesses further down the flight path from Morin, continue this trend. Here's Lagasse's line:

Here's his partner's, Chadwick Brooks' line:

Here's Darryl Stafford's line, with his location marked by the yellow person icon:

You can see more of the witnesses lines here:
Flight path collection (CIT Research Forum)

When all 13 of CIT's initial witnesses are combined, this is the line you get:

Lloyd England is clearly the anomaly and the only one on the official flight path's trajectory. He is not a flight path witness per se, because he never claims to have seen the plane itself, only to have allegedly had his car speared by one of the light poles that the plane allegedly hit.

 

[Faun]

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.

No one is disputing that the plane approached the Pentagon. The issue is what flight path it took, as the flight path determines whether the damage at the Pentagon was caused by the plane, or something else. Paik, who saw the plane before Morin, puts the plane going northeast:

Morin continues this approach. A post in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum explains it well:
**CIT has made it abundantly clear that if the plane flew over the Navy Annex, it was on the NOC flight path.

In Terry Morin's account, he points out how the plane flew OVER the Navy Annex otherwise known as the BMDO/FOB or FOB #2 (Federal Office Building).

He clearly states that the plane:

-Flew "right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB"
-Was "50 ft above the FOB"
-"Cleared the 8th wing"
- Was involved in a "FOB flyover"

This is EXACTLY the flight path that Edward Paik describes...

**
Source: Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Noc Witness: Terry Morin

Witnesses further down the flight path from Morin, continue this trend. Here's Lagasse's line:

Here's his partner's, Chadwick Brooks' line:

Here's Darryl Stafford's line, with his location marked by the yellow person icon:

You can see more of the witnesses lines here:
Flight path collection (CIT Research Forum)

When all 13 of CIT's initial witnesses are combined, this is the line you get:

Lloyd England is clearly the anomaly and the only one on the official flight path's trajectory. He is not a flight path witness per se, because he never claims to have seen the plane itself, only to have allegedly had his car speared by one of the light poles that the plane allegedly hit.

"Lloyd England is clearly the anomaly..."



Do you even hear yourself when you speak?

Evidence that you're wrong, you call an "anomaly."

And it still makes no sense why the pilot wouldn't fly over the lamp posts you claim were staged, but instead veer away from the lamp posts and away from the Pentagon.

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

At any rate, the shadow cast as the plane flew past the Citgo proves the plane flew south of it.

Case closed.

 

[phoenyx]

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?

I'm pretty sure I know what you're referring to (feel free to dig it up, I'm not going to try), but you misconstrued my meaning. If you don't know the name of the witness(es) but you know the name of the person who brought them up (in this case, Erik Dihle), it leaves an opening for an investigation. I certainly would agree that we shouldn't allow what Erik said to be admissible in a court of law, but we're far before that stage. We're in the discovery stage here, and what he has provided us with is a lead that I believe should be followed up.

 

[Faun]

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?

I'm pretty sure I know what you're referring to (feel free to dig it up, I'm not going to try), but you misconstrued my meaning. If you don't know the name of the witness(es) but you know the name of the person who brought them up (in this case, Erik Dihle), it leaves an opening for an investigation. I certainly would agree that we shouldn't allow what Erik said to be admissible in a court of law, but we're far before that stage. We're in the discovery stage here, and what he has provided us with is a lead that I believe should be followed up.

Keep reading the thread ... you'll see I already posted your quote. For the sake of convenience, I'll post it again...

"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."​

"Barbara" could be identified.

Whomever said it was a bomb and the jet kept on going, can't be.

By your own standards -- because Barbara's account can be verified, she counts; whereas, because Dihle can't identify the person he heard on 9.11, they don't count.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

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,

Have you been able to find a meaning for that term? I've looked online, couldn't find any. Low-altitude is a term well known by pilots and it's also well known that the pentaplane was flying at a low altitude by the witnesses.

but regardless, it proves the C-130 was following AA77 and was in the vicinity; which also matches the description of many of the eyewitnesses.

Yeah, it was in the "vicinity", not very close though. Let's not forget what Lt Col Steve Obrien himself said about his location relative to the pentaplane:
"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."

Or CIT's excellent analysis of what that meant:
**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.**

Here's a picture of the C-130, shortly after the explosion at the Pentagon:

So yeah, the Steve O'Brien was in the general vicinity, but if he couldn't even see what it was that the pentaplane allegedly crashed into, it's safe to say that his view was not exactly stellar. Ironically, Steve O'Brien unwittingly reveals where the plane may have actually gone- Washington National Airport.

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.

Hopefully you have now realized how mistaken that viewpoint is.

 

[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.

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.

Look at the following photo, marking the official flight path vs. the 13 witnesses that CIT interviewed, many filmed on location:

Do you realize that even Paik's and Terry Morin's flight path at the Navy Annex deviates from the official flight path? They are the ones that could be said to have seen the plane fly near Columbia Pike/395, though on the north side of both of those roads at the time they saw it. All the other witnesses, who are further down the flight path, place it even further away from the official flight path. Anyway, I can list all 13 names of CIT's witnesses if you wish. Could you do the same for yours?

 

[Muhammed]

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.

How did the plane and passengers get inside the Pentagon?

 

[phoenyx]

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.

Your argument implies that the official story is therefore meaningless as well, something even I don't believe. You don't need proof of something to determine what is the most plausible explanation.

One could make up any concoction imaginable for how those light posts were knocked down, for how one speared England's car,

Show me proof that a light pole ever speared Lloyd England's car. All we have is a pole, apparently dragged -towards- Lloyd's car, and a hole in his windshield. CIT goes into great detail as to how the light poles could have been staged here:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon

for how AA plane debris was scattered about,

Show me proof that any of the debris came from Flight 77. CIT has made a compelling case on how the debris seen at the Pentagon could have been staged:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

how the debris field matched a plane flying at about 40 degrees,

A 757 could never have come up low and level to the Pentagon- the G forces required were simply beyond it:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread392312/pg1

Or for those who prefer a video explanation:

how DNA from passengers and crew was found,

CIT makes a plausible case for how the DNA evidence could have been falsified here:
Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon

how black boxes were found....

CIT's argument regarding the plane debris can also be used for the black boxes:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

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

I won't pretend to understand the logic in your argument on that one, but have you ever considered they were running to see where the Pentaplane -went-? I believe Lagasse and/or Brooks said as much at some point, but I'm not going to go digging to find out.

 

[Faun]

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.

Your argument implies that the official story is therefore meaningless as well, something even I don't believe. You don't need proof of something to determine what is the most plausible explanation.

One could make up any concoction imaginable for how those light posts were knocked down, for how one speared England's car,

Show me proof that a light pole ever speared Lloyd England's car. All we have is a pole, apparently dragged -towards- Lloyd's car, and a hole in his windshield. CIT goes into great detail as to how the light poles could have been staged here:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon

for how AA plane debris was scattered about,

Show me proof that any of the debris came from Flight 77. CIT has made a compelling case on how the debris seen at the Pentagon could have been staged:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

how the debris field matched a plane flying at about 40 degrees,

A 757 could never have come up low and level to the Pentagon- the G forces required were simply beyond it:
G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible, page 1

Or for those who prefer a video explanation:

how DNA from passengers and crew was found,

CIT makes a plausible case for how the DNA evidence could have been falsified here:
Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon

how black boxes were found....

CIT's argument regarding the plane debris can also be used for the black boxes:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

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

I won't pretend to understand the logic in your argument on that one, but have you ever considered they were running to see where the Pentaplane -went-? I believe Lagasse and/or Brooks said as much at some point, but I'm not going to go digging to find out.

The Citgo employee said the plane flying by felt like an "earthquake." He said he was on the phone at that moment, slammed the phone down and then ran to the door.

He ran in the direction of where he heard the plane fly by...

To the south.

Where we saw the shadow...

To the south.

All the physical evidence is consistent.

 

[phoenyx]

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?

Yes, but many of them had been interviewed in 2001 as well...
Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon

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.

I note you aren't backing up your claims with any evidence whatsoever -.-

There is no evidence that AA77 flew over your Cuckoo's Nest nor any of the ensuing possibilities you imagine.

Never suggested it flew over a "Cuckoo's Nest". If you're not interested in taking this discussion seriously, why are you even bothering?

There is no evidence of a controlled demo or Cruise Missile at the Pentagon (or the WTC)

No one's suggesting there was a a controlled demolition at the Pentagon. I also believe that serious Pentagon attack researchers have dismissed the possibility of a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon. The WTC buildings is beyond the scope of this thread, feel free to bring it up in my thread concerning 9/11 in general.

but literally tons of hard evidence that AA77... crashed exactly where the NIST report said they did.

NIST made no report concerning AA77's final location.

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 -

Yeah, drugs can definitely be dangerous, you taken any recently ? Seriously, if you're just hear to joke around, there's no point in me putting any real effort into this.

but no one saw anyone plant any of the hard evidence found at the sites that you so eagerly reject

Prove it then.

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.

Many witnesses believe the plane was -not- a very large passenger jet, but rather a smaller plane. Some witnesses certainly have said that the plane pulled up shortly before arriving at the Pentagon, and Erik Dihle's testimony suggests that some may well have deduced or actually seen the plane had "kept on going".

An explosion, BTW, that traveled into the building unlike any explosive would have done

Prove that explosives couldn't have done the damage at the Pentagon then.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Incorrect.

The physical evidence is Overwhelming and it proves the 9/11 Commission is as correct a version as their is. Nothing offered from any quarter since then has even come close to seriously questioning it.

 

[phoenyx]

Notice the fire engine in the background

While the press was watching the firemen put out the fire in the background, Government stealth agents were distributing these airplane parts all over the Pentagon lawn

I know you're not being serious, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few parts were indeed planted on the lawn. Notice how small they are; if you're going to plant evidence, you want it to be easily moved around. Large jets typically have much larger debris, as can be seen from other crashes of large jets:

Source: The final 26 seconds: Russian jet 'slowed suddenly before plunging at 300mph', new data show

 

[Faun]

Notice the fire engine in the background

While the press was watching the firemen put out the fire in the background, Government stealth agents were distributing these airplane parts all over the Pentagon lawn

I know you're not being serious, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few parts were indeed planted on the lawn. Notice how small they are; if you're going to plant evidence, you want it to be easily moved around. Large jets typically have much larger debris, as can be seen from other crashes of large jets:

Source: The final 26 seconds: Russian jet 'slowed suddenly before plunging at 300mph', new data show

Here is where ValuJet #592 went down....



...according to you, it never crashed because we don't see any pieces of the plane.

 

[phoenyx]

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 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.

I do. You fail to admit the same for your case, but you don't see -me- highlighting the fact that you have no proof for your assertions in red.

You admit you have no eyewitnesses to corroborate a flyover.

There are some eyewitnesses that strongly suggest that a flyover took place. However, unless Erik Dihle's witnesses can be found, no, no one directly stating that a plane flew over the Pentagon. I and many others still strongly believe that the evidence available strongly suggests that the plane did fly over the Pentagon.

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

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.

First, let's look at an obvious fact: Faun and I have a fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to who was responsible for 9/11.

That being said, we both share an interest in discussing why we disagree with each other. Now there are various ways of conducting a discussion. Personally, I've found that the best way to proceed is not to try to hammer your opponent into submission. That tends to result in a flame war of sorts which is a waste of time for everyone involved. The -other- option is that you try to -persuade- your opponent that your own viewpoint is the right one. Again, there are still various methods as to how one does this- one is by claiming that whatever you believe is proven and expecting the other person to simply agree with you after you repeat it enough times. The other is to examine your opponents views and try to find out where they may have doubts- then you -work- on those doubts, adding as much evidence as you can find. But if you think that unless you're hammering away at your opponent that you are a liar, I should probably end this discussion as you're making no sense, atleast not to me.

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.

Many people have investigated 9/11. I find that the best investigators are those who have come to believe that the official story is a farce. David Ray Griffin comes to mind. That being said, I'm fine with anyone impugning his research, so long as they have evidence to back up their assertions.

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!

I think it's time that we define proof for the purpose of this discussion. I personally like a definition I just found from vocabulary.com:
"Proof is the evidence that shows something is true or valid. When you show the logical steps that take you from your hypothesis that the world is round to the conclusion that it is, you're formulating a proof."

Source: proof - Dictionary Definition

Now, that sounds all well and good, but there's a catch. While -one- person may find that certain evidence "shows something is true or valid", that doesn't mean that anyone -else- will find that this same evidence "shows something is true or valid". The reason is rather simple- we don't all think alike. We have different experiences and pre existing beliefs before we are given this evidence, and these experiences and pre existing beliefs are bound to shape how we view this evidence.

Personally, I'm rather cautious before I believe anything is proven. I can come up with ways to question virtually any belief. Many people are not nearly as cautious when it comes to such things. To each their own.

What I -can- say is that I definitely think that the pentaplane flyover theory is the most plausible theory as to what happened to the pentaplane by far.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

We clearly disagree on that point.

What you are doing is simply ignoring it

What physical evidence do you think I've ignored?

or claiming it's faked.

I've certainly believe that that's the most reasonable explanation, yes.

 

[candycorn]

...according to you, it never crashed because we don't see any pieces of the plane.

Well all of the wreckage pulled out of the Everglades was planted by jews in alligator proof costumes.