9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

phoenyx

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
115
Points
95
Location
Canada
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.
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
115
Points
95
Location
Canada
First of all, it's not -my- version of events, it's the version that the majority of the witnesses in the best positions to know the flight path the plane took in its final approach to the Pentagon. Secondly, I have never just "assumed" any of the witnesses were lying. If I had, I wouldn't have spent a considerable amount of time discussing various witnesses that he himself brought up with Faun.
Given that you were not present during the interviews; how do you know that CIT is telling you the truth in their highly edited presentations? And without sworn/notarized affidavits from their actors err “witnesses” that can be verified…we can’t accept any of their fanciful yarns.
No, I wasn't present at the interviews. I don't see how that matters, perhaps because I disagree with your notion they were "highly edited" as you say. Nor have I seen any evidence that any of the North side witnesses interviewed by CIT were "actors". That being said, I find that the one witness they interview that clearly supports the official story, Lloyd England, is quite interesting. They clearly felt the same, as they made a documentary that was focused on him alone, and which is definitely a favourite of mine because of what it reveals. It can be seen here:

Furthermore, many of the witnesses they interviewed were interviewed before them by the Library of Congress and the U.S. Army's Center for Military History, a fact that CIT has made clear on its web site, here:
Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
115
Points
95
Location
Canada
9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory
A five sided plane, never seen one...
The Pentaplane is simply a moniker for the plane that approached the Pentagon. If you had actually watched either CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth's videos that I posted in my opening post, you would have known that.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
137,777
Reaction score
12,176
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
115
Points
95
Location
Canada
Hey has anybody here heard by chance that many people doubt the warren commission,that oswald shot JFK?
If you want to discuss the JFK assassination, please do so in a thread dedicated towards that goal. This thread is dedicated to discussing the Pentaplane flyover theory, as the title of the thread suggests...
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
115
Points
95
Location
Canada
The Pentaplane is simply a moniker for the plane that approached the Pentagon. If you had actually watched either CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth's videos that I posted in my opening post, you would have known that.
I've seen them before...
Great. Would you care to offer some constructive comments on either of them?
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
115
Points
95
Location
Canada
...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 definitely agree with that. I believe CIT would also agree. I think there's a lot of evidence that it was fabricated with the intention of -supporting- the official story. That being said, I believe that CIT has shown that it falls short of doing so upon close examination.

...It's not that I think they -wanted- to mess up their own case, it's just that I think their coordination in their deception must have been pretty bad. ...
More like downright HORRENDOUS, if you're suggesting that several eyewitnesses were coerced into claiming that they saw a small commuter jet hit the Pentagon!!! What possible purpose would that have served?!
I think you over estimate the public's interest in such matters. If the public was truly paying attention, the official story regarding the Pentagon attack would have been revealed as a fraud to enough people that it would have had to have been officially torn down. In any case, it is easier to say that someone is mistaken regarding the size of the plane then it is to say that someone is mistaken as to what flight path the plane took, especially if the witness is in a position that would make it impossible for them to have seen the plane at all if it were on the official flight path.

The light pole fabrication, on the other hand, would at least be understandable. In the aftermath of the smaller plane's impact, the still standing poles may have been seen as problematic to the official storyline, at which point mistakes could have been made in the rush to circumvent the perceived problem.
I and CIT firmly believe that the downing of the light poles were staged well in advance of 9/11, perhaps the night before.


Don Wright says he saw a commuter plane, two-engined, and was 2 miles away from the building. He also apparently elicited strange behavior when questioned about the direction it was going, ...
He was on the 12th floor of a nearby highrise building with a clear view of the Pentagon and the surrounding area. Still, it's entirely possible that he only caught sight of the plane after it had made its corkscrew turn from the north (giving the appearance of a southern approach).
That sounds reasonable...

...Steve Patterson claims he saw a small commuter plane, holding 8-12 passengers. A little more on him:
**Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon .‚.‚. I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?" He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.**
Exactly.

The witnesses from nearby highrise buildings were close enough to see and hear what type of plane it was that struck the building. They were also close enough to SEE the impact.
I think CIT addresses the issue of witnesses believing they saw the impact an article named The 2nd Plane Cover Story:

**The complex topography, landscape, and sheer size of the Pentagon create a scenario where people on the alleged impact side of the Pentagon -- who would even have a view of this portion of the building at all -- would most readily be fooled by the sleight of hand deception of a plane timed perfectly with the explosion.



However, there are some areas of 395 and up in the Crystal City high-rises where people would have been able to see the plane on the east side of the Pentagon after the explosion, or possibly even the whole flyover if they happened to already be looking out the window in that direction when the plane approached. For example, here is a shot from the top floor of the Double Tree hotel that shows what would have been a good view of the flyover if someone was in this room looking out the window in this direction as opposed to glued to their TV watching the horror unfolding in NYC. (This was likely the case for most, as there are VERY few eyewitness reports from the Crystal City highrises).



Any talk about a "2nd plane" at all would help provide an explanation for the people who saw the flyover and were confused about what they saw in relation to the official impact narrative. There definitely were planes that were in the airspace minutes after the attack but there were false reports of a "2nd plane" that allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon during the explosion. The only planes that have been confirmed in the airspace near the time of the attack came in several minutes later. Specifically there was a C-130 near the Pentagon and an E4B over DC skies, both didn't appear until about three minutes or more after the explosion. Both of these planes have been shrouded in mystery and speculation. News reports of these planes were ambiguously blended with the flyover via fabricated accounts ofsome sort of second military plane/jet shadowing/chasing along the same flight path and then veering off/peeling off and up into the air. Anyone who might have seen the flyover jet would have been thrown off by these fabricated accounts that place a 2nd plane in the airspace at the same time of impact, essentially veering away simultaneously with the explosion...

USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan:
-"I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second *jet* hovering in the skies".

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.



Kelly Knowles:
...she saw a second plane in the air *over the Pentagon* *as* a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress...some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. "Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason." Pentagon official said late Friday no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack.


The article continues with other witnesses, I think it's pretty good, may want to take a look...



Steven Gerard was another such witness.

Steven Gerard wasn't in the best position to know if the plane actually hit the Pentagon. Lagasse and Brooks were in a better position (they were at the Citgo gas station, which was closer to the Pentagon then the Navy Annex), but they still had the same problem, namely that a well timed fireball shortly after the Pentaplane began going -over- the Pentagon could have easily fooled them into believing that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon instead of going over it, as demonstrated by the graphic at the beginning of this post.

Don Wright, Steve Patterson, and Steven Gerard all had the bird's eye view from a little distance, which explains why they failed to see some of the details (in terms of paint scheme and markings) described by Omar Campos, who was on the ground and much closer to the impact site.
I have been unable to determine where Steve Patterson was located. That being said, the distance of Don Wright and Steve Patterson, and particularly where they were in relation to the plane when it made its final approach to the Pentagon, also made it easier for them to be fooled into believing the Pentaplane had hit the Pentagon instead of flying over it.


...Perhaps most importantly: he [Omar Campos] said he was near a building next to the Pentagon, and the only buildings near the Pentagon on the west side were on the -north- side, in the general location of the Arlington cemetary. This guy wasn't a south of Citgo flight path witness, he was a north of Citgo flight path witness, and if the plane flew in from north of Citgo, it couldn't have crashed into the building due to a number of reasons.
He was a grounds maintenance worker. The "building" he described was probably a utility/storage shed where the landscaping tools and lawn mowing equipment were stored.

In any case, he and his translator were interviewed at the scene, which is a very compelling indicator that he was in the proper proximity to see what he claimed he saw.
The translator botched the translation. Also, in the video interview I've seen of him, I never see him mentioning that he saw the plane being enveloped in flames. It seems the only thing he actually agreed to was that there was a big explosion.

...There's a lot of reasons why Sandy Hook wasn't what we were told. I actually started a thread about it shortly after it occurred, can be seen here:
A piece of friendly advice: you need to stop linking to other discussion boards. It's against the rules here. Site administration doesn't like it when members promote the competition. You can count your lucky stars that apparently nobody has reported you so far. It's okay to link to blogs, YouTube, news sources, and the like, but links to other discussion boards WILL eventually get you banned here. Heads up.
I reject the notion that I am promoting another forum here; I haven't participated in that forum for a long time; I just mention it because I put a lot of work into that thread and find that it is a valuable source of information on the subject, just as I find articles on various subjects to be valuable sources of information. That being said, I can certainly imagine admins doing exactly what you say. I suppose I'll have to tell people to PM me if they want to know the links to threads with information on various topics that aren't in this forum -.-

FYI, I don't buy the official Sandy Hook narrative either. I was just making the point that data anomalies aren't really strong enough to be used as foundational for some of the claims made by Jayhan and others.
I feel his theories are the best theories so far to explain the anomalies regarding the passengers that I have seen, which is why I posted it.
 
Last edited:

LaDexter

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
831
Points
290
Hey has anybody here heard by chance that many people doubt the warren commission,that oswald shot JFK?

The WC was stacked with members of the "Holy Alliance for Treason" too, led by Arlen Specter and others. This is because the same "cause" was behind it. The motive to whack JFK and replace him with LBJ was all about re-conquering the "Promised Land" for Israel. So was the motive for 911
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
115
Points
95
Location
Canada
To fit into their agenda, CIT seeks to dismiss his account based on that and because he didn't mention the second plane (which he might not have seen).
Seems a lot of witnesses didn't see a second plane. Some who -did- say they saw a second plane never saw the first. Take Roosevelt Roberts for example:
**11. Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

Find Roosevelt Robert's name under this index at the Library of Congress website to download his officially documented interview:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/91...ecordingI1.html

Or download direct:

Real Audio

MP3

WAV

Download our independently confirmed interview with him here:

http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts

Roosevelt is the critical first flyover witness. He did not see the Pentagon attack jet on the approach at all. He only saw it immediately after the explosion as it banked away from the Pentagon.

He was at the east side of the loading dock when he saw the plane over the south parking lot of the Pentagon.



Roosevelt says that the plane was 50 to less than 100 feet above the light poles in the south parking lot and was banking around. His exact direction of the bank is a bit unclear from the interview but it sounds as though he has it banking around to the north since he says towards the "mall entrance side" which is on the north side of the Pentagon.

He says "southwest" but we think his directions were confused at that moment since it sounds like he is struggling to visualize and verbalize the proper cardinal direction which is to be expected from eyewitness recollection. He does clarify further when he says it was not banking towards the airport meaning it wasn't banking southwest after all.

As much as we would like to clarify his account further either Roosevelt got scared or somebody told him not to talk to us because it was clear he was avoiding us after promising follow up.

As discussed in the documentary we were able to eventually reach him again weeks later after trying maybe a dozen times.

Eventually we got a hold of him again and basically explained the implications of what he saw in a last ditch effort to get him to talk to us in more detail. After that discussion he agreed to an on camera interview for one week later on Sunday June 8th. Unfortunately when I called to confirm he backed out.

At this point it's clear that Roosevelt is nervous regarding the implications of what he saw and prefers to not put himself in a difficult position by implicating his boss and no doubt as far as he is concerned jeopardizing his livelihood.

This does not change the fact that he already officially reported this jet in 2001 and has independently confirmed this to us in 2008.

There is absolutely no possible explanation for what he saw other than the flyover.

The C-130 came in significantly later, was not nearly that low, and was not anywhere near the south parking lot and didn't even fly over the Pentagon. Plus Roosevelt is certain what he saw was a silver commercial aircraft/airliner with jet engines, and not a C-130 with propeller engines.
**

Source: North Side Flyover
Roberts' original description was about watching the plane hit the building in NYC on TV. Then shortly after, evacuating the area he was at when the Pentagon went to threatcon delta. He says he saw a silver passenger jet at lamppost height over the south parking lot, which is where AA77 flew over.

Years after the fact, CIT interviewed him on the phone while he was driving and asked him leading questions about running out onto the dock after hearing an explosion -- which he never said he heard in his original testimony. They framed his recollection to fit their flyover agenda, though he never suggested any such thing. I do admit, his phone conversation seems a bit disjointed at times, saying both the plane came in from the SW as well as saying it flew away towards the SW. That may have been the result of him trying to recall events from years earlier while trying to focus on his driving? I don't know. But regardless, the worst you could twist his account into is that a plane was flying in a SW direction over the south parking lot -- and that could not possibly have been a plane flying from west to east over the Pentagon. Commercial planes can't possibly turn that sharply. No less mere feet above the Pentagon.

So no, Roosevelt Roberts' personal account does not support a fly over theory.
I haven't found that they "framed" his recollection. As to his disjointed recollection, I strongly believe he didn't know his cardinal directions in relation to where he was at the Pentagon at the time, but didn't want to admit it. The fact that he was driving his car didn't help, ofcourse. He seemed much more comfortable with landmarks. As to turning that fast, you are, ofcourse, assuming that the plane was a commercial plane. Here's how various mainstream media outlets described its approach to the Pentagon:
**According to CBS News, “The steep turn” made by Flight 77 “was so smooth… sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on.” The “complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.” [CBS NEWS, 9/21/2001]Aviation experts will conclude that this maneuver was the work of “a great talent… virtually a textbook turn and landing.” [WASHINGTON POST, 9/10/2002] Due to the aircraft’s high speed and the way it is being flown, Dulles Airport controllers mistake it for a military fighter jet (see (9:25 a.m.-9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [WASHINGTON POST, 9/12/2001; ABC NEWS, 10/24/2001; MSNBC, 9/11/2002]**

Source: Danielle O'Brien

Aside from the fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna, the fact that ATC controllers originally thought it was a military fighter jet suggests that it may have actually -been- a military aircraft of some sort. Also recall that Terry Morin said it was going a lot slower during its final approach then the official narrative states. Both of these factors combined would allow the aircraft to bank a lot quicker then a commercial 757 going at high speed.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
60,726
Reaction score
7,682
Points
1,830
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.
Sorry.

Without sworn notarized affidavits from the actors in the film, none of it can be considered truthful. Also, there is no sworn chain of custody for your evidence.

 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
115
Points
95
Location
Canada
[pixelated video, no name given]
An anonymous video where you can't even see the person is not much to go on.
That it's anonymous doesn't discount it as the person was clearly present and clearly describing what he claims to have witnessed. It stands as an eyewitness account even if you don't like it.
You don't even know who it was. But by all means, provide some evidence that any of the following assertions you make on this person are true.
Squeaks the person who says there was a flyover because Dihle heard someone make a suggestion which you construe to be a flyover. While Dihle's mystery person was not pixelated, their own personal account was still conveyed first hand. And witnesses need not be identified to believe what they're saying they saw. That's merely a measure you wish to go by in order to eliminate those who disagree with your agenda.
I think you got a 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.

There are some issues with Joel Sucherman's testimony, which CIT gets into here:
That video, like virtually everything you rely on, is nothing but unsupported supposition. In this video, the person(s) who made it claims the USA Today reporters' eyewitness accounts are questionable because there were 6 of them on there way to work that morning. Even worse, they claim that ALL of those reporters were late for work because ONE of them was. But in reality, the maker of that video has no proof the others didn't go into work until 10am. So once again, CIT fails miserably to prove their point.
Alright, perhaps you're right on that particular point. That being said, I can't help but wonder if Sucherman actually saw the pentaplane fly away from the scene. Why do I think that? Because of this part of his statement:
**USA Today editor Joel Sucherman:
-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. **

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Website
He was clear he saw two planes. One he says he saw fly into the Pentagon; the other veered away. We know there were two planes. We know that a C-130 briefly tailed AA77 just before it crashed and then was told by the control tower to head off at 270º, away from the Pentagon.
That's an explanation that CIT has already refuted, in the very same article I was quoting above, no less:
**Eventually researchers would explain away the accounts of the "second plane/jet" as being regarding the C-130 piloted by Lt Col Steve O'Brien who we now know never shadowed or chased the plane. He actually lost sight of it after it passed in front of him and he turned around. He was not near AND/OR over the Pentagon at the time of alleged impact (explosion & fireball). In fact it would have been physically impossible for him to keep up with a 530 mph jet, when a C-130 can only travel maximum 379 mph. He didn't show up to the scene until approximately 3 minutes later at a much higher altitude.



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

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

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

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


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




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

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

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

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

**

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

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
60,726
Reaction score
7,682
Points
1,830
Without sworn affidavits, you can't be sure any of those people were actually interviewed or said what was reported . Massive fail
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
115
Points
95
Location
Canada
This video also tries to impugn Walter's eyewitness account; but Walter never said he saw the plane hit the building. He said he saw it flying toward the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. He also said he saw the plane clip a lamp post. How does he see that if they were planted, as you suggest?
The same way Lagasse stated that certain light poles were downed, when they weren't. Memory isn't perfect, and it can morph a bit when confronted with information that appears to contradict their actual recollections. Things can be added in order to make things 'fit'.
That's true, memory isn't perfect. Especially many years after the fact. Still, Lagasse recalled the light poles were "obviously" clipped by the plane; only the light poles weren't actually where he recalled them actually being. Indicating where he recalled seeing the plane fly isn't where it actually flew.
Speaking of memories, do you remember what Lagasse first said in the clip below when Craig Ranke asked him about the light poles? I've transcribed part of their conversation, beginning at around 5:40 in the posted video below:
**
Craig Ranke: Did either of you actually see the plane clip the light poles, I just want to ask this question again to reiterate it…

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

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

Lagasse: No chance.

Craig Ranke: What’s that?

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

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


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

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

SAYIT

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
45,927
Reaction score
8,775
Points
2,100
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.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
60,726
Reaction score
7,682
Points
1,830
This video also tries to impugn Walter's eyewitness account; but Walter never said he saw the plane hit the building. He said he saw it flying toward the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. He also said he saw the plane clip a lamp post. How does he see that if they were planted, as you suggest?
The same way Lagasse stated that certain light poles were downed, when they weren't. Memory isn't perfect, and it can morph a bit when confronted with information that appears to contradict their actual recollections. Things can be added in order to make things 'fit'.
That's true, memory isn't perfect. Especially many years after the fact. Still, Lagasse recalled the light poles were "obviously" clipped by the plane; only the light poles weren't actually where he recalled them actually being. Indicating where he recalled seeing the plane fly isn't where it actually flew.
Speaking of memories, do you remember what Lagasse first said in the clip below when Craig Ranke asked him about the light poles? I've transcribed part of their conversation, beginning at around 5:40 in the posted video below:
**
Craig Ranke: Did either of you actually see the plane clip the light poles, I just want to ask this question again to reiterate it…

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

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

Lagasse: No chance.

Craig Ranke: What’s that?

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

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


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

As you can see, he starts off stating light poles couldn't be seen from his location that day, even though he believes they "obviously" did, for a reason that I didn't catch. Once Ranke mentions that the official story has the plane coming on the south side of the Citgo gas station, along with light poles that could only be hit from a south of the Citgo flight path, Lagasse halfheartedly attempts to claim that light poles -were- hit on the North side approach, but it's a lukewarm attempt at best, once again beginning with "you can't really see if there's a light pole here...". The one thing he -never- changes his stance on, however, is whether the plane came from North or South of the Citgo gas station.
Sorry, inadmissible without a sworn affadavit from the guy. We have no idea if he actually said any of that...and since you've proven to be mentally ill..there is no reason to believe your transcript

We do know there were 5 light poles knocked down by AA77 since the space between the poles was long enough for only a 757 or similar plane to him them with their wingspans--smaller planes like the one you're trying to sell wouldn't have done it.

You've yet to account for any physical evidence.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,726
Reaction score
9,321
Points
2,060
This video also tries to impugn Walter's eyewitness account; but Walter never said he saw the plane hit the building. He said he saw it flying toward the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. He also said he saw the plane clip a lamp post. How does he see that if they were planted, as you suggest?
The same way Lagasse stated that certain light poles were downed, when they weren't. Memory isn't perfect, and it can morph a bit when confronted with information that appears to contradict their actual recollections. Things can be added in order to make things 'fit'.
That's true, memory isn't perfect. Especially many years after the fact. Still, Lagasse recalled the light poles were "obviously" clipped by the plane; only the light poles weren't actually where he recalled them actually being. Indicating where he recalled seeing the plane fly isn't where it actually flew.
Speaking of memories, do you remember what Lagasse first said in the clip below when Craig Ranke asked him about the light poles? I've transcribed part of their conversation, beginning at around 5:40 in the posted video below:
**
Craig Ranke: Did either of you actually see the plane clip the light poles, I just want to ask this question again to reiterate it…

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

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

Lagasse: No chance.

Craig Ranke: What’s that?

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

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


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

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

The two camps of eyewitness accounts can't both be right, so we look to the physical evidence to determine which camp is correct.

And the physical evidence supports the Columbia Pike path. Radar supports that ... the lamp posts support that ... the direction of the damage to the Pentagon supports that.

None of the physical evidence supports the north side approach.

None of the evidence supports a fly over.

None of the witnesses recalled seeing a fly over.

You have nothing on your side, Lord knows why you persist? :dunno:
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
137,777
Reaction score
12,176
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Hey has anybody here heard by chance that many people doubt the warren commission,that oswald shot JFK?

The WC was stacked with members of the "Holy Alliance for Treason" too, led by Arlen Specter and others. This is because the same "cause" was behind it. The motive to whack JFK and replace him with LBJ was all about re-conquering the "Promised Land" for Israel. So was the motive for 911
I heard it was to go to war in Nam...
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top