9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[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

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



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

I hadn't even heard of Valuejet #592 before you mentioned it, but I did a little research, and came back with the following: you see that body of water in that picture you posted above? In theory, the plane could have submerged in there. There is actually a bit of skepticism concerning the official story on that plane, but there is, atleast, the -possibility- that the plane buried itself underwater. Let me know if you see any water on the Pentalawn, aside from what's come out of the hoses of fire trucks:

The anomaly of the Amazing Pentalawn (tm), not suffering a scratch even though simulations of the crash suggest the engines would have been making gouge marks on it, is just one more point to consider. The following video goes into this and other points:

 

[phoenyx]

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.

Why on Earth would I, like you, admit I have no proof to support my position??

Because you don't.

You admit it because you have none.

Let's take a look at an excerpt from wikipedia's definition of Proof (truth):
**
In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something. Evidence is drawn from experience of the world around us, with science obtaining its evidence from nature,[11] law obtaining its evidence from witnesses and forensic investigation,[12] and so on. A notable exception is mathematics, whose proofs are drawn from a mathematical world begun with axioms and further developed and enriched by theorems proved earlier.

Exactly what evidence is sufficient to prove something is also strongly area-dependent, usually with no absolute threshold of sufficiency at which evidence becomes proof.[13][14][15] In law, the same evidence that may convince one jury may not persuade another.
**

You see the problem? Even in a court of law, proof is in the eye of the beholder (or in that particular case, the jury and/or the judge). In my eyes (and in the eyes of most people who disagree with the official story), not only do you not have proof that the official story is true, you don't even have strong evidence. Conversely, in -your- eyes, you would probably say much the same thing about my position.

I offer no such admission because I have plenty.

You saying that you have plenty doesn't necessarily mean that you have plenty .

(the lamp posts, the Citgo surveillance, the other 2 surveillance videos, the damage to the Pentagon, DNA, .....)

I've already rebutted all of those points and you know it.

And you have zero witnesses to a fly over.

I certainly don't know the -name- of anyone who believes they saw a plane keep on going after approaching the Pentagon. I'm glad you atleast acknowledge the fact that, assuming that Erik Dihle was accurate when he said that "some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going", there would be atleast one person who believed they saw the Pentaplane fly over (or at least not crash into) the Pentagon.

 

[Faun]

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.

Why on Earth would I, like you, admit I have no proof to support my position??

Because you don't.

You admit it because you have none.

Let's take a look at an excerpt from wikipedia's definition of Proof (truth):
**
In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something. Evidence is drawn from experience of the world around us, with science obtaining its evidence from nature,[11] law obtaining its evidence from witnesses and forensic investigation,[12] and so on. A notable exception is mathematics, whose proofs are drawn from a mathematical world begun with axioms and further developed and enriched by theorems proved earlier.

Exactly what evidence is sufficient to prove something is also strongly area-dependent, usually with no absolute threshold of sufficiency at which evidence becomes proof.[13][14][15] In law, the same evidence that may convince one jury may not persuade another.
**

You see the problem? Even in a court of law, proof is in the eye of the beholder (or in that particular case, the jury and/or the judge). In my eyes (and in the eyes of most people who disagree with the official story), not only do you not have proof that the official story is true, you don't even have strong evidence. Conversely, in -your- eyes, you would probably say much the same thing about my position.

I offer no such admission because I have plenty.

You saying that you have plenty doesn't necessarily mean that you have plenty .

(the lamp posts, the Citgo surveillance, the other 2 surveillance videos, the damage to the Pentagon, DNA, .....)

I've already rebutted all of those points and you know it.

And you have zero witnesses to a fly over.

I certainly don't know the -name- of anyone who believes they saw a plane keep on going after approaching the Pentagon. I'm glad you atleast acknowledge the fact that, assuming that Erik Dihle was accurate when he said that "some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going", there would be atleast one person who believed they saw the Pentaplane fly over (or at least not crash into) the Pentagon.

As you already stated, witnesses without names are dismissed.

 

[phoenyx]

What physical evidence do you think I've ignored?

The evidence you say is faked.

If I say it's faked, then I'm clearly not ignoring it- I'm saying that I believe it was faked.

The DNA recovered at the crash site,

What evidence do you have that it was recovered at the crash site?

the penetration pattern that perfectly matches the plane's approach,

Actually, the damage at the Pentagon isn't consistent with a plane hitting it:
How could Flight 77 have caused bizarre pattern of interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?

the pieces of the airplane recovered at the site,

...none of which have been positively tied to Flight 77:
How we KNOW an airliner did NOT hit the Pentagon

the light poles knocked down on the approach path,

CIT has come up with a very good explanation as to how the downed light poles could have been staged in advance:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon

the total lack of any eyewitnesses that saw the plane fly over the Pentagon,

Actually, aside from logically deducing it due to all the witnesses that place the plane on a flight path that was inconsistent with the downed light poles as well as the damage at the Pentagon itself, there are several witnesses that saw things that suggest that the plane did actually fly over the Pentagon:
**1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".**

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

and on it goes.

By all means, elaborate on this 'on it goes' bit.

I mean, think about it, how could DNA from the passengers be transported to the crash site in order to be placed there in time for it to be picked up if, as you say, the passengers were never near the site?

For starters, how do you know that DNA from the alleged passengers of Flight 77 was transported to the Pentagon at all?

or claiming it's faked.

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

It's easy to construct a scenario that fits your pre-conceived opinion when you pick and choose evidence to accept and say the rest is all faked.

I completely agree. You may wish to consider that when analyzing your own beliefs.

 

[phoenyx]

I'll just leave my blog here..

9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77

Nice to meet you all,
Chris

That page comes up blank for me.

 

[phoenyx]

....This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 ......

So what do you think happened to the passengers and crew of AA flight 77?

I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

 

[phoenyx]

I remember that post. I told you it was blurry, but more to the point, I couldn't make heads or tails or your evidence. I did consider the possibility that perhaps the employees were running -towards- where they saw the plane fly away, rather then away from one. I believe Lagasse or Brooks said that that's exactly what they did.

So what if it's blurry since you can still see something fall over due to the plane flying overhead, precisely at the moment a shadow is seen. As I recall, you even said CIT acknowledged it was the shadow from the plane, but that only proved the plane was on the north side of the station.

Yes, I remember saying something like that too.

As far as the employees... people don't run away from something they want to see.

Exactly.

In fact, they can be seen running out the door and looking towards the Pentagon. Clearly, they ran to where they heard the plane.

We all know that the Pentaplane approached the Pentagon. Why can't you consider the possibility that they were looking to where the plane -went- instead of running away from where the plane -was-?

I have no doubt they looked to where the plane went once they got outside. The point is, they heard it fly by. Jose Velasquez described it as it felt like an "earthquake."

They ran to see what caused the noise.

Sure.

They ran to the SE entrance of their store.

Perhaps because that's where the noise caused by the plane was headed?

The same side of the Citgo where the shadow can be seen.

As you remember, CIT believe the shadow was on the north side. I personally can't make heads or tails of it yet. It's your word vs. CIT's and you know who I favour in that type of a contest.

It matters not if CIT believed the shadow was on the north side of the Citgo station since it was captured on video camera #4 -- the camera mounted on the south side of the station and facing south.

I've gone over your video. I see a few pixels darken. If you want to believe that's the shadow of a plane, be my guest. Personally, I believe that testimony from Lagasse and Brooks, who were both at the Citgo gas station at the time the plane flew by, who both testified that the plane came from the north side, is far more compelling:

 

[phoenyx]

I note phoenyx, the OP, refuses to discuss the Citgo surveillance video which depicts the employees running to the southeast entrance of the store after the plane flew by; and the shadow of the plane possibly appearing briefly on the south side of the Citgo.

It was an issue I wasn't even aware of at the time, and it remains an issue that I believe should remain a minor footnote in any serious discussion of 9/11.

 

[phoenyx]

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."

Sigh -.-. I guess I'll have to revert to a video from Sesame Street to try to convey what I'm referring to here:


Google's first definition of anomaly is: "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected"

If one story isn't like the rest, it's 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.

From what all the witnesses who were in a good position to see the plane, the actual plane was nowhere near the lamp posts. You may recall that Lloyd never claims to have seen the plane himself, despite allegedly having been speared by a poll that is claimed was knocked down by the Pentaplane.

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

According to the eyewitnesses with the best vantage points, the plane was always too high to hit any light polls.

All irrelevant now that we have the Citgo video which proves the plane flew south of it.

Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.

 

[Faun]

I'll just leave my blog here..

9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77

Nice to meet you all,
Chris

That page comes up blank for me.

What caused this damage if not a plane...

 

[Faun]

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."

Sigh -.-. I guess I'll have to revert to a video from Sesame Street to try to convey what I'm referring to here:


Google's first definition of anomaly is: "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected"

If one story isn't like the rest, it's 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.

From what all the witnesses who were in a good position to see the plane, the actual plane was nowhere near the lamp posts. You may recall that Lloyd never claims to have seen the plane himself, despite allegedly having been speared by a poll that is claimed was knocked down by the Pentaplane.

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

According to the eyewitnesses with the best vantage points, the plane was always too high to hit any light polls.

All irrelevant now that we have the Citgo video which proves the plane flew south of it.

Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.

"Darkened pixels?" WTF??

You agreed it was the shadow from the plane when you thought the shadow proved the plane was on the north side of the Citgo...

I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit. CIT believes the same thing if memory serves. Thing is, if the plane was actually on the South of Citgo flight path, there would have been no shadow of the plane anywhere near the Citgo gas station...

... but when you're shown the shadow proves the plane flew south of the Citgo, that shadow becomes "darkened pixels."

That your position is so fluid that it shifts to support what you believe, and not what the facts reveal, proves candycorn's initial assessment of you was dead-on accurate. You ignore any evidence which proves you wrong.

And of course it's the plane shadow. It appears at precisely the moment the plane would have been passing the Citgo. We know this because something inexplicably falls over without being touched at the same moment the shadow appears; which matches the description of the service station attendant who said the plane flying over felt like an "earthquake." Who then is seen on the video running outside the southeast entrance of the Citgo to see what caused the noise. And lastly, that shadow places the plane at the exact location where it would have needed to be to line up perfectly with the downed lamp posts, England's car, the smashed generator, and the direction of the interior damage caused to the Pentagon. It lines up perfectly with the angle of damage visible to the exterior wall of E-ring and the interior wall of the C-ring.

You're so done, there's a fork sticking out of you.

 

[Faun]

....This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 ......

So what do you think happened to the passengers and crew of AA flight 77?

I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

That's actually one of the dumbest explanations I've read yet. Over 200 people gave up their lives to go into hiding?

Over 200 families mourning the loss of loved ones who are actually living elsewhere now with new identities? Who would put their families through such pain so the government could pull off a false flag operation? How could you possibly get more than 200 people to agree to uproot their lives in such a fashion and now, 15 years later, not one of them ever reached out to family members to let them know they're really ok? Even worse for this nonsense, if they did reach out and kept it a secret, you now have potentially thousands upon thousands of family members who were not part of the conspiracy but now know of it, but 100% of all those people have kept silent even after 15 years.

You truly will believe anything, no matter how nonsensical, to prop up the idiocies you spew. While at the same time, reject any evidence whatsoever that points to hijackers flying planes into buildings.

 

[Divine Wind]

I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

I'm sure it gives you comfort to know what happened when everyone else is falling for the lies of ZOG.

 

[Faun]

So what if it's blurry since you can still see something fall over due to the plane flying overhead, precisely at the moment a shadow is seen. As I recall, you even said CIT acknowledged it was the shadow from the plane, but that only proved the plane was on the north side of the station.

Yes, I remember saying something like that too.

As far as the employees... people don't run away from something they want to see.

Exactly.

In fact, they can be seen running out the door and looking towards the Pentagon. Clearly, they ran to where they heard the plane.

We all know that the Pentaplane approached the Pentagon. Why can't you consider the possibility that they were looking to where the plane -went- instead of running away from where the plane -was-?

I have no doubt they looked to where the plane went once they got outside. The point is, they heard it fly by. Jose Velasquez described it as it felt like an "earthquake."

They ran to see what caused the noise.

Sure.

They ran to the SE entrance of their store.

Perhaps because that's where the noise caused by the plane was headed?

The same side of the Citgo where the shadow can be seen.

As you remember, CIT believe the shadow was on the north side. I personally can't make heads or tails of it yet. It's your word vs. CIT's and you know who I favour in that type of a contest.

It matters not if CIT believed the shadow was on the north side of the Citgo station since it was captured on video camera #4 -- the camera mounted on the south side of the station and facing south.

I've gone over your video. I see a few pixels darken. If you want to believe that's the shadow of a plane, be my guest. Personally, I believe that testimony from Lagasse and Brooks, who were both at the Citgo gas station at the time the plane flew by, who both testified that the plane came from the north side, is far more compelling:

That's what they said many years later. They didn't say the plane flew north of the Citgo when offering their testimony in the days following 9.11.

And since you like to rely on conjecture as fact, such as asking how do we know the lamp posts were not intentionally taken down and planted.... how do we know CIT didn't pay those witnesses to say they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo and draw the path with a marker indicating that? Again, not a single witness stated they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo in the days after 9.11.

 

[Faun]

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."

Sigh -.-. I guess I'll have to revert to a video from Sesame Street to try to convey what I'm referring to here:


Google's first definition of anomaly is: "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected"

If one story isn't like the rest, it's 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.

From what all the witnesses who were in a good position to see the plane, the actual plane was nowhere near the lamp posts. You may recall that Lloyd never claims to have seen the plane himself, despite allegedly having been speared by a poll that is claimed was knocked down by the Pentaplane.

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

According to the eyewitnesses with the best vantage points, the plane was always too high to hit any light polls.

All irrelevant now that we have the Citgo video which proves the plane flew south of it.

Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.

Of course you will believe only the eyewitnesses who say what you want to hear; while ignoring the majority of eyewitnesses who say something different, while ignoring the physical evidence which supports the plane flying into the Pentagon; and while ignoring the visual evidence which also supports it. Even worse, you cling to the nonsense of the flyover despite there being zero eyewitnesses who say they saw that happen and zero videos, out of 3 which capture the explosion, but fail to capture the plane fly over the Pentagon.

 

[Divine Wind]

....Over 200 families mourning the loss of loved ones who are actually living elsewhere now with new identities? Who would put their families through such pain so the government could pull off a false flag operation? How could you possibly get more than 200 people to agree to uproot their lives in such a fashion and now, 15 years later, not one of them ever reached out to family members to let them know they're really ok? Even worse for this nonsense, if they did reach out and kept it a secret, you now have potentially thousands upon thousands of family members who were not part of the conspiracy but now know of it, but 100% of all those people have kept silent even after 15 years.

You truly will believe anything, no matter how nonsensical, to prop up the idiocies you spew. While at the same time, reject any evidence whatsoever that points to hijackers flying planes into buildings.

The all powerful ZOG. ZOG knows all, sees all and commands all. Woe be to he who doesn't heed the power of ZOG!

 

[SAYIT]

Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.

"Darkened pixels?" WTF??

You agreed it was the shadow from the plane when you thought the shadow proved the plane was on the north side of the Citgo...

I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit. CIT believes the same thing if memory serves. Thing is, if the plane was actually on the South of Citgo flight path, there would have been no shadow of the plane anywhere near the Citgo gas station...

... but when you're shown the shadow proves the plane flew south of the Citgo, that shadow becomes "darkened pixels."

That your position is so fluid that it shifts to support what you believe, and not what the facts reveal, proves candycorn's initial assessment of you was dead-on accurate. You ignore any evidence which proves you wrong.

And of course it's the plane shadow. It appears at precisely the moment the plane would have been passing the Citgo. We know this because something inexplicably falls over without being touched at the same moment the shadow appears; which matches the description of the service station attendant who said the plane flying over felt like an "earthquake." Who then is seen on the video running outside the southeast entrance of the Citgo to see what caused the noise. And lastly, that shadow places the plane at the exact location where it would have needed to be to line up perfectly with the downed lamp posts, England's car, the smashed generator, and the direction of the interior damage caused to the Pentagon. It lines up perfectly with the angle of damage visible to the exterior wall of E-ring and the interior wall of the C-ring.

You're so done, there's a fork sticking out of you.

The dishonest game Phoenyx employs is common among "Truthers" (thus the quotation marks). It's called Whac-a-Mole. When bashed in one hole the bugger simply pops up in another (and returns to previous hole later in the game).

I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

That's actually one of the dumbest explanations I've read yet. Over 200 people gave up their lives to go into hiding?

Over 200 families mourning the loss of loved ones who are actually living elsewhere now with new identities? Who would put their families through such pain so the government could pull off a false flag operation? How could you possibly get more than 200 people to agree to uproot their lives in such a fashion and now, 15 years later, not one of them ever reached out to family members to let them know they're really ok? Even worse for this nonsense, if they did reach out and kept it a secret, you now have potentially thousands upon thousands of family members who were not part of the conspiracy but now know of it, but 100% of all those people have kept silent even after 15 years.

You truly will believe anything, no matter how nonsensical, to prop up the idiocies you spew. While at the same time, reject any evidence whatsoever that points to hijackers flying planes into buildings.

I'm not certain that is even one of Phoenyx's dumbest explanations let alone one of the dumbest of all time. I mean, just consider the same old rehashed (and thoroughly debunked) silliness posted this year alone by 9/11HandJob (now LA Ram), Dale Smith, and 7Forever. Nonetheless it is the so far out-of-the-box "reasoning" of a typical "Truther" that is so far out-of-the-box as to be not just monumentally improbable but downright half-assed and stupid. I wonder what happened to the planes? Unless the CT's ever-expanding list of co-conspirators includes everyone at the 2 major airlines involved, the 4 planes fueled, loaded and took off but never landed. Where are the planes?

 

[Divine Wind]

.....Nonetheless it is the so far out-of-the-box "reasoning" of a typical "Truther" that is so far out-of-the-box as to be not just monumentally improbable but downright half-assed and stupid. I wonder what happened to the planes? Unless the CT's ever-expanding list of co-conspirators includes everyone at the 2 major airlines involved, the 4 planes fueled, loaded and took off but never landed. Where are the planes?

Mentally ill, not stupid. They appear to have at least average intelligence or higher (let's not forget both Ted Kaczynski and John Nash were very intelligent), but in this particular area, their ability to reason is compromised. It's like a blind spot. They could behave and seem normal to everyone except when it comes to these beliefs of a global conspiracy.

 

[SAYIT]

Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.

Of course you will believe only the eyewitnesses who say what you want to hear; while ignoring the majority of eyewitnesses who say something different, while ignoring the physical evidence which supports the plane flying into the Pentagon; and while ignoring the visual evidence which also supports it. Even worse, you cling to the nonsense of the flyover despite there being zero eyewitnesses who say they saw that happen and zero videos, out of 3 which capture the explosion, but fail to capture the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Obviously it was just a bad day for the cameras, and explosions do not occur linearly. All of the Pentagon damage was caused by 1 exterior impact - such as that of a missile or large passenger jet - which then traveled into the building. Since no one saw a missile (and many saw a large passenger jet) and there is no evidence of a missile (but plenty of a large passenger jet), a rational person would conclude it was the large passenger jet (or maybe I'm crazy).

 

[Faun]

Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.

Of course you will believe only the eyewitnesses who say what you want to hear; while ignoring the majority of eyewitnesses who say something different, while ignoring the physical evidence which supports the plane flying into the Pentagon; and while ignoring the visual evidence which also supports it. Even worse, you cling to the nonsense of the flyover despite there being zero eyewitnesses who say they saw that happen and zero videos, out of 3 which capture the explosion, but fail to capture the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Obviously it was just a bad day for the cameras and explosions do not occur linearly. All of the Pentagon damage was caused by 1 exterior impact - such as that of a missile or large passenger jet - which then traveled into the building. Since no one saw a missile (and many saw a large passenger jet) and there is no evidence of a missile (but plenty of a large passenger jet), a rational person would conclude it was the large passenger jet (or maybe I'm crazy).

In regard to the flyover theory, it wasn't a bad day at all for the cameras. Three videos capture the explosion but none show a plane flying over the Penagon. The two from the Pentagon surveillance cameras show the plane coming in too low to pull up and fly over the building. A third video from the Doubletree hotel on the other side of the Pentagon captures only the explosion but is in a near perfect location to detect a plane flying over; which of course, it didn't.