9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[Faun]

[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.

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C-130: Looks like a 757, sir.

ATC: A 757. Can you estimate his altitude?

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

ATC: Gofer86, thank you.

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

ATC: Alright, thank you.

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

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

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

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

C-130: Washington, this is gofer06.

ATC: Yes, gofer86, go ahead.

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

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

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

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

ATC: gofer86... gofer06, thank you.

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

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

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

ATC: Gofer06, approved as requested.

C-130: Gofer06.

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

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

ATC: Alright, thank you.

Starting @11:40 - ​

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

And matching virtually every single eyewitness who reported seeing the C-130, it quickly veered off NE towards the Pentagon to due west and began ascending to 3000 feet.

 

[Faun]

...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.

Also at the 4:41 mark, at the same time something visibly falls over in camera #4, a dark spot appears at the top of the image. This could be a shadow cast by the plane flying overhead....

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 Citgo. 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.

According to Jose Valesquez, who was employed at that Citgo on 9/11, the plane flying over felt like an "earthquake."

Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon

Three months ago, on September 11 at 9:38 a.m., a Tuesday, Jose Velasquez heard the rumble of imminent death overhead. "I knew something was wrong. The planes come more from the north and west [to land at Reagan National Airport] not from the south. And not so low."

He was talking on the telephone that morning to a friend who was feeding him gauzy reports about airplane crashes at the World Trade Center in New York. But Velasquez slammed down the receiver and raced outside when he felt the gas station he supervises suddenly begin to tremble from a too-close airplane.

"It was like an earthquake," the Costa Rican native said last week. What Velasquez felt above him almost within touching distance was American Airlines Flight 77 just seconds before impact.

His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside that, hours later, would become a wailing knoll. "By the time I got outside all I could see was a giant cloud of smoke, first white then black, coming from the Pentagon," he said. "It was just a terrible, terrible thing to be so close to."

Today, Velasquez still trembles when he talks about the incident that has forever changed the military, government, and technology polyglot that is Northern Virginia. "Even today," said Velasquez, "people who come here tell me they are frightened to come to work. You can see it in their eyes."

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."​

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

The door on the southeast side of the Citgo.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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

Dude your missing the POINT of that post.I see it went over your head.

what i was hinting at in that post I was making is same as how the REAL criminals behind 9/11 the CIA and the mossad pulled this off and have gotten away with it,they were both behind the JFK assassination as well.

The point of that post i was trying to make is 9/11 is the same as the JFK assassination.done and over and the fact there was never a REAL independent investigation into it and the real killers got away with it scott free.

My point I was trying to make is it seems pretty fruitless going back and forth with posters on it and posting facts about it because what does it accomplish? nothing. I mentioned JFK because 9/11 is the same thing,nothing is ever going to be done about it so why keep going back and forth on this year after year?

It seems you all could spend your more constructively concerned about whats going on NOW rather than worry an event that happend in the past.

Instead of going back and forth on it discussing the obvious that it was an inside job,you should be much more worried about whats going on NOW.

same as the JFK case,we cant do anything about it so it would be much wiser to worry about whats going on NOW and doing something about the future rather than worry about the past.

I used to get very much worked up over 9/11 myself and argued about it for years but then i wised up understanding the government has shills trolling these forums everywhere sent here to derail any thread that discusses the truth about the issue.

I dont know,seems like you could spend your time more wisely being worried about Trump getting elected in the next election since it concerns our future. If Trump gets elected there just may be hope for america again and justice being done in the 9/11 case with a REAL independent investigation done. Trump is not part of the elite. If that mass murderer Hellery gets elected,then the lies of 9/11 will continue because same as Obama,Romney,and the Bushs,she is part of the elite.

you guys worry so much about discussing 9/11 so much,well seems like since there would be a chance of a real investigation into this case if Trump got elected and the real killers being brought to justice,seems to me like you SHOULD be much more concerned about Trump getting elected.

9/11 is the least of out problems we have to worry about right now. Its the same as being worried about who killed JFK.whats the point? nothing will be done about it.Unless MAYBE Trump gets elected,then there is at least a chance. yet I dont see any of you all posting about Trump why he needs to get elected.

 

[phoenyx]

You also say I'm wrong about their view being the best of the flight path -- but I made no such claim.

Agreed. What I'm suggesting is that we focus on those who -did- have the best view of the flight path.

Sorry, I'm not ignoring witnesses you find inconvenient.[/quote]

I don't find them inconvenient, I find it a waste of time. They were not in the best position to see what happened to the plane, and generally not in the best position to see if the plane flew North or South of the Citgo gas station either.

Their testimony stands as they described. The best part about their account is their unobstructed view of the Pentagon from their elevated vantage point. Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, and not into it, they would most certainly have witnessed such an event.

As to Dawn, I found an article wherein CIT defends itself against charges that it "dismissed" Dawn's account. I think the most relevant part is the following:
**It was clear to me by looking at the view that it was quite possible that after the plane disappeared in front of the high rise in front of them, that the fireball would appear immediately after the plane reappeared from the other side. It seemed feasible to me that her attention could have been diverted by the fireball as the plane flew away. This meant that, in light of the north side evidence we had already uncovered, there was still no valid reason for me to assume she was lying about her account and that it was possible she could have been innocently mistaken. Although it was clear that Dawn and her husband were simply not going to accept the implications of the testimony from the witnesses at the Citgo station our entire exchange was very friendly and completely civil. We agreed to disagree and went on our way. So the notion that we "were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account" or that we "sought information that would support [our] theory" is a blatant misrepresentation of the exchange.**

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

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

Perhaps CIT interviewed her independently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

Agreed. What I'm suggesting is that we focus on those who -did- have the best view of the flight path.

Sorry, I'm not ignoring witnesses you find inconvenient.

I don't find them inconvenient, I find it a waste of time. They were not in the best position to see what happened to the plane, and generally not in the best position to see if the plane flew North or South of the Citgo gas station either.

Their testimony stands as they described. The best part about their account is their unobstructed view of the Pentagon from their elevated vantage point. Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, and not into it, they would most certainly have witnessed such an event.

As to Dawn, I found an article wherein CIT defends itself against charges that it "dismissed" Dawn's account. I think the most relevant part is the following:
**It was clear to me by looking at the view that it was quite possible that after the plane disappeared in front of the high rise in front of them, that the fireball would appear immediately after the plane reappeared from the other side. It seemed feasible to me that her attention could have been diverted by the fireball as the plane flew away. This meant that, in light of the north side evidence we had already uncovered, there was still no valid reason for me to assume she was lying about her account and that it was possible she could have been innocently mistaken. Although it was clear that Dawn and her husband were simply not going to accept the implications of the testimony from the witnesses at the Citgo station our entire exchange was very friendly and completely civil. We agreed to disagree and went on our way. So the notion that we "were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account" or that we "sought information that would support [our] theory" is a blatant misrepresentation of the exchange.**

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

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

Perhaps CIT interviewed her independently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claiming the NoC witnesses had a better vantage point because you believe that's where the plane went is again, circular logic. If the plane went south of the Citgo, then there were others with a better vantage point. And ALL of the physical evidence points to the plane being south of the Citgo.

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.

Neither of them saw that.

 

[phoenyx]

And one who may not have seen the actual impact but saw the plane clip the light pole you claimed could have been planted

9/11 Pentagon witness Mike Walter, CBS 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hmmmmmmmmmm.

**

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

 

[SAYIT]

And one who may not have seen the actual impact but saw the plane clip the light pole you claimed could have been planted

9/11 Pentagon witness Mike Walter, CBS 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hmmmmmmmmmm.

**

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

So you and CIT and the eyewitnesses have AA77 coming from every which way but none saw it fly over the Pentagon. Why do you persist in promoting a silly 9/11 CT that no one saw?

Desperation, perhaps?

Does the fact that you've wasted years in that wabbit hole burn? Denial leads to blithering, drooling madness (see any of 9/11InsideJob's posts).

 

[phoenyx]

But here's the death knell to your nonsense that the plane came in low but then flew over the building instead of into it.... there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, mostly in rush hour traffic...

not one reported seeing the plane miss the Pentagon and fly over it instead. Not one. Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, in the face of all the reports it flew into it -- there would be many eyewitnesses screaming bloody murder that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

3. Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

But here's the death knell to your nonsense that the plane came in low but then flew over the building instead of into it.... there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, mostly in rush hour traffic...

not one reported seeing the plane miss the Pentagon and fly over it instead. Not one. Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, in the face of all the reports it flew into it -- there would be many eyewitnesses screaming bloody murder that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

3. Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is more then [still ignoring all the physical evidence, all of the witnesses who disagree, and the lack of eyewitnesses supporting the...] North of the Citgo gas station.

Since you're so intent on editing my quotes, allow me to do the same...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there is nothing there to hang your hat on.

Worse for you is YOUR standard that witnesses who can't be questioned don't count. You're hypocritically relying on hearsay from people who can't be identified; while rejecting eyewitness accounts from those whose accounts reject your nonsense under the guise (as if it matters) that they didn't give names (even though "Barbara" could be).

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

That includes folks among the hundreds on the highways surrounding the Pentagon on all sides ... all of the eyewitnesses who stepped forward to publicly record their accounts ... people in nearby buildings who watched from an elevated position where they could see the roof of the Pentagon ... at least one person in a plane flying above and to the SW of the Pentagon, also with a clear view of the Pentagon's roof.

Not ONE.

You lose.

 

[candycorn]

But here's the death knell to your nonsense that the plane came in low but then flew over the building instead of into it.... there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, mostly in rush hour traffic...

not one reported seeing the plane miss the Pentagon and fly over it instead. Not one. Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, in the face of all the reports it flew into it -- there would be many eyewitnesses screaming bloody murder that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

3. Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t see sworn affidavits from Dihle. So CMH could have typed down whatever she/he wanted. No chain of custody=no evidence.
Sorry. Your standards for our evidence now ally to your standards.

 

[phoenyx]

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

Again -- no one said they saw that.

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

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

All you do is provide your circular logic that the evidence is fake because the plane approached from north of the Citco, and then to prove the plane approached from north of the Cito, you point to the evidence being fake.

I have certainly stated that if the plane approached the Pentagon from the North side of the Citgo gas station, the damage path on the south side of the Citgo gas station would be fake. I think you'd agree that this would be logical. I have also pointed out evidence which suggests that the damage south of the Citgo gas station is fake. This certainly bolsters the case of the witnesses CIT filmed that the plane took a flight path North of Columbia Pike beginning around the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo gas station as it got closer to the Pentagon. I've got to go, so I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

Your problem is you are not presenting evidence.

Clearly, we disagree on that point.

You are merely denying the validity of all of the actual known evidence.

I suppose I too could say that you're doing this, and we could go around and around with this. Personally, I find this type of thing a waste of time. I'd rather stick to looking at the evidence. Since the very word is being contested, I think we should define it. Here's google's definition:
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

It would, ofcourse, be great if we could agree on whether certain things are facts or not, but barring that, we can atleast examine the information we each bring to the table and discuss whether or not this information is true or not.

I've said it before and I'll say it again .... denials are not evidence.

If only you'd listen to yourself ...

Even worse for your position is that it's based solely on twisted circular logic.

Again, I could accuse you of doing this as well. I don't see the point in making such accusations, however. I'd rather continue to discuss the evidence...

...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.

 

[Faun]

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

Again -- no one said they saw that.

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

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

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

Erik Dihle's hearsay evidence is not verifiable according to your standard of proof.

There is no evidence proving the plane flew North of the Citgo.

None.

 

[Faun]

All you do is provide your circular logic that the evidence is fake because the plane approached from north of the Citco, and then to prove the plane approached from north of the Cito, you point to the evidence being fake.

I have certainly stated that if the plane approached the Pentagon from the North side of the Citgo gas station, the damage path on the south side of the Citgo gas station would be fake. I think you'd agree that this would be logical. I have also pointed out evidence which suggests that the damage south of the Citgo gas station is fake. This certainly bolsters the case of the witnesses CIT filmed that the plane took a flight path North of Columbia Pike beginning around the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo gas station as it got closer to the Pentagon. I've got to go, so I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

Your problem is you are not presenting evidence.

Clearly, we disagree on that point.

You are merely denying the validity of all of the actual known evidence.

I suppose I too could say that you're doing this, and we could go around and around with this. Personally, I find this type of thing a waste of time. I'd rather stick to looking at the evidence. Since the very word is being contested, I think we should define it. Here's google's definition:
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

It would, ofcourse, be great if we could agree on whether certain things are facts or not, but barring that, we can atleast examine the information we each bring to the table and discuss whether or not this information is true or not.

I've said it before and I'll say it again .... denials are not evidence.

If only you'd listen to yourself ...

Even worse for your position is that it's based solely on twisted circular logic.

Again, I could accuse you of doing this as well. I don't see the point in making such accusations, however. I'd rather continue to discuss the evidence...

...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 and because all of the physical evidence corroborates the south of the Citgo approach.

 

[phoenyx]

There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon.

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

Arguing that is getting you nowhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you need to do is prove your case.

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

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

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

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

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

the remains of the passengers and crew ...

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

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

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

two separate videos ...

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

a debris field consistent with a plane flying into a building

Dealt with here:

radar ... black boxes ...

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

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

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

Video that goes along with that text:

 

[phoenyx]

There are plenty of eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

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

Their explanations also amount to, nuh-uh.

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

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

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

They ultimately conclude the fireball was used to divert everyone's attention from the plane and to help conceal it as it began flying over the Pentagon.

Yeah.

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

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

In real life, the plane would have to reemerge after flying over the Pentagon.

Exactly.

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

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

And lastly, the notion that a bomb caused the damage is beyond ludicrous. Forget the shape of the damage on the front wall before it collapsed. The damage blew through 6 exterior walls (3 rings) of the Pentagon in a NE direction. Bombs don't do that.

A single bomb, no. Multiple bombs can certainly mimic directional damage. They did it badly and that's apparent to anyone who properly investigated the damage (unless you believe that the plane 'liquified' and selectively demolished pillars in its path).

Bombs blast indiscriminately in all directions.

You seem to be thinking it would be one big bomb. If enough smaller explosives were set up, it could be made to -look- like directional damage when in fact it was just a bunch of strategically placed explosives.

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

There was.

Instead, the debris field is consistent with a plane traveling at a high rate of speed plowing into the Pentagon.

Only if you believe in liquifying planes that leave little if any trace behind...

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

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

-- and we have downed lamp posts.

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

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

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

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

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

Even more so than the ones CIT dug up some 5-7 years later, some of whom were never on record to begin with.

And some who were...

Some were, some weren't.

Granted.

Some were like Lagasse, who added details in 2006 he didn't offer in 2001. Like the plane being on the north side of the Citco.

Perhaps because he wasn't -asked- for those details in 2001?

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

Ah, well then, problem solved! Oh wait, the plane -couldn't- have crashed into the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side of the Citgo gas station, because all the damage couldn't have been made coming from that angle. And oh yeah, he could have been fooled into -believing- the plane had hit the building, when it actually flew over it. It all coming back to you now? Here's a refresher, just in case:
Topic 5

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

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

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

That's not true.

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

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

There are zero eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Can you prove that Erik Dihle's coworkers weren't saying something along those lines?

I don't have to.

Never said you did. I was just asking if you could. You seem to be suggesting you can't.

Then for the sake of clarity -- I never denied Erik Dihle said that.

I never thought you had...

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

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

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

I had heard it was his co-workers elsewhere, perhaps from CIT. That being said, upon reviewing an audio clip of him mentioning his famous comment, I have noted that you are right. That being said, the beginning of his "jet kept on going" sentence suggests that his coworkers were the ones involved: "In the first few seconds, very confusing, we couldn't even tell... some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the jet kept on going". Note the "we". If not his coworkers, who do you think would fit into that description?

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

Not yet, no...

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

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

You don't know if he knows who said it -- he doesn't say.

True. But would you atleast agree with me that it's worth an official investigation on the matter?

No, I wouldn't agree with that. It's just stupid to launch an investigation over Dihle hearsay claim, which he himself dispels with more hearsay as he quotes another unknown individual who said a plane hit the Pentagon.

Yes. Did you note that there was -more then one- person who said that a bomb had gone off and only -1- person who said that a plane hit the building? Here's his exact words:
"some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going and somebody else was yelling, no no no, a jet ran into the building,"

Again -- there will be no more investigations.

How would you know? I think there will eventually be another official investigation, just as there was another investigation on Kennedy's assassination, but as to when, that I don't know.

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed on that count. But then, he doesn't even claim to have seen the plane approach the Pentagon at all. He does say something rather interesting -after- mentioning what these people thought they saw. To whit:
**
And um, and then as we’re all kind of talking the first few seconds, another plane is coming in, very steep, kind of dive bombing, right down just to this end of the, south end of the cemetery. I recognized it as being the 4 engine, overhead wing turbo prop plane, and we, and I even called in the radio, and I said, “This may, here comes another one!”, ‘cause we thought it was another terrorist jet or something, but what it turned out to be was, what I can tell, the final approach of this regular commuter plane that comes in, and he had to do a real steep bank and go off, veer to the north, to avoid hitting the jet, or avoid going through the fireball…”
**

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

You don't know what prompted whoever said that, to say that -- he doesn't say.

To be sure, but one can certainly -guess-. You know, maybe some of them actually saw an explosion at the Pentagon, followed by a jet that "kept on going".

I don't know about you -- but I'm not here to guess.

I'd say you do it all the time, laugh . But we can let this one go. Guesses certainly aren't evidence, merely something to try to make -sense- of the evidence.

You don't know if that's what he himself thought occurred -- he doesn't say.

I think his statement implies that at the beginning he, along with others, were confused as to what happened: "In the first few seconds, very confusing we couldn't even tell... some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the jet kept on going".

No doubt there was massive confusion. Especially for those inside who had no clue a plane was flown into the Pentagon. It's quite reasonable they suspected it was a bomb.

Certainly, it's reasonable if people didn't know the story that a jet had hit the building and weren't in a position to see a plane approaching, that would be reason enough to suspect it was a bomb. But the -second- part of what Erik Dihle's people said doesn't fit in with the narrative that the people he had in mind universally couldn't see the plane, simply because of what is said -after- say that "a bomb had hit the pentagon". Specifically: "and the jet kept on going"

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

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

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

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

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

​

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

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

Erik Dihle, ANC worker

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

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

Interestingly enough, while looking for that link, I found CIT's interview of Dihle...

It's years later, which like the problem with the other witnesses CIT interviewed years later, Dihle does not recall some of the events as he did in 2001, while the events were still fresh in his mind. For one thing, he doesn't even recall anyone saying it was a bomb and that a plane kept on going. In fact, he was rather emphatic that a plane did indeed fly into the Pentagon. That said, he did acknowledge he must have heard it if that was the account he gave at the time. So no, there's no possible way to identify whomever made that claim.

https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/

Sure there is. An official investigation could find people who he was likely to have talked to during that time.

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

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

 

[candycorn]

There are plenty of eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

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

Their explanations also amount to, nuh-uh.

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

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

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

They ultimately conclude the fireball was used to divert everyone's attention from the plane and to help conceal it as it began flying over the Pentagon.

Yeah.

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

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

In real life, the plane would have to reemerge after flying over the Pentagon.

Exactly.

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

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

And lastly, the notion that a bomb caused the damage is beyond ludicrous. Forget the shape of the damage on the front wall before it collapsed. The damage blew through 6 exterior walls (3 rings) of the Pentagon in a NE direction. Bombs don't do that.

A single bomb, no. Multiple bombs can certainly mimic directional damage. They did it badly and that's apparent to anyone who properly investigated the damage (unless you believe that the plane 'liquified' and selectively demolished pillars in its path).

Bombs blast indiscriminately in all directions.

You seem to be thinking it would be one big bomb. If enough smaller explosives were set up, it could be made to -look- like directional damage when in fact it was just a bunch of strategically placed explosives.

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

There was.

Instead, the debris field is consistent with a plane traveling at a high rate of speed plowing into the Pentagon.

Only if you believe in liquifying planes that leave little if any trace behind...

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

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

-- and we have downed lamp posts.

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

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

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

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

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

Even more so than the ones CIT dug up some 5-7 years later, some of whom were never on record to begin with.

And some who were...

Some were, some weren't.

Granted.

Some were like Lagasse, who added details in 2006 he didn't offer in 2001. Like the plane being on the north side of the Citco.

Perhaps because he wasn't -asked- for those details in 2001?

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

Ah, well then, problem solved! Oh wait, the plane -couldn't- have crashed into the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side of the Citgo gas station, because all the damage couldn't have been made coming from that angle. And oh yeah, he could have been fooled into -believing- the plane had hit the building, when it actually flew over it. It all coming back to you now? Here's a refresher, just in case:
Topic 5

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

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

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

That's not true.

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

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

There are zero eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Can you prove that Erik Dihle's coworkers weren't saying something along those lines?

I don't have to.

Never said you did. I was just asking if you could. You seem to be suggesting you can't.

Then for the sake of clarity -- I never denied Erik Dihle said that.

I never thought you had...

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

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

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

I had heard it was his co-workers elsewhere, perhaps from CIT. That being said, upon reviewing an audio clip of him mentioning his famous comment, I have noted that you are right. That being said, the beginning of his "jet kept on going" sentence suggests that his coworkers were the ones involved: "In the first few seconds, very confusing, we couldn't even tell... some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the jet kept on going". Note the "we". If not his coworkers, who do you think would fit into that description?

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

Not yet, no...

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

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

You don't know if he knows who said it -- he doesn't say.

True. But would you atleast agree with me that it's worth an official investigation on the matter?

No, I wouldn't agree with that. It's just stupid to launch an investigation over Dihle hearsay claim, which he himself dispels with more hearsay as he quotes another unknown individual who said a plane hit the Pentagon.

Yes. Did you note that there was -more then one- person who said that a bomb had gone off and only -1- person who said that a plane hit the building? Here's his exact words:
"some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going and somebody else was yelling, no no no, a jet ran into the building,"

Again -- there will be no more investigations.

How would you know? I think there will eventually be another official investigation, just as there was another investigation on Kennedy's assassination, but as to when, that I don't know.

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed on that count. But then, he doesn't even claim to have seen the plane approach the Pentagon at all. He does say something rather interesting -after- mentioning what these people thought they saw. To whit:
**
And um, and then as we’re all kind of talking the first few seconds, another plane is coming in, very steep, kind of dive bombing, right down just to this end of the, south end of the cemetery. I recognized it as being the 4 engine, overhead wing turbo prop plane, and we, and I even called in the radio, and I said, “This may, here comes another one!”, ‘cause we thought it was another terrorist jet or something, but what it turned out to be was, what I can tell, the final approach of this regular commuter plane that comes in, and he had to do a real steep bank and go off, veer to the north, to avoid hitting the jet, or avoid going through the fireball…”
**

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

You don't know what prompted whoever said that, to say that -- he doesn't say.

To be sure, but one can certainly -guess-. You know, maybe some of them actually saw an explosion at the Pentagon, followed by a jet that "kept on going".

I don't know about you -- but I'm not here to guess.

I'd say you do it all the time, laugh . But we can let this one go. Guesses certainly aren't evidence, merely something to try to make -sense- of the evidence.

You don't know if that's what he himself thought occurred -- he doesn't say.

I think his statement implies that at the beginning he, along with others, were confused as to what happened: "In the first few seconds, very confusing we couldn't even tell... some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the jet kept on going".

No doubt there was massive confusion. Especially for those inside who had no clue a plane was flown into the Pentagon. It's quite reasonable they suspected it was a bomb.

Certainly, it's reasonable if people didn't know the story that a jet had hit the building and weren't in a position to see a plane approaching, that would be reason enough to suspect it was a bomb. But the -second- part of what Erik Dihle's people said doesn't fit in with the narrative that the people he had in mind universally couldn't see the plane, simply because of what is said -after- say that "a bomb had hit the pentagon". Specifically: "and the jet kept on going"

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

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

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

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

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

​

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

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

Erik Dihle, ANC worker

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

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

Interestingly enough, while looking for that link, I found CIT's interview of Dihle...

It's years later, which like the problem with the other witnesses CIT interviewed years later, Dihle does not recall some of the events as he did in 2001, while the events were still fresh in his mind. For one thing, he doesn't even recall anyone saying it was a bomb and that a plane kept on going. In fact, he was rather emphatic that a plane did indeed fly into the Pentagon. That said, he did acknowledge he must have heard it if that was the account he gave at the time. So no, there's no possible way to identify whomever made that claim.

Sure there is. An official investigation could find people who he was likely to have talked to during that time.

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

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

Sorry none of the wall of text is admissible without signed notarized affidavits. CIT, in my view, is just making stuff up.

 

[Faun]

There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon.

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

Arguing that is getting you nowhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you need to do is prove your case.

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

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

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

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

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

the remains of the passengers and crew ...

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

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

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

two separate videos ...

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

a debris field consistent with a plane flying into a building

Dealt with here:

radar ... black boxes ...

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

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

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

Video that goes along with that text:

Great, nothing but more unprovable denials.

This us going nowhere because you're not posting proof. Casting doubt on the known evidence is not proof.

Posting you don't think there were enough remains of AA77 does not prove the plane parts found were planted. Posting they don't look like they came from a 757 doesn't prove it.

Same holds true for all the other doubt you seek to inject.

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

Because you have no evidence.

 

[phoenyx]

Now let's compare that to the evidence the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon...

• radar indicates flight #77 stopped at the Pentagon
• a plane could not survive flying through that fireball
• neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon

All responded to in post #569 as well...

Responding to those points is not refuting them.

That depends on the response. I suggest we focus on our responses to each other, rather then whether or not our points are refuting each other...

I've already made my case that the physical evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon is flimsy in the extreme and that there's evidence that makes it impossible. I know you don't agree, I believe we discuss the evidence further down in your post here...

You've made a weak case based on doubt and denial, You've not disproven any of the physical evidence; of which, you have none yourself indicating you are right.

We disagree on what constitutes strong evidence. You don't believe that the many witnesses that corroborate a North of Citgo flight path constitute strong evidence, I do. You believe that the damage at the Pentagon is strong evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon, I don't, and have explained why.

What have you ever proven to -me- or anyone else who doesn't believe the official story? Don't get cocky. Proving things is not as easy as you would have us believe.

Again ... prove it, don't talk about it.

I could ask you to do the same. Unlike you, however, I'm more realistic. I sincerely doubt that you'll ever prove much if anything to me. I'm not expecting you to. I'd just like to try to show you why I believe what I believe, and hopefully atleast get you to consider whether atleast some of your views regarding the pentaplane may be mistaken.

If you can't, then we're done.

I can't tell you if I will ever be able to "prove" anything to you. Are you sure if you will ever "prove" anything to me? I wish you'd quit thinking in such black and white terms. Arguments of this n ature are seldom won in such a definitive way.

First of all, you're -assuming- that what dropped off the radar at around the point that a plane approached the Pentagon was in fact AA77. Secondly, planes drop off the radar when they fly fairly close to the ground, and the aircraft approaching the Pentagon was certainly doing that.

It's not an assumption. That blip on the radar was followed from the moment it entered that radar and it followed the loop we know flight #77 took before reaching the Pentagon.

From everything I've seen, it is, in fact, an assumption. As I mentioned in post #598 in the "plane or cruise missile" thread:
**
This is what the 9/11 Commission Report stated:
“At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft. American Airlines dispatchers also tried, without success.54”

Source: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The thing is, if they weren’t even getting a primary radar contact, it suggests that plane has gone too low to be seen by radar at all. Perhaps it landed somewhere.

It continues, stating “At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed”. Based on radar data alone, there was no way to determine that this was Flight 77, which was last tracked going southbound, and considerably west from this newly found primary target. The report then adds “ This was later determined to have been Flight 77”, but it doesn’t state who determined that conclusion, or what evidence, if any, that this conclusion was based on.**

And yes, I've read your response to this in post #602. You dismissed it as "supposition", and that the "evidence shows it was flight #77 that crashed into the Pentagon". The fact of the matter, however, is that at 8:56, Flight 77 disappeared from both the transponder -and- primary radar. There has never been any solid evidence that the radar blip that appeared 38 minutes later and headed in the opposite direction was the same aircraft.

Flight 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on September 11th...
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77 NEVER LEFT THE GROUND ON 9/11

Unfortunately, none of the links on that site work. I can't corroborate anything on that page.

I know. I believe I first saw it when it was still on the web instead of its current location in a web archival site, and the links did work back then if memory serves. If not for that, I wouldn't even be able to bring up the page. I hope I have at least "injected some doubt" in to your version of events, though. Let's finish this off with the conclusion on that web page:
**There were 64 people reported to be on board American Airlines Flight 0077. They are all dead. The exclusion of Flight 0077 from the US Government's Bureau of Transportation Statistics database is either;

* an administration error or oversight or;
* due to Flight 0077 not being actually scheduled to fly at all on the morning of September 11th 2001.

If it emerges that it is the former, then a simple amendment of the database is all that's called for. If it turns out to be the latter, how exactly did the listed crew and passengers die?**

Phil Jayhan, who I believe is the founder of "Let's Roll Forums", has gone into a lengthy plausible theory as to what happened to all the passengers of the 4 "9/11" Flights here:
http://letsrollforums.com/happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

Unfortunately for you [insult removed], the physical evidence proves that is nonsense. Human remains of the passengers and crew were found in the Pentagon.

There is no solid evidence this was the case. The government reports that they were able to identify the DNA of passengers there, even though the plane was said to have dissolved into a liquid like state. It's akin to the fireproof passport allegedly found at the World Trade Center, only it's like they found hundreds of them -.-. CIT explains why this evidence is highly suspect here:
Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon

Personal belongings to the passengers was found.

Same issues as the DNA.

If you have solid proof there wasn't, then post it. But don't waste any more of my time with doubt...

You don't like doubts, do you? Wish you could banish them all to some far distant land? I never said I could prove anything to you. But one thing should become increasingly clear to you- the official story can't prove anything either. And the closer you investigate it, the more you may find just how little substantial evidence there is to it.

...suggests that if a plane were to have crashed into the Pentagon, it would have crashed from a flight path that was south of the Citgo gas station. Unfortunately for you, many witnesses, including Sergeant Brooks and Lagasse are certain that it came from -North- of the Citgo gas station. They were also the only witnesses who were actually -at- the Citgo gas station. If anyone would know whether the plane came from the South side or the North side of the Citgo gas station it would be them. Go on, have a listen to just how certain Lagasse is right here:

There are more eyewitnesses who said the plane came up Columbia Pike or 395 than said it flew north of the Citco.

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; 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.

Lagasse is quite confused. He draws where lamp posts were down where they weren't down.

As mentioned elsewhere, he only does that when faced with the fact that the official story has the plane knocking down lamp posts. He was surely experiencing cognitive dissonance at the time and was trying to line up what he saw with the official story. But as mentioned previously, before he was made aware of knocked down lamp posts being integral to the official story, he had said that he was not in a position to see if any lamp posts had been knocked down.

It matters not when he realized his bearings were off. What matters is that they were off. He saw the poles on the ground when he went to help.

Where did you hear this? And could you be a bit more specific about this "bearings were off" statement? You're not suggesting that Lagasse wasn't at the Citgo gas station at the time of the event, are you?

He knew where they were in relation to the crash site.

He clearly stated in the interview with CIT that the light poles that were knocked down were -not- knocked down. Clearly, he wasn't aware of where the downed light poles were at the time of his interview with CIT.

They weren't where he recalled. And the light poles where he later recalled the flight traveling were not touched (because no plane flew from that direction).

Or the pentaplane simply didn't hit any light poles...

His bearings are clearly off. And he's recalling where he was standing some 5 years earlier.

He actually got where he was standing slightly messed up by a few feet, but it was easily corrected, since there was camera footage from the Citgo security cameras showing exactly where he was at the time of the event.

Yeah, I saw that video. I'm not sure which car is his ... can you point it out?

I'd do better than that. This article points his car out, as well as Lagasse himself, and a lot more to boot:
Pentagon Plane Approach Captured on Video: CITGO Security Camera Captures “Smoking Shadow”

Again, all you are doing is relying on some eyewitnesses who support your flyover nonsense while ignoring all those who don't.

To the contrary, I have addressed all of the eye witnesses that you have brought up that had a first and a last name, and was able to do so because CIT had done it before me. By and large, I have found that the witnesses that you have brought up were not nearly in as good a position to see what truly happened as the witnesses that CIT has interviewed.

Again, you've injected doubt...

Fine, I've "injected doubt", as you say...

Many eyewitnesses recalled event somewhat different from other eyewitnesses. That's why the physical evidence is needed to determine which witnesses' recollections are more accurate.

Unfortunately, no physical evidence is left behind when a plane flies through the sky. That being said, the planted physical evidence also makes it clear that none of the various official stories concerning the Pentagon attack can be true.

I don't believe it could have happened the way you described,

Pardon me if I'm not surprised ...

And those are just the witnesses who provided their recollection minutes/hours after the crash, not 5-6 years later as in the video you posted.

Are you suggesting that someone would forget whether a jet that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon had passed right over his head? That it was in fact way south of his position?

I'm suggesting their recollection years later does not refute those from the very day it occurred. Even if the plane flew right over his head, he might not be recalling exactly where he actually stood on 9.11.

The Citgo security camera makes it clear that Lagasse was at the Citgo gas station. And you heard how certain he was as to whether the plane passed North or South of the Citgo gas station (for those in the audience who haven't reviewed Citgo's interview with Sergeant Lagasse and Sergeant Brooks, their response was "100%")

And there are other witnesses who were just as adamant about what they saw. They clearly can't all be correct.

I think CIT has made it very clear how witnesses could have been fooled into believing that the pentaplane crashed into the Pentagon even though it didn't. It's not so easy to have people see a plane on a flight path that it never took.

 

[Faun]

There are plenty of eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

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

Their explanations also amount to, nuh-uh.

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

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

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

Dilhe's hearsay is inadmissible according to your own stated standards. You are a hypocrite for continuing to cite him.

They ultimately conclude the fireball was used to divert everyone's attention from the plane and to help conceal it as it began flying over the Pentagon.

Yeah.

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

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

You're still ignoring all of the eyewitnesses who weren't directly lined up behind the fireball. You're ignoring all of the eyewitnesses who watched from an elevated position and who could clearly see the roof. You're ignoring the Doubletree video which caught the explosion from the back side and did not capture a plane flying over. You're ignoring the pilot of the C-130 who had a bird's eye view of the roof of the Pentagon and he did not see a plane fly over the Pentagon.

There couldn't be less evidence of a fly over because there's nothing less than nothing.

In real life, the plane would have to reemerge after flying over the Pentagon.

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

No one.

You're promoting a delusion.

And lastly, the notion that a bomb caused the damage is beyond ludicrous. Forget the shape of the damage on the front wall before it collapsed. The damage blew through 6 exterior walls (3 rings) of the Pentagon in a NE direction. Bombs don't do that.

A single bomb, no. Multiple bombs can certainly mimic directional damage. They did it badly and that's apparent to anyone who properly investigated the damage (unless you believe that the plane 'liquified' and selectively demolished pillars in its path).

Bombs blast indiscriminately in all directions.

You seem to be thinking it would be one big bomb. If enough smaller explosives were set up, it could be made to -look- like directional damage when in fact it was just a bunch of strategically placed explosives.

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

There was.[/quote]
There were no bombs. There is no evidence of bombs. There is evidence there were no bombs. You're still spouting delusions as though they're reality with zero evidence and nothing but your own opinion. Bombs blow up indiscriminately, not directionally. Even planting multiple bombs, while you can create a field of damage, you can't reproduce the directional damage caused by a 757 traveling at some 400-450 MPH.

Instead, the debris field is consistent with a plane traveling at a high rate of speed plowing into the Pentagon.

Only if you believe in liquifying planes that leave little if any trace behind...

Since up until that point, no one's ever seen a 757 fly at near full speed into a building like the Pentagon, the reality which eludes you, is that no one knows exactly what it should look like. Claiming that it doesn't look authentic to you is laughable against the backdrop of all the supporting evidence.

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

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

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

-- and we have downed lamp posts.

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

Those are not plausible theories. They are only unsupported conjecture with no proof to lend them credibility.

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

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

More unsupported conjecture with no proof to lend them credibility.

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

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

Again......

There are witnesses who said it went north of the Citgo while others said it went south. The physical evidence determined which witnesses more accurately recalled the location.

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

Ah, well then, problem solved! Oh wait, the plane -couldn't- have crashed into the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side of the Citgo gas station, because all the damage couldn't have been made coming from that angle. And oh yeah, he could have been fooled into -believing- the plane had hit the building, when it actually flew over it. It all coming back to you now? Here's a refresher, just in case:
Topic 5

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



Thanks for that tacit concession!

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

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

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

That's not true.

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

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

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

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

LIE -- At least one didn't.

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

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

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

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

I had heard it was his co-workers elsewhere, perhaps from CIT. That being said, upon reviewing an audio clip of him mentioning his famous comment, I have noted that you are right. That being said, the beginning of his "jet kept on going" sentence suggests that his coworkers were the ones involved: "In the first few seconds, very confusing, we couldn't even tell... some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the jet kept on going". Note the "we". If not his coworkers, who do you think would fit into that description?

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

Not yet, no...

Not yet???

Not ever.

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

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

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

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

You don't know if he knows who said it -- he doesn't say.

True. But would you atleast agree with me that it's worth an official investigation on the matter?

No, I wouldn't agree with that. It's just stupid to launch an investigation over Dihle hearsay claim, which he himself dispels with more hearsay as he quotes another unknown individual who said a plane hit the Pentagon.

Yes. Did you note that there was -more then one- person who said that a bomb had gone off and only -1- person who said that a plane hit the building? Here's his exact words:
"some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going and somebody else was yelling, no no no, a jet ran into the building,"

Of course I noted that -- I also posted that entire quote.

And again...... no one knows who said that. No one knows what prompted them to say that. No one knows what the actually saw versus what they may have simply heard themselves and repeated.

There will never be an investigation into that when no one can identify who said that. Nor should there be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed on that count. But then, he doesn't even claim to have seen the plane approach the Pentagon at all. He does say something rather interesting -after- mentioning what these people thought they saw. To whit:
**
And um, and then as we’re all kind of talking the first few seconds, another plane is coming in, very steep, kind of dive bombing, right down just to this end of the, south end of the cemetery. I recognized it as being the 4 engine, overhead wing turbo prop plane, and we, and I even called in the radio, and I said, “This may, here comes another one!”, ‘cause we thought it was another terrorist jet or something, but what it turned out to be was, what I can tell, the final approach of this regular commuter plane that comes in, and he had to do a real steep bank and go off, veer to the north, to avoid hitting the jet, or avoid going through the fireball…”
**

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

I believe you're mistaken about that. If I'm not mistaken, Dihle was inside the Pentagon when the plane flew into it. And CIT is batshit insane to deny there was a C-130 in the vicinity. There is solid evidence it was following flight #77.

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

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

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

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

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

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

​

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

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

Erik Dihle, ANC worker

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

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

That's just a bullshit answer and anyone seeking the truth would never promote such an idiocy as defending a source which hides the truth; under the guise they're hiding it from their audience to not bog them down with pesky details.

Hopefully, this will give you pause to understand why rational people euphemistically refer to you jokers as "truthers." You're not seeking the truth. You're seeking to find corroboration of your hallucinations. Your quote above is a perfect example of that.

I've twice now shown you square up how Truth and Shadows lied -- and you not only accept their lies ... you defend why they lie.

Interestingly enough, while looking for that link, I found CIT's interview of Dihle...

It's years later, which like the problem with the other witnesses CIT interviewed years later, Dihle does not recall some of the events as he did in 2001, while the events were still fresh in his mind. For one thing, he doesn't even recall anyone saying it was a bomb and that a plane kept on going. In fact, he was rather emphatic that a plane did indeed fly into the Pentagon. That said, he did acknowledge he must have heard it if that was the account he gave at the time. So no, there's no possible way to identify whomever made that claim.

Sure there is. An official investigation could find people who he was likely to have talked to during that time.

You make it difficult not to call you crazy with nonsense like that. While I understand your desperation for further investigations, it's crazy talk to say one is warranted to find out who Dihle heard when he doesn't remember anyone saying that.

How do you perceive such an investigation might proceed...?

Q: What did you hear others say about a bomb?

Dihle: I don't recall anyone saying anything about a bomb.

Q: What did you hear others say about a jet kept going?

Dihle: I don't recall anyone saying anything about a jet that kept on going.

Q: Who said a bomb went off?

Dihle: I don't remember anyone saying that.

Q: Who said a jet kept on going?

Dihle: I don't remember anyone saying that.

</investigation>​

... there .... I just saved millions of dollars in an investigation showing why there's no purpose in having one over Dihle's valueless hearsay testimony.

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

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

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

PROVE the radar data was faked.

Shit or git off the pot.