9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[phoenyx]

The 9/11 Commission (I assume that's where the radar comes from) has the plane flying south of the citgo gas station, but it still doesn't align with the damage path, missing some or all of the light poles, as well as the generator at the Pentagon. The alleged Black Box from the Pentaplane has the plane coming from the North side of the Citgo gas station. So which "official story" do you prefer? The physical "evidence", the NTSB black box, or the 9/11 Commission's? And you still haven't even addressed the point made by CIT above concerning the DNA's chain of custody.

Again, the data from the FDR was initially not entirely decoded. Once it was, it too showed an approach south of the Citco.

First of all, a question: do you know where the 9/11 Commission got its data? I don't profess to know the answer myself. Secondly, are you saying that at this point in time, the NTSB data, the 9/11 commission Report's flight path and the damage now all align? Thirdly, where are you getting this bit about the FDR data showing a south of Citgo approach?

And yes, I did address the DNA. I pointed out that it's not invalidated because CIT says it's not.

Ofcourse not. Someone saying something is true or untrue certainly doesn't make it so by default, even if that someone is an official government source that you are apparently so fond of. The -reason- the DNA evidence is highly suspect is because (and I quote, with a slight modification for you):
**These "DNA reports" are [highly suspect evidence] that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building.**

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

Even worse, they cite the north side approach and flyover as though that invalidates it

I'm sure you'd agree that if the North side approach actually happened, it would invalidate the DNA results by default. I know you don't believe in the North side approach, but for those of us that -do-, it's just one more piece of evidence against the alleged DNA evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building? | Citizen Investigation Team

Even CIT shows pictures of AA77 debris found at the crash site.

No, they show pictures of debris which the official narrative -alleges- came from Flight 77.

All of the plane debris found is consistent with an American Airlines 757

None of the plane debris has been authenticated as coming from a 757, let alone Flight 77.

Not true... the bodies recovered came from flight #77.

What evidence do you have that any of the bodies that were recovered came from Flight 77? You don't even have solid evidence that Flight 77 -approached- the Pentagon.

On top of that, much of the plane parts recovered matched that of either an American Airlines plane or a 757.

Not at all, as CIT makes clear in the following article:
Source: Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

, which is what the plurality of witnesses claimed they saw that morning.

Where did you come to that conclusion? CIT examined all the witness testimonies they could find and found that only 25 witnesses allegedly identified the plane as an American Airlines plane. Of those, one of them (James Bissell) later stated that the published version account was “almost completely fiction” by the reporter and specifically said "I found it remarkable that someone even saw what airline it was from", implying that he himself could not tell. See here) CIT was only able to contact 6 of the others to confirm their account. This suggests that there may be others among the list whose accounts were similarly distorted by reporters.

Meanwhile, 59 witnesses did not identify the plane as an American Airlines plane.

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

By "plurality," I mean that was the most common answer; not that it was the majority answer. If 59 witnesses did not identify the plane as an American Airlines plane, most of them identified it as something else. Some thought it was a white plane, some the a commuter jet, etc... but a plurality described it as American Airlines.

Seeing as how the official story posited that it was an American Airlines jet, it's hardly surprising. Furthermore, in atleast on case, a reporter took liberties with what a witness said, adding that the witness identified it as a 757, something which the witness later denied. Who knows how many other witnesses had words put into their mouths?

That they feel it's insufficient is meaningless. That any recognizable debris was found, along with all the other evidence and eyewitness accounts, proves flight #77 flew into the Pentagon.

Sorry, but just because debris is "recognizable" as debris doesn't mean it came from Flight #77.

Regrettably for you, you have no proof any of it was planted.

I never said I did. I said (and I quote): “just because debris is "recognizable" as debris doesn't mean it came from Flight #77.”

I believe you earlier suggested it could have been planted.

I may have. I note your phrase "could have been", which makes it plausible that I said this at some point. I'm sure you're aware that I've never told you I could prove anything to you.

Regardless.... the bodies recovered were matched with the known passengers and crew of flight #77.

Show me evidence that any of the bodies recovered were matched with those who allegedly died on Flight 77. All I've seen is the claim that DNA found at the crash site was matched up to passengers who allegedly died on said flight.

Also both black boxes of flight #77 were recovered.

-Allegedly- recovered. There is no hard evidence that the black boxes were recovered at the Pentagon, let alone that they came from Flight 77...

 

[candycorn]

As I pointed out a month ago, phoenix is just going to squeal like a little bitch that any contrary evidence to his fantasy is made up. And what has happened in the ensuing month? The little bitch is has done just that. Time to send him off to never-never land. Ignore <plink>!

 

[SAYIT]

As I pointed out a month ago, phoenix is just going to squeal like a little bitch that any contrary evidence to his fantasy is made up. And what has happened in the ensuing month? The little bitch is has done just that. Time to send him off to never-never land. Ignore <plink>!

Over the past 15 years I've seen enough of these 9/11 CT threads - here and on other forums - to know the following:

1) The "facts" and "evidence" 9/11 CTs offer is a mix of half-truths, speculation, self-serving assumptions, mis or disinformation, Photo-Shopped or cropped pix and more often than not, an unshakable certainty that "the Joooo did it!"

2) That despite the dearth of anything new of significance in the past decade, there always seems to be 1 more straggler who doesn't know their movement died a whimpering death years ago and firmly believes he (or she) is a brave, Internet-trained warrior continuing some valiant crusade against all odds.

3) That having all their theories (No Planes, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, etc.) slashed, trashed and smashed and their rationality (and even sanity) justifiably questioned not only strengthens their resolve and commitment to their cause, it convinces them that they must be right and their tormentors are "paid gov't shills."

 

[Skylar]

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



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


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




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



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

Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother? The plane was there, they clearly had no problem crashing the planes into buildings. So why go through all the pointless layers of elaboration? You create enormous complications for yourself in exchange for......nothing.

 

[candycorn]

Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother? The plane was there, they clearly had no problem crashing the planes into buildings. So why go through all the pointless layers of elaboration? You create enormous complications for yourself in exchange for......nothing.

Only theories that satisfy all of the physical evidence are worth consideration. The idiotic flyover theory doesn't come close to doing anything except proving the theorists are brain damaged.

 

[Skylar]

Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother? The plane was there, they clearly had no problem crashing the planes into buildings. So why go through all the pointless layers of elaboration? You create enormous complications for yourself in exchange for......nothing.

Only theories that satisfy all of the physical evidence are worth consideration. The idiotic flyover theory doesn't come close to doing anything except proving the theorists are brain damaged.

I agree. It creates enormous complications. You have to get rid of the plane. You have to get rid of the folks in the plane. You have to falsify flight records, fake testimony by the hundreds, fake DNA tests and autopsies by the dozens, plant parts and skin from the plane consistent with the plane while people are filming, make the news crews comply with the conspiracy, and cojole hundreds of impromptu co-conspirators.

And maintain the secret perfectly for 15 years and counting.

Or.......simply crash the plane. And get the same results without any of the ludicrously elaborate, spectacularly complicated conspiracy. Occam's Razor tears the 'fly over theory' to tatters. As its simply added pointless elaboration.....in exchange for nothing.

And of course, the fly over theory simply ignore any physical evidence that contradicts it. For example, the engine parts found in the Pentagon being consistent with the exact model used by American Airlines in flight 77. Not just the same model plane, but the exact variant of the plane that was customized for American Airlines.

Or the bodies found inside the Pentagon matching the crew and passengers from Flight 77.

Or the skin from an American Airlines jet found scattered across the area immediately around the impact site.

These are profound, extraordinarily relevant pieces of physical evidence that the fly over theory summarily ignores. Demonstrating that the conspiracy is not only uselessly complicated, not only shredded by Occam's Razor, not only utterly pointless...its inconsistent with the physical evidence.

 

[phoenyx]

Which doesn't concord with the 9/11 commission report flight data, or the damage path data...

Not exactly. The path you refer to was based on the incomplete decoding of flight recorder data which did not include the final seconds of the doomed flight's approach. When the entire FDR was analyzed, it matched the known path from south of the Citco.

The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path

CIT wrote a detailed response to that article a while ago:
CIT's Response to David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Pentagon Statement

What they claim is that Pilots for 9/11 Truth also examined the complete data from the FDR and reached a different conclusion. Their "evidence" amounted to citing someone claiming Legge and Stutt were wrong on a forum such as this one. Unfortunately, not a very compelling argument against the data that was newly analyzed.

Their rebuttal, which has a lot of text from Frank and Legge’s article, is over 22,000 words long. Your “summary” is disappointing, to put it mildly.

Sorry to disappoint.

It's not the end of the world. We can always revisit it at some later point in time.

Also, I note, you didn't even address the conspiracy killing point that flight #77's black boxes were recovered. Not possible had flight #77 not crashed into the Pentagon.

When did I say that I believed the black box data actually came from Flight 77? Do you even know who allegedly found it?

Re-read for clarity. I didn't say you did. I said they were found at the crash site.

You said it was “conspiracy killing”. How can that be, when we have no information as to the chain of custody of that black box data?

As always, denials do not dismiss evidence.

Indeed. Let me know if you ever find the chain of custody for the black box.

Pray tell what you have heard of flight 77's voice recorder. According to Wikipedia:
**The cockpit voice recorder was too badly damaged and charred to retrieve any information,[76]**

Source: American Airlines Flight 77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't say data from it was recovered. I said the recorder was recovered.

A recorder was allegedly recovered from the Pentagon. It was alleged to be the recorder used in an American Airlines jet whose registration number was N644AA and which allegedly flew as Flight 77 on September 11, 2001. There is evidence that Flight 77 never took off on September 11, however:
**So according to this information Flights AA 11 and AA 77 were scheduled on September 11. One might wonder, however, why there are no tail numbers for the scheduled flights. If planes were assigned to those flights then the tail numbers would be known in advance of September 11, but the tail numbers are listed as "unknown". And if those flights actually occurred, why are the entries for actual departure time given as "0:00"?**

Source: Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 Did Not Exist on September 11, 2001

How does the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77 turn up in the wreckage if it didn't crash there?

Again, who, precisely, found it? Perhaps you trust the government implicitly, but I sure don't.

Who you trust or don't trust is irrelevant.

You’re sadly mistaken there. And it isn’t just who -I- trust that’s the issue here, it’s also who -you- trust. Can you prove that Flight 77’s voice recorder was found at the Pentagon shortly after the explosion there, and can you also prove that it wasn’t planted there?

If the black boxes were found at the crash site were the only evidence, I could see your point. But given they are merely one piece among a plethora of evidence, I see no reason not to believe they were planted there.

I've addressed your entire "plethora", pointing out how each individual piece could be falsified.

And it goes without saying, though I'll say it anyway -- you have NO evidence they were planted.

Would you agree that it goes without saying that you have no evidence they were -not- planted?

Like every other aspect of this, you have no evidence to prove your hollow claims.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Certainly wasn't a 757...

Great, now you're [unsubstantiated claim removed]. It's not possible to determine what kind of aircraft is in those videos.

Based on the video I referenced, it would seem that while we may not be able to determine what the aircraft was, we can determine what it -wasn't-; that is, it wasn't a 757.

I would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn't alter my quotes. That's rather dishonest of you to do so.

I’m altering your quotes for only 2 reasons- 1, to correct your spelling errors, and 2, to avoid this turning into a mudslinging contest. When I do remove insults and unsubstantiated claims against me, I make it clear that that’s what I’m doing.

I don't give [insulting word removed] what your [reasons] are -- don't alter my quotes.

Here's the deal: don't insult me or use base language and I won't remove those words from your quotes. If you don't like it, go find someone else to insult.

If you don't like what I have to say, then don't respond to my posts.

The reason I respond to your posts is because I think you bring up a lot of good points, points that I think should be addressed. I could do without the insults, however.

And you quoting Truth & Shadows after I caught them flat out lying about the size of the impact hole you posted earlier, which I refuted in post 450, only serves to hurt your cause.

Craig Mckee may have been tired that day and put in the wrong picture. It doesn’t mean he was “lying”.

Has he been "tired" all these years he let that page remain a lie?

Someone making a mistake is not the same thing as someone lying about something. He may have simply not noticed the mistake. Have you written him to point it out?

Was he "tired" when posted only half of Erik Dihle's quote where he says he heard someone say it was a bomb and a jet kept on going; but didn't include the second half of that quote where he says someone else denied that and said it was a plane that hit the building?

I don't see that it's all that relevant. This 'someone' certainly wouldn't be the only one making that assertion, what I found interesting is that he was apparently in an argument with a group of people who believed that the jet kept on going after reaching the Pentagon. Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job, there would naturally be shills who would lie about what actually happened, and there would be no better time to do that then when what happened was still up for debate among the witnesses themselves.

Certainly don't agree with that...

So another person who thinks a 757 didn't cause the damage?

Another person who shows a lot of evidence that the aircraft approaching the Pentagon didn't crash into it...

They do no such thing. They offer no evidence.

We’ll just have to disagree on that.

Why disagree?

Because I don't agree with you, laugh .

List the evidence they offer....

Faun, let's not get into semantics. You know what -I- consider to be evidence. We clearly disagree on what should be considered evidence. So let's just continue discussing why we disagree with each other.

In that video, their claim that the events did not occur as we know they did because some witnesses reported the plane being smaller than a 757. In some cases, a small commuter flight. But since it's a given that if a hundred witnesses offer their account, there will likely be discrepancies among them. The producer of that video idiotically suggests 9.11 didn't happen as we know it because not all witnesses agree on what they saw.

As mentioned previously, there are more than twice as many witnesses who did -not- report the plane as being an American Airlines jet as there who did. Also, are you -sure- that’s all the video mentions? I remember a -lot- more points the video makes myself …

I'm not interested in "points."

Yes, you're only interested in what -you- consider to be evidence. Fortunately, you atleast have the decency to address the points that -I- consider to be evidence. Let's just continue to do that and stop getting bogged down in these meta debates.

I'm interested in proof.

I like proof too. But as I've mentioned to you before, I hold little hope that I will be able to "prove" anything to you. Are you optimistic that you will prove things to me?

Prove your case if you can. Don't expect people to believe you if you can't.

I'm not. You would do well to do the same.

How many of those witnesses were in a position that would have made that easy to see, especially considering the fact that a strong explosion went off at around the same time, possibly while the plane was flying over the Pentagon? And even while no one said that the words "I saw a plane fly over the Pentagon", Erik Dihle's testimony that "some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going" is pretty close.

Source:

There were at least hundreds of witnesses. Aside from all the people working/living in the area, the Pentagon is surrounded on all sides by highways.

CIT has put a lot of effort into finding all of the witnesses that had first and last names attached to their testimony. They found a total of 104, which can be seen here:

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

If you can find more, by all means, present them. The bottom line, though, is the excellent work they did with some of the witnesses that had the best vantage point to witness the plane's final approach to the Pentagon, which can be seen in documentaries it has made, such as National Security Alert.

There are more,

The kind that don’t have last names, or any names at all ?

Pretty funny since you rely so heavily on Erik Dihle's nameless witnesses.

I do nothing of the sort. There is a lot more evidence besides Erik Dihle's testimony that "some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going". There is Lagasse and Brooks, Darryl Stafford and the rest of the witnesses at Arlington Cemetery, as well as the brilliant work done by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others.

Your hypocrisy aside, the Pentagon was encircled by traffic. There were witnesses on all sides. Many of whom would have seen a plane appearing from over the Pentagon had one flown over it. There were witnesses in nearby buildings; some of whom were at an elevated position where they could see the entire roof of the Pentagon.......

Not ONE witness has ever claimed they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Not one.

Whereas many have claimed they saw a plane fly into the Pentagon.

To quote Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Prove to me that no one has ever claimed they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. And while you're at it, prove that Erik Dihle's testimony about people "yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going" wasn't referring to the Pentaplane. Or admit that what you claim to know is merely supposition.

Not one person ever said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.

Prove it. And while you're at it, prove that Erik Dihle's coworkers didn't mean just that, even if they didn't say those exact words.

Fine, here's the proof ... here's the list of eyewitnesses I could find who said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon and not into it....

1. _____________________

Oh, look at that ^^^ that's as far as I could find.

Were you able to talk to Erik Dihle and ask him if he remembered the names of the people who told him that “some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going”?

In a later Interview Dihle revealed he didn't even recall quoting anyone saying that. So no, he doesn't remember their names.

Very good. This still doesn't let you off the hook, though. Just because Erik Dihle can't remember their names doesn't mean they don't exist.

As far as Erik Dihle -- by your own standards -- no name, no testimony.

Ah, but don’t you see, we -do- have a name of a person, as well as their testimony: Erik Dihle’s himself. From there, all that one would need to do is see if he could remember who told -him-. I believe CIT already tried and were rebuffed, but if this went up to the level of a true investigation, he could be subpoenaed.

You have no idea if he even knows who said it.

Apparently, he's forgotten all about it. But he -doesn't- deny that he said it, just that he doesn't remember saying it. You have no idea if he knows their name.

You have no idea what prompted them to say it.

You seem to be assuming that witnesses did, indeed, say it. That's comforting. Perhaps one day someone may actually find these witnesses and ask them.

So no, there will be no such investigation.

Prove it .

And again, I find it comical to see you cling to Dihle's uncorroborated hearsay with such fervor while insisting witnesses who offered their firsthand accounts ON 9.11 don't count if they didn't give their name.

Erik Dille is a known person. He can be subpoenaed to testify as to who was “yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going” . You can’t subpoena someone if you don’t even know their name.

Well by that criteria CNN's David Ensor said he knew "Barbara" personally and had it been needed, he could have identified her.

I'm glad to see you finally accept her eyewitness account.

Not so fast, laugh . Just as you don't accept Erik Dihle's testimony of unidentified witnesses, I won't simply accept David Ensor's testimony concerning Barbara. If he could let us know her last name and perhaps even interview her, that would be much better, ofcourse.

And yeah, I know, it's hearsay, Erik Dihle didn't see it himself, and he didn't even mention the names of these people who were saying these things. But it's something that I certainly believe merits investigation by an official investigation.

Get over it -- there will be no more investigations.

How are you so sure?

Because you're among a small group [insult removed] who believes flight #77 didn't crash into the Pentagon

Nothing like a few insults to get your point of view across eh Faun ? I’m sorry, but you’ll have to do better then that to persuade anyone whose logic isn’t impaired by emotional fervour.

No, I really don't.

Good luck with that belief .

Not many people believe a plane flew over the Pentagon and not into it.

You may well be right on that. But I am one who does. And you just happen to be discussing this theory with me.

Have you considered thicker skin?

No, I like the thickness of my skin just fine the way it is.

The explosion could have gone off shortly after the aircraft had begun the flyover, avoiding the fireball.

Dismissed as supposition not supported by the evidence.

I think it's the best working theory to account for the evidence we -do- have.

Or aliens could have descended and blew it up with a death ray.

Sigh -.-…

Indeed.

Laugh .

They don't show much at all, and atleast one of them may have been tampered with...

Dismissed as supposition not supported by the evidence.

Actually, it's supported by evidence:
Doctored Pentagon video proves 9/11 cover-up and inside job

Dismissed as supposition not supported by the evidence.

Did you even click on the link -.-?

Of course I did.

I'm happy to hear it .

That's how I knew it was supposition not supported by the evidence.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[phoenyx]

But this is where your lies crumble.... many witnesses did see the plane fly right into the Pentagon.

No, this is where I pull out CIT's FAQ article on such witnesses:
Frequently Asked Questions » What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?

Who said hundreds were needed?

Not me. Not even CIT. I imagine CIT was frequently asked the question above, and so they responded to it in the above linked article.

I don't think you understand the CIT article. It's dismissing the notion that hundreds of eyewitnesses say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

I already knew that.

Then why the strawman question of asking why aren't there hundreds of eyewitnesses claiming to see the impact?

I imagine it was a question -they- were frequently asked. It does say “Frequently Asked Questions” at the start, doesn’t it?

But it was not a question I asked -- so why did you link it in response to the question I asked?

Because of the contents of the FAQ. You're right, you didn't ask that question. In fact, you hadn't asked a question at all. But you had said (and I quote):
"But this is where your lies crumble.... many witnesses did see the plane fly right into the Pentagon."

The FAQ article addresses your postulation. And yes, it does begin by answering the FAQ question. But if you can get past that initial sentence, I think there is a lot to be learned from their article. I've skipped some of the pictures for brevity...

**
No, there are not hundreds of them. There are about 150 total witness names cited by the media at all as having seen the plane, but many of those cited do not claim to have actually seen the alleged impact into the building.

Additionally, these unconfirmed, secondhand, out of context printed quotes do not amount to evidence. Unless and until they are confirmed directly by the witness in a video or audio recorded statement they amount to hearsay by any prudent standard, including in a court of law.

Craig Ranke of CIT interviews eyewitness William Middleton Sr. near the Navy Annex, where he saw the plane seconds before it reached the Pentagon
Because of this we have attempted to contact most of these previously-published witnesses to confirm their accounts firsthand, and we have been successful at reaching and interviewing dozens of them.

It turns out that most witnesses simply saw or heard the low-flying plane headed towards the building, and then a short while later heard or saw an explosion in the distance. They then deduced that the plane must have hit the building, as any of us would, but they did not actually see it happen.

In fact, quite often the individuals who are cited as having "watched the plane hit the Pentagon" were not even in a position to see the Pentagon at the time of the alleged impact at all.[1]

While many people erroneously assume that many hundreds or even thousands of people would have been able to watch the plane impact the building this is not the case due to the complex topography of the area.[2]

The Pentagon is only five stories high, and the damage was basically confined to the bottom two floors. The building also sits at the bottom of a significant slope to its west, the direction from which the plane approached. There are very few areas at all where you would be able to see the alleged "impact", and most who would be able to see the plane at all would only see it for about a split second.

Damage to Pentagon, as depicted by the American Society of Civic Engineers
Additionally, most people are unaware that the northbound section of Route 27 — the highway that runs directly in front of the building — from which a person could have seen the plane impact the building is less than a quarter mile long, and the view of the alleged impact spot was obscured by trees, even for many of people on this very small strip.[3]


The relatively small number of witnesses who were in locations from which they may have been able to see the alleged impact spot and who do genuinely believe that they saw the plane hit the building were fooled by a carefully planned deception, executed with military precision, as revealed by the conclusive evidence that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and then banked to its right on the north side of the Citgo gas station.

This flight path has been unanimously confirmed by every eyewitnesses who has been willing to go on record in an independent interview and who was in a position to be able to judge where the plane flew in relation to these landmarks.

From five different, excellent vantage points their accounts all independently corroborated each other regarding this flight path.

A plane on this flight path cannot hit the light poles, nor can it cause the directional damage to the Pentagon outlined in the ASCE Building Performance Report, which requires a low and level approach from the south side of the gas station. The only thing that the plane could have done after passing the gas station is to continue on over the Pentagon, which is exactly why Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw the plane still in flight seconds after the alleged impact.
**
Source: What about the "hundreds" of supposed 9/11 Pentagon "impact" witnesses? | 9/11 Pentagon

And whatever happened to CIT? What became of Craig and Aldo?

Aldo posted a small comment on the CIT forum in January of this year. Aside from that, I’m not sure. Perhaps they decided to take a break from all of this stuff. It doesn’t generally pay the bills, and one frequently isn’t appreciated for investigating things of this nature.

That doesn't sound like an honest answer to me.

Are you suggesting I'm being dishonest with you?

If they could have proven their claims, they'd be richer than their wildest dreams. Books, movies, public appearances. They'd be world renowned.

I think you're speculating, but I can certainly agree that many people doubt their claims, and many more disbelieve them outright. I hope you realize that what people believe isn't necessarily the truth, and frequently flies in the face of the best evidence. While not always true, I think that a certain quote from Winston Churchill is apt here: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

Source: Winston Churchill Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

 

[phoenyx]

[Witness Isabel James:]

CIT lists her in the "Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact" category, and further specifies:
Isabel James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)

She says she did see it despite the trees. Why on Earth would I believe CIT over her?? She was there, CIT wasn't. While she does say trees were in her path of vision, she doesn't say they obscured her view entirely.

You atleast acknowledge that she does say that trees were in her path. CIT has many witnesses who had no trees in their path. Heck, they have some witnesses who were at the Pentagon itself -.-

She claims she saw the impact despite there being some trees. I see no reason not to believe her.

Ofcourse, she supports your point of view, trees be damned ...

I'm not sure why you think there's value in noting the position of trees some six years later; as though that's evidence of what she did or didn't see on 9.11.

CIT has produced pictures of the treeline on the day of the event. The trees were still blocking her view back then:
Aziz El Hallan - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

She said there were some trees but she also said she could see the plane crash into the Pentagon.

Her husband said ""The plane came over the top of us and brushed the trees...
Then it looked like it hit the helicopter pad and skipped up and went right into the first and second floors."

Not to be outdone by his speculation, a reporter went full out and stated: "Michael James, 37, a Navy information technician watched in horror from his car Tuesday as an airplane careened off a helicopter pad and smashed into the side of the Pentagon, where he spends about half of his day."

Do you also believe that the plane "hit the helicopter pad"? Their view was terrible. I wish you'd pay attention to so much detail to those who had a much better view of what happened, such as the CIT witnesses...

 

[phoenyx]

They also interviewed Keith Wheelhouse who, like some of their 13 other witnesses, was at Arlington National Cemetery that morning. His recollection was that it came right up Columbia Pike, south of the gas station. That didn't jive with their agenda, so they excluded him from their witness list of 13.

There's a good reason they discounted his account. CIT goes into detail in their forum, here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=467

"Why" they discount him is irrelevant.

No, their reason for discounting him is not "irrelevant", if for no other reason then that I clearly believe they have done a lot of research on the Pentagon witnesses and have been posting quite a bit concerning all the evidence they have brought up already. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even click on the link. I've decided to atleast put up the opening post in the link, for the audience if no one else...

**As you most of you know, we have called out Keith Wheelhouse as having some involvement in the cover-up utilizing the second plane cover story.

Keith alleges that he witnessed 2 planes approach the Pentagon; a C-130 and the attack jet. His story is meshed with others that paint a vague story about a second plane/jet being in the area and flying away over the Pentagon (in some cases) as soon as the attack makes it's alleged impact. He, with help from the gov't and "journalist" Terry Scanlon, eventually turns this second plane into the C-130, maintaining that it shadowed the attack jet all the way until the Pentagon. Even on its face, it seems untrue and absurd when considering that a C-130 can only travel 379 MPH tops versus the 500-530MPH the attack jet was said to have been traveling by the official story.

After interviewing him in person, on camera. His story stayed the same but was more detailed and seemed to be molded off of the new RADES data which has the C-130 departing BEFORE the Pentagon and over the Navy Annex. He has the two planes less than a mile, 2/3 of a mile out approaching at the same time and as the attack jet allegedly drops it's nose to gun it next to the Navy Annex, you have the C-130 veering away at the same time over the Navy Annex.

Here is the image he drew...

Well on 7/22/08 we received a short e-mail from Keith out of the blue. Apparently he was still either oblivious to our claims about him and his account or his MO was to play dumb on purpose to make himself seem innocent. In this e-mail he included a couple of photos...

Just thought you would like to see a few photos.

Take care

Keith D. Wheelhouse

Craig wrote back...

Hi Keith,

What a surprise to hear from you! Great shots, thanks.

If you watched the trailer on the front page of our website for our upcoming release you know that we have been back to Arlington and have spoken with a lot more witnesses who were also at Arlington Cemetery .

The evidence is conclusive. They all corroborate each other and contradict your story. They all have the C-130 coming from a different direction than the attack jet about a minute or two after the explosion. We've spoken with dozens of witnesses and none of them have the C-130 shadowing.

They all saw the attack jet bank relatively slowly between the gas station and the cemetery proving it did not hit the light poles or the building. And in fact, we now have a Pentagon police officer who saw this JET (not C-130) fly away from the building immediately after the explosion.

The charade is over.

We know you aren't to blame for a deception on this level Keith. But things will work out a lot better for you if you come clean. Work with us. Tell us what you really saw and/or know. Help us nail the true perpetrators.

Tell us who told you to say the C-130 was shadowing to act as confusion/cover for the flyover. The more you are open with what you know the more protected you will be.

Craig

He fires back...

You guys need to come clean and stop the charade. Being x-military I was their and know exactly what I saw. It is a shame that there are people of your caliber that want to try to put a spin on what happened. I do not care whether you believe me or not. Have the people who contradict my story call me. You have my cell and ok to release it. There are 52 additional photo’s to collaborate my story. From your video you do not believe an AA jet hit the pentagon. You had doubts that I was even their. Please have the pilot’s witnesses or who ever wants to contest it call. Best wishes in your search.

Craig you need help

Keith D. Wheelhouse

Craig responded back...

52 photos?

Feel free to send them all. We'll be happy to publish them.

Of course neither of the 2 you sent so far show a C-130 shadowing an AA jet as they fly together south of the gas station in line to hit the building so I have a feeling none of the 50 others will "collaborate" your story either.

Perhaps you don't understand the gravity and extent of the evidence we have uncovered. We are not theorizing Keith.

Whether or not you were really there your shadowing story has been proven false by ALL other witnesses AND the official alleged radar data released in 2007.

So even the government threw you under the bus Keith. But all the other witnesses independently prove your story false as well as that the plane could not have hit.

Why should anyone believe you when nobody supports your story and everyone else says something completely different?

Yes we do need help. The nation and world is in peril as innocent people are murdered every day during a fraudulent "war on terror" based on this false pretext.

Please help do something to help expose this deception. I believe you have a conscience and want to help but are afraid.

This is perfectly understandable Keith and I don't blame you but the cat is out of the bag and attention to the conclusive evidence we have is only going to grow.

Craig

So about a month later after a clear version of the Tribby video came out I sent the following e-mail..


Hi Keith,

I think it is best you are honest now. Your whole account has been proven to be fabricated by video of the C-130 at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Here is video proof that the C-130 came in from the NORTHWEST as our Arlington National Cemetery workers saw and came in nearly 3 minutes after the explosion.

You, on the other hand, have the two planes less than a mile, 2/3 of a mile out approaching at the same time and as the attack jet allegedly drops it's nose to gun it next to the Navy Annex, you have the C-130 veering away at the same time over the Navy Annex.

Keith this just did not happen, click and watch...



Close-up:




There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth. We now believe there was a "second plane" cover story employed utilizing ambiguity to cover up for the attack jet flying away. Your role in this mess was accurately predicted. We know the plane did not hit the building, Kieth. We know it was a flyover/flyaway. We have witnesses who prove this.

The question is, did you see the flyover and were coerced/prompted to say that the plane you saw flying away was a C-130 or are you a complicit operative put out there to help sow the confusion of the "second" plane story which, partly thanks to you, slowly is eventually confirmed as a C-130. We prefer to believe you are innocent and were coerced to lie.

Either way, things will work out better for you if you are honest. The video proves you are not telling the truth, Keith.

Citizen Investigation Team

After that...SILENCE. We never heard back from Keith.**

What is relevant is that they claim all of the witnesses who were either at the Citco or the cemetery said they saw the plane travel north of the Citco.

But Keith Wheelhouse, who was also at the cemetery, said the plane came up Columbia Pike, south of the Citco.

First of all, Wheelhouse was some distance from Columbia Pike; he was in Arlington cemetary. Secondly, the CIT witnesses -do- initially place the plane just north of Columbia Pike, back when Edward Paik and Terry Morin saw it. I have never seen Keith state that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station; I doubt he could even see it from his vantage point. But by all means, show me he said that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station.

CIT may doubt his eyewitness account -- but it's a lie to say all of the witnesses in that vicinity said the plane went north of the Citco. Not all of them did.

Sergeant Lagasse and Sergeant Brooks were both -at- the Citgo gas station and they were adamant that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station. The rest of CIT's witnesses, while not at quite as good a vantage point to determine whether it flew north or south of the Citgo gas station, nevertheless clearly place it as coming from the North side of Columbia Pike and 395. I'm not sure that -anyone- has stated that it came from South of the Citgo gas station. But if you have found a single witness that has done so, by all means, present them.

 

[phoenyx]

CIT lists him in the ""Saw a plane & impact from far away, but DID NOT mention a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing and veering away as the impact happened" category and further specifies that he saw a "commuter plane, two-engined"

Another hollow denial from CIT. Despite this witnesses ability to identify the type of aircraft, he still says he saw it fly into the Pentagon.

Don Wright states that he was at 1600 Wilson Blvd in Roslyn VA. That's around 2 miles north of the Pentagon:
Google Maps

Flight paths both North and South of the Citgo gas station would have all appeared as 'coming from the south' from his viewpoint. All the witnesses CIT mentions were a hell of a lot closer. Lagasse and Brooks, who were at the service station (at the time it was the Citgo gas station) were perhaps 1/5th of a mile from the Pentagon. There was little between them and the Pentagon itself.

I didn't say Wright could detect which path the plane traveled. I cited him since he did have an unobstructed view of the Pentagon and says he saw it fly into, not over, the Pentagon. And given his position, he actually could have seen a plane flying over the Pentagon.

He was around 2 miles away, hardly the best distance to discern if the plane could have crashed into the Pentagon.

Again .....

I'm not talking about Wright's ability to discern AA77's flight path from his location ....

I'm not talking about Wright's ability to see the plane crash into the Pentagon from his location ...

... what I'm talking about is that from his location, the 12th floor of the building he was looking out, even from about 2 miles away, he would still be able to see the top of the Pentagon.

And Don doesn't say he saw a plane fly over it.

He was 2 miles away and there was certainly an explosion around the time the pentaplane would have been starting its flyover. As CIT has mentioned, most people would have their eyes glued to the explosion. Not only that, but shortly after the explosion, there was a lot of smoke, as Keith Wheelhouse's picture makes clear, adding another difficulty to spotting the plane making its flyover.

I've taken a snapshot of Wright's stated location looking towards the Pentagon from Google Maps and uploaded it to give an idea of how far away he was. The Pentagon is the barely visible pentagonal shape at the top there...

 

[phoenyx]

CIT's gone through pretty much all of the witnesses, I've gone over all the named witnesses you've mentioned. Regarding Lagasse, did you actually listen to Lagasse? The plane went right above his head; couldn't have been easier for him to know the exact location of the plane;

That's odd -- in his original taped statement -- he said he could see the shades of the windows were pulled down. How is that possible if he later claimed the plane "went right above his head??"

Interview with William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 4, 2001

Good point. I'm thinking I got mixed up with Terry Morin's testimony. As you may recall, Terry -did- see it go right over his head. In Lagasse's case, he clearly had the plane to his left.

...and in case you never bothered to click on the video clip, he was standing -at- the Citgo gas station. Can't have a better vantage point then that when it comes to determining whether the plane flew north or south of said Citgo gas station.

Yes, let's take a closer look at that video. I encourage others here to check this out as well. Take note at the 4:41 mark in the video...



Watch it full screen and pay particular attention to the second camera down from the top left. The one labeled, "single pump side."

At the 4:41 mark, notice that something appears to fall (and doesn't get picked up for the remainder of the video)....

You have to watch the video in full screen mode because it's almost not noticeable at regular size.

Within seconds of that, on the bottom portion of the screen, though it's fuzzy, you can still make out people running to the door to on the right.

I contend that was the moment the plane flew past the Citco. Lagasse recalled the force of the plane knocked him into his car as it flew past. That could explain something getting knocked down in the image I posted above. At a hundred feet or less, the sound would have been deafening, which could explain the people in the store rushing to the glass door to look out.

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

The door on the southeast side of the Citco.

That video's pretty blurry. I think Lagasse and Brooks' testimony is much more solid.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

The biggest prob with rejecting the "official stories" out-of-hand as you do

I strongly disagree with the notion that I have rejected official stories out of hand. I actually initially -believed- the official narrative concerning 9/11 originally. It was only after a careful examination of many facts presented by a book called 9/11: The Terror Conspiracy, by well known author Jim Marrs (he wrote 1 of the 2 books which formed the foundation for Oliver Stone's film "JFK"), I came to the conclusion that the official story was filled with lies.

is it leaves you groping desperately for some alternate universe explanation for the events of 9/11.

When some realize that a story they have been told can't be true, many people (including myself) will tend to try to figure out what -is- true. In the case of 9/11, I was greatly helped along by Jim Marrs' excellent book on the subject.

Simply claiming that AA77 "flew over the Pentagon" may serve your POV but you have failed to provide even a scintilla of proof and have even admitted you have none.

I doubt I have anything that -you- would consider to be proof, and the title of this thread is a testament to the fact that I doubt I can persuade anyone who is strongly attached to the official narrative concerning the Pentagon attack. That being said, I think that, while perhaps not quite as robust a theory as the Theory of Evolution, I believe the evidence that the plane did in fact fly over the Pentagon is quite compelling.

Claiming the physical evidence (AA77 parts, body parts, FDRs) was "planted" - again without any substantiation - may also serve your POV but just makes you and the 9/11 CT Movement seem obtuse and childish.

Like many people who trust the official narrative concerning the Pentagon attack, you insist that those who disagree with the official narrative must substantiate their claims, while never demanding that the official narrative substantiate -its- claims. What evidence do you have that the official narrative is true?

Indeed there is no physical evidence - not even on radar - that AA77 "flew over the Pentagon"

Once a plane gets low enough, it can no longer be seen by radar. By all accounts, the plane flying pretty low.

and no eyewitnesses to such an event but you cling desperately to the theory anyway.

Yes, as Faun is fond of pointing out, no witness that we know of has stated that a plane from over the Pentagon. That being said, Erik Dihle's comment that some people were yelling that 'a bomb went off and a jet kept on going' is highly suggestive that some people may have seen just that.

Claiming that the WTC was a controlled demo...

Has nothing to do with the Pentaplane Flyover Theory. There are threads that -do- cover his aspect of 9/11 in this forum (I've made one myself), just not this one.

 

[phoenyx]

Their video continues, portraying the USA Today witnesses of having an obstructed view ... they do that by showing an FBI video of someone driving up 27 with the Pentagon on their right where trees partially blocked a clear view of the Pentagon ... however, that position of 27 is south of where this video earlier placed Suchermann. Where he was shown earlier in the video, he would have been north of those trees, ON the overpass with an unobstructed view.

Perhaps you're right on this particular point.

Does this mean you accept Suchermann's account? From his perspective, he would have had a fairly unobstructed vantage point.

You may well be right on that point. Even CIT seems to think so. As mentioned before, they had this to say concerning Sucherman:
**
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 Site

I think I've now made it clear now that there was no other planes in the area, the closest being the distant 130. Which means the only plane he could have seen to come make a "second attack" would be the one that made the first one.

Not true at all. The C-130, as per instructions from the tower just moments earlier, was tailing AA77.

From CIT's article, linked to above:
**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.**


They were flying behind and above the 757 when they reported the crash was directly in front of them. The C-130 continued its NE approach until the tower instructed them to increase their altitude to 3000 and heading to 270º. That matches what Sucherman said he saw ...

"... the plane just went directly into the side of the Pentagon. Made no attempt to veer off. Was not trying to avoid a collision and just went directly into the wall. There was a huge explosion ... a fireball appeared and ... just at that point I heard another sound ... a plane, again off to the west. And I looked up and I saw a plane kind of peeling off and it was up high ... much higher in the sky and it was silhouetted in the sky at that point. So I couldn't really make out what it was."​

... never said he saw the first plane miss the Pentagon ... never said he saw a plane fly back over him from east to west ... and makes it sound like he saw the second plane just after the first one hit the Pentagon. And of course, AA77 couldn't have been in two places at once. It couldn't have been flying over the Pentagon (according to you) heading east at about 100 feet or less -- and been "much higher" to Sucherman's west. Possibly between 2000 to 3000 feet, presuming that was the C-130 (which multiple witnesses said they saw).

*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".

The C-130, as per instructions from the tower just moments earlier, was tailing AA77. They were flying behind and above the 757 when they reported the crash was directly in front of them. The C-130 continued its NE approach until the tower instructed them to increase their altitude to 3000 and heading to 270º. That matches what Sucherman said he saw ...

"... the plane just went directly into the side of the Pentagon. Made no attempt to veer off. Was not trying to avoid a collision and just went directly into the wall. There was a huge explosion ... a fireball appeared and ... just at that point I heard another sound ... a plane, again off to the west. And I looked up and I saw a plane kind of peeling off and it was up high ... much higher in the sky and it was silhouetted in the sky at that point. So I couldn't really make out what it was."​

... never said he saw the first plane miss the Pentagon ... never said he saw a plane fly back over him from east to west ... and makes it sound like he saw the second plane just after the first one hit the Pentagon. And of course, AA77 couldn't have been in two places at once. It couldn't have been flying over the Pentagon (according to you) heading east at about 100 feet or less -- and been "much higher" to Sucherman's west. Possibly between 2000 to 3000 feet, presuming that was the C-130 (which multiple witnesses said they saw).

I haven't seen any evidence that Sucherman saw the "first plane" at all. Just the one "peeling off", by which I assume he means peeling off from the Pentagon, judging from other comments he made. This pulling up is in line with what other witnesses witnessing the Pentaplane from the other said said it had started to do shortly before arriving at the Pentagon...

 

[phoenyx]

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

I see.

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

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

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

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



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


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




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



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

Sorry.

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

I know that candy has stated that she has put me on ignore. I think that's probably a blessing, all she tended to do was insult those she disagreed with anyway. But really Faun, that post of hers is "informative"?

 

[phoenyx]

Aside from the fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna...

Hani Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a "satisfactory" rating from the examiner.

Please name the person who gave him a "satisfactory" rating.

 

[phoenyx]

This video also tries to impugn Walter's eyewitness account; but Walter never said he saw the plane hit the building. He said he saw it flying toward the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. He also said he saw the plane clip a lamp post. How does he see that if they were planted, as you suggest?

The same way Lagasse stated that certain light poles were downed, when they weren't. Memory isn't perfect, and it can morph a bit when confronted with information that appears to contradict their actual recollections. Things can be added in order to make things 'fit'.

That's true, memory isn't perfect. Especially many years after the fact. Still, Lagasse recalled the light poles were "obviously" clipped by the plane; only the light poles weren't actually where he recalled them actually being. Indicating where he recalled seeing the plane fly isn't where it actually flew.

Speaking of memories, do you remember what Lagasse first said in the clip below when Craig Ranke asked him about the light poles? I've transcribed part of their conversation, beginning at around 5:40 in the posted video below:
**
Craig Ranke: Did either of you actually see the plane clip the light poles, I just want to ask this question again to reiterate it…

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

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

Lagasse: No chance.

Craig Ranke: What’s that?

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

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

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


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

Sorry, inadmissible without a sworn affadavit from the guy. We have no idea if he actually said any of that...

Most people, including Faun, have had no problem believing that he actually said what he said in his video testimony. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

and since you've proven to be [insult removed].there is no reason to believe your transcript

Transcribe his statements yourself if you want to verify them.

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

I certainly agree that a smaller plane wouldn't have been able to hit them. Your problem is that the most credible witnesses all place the plane on a flight path that would have missed all of the light poles.

You've yet to account for any physical evidence.

Actually, I've linked to what many people believe to be a plausible theories long ago. Here's the links:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon

Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon

 

[phoenyx]

This video also tries to impugn Walter's eyewitness account; but Walter never said he saw the plane hit the building. He said he saw it flying toward the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. He also said he saw the plane clip a lamp post. How does he see that if they were planted, as you suggest?

The same way Lagasse stated that certain light poles were downed, when they weren't. Memory isn't perfect, and it can morph a bit when confronted with information that appears to contradict their actual recollections. Things can be added in order to make things 'fit'.

That's true, memory isn't perfect. Especially many years after the fact. Still, Lagasse recalled the light poles were "obviously" clipped by the plane; only the light poles weren't actually where he recalled them actually being. Indicating where he recalled seeing the plane fly isn't where it actually flew.

Speaking of memories, do you remember what Lagasse first said in the clip below when Craig Ranke asked him about the light poles? I've transcribed part of their conversation, beginning at around 5:40 in the posted video below:
**
Craig Ranke: Did either of you actually see the plane clip the light poles, I just want to ask this question again to reiterate it…

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

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

Lagasse: No chance.

Craig Ranke: What’s that?

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

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

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


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

That he's sure the plane came from north of the Citgo is irrelevant

Hardly, considering that he was -at- the Citgo gas station, not a considerable distance from it. The only other witnesses who have come forward from the Citgo gas station all place the plane as coming from the north side of the station as well.

as there are also many witnesses who are sure it came up Columbia Pike.

It -did-. But around the time it approached the Navy Annex, it had crossed over to the north side of Columbia Pike, as mentioned by Edward Paik. Terry Morin, who was -at- the Navy Annex stated that it went over his head, and even you seemed to find his testimony credible. Further along the plane's flight, at the Citgo gas station, you have Brooks, Lagasse and Turcios all claiming that the plane flew -north- of the Citgo gas station. And the witnesses they interviewed at the Arlington cemetary, as well as those at the Pentagon itself all place the plane as coming from North of Columbia Pike as well. Only after it had gone north of the Citgo gas station does it begin to turn southwards again, but by that point, there was no way that it could have gone southwards quickly enough to hit the light poles and do the damage found at the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth make this clear in the following video:

The two camps of eyewitness accounts can't both be right,

Please list the witnesses in your "camp".

None of the witnesses recalled seeing a fly over.

So you say. Meanwhile, -some- of us still think it'd be worth trying to find the people who Erik Dihle mentioned in his interview with the U.S. Army's Center of Military History. You know, the ones he stated had said "were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."

 

[SAYIT]

Aside from the fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna...

Hani Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a "satisfactory" rating from the examiner.

Please name the person who gave him a "satisfactory" rating.

I'll be happy to once you provide substantiation to your claim that "Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna."