9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[Faun]

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...

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

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

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

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

the remains of the passengers and crew ...

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

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

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

two separate videos ...

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

a debris field consistent with a plane flying into a building

Dealt with here:

radar ... black boxes ...

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

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

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

Video that goes along with that text:

Great, nothing but more unprovable denials.

This us going nowhere because you're not posting proof.

I never said I had any.

Casting doubt on the known evidence is not proof.

I never said it was.

Posting you don't think there were enough remains of AA77 does not prove the plane parts found were planted.

It's much more then there not being enough remains. In terms of the remains that were clearly photographed at the Pentagon, the remains were all quite small. There were other photographs of a few larger parts, but they were not photographed in a way that makes it unclear as to where they were photographed. There are certainly many photographs of airplane parts online.

Posting they don't look like they came from a 757 doesn't prove it.

True, though I believe that, atleast in the case of a certain wheel rim, there's evidence that it didn't come from a 757.

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

I've already made it clear that we don't agree as to what constitutes evidence. I suggest you consider whatever information your opponent believes supports his or her beliefs to be -their- evidence, and whatever you believe supports -your- beliefs to be -your- evidence.

You admit you have absolutely no proof to corroborate your claims.

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

You admit you have no eyewitnesses to corroborate a flyover.

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

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

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

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

You admit it because you have none. I offer no such admission because I have plenty. (the lamp posts, the Citgo surveillance, the other 2 surveillance videos, the damage to the Pentagon, DNA, .....)

And you have zero witnesses to a fly over. The only one to come close is the unidentified person Erik Dihle spoke of and YOU said unidentified witnesses are not to be considered.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[hadit]

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

I see.

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

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

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

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

The physical evidence is compelling.

We clearly disagree on that point.

What you are doing is simply ignoring it

What physical evidence do you think I've ignored?

The evidence you say is faked. The DNA recovered at the crash site, the penetration pattern that perfectly matches the plane's approach, the pieces of the airplane recovered at the site, the light poles knocked down on the approach path, the total lack of any eyewitnesses that saw the plane fly over the Pentagon, and on it goes. I mean, think about it, how could DNA from the passengers be transported to the crash site in order to be placed there in time for it to be picked up if, as you say, the passengers were never near the site?

or claiming it's faked.

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

It's easy to construct a scenario that fits your pre-conceived opinion when you pick and choose evidence to accept and say the rest is all faked. The problem is that you are trying to fit the physical evidence into your viewpoint instead of adjusting your viewpoint to fit the physical evidence.

 

[candycorn]

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

I see.

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

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

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

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

The physical evidence is compelling.

We clearly disagree on that point.

What you are doing is simply ignoring it

What physical evidence do you think I've ignored?

The evidence you say is faked. The DNA recovered at the crash site, the penetration pattern that perfectly matches the plane's approach, the pieces of the airplane recovered at the site, the light poles knocked down on the approach path, the total lack of any eyewitnesses that saw the plane fly over the Pentagon, and on it goes. I mean, think about it, how could DNA from the passengers be transported to the crash site in order to be placed there in time for it to be picked up if, as you say, the passengers were never near the site?

or claiming it's faked.

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

This is why I no longer accept any evidence unless you have sworn witnesses, the writers sign off on the report, etc...

Say, the 9/11 Commission Report has all of that. You don't find that from the conspiracy loony birds.
It's easy to construct a scenario that fits your pre-conceived opinion when you pick and choose evidence to accept and say the rest is all faked. The problem is that you are trying to fit the physical evidence into your viewpoint instead of adjusting your viewpoint to fit the physical evidence.

 

[Faun]

What happened to phoenyx? Did he finally come to his senses? Was the stark reality that the Citgo surveillance recordings prove the plane flew south of it too much for him?

 

[cjnewson88]

I'll just leave my blog here..

9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77

Nice to meet you all,
Chris

 

[Faun]

I'll just leave my blog here..

9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77

Nice to meet you all,
Chris

Nice to meet you, Chris, but sorry .... you're a day late and a dollar short. We've already proven it.

 

[Divine Wind]

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

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

 

[SAYIT]

I'll just leave my blog here.. 9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77

Nice to meet you, Chris, but sorry .... you're a day late and a dollar short. We've already proven it.

Chris does note that very few videos were actively confiscated ... that most were given to the FBI in the days following the attacks. Chris also notes that the highway traffic cameras which CTs claim would have a clear shot of AA77 hitting the Pentagon were not installed until early 2003 ... over 2 years after the attack. Those points once again beg the question:

Why must 9/11 CTs LIE or otherwise fudge the facts to make their case?

Answer: They have no case.

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

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

Which rolls nicely into Skylar's retort (post #90):
"As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits.....with none of the absurd costs, risks and pointless elaboration that your theory mandates."

Since all of the hard evidence - which includes the damages, missing plane, crew & passengers, the black boxes, DNA, etc., etc., etc. - points to AA77 as the projectile, and the plane could have done exactly what occurred, why add another layer of complexity and risk of exposure by somehow rigging the Pentagon with explosives (that could not have caused the linear damage) or firing a cruise missile, planting the evidence and then diverting AA77 - a flyover no one saw - and disposing of the crew & passengers later?

It just makes no sense.

I mean, just because it is possible that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese doesn't prove it is.

 

[SAYIT]

What happened to phoenyx? Did he finally come to his senses? Was the stark reality that the Citgo surveillance recordings prove the plane flew south of it too much for him?

A rational poster would take a break from posting what has been thoroughly exposed as his CT silliness to factcheck his info and sources but rationality doesn't seem to be in his DNA. Despite admitting to having little or no proof to support his theories, my sense is he is at some other forum posting the same silliness while hoping for less resistance. After all ... his stated purpose is merely to inject "doubt" about 9/11 and obviously truth and facts were not part of his method.

 

[phoenyx]

The kind of seriousness you flush down the toilet, yeah.

Why am I still waiting for you to respond to the Citgo gas station surveillance camera? The one that shows the employees running to the South after the plane flew by their station. The one where a potential shadow of the plane can be seen proving the plane flew south of the Citgo station...

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

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

Yes, I remember saying something like that too.

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

They ran to see what caused the noise.

Sure.

They ran to the SE entrance of their store.

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

Why am I still waiting for you to respond to the Citgo gas station surveillance camera? The one that shows the employees running to the South after the plane flew by their station. The one where a potential shadow of the plane can be seen proving the plane flew south of the Citgo station...

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

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

Yes, I remember saying something like that too.

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

They ran to see what caused the noise.

Sure.

They ran to the SE entrance of their store.

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

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

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

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

Can you contemplate anything on your own without CIT?

 

[candycorn]

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

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

Yes, I remember saying something like that too.

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

They ran to see what caused the noise.

Sure.

They ran to the SE entrance of their store.

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

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

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

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

Can you contemplate anything on your own without CIT?

It does matter that CIT doesn’t have sworn notarized documents showing that the affidavits were real. Until then, we will just assume the interviews were all faked.

 

[Dale Smith]

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

Yes, I remember saying something like that too.

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

They ran to see what caused the noise.

Sure.

They ran to the SE entrance of their store.

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

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

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

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

Can you contemplate anything on your own without CIT?

It does matter that CIT doesn’t have sworn notarized documents showing that the affidavits were real. Until then, we will just assume the interviews were all faked.

Where is the video of the 83 cameras that were confiscated that could validate the claim that a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon? You are afraid to face the ugly truth. Those that have nothing to hide practice transparency and your beloved "gubermint" has plenty to hide.

 

[Dale Smith]

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

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

Yes, I remember saying something like that too.

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

They ran to see what caused the noise.

Sure.

They ran to the SE entrance of their store.

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

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

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

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

Can you contemplate anything on your own without CIT?

It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon because if it had of been? You can bet that the FBI would release ALLL the video that they confiscated. that day. You are spinning like a top trying to defend the indefensible. Only a real idiot/sheeple would defend the actions of your beloved "gubermint".......

 

[Faun]

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

Yes, I remember saying something like that too.

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

They ran to see what caused the noise.

Sure.

They ran to the SE entrance of their store.

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

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

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

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

Can you contemplate anything on your own without CIT?

It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon because if it had of been? You can bet that the FBI would release ALLL the video that they confiscated. that day. You are spinning like a top trying to defend the indefensible. Only a real idiot/sheeple would defend the actions of your beloved "gubermint".......

They released 2 videos which showed the plane. And if there are others and they did release them, you'd summarily dismiss them as fake anyway. Just like you do with the dozens of videos of flight #175 flying into the south tower.

 

[SAYIT]

Where is the video of the 83 cameras that were confiscated that could validate the claim that a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon? You are afraid to face the ugly truth. Those that have nothing to hide practice transparency and your beloved "gubermint" has plenty to hide.

There is no video of 83 cameras that were "confiscated" as confiscation is another in the endless list of LIES the "Truthers" must tell themselves (and each other) despite repeated debunking to make 9/11 seem like a gov't conspiracy and cover-up.

The truth is very few videos were actively confiscated ... most were given to the FBI in the days following the attacks. It also must be noted that the highway traffic cameras which "Truthers" claim would have had a clear view of AA77 hitting the Pentagon were not installed until early 2003 ... over 2 years after the attack. Those truths once again beg the question:

Why must 9/11 CTs LIE or otherwise fudge the facts to make their case?

Answer: They have no case.

 

[Faun]

Where is the video of the 83 cameras that were confiscated that could validate the claim that a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon? You are afraid to face the ugly truth. Those that have nothing to hide practice transparency and your beloved "gubermint" has plenty to hide.

There is no video of 83 cameras that were "confiscated" as confiscation is another in the endless list of LIES the "Truthers" must tell themselves (and each other) despite repeated debunking to make 9/11 seem like a gov't conspiracy and cover-up.

The truth is very few videos were actively confiscated ... most were given to the FBI in the days following the attacks. It also must be noted that the highway traffic cameras which "Truthers" claim would have had a clear view of AA77 hitting the Pentagon were not installed until early 2003 ... over 2 years after the attack. Those truths once again beg the question:

Why must 9/11 CTs LIE or otherwise fudge the facts to make their case?

Answer: They have no case.

Even worse for their idiocy... to explain tbe planes in NYC, they invent some sort of holographic device net yet invented, but then for who knows what reason, their accused purportrators used a Cruise missile instead of their hologram to attack the Pentagon.

 

[Faun]

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

 

[Dale Smith]

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

No plane hit the pentagon.