911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[phoenyx]

which also matches the description from many witnesses ....

I can certainly agree that many witnesses saw an aircraft approach the Pentagon. That being said, the flight path all of the witnesses of the plane who were in the best position to know which flight path it took all state that it came from North of the Citgo gas station. As to Lloyd England, he has never claimed to see the aircraft, despite a light pole allegedly knocked down, allegedly by AA77, allegedly spearing his car.

Among the gems plucked from this is the following claim from CIT...

...the conclusive evidence of a north side approach and flyover proves that this debris did not come from AA77...

Other than a few witnesses saying they recall a plane flying in from north of the Citco station

Make that all the credible witnesses in a position to judge whether the plane flew north or south of the Citgo gas station, and you'd be about right there...

what evidence is there that that's where the plane flew?? I'm not aware of any physical evidence supporting a "north side approach."

A plane flying over an area doesn't tend to leave much physical evidence, laugh . But perhaps you're referring to when it -got- to the Pentagon. There are differing theories as to what happened at that point regarding a north side flight path. CIT believes that it simply flew over the Pentagon and continued on. Others, including some at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, are less sure. I'm thinking perhaps it was blown up as it went over the Pentagon lawn, or the roof, but at this point, I fully admit I'm speculating, as I haven't seen strong evidence of either claim. As to the official story, there's more then just the witnesses that contradict the official story. There's also the NTSB data allegedly obtained from AA 77's Black Box, and the data provided by the 9/11 Commission Report. They don't even concord with each other, and neither of them fully concord with the physical damage at the Pentagon either. For more information on this, I suggest you take a look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth's Pandora's Black Box, which can be seen here:



The comparison between the 9/11 Commission Report's flight data and the NTSB's "Black Box" data can be seen beginning at 39:10 in the video...

 

[Faun]

There's no point because no matter what I say, you will come up with some denial.

You're certainly optimistic, laugh .

Denial is all you're armed with since there is zero physical evidence to support your claims.

It's your absolutes that are squelching this discussion. You have the arrogance to claim there is "zero physical evidence to support your claims", and yet I see that time and again you ignore piles of evidence, including the physical kind, that contradicts the official story.

You have no physical evidence. Who knows why you pretend otherwise? So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach based on the recollection of a few witnesses gathered many years after the fact.

To demonstrate the level of your denial, you're even asking for evidence from the government; while at the same time, saying you don't trust evidence from the government.

You yourself have stated that you don't trust the government, so we are the same there. That being said, I'd rather get evidence from the government then from anonymous sources, and I imagine you'd feel the same way. The government can be held to account. If you don't know the source of information, how can you hold them to account for providing false information?

I didn't say I don't trust the government. Why do you misrepresent what I said?

I have said I believe the government has lied about various things, but in terms of this discussion about flight #77, I said, "I'm neither swayed by CIT nor the government, but what makes the most sense," and I also said, "the government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts."

As far as photographs from the crash site, no I don't require photographs to be government approved. And neither do you, so who knows why you care that the photo of the wheel hub may or may not be? Guaranteed, if there was an undocumented photo of flight #77 flying over the Pentagon, you'd be waving it around like crazy. So you can cut this bullshit about that photo possibly not coming from the government.

I showed a photo of a wheel hub

Indeed.

photographed at the scene of a plane crash.

You've shown no evidence that it was photographed at the scene of the pentagon plane crash. Barring that, it's just a wheel hub at what looks like a plane crash somewhere.

True, I did not show such evidence. I did, however, point out there is evidence; I just chose not to bother showing you because all you'll do is move onto another denial. So I chose to leave your denial right where it is.

Point out the wheel hub is but one piece among the remains found from flight #77

There's no solid evidence that any of the debris came from flight #77.

Wow, look at that? More denial. Who didn't see that coming?

Except for the evidence that flight #77 crashed into the Pentagon, such as DNA from the recoverable bodies of the known passengers, the flight data recorder from AA77, sure there's no evidence.

 

[phoenyx]

Denial is all you're armed with since there is zero physical evidence to support your claims.

It's your absolutes that are squelching this discussion. You have the arrogance to claim there is "zero physical evidence to support your claims", and yet I see that time and again you ignore piles of evidence, including the physical kind, that contradicts the official story.

You have no physical evidence.

Alright, what I -meant- is that the south of the citgo gas station damage is indication of a false flag attack, since the NTSB black box data, the 9/11 Commission report data, and all of the witnesses filmed by CIT on location all refute that flight path trajectory.

So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach

You've offered no solid evidence that their north side approach testimonials are erroneous.

based on the recollection of a few witnesses gathered many years after the fact.

Many of them also testified to both the Center for Military History, and the Library of Congress (LoC) mere months after 9/11 as well. CIT has compiled a great deal of the information from those recordings here:
Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon

To demonstrate the level of your denial, you're even asking for evidence from the government; while at the same time, saying you don't trust evidence from the government.

You yourself have stated that you don't trust the government, so we are the same there. That being said, I'd rather get evidence from the government then from anonymous sources, and I imagine you'd feel the same way. The government can be held to account. If you don't know the source of information, how can you hold them to account for providing false information?

I didn't say I don't trust the government. Why do you misrepresent what I said? I have said I believe the government has lied about various things,

I imagine that's where I got that impression...

but in terms of this discussion about flight #77, I said, "I'm neither swayed by CIT nor the government, but what makes the most sense," and I also said, "the government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts."

Alright, so we agree that the government can't always be trusted, we just disagree in this specific instance as to what's the more plausible theory as to what happened.

As far as photographs from the crash site, no I don't require photographs to be government approved. And neither do you, so who knows why you care that the photo of the wheel hub may or may not be?

Actually, I care a great deal, especially when there is no visual context to definitively place it in the Pentagon.

Guaranteed, if there was an undocumented photo of flight #77 flying over the Pentagon, you'd be waving it around like crazy.

If the photographs had context, such as the Pentagon in the shot, then yes, I would think it would be pretty important.

I showed a photo of a wheel hub, photographed at the scene of a plane crash.

You've shown no evidence that it was photographed at the scene of the pentagon plane crash. Barring that, it's just a wheel hub at what looks like a plane crash somewhere.

True, I did not show such evidence. I did, however, point out there is evidence; I just chose not to bother showing you because all you'll do is move onto another denial. So I chose to leave your denial right where it is.

Let me get this straight- you are saying there is evidence that the photograph can be seen with the Pentagon in the background?

Point out the wheel hub is but one piece among the remains found from flight #77

There's no solid evidence that any of the debris came from flight #77.

Wow, look at that? More denial.

Alright, by all means, show me solid evidence that any of the debris actually came from flight #77 then.

Except for the evidence that flight #77 crashed into the Pentagon such as DNA from the recoverable bodies of the known passengers,

As mentioned elsewhere, there is no chain of custody as to the DNA allegedly recovered from the known passengers. What this means is that, even assuming that this DNA was in fact 'recovered', we only have the word of the FBI as to where it was picked up.

the flight data recorder from AA77

Is not compatible with the damage of the light poles and the generator. The NTSB data has the plane flying even further north the CIT's witnesses -.-. Only the 9/11 Commission report has it flying south of the Citgo gas station, and from what I've seen, even it doesn't align with the damage to the light poles or the generator at the Pentagon. Feel free to take a look at a clip from Pilots for 9/11 Truth's Pandora's Black Box video on the matter here:

 

[Faun]

Denial is all you're armed with since there is zero physical evidence to support your claims.

It's your absolutes that are squelching this discussion. You have the arrogance to claim there is "zero physical evidence to support your claims", and yet I see that time and again you ignore piles of evidence, including the physical kind, that contradicts the official story.

You have no physical evidence.

Alright, what I -meant- is that the south of the citgo gas station damage is indication of a false flag attack, since the NTSB black box data, the 9/11 Commission report data, and all of the witnesses filmed by CIT on location all refute that flight path trajectory.

To clarify, 7 of the 9 witnesses in the video you posted claimed AA77 went north of the Citco station. Most of those interviews came many years after 9.11 and some of them were never interviewed publicly prior. And that also ignores the other hundred or more witnesses who did not say it went that route. Some even said it went up 395 while others said it went up the Columbia Pike. By only showing the ones they could find who would say it went north of the Citco is blatantly dishonest.

I could very easily show you videos some folks have made where they interview dumbass Conservatives or dumbass Liberals; and that's all they'll show in their respective videos. Does that mean all Conservatives are dumbasses? No, of course not. They just make it appear that way by only including the responses which happen to match their desired results; while leaving out clips which disprove their intended illusion. Same with similar videos about Liberals.

Simply put, that's exactly what CIT did.

We know for a fact there were many other witnesses who identified the location of the plane as it approached the Pentagon; yet that CIT video doesn't even mention any of them.

I also note that video included two men who say they were at, or near, the Navy Annex that morning and while they both say the plane flew over the southern end of the Annex, neither one said the plane flew north of the Citco station. And as I showed you with the red line I drew, using their claim, the plane could still fly south of the Citco and still hit the lamp posts.

 

[Faun]

So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach

You've offered no solid evidence that their north side approach testimonials are erroneous.

Now you're flat out lying.

In post #319 I showed you photographic evidence indicating the direction of the plane's debris following its impact with the Pentagon.

The direction of that debris proves the direction the plane was flying as it struck the building and that direction renders it physically impossible for the plane to have come from the north side of the Citco gas station. That leaves those witnesses, some of whom were never interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them in 2008, as either wrong, or worse -- lying.

 

[phoenyx]

Denial is all you're armed with since there is zero physical evidence to support your claims.

It's your absolutes that are squelching this discussion. You have the arrogance to claim there is "zero physical evidence to support your claims", and yet I see that time and again you ignore piles of evidence, including the physical kind, that contradicts the official story.

You have no physical evidence.

Alright, what I -meant- is that the south of the citgo gas station damage is indication of a false flag attack, since the NTSB black box data, the 9/11 Commission report data, and all of the witnesses filmed by CIT on location all refute that flight path trajectory.

To clarify, 7 of the 9 witnesses in the video you posted claimed AA77 went north of the Citco station.

The other 2 not being in a position to see, namely Paik and Morin. Nevertheless, they place it north of Columbia Pike, which still doesn't follow the official narrative. I must admit one thing that I just realized after posting my last post- I'm a bit confused as to where the NTSB places the plane. Pilots for 9/11 Truth states that NTSB places the plane north of the Citgo gas station, but CIT's graphic places it -south- of the Citgo gas station. My guess is that CIT is mistaken and got mixed up, since Pilots for 9/11 Truth is the one that actually requested the NTSB data through an FOI request. Regardless, neither of them match up with the damage as caused by the light poles and the damage to the generator.

Most of those interviews came many years after 9.11 and some of them were never interviewed publicly prior.

I'm glad that you are atleast now mentioning the fact that only -some- of them were never interviewed prior, laugh . As I believe you now know, some were interviewed just 2 to 3 months after 9/11, with similar perspectives as to what the plane's flight path was.

And that also ignores the other hundred or more witnesses who did not say it went that route. Some even said it went up 395 while others said it went up the Columbia Pike. By only showing the ones they could find who would say it went north of the Citco is blatantly dishonest.

How is it dishonest? They interviewed those who were in the best position to determine whether the plane flew North or south of the Citgo gas station. But they also compiled a list of all the witnesses they could find, and I haven't seen a more exhaustive list:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

I could very easily show you videos some folks have made where they interview dumbass Conservatives or dumbass Liberals; and that's all they'll show in their respective videos. Does that mean all Conservatives are dumbasses? No, of course not. They just make it appear that way by only including the responses which happen to match their desired results; while leaving out clips which disprove their intended illusion. Same with similar videos about Liberals.

This isn't the same. They interviewed -all- the witnesses they could find that were in a good position to determine whether the plane followed a north side flight path or a south side flight path.

I also note that video included two men who say they were at, or near, the Navy Annex that morning and while they both say the plane flew over the southern end of the Annex, neither one said the plane flew north of the Citco station.

Correct, they were not in a position to see it fly over the Citgo gas station, but they -were- in an excellent position to note that the plane flew North of Columbia Pike.

And as I showed you with the red line I drew, using their claim, the plane could still fly south of the Citco and still hit the lamp posts.

Only if you discounted all the witnesses after Terry Morin. And even your red line doesn't concord with the blue line that was south of yours (I'm now guessing it was the 9/11 Commission Report's line).

 

[Faun]

True, I did not show such evidence. I did, however, point out there is evidence; I just chose not to bother showing you because all you'll do is move onto another denial. So I chose to leave your denial right where it is.

Let me get this straight- you are saying there is evidence that the photograph can be seen with the Pentagon in the background?

Yes. But again, showing you is pointless as you will merely look then to your next avenue of denial.

It's what you do.

Here, watch...

Take careful notice of the section of the [yellowish brick] wall visible in this picture at the top-left corner of this picture...

Now compare that to the wall of the Pentagon in this photo...

 

[phoenyx]

So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach

You've offered no solid evidence that their north side approach testimonials are erroneous.

Now you're flat out lying.

In post #319 I showed you photographic evidence indicating the direction of the plane's debris following its impact with the Pentagon.

You showed me photographic evidence of a bunch of holes lined up in a row. Your problem is that you have so little evidence of what can even vaguely be construed of as debris from a crashed 757 at the scene. And then there's the witnesses north of Columbia Pike, as well as the NTSB flight path as well as the 9/11 Commission Flight path, none of which line up with that debris.

The direction of that debris proves the direction the plane was flying as it struck the building and that direction renders it physically impossible for the plane to have come from the north side of the Citco gas station.

No, that damage only means that the plane couldn't have struck the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side. However, it may have exploded in mid air, especially if it was not a 757 as Morin originally thought (he originally thought it was a 737), but a smaller aircraft. Or it could have flown right over and continued, which is what CIT believes.

That leaves those witnesses, some of whom were never interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them in 2008, as either wrong, or worse -- lying.

And what of the witnesses who -were- interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them? Darryl Stafford comes to mind...

 

[phoenyx]

True, I did not show such evidence. I did, however, point out there is evidence; I just chose not to bother showing you because all you'll do is move onto another denial. So I chose to leave your denial right where it is.

Let me get this straight- you are saying there is evidence that the photograph can be seen with the Pentagon in the background?

Yes. But again, showing you is pointless as you will merely look then to your next avenue of denial.

It's what you do.

Here, watch...

Take careful notice of the section of the [yellowish brick] wall visible in this picture at the top-left corner of this picture...

Now compare that to the wall of the Pentagon in this photo...

The picture above has yellow bricks, the one below has grey bricks...

 

[LaDexter]

CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING

 

[phoenyx]

CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING

I assume you're referring to the yellow/grey bricks thing? Photoshop may well have been involved, or pictures taken from somewhere else were simply ascribed to the Pentagon crash site. We have a lot of verified witnesses when it comes to which path the plane flew, but few if any when it comes to what was recovered at the Pentagon.

 

[wihosa]

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!

 

[phoenyx]

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!

Somehow, I don't think your argument is going to go over very well with those who still believe the OCT -.- Even some of those -within- the truth movement still argue that the OCT is generally right in regards to the Pentagon attack. I've discussed the issue with those who believe some or all parts of the various OCT versions out there, as well as some of the non OCT versions out there for years, and I imagine it will be many more years before most people can come to a consensus as to what happened at the Pentagon.

 

[candycorn]

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!

No planes? What do you think phoenyx...willing to buy into this insanity too?

 

[phoenyx]

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!

No planes? What do you think phoenyx...willing to buy into this insanity too?

I wouldn't call it insanity, that would just insult those who believe this version. I believe what all of CIT's witnesses have stated, that a plane did approach the Pentagon, just not from the south side of the Citgo gas station, as some version(s) of the OCT would have us believe.

 

[candycorn]

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!

No planes? What do you think phoenyx...willing to buy into this insanity too?

I wouldn't call it insanity, that would just insult those who believe this version. I believe what all of CIT's witnesses have stated, that a plane did approach the Pentagon, just not from the south side of the Citgo gas station, as some version(s) of the OCT would have us believe.

We'll mark you down as a no-planer (and a no-brainer). Thanks for playing.

 

[phoenyx]

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!

No planes? What do you think phoenyx...willing to buy into this insanity too?

I wouldn't call it insanity, that would just insult those who believe this version. I believe what all of CIT's witnesses have stated, that a plane did approach the Pentagon, just not from the south side of the Citgo gas station, as some version(s) of the OCT would have us believe.

We'll mark you down as a no-planer [insults removed]

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” - Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

 

[candycorn]

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!

No planes? What do you think phoenyx...willing to buy into this insanity too?

I wouldn't call it insanity, that would just insult those who believe this version. I believe what all of CIT's witnesses have stated, that a plane did approach the Pentagon, just not from the south side of the Citgo gas station, as some version(s) of the OCT would have us believe.

We'll mark you down as a no-planer [insults removed]

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” - Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

You have zilch to offer; hence your "I want to avoid detailed explanations". And you've avoided making plausible explanations for the wreckage, tracking, and of course the lightpoles; outside of "they're all lying".

 

[phoenyx]

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!

No planes? What do you think phoenyx...willing to buy into this insanity too?

I wouldn't call it insanity, that would just insult those who believe this version. I believe what all of CIT's witnesses have stated, that a plane did approach the Pentagon, just not from the south side of the Citgo gas station, as some version(s) of the OCT would have us believe.

We'll mark you down as a no-planer [insults removed]

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” - Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

You have zilch to offer...

Only for those who refuse to listen. If you don't listen, you will never learn.

 

[candycorn]

No planes? What do you think phoenyx...willing to buy into this insanity too?

I wouldn't call it insanity, that would just insult those who believe this version. I believe what all of CIT's witnesses have stated, that a plane did approach the Pentagon, just not from the south side of the Citgo gas station, as some version(s) of the OCT would have us believe.

We'll mark you down as a no-planer [insults removed]

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” - Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

You have zilch to offer...

Only for those who refuse to listen. If you don't listen, you will never learn.

One can only surmize that you've never listened since you have shown no understanding about what constitutes evidence vs. hearsay, what the commonly accepted thresholds for evdince admission are, and frankly you lack a certain maturity hold your own in a conversation. Certianly you'll bring up insults and profanity and that's cool...but sometimes when someone like you comes around, the best favor you can do for them is to ridicule the ridiculous, tell them they are full of shit, and watch how they react.

Judging from the lack of any successes in 15 years of the existance of the twoofers, one would expect you to be able to deduce how lame your "movement" is for yourself. Since you were not...I don't feel the least bit guilty about illustrating it.