911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[SAYIT]

The problem with the explosion above the Pentagon theory is the very large debris field such an event would have left behind. Since the plane would have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed, the debris would have spread quite far in the direction of travel by the time it hit the ground. I think we can safely discount that theory.

You may well be right. Even if the plane was not a 757 but a smaller plane, which is my belief, having it explode anywhere near the Pentagon may have made it obvious that it didn't actually hit the Pentagon. Since all the solid evidence suggests it didn't actually hit the Pentagon, this would leave us with the flyover theory.

But despite your desperate claims to the contrary, the "solid evidence" clearly shows that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon and, as Hadit noted, an exploding plane "anywhere near the Pentagon" would have been witnessed and would have left far more debris - much of AA77 having been pulverized when it slammed into a very solid building - over a much larger area. Considering those facts and the fact that no one actually saw a flyover, any rational person would conclude that your theory is groundless.

Insisting that discrepancies between eyewitnesses is proof of a conspiracy is a non-starter,

I don't think I've once said I have "proof" of anything. That being said, I strongly believe that, given the consistency of the vast majority of the witnesses CIT interviewed, confirming a North of Citgo flight path approach to the Pentagon, it is very strong evidence that the plane in fact approached the Pentagon from that path.

And this is where you and the entire 9/11 CT Movement crashes and burns. While readily admitting that you have no proof "of anything" you stumble on with your beliefs because ... well ... because you believe in them.

The obvious question is why (and I don't expect an honest reply).

Why do you - and most of those who believed as you still do slithered away years ago - continue to spew endless half-truths, misinformation, already thoroughly debunked theories and outright fabrications? What is in this for you?

Is it just too hard to abandon that which you have for so long believed?
Are you simply contrary by nature and trolling for shits and giggles?
Do you hate America or our gov't or the condition of your life?
Does this all make you feel like you have some special secret knowledge or superpowers and that you share some kinship with other like-minded foil hatters?
Or is there some malicious or otherwise nefarious agenda that requires you not only to subscribe to any lunacy you find in the fetid bowels of the Internet that somehow serves your conclusions but also to reject anything - no matter how clear and obvious - that contradicts your POV?

 

[phoenyx]

candy seems to have forgotten that those who believe in the flyover theory strongly believe that the light poles and the directional damage at the pentagon were staged. There is no reason to stage the light poles and the directional damage at the pentagon other then to give credence to the notion that the plane took a flight path south of the citgo gas station, straight into the budget analyst's office, whose task was to locate the $2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld had declared had gone missing over the years the day before 9/11, on September 10th.

I’m not forgetting that you’re [insult removed]

You love Rule #5 don't you?

I’m not forgetting that it would have been easier to simply hijack the plane and crash it

If those behind 9/11 simply wanted to crash a plane anywhere in the Pentagon, you may well be right. As I have mentioned previously, however, there is a reason they may have wanted to target that specific part of the Pentagon. There is also evidence that a commercial airliner simply couldn't have reached it, due to the topography and obstacles in the area.

I’m not forgetting that you’re mis-characterizing Secretary Rumsfeld’s comments about the $2.3 trillion dollars

How am I mischaracterizing them?

And we haven’t forgotten that you haven’t accounted for one part of the physical evidence except to say “they’re all lying” which doesn’t satisfy the plausibility threshold.

I never said "They're all lying", don't put words in my mouth. There is plenty of evidence that -some- people are lying, but as to who they are, precisely, that's harder to tell, given the nature of government bureaucracies. If you're -really- interested in looking at the evidence, I suggest you take a look at the following link:
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?

Or is your goal to simply stifle discussion rather then to try to come to an agreement as to what happened at the Pentagon?

 

[phoenyx]

Ask W, Netanyahu, Cheney, Rove, Tenet, Rumsfeld, or Hillary, because all the NeoCons know....

So you clearly don't.

Invoking Rule #14 from Twenty-Five Ways to Suppress Truth:
**14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely**

Those us who don't believe one of the official narratives as to what happened on 9/11 have never claimed to have all the answers. But just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean that the official story is thus true by default. Notice I said "official narratives", not official narrative. That's because the official story doesn't even agree with -itself- on some key points, such as the flight path taken by the aircraft that approached the Pentagon...



Or for those who prefer technical points in text:
Technical Paper Outlining Anomolies Found in NTSB Data

Maybe the Sugar Plum fairy took the plane to the land of Cottoncandy. I can't image the stuff you see at night when you close your eyes, such vivid imagination.

Now you're going for Rule #5 from Twenty-Five Ways to Suppress Truth:
**5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.**

So did planes hit the WTC? Give me your scenario of what happen on 9-11, and who was behind it.

You're going beyond the bounds of the topic of this thread. I've decided to create a new thread to address issues concerning 9/11 beyond the Pentagon attack. I invite you to respond to the thread I just created, which can be seen here:
9/11: What really happened on that day? | USMessageBoard

 

[phoenyx]

The problem with the explosion above the Pentagon theory is the very large debris field such an event would have left behind. Since the plane would have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed, the debris would have spread quite far in the direction of travel by the time it hit the ground. I think we can safely discount that theory.

You may well be right. Even if the plane was not a 757 but a smaller plane, which is my belief, having it explode anywhere near the Pentagon may have made it obvious that it didn't actually hit the Pentagon. Since all the solid evidence suggests it didn't actually hit the Pentagon, this would leave us with the flyover theory.

But despite your desperate claims to the contrary, the "solid evidence" clearly shows that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon

Could you be a bit more specific as to what you consider this "solid evidence" to be?

and, as Hadit noted, an exploding plane "anywhere near the Pentagon" would have been witnessed and would have left far more debris

As you saw from the post of mine that you're quoting, I have acknowledged that he may well be right about that.

Considering those facts and the fact that no one actually saw a flyover,

Can you prove that no one saw a flyover?

Insisting that discrepancies between eyewitnesses is proof of a conspiracy is a non-starter,

I don't think I've once said I have "proof" of anything. That being said, I strongly believe that, given the consistency of the vast majority of the witnesses CIT interviewed, confirming a North of Citgo flight path approach to the Pentagon, it is very strong evidence that the plane in fact approached the Pentagon from that path.

And this is where you and the entire 9/11 CT Movement crashes and burns. While readily admitting that you have no proof "of anything" you stumble on with your beliefs because ... well ... because you believe in them.

I'm glad that you atleast tried to answer the question of why I believe what I believe (you didn't get very far, but that's understandable. It's frequently -very- hard to understand why people believe what they believe. I like having discussions concerning 9/11 not only to try to persuade people to my own beliefs on the subject, but also to try to understand why those who disagree with me believe what they do. Anyway, I believe that 9/11 was an inside job because I believe that the evidence that indicates that this was the case is overwhelming.

The obvious question is why (and I don't expect an honest reply).

Why do you - and most of those who believed as you still do slithered away years ago...

Really -.-? A word of advice. If you want someone to converse with you, you avoid insulting them. It's just basic manners. Unless, ofcourse, you not only weren't expecting a reply, you didn't even want one, relying on Rule #5 to stifle this discussion. In which case, your tactics make perfect sense...

 

[Faun]

When you look at the damage I dont see how anyone could believe it was hit by a large aircraft.

View attachment 80430

I can certainly agree with that. For one, there are several reports suggesting that the plane wasn't as large as a 757. My issue is, what happened to the plane approaching the Pentagon? Did it explode in mid air before hitting the Pentagon, or perhaps when it was over the roof? Or did it fly over the roof as CIT believes? I suppose it's not that important; we can focus on the simple fact that there is so little damage (and from the wrong direction) at the Pentagon.

The problem with the explosion above the Pentagon theory is the very large debris field such an event would have left behind. Since the plane would have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed, the debris would have spread quite far in the direction of travel by the time it hit the ground. I think we can safely discount that theory.

You may well be right. Even if the plane was not a 757 but a smaller plane, which is my belief, having it explode anywhere near the Pentagon may have made it obvious that it didn't actually hit the Pentagon. Since all the solid evidence suggests it didn't actually hit the Pentagon, this would leave us with the flyover theory.

You're lying again...

This is truly irritating -.-. Note that I have never accused -you- of lying, unlike some on my side of the fence. Ah well, I suppose it's to be expected; a simple explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with one's point of view -.-...

This is easily rectified ... stop lying.

You claim "ALL" of the "solid evidence" indicates a plane did not hit the Pentagon. That's complete and utter bullshit and I will call you a liar when you spew such nonsense. The reality is that there is no solid evidence that the plane flew over the builiding. The evidence supporting that it did hit the building includes:

• flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon
• the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring
• DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77
• documents recovered from passengers of flight #77
• pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
• pieces of debris found on a 757
• the flight data recorder from flight #77
• the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77
• 2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon
• a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building

There's even evidence the plane did not fly over the Pentagon:

• of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who reported what they saw, not one reported seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon
• radar indicates flight #77 stopped at the Pentagon
• a plane could not survive flying through that fireball
• neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon
• inconsistent with the events in NYC in which planes were hijacked and flown into the Twin Towers
  
  

  there is no "solid evidence" the plane did not fly into the Pentagon.

  
  Not according to you, no. But you yourself have admitted that you don't always fully read the posts I've sent your way, so it's understandable that you'd still not consider it solid evidence...

  Not according to me, according to the evidence. None of it supports a fly over. All of it supports a direct strike.
  
  

  At best, there are some witnesses who didn't see the plane fly into it; but they're not saying they saw the plane fly over it. They just didn't happen to catch the actual impact.

  
  Yes, yes, to my knowledge, no one quoted you and said "The plane flew over it!". "A bomb hit and a jet kept going" simply isn't enough for Faun's exacting standards -.-...

  To be clear, that's not my quote. You posted that quote but you can't say who said it because you have absolutely no idea since it's hearsay from Dihle.
  
  

  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? Here are witnesses who said they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Flight 77 witness Tim Timmerman
  Pentagon 9/11 witness Dawn Vignola
  9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK - WITNESS
  
  And one who may not have seen the actual impact but saw the plane clip the light pole you claimed could have been planted:
  
  9/11 Pentagon witness Mike Walter, CBS 9

 

[Faun]

So the Moussaoui defense was able to get all of the DNA evidence thrown out then, right?

I don't know, but I highly doubt it.

After all, according to your continued denials, there's no proof any of it matched any of the passengers from flight #77.

These points are all old hat. CIT has another FAQ page for the question of Flight 77's DNA evidence:
**
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?
These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving 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

More nonsense based on the north side approach which, whether you accept it or not, was impossible.

And we're all supposed to just trust your judgement on that one eh ? If you want to continue this particular discussion, list the reasons why you think it's impossible, that we can actually discuss.

Again.... it's not my "judgement." It's physics. Physics demands the debris from the crash will continue in the very same direction as the plane was heading as it flew into the Pentagon.

You just love putting the cart before the horse don't you? -If- the plane crashed into the building, certainly. All the solid evidence points to the plane -not- crashing into the building, however. I know, I know, you don't believe it's solid evidence. You like putting in little sound bites about physics and such, but you seem to have lost interest in actually reading most of what I'm trying to tell you in my posts. That's your right, ofcourse. It just makes you uncredible.

I'm perfectly willing to read your posts but once I read something which is blatant bullshit, I assume everything which follows is as well. If you want me to read your posts, stop trying to bullshit me.

Like when you claim there's solid evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon instead of into it. That's complete bullshit as there's actually no solid evidence whatsoever.

None.

So the only way you can state there is solid evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon is if you're lying. And I am 100% not interested in bullshit.

But here's the death knell to your nonsense that the plane came in low but then flew over the building instead of into it.... there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, mostly in rush hour traffic... not one reported seeing the plane miss the Pentagon and fly over it instead. Not one. Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, in the face of all the reports it flew into it -- there would be many eyewitnesses screaming bloody murder that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. But there isn't one single eyewitness who saw the plane coming in; say they saw it fly over.

Not one.

Your flyover nonsense is bullshit.

 

[hadit]

The problem with the explosion above the Pentagon theory is the very large debris field such an event would have left behind. Since the plane would have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed, the debris would have spread quite far in the direction of travel by the time it hit the ground. I think we can safely discount that theory.

You may well be right. Even if the plane was not a 757 but a smaller plane, which is my belief, having it explode anywhere near the Pentagon may have made it obvious that it didn't actually hit the Pentagon. Since all the solid evidence suggests it didn't actually hit the Pentagon, this would leave us with the flyover theory.

But I don't think that's even feasible, since a plane flying that low over the Pentagon would have attracted attention from the other side, and no one (to the best of my admittedly less than unlimited knowledge) has said they saw a plane fly OVER the Pentagon and continue on. I just don't think the flyover theory is workable. That leaves the simplest alternative, a plane flew into the Pentagon.

And it had to be flying low enough to clip light poles hundreds of feet from the building then pull up doing about 500knots, miss the building, then survive a simultaneous bombing happening right beneath it.

Why it would be important enough to clip the light poles is crazy koo-koo land stuff.

That's what I keep coming back to. Why go through all the effort to make it LOOK like a plane flew into a building when it's just plain simpler to fly the plane into the building?

Perhaps because the part of the building they wanted to target (DOD's accounting offices) was impossible to reach by a commercial airliner:
G Force calcs prove Pentagon attack flight path impossible | The 9/11 Forum

For those who like videos, there is the following article from Pilots for 9/11 Truth (mentioned in the previous article):
Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible | Pilots for 9/11 Truth


An excerpt from an article on the subject of the exact targeted location:
**In his important 2006 book, Nemesis, the Last Days of the American Republic, the third and concluding part of a trilogy, the late Chalmers Johnson, who was an expert on Japan and US foreign policy, writes that as much as 40% of the Pentagon budget is “black,” meaning hidden from public scrutiny.[1] If the figure is even approximately correct, and I believe it is, the number is alarming because it suggests that democratic oversight of US military research and development has broken down. In which case our democratic values and way of life are presently at risk; not from without, as there is no foreign enemy that can destroy the US Constitution, but from within.

I would argue that Chalmers Johnson’s estimate was corroborated on September 10, 2001, on the eve of the worst terrorist attack in US history, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged during a press conference that the Department of Defense (DoD) could not account for $2.3 trillion of the massive Pentagon budget, a number so large as to be incomprehensible.[2] Any remaining hope that the US military might still get its budgetary house in order were dashed at 9:38 am the next morning, when the west wing of the Pentagon exploded in flames and smoke, the target of a terrorist strike. Incredibly, the exact point of impact was the DoD’s accounting offices on the first floor. The surgical destruction of its records and staff, nearly all of whom died in the attack, raises important questions about who benefited from 9/11. Given the Pentagon’s vast size, the statistical odds against this being a coincidence prompted skeptics of the official story to read a dark design into the attack. As Deep Throat said: “Follow the money.”...**

Source: Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side | Foreign Policy Journal

Insisting that discrepancies between eyewitnesses is proof of a conspiracy is a non-starter,

I don't think I've once said I have "proof" of anything. That being said, I strongly believe that, given the consistency of the vast majority of the witnesses CIT interviewed, confirming a North of Citgo flight path approach to the Pentagon, it is very strong evidence that the plane in fact approached the Pentagon from that path.

given the extremely short amount of time any of them had to carefully plot the aircraft's heading, altitude, and speed before it plowed into the Pentagon.

They didn't have to "plot the aircraft's heading, altitude and speed". They just needed to describe the path it took while it was in their line of sight. The witnesses who probably had the easiest job of remembering the flight path were Sargeant Brooks and Lagasse, Pentagon police who were literally refuelling at the Citgo gas station at the time the plane flew over it. See for yourself how sure they are that it came from north side instead of the south side:

It is notoriously difficult for anyone to say for certain just how close or far away an airplane in the sky really is to objects on the ground. That is why I give more credence to the debris field than eyewitness recollection when determining the direction from which the plane approached.

 

[Faun]

The only other plane to arrive at the Pentagon arrived about 3 minutes after the blast. By all means, provide radar images that show a plane any closer in time than that.

Here's the last radar image before flight 77 disappeared (I put a white box around it). You'll note GOFER06 (the C-130 multiple witnesses said they saw) is nearby to the SW; as is 5175 to the north; something designated with a '2' to the west and something with an 'E' to the east and something to the south with a 'W'. To the SSE, is Reagan airport, with other flights, though I can't tell if they're on the ground or in the air.

 

[phoenyx]

I can certainly agree with that. For one, there are several reports suggesting that the plane wasn't as large as a 757. My issue is, what happened to the plane approaching the Pentagon? Did it explode in mid air before hitting the Pentagon, or perhaps when it was over the roof? Or did it fly over the roof as CIT believes? I suppose it's not that important; we can focus on the simple fact that there is so little damage (and from the wrong direction) at the Pentagon.

The problem with the explosion above the Pentagon theory is the very large debris field such an event would have left behind. Since the plane would have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed, the debris would have spread quite far in the direction of travel by the time it hit the ground. I think we can safely discount that theory.

You may well be right. Even if the plane was not a 757 but a smaller plane, which is my belief, having it explode anywhere near the Pentagon may have made it obvious that it didn't actually hit the Pentagon. Since all the solid evidence suggests it didn't actually hit the Pentagon, this would leave us with the flyover theory.

You're lying again...

This is truly irritating -.-. Note that I have never accused -you- of lying, unlike some on my side of the fence. Ah well, I suppose it's to be expected; a simple explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with one's point of view -.-...

This is easily rectified ... stop lying.

You haven't shown any evidence that I'm lying. In a court of law, it's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty", but I know that we're not in a court of law and you can accuse me of a variety of things without evidence. I think it'd be better if you just stuck to looking at the evidence as I'm trying to do. I'm fairly certain that you would appreciate the same courtesy if you were in my place. Or do you like it when people call you a shill?

You claim "ALL" of the "solid evidence" indicates a plane did not hit the Pentagon. [insults basically saying I disagree]

See how much nicer it could have been if you simply said "I disagree" instead of a string of insults? Then you could have simply segued into your points below...

The reality is that there is no solid evidence that the plane flew over the builiding.

I disagree...

The evidence supporting that it did hit the building includes:

• flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon

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

• the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring

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

• DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77

Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building? | Citizen Investigation Team

• documents recovered from passengers of flight #77

Same issues as the DNA, I imagine...

• pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
• pieces of debris found on a 757pieces of debris found on a 757

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

• the flight data recorder from flight #77

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

• the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77

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

• 2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon

Certainly wasn't a 757...

• a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building

Certainly don't agree with that...

There's even evidence the plane did not fly over the Pentagon:

• of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who reported what they saw, not one reported seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon

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:


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.

• a plane could not survive flying through that fireball

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

• neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon

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

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'll continue responding in my next post, only 5 Media clips per post allowed...

 

[phoenyx]

Here are witnesses who said they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

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)

CIT lists him in the "Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were allegedly in a position to possibly confirm one" Category and further specifies that he's a "debunked witness, photo possibly shows him at Navy Annex"

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"

[pixelated video, no name given]

An anonymous video where you can't even see the person is not much to go on.

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

Flight 77 witness Tim Timmerman
Pentagon 9/11 witness Dawn Vignola

From CIT's forum:
**Dawn Vignola and Hugh Timmerman would have had a good view of the plane only on it's approach.

The highrise building in front of them to the left completely blocked their view of the final moments of the flight path so there is no way they would have been able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo. And the "crash" would be nothing but an explosion as the plane could have only been visible for a fraction of a millisecond as it came out from behind the building. Plus we know for a fact that nothing crashed on the helipad.

Here is the view from her apartment:

The explosion, fireball, and smoke plume would effectively divert and block their view of the flyover as it ascended up over the river like a normal departure out of Reagan.

So you are wrong about their view being the "best" of the flight path. They deduced the impact after the plane disappeared behind that building and they saw the explosion. They do have a panoramic view to the south so we believe that they could have seen the plane for quite a while on it's approach before it disappeared behind that building.

Dawn is 100% certain that the plane was "white" which corroborates virtually all of the previously unknown witnesses we found in the neighborhouds:

This proves the plane could not have been AA77.**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=89&st=0

9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK - WITNESS

That would be Lt. Col O'Brien. CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by PFT/CIT. He described the plane as silver.

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

9/11 Pentagon witness Mike Walter, CBS 9

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

 

[phoenyx]

Again.... it's not my "judgement." It's physics. Physics demands the debris from the crash will continue in the very same direction as the plane was heading as it flew into the Pentagon.

You just love putting the cart before the horse don't you? -If- the plane crashed into the building, certainly. All the solid evidence points to the plane -not- crashing into the building, however. I know, I know, you don't believe it's solid evidence. You like putting in little sound bites about physics and such, but you seem to have lost interest in actually reading most of what I'm trying to tell you in my posts. That's your right, ofcourse. It just makes you uncredible.

I'm perfectly willing to read your posts but once I read something which is [insult removed], I assume everything which follows is as well. If you want me to read your posts, stop trying to [insult removed]

On second thought, perhaps it's best that you don't read my posts. That way, you can just come up with your little sound bites and I can respond with similar sound bites, and I imagine you'll be using less insults as well.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

3. Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

**

 

[phoenyx]

given the extremely short amount of time any of them had to carefully plot the aircraft's heading, altitude, and speed before it plowed into the Pentagon.

They didn't have to "plot the aircraft's heading, altitude and speed". They just needed to describe the path it took while it was in their line of sight. The witnesses who probably had the easiest job of remembering the flight path were Sargeant Brooks and Lagasse, Pentagon police who were literally refuelling at the Citgo gas station at the time the plane flew over it. See for yourself how sure they are that it came from north side instead of the south side:

It is notoriously difficult for anyone to say for certain just how close or far away an airplane in the sky really is to objects on the ground.

Depends how close the plane is. If the plane is right over your head, I think you've got a pretty good idea as to where it is, don't you? More then one CIT witness was in such a position. One witness that comes to mind is Sergeant Lagasse:

 

[phoenyx]

The only other plane to arrive at the Pentagon arrived about 3 minutes after the blast. By all means, provide radar images that show a plane any closer in time than that.

Here's the last radar image before flight 77 disappeared (I put a white box around it). You'll note GOFER06 (the C-130 multiple witnesses said they saw) is nearby to the SW; as is 5175 to the north; something designated with a '2' to the west and something with an 'E' to the east and something to the south with a 'W'. To the SSE, is Reagan airport, with other flights, though I can't tell if they're on the ground or in the air.

Nearby is a relative term. CIT has certainly mentioned the C-130, as well as an E4B. They mention both in their Second Plane Cover Story article. Here's an excerpt:
**Any talk about a "2nd plane" at all would help provide an explanation for the people who saw the flyover and were confused about what they saw in relation to the official impact narrative. There definitely were planes that were in the airspace minutes after the attack but there were false reports of a "2nd plane" that allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon during the explosion. The only planes that have been confirmed in the airspace near the time of the attack came in several minutes later. Specifically there was a C-130 near the Pentagon and an E4B over DC skies, both didn't appear until about three minutes or more after the explosion. Both of these planes have been shrouded in mystery and speculation. News reports of these planes were ambiguously blended with the flyover via fabricated accounts ofsome sort of second military plane/jet shadowing/chasing along the same flight path and then veering off/peeling off and up into the air. Anyone who might have seen the flyover jet would have been thrown off by these fabricated accounts that place a 2nd plane in the airspace at the same time of impact, essentially veering away simultaneously with the explosion...**

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | The Pentacon

 

[Faun]

The problem with the explosion above the Pentagon theory is the very large debris field such an event would have left behind. Since the plane would have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed, the debris would have spread quite far in the direction of travel by the time it hit the ground. I think we can safely discount that theory.

You may well be right. Even if the plane was not a 757 but a smaller plane, which is my belief, having it explode anywhere near the Pentagon may have made it obvious that it didn't actually hit the Pentagon. Since all the solid evidence suggests it didn't actually hit the Pentagon, this would leave us with the flyover theory.

You're lying again...

This is truly irritating -.-. Note that I have never accused -you- of lying, unlike some on my side of the fence. Ah well, I suppose it's to be expected; a simple explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with one's point of view -.-...

This is easily rectified ... stop lying.

You haven't shown any evidence that I'm lying. In a court of law, it's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty", but I know that we're not in a court of law and you can accuse me of a variety of things without evidence. I think it'd be better if you just stuck to looking at the evidence as I'm trying to do. I'm fairly certain that you would appreciate the same courtesy if you were in my place. Or do you like it when people call you a shill?

The evidence is that the is zero evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon. You stating it did offers zero proof that it did. Zero witnesses said they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. There is plenty of evidence the plane flew into the Pentagon. There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon. There are plenty of eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. There are zero eyewitnesses who say they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Given that, claiming the plane flew over the Pentagon is lying. Plain and simple. You're not winning anyone over to your side by lying and thinking you can introduce a new scenario, not supported by evidence, not supported by eyewitnesses, into believing your delusions.

You claim "ALL" of the "solid evidence" indicates a plane did not hit the Pentagon. [insults basically saying I disagree]

See how much nicer it could have been if you simply said "I disagree" instead of a string of insults? Then you could have simply segued into your points below...

I note, you ignored every piece of evidence I pointed out. Because you ignored them, I'll list them again...

• flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon
• the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring
• DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77
• documents recovered from passengers of flight #77
• pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
• pieces of debris found on a 757
• the flight data recorder from flight #77
• the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77
• 2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon
• a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building

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

• of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who reported what they saw, not one reported seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon
• radar indicates flight #77 stopped at the Pentagon
• a plane could not survive flying through that fireball
• neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon
• inconsistent with the events in NYC in which planes were hijacked and flown into the Twin Towers

The reality is that there is no solid evidence that the plane flew over the builiding.

I disagree...

Who cares that you disagree? Prove your claim with evidence. Your words mean nothing. Only evidence matters. So far, all you've offered is the eyewitness account of 5 people, none of whom said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon; and zero physical evidence.

That's it. That's your evidence.

The evidence supporting that it did hit the building includes:

• flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon

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

It's not an assumption. That blip on the radar was followed from the moment it entered that radar and it followed the loop we know flight #77 took before reaching the Pentagon. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that blip was flight #77. As far as falling off radar ... the plane could not have stayed low to the ground forever ... if you think it didn't crash -- you show where it reappeared on radar.... The burden of proof for your claims is for you to prove. Sadly for you -- you can't.

• the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring

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

There are more eyewitnesses who said the plane came up Columbia Pike or 395 than said it flew north of the Citco. And those are just the witnesses who provided their recollection minutes/hours after the crash, not 5-6 years later as in the video you posted. Furthermore, the witness in that video is clearly confused about his own recollection. At one point, he's pointing to lampposts he claims were knocked down which weren't knocked down, so he could support his own north side approach with evidence that didn't actually exist.

• DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77

Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building? | Citizen Investigation Team

Now you're trying to back your claim of a north side approach by citing a north side approach as evidence.

Sorry, that doesn't fly. You need to first prove the north side approach before you can say the DNA evidence is not valid because the plane came in from north of the Citco. Once again, you fail to disprove the known evidence.

• documents recovered from passengers of flight #77

Same issues as the DNA, I imagine...

Same failure as your last one. You can't say there's no valid evidence found from flight #77 because it came from north of the Citco when you can't even prove it came from north of the Citco.

• pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
• pieces of debris found on a 757pieces of debris found on a 757

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. 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.

• the flight data recorder from flight #77

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

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.

• the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77

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

• 2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon

Certainly wasn't a 757...

Great, now you're back to lying.

It's not possible to determine what kind of aircraft is in those videos. That's how I know you're lying. All that can be discerned from them is that a plane flew into, and not over, the Pentagon.

• a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building

Certainly don't agree with that...

So another person who thinks a 757 didn't cause the damage? Their opinion doesn't disprove the evidence or the eyewitnesses who were there and said it did. And based on eyewitnesses hurts their opinion even more since they rely on eyewitnesses who reported seeing a plane smaller than a 757. But their opinion is negated by the fact that they exclude all the witnesses who said it was a larger commercial aircraft; and as is found among all eyewitness accounts -- they are subject to discrepancies. Rendering it moot that eyewitnesses differed from their description of the aircraft when they all pretty much agree they saw a plane.

There's even evidence the plane did not fly over the Pentagon:

• of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who reported what they saw, not one reported seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon

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.

Not one person ever said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. You're dreaming with your flyover nonsense. There's absolutely nothing concrete to support it.

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. It's done and the history of what happened has been recorded. No rational person is going to accept your revision of history given your lack of supporting evidence.

• a plane could not survive flying through that fireball

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.

• neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon

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.

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. So when you say, "not even CIT," you demonstrate a lack of understanding that CIT actually does address the question of hundreds of eyewitnesses making such a claim.

But I didn't make any such claim. I said, "many," not "hundreds," say they saw it. And many did.

 

[Faun]

This is while I said earlier that there is no point in posting these videos as your only purpose is to deny what the eyewitnesses say; despite the harsh reality that their description matches the physical evidence.

Here are witnesses who said they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

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.

CIT lists him in the "Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were allegedly in a position to possibly confirm one" Category and further specifies that he's a "debunked witness, photo possibly shows him at Navy Annex"

Why on Earth would I care how CIT "lists" him? You cite them claiming they might see him in a photo from the Annex but zero conclusive evidence that he was not in his car with his girlfriend as he described.

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. To fit into their agenda, CIT seeks to dismiss his account based on that and because he didn't mention the second plane (which he might not have seen). He also doesn't give his location, so who knows why CIT claims he was "far away," except to once again demonstrate their eagerness to dismiss any evidence that doesn't comport with their made up scenario that flight #77 flew in from north of the Citco and proceeded to fly over the Pentagon.

[pixelated video, no name given]

An anonymous video where you can't even see the person is not much to go on.

That it's anonymous doesn't discount it as the person was clearly present and clearly describing what he claims to have witnessed. It stands as an eyewitness account even if you don't like it.

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

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

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.

Another CIT fail.

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?

Flight 77 witness Tim Timmerman
Pentagon 9/11 witness Dawn Vignola

From CIT's forum:
**Dawn Vignola and Hugh Timmerman would have had a good view of the plane only on it's approach.

The highrise building in front of them to the left completely blocked their view of the final moments of the flight path so there is no way they would have been able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo. And the "crash" would be nothing but an explosion as the plane could have only been visible for a fraction of a millisecond as it came out from behind the building. Plus we know for a fact that nothing crashed on the helipad.

Here is the view from her apartment:

The explosion, fireball, and smoke plume would effectively divert and block their view of the flyover as it ascended up over the river like a normal departure out of Reagan.

So you are wrong about their view being the "best" of the flight path. They deduced the impact after the plane disappeared behind that building and they saw the explosion. They do have a panoramic view to the south so we believe that they could have seen the plane for quite a while on it's approach before it disappeared behind that building.

Dawn is 100% certain that the plane was "white" which corroborates virtually all of the previously unknown witnesses we found in the neighborhouds:

This proves the plane could not have been AA77.**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=89&st=0

Even with that building there, the Pentagon is still visible so they still had a clear view of the plane flying into the Pentagon. Given they were tacking the plane from before it disappeared behind that building until it reemerged as it flew into the Pentagon by no means, means they didn't see it fly into the Pentagon.

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

Furthermore, Timmerman, who at the time lived right off of 395, described the plane as being "so close to me, it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter, it was just right there." And he placed the path along 395 and Columbia Pike, like so many others, which puts the path south of the Citco.

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

9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK - WITNESS

That would be Lt. Col O'Brien. CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by PFT/CIT. He described the plane as silver.

Which it was.

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

9/11 Pentagon witness Mike Walter, CBS 9

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

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

 

[Faun]

Again.... it's not my "judgement." It's physics. Physics demands the debris from the crash will continue in the very same direction as the plane was heading as it flew into the Pentagon.

You just love putting the cart before the horse don't you? -If- the plane crashed into the building, certainly. All the solid evidence points to the plane -not- crashing into the building, however. I know, I know, you don't believe it's solid evidence. You like putting in little sound bites about physics and such, but you seem to have lost interest in actually reading most of what I'm trying to tell you in my posts. That's your right, ofcourse. It just makes you uncredible.

I'm perfectly willing to read your posts but once I read something which is [insult removed], I assume everything which follows is as well. If you want me to read your posts, stop trying to [insult removed]

On second thought, perhaps it's best that you don't read my posts. That way, you can just come up with your little sound bites and I can respond with similar sound bites, and I imagine you'll be using less insults as well.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

3. Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

**

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

The only other plane to arrive at the Pentagon arrived about 3 minutes after the blast. By all means, provide radar images that show a plane any closer in time than that.

Here's the last radar image before flight 77 disappeared (I put a white box around it). You'll note GOFER06 (the C-130 multiple witnesses said they saw) is nearby to the SW; as is 5175 to the north; something designated with a '2' to the west and something with an 'E' to the east and something to the south with a 'W'. To the SSE, is Reagan airport, with other flights, though I can't tell if they're on the ground or in the air.

Nearby is a relative term. CIT has certainly mentioned the C-130, as well as an E4B. They mention both in their Second Plane Cover Story article. Here's an excerpt:
**Any talk about a "2nd plane" at all would help provide an explanation for the people who saw the flyover and were confused about what they saw in relation to the official impact narrative. There definitely were planes that were in the airspace minutes after the attack but there were false reports of a "2nd plane" that allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon during the explosion. The only planes that have been confirmed in the airspace near the time of the attack came in several minutes later. Specifically there was a C-130 near the Pentagon and an E4B over DC skies, both didn't appear until about three minutes or more after the explosion. Both of these planes have been shrouded in mystery and speculation. News reports of these planes were ambiguously blended with the flyover via fabricated accounts ofsome sort of second military plane/jet shadowing/chasing along the same flight path and then veering off/peeling off and up into the air. Anyone who might have seen the flyover jet would have been thrown off by these fabricated accounts that place a 2nd plane in the airspace at the same time of impact, essentially veering away simultaneously with the explosion...**

Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | The Pentacon

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

Again -- no one said they saw that.

CIT is lying; and by proxy, so are you.

Stop lying.

As far as their claim that no other aircraft was in the vicinity for "minutes" after the crash, once again, eyewitness accounts, as well as radar, proves them wrong. Eyewitnesses say the C-130 was nearby and veered away to avoid the area where the first plane crashed. Looking at the radar image I posted, '5175' was about the same distance, as were the ones designated with a '2', an 'E', and a 'W'. And those were all nearby when flight #77 flew into the Pentagon.

 

[phoenyx]

You may well be right. Even if the plane was not a 757 but a smaller plane, which is my belief, having it explode anywhere near the Pentagon may have made it obvious that it didn't actually hit the Pentagon. Since all the solid evidence suggests it didn't actually hit the Pentagon, this would leave us with the flyover theory.

You're lying again...

This is truly irritating -.-. Note that I have never accused -you- of lying, unlike some on my side of the fence. Ah well, I suppose it's to be expected; a simple explanation as to why someone doesn't agree with one's point of view -.-...

This is easily rectified ... stop lying.

You haven't shown any evidence that I'm lying. In a court of law, it's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty", but I know that we're not in a court of law and you can accuse me of a variety of things without evidence. I think it'd be better if you just stuck to looking at the evidence as I'm trying to do. I'm fairly certain that you would appreciate the same courtesy if you were in my place. Or do you like it when people call you a shill?

The evidence is that there is zero evidence the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Sigh -.-. Fortunately, you actually discuss the evidence I've brought up below, let's just get to that...

You stating it did offers zero proof that it did.

We're talking about evidence, not proof, please stick to the subject...

There is plenty of evidence the plane flew into the Pentagon.

Flimsy evidence, I've contested just about all the evidence you've provided.

There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon.

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

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

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

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

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

You claim "ALL" of the "solid evidence" indicates a plane did not hit the Pentagon. [insults basically saying I disagree]

See how much nicer it could have been if you simply said "I disagree" instead of a string of insults? Then you could have simply segued into your points below...

I note, you ignored every piece of evidence I pointed out.

Actually, I -responded- to all of your evidence, and I see that you've responded to at least some of my response below...

Because you ignored them, I'll list them again...

• flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon
• the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring
• DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77
• documents recovered from passengers of flight #77
• pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
• pieces of debris found on a 757
• the flight data recorder from flight #77
• the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77
• 2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon
• a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building

All of your evidence was responded to in the post you're responding to (Post #569 in this thread for anyone in the audience who might be interested).

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

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

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

The reality is that there is no solid evidence that the plane flew over the builiding.

I disagree...

Who cares that you disagree?

I do. You know, the person who's not only reading your post, but responding to it? A good discussion requires a certain amount of respect amoung those who are discussing it. Without enough of that, a discussion will die.

Prove your claim with evidence.

Proving claims can be difficult, but I have certainly been putting a lot of effort into discussing the evidence for my claims.

The evidence supporting that it did hit the building includes:

• flight #77 dropping off of radar when it hit the Pentagon

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

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

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

As far as falling off radar ... the plane could not have stayed low to the ground forever ... if you think it didn't crash -- you show where it reappeared on radar....

Perhaps it simply landed somewhere; Reagan International Airport, perhaps. As mentioned in the link above, Flight 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11, so that wouldn't be the flight landing.

• the shape of the damage to the exterior wall of the E-ring

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

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

CIT's gone through pretty much all of the witnesses, I've gone over all the named witnesses you've mentioned. Regarding Lagasse, did you actually listen to Lagasse? The plane went right above his head; couldn't have been easier for him to know the exact location of the plane; and in case you never bothered to click on the video clip, he was standing -at- the Citgo gas station. Can't have a better vantage point then that when it comes to determining whether the plane flew north or south of said Citgo gas station.

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

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

Furthermore, the witness in that video is clearly confused about his own recollection. At one point, he's pointing to lampposts he claims were knocked down which weren't knocked down, so he could support his own north side approach with evidence that didn't actually exist.

He had just been told by Craig Ranke that the official story posited that light poles had been knocked down, and was trying to fit that in to what he saw. I think his original comment on the subject was more telling:
"Like I said, you can't really see the light poles from here, so I didn't see anything".

• DNA recovered from passengers of flight #77

Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building? | Citizen Investigation Team

Now you're trying to back your claim of a north side approach by citing a north side approach as evidence.

The North side approach evidence is -evidence- that Flight 77 couldn't have hit the Pentagon. But it's certainly not the only evidence. The completed text of the article for those who don't want to click on the link:
**These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving 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.**

• pieces of debris from from an American Airlines plane
• pieces of debris found on a 757pieces of debris found on a 757

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.

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.

• the flight data recorder from flight #77

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

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?

• the cockpit voice recorder from flight #77

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. 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.

• 2 separate videos from surveillance cameras showing a plane flying into the Pentagon

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.

All that can be discerned from them is that a plane flew into, and not over, the Pentagon.

We disagree on that.

• a debris field consistent with a plane flying into the building

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...

But their opinion is negated by the fact that they exclude all the witnesses who said it was a larger commercial aircraft; and as is found among all eyewitness accounts -- they are subject to discrepancies. Rendering it moot that eyewitnesses differed from their description of the aircraft when they all pretty much agree they saw a plane.

We can agree that a plane approached the Pentagon. That's about as far as our agreement goes, though.

There's even evidence the plane did not fly over the Pentagon:

• of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who reported what they saw, not one reported seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon

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.

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.

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?

• a plane could not survive flying through that fireball

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.

• neither of the 2 surveillance cameras show the plane flying over the Pentagon

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

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.

So when you say, "not even CIT," you demonstrate a lack of understanding that CIT actually does address the question of hundreds of eyewitnesses making such a claim.

You had asked "Who said hundreds were needed?". My response was that I hadn't said it, and neither had CIT.

 

[phoenyx]

Here are witnesses who said they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

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 -.-

CIT lists him in the "Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were allegedly in a position to possibly confirm one" Category and further specifies that he's a "debunked witness, photo possibly shows him at Navy Annex" and further specifies that he's a "debunked witness, photo possibly shows him at Navy Annex"

Why on Earth would I care how CIT "lists" him?

CIT's done a -lot- of research on those who claim to have witnessed the pentaplane hit the Pentagon.

You cite them claiming they might see him in a photo from the Annex but zero conclusive evidence that he was not in his car with his girlfriend as he described.

I never said I had "conclusive evidence" he wasn't. That being said, I definitely think there are witnesses who were in a better position to see the flight path the plane took; and those witnesses all place the plane on a flight path North of the Citgo gas station. Such a flight path negates the possibility that the plane crashed into the Pentagon due to the fact that there is no damage or debris from that flight path direction.

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.

To fit into their agenda, CIT seeks to dismiss his account based on that and because he didn't mention the second plane (which he might not have seen).

Seems a lot of witnesses didn't see a second plane. Some who -did- say they saw a second plane never saw the first. Take Roosevelt Roberts for example:
**11. Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

Find Roosevelt Robert's name under this index at the Library of Congress website to download his officially documented interview:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/91...ecordingI1.html

Or download direct:

Real Audio

MP3

WAV

Download our independently confirmed interview with him here:

http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts

Roosevelt is the critical first flyover witness. He did not see the Pentagon attack jet on the approach at all. He only saw it immediately after the explosion as it banked away from the Pentagon.

He was at the east side of the loading dock when he saw the plane over the south parking lot of the Pentagon.

Roosevelt says that the plane was 50 to less than 100 feet above the light poles in the south parking lot and was banking around. His exact direction of the bank is a bit unclear from the interview but it sounds as though he has it banking around to the north since he says towards the "mall entrance side" which is on the north side of the Pentagon.

He says "southwest" but we think his directions were confused at that moment since it sounds like he is struggling to visualize and verbalize the proper cardinal direction which is to be expected from eyewitness recollection. He does clarify further when he says it was not banking towards the airport meaning it wasn't banking southwest after all.

As much as we would like to clarify his account further either Roosevelt got scared or somebody told him not to talk to us because it was clear he was avoiding us after promising follow up.

As discussed in the documentary we were able to eventually reach him again weeks later after trying maybe a dozen times.

Eventually we got a hold of him again and basically explained the implications of what he saw in a last ditch effort to get him to talk to us in more detail. After that discussion he agreed to an on camera interview for one week later on Sunday June 8th. Unfortunately when I called to confirm he backed out.

At this point it's clear that Roosevelt is nervous regarding the implications of what he saw and prefers to not put himself in a difficult position by implicating his boss and no doubt as far as he is concerned jeopardizing his livelihood.

This does not change the fact that he already officially reported this jet in 2001 and has independently confirmed this to us in 2008.

There is absolutely no possible explanation for what he saw other than the flyover.

The C-130 came in significantly later, was not nearly that low, and was not anywhere near the south parking lot and didn't even fly over the Pentagon. Plus Roosevelt is certain what he saw was a silver commercial aircraft/airliner with jet engines, and not a C-130 with propeller engines.**

Source: North Side Flyover

He also doesn't give his location,

He actually says his exact location in your clip. Please pay more attention -.-

[pixelated video, no name given]

An anonymous video where you can't even see the person is not much to go on.

That it's anonymous doesn't discount it as the person was clearly present and clearly describing what he claims to have witnessed. It stands as an eyewitness account even if you don't like it.

You don't even know who it was. But by all means, provide some evidence that any of the following assertions you make on this person are true.

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

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

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

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

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.

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'.

Flight 77 witness Tim Timmerman
Pentagon 9/11 witness Dawn Vignola

From CIT's forum:
**Dawn Vignola and Hugh Timmerman would have had a good view of the plane only on it's approach.

The highrise building in front of them to the left completely blocked their view of the final moments of the flight path so there is no way they would have been able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo. And the "crash" would be nothing but an explosion as the plane could have only been visible for a fraction of a millisecond as it came out from behind the building. Plus we know for a fact that nothing crashed on the helipad.

Here is the view from her apartment:

The explosion, fireball, and smoke plume would effectively divert and block their view of the flyover as it ascended up over the river like a normal departure out of Reagan.

So you are wrong about their view being the "best" of the flight path. They deduced the impact after the plane disappeared behind that building and they saw the explosion. They do have a panoramic view to the south so we believe that they could have seen the plane for quite a while on it's approach before it disappeared behind that building.

Dawn is 100% certain that the plane was "white" which corroborates virtually all of the previously unknown witnesses we found in the neighborhouds:

This proves the plane could not have been AA77.**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=89&st=0

Even with that building there, the Pentagon is still visible so they still had a clear view of the plane flying into the Pentagon. Given they were tacking the plane from before it disappeared behind that building until it reemerged as it flew into the Pentagon by no means, means they didn't see it fly into the Pentagon.

They could certainly have seen it approach the Pentagon, and then seen an explosion at the Pentagon. They were -not- in the best position to discern if the explosion was actually caused by the plane.

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

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

Furthermore, Timmerman, who at the time lived right off of 395, described the plane as being "so close to me, it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter, it was just right there." And he placed the path along 395 and Columbia Pike, like so many others, which puts the path south of the Citco.

Do you know where Timmerman was, exactly?

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

Perhaps CIT interviewed her independently.

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

9/11 Pentagon witness Mike Walter, CBS 9

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

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

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

Again.... it's not my "judgement." It's physics. Physics demands the debris from the crash will continue in the very same direction as the plane was heading as it flew into the Pentagon.

You just love putting the cart before the horse don't you? -If- the plane crashed into the building, certainly. All the solid evidence points to the plane -not- crashing into the building, however. I know, I know, you don't believe it's solid evidence. You like putting in little sound bites about physics and such, but you seem to have lost interest in actually reading most of what I'm trying to tell you in my posts. That's your right, ofcourse. It just makes you uncredible.

I'm perfectly willing to read your posts but once I read something which is [insult removed], I assume everything which follows is as well. If you want me to read your posts, stop trying to [insult removed]

On second thought, perhaps it's best that you don't read my posts. That way, you can just come up with your little sound bites and I can respond with similar sound bites, and I imagine you'll be using less insults as well.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

3. Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

**

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

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

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

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

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

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