911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[candycorn]

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]

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.

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

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.

Some eyewitness accounts do mention that they saw a second plane, but one must take into account that they may have been saying this because they were led to believe that a plane had -already- crashed into the Pentagon; thus, what they had to conclude that what they were seeing -must- have been a second plane. Other accounts may be from people such as Lloyd England, who were purposely placed to support the official story. As to the radar data, CIT has this to say:
**Let's be clear: we have never claimed that the low-flying plane seen by all of the witnesses that we interviewed was actually American Airlines Flight 77, nor do we believe that to be the case. Even the 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that AA77 was completely lost from radar as early as 8:56. On p. 8-9 they write:

At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication. ... At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft. American Airlines dispatchers also tried, without success.

This occured near the Kentucky-Ohio border, almost 300 miles west of the Pentagon, as depicted in the following image released shortly after 9/11 by Flight Explorer, a Virginia-based company whose commercial software uses FAA air traffic control reports, which are updated as often as every 10 seconds, to track airplanes' locations, speed, altitude and more in near real-time.

The Pentagon is located right next to Reagan National Airport, which is labeled "DCA" in the image above. AA77 was nowhere near the Pentagon when it vanished.

The transcript of alleged radio communications with AA77, published by The New York Times in October of 2001, tells the same story: AA77 makes its final transmission just before 8:51, after which time it is never heard from again, despite repeated attempts by personnel at both Indianapolis Center and American Airlines to re-establish contact.

There is no independent or verifiable evidence in the public domain, official or otherwise, proving what happened to AA77 after 8:56-8:57. The plane that eventually appeared in the airspace over Arlington and Washington D.C. shortly after 9:30, which is falsely alleged to have crashed into the Pentagon, was never positively identified. This too is repeatedly acknowledged by the 9/11 Commission:

"At 9:32 ... Several of the Dulles controllers observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed and notified Reagan National Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan National and Dulles airports notified the Secret Service. The aircraft's identity or type was unknown." (p. 25)

"At 9:36, the FAA's Boston Center called NEADS and relayed the discovery about anunidentified aircraft closing in on Washington" (p. 27)

"After the 9:36 call to NEADS about the unidentified aircraft a few miles from the White House, the Langley fighers were ordered to Washington, D.C." (p. 27)

"[The military] had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approach Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help." (p. 34)

It's also corroborated by air traffic controllers working out of nearby Washington Dulles International Airport that morning, such as Todd Lewis, who told Dateline:

One of my colleagues saw a target moving quite fast from the northwest to the southeast. So, we all started watching that target, and she notified the supervisor. But nobody knew that was a commercial flight at the time. Nobody knew that it was American 77. ... I thought it was a military flight."

His colleague, Danielle O'Brien, recalled:

"We started moving the planes in as quickly as we could. ... Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed ... I had literally a blip and nothing more."

During our multi-year, independent investigation, we have personally interviewed dozens of eyewitnesses who saw this plane — which they describe as a large, twin-engine jet — minutes later, as it flew at just above tree-top level over Arlington in its final moments before reaching the Pentagon.

While reports vary regarding its exact colors and markings, many insist that the plane did not look like an American Airlines jet, and a number of them describe it as predominantly white or off-white in color.

Because there is not a clear enough consensus among the witnesses regarding how the plane was painted, we stop short of claiming to conclusively know the exact details, but we do feel that the evidence is very strong that this unidentified plane did not look like a signature silver American Airlines 757, with blue and red stripes down the side and a big "AA" on the tail.

More importantly, what the aggregated witness reports and the body of evidence as a whole are (extremely) clear on is that the plane approached on a flight path that makes it physically impossible for it to have caused ANY of the documented damage inside and outside of the building. It could not have and did not hit the building. This is why it was seen flying away immediately after the explosion by multiple-eyewitnesses, such as Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr, and why cab driver Lloyde England's story completely fell apart under scrutiny.

So, there is no reason to believe that this unidentified plane was American Airlines Flight 77, and an abundance of evidence that it was not.

In no way does the fact that average citizens lack the access and resources to discover the true fate of AA77 change or undermine the evidence that is already a matter of public record which proves that it did not hit the Pentagon, and thus that 9/11 was a full-blown "false flag" black op.

We always caution against speculation, but for those who are simply looking to get a plausible idea of what might have happened to AA77, we believe Operation Northwoods provides a prototype...**

Source: Frequently Asked Questions » If Flight 77 did not hit the building what happened to its passengers and crew? | Citizen Investigation Team

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.

As mentioned before, nearby is a relative term. Planes can cover great distances in not much time, after all. That being said, CIT has found that the 2 nearest planes were still minutes away as the plane flies from the Pentagon at the time that the pentaplane approached it:
**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 | CIT's The Pentacon

 

[Faun]

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.

Chanting, nuh-uh, is contesting nothing. You have nothing to prove the evidence is fake. All you do is provide your circular logic that the evidence is fake because the plane approached from north of the Citco, and then to prove the plane approached from north of the Cito, you point to the evidence being fake. All you're doing is making yourself dizzy with such circular logic.

There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon.

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

Arguing that is getting you nowhere. What you need to do is prove your case. You can't because your case is critically void of proof.

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

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

Their explanations also amount to, nuh-uh. They fail to convince me that the folks who said they saw the plane crash were either wrong or lying. As far as I'm concerned, those eyewitnesses are credible. Even more so than the ones CIT dug up some 5-7 years later, some of whom were never on record to begin with. I give far more credence to those who recalled what they saw minutes later than I do those scratching at their memory many years later.

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

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

I don't have to. You don't even know if they were co-workers -- he doesn't say (so asking about his co-workers is merely you extending your imagination again). You don't know if he knows who said it -- he doesn't say. You don't know what they saw -- he doesn't say. You don't know what prompted whoever said that, to say that -- he doesn't say. You don't know if that's what he himself thought occurred -- he doesn't say. And you have to ignore the second part of his statement where someone corrected the claim of a bomb and a plane flying away as being false.

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...

I apologize, indeed you did.

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...

And then I responded to your responses in post #574

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.

Yet again, you're disagreeing with ALL of the physical evidence. Who cares? I don't. Why on Earth would I accept your twisted version of events which is NOT corroborated by any of the physical evidence?

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.

Don't talk about evidence -- prove your evidence. That would go a long way in this discussion, which frankly, is going nowhere because you can't actually prove any of your claims other than showing some witnesses, many years later, offer a differing account as those describing the events they saw on 9.11.

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

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

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.

Dismissed as supposition not supported by the evidence.

• 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.

Lagasse is quite confused. He draws where lamp posts were down where they weren't down. His bearings are clearly off. And he's recalling where he was standing some 5 years earlier.

Again, all you are doing is relying on some eyewitnesses who support your flyover nonsense while ignoring all those who don't. Many eyewitnesses recalled event somewhat different from other eyewitnesses. That's why the physical evidence is needed to determine which witnesses' recollections are more accurate.

You want to ignore ALL of the physical evidence because it ALL destroys your flyover nonsense. Sorry, but don't expect rational folks to be that gullible.

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

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

I'm suggesting their recollection years later does not refute those from the very day it occurred. Even if the plane flew right over his head, he might not be recalling exactly where he actually stood on 9.11. Who knows? What we do know is Lagasse pointed to the wrong location for where the downed poles were, so it's entirely possible he was standing further south than he recalls many years later.

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".

He indicated on the map where he recalled the downed lampposts resting. He got the location wrong. That's exactly the reason recalling from memory years later is not as valid as from the very day it happened.

• 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.**

That's not evidence. It's based on some eyewitness accounts which are refuted by the physical evidence -- including radar which indicated the plane flew south of the Citco. Why on Earth would I trust recollections many years after the fact over the actual radar images???

And what CIT is doing in that paragraph is circular logic, which is a fail. Their actually claiming the DNA evidence is not valid because the flight approached from north of the Citco, which invalidates all of the physical evidence; and that the evidence of a north side approach is validated because all of the physical evidence is fake.

• 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.

All of the plane debris found is consistent with an American Airlines 757, which is what they plurality of witnesses claimed they saw that morning. We also know that flight #77 had its transponder turned off, just like 3 other hijacked flights that morning. ALL of the physical evidence points to flight #77 crashing into the Pentagon.

And I point out -- again -- NO evidence points to any plane flying over the Pentagon rather than into it.

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

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

Regrettably for you, you have no proof any of it was planted. So sorry. And all of it is consistent with the physical evidence.

• 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

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

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

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

Re-read for clarity. I didn't say you did. I said they were found at the crash site. Not possible if flight #77 hadn't crashed there. Where you believe they came from is irrelevant without proof confirming any alternate claims.

• 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.

Who you trust or don't trust is irrelevant. What matters is physical evidence. And as we've thoroughly exhausted -- you have none.

• 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.

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

That aside, there is no way in hell anyone can say categorically what type of aircraft is seen in those videos. What is unmistakable in one is the tail of a plane is visible; and in the other, the color appears to match that of an American Airlines plane.

And you quoting Truth & Shadows after I caught them flat out lying about the size of the impact hole you posted earlier, which I refuted in post 450, only serves to hurt your cause. Truth & Shadows has no credibility.

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

We disagree on that.

So we disagree, so what? At least I have the physical evidence on my side. You? Zilch. Nada.

• 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...

They do no such thing. They offer no evidence. Like you, they offer doubt because doubt, and not evidence, is all they have. In that video, their claim that the events did not occur as we know they did because some witnesses reported the plane being smaller than a 757. In some cases, a small commuter flight. But since it's a given that if a hundred witnesses offer their account, there will likely be discrepancies among them. The producer of that video idiotically suggests 9.11 didn't happen as we know it because not all witnesses agree on what they saw.

Meanwhile, the physical evidence still tells the story.

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.

Again, who cares? There still remains no evidence the plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. Especially in the face of some of the witnesses who say they saw the impact.

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.

There are more, but that's irrelevant since your goal is merely to find flaw in their accounts since they don't match what you wish to believe.

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

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

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

1. _____________________

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

As far as Erik Dihle -- by your own standards -- no name, no testimony. No one knows who Dihle heard or what they saw.

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

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

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

How are you so sure?

Because you're among a small group of nutters who believes flight #77 didn't crash into the Pentagon; which by extension, means flights #11 and #175 didn't crash into the WTC and #93 didn't crash in Shanksville.
I always get a kick when I hear twoofers excitedly exclaim this or that certainly merits an investigation.

No. No it doesn't. CIT spent however much time and expenses researching this and have yet to find any evidence whatsoever that flight #77 didn't crash into the Pentagon.

And, as always, nuh-uh does not constitute 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.

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

Or aliens could have descended and blew it up with a death ray. Sort of like what we saw depicted in Independence Day. There is about as much evidence either event occurred.

Independence Day | White House Destruction

• 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

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.

I already knew that.

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

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.

Of course CIT said it -- it was the title of their question. They created a strawman as though people were suggesting that hundreds saw the impact. While maybe some people have, I didn't. But still, the link to their strawman is what you offered me in rebuttal.




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

 

[candycorn]

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

I recall reading somewhere that they were caught dubbing either their own or other persons voices over the “witnesses” who didn’t say anything close to what they were portrayed as having said in the video. I’m sure that comes as no surprise to anyone.


They were ostracized from the twoofer community.

CIT's Majic Show Hoax

 

[phoenyx]

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

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

Chanting, nuh-uh, is contesting nothing.

Agreed. So why do it?

You have nothing to prove the evidence is fake.

Wikipedia introduces its definition of proof thusly:
"A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition.[1][2][3][4]"

Source: Proof (truth) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem is, who determines what is sufficient evidence? In an online forum, the answer is, every individual in it. In other words, proof is in the eye of the beholder. I've participated in forums for years, and I know from experience that proving something to someone who believes the opposite is generally very difficult to do. I have seen it accomplished in minor issues (whether or not nano thermite is an explosive, for instance), but I don't ever recall someone in an online forum being persuaded to change their stance on whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. This is why I have never said that I can prove anything to anyone else here. What I do instead is amass evidence that supports my view. Now I know that we may not agree what constitutes evidence, but I can certainly state what -I- believe is evidence, just as you can do the same. We can then review each other's evidence, and explain to each other why we believe it is solid evidence or not.

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

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

 

[Faun]

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 -.-

Who knows why you think it matters that there were trees? There's no proof that on that day, the trees entirely obscured her view of the Pentagon. She claims she saw the impact despite there being some trees. I see no reason not to believe her.

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.

CIT has manipulated the very data they provided. Case in point -- they claimed all 13 witnesses they interviewed who were positioned north of the Citco supported a north side approach. That's a lie. They also interviewed Keith Wheelhouse who, like some of their 13 other witnesses, was at Arlington National Cemetery that morning. His recollection was that it came right up Columbia Pike, south of the gas station. That didn't jive with their agenda, so they excluded him from their witness list of 13.

But that's the slight of hand they did. Witnesses were all over the board, so to speak. Anyone who agreed with them they portrayed as having a golden and unimpeachable recollection; whereas anyone who indicated something other than that, they claim could not have seen what they say they saw.

And folks like you fell for that trick.

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.

You quoted them doubting his recollection because the suggested photographic evidence might have suggested he wasn't where he said he was. Don't run from your claims. You can't prove Aziz is lying just as you can't prove he didn't see what he said that morning.

This is just another example of how you people try to impugn those whose accounts don't fit in neatly with your agenda.

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

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

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

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

I didn't say Wright could detect which path the plane traveled. I cited him since he did have an unobstructed view of the Pentagon and says he saw it fly into, not over, the Pentagon. And given his position, he actually could have seen a plane flying over the Pentagon. He, like 100% of every witness I've read up on, did not say that is what he saw.

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

Roberts' original description was about watching the plane hit the building in NYC on TV. Then shortly after, evacuating the area he was at when the Pentagon went to threatcon delta. He says he saw a silver passenger jet at lamppost height over the south parking lot, which is where AA77 flew over.

Years after the fact, CIT interviewed him on the phone while he was driving and asked him leading questions about running out onto the dock after hearing an explosion -- which he never said he heard in his original testimony. They framed his recollection to fit their flyover agenda, though he never suggested any such thing. I do admit, his phone conversation seems a bit disjointed at times, saying both the plane came in from the SW as well as saying it flew away towards the SW. That may have been the result of him trying to recall events from years earlier while trying to focus on his driving? I don't know. But regardless, the worst you could twist his account into is that a plane was flying in a SW direction over the south parking lot -- and that could not possibly have been a plane flying from west to east over the Pentagon. Commercial planes can't possibly turn that sharply. No less mere feet above the Pentagon.

So no, Roosevelt Roberts' personal account does not support a fly over theory.

[pixelated video, no name given]

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

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

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

Squeaks the person who says there was a flyover because Dihle heard someone make a suggestion which you construe to be a flyover. While Dihle's mystery person was not pixelated, their own personal account was still conveyed first hand. And witnesses need not be identified to believe what they're saying they saw. That's merely a measure you wish to go by in order to eliminate those who disagree with your agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

His account, despite your objections, is also believable.

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

Perhaps you're right on this particular point.

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

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

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

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

Which then begs the question ... how come there weren't any downed light poles where he thought the plane flew, if coming from north of the Citco?

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.

Sorry, I'm not ignoring witnesses you find inconvenient. Their testimony stands as they described. The best part about their account is their unobstructed view of the Pentagon from their elevated vantage point. Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, and not into it, they would most certainly have witnessed such an event. Neither one of them, like every witness, said the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Again -- you have no evidence to support this nonsense.

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?

Based on that photo and his description, he would have been east of 395.

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

Perhaps CIT interviewed her independently.

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

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

9/11 Pentagon witness Mike Walter, CBS 9

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

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

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

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

More stawman nonsense as I don't believe he indicated the path when giving interviews on 9.11. The salient piece of information he contributed was that he saw the plane clip a lamp post.

 

[phoenyx]

Alright, continuing where I left off...

There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon.

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

Arguing that is getting you nowhere.

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

What you need to do is prove your case.

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

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

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

Their explanations also amount to, nuh-uh.

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

They fail to convince me that the folks who said they saw the plane crash were either wrong or lying.

They've certainly convinced -me-. I don't think you've examined the witness testimony nearly as much as they have. Heck, -I- haven't examined witness testimonies nearly as much as they have.

As far as I'm concerned, those eyewitnesses are credible.

Alright, thanks for your conclusions. I imagine that somewhere below, you explain how you arrived at those conclusions.

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

And some who were...

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

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

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

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

I don't have to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More later...

 

[phoenyx]

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

LONG LONG LONG ago----I was a kid with an older brother who read POPULAR MECHANICS regularly-----He once explained to me that GLASS has the physical characteristics of a LIQUID.------in fact it is "liquid" because all CRYSTALS
are "Liquid" sorta Then he went on to explain why glass
"FLOWS" I did not get it-----my major was biology---his was physics----he got to be the chairman of two of the most prestigious University Physics departments in the USA----was recognized by the president with the ?? PRESIDENT's FREEDOM AWARD for his work with NASA-----next time I talk to him I will ask him about the crystalline structure of the metal
of which planes are made and why they have the properties of
a LIQUID -------ok?

I have definitely heard the story that glass has the characteristics of a very viscous liquid at room temperature, so I took a look online. Turns out, it's not:
Is Glass a Liquid at Room Temperature | Is Glass a Liquid

-Some- metals are liquid at room temperature, such as mercury, but metals a plane are made of aren't. It's true that a plane would explode and thus get hotter if slammed into a building, but to my knowledge, the pentaplane is the only case where it has been argued that a plane "flowed" into a structure after hitting it. When a jet -really- crashes into a building, it's pretty obvious...

 

[irosie91]

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

LONG LONG LONG ago----I was a kid with an older brother who read POPULAR MECHANICS regularly-----He once explained to me that GLASS has the physical characteristics of a LIQUID.------in fact it is "liquid" because all CRYSTALS
are "Liquid" sorta Then he went on to explain why glass
"FLOWS" I did not get it-----my major was biology---his was physics----he got to be the chairman of two of the most prestigious University Physics departments in the USA----was recognized by the president with the ?? PRESIDENT's FREEDOM AWARD for his work with NASA-----next time I talk to him I will ask him about the crystalline structure of the metal
of which planes are made and why they have the properties of
a LIQUID -------ok?

I have definitely heard the story that glass has the characteristics of a very viscous liquid at room temperature, so I took a look online. Turns out, it's not:
Is Glass a Liquid at Room Temperature | Is Glass a Liquid

-Some- metals are liquid at room temperature, such as mercury, but metals a plane are made of aren't. It's true that a plane would explode and thus get hotter if slammed into a building, but to my knowledge, the pentaplane is the only case where it has been argued that a plane "flowed" into a structure after hitting it. When a jet -really- crashes into a building, it's pretty obvious...

ok---like me YOU are NOT a physicist-------"at room temperature" "when not moving at high speed" "when
not crashing thru anything" do not apply to the circumstances
of the plane that hit the pentagon-------just as "when moving
at the speed of light" is not the same as "sitting on a living room chair". If I ever talk to my brother again ----I will ask

 

[phoenyx]

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

LONG LONG LONG ago----I was a kid with an older brother who read POPULAR MECHANICS regularly-----He once explained to me that GLASS has the physical characteristics of a LIQUID.------in fact it is "liquid" because all CRYSTALS
are "Liquid" sorta Then he went on to explain why glass
"FLOWS" I did not get it-----my major was biology---his was physics----he got to be the chairman of two of the most prestigious University Physics departments in the USA----was recognized by the president with the ?? PRESIDENT's FREEDOM AWARD for his work with NASA-----next time I talk to him I will ask him about the crystalline structure of the metal
of which planes are made and why they have the properties of
a LIQUID -------ok?

I have definitely heard the story that glass has the characteristics of a very viscous liquid at room temperature, so I took a look online. Turns out, it's not:
Is Glass a Liquid at Room Temperature | Is Glass a Liquid

-Some- metals are liquid at room temperature, such as mercury, but metals a plane are made of aren't. It's true that a plane would explode and thus get hotter if slammed into a building, but to my knowledge, the pentaplane is the only case where it has been argued that a plane "flowed" into a structure after hitting it. When a jet -really- crashes into a building, it's pretty obvious...

ok---like me YOU are NOT a physicist-------"at room temperature" "when not moving at high speed" "when
not crashing thru anything" do not apply to the circumstances
of the plane that hit the pentagon-------just as "when moving
at the speed of light" is not the same as "sitting on a living room chair". If I ever talk to my brother again ----I will ask

You're right, I'm not a physicist, but there are so many glaring issues with the Pentagon damage that I don't need to be to point them out. Here's one good article on the subject:
9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | The Pentagon

 

[skye]

When those 28 pages that the Bush administration deleted from the 9/11 report are finally released ...

Then and only then, we will know if it was a plane or a missile or what.....that hit the Pentagon.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

When those 28 pages that the Bush administration deleted from the 9/11 report are finally released ...

Then and only then, we will know if it was a plane or a missile or what.....that hit the Pentagon.

Its no wonder the Bushs were pals with Dick Nixon.They learned from the master. what was it 6 1/2 minutes of deleted tape on watergate? Deleted since watergate tied into the JFK assassination that he was involved up to his ears in. He kept referring to that scab Hunt is going to open up a can of worms.

Would sure like to hear those 6 1/2 deleted minutes the fact that Howard Hunt was indeed a CIA operative for Nixon when he was vice president under Eisenhower and ran CIA operations for him and since Hunt even CONFESSED the CIA was behind it on his deathbed confession.

 

[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.

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

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

Don't be so desperate. It's unbecoming.

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

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

I am not bound by what a couple of twoofers like CIT decide is a valued eyewitness.

But here's the best part ... even if there was only one eyewitness who saw the crash (and there are more) -- that would still be one more than the number of eyewitnesses who said the saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

No one said the saw such a thing. No evidence supports it. It remains a figment of your imagination.

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

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

Again -- no one said they saw that.

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

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

Not one.

Not in 2001. Not in 2006. Not in 2008. Not since.

If not one of the hundreds of eyewitnesses saw that -- it didn't happen.

You're clutching hallucinations now, twoofer.

 

[Faun]

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

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

Chanting, nuh-uh, is contesting nothing.

Agreed. So why do it?

You have nothing to prove the evidence is fake.

Wikipedia introduces its definition of proof thusly:
"A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition.[1][2][3][4]"

Source: Proof (truth) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem is, who determines what is sufficient evidence? In an online forum, the answer is, every individual in it. In other words, proof is in the eye of the beholder. I've participated in forums for years, and I know from experience that proving something to someone who believes the opposite is generally very difficult to do. I have seen it accomplished in minor issues (whether or not nano thermite is an explosive, for instance), but I don't ever recall someone in an online forum being persuaded to change their stance on whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. This is why I have never said that I can prove anything to anyone else here. What I do instead is amass evidence that supports my view. Now I know that we may not agree what constitutes evidence, but I can certainly state what -I- believe is evidence, just as you can do the same. We can then review each other's evidence, and explain to each other why we believe it is solid evidence or not.

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

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

Your problem is you are not presenting evidence. You are merely denying the validity of all of the actual known evidence.

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

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

That being the physical evidence, all of which points to a south side approach, you claim is fake and/or staged. The only evidence you offer are the eyewitnesses who CIT says put the plane to the north of the Citco. And to corroborate a north side approach, you rely on the physical evidence being fake and/or staged.

 

[Faun]

Alright, continuing where I left off...

There is no evidence it flew over the Pentagon.

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

Arguing that is getting you nowhere.

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

You could say the evidence I'm posting isn't evidence; but you'd be lying. Whereas I can say you're not posting evidence; because you're not. And you're not posting evidence because there is no evidence a plane flew over the Pentagon. You know that but it doesn't bother you because you don't care what the truth is. You only care about that in which you believe. Not having any actual evidence puts you at a severe disadvantage, so you make shit up to compensate -- like everything was staged or faked.

Everything.

What you need to do is prove your case.

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

Of course I want you to prove your case to be. That's the purpose of this exchange -- to determine the truth. But the truth requires evidence -- and you have none.

Me? I have plenty. The remains of a plane ... the remains of the passengers and crew ... the plane-shaped damage to the exterior of the Pentagon ... two separate videos ... a debris field consistent with a plane flying into a building ... radar ... black boxes ...

You? Denials, insinuation and conjecture. But no actual evidence. No actual eyewitnesses.

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

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

Their explanations also amount to, nuh-uh.

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

Yes, I read it and it was laughable. As I said, it amounts to, nuh-uh. And it easily falls apart to pieces when inspected. They ridiculously compare the fly over to a Penn & Teller magic trick. Their problem is, unlike Penn & Teller, their "audience" wasn't sitting only directly in front of them. They ultimately conclude the fireball was used to divert everyone's attention from the plane and to help conceal it as it began flying over the Pentagon. They provide a cheesy animated gif to demonstrate it. However, unlike real life, they remove the image of the jet from the animation, which only runs for one or two frames following the fireball.

Real life doesn't work that cheesy. In real life, the plane would have to continue flying over the Pentagon. In real life, the plane would have to reemerge after flying over the Pentagon. In real life, there were witnesses on all sides of the Pentagon. Unlike CIT's cheesy animation, which shows how the plane could have been concealed from those with an east-bound view, they forget all about the view for those on every other side. None of those people would have had the fire ball hide the plane and none of them reported seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon. Plus, such a flyover would have been incredibly loud. There's no way people on other sides could have neither seen, nor heard, the plane once it passed over the Pentagon. And no one did. Not one single person. And there were witnesses in nearby buildings with an elevated view, looking down at the Pentagon. Those people, from any vantage point not obstructed, would absolutely have seen a plane flying over the Pentagon. Again -- not one single such person reported seeing that.

And again, whether you accept it or not, we have video of the plane flying into the Pentagon. It shows the plane too low to be able to gain enough height to clear the building.

And lastly, the notion that a bomb caused the damage is beyond ludicrous. Forget the shape of the damage on the front wall before it collapsed. The damage blew through 6 exterior walls (3 rings) of the Pentagon in a NE direction. Bombs don't do that. Bombs blast indiscriminately in all directions. Had a bomb (or bombs) been used, there would have been damage outside the Pentagon as well as inside. Instead, the debris field is consistent with a plane traveling at a high rate of speed plowing into the Pentagon.

Did the plane fly into the Pentagon? Nuh-uh, it was all just an elaborate magic trick.

They fail to convince me that the folks who said they saw the plane crash were either wrong or lying.

They've certainly convinced -me-. I don't think you've examined the witness testimony nearly as much as they have. Heck, -I- haven't examined witness testimonies nearly as much as they have.

I can't say I see why? I see no evidence supporting their nonsense. All the evidence I see points to the official version.

As far as I'm concerned, those eyewitnesses are credible.

Alright, thanks for your conclusions. I imagine that somewhere below, you explain how you arrived at those conclusions.

I already have. Multiple times. Their recollections, which were captured on the morning of 9.11 while it was freshest in their minds -- are generally consistent with the physical evidence.

We have at least two witnesses who said the plane knocked over lamp posts -- and we have downed lamp posts.

We have witnesses who said the saw the plane fly into the building -- and we have videos and structural damage which concurs.

We have witnesses who said the plane came up in the vicinity of Columbia Pike/395 -- and we have radar which concurs.

Unlike your north approach witnesses -- the physical evidence actually enhances their accounts. The physical evidence destroys the accounts of CIT's 13 witnesses.

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

And some who were...

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

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

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

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

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

That's not true.

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

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

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

I don't have to.

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

Then for the sake of clarity -- I never denied Erik Dihle said that. What I pointed out is that no one (possibly even Dihle) knows who said that and what they experienced to lead them to say that.

Savvy?

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

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

You're missing the point. It's irrelevant if it was a co-worker. I merely pointed out that you (and possibly Dihle) don't know if it's a co-worker or not because the person is never identified. You claimed earlier that Dilhe could identify the person if needed; but that bullshit as you don't even know if Dilhe knew who said it. Even if he did know who said it, he may not even know the person or their name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

First and foremost, what he heard others say is second hand hearsay. Secondly, Dihle himself never echoes that sentiment to my knowledge. Thirdly, since no one knows who said it, know one knows what prompted that person to say that. And lastly, Dihle's second hand hearsay evidence includes someone else clarifying it wasn't a bomb, it was a plane hitting the Pentagon.

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

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

I don't know about you -- but I'm not here to guess. I'm not here to entertain guesses. Quite frankly, I typically join threads like this just to laugh at the ridiculous twoofers. You were new and I decided to give you a chance to do what no other twoofer has ever accomplished -- prove 9.11 was an inside job.

You're not doing well, in my estimation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Some people were yelling that 'a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going' ... somebody else was yelling, 'no, no, no, a jet ran into the building.'” ~[url=http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3]Erik Dihle

, ANC worker

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

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

It's years later, which like the problem with the other witnesses CIT interviewed years later, Dihle does not recall some of the events as he did in 2001, while the events were still fresh in his mind. For one thing, he doesn't even recall anyone saying it was a bomb and that a plane kept on going. In fact, he was rather emphatic that a plane did indeed fly into the Pentagon. That said, he did acknowledge he must have heard it if that was the account he gave at the time. So no, there's no possible way to identify whomever made that claim. Also, speaking to not recalling events exactly as from years earlier, he is adamant in this later recording that he saw the C-130 come from the NNW ... until Ranke points out that radar indicated it came from the SW.

Like I said earlier; and this reinforces my beliefs -- the most solid witness testimony is that given the closest in time to the event.[/url]

 

[phoenyx]

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...

I apologize, indeed you did.

Thanks

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...

And then I responded to your responses in post #574

And then I responded to your responses in post #578, you responded to my responses in this post of yours (#583) and now here I am responding to your post #583 (I cut it up, it was getting too long, this is part 3 so far ...)

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.

Yet again, you're disagreeing with ALL of the physical evidence.

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

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.

Don't talk about evidence -- prove your evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

• 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.**

That's not evidence. It's based on some eyewitness accounts which are refuted by the physical evidence -- including radar which indicated the plane flew south of the Citco.

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

• 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We also know that flight #77 had its transponder turned off, just like 3 other hijacked flights that morning.

I’m not so sure it was turned off. This is what the 9/11 Commission Report stated:
“At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft. American Airlines dispatchers also tried, without success.54”

Source: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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.

Who you trust or don't trust is irrelevant.

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

• 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.

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

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

That aside, there is no way in hell anyone can say categorically what type of aircraft is seen in those videos. What is unmistakable in one is the tail of a plane is visible; and in the other, the color appears to match that of an American Airlines plane.

I’m not a plane expert, let’s just let this one go.

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

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

• 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...

They do no such thing. They offer no evidence.

We’ll just have to disagree on that.

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

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

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.

There are more,

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

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

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

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

1. _____________________

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

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

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

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

No one knows who Dihle heard or what they saw.

Not even Dihle ?

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

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

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

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

How are you so sure?

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

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

• 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.

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

Sigh -.-…

• 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

Dismissed as supposition not supported by the evidence.

Did you even click on the link -.-?

No, this is where I pull out CIT's FAQ article on such witnesses:

Frequently Asked Questions » What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?

Who said hundreds were needed?

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

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

I already knew that.

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

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

They created a strawman as though people were suggesting that hundreds saw the impact. While maybe some people have, I didn't. But still, the link to their strawman is what you offered me in rebuttal.

It was the title of their article. It was the contents of their article I wanted you to look at. Did you even click on the link -.-?

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

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

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

Responding to those points is not refuting them. Again, doubt and denial is not evidence.

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.

Yet again, you're disagreeing with ALL of the physical evidence.

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

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

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.

Don't talk about evidence -- prove your evidence.

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

Again ... prove it, don't talk about it. If you can't, then we're done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately for you twoofers, the physical evidence proves that is nonsense. Human remains of the passengers and crew were found in the Pentagon. Personal belongings to the passengers was found. If you have solid proof there wasn't, then post it. But don't waste any more of my time with doubt or denials.

• 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.

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

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

It matters not when he realized his bearings were off. What matters is that they were off. He saw the poles on the ground when he went to help. He knew where the were in relation to the crash site. They weren't where he recalled. And the light poles where he later recalled the flight traveling were not touched (because no plane flew from that direction). That's the problem with peoples' recollections many years later.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, you've injected doubt and denial. You were not able to show that every single witness who saw the plane crash (which includes Lagasse) could not see what they said they saw.

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

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

I don't believe it could have happened the way you described, and with hundreds of eyewitnesses on every side of that building -- not one person saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

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

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

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

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

And there are other witnesses who were just as adamant about what they saw. They clearly can't all be correct. That's why I rely on the physical evidence to determine who's more accurate.