911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[phoenyx]

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

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

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

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

Who knows why you think it matters that there were trees?

Gee, I wonder -.-...

There's no proof that on that day, the trees entirely obscured her view of the Pentagon.

How would you know? Have you gone to film her on location, as CIT has done with several witnesses?

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

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

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.

You saying it's a lie doesn't make it so. But I see you mention Keith Wheelhouse, let's get to that...

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

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

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.

True.

Don't run from your claims. You can't prove Aziz is lying

Not at the moment, no, but given the suggested photographic evidence, I find his account highly dubious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

• 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.

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

And yes, I did address the DNA. I pointed out that it's not invalidated because CIT says it's not. Even worse, they cite the north side approach and flyover as though that invalidates it even though there was no north side approach or flyover.

• 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.

Not true... the bodies recovered came from flight #77. On top of that, much of the plane parts recovered matched that of either an American Airlines plane or a 757.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Dismissed as supposition not supported by the evidence.

The evidence shows it was flight #77 that crashed into the Pentagon. So none of that conjecture is factual.

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

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

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

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

I believe you earlier suggested it could have been planted. Regardless.... the bodies recovered were matched with the known passengers and crew of flight #77. Also both black boxes of flight #77 were recovered. Since we know those bodies could only come from flight #77, and the black boxes could only come from flight #77, then the debris found, much of which matches either American Airlines or a 757, then we know the debris is from flight #77.

 

[Faun]

• 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.

Sorry to disappoint.

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

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

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

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

As always, denials do not dismiss evidence. And denials are all that can be found in regards to denying the validity of the black boxes.

• 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?

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

And it goes without saying, though I'll say it anyway -- you have NO evidence they were planted. Like every other aspect of this, you have no evidence to prove your hollow claims.

• 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.

I don't give a shit what your excuses are -- don't alter my quotes. If you don't like what I have to say, then don't respond to my posts.

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

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

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

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

Point is -- it's a lie. If it wasn't a lie, it would have been corrected a long time ago. And to see you not only "trust" and "respect" them; but here you are defending their lies, is very disheartening.

• 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.

Why disagree? List the evidence they offer.... And don't post denials or suggestions as those are not evidence. If you can't post evidence, than disagree all you want, but I am right.

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

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

I'm not interested in "points." I'm interested in proof. Prove your case if you can. Don't expect people to believe you if you can't.

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. _____________________

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

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

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

And you still can't find one single witnesses saying a plane flew over the Pentagon.

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

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

You have no idea if he even knows who said it. You have no idea if he knows their name. You have no idea what prompted them to say it.

So no, there will be no such investigation.

No one knows who Dihle heard or what they saw.

Not even Dihle ?

No, not even Dihle. He says he doesn't recall anyone saying that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are you so sure?

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

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

No, I really don't. Not many people believe a plane flew over the Pentagon and not into it. Have you considered thicker skin?

• 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 -.-…

Indeed.

• 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 -.-?

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

Who said hundreds were needed?

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

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

I already knew that.

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

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

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

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.

That doesn't sound like an honest answer to me. If they could have proven their claims, they'd be richer than their wildest dreams. Books, movies, public appearances. They'd be world renowned.

Sounds more like they were just a couple of hoaxters who couldn't gain traction.

 

[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?

Gee, I wonder -.-...

There's no proof that on that day, the trees entirely obscured her view of the Pentagon.

How would you know? Have you gone to film her on location, as CIT has done with several witnesses?

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

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

I'm not sure why you think there's value in noting the position of trees some six years later; as though that's evidence of what she did or didn't see on 9.11. She said there were some trees but she also said she could see the plane crash into the Pentagon. CIT was not there next to her on 9.11 and has no clue what she saw. That they seek to dismiss her eyewitness account without actually being able to prove her view was 100% obstructed dives directly to the core of why CIT failed miserably to prove their claims.

 

[Faun]

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.

You saying it's a lie doesn't make it so. But I see you mention Keith Wheelhouse, let's get to that...

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

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

"Why" they discount him is irrelevant.

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again .....

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

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

The door on the southeast side of the Citco.

 

[SAYIT]

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

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

The biggest prob with rejecting the "official stories" out-of-hand as you do is it leaves you groping desperately for some alternate universe explanation for the events of 9/11. Simply claiming that AA77 "flew over the Pentagon" may serve your POV but you have failed to provide even a scintilla of proof and have even admitted you have none.
Claiming the physical evidence (AA77 parts, body parts, FDRs) was "planted" - again without any substantiation - may also serve your POV but just makes you and the 9/11 CT Movement seem obuse and childish. Indeed there is no physical evidence - not even on radar - that AA77 "flew over the Pentagon" and no eyewitnesses to such an event but you cling desperately to the theory anyway.

Claiming that the WTC was a controlled demo - despite the total lack of evidence and bizarro world absurdity of such - again just makes you seem desperate and childish. Any number of threads on this forum have thoroughly hashed, thrashed and finally trashed every theory you have postulated - you have offered nothing new - and you could have simply read and responded to any of those threads and saved everyone a lot of time and yourself a lot of humiliation.

At some point a rational adult invokes Occam's Razor and comes to grips with the fact that despite its flaws and shortcomings, the NIST findings are infinitely more likely, rational, factual and honest than any of the CT Movement's baseless explanations.

On a personal note, I have read virtually every word of this thread (I know, but I read fast) and have found Faun 's facts and reasoning to be laudable. Thank you for having the patience of Job, Faun.

 

[candycorn]

I agree, Faun has demonstrated uncommon patience in dealing with a mentally unstable loser.

 

[Faun]

I agree, Faun has demonstrated uncommon patience in dealing with a mentally unstable loser.

I can't even explain why? Normally, I just laugh at them.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hey everybody,have you all heard recently that there are doubts Oswald shot JFK by many people recently?

 

[Faun]

hmmm.... I wonder why phoenyx hasn't responded...?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

hmmm.... I wonder why phoenyx hasn't responded...?

Maybe there is hope he FINALLY listened to me and saw the truth about you that you are a LYING paid shill sent by your handlers to troll threads everywhere on message boards and FINALLY saw how you have to LIE and change the subject when you are backed in the corner with pesky facts you cant get around and then shit all over the floor with your lies when you know you are defeated..

 

[Faun]

hmmm.... I wonder why phoenyx hasn't responded...?

Maybe there is hope he FINALLY listened to me and saw the truth about you that you are a LYING paid shill sent by your handlers to troll threads everywhere on message boards and FINALLY saw how you have to LIE and change the subject when you are backed in the corner with pesky facts you cant get around and then shit all over the floor with your lies when you know you are defeated..

You know you're as coherent as a 6 month old baby babbling nonsensically, right?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

back to shit all over the floor in defeat again I see,so predictable you paid trolls are. now I will excuse myself to dodge the shit on the floor you just dropped out of your pants. let me give you a paper towel here.

oh and glad that you enjoyed my two humorous posts about you there just now.your boss will be happy to hear that.

 

[Faun]

back to shit all over the floor in defeat again I see,so predictable you paid trolls are. now I will excuse myself to dodge the shit on the floor you just dropped out of your pants. let me give you a paper towel here.

oh and glad that you enjoyed my two humorous posts about you there just now.your boss will be happy to hear that.

Yeah .... you do that too ...

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

The door on the southeast side of the Citco.

Could the reason phoenyx is logging in but not posting be that he's too busy scouring the Internet for an explanation for why the folks in that video ran to the southeast side of the Citco store as the plane headed for the Pentagon?

 

[phoenyx]

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

Perhaps you're right on this particular point.

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

You may well be right on that point. Even CIT seems to think so. As mentioned before, they had this to say concerning Sucherman:
**
USA Today editor Joel Sucherman:
-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit.

**

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

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

 

[Faun]

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

Perhaps you're right on this particular point.

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

You may well be right on that point. Even CIT seems to think so. As mentioned before, they had this to say concerning Sucherman:
**
USA Today editor Joel Sucherman:
-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit.

**

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

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

Not true at all. The C-130, as per instructions from the tower just moments earlier, was tailing AA77. They were flying behind and above the 757 when they reported the crash was directly in front of them. The C-130 continued its NE approach until the tower instructed them to increase their altitude to 3000 and heading to 270º. That matches what Sucherman said he saw ...

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

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.

Those pages have now been released for the most part (a few redactions), I don't believe they make any mention of the Pentagon attack though. That being said, I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest that a plane certainly didn't hit the Pentagon, though one certainly -approached- the Pentagon. I've made a new thread here discussing this theory:
9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory