# 9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory



## phoenyx (Jul 16, 2016)

There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:


For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.


The first is from Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT for short. This team of investigators, which have primarily been composed of Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, worked for many years on uncovering what really happened in the Pentagon attack. They went down to Arlington, Virginia, to video record the witnesses they found were in the best position to know exactly what happened during the Pentagon event. What they found out surprised them. Essentially, they found out that all the witnesses they found to be credible had the plane flying a path that took it North of a Citgo gas station that was directly east of the Pentagon at the time, instead of south of the Citgo gas station, which is what the official narrative had posited at that point in time. This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 could not have been caused by an airplane that flew in a path that took it North of the Citgo gas station before approaching the Pentagon. The conclusion was as inevitable as it was stunning: the Pentaplane must have flown over the Pentagon. CIT has done many videos, all of which I believe focus on the testimony of atleast 1 witness who claims to have seen what happened at the Pentagon from a good vantage point, recommends that for just diving in to their work, that they see National Security Alert, so this is the video I have put up below:



The second video is from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This group, founded by current or former pilots, and whose core is the same, have focused on what occurred with the 4 planes that were allegedly hijacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. They have also done many documentaries on the subject of these planes. I feel that the best video specifically regarding the Pentagon attack that they have made is 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon. The video incorporates the work done by CIT and its many points of its own as well. It was uploaded to the internet by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and can be found here:


I am hoping that people who participate in this thread watch atleast one (or part of one) of the videos from CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth that I have linked to above, and comment in a constructive manner as to whether they agree or disagree with the points made, and why.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 16, 2016)

candycorn said:


> “phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, it's not -my- version of events, it's the version that the majority of the witnesses in the best positions to know the flight path the plane took in its final approach to the Pentagon. Secondly, I have never just "assumed" any of the witnesses were lying. If I had, I wouldn't have spent a considerable amount of time discussing various witnesses that he himself brought up with Faun.
> ...



No, I wasn't present at the interviews. I don't see how that matters, perhaps because I disagree with your notion they were "highly edited" as you say. Nor have I seen any evidence that any of the North side witnesses interviewed by CIT were "actors". That being said, I find that the one witness they interview that clearly supports the official story, Lloyd England, is quite interesting. They clearly felt the same, as they made a documentary that was focused on him alone, and which is definitely a favourite of mine because of what it reveals. It can be seen here:

Furthermore, many of the witnesses they interviewed were interviewed before them by the Library of Congress and the U.S. Army's Center for Military History, a fact that CIT has made clear on its web site, here:
Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 16, 2016)

*



			9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory
		
Click to expand...

*
A five sided plane, never seen one...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey has anybody here heard by chance that  many people doubt the warren commission,that oswald shot JFK?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 16, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


Is it a five sided object also?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 16, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Pentaplane is simply a moniker for the plane that approached the Pentagon. If you had actually watched either CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth's videos that I posted in my opening post, you would have known that.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 16, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


I've seen them before...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 16, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hey has anybody here heard by chance that  many people doubt the warren commission,that oswald shot JFK?



If you want to discuss the JFK assassination, please do so in a thread dedicated towards that goal. This thread is dedicated to discussing the Pentaplane flyover theory, as the title of the thread suggests...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 16, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > The Pentaplane is simply a moniker for the plane that approached the Pentagon. If you had actually watched either CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth's videos that I posted in my opening post, you would have known that.
> ...



Great. Would you care to offer some constructive comments on either of them?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 16, 2016)

Capstone said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



I definitely agree with that. I believe CIT would also agree. I think there's a lot of evidence that it was fabricated with the intention of -supporting- the official story. That being said, I believe that CIT has shown that it falls short of doing so upon close examination. 



Capstone said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > ...It's not that I think they -wanted- to mess up their own case, it's just that I think their coordination in their deception must have been pretty bad. ...
> ...



I think you over estimate the public's interest in such matters. If the public was truly paying attention, the official story regarding the Pentagon attack would have been revealed as a fraud to enough people that it would have had to have been officially torn down. In any case, it is easier to say that someone is mistaken regarding the size of the plane then it is to say that someone is mistaken as to what flight path the plane took, especially if the witness is in a position that would make it impossible for them to have seen the plane at all if it were on the official flight path.



Capstone said:


> The light pole fabrication, on the other hand, would at least be understandable. In the aftermath of the smaller plane's impact, the still standing poles may have been seen as problematic to the official storyline, at which point mistakes could have been made in the rush to circumvent the perceived problem.



I and CIT firmly believe that the downing of the light poles were staged well in advance of 9/11, perhaps the night before. 




Capstone said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Don Wright says he saw a commuter plane, two-engined, and was 2 miles away from the building. He also apparently elicited strange behavior when questioned about the direction it was going, ...
> ...



That sounds reasonable...



Capstone said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > ...Steve Patterson claims he saw a small commuter plane, holding 8-12 passengers. A little more on him:
> ...



I think CIT addresses the issue of witnesses believing they saw the impact an article named The 2nd Plane Cover Story:

**The complex topography, landscape, and sheer size of the Pentagon create a scenario where people on the alleged impact side of the Pentagon -- who would even have a view of this portion of the building at all -- would most readily be fooled by the sleight of hand deception of a plane timed perfectly with the explosion.






However, there are some areas of 395 and up in the Crystal City high-rises where people would have been able to see the plane on the east side of the Pentagon after the explosion, or possibly even the whole flyover if they happened to already be looking out the window in that direction when the plane approached.  For example, here is a shot from the top floor of the Double Tree hotel that shows what would have been a good view of the flyover if someone was in this room looking out the window in this direction as opposed to glued to their TV watching the horror unfolding in NYC. (This was likely the case  for most, as there are VERY few eyewitness reports from the Crystal City highrises).






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...

*USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan:*
_-"I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second *jet* hovering in the skies"._

*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. _

_



_

_*Kelly Knowles:*_
_...she saw a second plane in the air *over the Pentagon* *as* a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress...some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. "Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason." Pentagon official said late Friday no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack._

The article continues with other witnesses, I think it's pretty good, may want to take a look...





Capstone said:


> Steven Gerard was another such witness.



Steven Gerard wasn't in the best position to know if the plane actually hit the Pentagon. Lagasse and Brooks were in a better position (they were at the Citgo gas station, which was closer to the Pentagon then the Navy Annex), but they still had the same problem, namely that a well timed fireball shortly after the Pentaplane began going -over- the Pentagon could have easily fooled them into believing that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon instead of going over it, as demonstrated by the graphic at the beginning of this post.



Capstone said:


> Don Wright, Steve Patterson, and Steven Gerard all had the bird's eye view from a little distance, which explains why they failed to see some of the details (in terms of paint scheme and markings) described by Omar Campos, who was on the ground and much closer to the impact site.



I have been unable to determine where Steve Patterson was located. That being said, the distance of Don Wright and Steve Patterson, and particularly where they were in relation to the plane when it made its final approach to the Pentagon, also made it easier for them to be fooled into believing the Pentaplane had hit the Pentagon instead of flying over it. 




Capstone said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > ...Perhaps most importantly: he [Omar Campos] said he was near a building next to the Pentagon, and the only buildings near the Pentagon on the west side were on the -north- side, in the general location of the Arlington cemetary. This guy wasn't a south of Citgo flight path witness, he was a north of Citgo flight path witness, and if the plane flew in from north of Citgo, it couldn't have crashed into the building due to a number of reasons.
> ...



The translator botched the translation. Also, in the video interview I've seen of him, I never see him mentioning that he saw the plane being enveloped in flames. It seems the only thing he actually agreed to was that there was a big explosion.



Capstone said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > ...There's a lot of reasons why Sandy Hook wasn't what we were told. I actually started a thread about it shortly after it occurred, can be seen here:
> ...



I reject the notion that I am promoting another forum here; I haven't participated in that forum for a long time; I just mention it because I put a lot of work into that thread and find that it is a valuable source of information on the subject, just as I find articles on various subjects to be valuable sources of information. That being said, I can certainly imagine admins doing exactly what you say. I suppose I'll have to tell people to PM me if they want to know the links to threads with information on various topics that aren't in this forum -.-



Capstone said:


> FYI, I don't buy the official Sandy Hook narrative either. I was just making the point that data anomalies aren't really strong enough to be used as foundational for some of the claims made by Jayhan and others.



I feel his theories are the best theories so far to explain the anomalies regarding the passengers that I have seen, which is why I posted it.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 16, 2016)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hey has anybody here heard by chance that many people doubt the warren commission,that oswald shot JFK?




The WC was stacked with members of the "Holy Alliance for Treason" too, led by Arlen Specter and others.  This is because the same "cause" was behind it.  The motive to whack JFK and replace him with LBJ was all about re-conquering the "Promised Land" for Israel.  So was the motive for 911


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 17, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I haven't found that they "framed" his recollection. As to his disjointed recollection, I strongly believe he didn't know his cardinal directions in relation to where he was at the Pentagon at the time, but didn't want to admit it. The fact that he was driving his car didn't help, ofcourse. He seemed much more comfortable with landmarks. As to turning that fast, you are, ofcourse, assuming that the plane was a commercial plane. Here's how various mainstream media outlets described its approach to the Pentagon:
**_According to CBS News, “The steep turn” made by Flight 77 “was so smooth… sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on.” The “complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.” [CBS NEWS, 9/21/2001]Aviation experts will conclude that this maneuver was the work of “a great talent… virtually a textbook turn and landing.” [WASHINGTON POST, 9/10/2002] Due to the aircraft’s high speed and the way it is being flown, Dulles Airport controllers mistake it for a military fighter jet (see (9:25 a.m.-9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [WASHINGTON POST, 9/12/2001; ABC NEWS, 10/24/2001; MSNBC, 9/11/2002]_**

Source: Danielle O'Brien

Aside from the fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna, the fact that ATC controllers originally thought it was a military fighter jet suggests that it may have actually -been- a military aircraft of some sort. Also recall that Terry Morin said it was going a lot slower during its final approach then the official narrative states. Both of these factors combined would allow the aircraft to bank a lot quicker then a commercial 757 going at high speed.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 17, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:
> 
> 
> For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.
> ...



Sorry.

Without sworn notarized affidavits from the actors in the film, none of it can be considered truthful.  Also, there is no sworn chain of custody for your evidence.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 17, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think you got a mixed up above, it doesn't make much sense. Dihle is a person who can be found and asked to testify as to who told him. You can't get pixels to testify to anything. Furthermore, Dihle's testimony is only one of -many- aspects of the Pentagon event pointing towards a flyover. If it were only Dihle, we wouldn't be engaged in this very large discussion over all of the evidence.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That's an explanation that CIT has already refuted, in the very same article I was quoting above, no less:
**_Eventually researchers would explain away the accounts of the "second plane/jet" as being regarding the C-130 piloted by Lt Col Steve O'Brien who we now know never shadowed or chased the plane. He actually lost sight of it after it passed in front of him and he turned around. He was not near AND/OR over the Pentagon at the time of alleged impact (explosion & fireball). In fact it would have been physically impossible for him to keep up with a 530 mph jet, when a C-130 can only travel maximum 379 mph. He didn't show up to the scene until approximately 3 minutes later at a much higher altitude.





_
_We learned from an e-mail exchange with him and Pilots for 9/11 Truth that he was too high and far away to even see the Pentagon!_
_
"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion *I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted*, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-C-130 Pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email to Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757 so if the pilot could not see the Pentagon there is no way he could see an impact or flyover/away and he clearly wasn't "shadowing" the attack jet proving Keith Wheelhouse's account false.  This is further demonstrated with video evidence taken by Anthony Tribby from highway 395.

There is a significant difference between the witness accounts above that were used by the media in the subsequent propaganda to sell the official story when compared to the independent witness accounts that we have uncovered.  Specifically workers from Arlington Cemetery who were right next to where Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw the C-130, yet report a very different story. Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle all saw the C-130 approach significantly after the explosion and report that it was on a different flight path from the attack jet having approached from the northwest.







When looking at the C-130 pilot's account, the video evidence from Anthony Tribby, and the corroborating independent witness accounts from the Arlington Cemetery workers it becomes clear that the C-130 was not in the airspace until minutes after the explosion, and that the media accounts of this C-130 were mutated to bring it closer to the event than it really was to serve as cover for the flyover.

*For the full-length video recorded on location witness interviews of the Arlington Cemetery workers establishing the true approach time and flight path of the C-130 see "The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed".

*For more details regarding the C-130 and the E4B including an in depth flight path analysis and exclusive on camera interview with Keith Wheelhouse please see "The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off".

*For a video short including excerpts of our interviews with Keith Wheelhouse, Joel Sucherman, and Vin Narayanan see "The 2nd Plane Cover Story"._
**

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


----------



## candycorn (Jul 17, 2016)

Without sworn affidavits, you can't be sure any of those people were actually interviewed or said what was reported . Massive fail


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 17, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Speaking of memories, do you remember what Lagasse first said in the clip below when Craig Ranke asked him about the light poles? I've transcribed part of their conversation, beginning at around 5:40 in the posted video below:
**
_Craig Ranke: Did either of you actually see the plane clip the light poles, I just want to ask this question again to reiterate it…

Lagasse: Like I said, you can’t really see the light poles from here, so I didn’t see it hit ‘em, but obviously it did ‘cause…

Craig Ranke: Ok, as I was mentioning to Sergeant Lagasse, the official story says the plane came on the south side, and hit the light poles right here.

Lagasse: No chance.

Craig Ranke: What’s that?

Lagasse: There’s no chance. If, and as a matter of fact, I know for a fact, that this light pole, well you can’t really see if there’s a light pole here that was knocked down, and there was a light pole here that was knocked down, not any over here. They were here. And there’s no way that the plane was over here. If anything, the only indisputable fact is the angle was different, that it was closer this way, but it had to be on this side.

Craig Ranke: It had to be on the north side…_

Lagasse: There’s no way it could be on the south side, I can’t see, I don’t have eyes in the back of my head…
**
Source:

As you can see, he starts off stating light poles couldn't be seen from his location that day, even though he believes they "obviously" did, for a reason that I didn't catch. Once Ranke mentions that the official story has the plane coming on the south side of the Citgo gas station, along with light poles that could only be hit from a south of the Citgo flight path, Lagasse halfheartedly attempts to claim that light poles -were- hit on the North side approach, but it's a lukewarm attempt at best, once again beginning with "you can't really see if there's a light pole here...". The one thing he -never- changes his stance on, however, is whether the plane came from North or South of the Citgo gas station.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 17, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Aside from the fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna...



Hani Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a "satisfactory" rating from the examiner.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 17, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Sorry, inadmissible without a sworn affadavit from the guy.  We have no idea if he actually said any of that...and since you've proven to be mentally ill..there is no reason to believe your transcript

We do know there were 5 light poles knocked down by AA77 since the space between the poles was long enough for only a 757 or similar plane to him them with their wingspans--smaller planes like the one you're trying to sell wouldn't have done it.

You've yet to account for any physical evidence.


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That he's sure the plane came from north of the Citgo is irrelevant as there are also many witnesses who are sure it came up Columbia Pike.

The two camps of eyewitness accounts can't both be right, so we look to the physical evidence to determine which camp is correct.

And the physical evidence supports the Columbia Pike path. Radar supports that ... the lamp posts support that ... the direction of the damage to the Pentagon supports that.

None of the physical evidence supports the north side approach.

None of the evidence supports a fly over.

None of the witnesses recalled seeing a fly over.

You have nothing on your side, Lord knows why you  persist?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Hey has anybody here heard by chance that many people doubt the warren commission,that oswald shot JFK?
> ...


I heard it was to go to war in Nam...


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Dihle can't name names. In the last interview I saw with him, he didn't even recall saying what other people said as far as a "bomb" and a "jet kept on going."



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


We have the pilot of the C-130 recorded in communication with the ATC. 

*ATC: *_Gofer06, traffic is 11 o'clock and 5 miles northbound fast moving type and altitude unknown._

*C-130: *_Gofer06. We have the traffic in sight at 12 o'clock._

*ATC: *_Ok, you have the traffic... do you know what kind it is? Can you see?_

*C-130: *_Looks like a 757, sir._

*ATC: *_A 757. Can you estimate his altitude?_

*C-130: *_Looks like he's at co-altitude right now, sir._

*ATC: *_Gofer86, thank you._

*C-130: *_That traffic from gofer06 is still in a descent now and looks like he strolled out northeast bound._

*ATC: *_Alright, thank you._

*ATC: *_Gofer86, climb and maintain ... turn right and follow the traffic please._

*ATC: *_Gofer86, turn right heading 0-8-0, we're going to vector you for the traffic._

*C-130: *_Ok, 0-8-0, gofer06._

*ATC: *_Dulles, I'm keeping gofer86, um, 06, with me for a while._

*C-130: *_Washington, this is gofer06._

*ATC: *_Yes, gofer86, go ahead._

*C-130: *_The aircraft is down. He's in our 12 o'clock position. Looks like it's just to the northwest of the airfield, at this time, sir._

*ATC: *_gofer86, thank you. Descend and maintain 2000._

*C-130: *_Ok, we're down to 2000._

*C-130: *_This is gofer06... it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir._

*ATC: *_gofer86... gofer06, thank you._

*C-130: *_Understand, you still want gofer06 to descend to 2000, sir?_

*ATC: *_Gofer06, you can maintain 3000 and turn left, heading 2-7-0._

*C-130: *_Ok, left turn to 2-7-0, gofer06. Any chance we could circle around the Pentagon, sir, on our zero 2-7-0 turn?_

*ATC: *_Gofer06, approved as requested._

*C-130: *_Gofer06._

*ATC: *_Gofer06, ok, they're asking if you would go ahead and move away now towards the west. 2-7-0 heading and 2000 for now._

*C-130: *_Roger. We're climbing to 3000, sir. It looks like that aircraft has impacted the west side of the Pentagon._

*ATC: *_Alright, thank you._

Starting @11:40 - ​
... that was real time, first hand eyewitness account. *No mention of the "traffic" flying over the Pentagon and flying off.* And there is possibly no eyewitness with a better view than the bird's eye view from that C-130, which saw the plane go down at their "12 o'clock" position.

And matching virtually every single eyewitness who reported seeing the C-130, it quickly veered off NE towards the Pentagon to due west and began ascending to 3000 feet.


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> ...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.

Also at the 4:41 mark, at the same time something visibly falls over in camera #4, a dark spot appears at the top of the image. This could be a shadow cast by the plane flying overhead....






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 Citgo. 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.

According to Jose Valesquez, who was employed at that Citgo on 9/11, the plane flying over felt like an "earthquake."

Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon

Three months ago, on September 11 at 9:38 a.m., a Tuesday, Jose Velasquez heard the rumble of imminent death overhead. "I knew something was wrong. The planes come more from the north and west [to land at Reagan National Airport] not from the south. And not so low."

He was talking on the telephone that morning to a friend who was feeding him gauzy reports about airplane crashes at the World Trade Center in New York. *But Velasquez slammed down the receiver and raced outside when he felt the gas station he supervises suddenly begin to tremble from a too-close airplane.*

*"It was like an earthquake," the Costa Rican native said last week. What Velasquez felt above him almost within touching distance was American Airlines Flight 77 just seconds before impact.*

His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside that, hours later, would become a wailing knoll. "By the time I got outside all I could see was a giant cloud of smoke, first white then black, coming from the Pentagon," he said. "It was just a terrible, terrible thing to be so close to."

Today, Velasquez still trembles when he talks about the incident that has forever changed the military, government, and technology polyglot that is Northern Virginia. "Even today," said Velasquez, "people who come here tell me they are frightened to come to work. You can see it in their eyes."

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."​
*And which direction did their instincts lead them to where the noise came from...??*

*The door on the southeast side of the Citgo.*

Game. Set. Match.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Hey has anybody here heard by chance that many people doubt the warren commission,that oswald shot JFK?
> ...



Dude your missing the POINT of that post.I see it went over your head.

what i was hinting at  in that post I was making is same as how the REAL criminals behind 9/11 the CIA and the mossad pulled this off and have gotten  away with it,they were both behind the JFK assassination as well.

The point of that post i was trying to make is 9/11 is the same as the JFK assassination.done and over and the fact there was never a  REAL independent investigation into it and the real killers got away with it scott free.

My point I was trying to make is it seems pretty fruitless going back and forth with posters on it and posting facts about it because what does it accomplish? nothing. I mentioned JFK because 9/11 is the same thing,nothing is ever going to be done about it so why keep going back and forth on this year after year?

It seems you all could spend your more constructively concerned about whats going on NOW rather than worry an event that happend in the past.

Instead of going back and forth on it discussing the obvious that it was an inside job,you should be much more worried about whats going on NOW. 

same as the JFK case,we cant do anything about it so it would be much wiser to worry about whats going on NOW and doing something about the future rather than worry about the past.

I used to get very much worked up over 9/11 myself and argued about it for years but then i wised up understanding the government has shills trolling these forums everywhere sent here to derail any thread that discusses the truth about the issue.

I dont know,seems like you could spend your time more wisely being worried about Trump getting elected in the next election since it concerns our future. If Trump gets elected there just may be hope for america again and justice being done in the 9/11 case with a REAL independent investigation done. Trump is not part of the elite. If  that mass murderer Hellery gets elected,then the lies of 9/11 will continue because same as Obama,Romney,and the Bushs,she is part of the elite.

you guys worry so much about discussing 9/11 so much,well seems like since there would be a chance of a real investigation into this case if Trump got elected and the real killers being brought to justice,seems to me like you SHOULD be much more concerned about Trump getting elected.

9/11 is the least of out problems we have to worry about right now. Its the same as being worried about who killed JFK.whats the point? nothing will be done about it.Unless MAYBE Trump gets elected,then there is at least a chance. yet I dont see any of you all posting about Trump why he needs to get elected.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 19, 2016)

Faun said:


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



Sorry, I'm not ignoring witnesses you find inconvenient.[/quote]

I don't find them inconvenient, I find it a waste of time. They were not in the best position to see what happened to the plane, and generally not in the best position to see if the plane flew North or South of the Citgo gas station either.



Faun said:


> 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.



As to Dawn, I found an article wherein CIT defends itself against charges that it "dismissed" Dawn's account. I think the most relevant part is the following:
***It was clear to me by looking at the view that it was quite possible that after the plane disappeared in front of the high rise in front of them, that the fireball would appear immediately after the plane reappeared from the other side. It seemed feasible to me that her attention could have been diverted by the fireball as the plane flew away. This meant that, in light of the north side evidence we had already uncovered, there was still no valid reason for me to assume she was lying about her account and that it was possible she could have been innocently mistaken. Although it was clear that Dawn and her husband were simply not going to accept the implications of the testimony from the witnesses at the Citgo station our entire exchange was very friendly and completely civil. We agreed to disagree and went on our way. So the notion that we "were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account" or that we "sought information that would support [our] theory" is a blatant misrepresentation of the exchange.***

Source: Dawn Vignola’s Account vs Erik Larson’s Methods by CIT



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've now found out that Dawn declined to be formally interviewed, so we only have CIT's word that she said it. Aldo Marquis, one of the 2 members of CIT, states it here:
***It always benefits one to look before they leap.

Actually it is true. Do you know why? Because we went to her home and spoke with her. Not only that, but we filmed and photographed her POV from her apt. She and her husband were gracious people that allowed us into their home. She told us multiple times that the plane was white, but for some reason had fused the AA into it, perhaps becuase of news reports, perhaps because of her roomate, Timmerman.

She had a row of buildings in front of her, so when she caught the plane it was headed toward to Arlington National Cemetery [not the Pentagon] before it banked-which she did not see. Clearly she was looking towards the direction of ANC and did not see the flyover/flyaway-she more than likely only looked toward the Pentagon when she saw fireball shooting up from the Pentagon. She COULD NOT debunk the north side or the pull-up, and frankly seemed to yield to the fact that she COULD NOT debunk a flyover, because frankly it was pretty evident that she would have, could have, and more than likely DID miss the flyover/away. Hence why she was unsure of her final position on the matter. That is soley my impression.

As for the coaching aspect, many have said that and you can hear a man in the background, Hugh "Tim" Timmerman, telling her what to say. He says it, she repeats it. Is that not coaching?

I, of course, only THEORIZED on this BEFORE I met her and was able to speak with her. But the fact remains, he says it, she repeats it.***

Source: Dawn Vignola and Hugh "Tim" Timmerman (CIT Research Forum)


----------



## Faun (Jul 19, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Claiming the NoC witnesses had a better vantage point because you believe that's where the plane went is again, circular logic. If the plane went south of the Citgo, then there were others with a better vantage point. And ALL of the physical evidence points to the plane being south of the Citgo.

As far as Dawn's (and Tim's) vantage point. While much of their view seems to have been obstructed by other buildings, their view of the Pentagon was not...






With that elevated view, they absolutely would have seen a plane flying over the Pentagon.

*Neither of them saw that.*


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 19, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Agreed. I'm simply stating it because I believe that it's much easier to determine whether the plane took a flight path that was North of south of the Citgo gas station then it is to determine if the plane crashed into the Pentagon or flew over it.



Faun said:


> The salient piece of information he contributed was that he saw the plane clip a lamp post.



He may have heard that the plane clipped light poles and imagined he saw it. Craig Ranke of CIT noticed something interesting though:
***An interesting thing he told us at dinner is that he saw the plane make a "graceful bank" before increasing speed and hitting the pentagon.

He even told us that the FBI questioned him on this particular claim after the fact.

Of course there would be no visible bank on the physical damage flight path to anyone on route 27.

But there definitely IS a bank on our eyewitness flight path.

hmmmmmmmmmm.*





**

Source: Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Mike Walter, USA Today Reporter,  "Speaks Out"


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 19, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



So you and CIT and the eyewitnesses have AA77 coming from every which way but _*none*_ saw it fly over the Pentagon. Why do you persist in promoting a silly 9/11 CT that _*no one*_ saw? 

Desperation, perhaps? 

Does the fact that you've wasted years in that wabbit hole burn? Denial leads to blithering, drooling madness (see any of 9/11InsideJob's posts).


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 19, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think an explosion at the Pentagon would do nicely, but we're not getting anywhere with this. There is certainly a lot of other evidence to discuss, let's get to that...




Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why state the obvious? Let's just get on with the evidence...



Faun said:


> But here's the best part ... even if there was only one eyewitness who saw the crash (and there are more)



There is more then one person who -believes- they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, certainly. CIT counts 25 such eyewitnesses. They also explain how those witnesses could have been fooled and the evidence which strongly suggests (or proves, depending on your belief) that it would have been impossible for the plane to have made the damage on the South of Citgo flight path if almost all the witnesses in the best position to see place the plane's flight path taking a course that flew North of the Citgo gas station.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Erik Dihle stated (and I quote): "Some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going". He says a lot more as well. Here's a partial transcript of his interview with CMH (Center for Military History):

**
_*CMH Interviewer:* “We're going to be recording people, we wanted to hear your story, ok, what you just said. Could you repeat what you just said?”

*Erik Dihle:* “What I said was that a number of us, as we were working building 123 right after the explosion, it was like a double boom you know, kind of shook us, almost knocked us out of our chairs.

We got up and ran outside, and 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 somebody else was yelling, no no no, a jet ran into the building, the smoke was so black, we couldn't really see the hole or anything at that point. And um, and then as we’re all kind of talking the first few seconds, another plane is coming in, very steep, kind of dive bombing, right down just to this end of the, south end of the cemetery. I recognized it as being the 4 engine, overhead wing turbo prop plane, and we, and I even called in the radio, and I said, “This may, here comes another one!”, ‘cause we thought it was another terrorist jet or something, but what it turned out to be was, what I can tell, the final approach of this regular commuter plane that comes in, and he had to do a real steep bank and go off, veer to the north, to avoid hitting the jet, or avoid going through the fireball…”_
**

Source: http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3


----------



## Faun (Jul 19, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Since you're so intent on editing my quotes, allow me to do the same...



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Again, Dihle said he heard conflicting events. In the confusion, he heard some say it was a bomb and a jet kept going and someone say it was a plane hitting the Pentagon.

So there is nothing there to hang your hat on.

Worse for you is *YOUR* standard that witnesses who can't be questioned *don't count*. You're hypocritically relying on hearsay from people who can't be identified; while rejecting eyewitness accounts from those whose accounts reject your nonsense under the guise (as if it matters) that they didn't give names (even though "Barbara" could be).

There still remains a grand total of ZERO eyewitnesses who say they saw a plane fly OVER the Pentagon.

That includes folks among the hundreds on the highways surrounding the Pentagon on all sides ... all of the eyewitnesses who stepped forward to publicly record their accounts ... people in nearby buildings who watched from an elevated position where they could see the roof of the Pentagon ... at least one person in a plane flying above and to the SW of the Pentagon, also with a clear view of the Pentagon's roof.

Not ONE.

You lose.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



I don’t see sworn affidavits from Dihle.  So CMH could have typed down whatever she/he wanted.  No chain of custody=no evidence.  
Sorry.  Your standards for our evidence now ally to your standards.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not one that we know of, but I'm certainly not alone in believing that Erik Dihle's testimony suggests that some people may have said just that. But far more damning to the official story is all of the evidence that there is no other way to account for all the evidence that the plane couldn't have left the South of Citgo damage because it simply hadn't flown from that direction.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Clearly, we disagree on that point.



Faun said:


> You are merely denying the validity of all of the actual known evidence.



I suppose I too could say that you're doing this, and we could go around and around with this. Personally, I find this type of thing a waste of time. I'd rather stick to looking at the evidence. Since the very word is being contested, I think we should define it. Here's google's definition:
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

It would, ofcourse, be great if we could agree on whether certain things are facts or not, but barring that, we can atleast examine the information we each bring to the table and discuss whether or not this information is true or not.



Faun said:


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



If only you'd listen to yourself ...



Faun said:


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



Again, I could accuse you of doing this as well. I don't see the point in making such accusations, however. I'd rather continue to discuss the evidence...



Faun said:


> ...the physical evidence, all of which points to a south side approach, you claim is fake and/or staged.



The damage close to and at the Pentagon doesn't match up with the 9/11 Commission report data, the NTSB flight data, allegedly gathered from the black box of American Airlines 77, or the multiple witnesses found by CIT which corroborate each other in describing the pentaplane's final approach as coming from North of the Citgo gas station. There is also very little evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon as well, and even that evidence is suspect.


----------



## Faun (Jul 20, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Erik Dihle's hearsay evidence is not verifiable according to your standard of proof.

There is no evidence proving the plane flew North of the Citgo.

None.


----------



## Faun (Jul 20, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


The witnesses who say the plane flew north of the Citgo are not believable because there are more witnesses who say it flew south of it and because all of the physical evidence corroborates the south of the Citgo approach.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I could also say the same thing to you. This is tiresome. Please try to understand what I just said.



Faun said:


> Whereas I can say you're not posting evidence; because you're not.



Have you ever heard of the phrase "Never argue with someone who knows they're right"?



Faun said:


> And you're not posting evidence because there is no evidence a plane flew over the Pentagon.



You do realize that statements like that one are conversation killers, right? You've stated that belief of yours time and again. I could say the same thing to you in return, but unlike you, I -realize- it's a conversation killer and I would like to continue discussing the evidence. I'll skip some of what you said now, it's just more of the same conversation killer type material...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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



Faun said:


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



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



Faun said:


> the remains of the passengers and crew ...



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



Faun said:


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



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



Faun said:


> two separate videos ...



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



Faun said:


> a debris field consistent with a plane flying into a building



Dealt with here:



Faun said:


> radar ... black boxes ...



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

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

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

Video that goes along with that text:


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Which is why some people may well have caught on to the trick. You know, what Erik Dihle said about some people saying that "a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going"?



Faun said:


> 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.



Yeah.



Faun said:


> 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.



The jet wouldn't have been visible from the angle shown after the explosion, and thus it's quite like 'real life'.



Faun said:


> In real life, the plane would have to reemerge after flying over the Pentagon.



Exactly.



Faun said:


> In real life, there were witnesses on all sides of the Pentagon.



I'm not sure about that, but there certainly do seem to be some people who believed that a bomb went off and the jet kept on going. If only the 9/11 Commission had thought to interview the person who mentioned them. Ah well, eh?



Faun said:


> 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.



A single bomb, no. Multiple bombs can certainly mimic directional damage. They did it badly and that's apparent to anyone who properly investigated the damage (unless you believe that the plane 'liquified' and selectively demolished pillars in its path). 



Faun said:


> Bombs blast indiscriminately in all directions.



You seem to be thinking it would be one big bomb. If enough smaller explosives were set up, it could be made to -look- like directional damage when in fact it was just a bunch of strategically placed explosives.



Faun said:


> Had a bomb (or bombs) been used, there would have been damage outside the Pentagon as well as inside.



There was.



Faun said:


> Instead, the debris field is consistent with a plane traveling at a high rate of speed plowing into the Pentagon.



Only if you believe in liquifying planes that leave little if any trace behind...



Faun said:


> We have at least two witnesses who said the plane knocked over lamp posts



I imagine you're thinking of Lloyd England and Mike Walters. Of the 2, I believe only Lloyd England has some serious looking evidence to back up his claim that he saw it; his cab was allegedly speared with a pole. It's for this reason that CIT went down to Arlington Virginia to interview him. I believe their documentary on him was quite revealing...



Faun said:


> -- and we have downed lamp posts.



As well as a plausible theory as to how they got there without the aid of a plane...
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> We have witnesses who said the saw the plane fly into the building



As well as a plausible explanation for how they could have been fooled into believing this happened even if it didn't...
What about the "hundreds" of supposed 9/11 Pentagon "impact" witnesses? | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> We have witnesses who said the plane came up in the vicinity of Columbia Pike/395



Many of whom specified the plane came up the -North- side of those roads, and those even closer to the Pentagon, that it came from the North side of the Citgo gas station...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Granted.



Faun said:


> 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.



Perhaps because he wasn't -asked- for those details in 2001?



Faun said:


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



Ah, well then, problem solved! Oh wait, the plane -couldn't- have crashed into the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side of the Citgo gas station, because all the damage couldn't have been made coming from that angle. And oh yeah, he could have been fooled into -believing- the plane had hit the building, when it actually flew over it. It all coming back to you now? Here's a refresher, just in case:
Topic 5



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Keith Wheelhouse also said that a second plane shadowed the Pentaplane, even though no other witnesses so close to the Pentagon claim seeing 2 planes practically right next to each other.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I never thought you had...



Faun said:


> 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.



Is that a bit of doubt I'm detecting? You start off confident  "no one" but then add, in brackets, that Dihle may -possibly- know who said that and what they experienced to lead them to say that. But, ofcourse, the 9/11 Commission is over, and you yourself have stated that you don't think it's worth reopening the investigation. We may never know just what Dihle knows...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not yet, no...



Faun said:


> You claimed earlier that Dilhe could identify the person if needed;



I'm not sure if I claimed I was -sure- that Dihle could identify the person, or persons, who he was referring to. But I certainly think it's -possible-. 



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes. Did you note that there was -more then one- person who said that a bomb had gone off and only -1- person who said that a plane hit the building? Here's his exact words:
"_*some people* were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going and *somebody else* was yelling, no no no, a jet ran into the building_,"



Faun said:


> Again -- there will be no more investigations.



How would you know? I think there will eventually be another official investigation, just as there was another investigation on Kennedy's assassination, but as to when, that I don't know.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



We're not at the court phase of this investigation here. It's a lead. If there ever is another investigation, they could ask him if he recalled were the people he was referring to...



Faun said:


> Secondly, Dihle himself never echoes that sentiment to my knowledge.



Agreed on that count. But then, he doesn't even claim to have seen the plane approach the Pentagon at all. He does say something rather interesting -after- mentioning what these people thought they saw. To whit:
**
_And um, and then as we’re all kind of talking the first few seconds, another plane is coming in, very steep, kind of dive bombing, right down just to this end of the, south end of the cemetery. I recognized it as being the 4 engine, overhead wing turbo prop plane, and we, and I even called in the radio, and I said, “This may, here comes another one!”, ‘cause we thought it was another terrorist jet or something, but what it turned out to be was, what I can tell, the final approach of this regular commuter plane that comes in, and he had to do a real steep bank and go off, veer to the north, to avoid hitting the jet, or avoid going through the fireball…”_
**

I fully admit this doesn't seem to make any sense. I believe Erik Dihle was at the Arlington Cemetary. He seems to be suggesting that the explosion went off and -then- the pentaplane approached the Pentagon. I know he says "another plane", but CIT has made it abundantly clear that there was only one plane and Erik fully admits he never saw the 'first'. It's certainly strange.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'd say you do it all the time, laugh . But we can let this one go. Guesses certainly aren't evidence, merely something to try to make -sense- of the evidence.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Certainly, it's reasonable if people didn't know the story that a jet had hit the building and weren't in a position to see a plane approaching, that would be reason enough to suspect it was a bomb. But the -second- part of what Erik Dihle's people said doesn't fit in with the narrative that the people he had in mind universally couldn't see the plane, simply because of what is said -after- say that "a bomb had hit the pentagon". Specifically: "and the jet kept on going"



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I imagine that Craig Mckee (the main author of Truth and Shadows) understands that his audience doesn't want to spend all day trying to figure out what he's trying to convey. In the interests of brevity, I think he made a good point. But adding the next line, in my view, doesn't take away from the conclusion at all. Far from it- clearly, -someone- had to stick up for the official story, and there's no time like immediately after to get it positioned into people's heads. Ask yourself, why is it that *people* who claimed that a bomb hit and a jet kept on going, but only one *person* who claimed that what would soon become the official story was the truth?



Faun said:


> 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.


https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/

Sure there is. An official investigation could find people who he was likely to have talked to during that time. 



Faun said:


> 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.




I believe I remember hearing CIT state that some of the radar data may have been faked. One thing's for sure: the 9/11 Commission Report, damage near and at the Pentagon, and NTSB black box data all conflict with each other.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


 
Sorry none of the wall of text is admissible without signed notarized affidavits.  CIT, in my view, is just making stuff up.


----------



## Faun (Jul 20, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Great, nothing but more unprovable denials.

This us going nowhere because you're not posting proof. Casting doubt on the known evidence is not proof.

Posting you don't think there were enough remains of AA77 does not prove the plane parts found were planted. Posting they don't look like they came from a 757 doesn't prove it.

Same holds true for all the other doubt you seek to inject.

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

*Because you have no evidence. *


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That depends on the response. I suggest we focus on our responses to each other, rather then whether or not our points are refuting each other...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 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...
> ...



We disagree on what constitutes strong evidence. You don't believe that the many witnesses that corroborate a North of Citgo flight path constitute strong evidence, I do. You believe that the damage at the Pentagon is strong evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon, I don't, and have explained why.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I could ask you to do the same. Unlike you, however, I'm more realistic. I sincerely doubt that you'll ever prove much if anything to me. I'm not expecting you to. I'd just like to try to show you why I believe what I believe, and hopefully atleast get you to consider whether atleast some of your views regarding the pentaplane may be mistaken.



Faun said:


> If you can't, then we're done.



I can't tell you if I will ever be able to "prove" anything to you. Are you sure if you will ever "prove" anything to me? I wish you'd quit thinking in such black and white terms. Arguments of this n ature are seldom won in such a definitive way. 



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



From everything I've seen, it is, in fact, an assumption. As I mentioned in post #598 in the "plane or cruise missile" thread:
**
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.**

And  yes, I've read your response to this in post #602. You dismissed it as "supposition", and that the "evidence shows it was flight #77 that crashed into the Pentagon". The fact of the matter, however, is that at 8:56, Flight 77 disappeared from both the transponder -and- primary radar. There has never been any solid evidence that the radar blip that appeared 38 minutes later and headed in the opposite direction was the same aircraft.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There is no solid evidence this was the case. The government reports that they were able to identify the DNA of passengers there, even though the plane was said to have dissolved into a liquid like state. It's akin to the fireproof passport allegedly found at the World Trade Center, only it's like they found hundreds of them -.-. CIT explains why this evidence is highly suspect here:
Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> Personal belongings to the passengers was found.



Same issues as the DNA.



Faun said:


> If you have solid proof there wasn't, then post it. But don't waste any more of my time with doubt...



You don't like doubts, do you? Wish you could banish them all to some far distant land? I never said I could prove anything to you. But one thing should become increasingly clear to you- the official story can't prove anything either. And the closer you investigate it, the more you may find just how little substantial evidence there is to it.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Where did you hear this? And could you be a bit more specific about this "bearings were off" statement? You're not suggesting that Lagasse wasn't at the Citgo gas station at the time of the event, are you?



Faun said:


> He knew where they were in relation to the crash site.



He clearly stated in the interview with CIT that the light poles that were knocked down were -not- knocked down. Clearly, he wasn't aware of where the downed light poles were at the time of his interview with CIT.



Faun said:


> 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).



Or the pentaplane simply didn't hit any light poles...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'd do better than that. This article points his car out, as well as Lagasse himself, and a lot more to boot:
Pentagon Plane Approach Captured on Video: CITGO Security Camera Captures “Smoking Shadow”



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Fine, I've "injected doubt", as you say...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Pardon me if I'm not surprised ...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think CIT has made it very clear how witnesses could have been fooled into believing that the pentaplane crashed into the Pentagon even though it didn't. It's not so easy to have people see a plane on a flight path that it never took.


----------



## Faun (Jul 21, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Dilhe's hearsay is inadmissible *according to your own stated standards.* You are a hypocrite for continuing to cite him.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


You're still ignoring all of the eyewitnesses who weren't directly lined up behind the fireball. You're ignoring all of the eyewitnesses who watched from an elevated position and who could clearly see the roof. You're ignoring the Doubletree video which caught the explosion from the back side and did not capture a plane flying over. You're ignoring the pilot of the C-130 who had a bird's eye view of the roof of the Pentagon and he did not see a plane fly over the Pentagon.

*There couldn't be less evidence of a fly over because there's nothing less than nothing.*



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > In real life, the plane would have to reemerge after flying over the Pentagon.
> ...


Of course there were witnesses on all sides -- the Pentagon is surrounded by highways.

No one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.

*No one.*

You're promoting a delusion.



Faun said:


> 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.



A single bomb, no. Multiple bombs can certainly mimic directional damage. They did it badly and that's apparent to anyone who properly investigated the damage (unless you believe that the plane 'liquified' and selectively demolished pillars in its path).



Faun said:


> Bombs blast indiscriminately in all directions.



You seem to be thinking it would be one big bomb. If enough smaller explosives were set up, it could be made to -look- like directional damage when in fact it was just a bunch of strategically placed explosives.



Faun said:


> Had a bomb (or bombs) been used, there would have been damage outside the Pentagon as well as inside.



There was.[/quote]
There were no bombs. There is no evidence of bombs. There is evidence there were no bombs. You're still spouting delusions as though they're reality with zero evidence and nothing but your own opinion. Bombs blow up indiscriminately, not directionally. Even planting multiple bombs, while you can create a field of damage, you can't reproduce the directional damage caused by a 757 traveling at some 400-450 MPH.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, the debris field is consistent with a plane traveling at a high rate of speed plowing into the Pentagon.
> ...


Since up until that point, no one's ever seen a 757 fly at near full speed into a building like the Pentagon, the reality which eludes you, is that no one knows exactly what it should look like. Claiming that it doesn't look authentic to you is laughable against the backdrop of all the supporting evidence.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > We have at least two witnesses who said the plane knocked over lamp posts
> ...


I've seen that video and I see nothing in it which convinces me England was lying.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > -- and we have downed lamp posts.
> ...


Those are not plausible theories. They are only unsupported conjecture with no proof to lend them credibility.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > We have witnesses who said the saw the plane fly into the building
> ...


More unsupported conjecture with no proof to lend them credibility.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > We have witnesses who said the plane came up in the vicinity of Columbia Pike/395
> ...


Again......

There are witnesses who said it went north of the Citgo while others said it went south. The physical evidence determined which witnesses more accurately recalled the location.



phoenyx said:


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


*Now you're saying your star eyewitness was seeing things.*



Thanks for that tacit concession! 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Dismissed since not seeing something others saw is not evidence it didn't exist when others said they saw it and radar picked it up.

But regardless, the salient point you're ignoring is that CIT lied. They said ALL of the witnesses from the Citgo and ANC said the plane flew NoC.

LIE -- At least one didn't.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Yet you cite him as a verifiable witness while you dismissed "Barbara" because she didn't say her last name. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Not yet???

Not ever.

Dihle doesn't remember saying that so there's no chance of him recalling who said it. Yet you still cling to Dihle's hearsay as gospel.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed earlier that Dilhe could identify the person if needed;
> ...


According to Dihle, it's not possible. He says he doesn't remember saying that.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Of course I noted that -- I also posted that entire quote.

And again...... no one knows who said that. No one knows what prompted them to say that. No one knows what the actually saw versus what they may have simply heard themselves and repeated.

There will never be an investigation into that when no one can identify who said that. Nor should there be.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


They could ask him but I see no reason he would deliver an answer any different than the last time he discussed that -- and revealed *he doesn't remember saying it.*



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, Dihle himself never echoes that sentiment to my knowledge.
> ...


I believe you're mistaken about that. If I'm not mistaken, Dihle was inside the Pentagon when the plane flew into it. And CIT is batshit insane to deny there was a C-130 in the vicinity. There is solid evidence it was following flight #77.


It was on radar
There is voice recording of communication with the ATC
There are many witnesses who said they saw it in addition to the plane which flew into the Pentagon.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That's just a bullshit answer and anyone seeking the truth would never promote such an idiocy as defending a source which hides the truth; under the guise they're hiding it from their audience to not bog them down with pesky details.

Hopefully, this will give you pause to understand why rational people euphemistically refer to you jokers as "truthers." You're not seeking the truth. You're seeking to find corroboration of your hallucinations. Your quote above is a perfect example of that.

I've twice now shown you square up how Truth and Shadows lied -- and you not only accept their lies ... you defend why they lie.



phoenyx said:


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


You make it difficult not to call you crazy with nonsense like that. While I understand your desperation for further investigations, it's crazy talk to say one is warranted to find out who Dihle heard when he doesn't remember anyone saying that. 

How do you perceive such an investigation might proceed...?


Q: What did you hear others say about a bomb?

Dihle: I don't recall anyone saying anything about a bomb.

Q: What did you hear others say about a jet kept going?

Dihle: I don't recall anyone saying anything about a jet that kept on going.

Q: Who said a bomb went off?

Dihle: I don't remember anyone saying that.

Q: Who said a jet kept on going?

Dihle: I don't remember anyone saying that.

</investigation>​
... there .... I just saved millions of dollars in an investigation showing why there's no purpose in having one over Dihle's valueless hearsay testimony.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


I don't understand why I keep having to remind you -- that's not evidence.

PROVE the radar data was faked.

Shit or git off the pot.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 21, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



First of all, a question: do you know where the 9/11 Commission got its data? I don't profess to know the answer myself. Secondly, are you saying that at this point in time, the NTSB data, the 9/11 commission Report's flight path and the damage now all align? Thirdly, where are you getting this bit about the FDR data showing a south of Citgo approach?



Faun said:


> And yes, I did address the DNA. I pointed out that it's not invalidated because CIT says it's not.



Ofcourse not. Someone saying something is true or untrue certainly doesn't make it so by default, even if that someone is an official government source that you are apparently so fond of. The -reason- the DNA evidence is highly suspect is because (and I quote, with a slight modification for you):
**_These "DNA reports" are [highly suspect evidence] that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building._**

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



Faun said:


> Even worse, they cite the north side approach and flyover as though that invalidates it



I'm sure you'd agree that if the North side approach actually happened, it would invalidate the DNA results by default. I know you don't believe in the North side approach, but for those of us that -do-, it's just one more piece of evidence against the alleged DNA evidence.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What evidence do you have that any of the bodies that were recovered came from Flight 77? You don't even have solid evidence that Flight 77 -approached- the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> On top of that, much of the plane parts recovered matched that of either an American Airlines plane or a 757.



Not at all, as CIT makes clear in the following article:
Source: Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Seeing as how the official story posited that it was an American Airlines jet, it's hardly surprising. Furthermore, in atleast on case, a reporter took liberties with what a witness said, adding that the witness identified it as a 757, something which the witness later denied. Who  knows how many other witnesses had words put into their mouths?



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I may have. I note your phrase "could have been", which makes it plausible that I said this at some point. I'm sure you're aware that I've never told you I could prove anything to you.



Faun said:


> Regardless.... the bodies recovered were matched with the known passengers and crew of flight #77.



Show me evidence that any of the bodies recovered were matched with those who allegedly died on Flight 77. All I've seen is the claim that DNA found at the crash site was matched up to passengers who allegedly died on said flight. 



Faun said:


> Also both black boxes of flight #77 were recovered.



-Allegedly- recovered. There is no hard evidence that the black boxes were recovered at the Pentagon, let alone that they came from Flight 77...


----------



## candycorn (Jul 21, 2016)

As I pointed out a month ago, phoenix is just going to squeal like a little bitch that any contrary evidence to his fantasy is made up.  And what has happened in the ensuing month?  The little bitch is has done just that.  Time to send him off to never-never land.  Ignore <plink>!


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> As I pointed out a month ago, phoenix is just going to squeal like a little bitch that any contrary evidence to his fantasy is made up.  And what has happened in the ensuing month?  The little bitch is has done just that.  Time to send him off to never-never land.  Ignore <plink>!



Over the past 15 years I've seen enough of these 9/11 CT threads - here and on other forums - to know the following:

1) The "facts" and "evidence" 9/11 CTs offer is a mix of half-truths, speculation, self-serving assumptions, mis or disinformation, Photo-Shopped or cropped pix and more often than not, an unshakable certainty that "the Joooo did it!"

2) That despite the dearth of anything new of significance in the past decade, there always seems to be 1 more straggler who doesn't know their movement died a whimpering death years ago and firmly believes he (or she) is a brave, Internet-trained warrior continuing some valiant crusade against all odds.

3) That having all their theories (No Planes, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, etc.) slashed, trashed and smashed and their rationality (and even sanity) justifiably questioned not only strengthens their resolve and commitment to their cause, it convinces them that they must be right and their tormentors are "paid gov't shills."


----------



## Skylar (Jul 21, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:
> 
> 
> For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.
> ...



Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother? The plane was there, they clearly had no problem crashing the planes into buildings. So why go through all the pointless layers of elaboration? You create enormous complications for yourself in exchange for......nothing.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother? The plane was there, they clearly had no problem crashing the planes into buildings. So why go through all the pointless layers of elaboration? You create enormous complications for yourself in exchange for......nothing.


 
Only theories that satisfy all of the physical evidence are worth consideration.  The idiotic flyover theory doesn't come close to doing anything except proving the theorists are brain damaged.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 21, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the biggest problem with the 'fly over' theory: its pointlessly elaborate. Why bother? The plane was there, they clearly had no problem crashing the planes into buildings. So why go through all the pointless layers of elaboration? You create enormous complications for yourself in exchange for......nothing.
> ...



I agree. It creates enormous complications. You have to get rid of the plane. You have to get rid of the folks in the plane. You  have to falsify flight records, fake testimony by the hundreds, fake DNA tests and autopsies by the dozens,  plant parts and skin from the plane consistent with the plane while people are filming, make the news crews comply with the conspiracy, and cojole hundreds of impromptu co-conspirators. 

And maintain the secret perfectly for 15 years and counting. 

*Or.......simply crash the plane. *And get the _same results _without any of the ludicrously elaborate, spectacularly complicated conspiracy. Occam's Razor tears the 'fly over theory' to tatters. As its simply added pointless elaboration.....in exchange for nothing.

*And of course, the fly over theory simply ignore any physical evidence that contradicts it.* For example, the engine parts found in the Pentagon being consistent with the exact model used by American Airlines in flight 77. Not just the same model plane, *but the exact variant of the plane that was customized for American Airlines. *

Or the bodies found inside the Pentagon matching the crew and passengers from Flight 77. 

Or the skin from an American Airlines jet found scattered across the area immediately around the impact site. 

These are profound, extraordinarily relevant pieces of physical evidence that the fly over theory summarily ignores. Demonstrating that the conspiracy is not only uselessly complicated, not only shredded by Occam's Razor, not only utterly pointless...its inconsistent with the physical evidence.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's not the end of the world. We can always revisit it at some later point in time.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Indeed. Let me know if you ever find the chain of custody for the black box.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Pray tell what you have heard of flight 77's voice recorder. According to Wikipedia:
> ...



A recorder was allegedly recovered from the Pentagon. It was alleged to be the recorder used in an American Airlines jet whose registration number was N644AA and which allegedly flew as Flight 77 on September 11, 2001. There is evidence that Flight 77 never took off on September 11, however:
**_So according to this information Flights AA 11 and AA 77 were scheduled on September 11. One might wonder, however, why there are no tail numbers for the scheduled flights. If planes were assigned to those flights then the tail numbers would be known in advance of September 11, but the tail numbers are listed as "unknown". And if those flights actually occurred, why are the entries for actual departure time given as "0:00"?*_*

Source: Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 Did Not Exist on September 11, 2001



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've addressed your entire "plethora", pointing out how each individual piece could be falsified. 



Faun said:


> And it goes without saying, though I'll say it anyway -- you have NO evidence they were planted.



Would you agree that it goes without saying that you have no evidence they were -not- planted?



Faun said:


> Like every other aspect of this, you have no evidence to prove your hollow claims.



We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Here's the deal: don't insult me or use base language and I won't remove those words from your quotes. If you don't like it, go find someone else to insult.



Faun said:


> If you don't like what I have to say, then don't respond to my posts.



The reason I respond to your posts is because I think you bring up a lot of good points, points that I think should be addressed. I could do without the insults, however.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Someone making a mistake is not the same thing as someone lying about something. He may have simply not noticed the mistake. Have you written him to point it out?



Faun said:


> 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?



I don't see that it's all that relevant. This 'someone' certainly wouldn't be the only one making that assertion, what I found interesting is that he was apparently in an argument with a group of people who believed that the jet kept on going after reaching the Pentagon. Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job, there would naturally be shills who would lie about what actually happened, and there would be no better time to do that then when what happened was still up for debate among the witnesses themselves.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because I don't agree with you, laugh .



Faun said:


> List the evidence they offer....



Faun, let's not get into semantics. You know what -I- consider to be evidence. We clearly disagree on what should be considered evidence. So let's just continue discussing why we disagree with each other.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, you're only interested in what -you- consider to be evidence. Fortunately, you atleast have the decency to address the points that -I- consider to be evidence. Let's just continue to do that and stop getting bogged down in these meta debates.



Faun said:


> I'm interested in proof.



I like proof too. But as I've mentioned to you before, I hold little hope that I will be able to "prove" anything to you. Are you optimistic that you will prove things to me?



Faun said:


> Prove your case if you can. Don't expect people to believe you if you can't.



I'm not. You would do well to do the same.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I do nothing of the sort. There is a lot more evidence besides Erik Dihle's testimony that "some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going". There is Lagasse and Brooks, Darryl Stafford and the rest of the witnesses at Arlington Cemetery, as well as the brilliant work done by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others.



Faun said:


> 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.



To quote Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Prove to me that no one has ever claimed they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. And while you're at it, prove that Erik Dihle's testimony about people "yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going" wasn't referring to the Pentaplane. Or admit that what you claim to know is merely supposition.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Very good. This still doesn't let you off the hook, though. Just because Erik Dihle can't remember their names doesn't mean they don't exist.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Apparently, he's forgotten all about it. But he -doesn't- deny that he said it, just that he doesn't remember saying it. You have no idea if he knows their name.



Faun said:


> You have no idea what prompted them to say it.



You seem to be assuming that witnesses did, indeed, say it. That's comforting. Perhaps one day someone may actually find these witnesses and ask them.



Faun said:


> So no, there will be no such investigation.



Prove it .



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not so fast, laugh . Just as you don't accept Erik Dihle's testimony of unidentified witnesses, I won't simply accept David Ensor's testimony concerning Barbara. If he could let us know her last name and perhaps even interview her, that would be much better, ofcourse.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Good luck with that belief .



Faun said:


> Not many people believe a plane flew over the Pentagon and not into it.



You may well be right on that. But I am one who does. And you just happen to be discussing this theory with me.



Faun said:


> Have you considered thicker skin?



No, I like the thickness of my skin just fine the way it is.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Laugh .



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm happy to hear it .



Faun said:


> That's how I knew it was supposition not supported by the evidence.



We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because of the contents of the FAQ. You're right, you didn't ask that question. In fact, you hadn't asked a question at all. But you had said (and I quote):
"But this is where your lies crumble.... *many witnesses did see the plane fly right into the Pentagon."*

The FAQ article addresses your postulation. And yes, it does begin by answering the FAQ question. But if you can get past that initial sentence, I think there is a lot to be learned from their article. I've skipped some of the pictures for brevity...

**
_No, there are not hundreds of them. There are about 150 total witness names cited by the media at all as having seen the plane, but many of those cited do not claim to have actually seen the alleged impact into the building.

Additionally, these unconfirmed, secondhand, out of context printed quotes do not amount to evidence. Unless and until they are confirmed directly by the witness in a video or audio recorded statement they amount to hearsay by any prudent standard, including in a court of law._






Craig Ranke of CIT interviews eyewitness William Middleton Sr. near the Navy Annex, where he saw the plane seconds before it reached the Pentagon
_Because of this we have attempted to contact most of these previously-published witnesses to confirm their accounts firsthand, and we have been successful at reaching and interviewing dozens of them.

It turns out that most witnesses simply saw or heard the low-flying plane headed towards the building, and then a short while later heard or saw an explosion in the distance. They then deduced that the plane must have hit the building, as any of us would, but they did not actually see it happen.

In fact, quite often the individuals who are cited as having "watched the plane hit the Pentagon" were not even in a position to see the Pentagon at the time of the alleged impact at all.[1]

While many people erroneously assume that many hundreds or even thousands of people would have been able to watch the plane impact the building this is not the case due to the complex topography of the area.[2]

The Pentagon is only five stories high, and the damage was basically confined to the bottom two floors. The building also sits at the bottom of a significant slope to its west, the direction from which the plane approached. There are very few areas at all where you would be able to see the alleged "impact", and most who would be able to see the plane at all would only see it for about a split second.





Damage to Pentagon, as depicted by the American Society of Civic Engineers
Additionally, most people are unaware that the northbound section of Route 27 — the highway that runs directly in front of the building — from which a person could have seen the plane impact the building is less than a quarter mile long, and the view of the alleged impact spot was obscured by trees, even for many of people on this very small strip.[3]


The relatively small number of witnesses who were in locations from which they may have been able to see the alleged impact spot and who do genuinely believe that they saw the plane hit the building were fooled by a carefully planned deception, executed with military precision, as revealed by the conclusive evidence that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and then banked to its right on the north side of the Citgo gas station.

This flight path has been unanimously confirmed by every eyewitnesses who has been willing to go on record in an independent interview and who was in a position to be able to judge where the plane flew in relation to these landmarks.

From five different, excellent vantage points their accounts all independently corroborated each other regarding this flight path.










A plane on this flight path cannot hit the light poles, nor can it cause the directional damage to the Pentagon outlined in the ASCE Building Performance Report, which requires a low and level approach from the south side of the gas station. The only thing that the plane could have done after passing the gas station is to continue on over the Pentagon, which is exactly why Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw the plane still in flight seconds after the alleged impact.
**_
Source: What about the "hundreds" of supposed 9/11 Pentagon "impact" witnesses? | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Are you suggesting I'm being dishonest with you?



Faun said:


> If they could have proven their claims, they'd be richer than their wildest dreams. Books, movies, public appearances. They'd be world renowned.



I think you're speculating, but I can certainly agree that many people doubt their claims, and many more disbelieve them outright. I hope you realize that what people believe isn't necessarily the truth, and frequently flies in the face of the best evidence. While not always true, I think that a certain quote from Winston Churchill is apt here: "_A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on._"

Source: Winston Churchill Quotes at BrainyQuote.com


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



CIT has produced pictures of the treeline on the day of the event. The trees were still blocking her view back then:
Aziz El Hallan - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum



Faun said:


> She said there were some trees but she also said she could see the plane crash into the Pentagon.



Her husband said "*"The plane came over the top of us and brushed the trees... 
Then it looked like it hit the helicopter pad and skipped up and went right into the first and second floors."*

Not to be outdone by his speculation, a reporter went full out and stated: "Michael James, 37, *a Navy information technician *watched in horror from his car Tuesday as an airplane careened off a helicopter pad and smashed into the side of the Pentagon, where he spends about half of his day." 

Do you also believe that the plane "hit the helicopter pad"? Their view was terrible. I wish you'd pay attention to so much detail to those who had a much better view of what happened, such as the CIT witnesses...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, their reason for discounting him is not "irrelevant", if for no other reason then that I clearly believe they have done a lot of research on the Pentagon witnesses and have been posting quite a bit concerning all the evidence they have brought up already. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even click on the link. I've decided to atleast put up the opening post in the link, for the audience if no one else...

**_As you most of you know, we have called out Keith Wheelhouse as having some involvement in the cover-up utilizing the second plane cover story.

Keith alleges that he witnessed 2 planes approach the Pentagon; a C-130 and the attack jet. His story is meshed with others that paint a vague story about a second plane/jet being in the area and flying away over the Pentagon (in some cases) as soon as the attack makes it's alleged impact. He, with help from the gov't and "journalist" Terry Scanlon, eventually turns this second plane into the C-130, maintaining that it shadowed the attack jet all the way until the Pentagon. Even on its face, it seems untrue and absurd when considering that a C-130 can only travel 379 MPH tops versus the 500-530MPH the attack jet was said to have been traveling by the official story.







After interviewing him in person, on camera. His story stayed the same but was more detailed and seemed to be molded off of the new RADES data which has the C-130 departing BEFORE the Pentagon and over the Navy Annex. He has the two planes less than a mile, 2/3 of a mile out approaching at the same time and as the attack jet allegedly drops it's nose to gun it next to the Navy Annex, you have the C-130 veering away at the same time over the Navy Annex.

Here is the image he drew...






Well on 7/22/08 we received a short e-mail from Keith out of the blue. Apparently he was still either oblivious to our claims about him and his account or his MO was to play dumb on purpose to make himself seem innocent. In this e-mail he included a couple of photos...

*Just thought you would like to see a few photos.

Take care

Keith D. Wheelhouse*










Craig wrote back...

*Hi Keith,

What a surprise to hear from you!  Great shots, thanks.

If you watched the trailer on the front page of our website for our upcoming release you know that we have been back to Arlington and have spoken with a lot more witnesses who were also at Arlington Cemetery .

The evidence is conclusive.  They all corroborate each other and contradict your story. They all have the C-130 coming from a different direction than the attack jet about a minute or two after the explosion.  We've spoken with dozens of witnesses and none of them have the C-130 shadowing.

They all saw the attack jet bank relatively slowly between the gas station and the cemetery proving it did not hit the light poles or the building. And in fact, we now have a Pentagon police officer who saw this JET (not C-130)  fly away from the building immediately after the explosion.

The charade is over.

We know you aren't to blame for a deception on this level Keith. But things will work out a lot better for you if you come clean.  Work with us.  Tell us what you really saw and/or know.  Help us nail the true perpetrators.

Tell us who told you to say the C-130 was shadowing to act as confusion/cover for the flyover.  The more you are open with what you know the more protected you will be.

Craig*

He fires back...

*You guys need to come clean and stop the charade. Being x-military I was their and know exactly what I saw. It is a shame that there are people of your caliber that want to try to put a spin on what happened. I do not care whether you believe me or not. Have the people who contradict my story call me. You have my cell and ok to release it. There are 52 additional photo’s to collaborate my story. From your video you do not believe an AA jet hit the pentagon. You had doubts that I was even their. Please have the pilot’s witnesses or who ever wants to contest it call. Best wishes in your search.

Craig you need help

Keith D. Wheelhouse*

Craig responded back...

*52 photos?

Feel free to send them all.  We'll be happy to publish them.

Of course neither of the 2 you sent so far show a C-130 shadowing an AA jet as they fly together south of the gas station in line to hit the building so I have a feeling none of the 50 others will "collaborate" your story either.

Perhaps you don't understand the gravity and extent of the evidence we have uncovered.  We are not theorizing Keith.

Whether or not you were really there your shadowing story has been proven false by ALL other witnesses AND the official alleged radar data released in 2007.

So even the government threw you under the bus Keith.  But all the other witnesses independently prove your story false as well as that the plane could not have hit.

Why should anyone believe you when nobody supports your story and everyone else says something completely different?

Yes we do need help.  The nation and world is in peril as innocent people are murdered every day during a fraudulent "war on terror" based on this false pretext.

Please help do something to help expose this deception.  I believe you have a conscience and want to help but are afraid.

This is perfectly understandable Keith and I don't blame you but the cat is out of the bag and attention to the conclusive evidence we have is only going to grow.

Craig*

So about a month later after a clear version of the Tribby video came out I sent the following e-mail..


*Hi Keith,

I think it is best you are honest now. Your whole account has been proven to be fabricated by video of the C-130 at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Here is video proof that the C-130 came in from the NORTHWEST as our Arlington National Cemetery workers saw and came in nearly 3 minutes after the explosion.

You, on the other hand, have the two planes less than a mile, 2/3 of a mile out approaching at the same time and as the attack jet allegedly drops it's nose to gun it next to the Navy Annex, you have the C-130 veering away at the same time over the Navy Annex.

Keith this just did not happen, click and watch...


Close-up:



There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth. We now believe there was a "second plane" cover story employed utilizing ambiguity to cover up for the attack jet flying away. Your role in this mess was accurately predicted. We know the plane did not hit the building, Kieth. We know it was a flyover/flyaway. We have witnesses who prove this.

The question is, did you see the flyover and were coerced/prompted to say that the plane you saw flying away was a C-130 or are you a complicit operative put out there to help sow the confusion of the "second" plane  story which, partly thanks to you, slowly is eventually confirmed as a C-130. We prefer to believe you are innocent and were coerced to lie.

Either way, things will work out better for you if you are honest. The video proves you are not telling the truth, Keith.

Citizen Investigation Team*

After that...SILENCE. We never heard back from Keith._**



Faun said:


> 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.



First of all, Wheelhouse was some distance from Columbia Pike; he was in Arlington cemetary. Secondly, the CIT witnesses -do- initially place the plane just north of Columbia Pike, back when Edward Paik and Terry Morin saw it. I have never seen Keith state that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station; I doubt he could even see it from his vantage point. But by all means, show me he said that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station.



Faun said:


> 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.



Sergeant Lagasse and Sergeant Brooks were both -at- the Citgo gas station and they were adamant that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station. The rest of CIT's witnesses, while not at quite as good a vantage point to determine whether it flew north or south of the Citgo gas station, nevertheless clearly place it as coming from the North side of Columbia Pike and 395. I'm not sure that -anyone- has stated that it came from South of the Citgo gas station. But if you have found a single witness that has done so, by all means, present them.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



He was 2 miles away and there was certainly an explosion around the time the pentaplane would have been starting its flyover. As CIT has mentioned, most people would have their eyes glued to the explosion. Not only that, but shortly after the explosion, there was a lot of smoke, as Keith Wheelhouse's picture makes clear, adding another difficulty to spotting the plane making its flyover.

I've taken a snapshot of Wright's stated location looking towards the Pentagon from Google Maps and uploaded it to give an idea of how far away he was. The Pentagon is the barely visible pentagonal shape at the top there...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > 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;
> ...



Good point. I'm thinking I got mixed up with Terry Morin's testimony. As you may recall, Terry -did- see it go right over his head. In Lagasse's case, he clearly had the plane to his left.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > ...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.
> ...



That video's pretty blurry. I think Lagasse and Brooks' testimony is much more solid.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 23, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I strongly disagree with the notion that I have rejected official stories out of hand. I actually initially -believed- the official narrative concerning 9/11 originally. It was only after a careful examination of many facts presented by a book called 9/11: The Terror Conspiracy, by well known author Jim Marrs (he wrote 1 of the 2 books which formed the foundation for Oliver Stone's film "JFK"), I came to the conclusion that the official story was filled with lies.



SAYIT said:


> is it leaves you groping desperately for some alternate universe explanation for the events of 9/11.



When some realize that a story they have been told can't be true, many people (including myself) will tend to try to figure out what -is- true. In the case of 9/11, I was greatly helped along by Jim Marrs' excellent book on the subject.



SAYIT said:


> 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.



I doubt I have anything that -you- would consider to be proof, and the title of this thread is a testament to the fact that I doubt I can persuade anyone who is strongly attached to the official narrative concerning the Pentagon attack. That being said, I think that, while perhaps not quite as robust a theory as the Theory of Evolution, I believe the evidence that the plane did in fact fly over the Pentagon is quite compelling.



SAYIT said:


> 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 obtuse and childish.



Like many people who trust the official narrative concerning the Pentagon attack, you insist that those who disagree with the official narrative must substantiate their claims, while never demanding that the official narrative substantiate -its- claims. What evidence do you have that the official narrative is true?



SAYIT said:


> Indeed there is no physical evidence - not even on radar - that AA77 "flew over the Pentagon"



Once a plane gets low enough, it can no longer be seen by radar. By all accounts, the plane flying pretty low.



SAYIT said:


> and no eyewitnesses to such an event but you cling desperately to the theory anyway.



Yes, as Faun is fond of pointing out, no witness that we know of has stated that a plane from over the Pentagon. That being said, Erik Dihle's comment that some people were yelling that 'a bomb went off and a jet kept on going' is highly suggestive that some people may have seen just that.



SAYIT said:


> Claiming that the WTC was a controlled demo...



Has nothing to do with the Pentaplane Flyover Theory. There are threads that -do- cover his aspect of 9/11 in this forum (I've made one myself), just not this one.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



From CIT's article, linked to above:
**_Eventually researchers would explain away the accounts of the "second plane/jet" as being regarding the C-130 piloted by Lt Col Steve O'Brien who we now know never shadowed or chased the plane. He actually lost sight of it after it passed in front of him and he turned around. He was not near AND/OR over the Pentagon at the time of alleged impact (explosion & fireball). In fact it would have been physically impossible for him to keep up with a 530 mph jet, when a C-130 can only travel maximum 379 mph. He didn't show up to the scene until approximately 3 minutes later at a much higher altitude.






We learned from an e-mail exchange with him and Pilots for 9/11 Truth that he was too high and far away to even see the Pentagon!

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion *I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted*, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-C-130 Pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email to Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757 so if the pilot could not see the Pentagon there is no way he could see an impact or flyover/away and he clearly wasn't "shadowing" the attack jet proving Keith Wheelhouse's account false.  This is further demonstrated with video evidence taken by Anthony Tribby from highway 395.

There is a significant difference between the witness accounts above that were used by the media in the subsequent propaganda to sell the official story when compared to the independent witness accounts that we have uncovered.  Specifically workers from Arlington Cemetery who were right next to where Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw the C-130, yet report a very different story. Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle all saw the C-130 approach significantly after the explosion and report that it was on a different flight path from the attack jet having approached from the northwest.






When looking at the C-130 pilot's account, the video evidence from Anthony Tribby, and the corroborating independent witness accounts from the Arlington Cemetery workers it becomes clear that the C-130 was not in the airspace until minutes after the explosion, and that the media accounts of this C-130 were mutated to bring it closer to the event than it really was to serve as cover for the flyover.**


 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).

*For the full-length video recorded on location witness interviews of the Arlington Cemetery workers establishing the true approach time and flight path of the C-130 see "The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed".

*For more details regarding the C-130 and the E4B including an in depth flight path analysis and exclusive on camera interview with Keith Wheelhouse please see "The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off".

*For a video short including excerpts of our interviews with Keith Wheelhouse, Joel Sucherman, and Vin Narayanan see "__The 2nd Plane Cover Story__"_.



Faun said:


> 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).



I haven't seen any evidence that Sucherman saw the "first plane" at all. Just the one "peeling off", by which I assume he means peeling off from the Pentagon, judging from other comments he made. This pulling up is in line with what other witnesses witnessing the Pentaplane from the other said said it had started to do shortly before arriving at the Pentagon...


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 23, 2016)

hadit said:


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



I see.



hadit said:


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



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



hadit said:


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



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


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 24, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:
> ...



I know that candy has stated that she has put me on ignore. I think that's probably a blessing, all she tended to do was insult those she disagreed with anyway. But really Faun, that post of hers is "informative"?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 24, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from the fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna...
> ...



Please name the person who gave him a "satisfactory" rating.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 24, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Most people, including Faun, have had no problem believing that he actually said what he said in his video testimony. Methinks thou doth protest too much.



candycorn said:


> and since you've proven to be [insult removed].there is no reason to believe your transcript



Transcribe his statements yourself if you want to verify them.



candycorn said:


> We do know there were 5 light poles knocked down by AA77 since the space between the poles was long enough for only a 757 or similar plane to hit them with their wingspans--smaller planes like the one you're trying to sell wouldn't have done it.



I certainly agree that a smaller plane wouldn't have been able to hit them. Your problem is that the most credible witnesses all place the plane on a flight path that would have missed all of the light poles.



candycorn said:


> You've yet to account for any physical evidence.



Actually, I've linked to what many people believe to be a plausible theories long ago. Here's the links:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon

Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hardly, considering that he was -at- the Citgo gas station, not a considerable distance from it. The only other witnesses who have come forward from the Citgo gas station all place the plane as coming from the north side of the station as well.



Faun said:


> as there are also many witnesses who are sure it came up Columbia Pike.



It -did-. But around the time it approached the Navy Annex, it had crossed over to the north side of Columbia Pike, as mentioned by Edward Paik. Terry Morin, who was -at- the Navy Annex stated that it went over his head, and even you seemed to find his testimony credible. Further along the plane's flight, at the Citgo gas station, you have Brooks, Lagasse and Turcios all claiming that the plane flew -north- of the Citgo gas station. And the witnesses they interviewed at the Arlington cemetary, as well as those at the Pentagon itself all place the plane as coming from North of Columbia Pike as well. Only after it had gone north of the Citgo gas station does it begin to turn southwards again, but by that point, there was no way that it could have gone southwards quickly enough to hit the light poles and do the damage found at the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth make this clear in the following video:




Faun said:


> The two camps of eyewitness accounts can't both be right,



Please list the witnesses in your "camp".



Faun said:


> None of the witnesses recalled seeing a fly over.



So you say. Meanwhile, -some- of us still think it'd be worth trying to find the people who Erik Dihle mentioned in his interview with the U.S. Army's Center of Military History. You know, the ones he stated had said "*were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."*


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 24, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



I'll be happy to once you provide substantiation to your claim that "Hani Hanjour couldn't even solo a single engine cessna."


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 24, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Easy enough:
**_Further suspension in logic exists in the 'official story's' narrative as to who flew Flight 77 so expertly into the Pentagon's west wing. Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane's pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all." Other source. And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot._**

Source: Hani Hanjour and Flight 77's Unexplained Expert Maneuvers


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 24, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Uh-huh. So two 9/11 CT sources claim unnamed flight instructors at an unnamed airfield found Hanjour "could not fly at all." No wonder you cling so desperately to your "Flyover" CT ... you believe anything from any source that serves your agenda.

It was Loose Change that created the lie (Shocking, eh? A 9/11 CT source that lies) that Hanjour couldn't fly. In fact they used a snippet of an interview they conducted with the flight trainer - Marcel Bernard - who went on to say "there is no doubt in my mind that once flight 77 got going he could have pointed that plane at building and hit it." Of course, Loose Change left that part of the interview out which brings us back to what I find to be the most revealing aspect of your whole (and long defunct) 9/11 CT Movement: that all of the theories that were spawned by its rabid members were built on half-truths, distortions, mis & disinformation, and outright fabrications.

TRACES OF TERROR: THE F.B.I.; For Agent in Phoenix, the Cause of Many Frustrations Extended to His Own Office


----------



## Faun (Jul 24, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Sorry, but Lagasse and Brooks' testimony does not trump video evidence.

And just because you can't see it doesn't mean others can't.

The employee at the Citgo described the plane flying by him as an "earthquake." At about 4:41 in the video I linked, you can see something fall over. Well, I can see it even though you can't. That matches Lagasse's statement that the plane flying by knocked him into his car. A couple of seconds later, you can see the Citgo employees running to the door to where the heard the jet fly. Well, again ... I can see it even though you can't.

Furthermore, there is a shadow caught on camera at the precise moment something was knocked over in the photo I posted, as the plane flew by the Citgo. It could very well be the shadow from the plane...


----------



## Faun (Jul 24, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Putting the plane above the Navy Annex on the southeast side where Morin claims he saw it, puts the plane on a direct course for the Pentagon. Even worse according to you -- at that point, the plane is heading directly for a pre-planned point at the Pentagon where bombs were set and ready to detonate ... and directly over where you claim lamposts were staged.......

But then, according to your nonsense, the pilot *turns away* from his target which is already lined up perfectly ... to *veer away from* the predetermined spot at the Pentagon *and veer away from* the lamp posts you claim were purposefully taken down and staged, only to have to make a sharp right turn at about 100-150 feet at about 400-450 MPH.

There's no sane reason on Earth you can invent to explain why someone would do that.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Good point, I'd forgotten that he'd forgotten. That being said, he could be asked who he had talked to about the events that day, and go from there.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Thanks for the transcription. I believe you erred when you put "co-altitude", a term I've never heard of, pretty sure he said "low altitude".


And there is possibly no eyewitness with a better view than the bird's eye view from that C-130, which saw the plane go down at their "12 o'clock" position. Anyway, Steve O'Brien never said that he -saw- the plane crash into the Pentagon. This is what O'Brien -did- say:

**_"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion *I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted*, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-C-130 Pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email to Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757 so if the pilot could not see the Pentagon there is no way he could see an impact or flyover/away and he clearly wasn't "shadowing" the attack jet proving Keith Wheelhouse's account false.  This is further demonstrated with video evidence taken by Anthony Tribby from highway 395.

There is a significant difference between the witness accounts above that were used by the media in the subsequent propaganda to sell the official story when compared to the independent witness accounts that we have uncovered.  Specifically workers from Arlington Cemetery who were right next to where Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw the C-130, yet report a very different story. Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle all saw the C-130 approach significantly after the explosion and report that it was on a different flight path from the attack jet having approached from the northwest.**
_
Source: The 2nd Plane Cover Story | CIT's The Pentacon Website


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's way beyond that. First of all, all 13 of CIT's initial witnesses -corroborate- each other. The same can't be said for many of yours. Not to mention the fact that even some of yours suggest the plane was indeed coming from an NoC approach. Furthermore, some of them wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all if the plane had actually taken an SoC flight path.



Faun said:


> If the plane went south of the Citgo, then there were others with a better vantage point.



And yet, the ones who claim it was so close to them all seem to be NoC witnesses. Fancy that, eh?



Faun said:


> And ALL of the physical evidence points to the plane being south of the Citgo.



There were some downed light poles and some Pentagon at the damage. Many things could have caused that damage. CIT has gone over these points before, as I know you know, but for those in the audience who may just be coming across this post, please feel free to check out the following links:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon

Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> As far as Dawn's (and Tim's) vantage point. While much of their view seems to have been obstructed by other buildings, their view of the Pentagon was not...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That certainly does seem to be quite the view. Apparently, much larger then what would actually be seen at Dawn's place. I imagine it's Erik Larson's picture (it looks just about identical), and blown up even further. Craig goes into a bit of detail on it below:
**_Before linking his video with the blatantly fraudulent title he prefaced it with this statement,  *"In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person."*_

_After linking the video he posted this admittedly zoomed-in image from Dawn's apartment:_




_
The problem is that Larson is very careful never to mention throughout his entire article that in 2007 we also provided virtually the exact same image, only not zoomed-in as you can see here:_




_Source: 2007 CIT research trip report

This is absolute proof that we were not deceptive about her point of view in our 2007 report (which was basically the extent of our formal public reference to Vignola's account at all). Since later in the article Larson references this same report it proves that he was well aware that we had published that image and therefore that he *deliberately lied* by refusing to acknowledge this fact and fraudulently titling his video "The View from Vignola’s Contradicts CIT"._**

Source: Dawn Vignola’s Account vs Erik Larson’s Methods by CIT

And then, ofcourse, there's the fact that witnesses reported seeing a plane seconds -after- the explosion, which means that most people's attention would probably be focused on the fireball, especially if they were miles away from the scene and weren't looking at said scene with a telephoto lens...


----------



## candycorn (Jul 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Also, without sworn notarized statements, we can just assume CIT made them up.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 25, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The original 13 witnesses that CIT interviewed all corroborate an NoC flight path. The plane couldn't have hit the the Pentagon coming from that direction.



SAYIT said:


> Why do you persist in promoting a silly 9/11 CT that _*no one*_ saw?



Some may well have seen it. Quoting a line from Erik Dihle in his testimony to the U.S. Army's Center of Military History:
"*Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going."*


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, -multiple- people said a bomb had hit the pentagon and a jet kept on going, but only -one- person insisted that a jet had run into the building. Clearly, it would be nice to know who all of these people were.



Faun said:


> Worse for you is *YOUR* standard that witnesses who can't be questioned *don't count*.



How are you so sure they can't be questioned?



Faun said:


> You're hypocritically relying on hearsay from people who can't be identified;



How are you so sure they can't be identified?



Faun said:


> while rejecting eyewitness accounts from those whose accounts reject your nonsense under the guise (as if it matters) that they didn't give names (even though "Barbara" could be).



There are witnesses whose first and last names are known and who have given videotaped interviews at the location where they at the time of the Pentagon attack- the witnesses CIT interviewed. They are clearly more reliable then witnesses whose real existence has yet to be verified.



Faun said:


> There still remains a grand total of ZERO eyewitnesses who say they saw a plane fly OVER the Pentagon.



It's true that Erik Dihle's testimony that some people were "yelling that a bomb hit the pentagon and a jet kept on going" makes no mention of the jet going over the Pentagon. But when you combine his testimony with the fact that everyone agrees that multiple witnesses agree that the plane had gotten to the Pentagon before the explosion, barring technology that would allow it to make a 90 degree turn or something to that effect, the only way the plane could have "kept on going" is if it flew over the Pentagon.



Faun said:


> That includes folks among the hundreds on the highways surrounding the Pentagon on all sides ... all of the eyewitnesses who stepped forward to publicly record their accounts ...



You can speculate all you like that hundreds of people should have seen the flyover. Without actual evidence, that's all it will be. According to some, there were 104 impact witnesses. CIT has refuted that, and gone into great detail as to what all the witnesses -did- see here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

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


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 25, 2016)

candycorn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



CMH's interviews were actually audio recordings, not typed out. Furthermore, many of the witnesses that were interviewed by the center were later interviewed again by CIT and confirmed many of the things that they had said.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How would you know? Have you launched a well funded investigation into finding the people he mentions in his testimony and come up empty?


----------



## Faun (Jul 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


I know because I'm going by what *you said. *Nameless witness can't be interrogated and therefore,  are ignored.

You do play by your own rules, right?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've never heard that assertion before. I'm currently not aware of -any- witnesses stating that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station. Please list the witnesses who say it flew south of the Citgo gas station.


----------



## Faun (Jul 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Sounds like _"co-altitude"_ to me, but regardless, it proves the C-130 was following AA77 and was in the vacinity; which also matches the description of many of the eyewitnesses.

But mostly, it dispels the notion that a plane flew over the Pentagon because possibly no one had a better vantage point of the view over the Pentagon than O'Brien and he did not say he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.


----------



## Faun (Jul 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That would be the folks who said the flight came up Columbia Pike or 395. None of whom, to my knowledge, stating they saw the plane bank away from the Pentagon.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I never said I had any.



Faun said:


> Casting doubt on the known evidence is not proof.



I never said it was.



Faun said:


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



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



Faun said:


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



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



Faun said:


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



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


----------



## Faun (Jul 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Claiming the scene at the Pentagon was staged is meaningless given the lack of proof. One could make up any concoction imaginable for hoe those light posts were knocked down, for how one speared England's car, for how AA plane debris was scattered about, how the debris field matched a plane flying at about 40 degrees, how DNA from passengers and crew was found, how black boxes were found....

Proving it is quite another leap of reality. One, in my opinion, you have fallen far too short to consider to have factually established.

ALL the physical evidence points to AA77 flying into the Pentagon.

..... and then there's that pesky Citgo surveillance video which shows the employees running to the *SOUTH* just after the plane flew by.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



Interviewed them when ... years after? As we have seen with all your 9/11 CT sources, they very much depend on cherry-picking, mis and disinforming, altering pix and _*outright lying*_.

There is no evidence that AA77 flew over your Cuckoo's Nest nor any of the ensuing possibilities you imagine. There is no evidence of a controlled demo or Cruise Missile at the Pentagon (or the WTC) but literally tons of hard evidence that AA77 and AA11 and UA175 and UA93 all crashed _exactly_ where the NIST report said they did.



phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you persist in promoting a silly 9/11 CT that _*no one*_ saw?
> ...



Some people "*may well*" have seen Silent Ninja Demo Warriors planting invisible explosives that leave no trace or Spiders from Mars or Floating Black Orbs armed with Destructo Rays - drugs can be dangerous - but _*no one*_ saw anyone plant any of the hard evidence found at the sites that you so eagerly reject and no one saw a very large passenger jet charge at the Pentagon only to pull up and fly away exactly as an explosion rocked the building. *No one*. An explosion, BTW, that traveled into the building unlike any explosive would have done but eerily similar to how a projectile - such as AA77 - would have done. And just in case you are wondering, no one saw AA77 (perhaps specially designed with Transformer capabilities?) turn into a Cruise Missile as it slammed into the Pentagon.

*No one* saw what you want to believe. *No one*.

It exists only as a figment of your overly-active imagination.


----------



## Faun (Jul 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


You admit you have absolutely *no proof* to corroborate  your claims. You admit you have *no eyewitnesses* to corroborate a flyover.

So why are you wasting anyone's time with this bullshit?


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


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



Faun doesn't seem to believe that just creating some doubt is either productive or intellectually honest.
Evidently you do.

There are dozens of websites dedicated to "proving" the lunar landing was a fraud. Where's the honesty in that?

As repeatedly noted in this thread, it really isn't enough to impugn the work and reputation of the professionals who investigated 9/11 and reported their findings. In fact, given that you have already admitted you know little about them, it's downright cheapshot-ish.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Great, nothing but more unprovable denials. This us going nowhere because you're not posting proof.
> ...



Which brings us to the crux of the biscuit!

You have no proof of pretty much anything you believe but you are dead sure you believe it!

Wow ... just wow.


----------



## Faun (Jul 25, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Which leads us to the reason they're euphemistically referred to as *Twoofers.*


----------



## hadit (Jul 25, 2016)

phoenyx said:


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


The physical evidence is compelling.  What you are doing is simply ignoring it or claiming it's faked.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



When did I say that what someone heard (aka hearsay) is inadmissible. 



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You think fireball was only visible from a single viewpoint?



Faun said:


> You're ignoring all of the eyewitnesses who watched from an elevated position and who could clearly see the roof.



You mean a few eyewitnesses miles away who would probably have focused their attention on the fireball?



Faun said:


> You're ignoring the Doubletree video which caught the explosion from the back side and did not capture a plane flying over.



Not at all. It's just that, unlike you, I don't blindly trust that the government didn't manipulate the video footage...
9/11 Pentagon Doubletree Hotel Video Manipulated - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum



Faun said:


> You're ignoring the pilot of the C-130 who had a bird's eye view of the roof of the Pentagon and he did not see a plane fly over the Pentagon.



Again, you are mistaken. Lt Col. Steve O'Brien specifically stated he couldn't see where or what the pentaplane had impacted:
**_"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion *I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted*, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-C-130 Pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email to Pilots for 9/11 Truth**
_
Source: Topic 5



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No one said those exact words, though Erik Dihle's testimony of people yelling that "a bomb hit and a jet kept on going" sounds an awful lot like a flyover to me. Others mention a non existent "second plane", without ever having seen the "first": Joel 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."_

Maria de la Cerda initially told the Center for Military History that the plane hit on the "other side", but later settled for the plane hitting "on top" of the Pentagon, strongly suggesting she briefly saw the Pentaplane above the Pentagon. And there are a few others I've mentioned over time as well...



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Prove it.



Faun said:


> There is no evidence of bombs.



Actually, there is:
Evidence points to bombs inside the Pentagon on 9/11



Faun said:


> There is evidence there were no bombs.



Let's hear it then.



Faun said:


> Bombs blow up indiscriminately, not directionally. Even planting multiple bombs, while you can create a field of damage, you can't reproduce the directional damage caused by a 757 traveling at some 400-450 MPH.



You have yet to show evidence that the damage at the Pentagon could only have been caused by a 757. If you have such evidence, by all means present it.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It would be one thing if there were no witnesses that contradicted Lloyd's account. As a matter of fact, however, the majority of eyewitnesses saw the plane approach the pentagon from a North of the Citgo gas station approach, not a South of the Citgo gas station approach. When Lloyd became aware of the fact that so many eyewitnesses were contradicting his statements, he declared that he, too, was in a position to see a North of the Citgo gas station approach. However, even official story believers who've done a little homework know that this must be untrue; there are pictures of him shortly after the event with his taxi cab and its broken windshield in a place that would only have been able to see the plane coming in from a South of the Citgo gas station flight path. CIT pointed this out to him, but he refused to change his story. There are many things that Lloyd has said that suggest that he knows that what he's saying isn't true. I'll leave you with a bit of transcription that I obtained from transcribing what was said in CIT's videotaped documentary with him, starting at 40
**
_Lloyd: No I wasn't supposed to be involved in this. This is too big for me man this is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening, I'm a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff. 
CIT: But you said. Lloyd, what do you mean?
Lloyd: Well I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I don't have nothing.
CIT: So your point that these people that have all the money..
Lloyd: This is their thing.
CIT: This is their thang.
LLoyd: This is for them.
CIT: Meaning they're doing it for their own reasons.
Lloyd: That's right. I'm not supposed to be in it.
CIT: But they used you, right?
Lloyd: I'm in it.
CIT: You're in it.
Lloyd: Yeah, we came across, across the highway together.
CIT: You and their event.
Lloyd: That's right.
CIT: But they must have planned that. 
Lloyd: It was planned._**



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



By all means, attempt to prove they're not plausible theories then. I believe they are the most plausible theories.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, we disagree, but feel free to try to prove that it is "unsupported conjecture".


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Give me a list of witnesses that stated that it went south of the Citgo gas station then.



Faun said:


> The physical evidence




...is viewed by many to not be a persuasive argument for the official narrative on the Pentagon attack.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's one thing to realize whether a plane is on your left or right side of you. It's another thing to know whether a plane heading towards the Pentagon was consumed in a fireball or whether the fireball simply occurred around the same time as the pentaplane arrived at the Pentagon. After a little initial confusion as to what happened at the Pentagon, the official story had set in that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon; clearly, this would affect anyone who wasn't sure as to what happened.


----------



## Faun (Jul 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


In case you haven't noticed, you're done. I actually believe you've noticed, you've simply chosen to ignore it. The evidence you know you're done is by you responding to almost every post of mine *except for post #22*

That would be the post you dismissed out of hand as one you can't see anything because it's too blurry for you. Meanwhile, I see evidence of the plane flying by the Citgo, followed by employees rushing to see where the noise came from ... and the noise came from the south of the Citgo.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



"Others"? Who, other then Wheelhouse, claim to have seen 2 planes practically humping each other? And can you provide evidence that radar picked up these humping planes?



Faun said:


> But regardless, the salient point you're ignoring is that CIT lied. They said ALL of the witnesses from the Citgo and ANC said the plane flew NoC.
> 
> LIE -- At least one didn't.



Wheelhouse wasn't one of the original 13 witnesses they interviewed. As to your point, I think another online poster has already addressed it fairly well, after he'd seen a video of a debate between Adam Larson and Craig Ranke (which is, unfortunately, no longer available for viewing):
**_Craig raised an excellent point on the issue of "proof" and the validity of eye-witness testimony. I work on the basis of "weight of evidence" whereby if 3 people say x but 10 people say y, then y is likely to be correct, but I'd look at why 3 people said x. From that I'd determine if x or y is correct (or most likely) based on z evidence. 

In this instance, there are far too many witnesses saying the same thing. The few witnesses that tow the official story are dubious due to who they work for, were the only version published in newspapers, and if you read their numerous reports carefully, are full of basic factual differences in each version of their account. In the case of the CIT witnesses, they're basically the same with respect to the main details in each account. 

It was interesting to hear that only one person reported seeing the light pole in the cab after the event, yet no-one reported seeing the light poles actually getting hit, and further, wouldn't even testify that they saw them actually being hit, even though they had an otherwise good view of this._**



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Erik Dihle is a known witness, yes, though he only heard an explosion, he didn't see the plane. The people he -mentions- aren't known witnesses, no. Neither is "Barbara", there are plenty of Barbaras.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your overconfidence is your weakness. Don't make assertions you can't back up. Or are you saying you can prove that we will never know who Dihle was referring to? Dihle doesn't need to remember any of it, an investigation could simply ask him who he believes he was talking to that day about the events occuring, as well as who he might have been talking to, and go from there.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If an investigation were to ask him who he believed he had talked to that day, and those people were interviewed, they might say something like, "Why yes, -I- was the one who thought the jet kept on going!". I'm already thinking I have atleast one idea as to one person he may have heard it from: Maria de la Cerda. True, there is no recording of her saying that "a bomb went off and a jet kept on going" but she -is- recorded as saying that the plane crashed "on the other side" and even now still maintains that she believes that the plane crashed "on top". Perhaps originally, she had simply thought the jet kept on going before the official story modified her views on the subject.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



He doesn't need to remember saying it. He only needs to remember who he was talking to that day. Heck, even if he can't remember that, investigators could still do some digging to find out who he was likely to have been talking to that day.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think you're mistaken. Dihle was an employee for the Arlington National Cemetary:

Maria de la Cerda wasn't, but she was in Arlington National Cemetery at the time of the event:
North Side Flyover



Faun said:


> And CIT is batshit insane to deny there was a C-130 in the vicinity.



CIT doesn't say that a CIT wasn't in the "vicinity". The issue is how close. The answer is, not very.



Faun said:


> There is solid evidence it was following flight #77.
> 
> 
> It was on radar
> ...


Indeed, but only Wheelhouse says it was anywhere near the pentaplane. The pilot of said C-130 couldn't even make out where or what the pentaplane allegedly crashed into.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, it is an answer. I and others believe it's a plausible one.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If it's true that they all conflict (something I know you have contested in atleast one case), it would actually be -proof- that atleast 2 of the 3 official stories concerning the Pentagon attack aren't real.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dihle doesn't remember saying that so there's no chance of him recalling who said it. Yet you still cling to Dihle's hearsay as gospel.
> ...



What you read as "overconfidence" is actually just confidence that is derived from years of reading off-the-wall 9/11 conspiracy theories that make no sense and have no basis in fact, truth or reality. The theories you and "The Movement" have offered the past 15 years are the single most compelling proof that the official findings are as close to truth as we can possibly get (and I thank you for that).

You have admitted you have no proof of any of your foil-hat claims and have trashed the investigators despite having admitted knowing little about them. Clearly yours is not a search for truth but rather for validation of your goofy conclusions and the promotion of what seems to be a nefarious agenda.

Your overly active imagination is your greatest weakness (among many).


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 26, 2016)

Skylar said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:
> ...



Answering that question is a lot harder then determining the most plausible explanation for what happened. That being said, when you add some facts together, I believe a plausible theory emerges. The first question one can ask is, why was the Pentagon hit in the particular spot it was hit. Here's an article that gets into this:
The Pentagon Attack: Why Was the Office of Naval Intelligence Targeted? | The Blog of the WTC Demolition Site

Here's the thing:
It would have been difficult if not impossible for a plane to have actually crashed into that part of the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains why in the following video:

There is also a discussion on the subject here:
G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible, page 1

There is also another factor: that the plane approaching the Pentagon was quite likely not a 757. If it had crashed there, that could have become clear.

If explosives were planted at the Pentagon, they could avoid the above issues, with the plane still providing the needed cover for what really happened.


----------



## Faun (Jul 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Seems you are correct that Dihle was at ANC. Regardless, he didn't identify who said it was a bomb and now says he doesn't even recall that. Which, according to you, nullifies the account of a bomb...

_"I've already mentioned why they may have excluded the account of "Barbara"; she has only been mentioned as "the wife of a friend of mine" by the reporter mentioning her, and was given no last name. *Put simply, her account is impossible to verify*."_​
Simply put.... whomever said it was a bomb is impossible to verify.

Now that you've once again demonstrated you have zero eyewitnesses to the flyover .... the post you keep avoiding ... post #22


----------



## Skylar (Jul 26, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



No, its not. Your argument and your theory are uselessly complicated and pointlessly elaborate while being contradicted by overwhelming physical and eye witness evidence. Your argument fails on evidence, fails on logic, and fails Occam's Razor.

Quite simply, its an awful explanation.



> That being said, when you add some facts together, I believe a plausible theory emerges.



Your theory isn't plausible. Its ludicrously implausible, poorly thought through, and wildly inconsistent with the evidence.

Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. *As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits*.....with none of the absurdly costs, risks and pointless elaboration that your theory mandates.



> It would have been difficult if not impossible for a plane to have actually crashed into that part of the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains why in the following video:



But easier to pull a f-14 tomcat pull up at the last minute with a passenger jet and fly up and over the pentagon at the last moment as a massive firery explosion rakes at its underbelly? All while faking massive amounts of physical evidence, convincing hundreds of impromptu co-conspirators to join in the conspiracy with perfect secrecy for a decade and a half?

Remember, this didn't happen in a field in the middle of Pennsylvania. But in broad day light within a few thousand yards of Reagan International Airport with the plane flying over I-395 during rush hour.

Difficult if not impossible describes your entire theory. Its a joke.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 26, 2016)

Skylar said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Phoenyx is promoting conspiracy theories for which he admittedly has no proof, not in search of the truth but rather - as he says - to create doubt.

Ironically his machinations (and those of the entire 9/11 CT Movement) - dismissing what is by far the most likely 9/11 scenario and replacing it with absurdly complex theories - have served to validate the official findings as not only the most plausible but as virtually the only explanation.


----------



## Faun (Jul 26, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


It's even worse than that. For his unprovable theory to be true, any evidence pointing to the contrary has to be fake. And that would be ALL of the physical evidence. And ALL of the eyewitnesses, some of whom never gave their version of events until many years later, because not one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. And it defies all lucid rationale for why a pilot, who's job is to fly over the Pentagon at 42° and who's already looped around once to line up perfectly to fly over staged lamp posts, *veers off course* at the last possible moment to fly north of the Citgo.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



You made the argument that it was pointlessly elaborate, yes, but I responded to that argument with evidence that it wasn't in post #88 in this thread.



Skylar said:


> The transponders from Flight 77 was pulled from the pentagon,



I haven't seen this to have even been claimed. Certainly not on Wikipedia's entry of Flight 77. Could you like to an article that claims this happened?



Skylar said:


> as were the bodies of the passengers on the plane.



No one has claimed that anyone who was allegedly on Flight 77 was identified by their bodies at the Pentagon. Instead, the military allegedly analyzed body parts and found the DNA of almost all of the passengers that way. As to -that- evidence, I believe that CIT makes a good argument that it is highly suspect:
**These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building.**

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



Skylar said:


> Engine parts matching the model of plane ordered by American Airlines were found inside the Pentagon.



They were certainly -alleged- to have been found inside the Pentagon. Even if they were actually found there, however, CIT makes a good case for how they could have been planted:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon



Skylar said:


> Records both within the plane and tracking the plane confirm that Flight 77 impacted with the Pentagon.



The Flight Data Recorder allegedly recovered from the Pentagon is highly suspect:
9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

As a matter of fact, none of the debris of all 4 aircraft allegedly used on 9/11 have been positively identified as coming from the planes they were alleged to have come from:
NTSB: No Records Pertaining To Process Of Positive Identification Of 9/11 Aircraft Wreckage


----------



## hadit (Jul 27, 2016)

Ultimately, the whole flyover/flyaway theory falls when you ask WHY?  Why go to such absurd lengths to plant faked evidence, hide the airliner with all passengers inside it, get DNA from them and transport it to the scene in time to plant it (remember that the flight was on radar until the crash), place explosives in the exact configuration to LOOK like a plane hit the building while not alerting those working inside (and while not being able to guarantee that the plane would actually approach that exact spot at that angle), place broken off poles in strategic locations without alerting any of the thousands of people who routinely go through that area, when it's MASSIVELY simpler to just fly the darn plane into the building?

You want a conspiracy theory?  You want a way that the US government planned this whole thing and pulled it off?  Here's the easiest way it could have been done.  One of the trolls in the elaborate military industrial complex, perhaps Bubba Clinton himself, collaborates with Osama bin Laden to train suicide troops.  He gets them into the country and funds their flight training, knowing that once they have control of the planes, there's no way we could or would stop them.  On Sept 11, the highjackers take over the planes and fly them into the buildings.  Sick, isn't it?  But if you insist that the government would plant explosives and pull off an extremely elaborate scheme to kill a bunch of Americans on 9/11, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense that it happened that way instead of coming up with ever more elaborate, less plausible ways for things to happen that require you to deny physical evidence?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 27, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



*No, you didn't.* As crashing the plane into the pentagon would have provided every effect you described. Your elaboration provide absolutely nothing. Nor have you provided a single reason why anyone would go to such pointlessly complicated lengths......when they could simply crash the plane and get the exact same results.

Your theory is contradicted by overwhelming physical evidence, overwhelming eye witness evidence, contradicted by overwhelming recorded evidence. Worse, your conspiracy adds nothing but cost and ludicrously implausible elaboration.

Your conspiracy is simply a horrible explanation.


----------



## 7forever (Jul 27, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Without sworn affidavits, you can't be sure any of those people were actually interviewed or said what was reported . Massive fail



They were interviewed on camera. Stop trolling.


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2016)

7forever said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Without sworn affidavits, you can't be sure any of those people were actually interviewed or said what was reported . Massive fail
> ...


Hey, look who's back. I thought for sure you were abducted by secret government agents and flogged. Where have you been?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 27, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Next time, you might try clicking on the link(s). That's where you tend to get more details. I'll do it for you this time:
**
_Although the authorities say none of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were tied to an F.B.I. intelligence alert issued by an agent in Arizona two months earlier, one hijacker, Hani Hanjour, had come to the Federal Aviation Administration's attention earlier last year, when he trained in Phoenix.

Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.

Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz. Previous and sometimes contradictory reports said he failed in 1996 and 1997 to obtain a license at other schools.

''The staff thought he was a very nice guy, but they didn't think his English was up to level,'' said Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the Pan Am International Flight Academy, which operated the center in Phoenix. Ms. Ladner said that the F.A.A. examined Mr. Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate and that an inspector, by coincidence, attended a class with Mr. Hanjour. The inspector also offered to find an interpreter to help Mr. Hanjour, she said.

''He ended up observing Hani in class,'' Ms. Ladner added, ''though that was not his original reason for being there.''

Company officials briefed members of Congress about the case, including Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota, who made public some of its general details in December.

The aviation agency did not return a call for comment.

Pan Am International, one of the largest pilot schools in the nation, also operated the flight school in Eagan, Minn., near Minneapolis, where the instructors' suspicions led to the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, the man whom the authorities have said was intended to be the 20th hijacker.

Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.

''There was no suspicion as far as evildoing,'' Ms. Ladner said. ''It was more of a very typical instructional concern that 'you really shouldn't be in the air.' ''

A former employee of the school said that the staff initially made good-faith efforts to help Mr. Hanjour and that he received individual instruction for a few days. But he was a poor student. On one written problem that usually takes 20 minutes to complete, Mr. Hanjour took three hours, the former employee said, and he answered incorrectly.

Ultimately, administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. ''He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course,'' the ex-employee said.

Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''_**

Source: A Trainee Noted for Incompetence | The New York Times

In case you're interested in digging a little deeper:
NILA SAGADEVAN ~ 9/11 : The Impossibility Of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit. CIT believes the same thing if memory serves. Thing is, if the plane was actually on the South of Citgo flight path, there would have been no shadow of the plane anywhere near the Citgo gas station...


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 27, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> In case you're interested in digging a little deeper:
> NILA SAGADEVAN ~ 9/11 : The Impossibility Of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training



Veterans Today?   
Invariably you reveal the sources of your lunacy - quack websites. That you aren't bright enough to avoid such BS comes as no surprise.

Gordon Duff, senior editor of VT claims he lies so the gov't won't kill him ... really. He admits to publishing 30%-40% BS. I'm guessing the lying fuck is just lying again and the number is closer to 90%. You CT loons are all inveterate liars.

*“About 30% of what’s on Veterans Today is patently false.   About 40% of what I write is at least purposefully partially false.  Because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive.  I simply have to do that.” - Gordon Duff*


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> 7forever said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Isn't 7forever a subscriber to the "alien black orbs with destructo rays" theory?


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Huh? I'm glad we agree on the shadow, but you think the plane's shadow shows the plane was the north side of the Citgo? Explain that logic?

And what about the employees rushing to the SE door after the plane flew by?


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > 7forever said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOL

Sure is.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No one is disputing that the plane approached the Pentagon. The issue is what flight path it took, as the flight path determines whether the damage at the Pentagon was caused by the plane, or something else. Paik, who saw the plane before Morin, puts the plane going northeast:





Morin continues this approach. A post in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum explains it well:
**_CIT has made it abundantly clear that if the plane flew over the Navy Annex, it was on the NOC flight path.

In Terry Morin's account, he points out how the plane flew OVER the Navy Annex otherwise known as the BMDO/FOB or FOB #2 (Federal Office Building). 

He clearly states that the plane:

-Flew "right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB"
-Was "50 ft above the FOB"
-"Cleared the 8th wing"
- Was involved in a "FOB flyover"

This is EXACTLY the flight path that Edward Paik describes..._





**
Source: Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Noc Witness: Terry Morin

Witnesses further down the flight path from Morin, continue this trend. Here's Lagasse's line:







Here's his partner's, Chadwick Brooks' line:





Here's Darryl Stafford's line, with his location marked by the yellow person icon:





You can see more of the witnesses lines here:
Flight path collection (CIT Research Forum)

When all 13 of CIT's initial witnesses are combined, this is the line you get:





Lloyd England is clearly the anomaly and the only one on the official flight path's trajectory. He is not a flight path witness per se, because he never claims to have seen the plane itself, only to have allegedly had his car speared by one of the light poles that the plane allegedly hit.


----------



## Faun (Jul 28, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


_"Lloyd England is clearly the *anomaly*..."_



Do you even hear yourself when you speak?

Evidence that you're wrong, you call an "anomaly." 

And it still makes no sense why the pilot wouldn't fly over the lamp posts you claim were staged, but instead veer *away* from the lamp posts and *away* from the Pentagon.

And it doesn't explain why there were no lamp posts taken down by the plane along the path you claim the plane flew.

At any rate, the shadow cast as the plane flew past the Citgo proves the plane flew south of it.

Case closed.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure I know what you're referring to (feel free to dig it up, I'm not going to try), but you misconstrued my meaning. If you don't know the name of the witness(es) but you know the name of the person who brought them up (in this case, Erik Dihle), it leaves an opening for an investigation. I certainly would agree that we shouldn't allow what Erik said to be admissible in a court of law, but we're far before that stage. We're in the discovery stage here, and what he has provided us with is a lead that I believe should be followed up.


----------



## Faun (Jul 28, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Keep reading the thread ... you'll see I already posted your quote. For the sake of convenience, I'll post it again...

_"I've already mentioned why they may have excluded the account of "Barbara"; she has only been mentioned as "the wife of a friend of mine" by the reporter mentioning her, and was given no last name. *Put simply, her account is impossible to verify.*"_​
"Barbara" could be identified.

Whomever said it was a bomb and the jet kept on going, can't be.

By your own standards -- because Barbara's account can be verified, she counts; whereas, because Dihle can't identify the person he heard on 9.11, they don't count.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Have you been able to find a meaning for that term? I've looked online, couldn't find any. Low-altitude is a term well known by pilots and it's also well known that the pentaplane was flying at a low altitude by the witnesses.



Faun said:


> but regardless, it proves the C-130 was following AA77 and was in the vicinity; which also matches the description of many of the eyewitnesses.



Yeah, it was in the "vicinity", not very close though. Let's not forget what Lt Col Steve Obrien himself said about his location relative to the pentaplane:
_"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion *I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted*, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."_

Or CIT's excellent analysis of what that meant:
**_There is a significant difference between the witness accounts above that were used by the media in the subsequent propaganda to sell the official story when compared to the independent witness accounts that we have uncovered.  Specifically workers from Arlington Cemetery who were right next to where Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw the C-130, yet report a very different story. Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle all saw the C-130 approach significantly after the explosion and report that it was on a different flight path from the attack jet having approached from the northwest.**_

Here's a picture of the C-130, shortly after the explosion at the Pentagon:





So yeah, the Steve O'Brien was in the general vicinity, but if he couldn't even see what it was that the pentaplane allegedly crashed into, it's safe to say that his view was not exactly stellar. Ironically, Steve O'Brien unwittingly reveals where the plane may have actually gone- Washington National Airport.



Faun said:


> But mostly, it dispels the notion that a plane flew over the Pentagon because possibly no one had a better vantage point of the view over the Pentagon than O'Brien and he did not say he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.



Hopefully you have now realized how mistaken that viewpoint is.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Look at the following photo, marking the official flight path vs. the 13 witnesses that CIT interviewed, many filmed on location:





Do you realize that even Paik's and Terry Morin's flight path at the Navy Annex deviates from the official flight path? They are the ones that could be said to have seen the plane fly near Columbia Pike/395, though on the north side of both of those roads at the time they saw it. All the other witnesses, who are further down the flight path, place it even further away from the official flight path. Anyway, I can list all 13 names of CIT's witnesses if you wish. Could you do the same for yours?


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:
> 
> 
> For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.
> ...


How did the plane and passengers get inside the Pentagon?


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your argument implies that the official story is therefore meaningless as well, something even I don't believe. You don't need proof of something to determine what is the most plausible explanation.



Faun said:


> One could make up any concoction imaginable for how those light posts were knocked down, for how one speared England's car,



Show me proof that a light pole ever speared Lloyd England's car. All we have is a pole, apparently dragged -towards- Lloyd's car, and a hole in his windshield. CIT goes into great detail as to how the light poles could have been staged here:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> for how AA plane debris was scattered about,



Show me proof that any of the debris came from Flight 77. CIT has made a compelling case on how the debris seen at the Pentagon could have been staged:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> how the debris field matched a plane flying at about 40 degrees,



A 757 could never have come up low and level to the Pentagon- the G forces required were simply beyond it:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread392312/pg1

Or for those who prefer a video explanation:



Faun said:


> how DNA from passengers and crew was found,



CIT makes a plausible case for how the DNA evidence could have been falsified here:
Does the government's "DNA evidence" prove Flight 77 impact? | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> how black boxes were found....



CIT's argument regarding the plane debris can also be used for the black boxes:
Photographs of "plane parts" at Pentagon | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> ..... and then there's that pesky Citgo surveillance video which shows the employees running to the *SOUTH* just after the plane flew by.



I won't pretend to understand the logic in your argument on that one, but have you ever considered they were running to see where the Pentaplane -went-? I believe Lagasse and/or Brooks said as much at some point, but I'm not going to go digging to find out.


----------



## Faun (Jul 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


The Citgo employee said the plane flying by felt like an "earthquake." He said he was on the phone at that moment, slammed the phone down and then ran to the door.

He ran in the direction of where he heard the plane fly by...

To the south.

Where we saw the shadow...

To the south.

All the physical evidence is consistent.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 29, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Yes, but many of them had been interviewed in 2001 as well...
Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon



SAYIT said:


> As we have seen with all your 9/11 CT sources, they very much depend on cherry-picking, mis and disinforming, altering pix and _*outright lying*_.



I note you aren't backing up your claims with any evidence whatsoever -.-



SAYIT said:


> There is no evidence that AA77 flew over your Cuckoo's Nest nor any of the ensuing possibilities you imagine.



Never suggested it flew over a "Cuckoo's Nest". If you're not interested in taking this discussion seriously, why are you even bothering?



SAYIT said:


> There is no evidence of a controlled demo or Cruise Missile at the Pentagon (or the WTC)



No one's suggesting there was a a controlled demolition at the Pentagon. I also believe that serious Pentagon attack researchers have dismissed the possibility of a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon. The WTC buildings is beyond the scope of this thread, feel free to bring it up in my thread concerning 9/11 in general.



SAYIT said:


> but literally tons of hard evidence that AA77... crashed _exactly_ where the NIST report said they did.



NIST made no report concerning AA77's final location.



SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Yeah, drugs can definitely be dangerous, you taken any recently ? Seriously, if you're just hear to joke around, there's no point in me putting any real effort into this.



SAYIT said:


> but _*no one*_ saw anyone plant any of the hard evidence found at the sites that you so eagerly reject



Prove it then.



SAYIT said:


> and no one saw a very large passenger jet charge at the Pentagon only to pull up and fly away exactly as an explosion rocked the building.



Many witnesses believe the plane was -not- a very large passenger jet, but rather a smaller plane. Some witnesses certainly have said that the plane pulled up shortly before arriving at the Pentagon, and Erik Dihle's testimony suggests that some may well have deduced or actually seen the plane had "kept on going".



SAYIT said:


> An explosion, BTW, that traveled into the building unlike any explosive would have done



Prove that explosives couldn't have done the damage at the Pentagon then.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Incorrect.

The physical evidence is Overwhelming and it proves the 9/11 Commission is as correct a version as their is.  Nothing offered from any quarter since then has even come close to seriously questioning it.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 29, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Notice the fire engine in the background
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know you're not being serious, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few parts were indeed planted on the lawn. Notice how small they are; if you're going to plant evidence, you want it to be easily moved around. Large jets typically have much larger debris, as can be seen from other crashes of large jets:





Source: The final 26 seconds: Russian jet 'slowed suddenly before plunging at 300mph', new data show


----------



## Faun (Jul 29, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Notice the fire engine in the background
> ...


Here is where ValuJet #592 went down....





...according to you, it never crashed because we don't see any pieces of the plane.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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



Faun said:


> You admit you have *no eyewitnesses* to corroborate a flyover.



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

Here are the witnesses CIT lists as "Flyover/away witnesses and connections":
**_1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that *"a bomb hit and a jet kept going"*
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "*pilot tried to avert the building" *and the plane *"went to the side of the building not directly in"*
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on *"the other side"* and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was *"on top"*._**

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


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 29, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



First, let's look at an obvious fact: Faun and I have a fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to who was responsible for 9/11.

That being said, we both share an interest in discussing why we disagree with each other. Now there are various ways of conducting a discussion. Personally, I've found that the best way to proceed is not to try to hammer your opponent into submission. That tends to result in a flame war of sorts which is a waste of time for everyone involved. The -other- option is that you try to -persuade- your opponent that your own viewpoint is the right one. Again, there are still various methods as to how one does this- one is by claiming that whatever you believe is proven and expecting the other person to simply agree with you after you repeat it enough times. The other is to examine your opponents views and try to find out where they may have doubts- then you -work- on those doubts, adding as much evidence as you can find. But if you think that unless you're hammering away at your opponent that you are a liar, I should probably end this discussion as you're making no sense, atleast not to me.



SAYIT said:


> As repeatedly noted in this thread, it really isn't enough to impugn the work and reputation of the professionals who investigated 9/11 and reported their findings.



Many people have investigated 9/11. I find that the best investigators are those who have come to believe that the official story is a farce. David Ray Griffin comes to mind. That being said, I'm fine with anyone impugning his research, so long as they have evidence to back up their assertions.



SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think it's time that we define proof for the purpose of this discussion. I personally like a definition I just found from vocabulary.com:
"_Proof is the evidence that shows something is true or valid. When you show the logical steps that take you from your hypothesis that the world is round to the conclusion that it is, you're formulating a proof._"

Source: proof - Dictionary Definition

Now, that sounds all well and good, but there's a catch. While -one- person may find that certain evidence "shows something is true or valid", that doesn't mean that anyone -else- will find that this same evidence "shows something is true or valid". The reason is rather simple- we don't all think alike. We have different experiences and pre existing beliefs before we are given this evidence, and these experiences and pre existing beliefs are bound to shape how we view this evidence.

Personally, I'm rather cautious before I believe anything is proven. I can come up with ways to question virtually any belief. Many people are not nearly as cautious when it comes to such things. To each their own.

What I -can- say is that I definitely think that the pentaplane flyover theory is the most plausible theory as to what happened to the pentaplane by far.


----------



## phoenyx (Jul 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



We clearly disagree on that point.



hadit said:


> What you are doing is simply ignoring it



What physical evidence do you think I've ignored?



hadit said:


> or claiming it's faked.



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


----------



## candycorn (Jul 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> ...according to you, it never crashed because we don't see any pieces of the plane.


 
Well all of the wreckage pulled out of the Everglades was planted by jews in alligator proof costumes.


----------



## Faun (Jul 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


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

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

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


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 30, 2016)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## hadit (Jul 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



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



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > or claiming it's faked.
> ...


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


----------



## candycorn (Jul 31, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Aug 2, 2016)

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


----------



## cjnewson88 (Aug 3, 2016)

I'll just leave my blog here..

9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77

 Nice to meet you all,
Chris


----------



## Faun (Aug 3, 2016)

cjnewson88 said:


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


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


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


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


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


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> cjnewson88 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll just leave my blog here.. 9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77
> ...



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

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

Answer: They have no case.



Divine.Wind said:


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



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

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

It    just    makes    no    sense.

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


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 3, 2016)

Faun said:


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



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


----------



## phoenyx (Aug 18, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sure.



Faun said:


> They ran to the *SE* entrance of their store.



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



Faun said:


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



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


----------



## Faun (Aug 18, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


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

Can you contemplate anything on your own without CIT?


----------



## candycorn (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

candycorn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...




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


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





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


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


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


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


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



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

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

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

Answer: They have no case.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

SAYIT said:


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


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


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

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


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


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





No plane hit the pentagon.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 22, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:
> 
> 
> For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.
> ...



How do you account for the bodies and personal effects of Flight 77 found in the Pentagon wreckage?


----------



## Skylar (Aug 22, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:
> ...



"Anything that doesn't ape the conspiracy....becomes part of it".


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:
> ...




Yeah, they recovered no luggage or the 2 ton titanium jet engines but they found enough remains of people in order to "ID" them.  What I would like to know is why does the officially released flight data recorder show that the aircraft was hundreds of feet _above_ those struck lamp poles as it flew past?


The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

- The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.


CSV file and animation as plotted and provided by the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act (1) at time stamp 09:37:44, reports pressure altitude as 173 (csv file) and 180 feet (animation). When adjusted for local pressure to true altitude, the aircraft is ~473 and ~ 480 feet above sea level, respectively. Too high to hit the light poles as reported being struck on Washington Blvd and the Pentagon if trends are continued. NTSB calculates and reports impact time of 09:37:45 in their NTSB Flight Path Study (2).
The Animation Reconstruction as plotted and provided by the NTSB shows a flight path north of the required physical damage path. (1)
- All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

AA77 Technical Outline


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


The families of those victims took those remains and gave them a proper burial and honor and pray to those remains

Are you such a LOW LIFE SCUM that you mock those families, call them suckers and taunt them that those are not the remains of their loved ones based on NO EVIDENCE?

You make me sick


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


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


While you were passed out drunk, this guy was there. He describes the plane flying into the building. No rational person is going to accept the hallucinations of a wackadoo nut like you over his first hand eyewitness account.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




We have first hand accounts of people and firemen saying they heard explosions in the basement and the first floors.....do we discount their testimony? Did anyone ask this guy how the wings and tail disappeared like a fart in the wind?


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



AGAIN, you ignore what I posted. Your beloved "gubermint" lies to you with great gusto and they do it constantly. Stupid little naive fucks like you swallow it like it was ambrosia delivered by the gods. Seriously, I can't believe how fucking stupid some people truly are.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Of course we don't discount them. Those are the people who were inside the Pentagon and other locations where they couldn't see the plane. You must be dumber than dirt to think there was no plane because some witnesses didn't see the plane when so many others, who were outside and held a better vantage point, did.

But then, crazy is what you do. It's who you are.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Which leaves us sane folks to weigh who is more reliable ... 

crazy nuts like you ... the lying government ... or the mountain of evidence pointing to planes flying into buildings.

Not really a tough call, I gotta tell ya.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Who is "we"? I am talking to you so whom else are you speaking on the behalf of? How can you explain the undisturbed landscape?  The reporter that said (and it was only played once) that he saw no evidence that a plane hit hit the Pentagon?How could a guy that couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna make an aeronautical move by flying a tight 270 degree turn, level off and fly mere inches off the ground with no wings and a tail? The damage to the Pentagon does not come close to matching the dimensions of the plane, we have Rove telling an orderly that the stand down order still stands as the plane got closer and why is that? Because if they took down the plane, that means the missile that actually hit the Pentagon could not be fired. The plane flew over the Pentagon, the missile was fired and it was fired right in the area where bookkeepers, accountants and budget analysts were trying to track the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that Rumsfeld said could not be accounted for on 9/11/01....coincidence? Not on your fucking life. You believe the official story? Fine...I did as well for over a decade but I and many others see right through the bullshit and we will never stop pointing out the lies.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Really? What plane few into Building 7? (snicker)


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I guess you're too crazy to see I already pointed out who "we" is. 

The rest of your post is just fucking nuts. 

Like Rove telling anyone to stand down. Who the fuck do you think listened to Turd Blossom? He was a nobody with no authority to tell anyone anything. Or like your insanity that a missile could knock down two rows of light poles. Or your brain fart that it was to squash a search for missing money, as though that would have accomplished that. Or that it's suspicious the grounds were "undisturbed" when the plane never touched the grounds. Or like your wackiness that the plane flew over the Pentagon when not one single eyewitness ever came forward saying they saw that; meanwhile, every witness who saw the plane and the Pentagon said they saw it hit.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Great, more fruits & nuts. 

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




So where are the wings and the tail, dumb ass? Where is the video? Why can't you address how poorly this alleged pilot was and the turn he made was have been almost impossible for even the most experienced pilot? Like a pilot explained to me one time...he said a passenger jet is really nothing but a bus with wings...it cannot to maneuvers like a fighter jet because that isn't what they were built for". Even if the jet was taken over by a computer, it could not have performed that turn....end of story. Excuse me, I meant Tricky Dick Cheney...he gave the stand down orders.  I don't believe the witnesses because the damage doesn't come close to matching that of a huge passenger plane.....no way, no how.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Sadly, you have the mind of a three year old.

The tail and wings, being among the lightest parts of the plane, disintegrated on impact. The [survellience] videos have been posted repeatedly. The jet did not make any "fighter Jet" maneuvers.

As far as Cheney....

Cheney Gave Order to Shoot Down Jets

The damage fits perfectly with an aircraft plowing into it and the witnesses corroborate it. *no witnesses came forward and said the saw the plane fly over, and not into, the Pentagon.

Do you comprehend the implication of ZERO witnesses?* Where there where hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses on every side of the Pentagon. Or is even that above your three year old intellect?

You are as batshit insane as anyone I've seen posting here. At this point, I'm inclined to believe just about anything you don't if for no other reason, you're a fruit loop dingus who never gets any conspiracy right.


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You just insulted even the profoundly mentally slow 3 year olds.
Dale, like 9/11HandJob does serve a useful purpose. He provides a shining example of what a 9/11 CT is like.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!! Disintegrated? If so, then there should have been an area that shows where they went through the building or they hit the building, flew off and are somewhere on the grass. I have seen the footage of many plane crashes and the wings are always visible. Your scenario has enough holes to drive a brigade of tanks through. Why is the earth before the alleged crash totally un- scorched? It defies any kind of logic but yet you cling to this tale of monumental proportions like a little kid that still wants to believe that there just HAS to be a Santa Claus.....LOL!


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Se what I mean? Thank you, Dale. You have, almost single-handedly, exposed the lunacy that was the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

Yes, "tremendous damage."






And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.






Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...


Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If that picture was actually true, then it would have fallen OVER instead of collapsing at free fall speed right into it's own fucking footprint. It's called physics...ever heard of it? As far as Larry Silverstein's comment goes? He says the decision to take down the building was made and yes, "pull it" is a demolition term, it's a slang term because the technology is more advanced but it is indeed a valid term. If the building was going to allegedly fall by itself regardless, why would any action be necessary? See? You are not even trying to think this thing through AT all....you are wed to the idea that it just simply collapsed in on it's self as if it was made with a house of cards that could simply collapse with no resistance.....how fucking stupid is that???


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


disintegrate

_to break or decompose into constituent elements, parts, or small particles_

... damage consistent with a plane crash....






And because you're as insane as you are, I have no choice but to point out that is not what damage from a Cruise missile looks like.

*And why am I still waiting for an answer? If no planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how did millions see it happen on live TV, corroborated by untold thousands who were there watching it?*


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


My apologies ... I neglected to include the link to where you see and hear building #7 coming down with no visible or audible signs of a controlled demolition.....

Actual demolitions....


...compared to...


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



One hundred percent total bullshit..........as far as the answers you want? How about answering a few of mine first....like the lack of skill of the alleged pilot, un scorched earth, where are the wings......the spot that was allegedly hit at the Pentagon was a bit more solid than the outer offices of the twin towers so how could aluminum wings penetrate concrete, etc, etc......


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



You seem to forget your 9/11 CTBS was already debunked. The Pentagon attack pilot received his FAA commercial pilot's certification in 1999. The reason you persist in spewing the same debunked BS ad nauseam is your inability (or unwillingness) to accept the fact that your 9/11 theories are BS. 

You know ... garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Sorry, but you're too fucking deranged to be believed that the building would have fallen down earlier than it did, simply by you looking at a photograph. But because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the north tower, the sprinkler system failed and fire fighters decided early on to not enter an unstable building, risking yet even more lives than already lost that morning, and let the building burn uncontrollably for about 7 hours until it finally, and expectedly, collapsed.

"pull it" is not a demolition term. I just posted a video with 30 demolitions. No one used that term. No one has ever been heard using that term. Again -- *nothing is pulled.*

And then there's video of firemen earlier in the day predicting it would fall.


_"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? *It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it.* 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building ...  it's tough ... we can handle just about everything, this is beyond... They were trying to put the fire out down there with tower ladders. but uh, we got all kinds of water problems. The two Trade buildings took out the mains. *There's no way to put the fire out.*"_

Furthermore, Silverstein says he told the firemen to "pull" or "pull" it ... you brain-diseased parasite ... *firemen don't demolish buildings.* That's not what they do. They're not trained for that. Silverstein even explains what he meant by "pull it" ... he meant for the firefighters to pull back away from the building before any more firemen were injured.

I know I say this over and over again, but it really can't be stressed enough, even at the risk of sounding repetitive ...  you are absolutely and completely fucking deranged.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




It is a slang term for demolition. I posted the video of his interview...his own words are very incriminating. Lamely attempting to insult me doesn't make your case in the slightest...none, nada, zilch. It was a controlled demolition.....deal with that very salient fact.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit!

Your own video just proved how insane you are.

*firefighter:* _"...and *we have no term that I know of that says, 'pulling buildings.' *That's not our area of expertise, we've never done that. We don't do that. So for him to say that, I don't know where he pulled that out of but it's just not part of our operations. Ok?"_

*reporter:* _"so the fire department doesn't have the training to "pull" a building; to "demo" a building like that?"_

*firefighter:* _"we're not trained to do that. We've never done that. In my 32 years, I know of no evolution whatsoever, that does that."_​
YOUR OWN VIDEO!!


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Post a video of someone demolishing a video while saying, "pull it."

And why would Silverstein tell the fire department commander to "pull" the building down?

YOUR OWN POST.......

*firefighter:* _"...and *we have no term that I know of that says, 'pulling buildings.' *That's not our area of expertise, we've never done that. We don't do that. So for him to say that, I don't know where he pulled that out of but it's just not part of our operations. Ok?"_

*reporter:* _"so the fire department doesn't have the training to "pull" a building; to "demo" a building like that?"_

*firefighter:* _"we're not trained to do that. We've never done that. In my 32 years, I know of no evolution whatsoever, that does that."_


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Why do I have to ask for this 10 times? Are you too embarrassed to admit what you believe? Is there some small glimmer of sanity inside you, capable of recognizing just how insane you appear, causing you to hesitate describing what you actually believe happened?

*.... again ....

if you think planes were not flown into the Twin Towers ... how did millions see it happen live on TV, corroborated by many thousands who were there?*


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




What it shows and proves is that Silverstein lied but yet knew that the building had already been wired to explode....how did that escape you?


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




I am totally open to the idea that holograms were used because that technology has been around for a very long time. It might have been a real drone plane as well. After learning how the WTC towers were actually built, how that a jet could slice through it like butter (being that it's made out of lightweight aluminium) could go all the way through the building seems like bullshit to me. But unlike you, I am open-minded about any theory because the official story is total bullshit.......does this help?


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Well it certainly lends to your mental disorders. Moron... aside from your sad reality that no such technology exists today, no less 15 years ago, to cast a holographic image of a realistic looking plane streaking across the sky ... but had it... or had it been a drone... *the perpetrators would have simply used one additional hologram, or drone, on building #7, if their intention was to bring that building down.*


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I know more than you......and the picture is perfectly clear to me because I took the time to read, research and discern information. The military industrial complex is at the very least twenty years ahead of what technology we are allowed to have and could be as much as 150 years. I do know the deep underground military bases/cities (of which there are at least 139 of them) do not have an electrical grid and work off of Nikola Tesla technology and they connect these bases with a train that works off of magnets and they can go from "coast to coast" in less than two hours. Do some research on "Project Blue Beam".....read, learn, grow, evolve. The world that you think you live in and the ones that you have so much faith in don't give a flying fuck about you. You are simply a resource with an ever growing decreasing value. It's a fucking fact and the sooner you learn that, the sooner you will wake up as to what is reality.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



So when the gubment notified families that remains of their loved ones have been identified and the family honors those remains and buries them and visits them........You believe they are "naive fucks". You mock their grief, piss on the graves of their loved ones......All based on NO EVIDENCE


You are truly a despicable individual


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Raving lunatic... there is no such technology. Even worse for your delusions... holograms don't make holes in buildings like...






...and again... if they used holograms, you would have seen a plane fly into building #7.

But I suppose that's the beauty of being insane like you... you believe anything you hallucinate. Evidence isn't even necessary. If you imagine it -- it's real.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 23, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Got proof that anyone died besides the words of your beloved "gubermint"? That's what I thought so STFU. You can't play the "shame game" on me, ya fucking retard. Your fucking "gubermint" is nothing but one huge crime syndicate and that is what truly is despicable.


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Of course there is proof, ya flamin' psychopath. The passengers are gone. They haven't been seen since 9.11. Barbara Olsen, for example, was a public figure. Where is she?


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Got proof that anyone died besides the words of your beloved "gubermint"? That's what I thought so STFU. You can't play the "shame game" on me, ya fucking retard. Your fucking "gubermint" is nothing but one huge crime syndicate and that is what truly is despicable.
> ...



You seem to forget there were NO PLANES thus NO PASSENGERS! 

Also no Towers, no Pentagon, no casualties, no police or fire responders, no witnesses, and no media reports. Nothing happened on 9/11/2001 and Smith knows that for a fact because he has spent every waking moment of his adult life "researching" the massive fraud foisted on the world by the very secretive illuminati, reptilian shape-shifting aliens, invisible super-ninjas, the CIA, the Bush clan and of course, the Joooos.

It's a conspiracy I tell you!


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


LOL

It's hysterical how that nut says there were no planes in NYC ... holographic images were used to simulate two planes streaking across the sky, using a technology that didn't exist ... 

... but then at the Pentagon, they used a real plane. And no plane or hologram for building #7.


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



IDK. I mean, how does Smith's lunacy differ from that of Phoenyx whose OP premise was the "Pentaplane" which, according to his lunacy, pulled up at the last moment (while some other projectile ripped threw the Pentagon), only to be diverted to some landing after which all evidence of the crew, the passengers and the plane disappeared?

I mean, can these guys hear themselves?

If the 9/11 CT Movement didn't die a natural death years ago, these guys would be banging the nails into the coffin. As it is they are a comical yet tragic reminder of all that came before them and failed so miserably.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Ahhh yes, Barbara Olsen, wife of neocon Ted Olsen.....both her and Ted Olson  were big neocon players. Ted was a solicitor general appointed by G W. Bush after Olson had successfully argued Bush's 2000 election case before the SCOTUS and  Barbara was a neocon writer, commentator as well as a lawyer for neocon causes. Where is she? Probably sipping wine on some Caribbean beach or she may have resurfaced somewhere else as an attorney...the possibilities are endless but I can bet ya one thing, she has a swollen bank account.  I find it odd that AA Flight 11 was only  half full, United Flight 175 only had 56 out of 168 seats occupied. AA Flight 77 only had 58 passengers out of 178 and United Flight 93 only had 37 passengers on a flight that holds 182. You know what else is amazing? Was that the stocks of American and United airlines had "put options" placed on their stocks that was 285 TIMES the norm just shortly before 9/11...but I am sure it's just a coinkydink because there were so many of them on that day....like how they just happened to be having war games with NORAD involved on that day. The one that is my favorite is the passport of one of the terrorists that survived the initial crash that gently floated down to the ground that SOMEONE just happened to find in the chaos and then found someone of authority to pass it off to because he just had this sixth sense that it must have been one of the terrorists....(snicker)

As far as to what hit the Towers and what made it collapse into it's own footprint? I am very open-minded. The military industrial complex is at least twenty to 150 years ahead in technology of what we are allowed to know about and benefit from. Could it have been a hologram for one or both of the planes that hit the towers? I don't rule out the possibility because unlike you, I am open-minded instead of being a mindless drone like you that clings to this stupid belief that his beloved "gubermint" is above reproach...because it isn't and not by any stretch of the imagination. It is nothing but one huge crime syndicate..a corporate entity that is ran by foreign bankers. Does this help???? (snicker)


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


And, as has been presented multiple times before, why?  Why use super duper advanced technology to pretend planes struck the buildings?  Why involve thousands of people in a massive cover up?  Why sneak tons of explosives into possibly the busiest buildings in the country?  Why make 4 aircraft totally disappear with all people on board?  Why snatch the flights, take DNA from those aboard along with parts from the planes and frantically rush it all to the scene in time to be found, and fake the planes crashing into the buildings?

Why do all that and risk discovery when it's sooooo much simpler to just hijack the planes and fly them into the buildings?

I maintain these theories persist because people don't want to accept that the vaunted US defenses could have been compromised so thoroughly by a handful of suicide minded murderous fanatics armed with small knives and a knowledge of the American mindset.  That happens elsewhere, not here.


----------



## Faun (Aug 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Does it help that you suggest Barbara Olsen (just one of hundreds of missing passengers and crew) has been sipping wine on a beach for the past 15 years?

In terms of the debate, it does not help since you're just making shit up. In terms of reminding the readers here that you're batshit insane? It helps a great deal.

Hundreds of people gone. Are they all sipping wine on beaches?

And you're so open-minded that your brain has leaked out onto the floor.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually, only 232 passengers are allegedly missing...imagine that? 4 planes with a capacity for 168 to 181 passengers. Let's do the math, shall we? Let's split the difference between the two planes and say that each plane could could hold 175 passengers. So that's 700 possible seats...232 were on those 4 planes. That's an average of  33 and and half percent full per plane. Now, I have done LOTS of flying in my life at all times of the day and night and I did this from 2000, to 2008. I have flown at least 200,000 miles worth. I have never, EVER gotten on a flight that wasn't at least 2/3rds full. So what do you think the odds are of these alleged terrorists getting on FOUR planes at basically the same time of the day and finding so few passengers? I would say the odds are unfucking believably high. It's the equivalent of hitting the trifecta in horse racing by picking the horse with the lowest odds of winning.... so "yeah" I am calling bullshit on the whole phony story. BTW, have you ever heard of the declassified document concerning the false flag plan called "Operation Northwoods" that was to be used as an excuse to invade Cuba? You might want to look into that. Also, the "Gulf Of Tonkin" false flag that elevated hostilities in Vietnam and put America "all in"...we now know that this incident never happened. Ever heard of PNAC? "Progress for a New American Century" where this think tank basically stated that certain regimes that were not friendly to U.S interests must be taken out but sadly unless there was a Pearl Harbor like event, that it wasn't likely.....two years later, they got it...just another one of those amazing coincidences.....kinda like that passport of one the alleged terrorists that floated down and was found in spite of all the chaos....kinda reminiscent of the magic bullet that was found on a gurney when JFK was taken to Parkland hospital, no?

Then there were the Israelis/mossad agents that were busying filming the event and high fiving each other that were reported by someone and they were pulled over at the Lincoln Tunnel with thousands of dollars.... bomb sniffing dogs reacted like explosive materials had been in the van. The State department shut down the investigation and allowed the 5 mossad agents to return to Israel. What really struck me odd was that the driver of the van that was pulled out of the van said "We're not your enemy, we're your friend. Our enemies are your enemies" so my question is that this took place before "da gubermint" came out and blamed it on Tim Osman aka "Osama bin Laden". Once they were allowed to go home, they were on Israelis TV saying that they were there to document the event. Yeah, there are a LOT of unanswered questions and the hiding of imperative evidence that points right out the intelligence agencies and rogue elements within your beloved "gubermint" that remain unanswered.....but if it helps you sleep better at night to believe the official story, knock yourself out.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Calling bullshit because you feel the planes didn't have enough passengers only serves to reflect on your mental issues, especially since there were hundreds of passengers and crew who all disappeared on that day and your best guess is that they've been on a beach, sipping wine for the last 15 years.


----------



## Dale Smith (Aug 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





You obviously didn't read my post nor did you consider all the other information I gave you....why do you just "blow it off" sans any consideration? Three of those planes had so few passengers that one had their own row of seats to themselves AND those across the aisle. Did you do any research about Operation Northwoods? Did you even consider how ludicrous it was that a passport of one of the alleged terrorists floated gently to the ground and was found amidst the chaos and put into the hands of someone that could relay that information to the corporate news centers????? Does ANYTHING told to you by "da gubermint" ever set off your bullshit detector? The mossad agents that were arrested that day???? Where is the rebuttal???? You seem to avoid the points that I am making and go right to the lame insults. It seems to me that you have little faith in your convictions......just sayin'. You can never, ever make me back down or reconsider because I have spent too much time vetting information. I was once like you...I denied it and I busted on those that said the official story was bullshit so I can't be too hard on you....but one day you will be faced with the ugly truth and it's gonna knock you on your ass. I know, because I went through it myself.


----------



## phoenyx (Sep 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Could you tell me how you verified this? I only have that he was an ANC worker- in theory he may have been somewhere other than the ANC.



Faun said:


> Regardless, he didn't identify who said it was a bomb



You seem to have forgotten that he speaking plural, not singular. From one of my previous posts:
_"*Some people *were yelling that 'a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going"_



Faun said:


> and now says he doesn't even recall that.



While it's unfortunate that he no longer recalls what he said, what he said is on record and I imagine if he were asked, he could name people he was hearing things from on that day. A well funded investigation could certainly look into this.



Faun said:


> Which, according to you, nullifies the account of a bomb...
> 
> _"I've already mentioned why they may have excluded the account of "Barbara"; she has only been mentioned as "the wife of a friend of mine" by the reporter mentioning her, and was given no last name. *Put simply, her account is impossible to verify*."_​
> Simply put.... whomever said it was a bomb is impossible to verify.



Lol, very good use of logical deduction . A well funded investigation could also ask the reporter whose friend's wife he was referring to. If he can provide the identity of the person he was referring to, that person could be questioned directly.


----------



## phoenyx (Sep 30, 2016)

Skylar said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Do you have evidence to back that assertion?



Skylar said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, when you add some facts together, I believe a plausible theory emerges.
> ...



Do you have evidence to back that assertion?



Skylar said:


> Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. *As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits*.....



You seem to be assuming that the plane that approached the Pentagon is the same plane that the official story posits approached the Pentagon. If it was a different plane, I think it becomes rather clear why they wouldn't want to crash it into the Pentagon- people might notice it wasn't the same plane. 



Skylar said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > It would have been difficult if not impossible for a plane to have actually crashed into that part of the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains why in the following video:
> ...



I like the fact that you seem to atleast be acknowledging that it's -possible-. Here's a question for you. Why do we only have a single video consisting of about 4 frames that allegedly shows a plane hitting the Pentagon? There were a lot more cameras that should have seen the plane (and remember, I -do- believe that a plane approached the Pentagon), yet the government insists the plane was invisible in all but that 4 frame video. Don't you think that's a bit strange?

The following video gets into this, as well as other anomalies of the Pentagon strike...


----------



## phoenyx (Sep 30, 2016)

hadit said:


> Ultimately, the whole flyover/flyaway theory falls when you ask WHY?



We clearly disagree on that.



hadit said:


> Why go to such absurd lengths to plant faked evidence, hide the airliner with all passengers inside it, get DNA from them and transport it to the scene in time to plant it



First of all, do you know who it was, precisely, that claimed that they got this DNA evidence? Secondly, even assuming that DNA was obtained from the people that the government claimed it was obtained from, that doesn't mean that they got that DNA from the Pentagon.



hadit said:


> place explosives in the exact configuration to LOOK like a plane hit the building



They did a poor job of it:
How could Flight 77 have caused bizarre pattern of interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?



hadit said:


> while not alerting those working inside



This was probably made easier by the fact that the wing that was struck had been under construction shortly before 9/11.



hadit said:


> (and while not being able to guarantee that the plane would actually approach that exact spot at that angle),



Few things are guaranteed in life, but if those who were behind the planting explosives in the Pentagon were the same people controlling where the plane that approached the Pentagon, then they could atleast have a good probability of things meshing together well.



hadit said:


> You want a conspiracy theory?  You want a way that the US government planned this whole thing and pulled it off?  Here's the easiest way it could have been done.  One of the trolls in the elaborate military industrial complex, perhaps Bubba Clinton himself, collaborates with Osama bin Laden to train suicide troops.  He gets them into the country and funds their flight training, knowing that once they have control of the planes, there's no way we could or would stop them.



There is certainly some evidence that some of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. bases. You  may be interested in reading the following story from Newsweek, published just 3 days after 9/11:
Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases

That being said, that doesn't mean that they actually flew planes into buildings.



hadit said:


> On Sept 11, the highjackers take over the planes and fly them into the buildings.  Sick, isn't it?  But if you insist that the government would plant explosives and pull off an extremely elaborate scheme to kill a bunch of Americans on 9/11, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense that it happened that way...



Initially, I believed the official story concerning all aspects of 9/11. It was definitely easier to just believe whatever the government said on the matter. But once I started looking at the -evidence-, I found that various assertions regarding the official story just didn't make sense. This was also the case concerning the Pentagon attack. Admittedly, it took me longer to come to this conclusion regarding the Pentagon. While many in the truth movement questioned the official story regarding the WTC buildings, many seemed reluctant to question the official story regarding the Pentagon attack. But some kept on bringing up discrepancies regarding the official story regarding the Pentagon attack that I felt were too important to dismiss. That's the short answer to your question. It'll take me a lot longer to explain all the details as to why I eventually rejected the official story regarding the Pentagon attack, but if you stick around, you may find out, and perhaps begin to harbour a few doubts of your own.


----------



## phoenyx (Sep 30, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > In case you're interested in digging a little deeper:
> ...



No, Nila Sagadevan. Let me know if you read the article.


----------



## phoenyx (Sep 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sigh -.-. I guess I'll have to revert to a video from Sesame Street to try to convey what I'm referring to here:

Google's first definition of anomaly is: "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected"

If one story isn't like the rest, it's an anomaly.



Faun said:


> And it still makes no sense why the pilot wouldn't fly over the lamp posts you claim were staged, but instead veer *away* from the lamp posts and *away* from the Pentagon.



From what all the witnesses who were in a good position to see the plane, the actual plane was nowhere near the lamp posts. You may recall that Lloyd never claims to have seen the plane himself, despite allegedly having been speared by a poll that is claimed was knocked down by the Pentaplane.




Faun said:


> And it doesn't explain why there were no lamp posts taken down by the plane along the path you claim the plane flew.



According to the eyewitnesses with the best vantage points, the plane was always too high to hit any light polls.


----------



## phoenyx (Sep 30, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:
> ...



I and many others believe that the evidence that a plane (let alone Flight 77) and Flight 77's passengers got anywhere near the Pentagon is flimsy at best.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


All irrelevant now that we have the Citgo video which proves the plane flew south of it.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nor does it address any of the myriad of flaws being raised. *As crashing the plane into that location would have provided all the benefits*.....
> ...



But no other plane (and no missile) approached the Pentagon that morning and no plane was seen pulling up and flying away as AA77 tore into the Pentagon. Additionally, the passengers, crew and AA77 have all been missing since 9/11/01.



phoenyx said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > But easier to pull a f-14 tomcat pull up at the last minute with a passenger jet and fly up and over the pentagon at the last moment as a massive fiery explosion rakes at its underbelly? All while faking massive amounts of physical evidence, convincing hundreds of impromptu co-conspirators to join in the conspiracy with perfect secrecy for a decade and a half? Difficult if not impossible describes your entire theory.
> ...



That's your standard? That it's possible? I mean, it's also possible that the earth is flat, that man never walked on the Moon and that the Moon is therefore made of Jarlsberg Cheese but no rational adult believes such silliness.

What rational adults do is apply the same level of skepticism to the myriad of possibilities - including the many conflicting 9/11 CTs - to determine the most (and least) possible. When (and if) you manage to do that, you will quit your crusade and cease to be a "Truther." Hadit, Skylar and Faun have patiently tried to give you good cause to do so but to this posting you have stubbornly refused.



phoenyx said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Why go to such absurd lengths to plant faked evidence, hide the airliner with all passengers inside it, get DNA from them and transport it to the scene in time to plant it
> ...



You have evidence to support that theory?

BTW, you clearly dodged Hadit's question: "Why go to such absurd lengths...?" Your theories are like Chia Pets ... they just grow and grow to fit your belief system (what some would call a religion) when there were many simpler ways to accomplish the same end. If, for example, explosives were involved rather than AA77, why do the whole exotic Pentaplane thing at all? Why add layers of complexity and risk of mistakes or exposure when the explosives could have been blamed on Islamic terror-rats and, as you would know if you really cared about the truth, the damage was not at all consistent with an explosion which would have required more silent co-conspirators (you know, that whole Chia Pet thing).



phoenyx said:


> Initially, I believed the official story concerning all aspects of 9/11. It was definitely easier to just believe whatever the government said on the matter. But once I started looking at the -evidence-, I found that various assertions regarding the official story just didn't make sense...



Ironically, I initially took the 9/11 CTs seriously but upon further review, I found the authors to be either self-promoters, greedy bottom-feeders, insidious scummies, or any combo of the 3. Book tours, speaking engagements, radio ratings and all that fame was addictive and profitable. Additionally I found CT sheeple to be wearing narrow blinders and so totally committed to their CT Movement - regardless of how consistently their beliefs were refuted - that they were incapable of applying their highly-attuned skepticism and imaginations to the many, often conflicting CTs.

When stacked against the NIST findings those 9/11 CTs just seem shabby, shallow and highly implausible (if not impossible).


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> ......*Do you comprehend the implication of ZERO witnesses?* Where there where hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses on every side of the Pentagon. Or is even that above your three year old intellect?
> 
> You are as *batshit insane* as anyone I've seen posting here. At this point, I'm inclined to believe just about anything you don't if for no other reason, you're a fruit loop dingus who never gets any conspiracy right.


Not insane.  I'm sure IRL he appears normal and functions fine sweeping floors, cleaning toilets or whatever it is he does for a living.   He's definitely delusional where these conspiracy theories are involved.  That's a form of mental illness, but doesn't make him insane.

Paranoia and Conspiracy Theories - Personality Disorders
......_What are the reasons for these beliefs in plots and why do they all involve government cover-ups?

Psychologists have been speculating for some time about this.

First, it’s important to say that conspiracies do happen. In fact, there is a kernel of truth or possibility behind all of these theories. Perhaps that is the reason why so many Americans believe in these theories. Given the national feeling of suspicion towards government at this time, it becomes understandable that there would be a tendency to believe in these conspiracies. Whether it’s the damage Richard Nixon did in our ability to trust government or Ronald Reagan’s assertion that “Government is the problem,” or a cultural aspect of American life that has always distrusted authority, we have an immediate tendency to believe that the government is up to no good.

Then, too, psychopathology is involved in the process of weaving these theories. *Psychologists state that those whose personalities tend to be authoritarian are more likely to believe in conspiracies. In need of a sense of control over events, conspiracies provide them with an explanation for those events over which they cannot exert control.*....._


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ......*Do you comprehend the implication of ZERO witnesses?* Where there where hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses on every side of the Pentagon. Or is even that above your three year old intellect?
> ...


I disagree. Anyone who believes an event like that, which has zero eyewitness accounts, and shines in stark contrast to the many eyewitness accounts the plane flew into the Pentagon, plus 3 different videos, none of which capture the plane flying over the Pentagon -- is absofuckinglutely *batshit insane.*


----------



## phoenyx (Sep 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I hadn't even heard of Valuejet #592 before you mentioned it, but I did a little research, and came back with the following: you see that body of water in that picture you posted above? In theory, the plane could have submerged in there. There is actually a bit of skepticism concerning the official story on that plane, but there is, atleast, the -possibility- that the plane buried itself underwater. Let me know if you see any water on the Pentalawn, aside from what's come out of the hoses of fire trucks:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The anomaly of the Amazing Pentalawn (tm), not suffering a scratch even though simulations of the crash suggest the engines would have been making gouge marks on it, is just one more point to consider. The following video goes into this and other points:


----------



## phoenyx (Sep 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because you don't.



Faun said:


> You admit it because you have none.



Let's take a look at an excerpt from wikipedia's definition of Proof (truth):
**
_In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something. Evidence is drawn from experience of the world around us, with science obtaining its evidence from nature,[11] law obtaining its evidence from witnesses and forensic investigation,[12] and so on. A notable exception is mathematics, whose proofs are drawn from a mathematical world begun with axioms and further developed and enriched by theorems proved earlier.

Exactly what evidence is sufficient to prove something is also strongly area-dependent, usually with no absolute threshold of sufficiency at which evidence becomes proof.[13][14][15] In law, the same evidence that may convince one jury may not persuade another._
**

You see the problem? Even in a court of law, proof is in the eye of the beholder (or in that particular case, the jury and/or the judge). In my eyes (and in the eyes of most people who disagree with the official story), not only do you not have proof that the official story is true, you don't even have strong evidence. Conversely, in -your- eyes, you would probably say much the same thing about my position.



Faun said:


> I offer no such admission because I have plenty.



You saying that you have plenty doesn't necessarily mean that you have plenty .



Faun said:


> (the lamp posts, the Citgo surveillance, the other 2 surveillance videos, the damage to the Pentagon, DNA, .....)



I've already rebutted all of those points and you know it.



Faun said:


> And you have zero witnesses to a fly over.



I certainly don't know the -name- of anyone who believes they saw a plane keep on going after approaching the Pentagon. I'm glad you atleast acknowledge the fact that, assuming that Erik Dihle was accurate when he said that "some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going", there would be atleast one person who believed they saw the Pentaplane fly over (or at least not crash into) the Pentagon.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


As you already stated, witnesses without names are dismissed.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 1, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence do you think I've ignored?
> ...



If I say it's faked, then I'm clearly not ignoring it- I'm saying that I believe it was faked.



hadit said:


> The DNA recovered at the crash site,



What evidence do you have that it was recovered at the crash site?



hadit said:


> the penetration pattern that perfectly matches the plane's approach,



Actually, the damage at the Pentagon isn't consistent with a plane hitting it:
How could Flight 77 have caused bizarre pattern of interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?




hadit said:


> the pieces of the airplane recovered at the site,



...none of which have been positively tied to Flight 77:
How we KNOW an airliner did NOT hit the Pentagon



hadit said:


> the light poles knocked down on the approach path,



CIT has come up with a very good explanation as to how the downed light poles could have been staged in advance:
How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight? | 9/11 Pentagon



hadit said:


> the total lack of any eyewitnesses that saw the plane fly over the Pentagon,



Actually, aside from logically deducing it due to all the witnesses that place the plane on a flight path that was inconsistent with the downed light poles as well as the damage at the Pentagon itself, there are several witnesses that saw things that suggest that the plane did actually fly over the Pentagon:
**_1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that *"a bomb hit and a jet kept going"*
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "*pilot tried to avert the building" *and the plane *"went to the side of the building not directly in"*
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on *"the other side"* and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was *"on top"*._**

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



hadit said:


> and on it goes.



By all means, elaborate on this 'on it goes' bit.



hadit said:


> I mean, think about it, how could DNA from the passengers be transported to the crash site in order to be placed there in time for it to be picked up if, as you say, the passengers were never near the site?



For starters, how do you know that DNA from the alleged passengers of Flight 77 was transported to the Pentagon at all?



hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I completely agree. You may wish to consider that when analyzing your own beliefs.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 1, 2016)

cjnewson88 said:


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



That page comes up blank for me.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 1, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


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



I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've gone over your video. I see a few pixels darken. If you want to believe that's the shadow of a plane, be my guest. Personally, I believe that testimony from Lagasse and Brooks, who were both at the Citgo gas station at the time the plane flew by, who both testified that the plane came from the *north* side, is far more compelling:


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 1, 2016)

Faun said:


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



It was an issue I wasn't even aware of at the time, and it remains an issue that I believe should remain a minor footnote in any serious discussion of 9/11.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> cjnewson88 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll just leave my blog here..
> ...


What caused this damage if not a plane...


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


_"Darkened pixels?"_ WTF?? 

*You agreed it was the shadow* from the plane when you _thought_ the shadow proved the plane was on the north side of the Citgo...


phoenyx said:


> I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit. CIT believes the same thing if memory serves. Thing is, if the plane was actually on the South of Citgo flight path, there would have been no shadow of the plane anywhere near the Citgo gas station...


... but when you're shown the shadow proves the plane flew south of the Citgo, that shadow becomes "darkened pixels."






That your position is so fluid that it shifts to support what you believe, and not what the facts reveal, proves candycorn's initial assessment of you was dead-on accurate. You ignore any evidence which proves you wrong.

And of course it's the plane shadow. It appears at precisely the moment the plane would have been passing the Citgo. We know this because something inexplicably falls over without being touched at the same moment the shadow appears; which matches the description of the service station attendant who said the plane flying over felt like an "earthquake." Who then is seen on the video running outside the *southeast* entrance of the Citgo to see what caused the noise. And lastly, that shadow places the plane at the exact location where it would have needed to be to line up perfectly with the downed lamp posts, England's car, the smashed generator, and the direction of the interior damage caused to the Pentagon. It lines up perfectly with the angle of damage visible to the exterior wall of E-ring and the interior wall of the C-ring.

You're so done, there's a fork sticking out of you.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That's actually one of the dumbest explanations I've read yet. Over 200 people gave up their lives to go into hiding? 

Over 200 families mourning the loss of loved ones who are actually living elsewhere now with new identities? Who would put their families through such pain so the government could pull off a false flag operation? How could you possibly get more than 200 people to agree to uproot their lives in such a fashion and now, 15 years later, *not one of them ever reached out to family members* to let them know they're really ok? Even worse for this nonsense, if they did reach out and kept it a secret, you now have potentially thousands upon thousands of family members who were not part of the conspiracy but now know of it, but 100% of all those people have kept silent even after 15 years.

You truly will believe anything, no matter how nonsensical,  to prop up the idiocies you spew. While at the same time, reject any evidence whatsoever that points to hijackers flying planes into buildings.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
> http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html


I'm sure it gives you comfort to know what happened when everyone else is falling for the lies of ZOG.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That's what they said many years later. They didn't say the plane flew north of the Citgo when offering their testimony in the days following 9.11.

And since you like to rely on conjecture as fact, such as asking how do we know the lamp posts were not intentionally taken down and planted.... how do we know CIT didn't pay those witnesses to say they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo and draw the path with a marker indicating that? Again, not a single witness stated they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo in the days after 9.11.


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Of course you will believe only the eyewitnesses who say what you want to hear; while ignoring the majority of eyewitnesses who say something different, while ignoring the physical evidence which supports the plane flying into the Pentagon; and while ignoring the visual evidence which also supports it. Even worse, you cling to the nonsense of the flyover despite there being zero eyewitnesses who say they saw that happen and zero videos, out of 3 which capture the explosion, but fail to capture the plane fly over the Pentagon.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> ....Over 200 families mourning the loss of loved ones who are actually living elsewhere now with new identities? *Who would put their families through such pain so the government could pull off a false flag operation?* How could you possibly get more than 200 people to agree to uproot their lives in such a fashion and now, 15 years later, *not one of them ever reached out to family members* to let them know they're really ok? Even worse for this nonsense, if they did reach out and kept it a secret, you now have potentially thousands upon thousands of family members who were not part of the conspiracy but now know of it, but 100% of all those people have kept silent even after 15 years.
> 
> You truly will believe anything, no matter how nonsensical,  to prop up the idiocies you spew. While at the same time, reject any evidence whatsoever that points to hijackers flying planes into buildings.


The all powerful ZOG.  ZOG knows all, sees all and commands all.  Woe be to he who doesn't heed the power of ZOG!


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.
> ...



The dishonest game Phoenyx employs is common among "Truthers" (thus the quotation marks). It's called Whac-a-Mole. When bashed in one hole the bugger simply pops up in another (and returns to previous hole later in the game).







Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
> ...



I'm not certain that is even one of Phoenyx's dumbest explanations let alone one of the dumbest of all time. I mean, just consider the same old rehashed (and thoroughly debunked) silliness posted this year alone by 9/11HandJob (now LA Ram), Dale Smith, and 7Forever. Nonetheless it is the so far out-of-the-box "reasoning" of a typical "Truther" that is so far out-of-the-box as to be not just monumentally improbable but downright half-assed and stupid. I wonder what happened to the planes? Unless the CT's ever-expanding list of co-conspirators includes everyone at the 2 major airlines involved, the 4 planes fueled, loaded and took off but never landed. Where are the planes?


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 1, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> .....Nonetheless it is the so far out-of-the-box "reasoning" of a typical "Truther" that is so far out-of-the-box as to be not just monumentally improbable but downright half-assed and stupid. I wonder what happened to the planes? Unless the CT's ever-expanding list of co-conspirators includes everyone at the 2 major airlines involved, the 4 planes fueled, loaded and took off but never landed. Where are the planes?


Mentally ill, not stupid.  They appear to have at least average intelligence or higher (let's not forget both Ted Kaczynski and John Nash were very intelligent), but in this particular area, their ability to reason is compromised.  It's like a blind spot.  They could behave and seem normal to everyone except when it comes to these beliefs of a global conspiracy.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.
> ...



Obviously it was just a bad day for the cameras, and explosions do not occur linearly. All of the Pentagon damage was caused by 1 exterior impact - such as that of a missile or large passenger jet - which then traveled into the building. Since no one saw a missile (and many saw a large passenger jet) and there is no evidence of a missile (but plenty of a large passenger jet), a rational person would conclude it was the large passenger jet (or maybe I'm crazy).


----------



## Faun (Oct 1, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


In regard to the flyover theory, it wasn't a bad day at all for the cameras. Three videos capture the explosion but none show a plane flying over the Penagon. The two from the Pentagon surveillance cameras show the plane coming in too low to pull up and fly over the building. A third video from the Doubletree hotel on the other side of the Pentagon captures only the explosion but is in a near perfect location to detect a plane flying over; which of course, it didn't.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 1, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > .....Nonetheless it is the so far out-of-the-box "reasoning" of a typical "Truther" that is so far out-of-the-box as to be not just monumentally improbable but downright half-assed and stupid. I wonder what happened to the planes? Unless the CT's ever-expanding list of co-conspirators includes everyone at the 2 major airlines involved, the 4 planes fueled, loaded and took off but never landed. Where are the planes?
> ...



I'm not saying all or even most "Truthers' are stupid, although 7Forever and 9/11HandJob (now LA Ram) are both more than a few fries short of a happy meal. I am saying that anyone (like Phoenyx or Smith) is capable of some stupid and even not-entirely-stupid peeps can think and post some really stupid shit. I do agree that whatever has driven otherwise normal people to spend serious time in the 9/11 conspiracy rabbit holes has the power to drive them bat-shit crazy. Like you, I find many of them have a bad (and seemingly incurable) case of "The Jooo Did It!"

Former CT royalty Charlie Veitch had an interesting take on the "Truther" Movement and those in it. He was roundly trashed and threatened by his former comrades after posting his mea culpa:

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
But, while some believers could be dismissed as harmless crackpots, there was a malevolent undercurrent to many of the theories.

In essence, the modern conspiracy narrative is the same as the one that has existed since at least the 19th century: that the few (often termed the “Illuminati”) control the many. This, of course, is the nucleus of the dangerous anti-Jewish myth. When he was an insider, did he experience anti-Semitism? His eyes open wide: “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says...

All of which has damaged him. “I don’t have the same love for people as I did,” he says. “I’ve become a misanthrope and I’ve become very cynical. I hope it goes away.” Looking back, he describes the conspiracy community as an “evil-worshiping paranoia. As someone who’s been deep in it, and seen the hatred and the insanity, I think big terrorist attacks will come from conspiracy theorists.” He can envisage an assassination or a bombing carried out by a conspiracy believer who has lost all contact with reality.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Your contention that the plane that approached the Pentagon had to be Flight 77 is a common belief, but it's actually an assumption with little evidence to support it. To be sure, the 9/11 Commission has tried to cover this up, in part by spreading a falsehood. Woody Box explains:

**_I would like to illuminate the fate of Flight 77 after it vanished from radar because it looks to me that many people don't know much about it, despite its importance.

At 8:56, the blip of Flight 77 vanished from the radar screens of Indianapolis Center, the responsible ATC facility, and at the same time radio communication was lost. This is a well known and well confirmed fact. Just take a look at the ATC transcript:

http://0911.site.voila.fr/transcript.htm _[Unfortunately, that link is now dead]
_
The controllers thought it had crashed and submitted their assessment to other ATC centers, FAA headquarters and American Airlines. This caused the top AA management to believe that Flight 77 crashed into the South Tower - they believed it until the Pentagon strike! There were also rumors going around that a plane crashed near the Ohio-Kentucky border (as confirmed in Richard Clarke's "Against all enemies"), which is exactly the area where Flight 77 vanished (take a look at the Flight Explorer animation in the transcript link).

For sure, the controllers activated primary radar as soon as they lost Flight 77 to look for him, but this measure was obviously not successful. Flight 77 was not detected by any controller until it was picked up at 9:32 by Dulles TRACON controllers. (The *only *man who knew its position at 9:25 was Norman Mineta...)

For someone who's aware of Operation Northwoods this stinks of a plane swap: Flight 77 crashed or landed somewhere near the Ohio-Kentucky border, and the plane that was detected by the Dulles controllers was not Flight 77.

The 9/11 Commissioners are surely aware of Operation Northwoods, but advocate another theory:

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying. 

According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 9:05, east of its last known posi-tion. The target remained in Indianapolis Center's airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's airspace at 9:10.As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected path, not east-where the aircraft was now heading. Managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.143 

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.144 

So the Commission thinks that at first, Flight 77 slided into a radar hole and was therefore not visible to controllers. This raises the question why the controllers, who surely were familiar with the position and extent of this alleged radar hole, were so quickly convinced that Flight 77 had crashed.

After that, the Commissions surprises us with their finding, obtained through "radar reconstruction", that Flight 77 reemerged at the radar screens of Indianapolis controllers, but was missed by them, because they were looking into the wrong direction.

Someone here who has the same little trust in the competence of professional controllers? 

Then the Commission continues with the claim that Flight 77 crossed the border to Washington Center at 9:10, heading eastwards. But the Washington controllers didn't detect the plane either, because they were "not told to look for primary targets."

This is a breathtaking claim. Of course, Washington Center was informed by Indianapolis pretty early about the loss of Flight 77. Did the controllers expect it to reappear with full transponder data, and did they refrain from activating the primary radar routine for this reason?

The claim is not only an insult to the intelligence of the controllers, it is also wrong. Here is a transcript snippet between Washington Center and NEADS which proves that they were indeed looking for AA 77 for a long time:

09:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

Bottom line: Whatever happened to Flight 77, it's official flight path after 8:56 is pure speculation, and the evidence suggests that it didn't fly back to Washington at all. To those who say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or are agnostic on this question, this is another serious blow._**

Source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8139


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I've laid the assumption that Flight 77 had to be the plane approaching the Pentagon to rest in my previous post. As to your next statement...



SAYIT said:


> and no plane was seen pulling up and flying away as AA77 tore into the Pentagon.



Actually, some people have testified that they -did- see the plane pulling up, while Erik Dihle stated that some had yelled that "a bomb had gone off and the plane kept on going". Here's CIT's list of individuals it believes suggest that the plane did in fact pull up and fly away:
**
_*Flyover/away witnesses and connections:*
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that *"a bomb hit and a jet kept going"*
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "*pilot tried to avert the building" *and the plane *"went to the side of the building not directly in"*
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on *"the other side"* and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was *"on top"*._
**

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



SAYIT said:


> Additionally, the passengers, crew and AA77 have all been missing since 9/11/01.



There are a bunch of anomalies concerning the alleged passengers and hijackers of the 9/11 planes. Here's a few articles on the subject:
September 11 - Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists

9-11 Research: Passenger Lists

What happened to Flight 77's passengers and crew? | 9/11 Pentagon

http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html

In summation, we may never know what happened to the alleged passengers of Flight 77, but that's no reason to assume that they died crashing into the Pentagon.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



My standard of what? 



SAYIT said:


> I mean, it's also possible that the earth is flat, that man never walked on the Moon and that the Moon is therefore made of Jarlsberg Cheese but no rational adult believes such silliness.



Personally, I -don't- believe it's possible that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of Jarlsberg cheese. I also don't believe the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is possible, but you're free to try to persuade me otherwise. I think it's -unlikely- that a man never walked on the moon, but I don't rule it out.



SAYIT said:


> What rational adults do is apply the same level of skepticism to the myriad of possibilities - including the many conflicting 9/11 CTs - to determine the most (and least) possible.



I can agree to that, sure. I hope you're aware that the OCT has changed over time as well.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I most definitely don't support the official conspiracy theory, no. I am questioning some of its tenets above. You might try to do the same sometime.



SAYIT said:


> If, for example, explosives were involved rather than AA77, why do the whole exotic Pentaplane thing at all? Why add layers of complexity and risk of mistakes or exposure when the explosives could have been blamed on Islamic terror-rats



It's one thing for islamic terrorists to hijack a commercial airliner. It would be something else for them to gain access to the Pentagon and wire a section of it with explosives. Have you ever heard of misdirection in magic tricks? Wikipedia defines it thusly:
***Misdirection* is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another. Managing the audience's attention is the aim of all theater, it is the foremost requirement of theatrical *magic*.**

Source: Misdirection (magic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many believe that those who were truly behind 9/11 misdirected the public's attention away from the true causes of what happened on 9/11, in order to benefit themselves. It's what is always done in false flag operations.



SAYIT said:


> and, as you would know if you really cared about the truth, the damage was not at all consistent with an explosion



Perhaps not with a single explosion, but certainly with multiple explosions. Another point: the damage was -not- consistent with what a plane crash would do:
How could Flight 77 have caused bizarre pattern of interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > cjnewson88 said:
> ...



Explosives perhaps?


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Perhaps you can see a fully formed shadow, but yes, all I could see were a few darkened pixels.



Faun said:


> *You agreed it was the shadow* from the plane when you _thought_ the shadow proved the plane was on the north side of the Citgo...
> 
> 
> phoenyx said:
> ...



Actually, I said that *CIT* believes there may have been a shadow on the tape(s) *if memory serves*. Also, in the very quote of mine you mention, I make it clear that CIT believed the shadow, if there was one, supported their North side flat path.



Faun said:


> And of course it's the plane shadow. It appears at precisely the moment the plane would have been passing the Citgo. We know this because something inexplicably falls over without being touched at the same moment the shadow appears; which matches the description of the service station attendant who said the plane flying over felt like an "earthquake."



I'm not denying the possibility that the Citgo cameras may have recorded a shadow of the plane passing by. I did a bit of digging to find something from CIT supporters who claim that the shadow -supports- the North side path, and found this:
NEW pentagon video


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Here's that transcript.... where in there do the controllers suggest AAL77 crashed?

AAL77Transcript


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Where in that photo of the dented generator do you see evidence of explosives? Also, the generator was outside of the Pentagon and no one reported any explosions on it. Lastly, what would be the purpose of blowing up the generator?

Next guess...?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Your, _"if memory serves,"_ comment was in regards to CIT. In regards to the shadow being cast from the plane, you said, _*"I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit."*_

You believed it was the plane's shadow when you thought that proved the plane flew north of the Citgo. From the moment I showed you the plane's shadow proves it was on the south side of the Citgo, which lines up perfectly with the lamp posts and the damage to the Pentagon, it transformed from "the shadow of the plane" to "darkened pixels."



Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



Where does it say that 200 people gave up their lives to go into hiding? Don't make stuff up -.-


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible for all four planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11 can be seen here:
> ...



When did I say I "know" what happened? Apparently no one is actually reading what I'm writing (or linking to) -.-. I said (and I quote): "*I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible...*"


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I've gone over your video. I see a few pixels darken. If you want to believe that's the shadow of a plane, be my guest. Personally, I believe that testimony from Lagasse and Brooks, who were both at the Citgo gas station at the time the plane flew by, who both testified that the plane came from the *north* side, is far more compelling:
> ...



Probably because no one asked him. From CIT's website:
**
_No questions were asked pertaining to the location of the plane or the flight path during this Library of Congress interview. Nothing Sgt. Lagasse says in this interview contradicts what he told us in the interview we filmed with him on location at the gas station in 2006, excerpts from which appear in National Security Alert. An extended version of this 2006 interview can be seen in The PentaCon: Smoking Gun Version.

As explained in National Security Alert, Sgt. Lagasse is on record as far back as 2003 saying that the plane was on the north side of the gas station when he told 9/11 researcher Dick Eastman that he was on the "starboard side" of the plane. The starboard side of the plane is the right side. The only way Sgt. Lagasse could be on the starboard side of the plane is if it were on the north side flight path.

Here is the flight path Sgt. Lagasse drew for us during our 2006 interview. As seen in National Security Alert, he told us he was "100 percent certain that the plane flew on the north side of the station, and said he would "bet [his] life" on it.





Sgt. Lagasse has been made aware of the implications of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station. He still stands by his account, and has said that he would testify to the plane flying on the north side of the station in a court of law._**

Source: Official Interviews | 9/11 Pentagon



Faun said:


> And since you like to rely on conjecture as fact...



Says the guy who says a few darkened pixels is "proof" that the official story is true -.-...



Faun said:


> ...such as asking how do we know the lamp posts were not intentionally taken down and planted....



That's a question, not conjecture. Google defines conjecture as "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information". Kind of like believing the official story has been proven based in a few darkened pixels...



Faun said:


> how do we know CIT didn't pay those witnesses to say they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo and draw the path with a marker indicating that?



Dick Eastman would have had to have paid Lagasse as well. But to answer your question- I don't "know" that they didn't. That being said, I find it highly doubtful. A large part of the reason is that it's not just Lagasse and Brooks who are saying that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station. Turcios was at the gas station as well and he also stated that the plane flew North of the Citgo gas station. And then there's the long line up of other witnesses that CIT interviewed that also placed the plane as flying north of the Citgo gas station. Now compare that to the one "witness" who, despite having had his car allegedly speared by a light pole, claims to have never seen the plane himself. Furthermore, when he realized that all the other witnesses placed the plane North of the Citgo gas station, he insisted that he -too- was in a position that would have placed the plane on that trajectory. The evidence is overwhelming that his car was photographed at a position that would have placed the plane on the South of Citgo flight path though. So why was he so adamant that he wasn't there? 



Faun said:


> Again, not a single witness stated they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo in the days after 9.11.



Are you aware of any witnesses who were -asked- if it had at the time?


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> I hadn't even heard of Valuejet #592 before you mentioned it, but I did a little research, and came back with the following: you see that body of water in that picture you posted above? In theory, the plane could have submerged in there. There is actually a bit of skepticism concerning the official story on that plane, but there is, atleast, the -possibility- that the plane buried itself underwater. Let me know if you see any water on the Pentalawn, aside from what's come out of the hoses of fire trucks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was working in Miami when it happened.  I didn't see the accident, but was there for the investigation including seeing DOT Secretary Federico Pena stand on a Everglades dike and declare Valuejet was a safe airline.  His support shot down his career just as fast as Critter 592 dove into the Everglades. 

CNN - Pena says ValuJet followed safety rules - May  12, 1996

The crash site is on a 5 mile final with RWY12 at MIA.  The crater was about easily visible from the air.  The Everglades are about 8 feet of water over 18 feet of silt lade over rock/coral.  The airliner smashed straight into the ground at about 400 knots like a raw egg dropped off a two story rooftop.  It splattered and spread under the 18 feet of silt making recovery very difficult.  The FDR and CVR in the tail were recovered, but, IIRC, the crash site is treated like a grave site and entry is prohibited. 

CRITICS OF FEDERICO PENA SAY HIS CAREER WENT DOWN WITH VALUJET

Aviation Safety Network > Accident investigation > CVR / FDR > Transcripts > CVR transcript ValuJet Flight 592 - 11 MAY 1996

Valujet 592 air crash


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


_What happened after Cleveland is anyone's guess. All air traffic was closed. If any planes flew, it is doubtful there was recordings of them, especially if they contained the passengers from any of these 4 flights. *All that lied ahead of them at this point is their new lives and new identities.* And as pointed out earlier, it is possible some real passengers were added to the planes, but this is beyond the scope of my research and beyond the scope of this article._


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> When did I say I "know" what happened? Apparently no one is actually reading what I'm writing (or linking to) -.-. I said (and I quote): "*I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible...*"


Waffle all you like but the fact remains your multiple posts on the subject postulate a vast conspiracy where thousands of Americans are not only traitors covering up mass murder, but also keeping it a secret.  OTOH, there are people like me who apply Occam's Razor.....and also Hanlon's Razor.  
The dear readers of this forum are free to choose and research their own answers to these disasters.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, if you want to believe that a few darkened pixels means that there is "proof" that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station, be my guest. I'll stick with Lagasse and Brooks testimony, myself.
> ...



No, I'm believing the vast majority of eyewitnesses in a good position to ascertain whether the plane flew North or South of the Citgo gas station. All of them concord with Lagasse and Brooks- the plane flew North of the Citgo gas station.



Faun said:


> while ignoring the majority of eyewitnesses who say something different,



Sigh -.-. If you want, we can go over your eyewitnesses again, you seem to have forgotten what terrible positions they were in to ascertain where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo gas station.



Faun said:


> while ignoring the physical evidence which supports the plane flying into the Pentagon, and while ignoring the visual evidence which also supports it.



Ignored? I've gone over every single piece of evidence you've ever thrown at me, and pointed out their clear or potential flaws. But throw some of it at me again if you like, it gets easier to do this every time.



Faun said:


> Even worse, you cling to the nonsense of the flyover despite there being zero eyewitnesses who say they saw that happen



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

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



Faun said:


> and zero videos, out of 3 which capture the explosion, but fail to capture the plane fly over the Pentagon.



They fail to capture more then a few pixels worth of an object that approaches the pentagon at ground level before the explosion. For anyone familiar with computer graphics, I think they'd agree that it wouldn't be too hard to put in an object to satisfy people that yes, an aircraft -did- hit the Pentagon. As to the other 80+ video feeds, nothing to see here folks -.-...


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Here:
**
*934 — Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate:
all right this is Henderson there was an American eleven departed off of uh New York goinh to L.A.
got hijacked American 77 departed off of Dulles is going to L.A. dispatch doesn't know where he's at
and confirmed that two airplanes have been uh they crashed into uh the world trade center in New York
so as far as American 77 we don't know where he is 
but they say uh American eleven was hijacked off of a new york airport going to lax and uh
***

And here:
**
*930 — Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate:
as far as what we know that's that's all we know I talked to dispatch and that's what they relayed
and they confirmed it here that I guess two airplanes about crashed into the the trade center.
**
*
Henderson mentions that Flight 11 was hijacked and Flight 77's gone AWOL, and also mentions that 2 planes crashed in New York. What do -you- think that suggests?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


_"Says the guy who says a few darkened pixels is "proof" that the official story is true -.-.."_
LOLOLOL

Need I remind you? You agreed it was the plane's shadow before you denied it; when you thought it bolstered your north side approach nonsense. 

As far as not a single eyewitness reporting seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.... that's absurd, even for you. People were being interviewed by the news all day, many of whom recalled what they saw without being asked specific details. Some were simply asked something along the lines of, _can you tell me what you saw._

Even worse for this nugget of nutbaggery from you .... all signs pointed to a plane being flown into the building... if someone actually saw the plane flying over the Pentagon, and not into it, they would have been screaming bloody murder about it to the reporters. And they wouldn't have needed to be asked to report seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Even worse.... to this day, 15 years later, not one single person on the entire face of the planet Earth has stepped forward to say they were there that day and saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Ever.

Not one.

That _should _ provide you a clue as to just how insane the flyover theory is. And that's not even factoring all the other reasons it couldn't have happaned.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm not an explosives expert. That being said, a moderator at Pilots for 9/11 Truth started a thread suggesting that explosives may well have been used for the trailer, and also suggest that there's evidence that explosives were used at the Pentagon as well:
Explosives at/in the Pentagon? - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

Now let's turn this around- where do you see evidence in that photo that a plane hit it?



Faun said:


> Also, the generator was outside of the Pentagon and no one reported any explosions on it.



Was anyone looking at it at the time it was damaged?



Faun said:


> Lastly, what would be the purpose of blowing up the generator?



Perhaps the same reason that the light poles were downed- to add credibility that a plane did the damage.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Eyewitnesses often recall events . Even Sgt. Legasse didn't accurately recall where the downed lamp posts were.

And video evidence doesn't have a foggy memory like the Citgo witnesses have. And the video evidence proves the plane flew south of the Citgo, no matter what your paid or lying actors claimed many years later.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That doesn't say AAL77 crashed anywhere. 

It says AAL11 crashed into the WTC -- it did.

It says two plane's crashed into the WTC -- they did.

It says AAL77 is still missing -- it was.

No wonder I couldn't find where in there they mention AAL77 crashing.... they didn't. By 9:10am, it was known at least 3 plane's had been hijacked. Several minutes later in that transcript, they were asking if they heard from AAL77. Why would they be asking that if they were conveying the message that it had already crashed into the WTC?

_950 — Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate:
and you have you heard anything from American 77._


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Sure, turn it around... to me, it looks like something very large hit it. It doesn't look like it was blown up with explosives. Oh, and get this... something very big did hit it -- the plane that flew into the Pentagon hit it. You see  (or maybe you don't see) all of the physical evidence adds up to the same story. All you have to counter that are suppositions, guesses, and lies.

But you admit you have no idea what caused it, so we'll just leave it at that.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Correct.



Faun said:


> In regards to the shadow being cast from the plane, you said, _*"I can certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit."*_



Sometimes, in the interests of brevity, we may take for granted that our audiences understand what we mean and not fully qualify our statements. That's what I did above. What I -meant- was that I can certainly agree that it was -possible- that your darkened pixels may have been caused by the shadow of a plane. I never agreed I thought that they were proof or even strong evidence that they were, however.



Faun said:


> You believed it was the plane's shadow when you thought that proved the plane flew north of the Citgo. From the moment I showed you the plane's shadow proves it was on the south side of the Citgo, which lines up perfectly with the lamp posts and the damage to the Pentagon, it transformed from "the shadow of the plane" to "darkened pixels."



I -hope- that you now understand that I never "believed it was the plane's shadow", I just considered it to be a possibility. As I mentioned in the post you were responding to, CIT supporters do believe that there is evidence of a shadow that suggests that the plane flew on the North of Citgo flight path. I don't even know if they're the same darkened pixels you're referring to. However, judging by the fact that I couldn't see the darkened pixels from the video they posted, just like in your case before you painstakingly pointed them out to me, it may well be the same darkened pixels. Feel free to take a look and see if they are, indeed, the same darkened pixels:
NEW pentagon video


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Need I remind you? You agreed it was the plane's shadow before you denied it; when you thought it bolstered your north side approach nonsense... Even worse for this nugget of nutbaggery from you .... all signs pointed to a plane being flown into the building... if someone actually saw the plane flying over the Pentagon, and not into it, they would have been screaming bloody murder about it to the reporters. And they wouldn't have needed to be asked to report seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.
> 
> Even worse.... to this day, 15 years later, not one single person on the entire face of the planet Earth has stepped forward to say they were there that day and saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.
> 
> ...



Not only has no one come forward to say they were there that day and saw AA77 fly over the Pentagon, no camera or radar recorded such an occurrence, no one with first-hand knowledge of some other cause for the Pentagon damage has come forward, and no one witnessed anything like the silliness Phoenyx so desperately clings to.

Yet the plane, it's passengers and crew certainly disappeared on 9/11.

Furthermore, slamming AA77 into the Pentagon would have caused the damage that occurred. So why would the perpetrators add layer upon layer of complexity and risk of mistakes and exposure by adding a myriad of perfectly timed features and thousands of co-conspirators?

All just coincidence or clear evidence of a fantastic (and perfectly executed) gov't conspiracy to give people like Phoenyx an excuse to act like flaming idiots?

You decide.

The glaring question is: WHY? Why would any rational person spend the kind of time Phoenyx has watching YouTubes or reading the twisted speculation of those who took advantage of our 9/11 tragedy to achieve some measure of fame and glory and then spend countless hours on message boards regurgitating the same old mis & disinfo 15 later? I mean, there is nothing new about what today's "Truther" Movement's stragglers say or post. It was fully vetted a decade (or more) ago and found to be at best wanting and at worst ludicrous. Many of those who in past years made the same claims Phoenyx has made here for months have been outed as simple-minded Nazi scum determined to pin 9/11 on the Joooo (2 "Truthers" - LA Ram and RacialReality - are currently trying to pin the JFK assassination on them on another thread).

So what drives Phoenyx?

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind
When he was an insider, did he experience anti-Semitism? His eyes open wide: “Loads. Loads. I was once accused of being a Jew because of my olive skin and my nose. They said, ‘We can’t trust him’.” And when they say the ‘Illuminati’ or ‘Reptiles’, do they actually mean Jews? “It’s slightly complicated but, mostly, yes,” he says.

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 3, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I hadn't even heard of Valuejet #592 before you mentioned it, but I did a little research, and came back with the following: you see that body of water in that picture you posted above? In theory, the plane could have submerged in there. There is actually a bit of skepticism concerning the official story on that plane, but there is, atleast, the -possibility- that the plane buried itself underwater. Let me know if you see any water on the Pentalawn, aside from what's come out of the hoses of fire trucks:
> ...



I took a look at the documentary video you provided. In that case, there was a lot of evidence that yes, the plane crash landed. There was Daniel Mulholdt (sp?) watching the plane peter out from his small plane and Chris Oseola (sp?) going to the place he saw the plane go down and smelling the diesel fuel from the hole the plane left. You yourself gave a very good reason why so little was recovered from the plane:
**_The Everglades are about 8 feet of water over 18 feet of silt lade over rock/coral.  The airliner smashed straight into the ground at about 400 knots like a raw egg dropped off a two story rooftop.  It splattered and spread under the 18 feet of silt making recovery very difficult._ **

The Pentagon is -not- a swamp where planes can get swallowed up.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Just as I suspected, your "200 people" number is one you came up with, not one Phil Jayhan actually stated. Ironically, you even include evidence against your own assertion in the very quote you use. It's right there, right after your bolded sentence:
_"And as pointed out earlier, it is possible some *real passengers* were added to the planes, but this is beyond the scope of my research and beyond the scope of this article."_

Sorry to say, but fake passengers don't actually count.

Now let's go a little deeper:
Raytheon Employees were on every 9/11 flight that hit a target? - Democratic Underground

Raytheon involved in 9/11 ???

A chat with a former Raytheon employee- what are they saying


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...



So a mod at some "Truther" forum suggests "that explosives may well have been used" and you consider that to be evidence? Where is the hyper-skepticism you employ when judging the NIST report, other gov't pronouncements, and the tons of legit witnesses and evidence that contradict your theories?

An explosive powerful enough to do that damage to the Pentagon would have to have been placed outside - the exterior wall and the interior damage all occurred from the outside in) and would have done far more damage out there (and to the outer wall) than was done.

FACT: There is no evidence of explosives nor is any of the damage consistent with a controlled demo and no one involved in prepping an explosive or placing it has come forward. The damage to the Pentagon is however, consistent with a large and powerful missile or a large and fast-moving jet.

There is no evidence of a missile (and in 15 yrs no one has come forward to admit they witnessed or had some part in prepping or firing a missile at the Pentagon) being fired but plenty that AA77 was fueled, loaded and took off and that it eventually slammed into the Pentagon. AA77, it's crew and passengers have not been seen since.

Do you have any other "Truther" silliness you'd like to post in the matter?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html
“I was a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” he started. “That it was not in any way as the official story explained. But, this universe {_the "Truther" World_} is truly one of smoke screens, illusions and wrong paths..."

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> I took a look at the documentary video you provided. In that case, there was a lot of evidence that yes, the plane crash landed. There was Daniel Mulholdt (sp?) watching the plane peter out from his small plane and Chris Oseola (sp?) going to the place he saw the plane go down and smelling the diesel fuel from the hole the plane left. You yourself gave a very good reason why so little was recovered from the plane:
> **_The Everglades are about 8 feet of water over 18 feet of silt lade over rock/coral.  The airliner smashed straight into the ground at about 400 knots like a raw egg dropped off a two story rooftop.  It splattered and spread under the 18 feet of silt making recovery very difficult._ **
> 
> The Pentagon is -not- a swamp where planes can get swallowed up.


If you don't believe Critter 592 dove into the Everglades after an onboard fire, what do you speculate happened to it?  Bermuda Triangle?  It flew to the secret base where all supposed airline crashes go?  Space aliens? 

As for the Pentagon and AA77, it's clear the hijacked aircraft was flown into the Pentagon just as the other hijacked aircraft were flown into the WTC.

The notion that not only are thousands of Americans traitors and covering up a "false flag"/other fake event, but that they have successfully done so for 15 years is amazing in its naivete'.


----------



## hadit (Oct 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Ultimately, the whole flyover/flyaway theory falls when you ask WHY?
> ...



You can disagree, but to do so requires you to ignore crucial evidence and concoct elaborate schemes that are much more difficult to pull off successfully than to just fly the planes into the buildings.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Why go to such absurd lengths to plant faked evidence, hide the airliner with all passengers inside it, get DNA from them and transport it to the scene in time to plant it
> ...



Again, more complexity.  Now they would have to obtain the DNA and somehow get it included in the evidence from the scene with no one noticing.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > place explosives in the exact configuration to LOOK like a plane hit the building
> ...



Not when you consider the angle of the strike and the damage from it.  Also, since you are questioning the official account, why do you take at face value the description of the interior damage to the Pentagon?  That is one place the powers that be have zero interest in allowing you access.  It seems that you are picking and choosing the evidence you will accept.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > while not alerting those working inside
> ...



Still, no one, and I mean no one, found ANY evidence of planted explosives.  No extra wires, no unexploded detonators, no explosives residue, nothing.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > (and while not being able to guarantee that the plane would actually approach that exact spot at that angle),
> ...



Again, far simpler to just fly the plane into the building than to set up an elaborate series of explosives then hope the drone doesn't get blown off course or the highjackings don't go south.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > You want a conspiracy theory?  You want a way that the US government planned this whole thing and pulled it off?  Here's the easiest way it could have been done.  One of the trolls in the elaborate military industrial complex, perhaps Bubba Clinton himself, collaborates with Osama bin Laden to train suicide troops.  He gets them into the country and funds their flight training, knowing that once they have control of the planes, there's no way we could or would stop them.
> ...



So now we're ratcheting the complexity quotient up again.  Now we go through the trouble of bringing the terrorists into the country, training them to fly the planes, get them to highjack the planes, and then do nothing?  If they did not fly the planes into the buildings, where did they land?  I thought the terrorists weren't trained in how to land the planes.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > On Sept 11, the highjackers take over the planes and fly them into the buildings.  Sick, isn't it?  But if you insist that the government would plant explosives and pull off an extremely elaborate scheme to kill a bunch of Americans on 9/11, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense that it happened that way...
> ...



The bottom line remains that there are some questions about the official account and there always will be, because nothing is ever as neat and clean to put together as we would hope and sometimes we can't state something absolutely.  Creating an alternative explanation that is magnitudes more complex, more difficult to pull off, and full of more logic and evidentiary holes than the other, however, is not the answer.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 3, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > When did I say I "know" what happened? Apparently no one is actually reading what I'm writing (or linking to) -.-. I said (and I quote): "*I certainly don't know for sure, but the theory I find most plausible...*"
> ...



Don't confuse your misunderstanding with reality. I'm not "waffling". I've never said that I know what happened for sure in this instance.



Divine.Wind said:


> ...the fact remains your multiple posts on the subject postulate a vast conspiracy where thousands of Americans are not only traitors covering up mass murder, but also keeping it a secret.



I've done no such thing. I certainly believe that a few people would have had to have been involved, and others may have been used and then killed once they unknowingly fulfilled their function. Certain Raytheon employees, allegedly on 3 of the 4 9/11 flights, come to mind. Others who undermined the official story concerning 9/11 after the fact also died deaths that I and others deem to be suspicious.



Divine.Wind said:


> The dear readers of this forum are free to choose and research their own answers to these disasters.



Indeed.


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Read your own links, would ya? 

He said the passengers were, for the most part, in on the conspiracy; but that it is possible there were some real passengers as well. He also totalled up the number of passengers among the 4 planes and came to a total approaching 200. Add crew and you're over 200. That's 200 more conspirators in this twisted plot of yours who have to remain 100% silent to pull this off. No person is going to concoct such a cockamammie plan that can so easily fall apart if even one participant talks; and there would be thousands of such people -- when they could just as easily just fly the planes into the buildings and achieve the exact same results.


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Make up all the excuses you want, you called it *the plane's shadow* when you thought it proved the plane flew north of the Citgo and then you called _*darkened pixels*_ when it was proven to you it wasn't.

Everyone here watched you switch your position on the evidence to fit your agenda. Best proof yet that you're not interested in the truth, you're only interested in propping up your flyover nonsense.

And best of all... there's nothing else those "darkened pixels" can be but the plane's shadow. It appears at precisely the exact right moment at the exact right location in the exact right angle of approach to what we know the real truth to be. Nothing else could have cast a shadow that large and appear/disappear so quickly than the plane headed directly for the Pentagon.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> ...I've done no such thing. I certainly believe that a few people would have had to have been involved, and others may have been used and then killed once they unknowingly fulfilled their function. Certain Raytheon employees, allegedly on 3 of the 4 9/11 flights, come to mind. Others who undermined the official story concerning 9/11 after the fact also died deaths that I and others deem to be suspicious.....


Sure, a handful could have carried out the act, but I'm talking about the thousands involved in the investigation and, according to you, the cover-up.   

In order for your theory of the Pentagon crash to be true, either all those who worked in the Pentagon, who investigated the accident and were friends and coworkers of those who died would have to be completely stupid or part of the conspiracy.  Hence why thousands would have to be involved to make this conspiracy theory work.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, I agreed it was -possible- that it was the plane's shadow. I see such nuances such as the difference between possible and definitely are lost on you though -.- 



Faun said:


> when you thought it bolstered your north side approach [theory]



I still think it might. I even pointed out a thread wherein CIT supporters suggested there was a recorded shadow that would support the North side approach.



Faun said:


> As far as not a single eyewitness reporting seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.... that's absurd, even for you.



I don't really understand what you're talking about, but just in case you missed it, CIT came up with a list of people whose testimony suggest that a plane flew over the Pentagon:
**
_*Flyover/away witnesses and connections:*
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that *"a bomb hit and a jet kept going"*
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "*pilot tried to avert the building" *and the plane *"went to the side of the building not directly in"*
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on *"the other side"* and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was *"on top"*._
**

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


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Something tells me you forgot to add a word in that sentence.



Faun said:


> Even Sgt. Legasse didn't accurately recall where the downed lamp posts were.



We've gone over this before. Originally, Lagasse claimed he couldn't even -see- the light poles:
**
_Craig Ranke: Did either of you actually see the plane clip the light poles, I just want to ask this question again to reiterate it…

Sergeant Lagasse: Like I said, you can’t really see the light poles from here, so I didn’t see it hit ‘em..._
**

Only later, when told that light poles that were clearly outside of the range of the North side flight path, does he state that, in fact, the light poles hit were not those ones. I think this strongly suggests that he was trying to reconcile what he knew he saw (the plane flying north of the Citgo gas station) with what the official story states happened (light poles being hit).

Lagasse knows that his view regarding the North side flight path has been challenged. Here was his response to detractors:
**
Lagasse has been challenged on his view. This was his response:

"_Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station._"

CIT has a video exclusively dedicated to Lagasse's testimony, along with commentary, which you may like to see:



Faun said:


> And video evidence doesn't have a foggy memory like the Citgo witnesses have.



Please don't assume that the Citgo witnesses have a foggy memory just because they don't concord with your viewpoint. Also, remember that the Citgo witnesses aren't the only ones that corroborate that the Pentaplane flew North of the Citgo gas station.



Faun said:


> And the video evidence proves the plane flew south of the Citgo...



You talking about the pixelated 4 frame video that was leaked on to the internet? You standard of proof is depressingly low when it comes to evidence that fits into your worldview -.-


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No one is saying that AA77 actually crashed. The 9/11 Commission stated that Air Traffic Controllers -thought- AA77 had crashed. Please, carefully read what I quoted above. Statements from the 9/11 Commission are in blue.



Faun said:


> It says AAL11 crashed into the WTC



Does it?



Faun said:


> It says two plane's crashed into the WTC



Yes, -that- ATC Henderson does say.



Faun said:


> It says AAL77 is still missing -- it was.



Agreed.



Faun said:


> No wonder I couldn't find where in there they mention AAL77 crashing.... they didn't.



Agreed.



Faun said:


> By 9:10am, it was known at least 3 plane's had been hijacked. Several minutes later in that transcript, they were asking if they heard from AAL77. Why would they be asking that if they were conveying the message that it had already crashed into the WTC?



They wouldn't. It seems you've lost track of what the initial subject was- namely that AA77 had disappeared from radar screens starting at 8:56am if memory serves. The 9/11 Commission -assumes- that the dot that appeared on their screens later on going in the -opposite- direction that AA77's dot had been going when it dissapeared was, in fact, AA77. There's no strong evidence that that was actually the case though.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 3, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> No one is saying that AA77 actually crashed...


I am.  The FAA is.  The 9/11 Commission is.  The NTSB is.  Lot's of people are saying AA 77 actually crashed into the Pentagon.  You are free to believe thousands of people are lying, but there should be no dispute that they are, in fact, saying AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon.




The Story of the Pentagon 9-11 Flag  > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Article
...The day after the terrorist attack on the Pentagon, the scene was still chaotic. Only essential military and civilian workers were required to come to the building. Parking was at Reagan-National Airport, as all U.S. airspace was still closed. As employees got off the Metro train, Pentagon police stood with weapons examining everyone’s badge. Those without a Pentagon ID were told to keep traveling on. The conversation in the building was about friends who remained missing......

AS IT HAPPENED - The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

911 Attack Images

http://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/SPC0201.pdf
_September 11th terrorist attacks in New York, Virginia, and in Pennsylvania (more than 3,000 fatalities). Responded to the Pentagon for American Airlines flight 77, Pennsylvania for the crash of United Airlines flight 93, New York City for the crashes of American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175. Staff supported the FBI; other federal, state and local agencies; American and United Airlines at all crash sites; and the Dover, Delaware Air Force Base Mortuary (victims of the Pentagon attack were taken there for identification)._

https://web.archive.org/web/20121010093205/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/AAL77_fdr.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/2007092...artments/Fire/edu/about/docs/after_report.pdf
_From the moment American Airlines Flight #77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. on September 11, and for the succeeding 10 days, this was a major fire and rescue incident, the responsibility of the Arlington County Fire Department (ACFD)_.

USATODAY.com - American Flight 77 victims at a glance
_A Boeing 757 en route from Dulles International Airport near Washington to Los Angeles. The plane was carrying 58 passengers, four flight attendants and two pilots. It crashed into the Pentagon about 9:40 a.m. ET_.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 3, 2016)

With C.I.T being at the heart of some CT arguments here, I thought it relevant to dig a bit deeper.

C.I.T. is the baby of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis whose agenda is (or was) to discredit the official report by carefully selecting a small number of interviews which seem to cast doubt on the official findings while excluding the many more that do not.

As an unintended consequence - or perhaps intended - their theories created a serious split in the 9/11 "Truther" Movement causing many prominent "Truthers" - Gage for one - to disavow C.I.T. and many more to specifically denounce its findings (Ashley) as "reliant on biased interpretations of broad statements made by less than 20 witnesses to the attack, 8 years after the event."

The split (or splits) pitted one school of CT thought against another as they finally looked critically at the others and realized their theories conflicted or were even diametrically opposed.

What ensued was a free-for-all as each side complained that the other (or others) within the "Truther" Movement were actually mis or disinfo agents whose intention was to discredit the Movement itself. That certainly seems to have been the result as the Movement has been dying (or dead) since 2008 with nothing new since and a steady stream of former "Truthers" slithering out the door.

Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11Truth - U of Albany, had the integrity to say something about the 9/11 CT World as he left it:

Confessions of an Ex-Truther: Letter of Resignation (Scroll Down for Newer Posts)
My "change of heart" didn't happen overnight. This has been a process that has been eating away at me for the past month and a half. I wanted to act strategically as far as "coming out" as a means to perhaps transition the 9/11 Truth group on campus to one that was less focused on strictly 9/11-related issues (aka more truthful ones). However, I was exposed to something that truly angered me deep down in the wee hours of this morning, which I'll get to later. I was so outraged that I can no longer keep my mouth shut.

For whatever reasons at the time, I no-showed the 8/11 truth action our group was doing in Albany. Instead, I watched a movie called Screw Loose Change. I expected it to point out a few corrections in some minor details of the film. To my surprise, it contested just about every claim in the entire movie. I was a bit shocked.

I was a true believer of all this controlled demolition nonsense for a time. I never cared about the physics or the claims of pseudo-"experts." What always did it for me was the fact that there was never a decent response to any of these questions by the government. Even the hit pieces you'd see on 9/11 were always personal attacks. The mainstream never contested the actual "facts" movies like Loose Change presented.

Or so it seemed. After watching Screw Loose Change, I delved into the world of 9/11 Truth debunking. Among my favorites are the Screw Loose Change Blog and 9/11 Myths Finally, someone was answered all these pertinent questions with something that was a bit foreign to me... facts agreed upon by the experts.

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Are you an expert on what kind of damage explosives can do?



Faun said:


> ...you admit you have no idea what caused it, so we'll just leave it at that.



I was being a bit sarcastic when I said "Explosives perhaps?". I believe it was explosives.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 4, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There's a saying from Sherlock Holmes:
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Based on the evidence that I've seen, I believe that the Pentaplane simply couldn't have hit the Pentagon. Since I've deemed that to be impossible, whatever possibilities remain must be the truth. Explosives seems to be the most plausible alternative. There is certainly evidence that the Pentagon -itself- was rigged with explosives. Here's an excerpt from an article at Truth and Shadows:

**
_Gallop later told Army officials that she thought her computer had triggered a bomb, saying that the only fire she saw was coming out of computers.

NPH Revisited (page 101), lists several people who claim they thought bombs had gone off in the Pentagon. Among those were Michael J. Nielsen, a civilian auditor for the Army (heard people running through the corridors yelling that bombs were going off); and Lt. Nancy McKeown (yelled “bomb!” as ceiling tiles fell) Also, journalist Steve Vogel, author of The Pentagon: A History, said in the book that almost no one he talked to had any idea that a plane had hit the building; they all thought it was a bomb.

But the most interesting account is that of Don Perkal, the deputy General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Perkal reported that he clearly smelled cordite after the explosion and after he exited from his office:  “Even before I stepped outside, I smelled the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.”

And crucially, he also reported leaving the building after two explosions went off a few minutes apart. Despite this, Perkal believes that a plane hit the building.

This was echoed by Pentagon attorney Gilah Goldsmith, who reported that after hearing a loud boom she saw a large black cloud of smoke. She said she also smelled cordite or gun smoke. This account can be found in NPH Revisited and in Eric Bart’s extensive Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation._
**

Source: Evidence points to bombs inside the Pentagon on 9/11



SAYIT said:


> An explosive powerful enough to do that damage to the Pentagon would have to have been placed outside - the exterior wall and the interior damage all occurred from the outside in) and would have done far more damage out there (and to the outer wall) than was done.



How would you know? Are you an explosives expert?




SAYIT said:


> ...no one involved in prepping an explosive or placing it has come forward.



You honestly expect the culprit(s) would have come forward by and confessed -.-?


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 4, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > I took a look at the documentary video you provided. In that case, there was a lot of evidence that yes, the plane crash landed. There was Daniel Mulholdt (sp?) watching the plane peter out from his small plane and Chris Oseola (sp?) going to the place he saw the plane go down and smelling the diesel fuel from the hole the plane left. You yourself gave a very good reason why so little was recovered from the plane:
> ...



Please read what I wrote concerning 592 again. Carefully this time.



Divine.Wind said:


> As for the Pentagon and AA77, it's clear the hijacked aircraft was flown into the Pentagon



If your argument is going to be "I'm right and you're wrong", our conversation isn't going to last that long. 



Divine.Wind said:


> The notion that not only are thousands of Americans traitors and covering up a "false flag"/other fake event, but that they have successfully done so for 15 years is amazing in its naivete'.



Straw man argument. I never said there were thousands covering up the truth.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Well when you thought it proved the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo, you referred to it as the "shadow from the plane;" and since you realized it proved the plane was on the south side, you now refer to it as "darkened pixels."

Don't think this flip-flop, and its implication, of yours has gone unnoticed. 



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > when you thought it bolstered your north side approach [theory]
> ...


What you posted was the Doubletree video, not the Citgo video. What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the plane's shadow.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > As far as not a single eyewitness reporting seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.... that's absurd, even for you.
> ...


You tried to insinuate it's reasonable nobody reported seeing the plane fly over the building because no one was specifically asked that question. That's absurd. I'll repeat what I said, maybe I'll get lucky and you'll understand this time...

As far as not a single eyewitness reporting seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.... that's absurd, even for you. People were being interviewed by the news all day, many of whom recalled what they saw without being asked specific details. Some were simply asked something along the lines of, _can you tell me what you saw._​


phoenyx said:


> , but just in case you missed it, CIT came up with a list of people whose testimony suggest that a plane flew over the Pentagon:
> **
> _*Flyover/away witnesses and connections:*
> 1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
> ...


*Roosevelt Roberts*' 

Says he ran out about 10 seconds the explosion and saw a commercial jet approaching the Pentagon over one lane in the south parking lot. This cannot possibly be the plane flying over as you describe since what you describe has the plane flying over the Pentagon at the same time of the explosion in what you referred to as a distraction.

*Dewitt Roseborough*

Never said he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Says he looked up and saw the plane flying so low, he thought it would hit the highway. It obviously didn't. Next thing he saw was a fireball come from over the Pentagon -- but no plane.

*Erik Dihle*

Did not even see a plane. He was across the highway at Arlington National Cemetery and says he heard conflicting accounts with some people saying a bomb hit the building and a jet kept on going while someone else corrected them and said the plane hit the building. Now he doesn't recall even saying that and has no idea who did say it. Whomever said it was a bomb and a plane kept on going is unidentifiable and no one knows what they actually saw, or thought they saw, or what made them say what they said.

*Witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter*

Have no idea who you're talking about.

*Maria De La Cerda*

_"And as I'm walking towards Arnold Street, Towards MacArthur intersection, and the buses had just departed, maybe 8:40 at this point, [inaubible], somewhere between 8:40, um, I hear what I think is a flyover, over my head because that's standard. Lots of times you have missing man information sometimes you won't, and I looked, I looked directly up for it, *and I also had some tree cover so I wasn't able to see.* But I was facing the pentagon and I saw something really fast going to the pentagon with a swoosh and ill never forget it, It was so fast, and then a huge fire ball explosion and smoke, and they said there was a huge sound, but I don't recall, I just remember it being just it was like a clap, And I just remember it being so fast, And I screamed, no, or oh my God, and right, I think right then at that point I'm at the intersection and still constantly walking toward my car." ~ Maria De La Cerda_

She didn't see where the plane crashed nor did she say she saw the plane after seeing the fireball. How could she? Her view would have looked something like this from the intersection of Arnold and McCarthur in ANC.






So as usual ... you have nothing. No eyewitnesses said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. You have to imagine them saying it from what they actually say to reach that conclusion.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 4, 2016)

hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



What crucial evidence do you believe I'm ignoring?



hadit said:


> ...and concoct elaborate schemes that are much more difficult to pull off successfully than to just fly the planes into the buildings.



I agree that it would certainly have been easier for the Pentaplane to just crash into the Pentagon, although based on what I've read, it would have been impossible for the Pentaplane to have crashed in the are of the Pentagon that the official story posits that it crashed in, atleast if it had actually been a 757 aircraft.



hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Who watches the watchers? For that matter, who -are- the watchers? So far, all we've got is "they". Tell me, have you ever heard of a woman named Sibel Edmonds?



hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



You didn't read the article linked to above, did you?



hadit said:


> Also, since you are questioning the official account, why do you take at face value the description of the interior damage to the Pentagon?  That is one place the powers that be have zero interest in allowing you access.  It seems that you are picking and choosing the evidence you will accept.



We can only go by the information we have access to. Essentially, what I and many other researchers do is this: -If- the government gave us accurate information regarding x, the official story makes no sense because of [reasons].



hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



You're mistaken:
Evidence points to bombs inside the Pentagon on 9/11

How could Flight 77 have caused bizarre pattern of interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?



hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Oh, they certainly did -something-. They provided those truly behind 9/11 with the scapegoats required to help avoid the true culprits from getting caught, while also giving a reason to unleash the draconian Patriot Act as well as multiple wars of aggression after the event.



hadit said:


> If they did not fly the planes into the buildings, where did they land? I thought the terrorists weren't trained in how to land the planes.



You're making an assumption that the alleged terrorists were actually the ones flying the planes to begin with. Since this thread is about the Pentagon attack, let's take a look at one of the alleged terrorist pilot who flew the Pentaplane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour. At least one trainer said he couldn't fly at all:
**
_Hanjour, by the way, was known to the Federal Aviation Administration several months before 9/11. As reported in the New York Times (“A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” May 4, 2002), Hanjour’s flight instructors in Phoenix, Arizona told the FAA that his skills as a pilot and his ability to speak English were so poor that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine.

A former employee of the flight school said: “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

Hanjour tried to rent a Cessna from Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland (about 20 miles from Washington) just a month before 9/11, but was refused because his piloting skills were so weak. Instructor Sheri Baxter says that she and another instructor took Hanjour for three test runs and found he had a hard time just controlling and landing the Cessna. They refused to rent him the plane.

So now Hanjour and his buddies are running the show with their box cutters while the passengers and crew are captive in the back of the plane. Despite not having the skills to fly a Cessna, Hanjour flies the 757 west to the Ohio/Kentucky border before turning 180 degrees and heading back to Washington. The plane was invisible to radar from shortly after the alleged hijacking until it returned to Washington airspace headed for the Pentagon. That’s Washington D.C., by the way, the most secure and heavily defended airspace in the world. Hmm, it wasn’t that day.

Hanjour manned the controls for about 45 minutes from the time of the hijacking until the alleged crash. Did he fly straight at the Pentagon, sending the plane into a dive and hitting the most sensitive part of the Pentagon, including the offices of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld?

No, he had a better idea.

Hanjour initiated a 330-degree descending spiral that pilots with decades of experience flying 757s say would have been next to impossible. First of all, they say, the plane would not have stayed in one piece with the stress that manoeuvre would have placed on its frame. Secondly, Hanjour did not have the skill to manage such a feat.

Air traffic controllers at Dulles International have said that they didn’t know the plane that appeared on their radar was Flight 77 because of the way it was moving.

“The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don’t fly a 757 in that manner,” said controller Danielle O’Brien.

Hanjour is supposed to have reduced his altitude very rapidly (dropping 7,000 feet in just two and a half minutes) until he was flying parallel to the ground and low enough to knock over five light posts before hitting the side of the building between the first and second floors – without doing any damage to the Pentagon lawn._
**

Source: Why ‘hijackers into the Pentagon’ story can’t fly



hadit said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



We clearly disagree on what explanation is more logical, but that could change given enough time.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


This isn't a question of Lagasse not seeing the poles when they were hit -- it's a matter of where he thought they were when he rushed to the Pentagon and saw them on the ground. He remembered them further north than they actually were. He remembered England's taxi being further north than it actually was. So naturally, he remembered the plane flying further north than it actually was. Lagasse's recollection of where the light poles were actually lends credibility to the official account.



phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > And the video evidence proves the plane flew south of the Citgo...
> ...


Who cares if it's pixelated? We know it's a low quality surveillance camera. But that shadow appears at the exact right time, at the exact right location, at the exact right angle; to match up perfectly with the plane flying south of the Citgo, clipping the light poles, hitting the generator, and flying into the Pentagon at a 42 degree angle.

You're only counter to that is _*"nuh-uh"*_ and to call it _"darkened pixels"_ after calling it the _"shadow from the plane."_


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


No, I'm not an expert on explosives. I'm also not a weatherman but I know when it's raining outside. There's nothing about the damage to that generator that appears to have been blown up. No one ever said they saw it blow up. There's no visible sign of any additional explosions on the Pentagon surveillance video. You're actually making shit up now because reality interferes with your unwitnessed conspiracy nonsense.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> What crucial evidence do you believe I'm ignoring?



Well for one .... Lloyd England.

You insist he staged the pole driving through his windshield but you have no evidence he's lying. You tried to claim it would have been impossible for that pole to spear his car without hitting the hood, yet he was there and explained how that occurred while you were not there and can't refute his claim.

Even worse for you -- if England (with or without help) staged that incident ... he wouldn't have removed the pole, sight unseen. He would have left it in place so the whole world could see the plane hit a light pole and drove it into his vehicle. But leaving evidence you claim was staged was not on his mind.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > An explosive powerful enough to do that damage to the Pentagon would have to have been placed outside - the exterior wall and the interior damage all occurred from the outside in) and would have done far more damage out there (and to the outer wall) than was done.
> ...



Wait ... let me be sure I understand you correctly. You post a link from Craig McKee - not an explosives expert - at something called Truth & Shadows (woooo) who gathered some random quotes - also from non-experts - and you conclude it was a controlled demo? And you want my credentials? Really? Where is your rampant skepticism when you truly need it?

Perhaps you should consider what the experts at the American Society of Engineers concluded ... unless, of course, you want to add them to your ever-growing list of co-conspirators:

On September 11, 2001, a hijacked commercial airliner was intentionally crashed into the building in an act of terrorism. One hundred eighty-nine persons were killed and a portion of the building was damaged by the associated impact, deflagration, and fire.

That same day the American Society of Civil Engineers established a building performance study (BPS) team (that included one NIST researcher) to examine the damaged structure and make recommendations for the future. Team members possess expertise in structural, fire, and forensic engineering. The BPS team's analysis of the Pentagon and the damage resulting from the attack was conducted between September 2001 and April 2002.

The members of the BPS team inspected the site as soon as was possible without interfering with the rescue and recovery operations. They reviewed the original plans, the renovation plans, and available information on the material properties of the structure. They scrutinized aircraft data, eyewitness information, and fatality records; consulted with the urban search and rescue engineers, the chief renovation engineer, and the engineer in charge of the crash site reconstruction; and examined the quick, focused assessments of the disaster conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Pentagon Renovation Program staff.

The BPS team concluded that the impact of the aircraft destroyed or significantly impaired approximately 50 structural columns. The ensuing fire weakened a number of other structural elements. However, only a very small segment of the affected structure collapsed, approximately 20 minutes after impact. The collapse, fatalities, and damage were mitigated by the Pentagon's resilient structural system. Very few upgraded windows installed during the renovation broke during the impact and deflagration of aircraft fuel.
Pentagon Building Performance Study 2001


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I did read a fair amount of Phil's article, but it's a long article. He makes a lot of points and postulates various theories. Some of his theories I find more plausible than others. I find his claim that the 9/11 passengers were all or atleast mostly willing participants, and that the goal was for them to assume new identities, to be a tenuous assertion. What I find far more interesting is pretty much everything else in the article, starting with the opening paragraph:

**_*M*ost people are not aware that there are issues with the 4 groups of people who flew on the 4 flights of 9/11 from 3 locations. There are so many issues it would take a newsroom full of dedicated reporters a long time to sift through it all. There are problems with the boarding of passengers on 3 flights. And on the 4th flight we find 2 boardings, an unusual event to say the least. Two of the aircraft, we are to believe didn't even take off on 9/11, as this is what registers in the BTS database for flights 11 & 77 on 911. Two of the aircraft that allegedly struck the towers, can be plausibly shown to be drones, calling into question both passenger and crew from those respective flights. (11 & 175) While flight 77 obviously didn't crash at the Pentagon from all evidence shown, and flight 77 is one of the 2 flight which BTS shows no departure time for. While flight 93 wasn't even a regular flight on 9/11, it was created in the last 2 hours before it flew. And as you will see are good reasons to believe Flight 93 was boarded twice at Newark. If this sounds confusing, it is because it was meant to be so. But I believe this article shows it is possible to make some simple sense out of the days events and tie them all together._**


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I said (and I quote): "I certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit. I thought you would understand the context within which I said it- that is, that I thought it was -possible- that there was video evidence of the Pentaplane passing the Citgo gas station. I never said that I believe that it proved that the Pentaplane flew north of the Citgo. Another point to consider- I was pretty much taking it on faith that there -was- evidence of a plane's shadow. As you may recall, you had to painstakingly point out a few darkened pixels to me, because prior to you doing so, I couldn't see anything that could even remotely be construed as a shadow of any kind.



Faun said:


> And best of all... there's nothing else those "darkened pixels" can be but the plane's shadow. It appears at precisely the exact right moment at the exact right location in the exact right angle of approach to what we know the real truth to be.



Meanwhile, some CIT supporters believe there's video evidence of a shadow near the Citgo gas station that provides evidence that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station:
NEW pentagon video


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 4, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > ...I've done no such thing. I certainly believe that a few people would have had to have been involved, and others may have been used and then killed once they unknowingly fulfilled their function. Certain Raytheon employees, allegedly on 3 of the 4 9/11 flights, come to mind. Others who undermined the official story concerning 9/11 after the fact also died deaths that I and others deem to be suspicious.....
> ...



I moved my response to a thread that deals with all aspects of 9/11, as I felt we're leaving the realm of the Pentagon alone...
9/11: What really happened on that day?


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 4, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > No one is saying that AA77 actually crashed...
> ...



Sorry, I was deeply involved in my discussion with Faun and failed to contextualize my statement for other readers. I meant to say that none of the Air Traffic Controllers were saying that AA77 actually crashed in the AA77 transcript page that Faun helpfully dug up. I was telling Faun that I -agreed- with him on this point.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 4, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> With C.I.T being at the heart of some CT arguments here, I thought it relevant to dig a bit deeper.
> 
> C.I.T. is the baby of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis whose agenda is (or was) to discredit the official report by carefully selecting a small number of interviews which seem to cast doubt on the official findings while excluding the many more that do not.



No it wasn't -.- They had heard various rumours, such as the notion that a missile had hit the Pentagon, and they set out to Arlington, Virginia, to try to find out what really happened. What they discovered from the interviews you mentioned was that yes, a plane -did- approach the Pentagon, but the flight path the witnesses with the best view approaching the Pentagon all said that the plane approached from a flight path that took it North of a Citgo gas station near the Pentagon, instead of south of this Citgo gas station, which was required in order to down the light polls and cause the damage found at the Pentagon.



SAYIT said:


> As an unintended consequence - or perhaps intended - their theories created a serious split in the 9/11 "Truther" Movement causing many prominent "Truthers" - Gage for one - to disavow C.I.T. and many more to specifically denounce its findings (Ashley) as "reliant on biased interpretations of broad statements made by less than 20 witnesses to the attack, 8 years after the event."



It's true that their findings caused a split within the Truth Movement. This is probably one of the reasons I like the subject so much- it's one of the most controversial areas to tread on 9/11, as even many in the Truth Movement disagree as to what happened there.



SAYIT said:


> The split (or splits) pitted one school of CT thought against another as they finally looked critically at the others and realized their theories conflicted or were even diametrically opposed.
> 
> What ensued was a free-for-all as each side complained that the other (or others) within the "Truther" Movement were actually mis or disinfo agents whose intention was to discredit the Movement itself.



There is some truth to what you say. I think it's unfortunate.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Sorry, I was deeply involved in my discussion with Faun and failed to contextualize my statement for other readers.* I meant to say that none of the Air Traffic Controllers were saying that AA77 actually crashed* in the AA77 transcript page that Faun helpfully dug up. I was telling Faun that I -agreed- with him on this point.


It's well documented that ATC followed the flight into the Pentagon.

Air Traffic Controllers Recall 9/11
_Across the nation, air traffic controllers watched as four airliners disappeared from radar screens as they were taken over by hijackers determined to cause death and destruction._....._"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."._..

I'm sure the second paragraph causes the CTers to go all atwitter, but note that it says it's unsafe to maneuver a 757 in that manner, not that it can't do it.


----------



## hadit (Oct 4, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I was deeply involved in my discussion with Faun and failed to contextualize my statement for other readers.* I meant to say that none of the Air Traffic Controllers were saying that AA77 actually crashed* in the AA77 transcript page that Faun helpfully dug up. I was telling Faun that I -agreed- with him on this point.
> ...


Actually, when you consider that the highjacker was NOT a seasoned pilot, it makes sense that he would be flying the plane in ways a seasoned pilot would not, meaning rapid descents and tight turns instead of long, gradual, carefully planned approaches.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


That video doesn't capture the Citgo, the plane, or its shadow. How on Earth do you contend it may prove the plane was on the north side of the Citgo?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 5, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> It's well documented that ATC followed the flight into the Pentagon.  Air Traffic Controllers Recall 9/11
> I'm sure the second paragraph causes the CTers to go all atwitter, but note that it says it's unsafe to maneuver a 757 in that manner, not that it can't do it.





hadit said:


> Actually, when you consider that the hijacker was NOT a seasoned pilot, it makes sense that he would be flying the plane in ways a seasoned pilot would not, meaning rapid descents and tight turns instead of long, gradual, carefully planned approaches.





Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, some CIT supporters believe there's video evidence of a shadow near the Citgo gas station that provides evidence that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station: NEW pentagon video
> ...



What is made crystal clear in the above exchanges with Phoenyx is that he isn't about an honest appraisal of 9/11 events but rather all about defending his CT belief system ... his religion.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



As mentioned in Post #270:
I said (and I quote): "I certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit." I thought you would understand the context within which I said it- that is, that I thought it was -possible- that there was video evidence of the Pentaplane passing the Citgo gas station. I never said that I believe that it proved that the Pentaplane flew north of the Citgo. Another point to consider- I was pretty much taking it on faith that there -was- evidence of a plane's shadow. As you may recall, you had to painstakingly point out a few darkened pixels to me, because prior to you doing so, I couldn't see anything that could even remotely be construed as a shadow of any kind.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That may well be true. CIT supporters were suggesting that a recorded shadow would support the North side approach. I didn't check to see if they were referring to the Citgo video or another video.



Faun said:


> What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the plane's shadow.



Just because -you- don't think what the CIT supporters saw may have been the Pentaplane's shadow doesn't mean it wasn't.



Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Please quote the passage where you believe I "insinuated" this.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > , but just in case you missed it, CIT came up with a list of people whose testimony suggest that a plane flew over the Pentagon:
> ...



Roosevelt Roberts' testimony can be a bit confusing- both I and Craig Ranke believe that he got his cardinal directions confused. Below Craig Ranke explains his testimony. I think the most important detail to remember is that he refers to the plane as having come from the direction of the "first plane" that hit the Pentagon. The thing is, the only other plane to get even remotely close to the Pentagon (a C130) was so high that the pilot of said plane couldn't even make out what the Pentaplane had hit- if he couldn't make out the Pentagon, it's hard to believe that Roosevelt would have made out the C130.

**_Your interpretation is not what he is describing. Yes he was confused regarding cardinal directions while relaying this over the phone during an off-the-cuff, surprise interview while he was driving. That is typical for any human and to be expected. 

But when he used landmarks it tells a different story.

"coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC"

And then later:

It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- (indistinguishable) came in. . . uh. . . a*lmost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there*. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction.


So the plane *came from* the alleged impact side where he thought the "first plane" "flew into the Pentagon". This is clear. Yet he called that "southwest" and the blast site is NOT southwest of him.
*
That's because he was confused when relaying cardinal directions during an off the cuff interview which is quite normal.*

No big deal.

And then when asked about where it banked the LANDMARK he used was *the Mall entrance side*.


Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, *it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side* and turned around


Again that is not southwest, it is north.

We have said from day one that Roosevelt's account is not 100% clear and we regret that he clammed up after he got scared and backed out of the on-camera interview he later promised.

But for YOU to parse his words and poke holes in what is admittedly not perfect testimony can be for no other purpose but to suggest he completely fabricated his account and is LYING even though he is corroborated by ALL the north side witnesses who prove with *scientific fact* that the plane did not hit._**

Source: Roosevelt Roberts Interview - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum


----------



## Faun (Oct 11, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


No matter how you try and spin it, you agreed it was the plane's shadow when you thought it proved a north of Citgo approach. Once you realized it proved a south of Citgo approach, it became "darkened pixels."



And regardless, there's nothing else it can be. It's in the exact right location at the exact right time for the exact approach to hit the lamp posts and the generator and fly into the Pentagon at a 42° angle.

You're done. Your acceptance is not actually needed.


----------



## Faun (Oct 11, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


Well then show me where there's a shadow from the plane on the Doubletree video.....


----------



## Faun (Oct 11, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


No matter what direction you imagine he says the plane was flying, he was clear when he says no more than 10 seconds elapsed between the plane hitting the Pentagon to him running outside to see the plane approaching the Pentagon. According to you, the plane reached the Pentagon at about the same moment of the explosion. 10 seconds later, at 400+ MPH, the plane would have cleared the Pentagon by the time he saw it. Yet he describes it as approaching the Pentagon.


----------



## phoenyx (Oct 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > , but just in case you missed it, CIT came up with a list of people whose testimony suggest that a plane flew over the Pentagon:
> ...



Here's CIT's take on Dewitt Roseborough...

**
_Thanks to the efforts of a poster at our forum who delivered the message, we were notified of an individual we believe is a genuine flyover witness found on the StevenWarren blogsite.

His name is Dewitt Roseborough.

His account was featured in an article by Craig Strawser, "Forever Changed."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBQ/is_/ai_93449441   [That link is now dead, but the article clearly exists, as can be seen here: FOREVER CHANGED ]

His account seems fairly cut and dry. He was leaving the Pentagon heading out to the South parking lot, when he head a roar "above his head" and he "looked up" , heard another roar and then saw "this plane". He said it was low and thought it was going to crash into the highway which we believe is 395 that he is referring to. Here are the excerpts from his interview..._

*QUOTE*
_It was as he was leaving the Pentagon that the world Roseborough knew changed forever. *"I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a 'lion's roar' above my head," *Roseborough said.

"It caught my attention, *and as I looked up*, I heard another roar and *I saw this airplane flying low*. I thought, 'Oh, my God, this thing is really low.' "*I thought it was going to crash onto the highway*," recalled Roseborough. _​_

So we have him leaving the Pentagon and getting out into the (South) parking lot. He hears the "roar above his head" and "looks up". This logically, one would assume, means he heard the sound above his head and looked up above his head while in the parking lot. He see's "this airplane", not 'the airplane'. Again, if he is seeing a plane in the south parking lot right above his head he can only be referring to 395 or possibly even 110.





_
*QUOTE*
_"Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'" _​_
This is very key. Just as he thought this plane that was above his head while he was in south parking lot was low and was going to crash into the highway, he saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. 

Now if he saw the plane approach on the official low level skim into the building he would not be standing there dumbfounded thinking, "What just happened?" He would know a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

It is pretty obvious that he saw the plane after it's flyover/away from the building in the south parking, THEN saw the fireball rise which is what made him dumbfounded wondering what had happened.
_
*QUOTE*
_As debris floated and flew his way, he realized he needed to take cover. "I ducked under a walkway for what seemed to be a long time, but actually was only about a minute," Roseborough said. "That's when I noticed this woman screaming out in the parking lot. It broke my 'shock state.'" He ran to her and helped calm her down. _​_




_
*QUOTE*
_[...]

"I've asked myself several times over, why, as a photographer, I didn't *immediately turn around* and start shooting photos when *the plane* hit? I guess my major concern at the time was with the people that were out there. That's one thing about being in the Navy for the last 20 years, seeing disasters and death; I've been prepared to react in the manner that I did," he said. "I just started making sure everyone was OK." _​_
This is also very important, he asks himself why didn't he "immediately turn around". The plane he saw was above his head and he had to *look up*. He was clearly later deducing what he would have had to have done to see "THE plane"... "turn around". Turning around (to the approach) is a lot different than looking up above his head.
_
*QUOTE*
_"The next day, I didn't go to work," he said. "*I was still trying to process everything that had happened.* I had just witnessed the worst disaster I'd ever seen, up close and personal. I was just *trying to piece everything together for a while. It was just an unbelievable thing*."

Roseborough summed up his feelings about Sept. 11, by saying that it was just a strange day. "*It was like you were watching a movie*, but you were the actor; you were in the movie. *It was the most incredible thing I've ever witnessed*" he said. _​_
It is evident that Dewitt did not see an impact. This would explain why he was "still trying to process everything that had happened" and was "trying to piece everything together for a while."_

_He saw "this plane" above his head and then a fireball rise over the Pentagon. Our guess is he carefully parsed/edited his words so as to ambiguously let the truth out or process his feeling and what he saw that day or someone parsed/edited it for him or the author._

_So we decided to contact Dewitt Roseborough. It took a while to get a hold of him but when we did Dewitt only revealed that he was a witness to the plane, is no longer active military, and that he has made it a policy to NOT talk about what he saw on 9/11._

_Download our phone call here:_

_http://www.thepentacon.com/DewittRoseborough.mp3_

[A brief excerpt from the call:
_Craig: We think you were in a prime position to see something that frankly contradicts the official story, and that's really what we....

Dewitt: Right.....*I understand what you're...and I appreciate what you are doing* but no, no thank you. But thank you anyway for calling._]
_
In light of the corroborating testimony from the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr who was also in the south parking lot, we feel that the reason behind Dewitt's refusal to discuss what he saw on that day is not a mystery.

This underscores why it is so difficult to find flyover witnesses.

If they understand what it is that they saw, they keep their mouths shut.

Only when they don't understand the implications and were convinced it was a "2nd plane" as Roosevelt initially was are they ever willing to talk._
**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > phoenyx said:
> ...


*Dewitt never said* he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Says he looked up and saw the plane flying so low, he thought it would hit the highway. It obviously didn't. Next thing he saw was a fireball come from over the Pentagon -- but no plane.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 12, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> Here's CIT's take on Dewitt Roseborough...



Here's a few "Truther" views on C.I.T. (there are too many to post here). They assert that C.I.T. is not only FoS but that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (C.I.T.) may well be willfully spreading disinformation intended to discredit the entire 9/11 CT Movement. I, for one, believe they have and extremely successfully as confirmed by the rapid decline of that movement:

Victoria Ashley - Co-founder of 9/11TruthNews.com - To Con A Movement:
This essay examines the work of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to prove that a complicated "magic show" occurred during the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the "flyover" theory). CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom they believe, indicate a different flight path from the accepted flight path (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary "evidence" for the flyover theory.
Or so we are led to believe.

Dr. Frank Legge, PhD - (Scientists for 9/11 Truth) - The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path
Unfortunately the well presented videos and website of CIT have impressed a lot of people, so dissension has arisen, which is destructive to the 9/11 Truth movement. *Michiel de Boer has suggested that the accumulated evidence that a large commercial aircraft hit and damaged the Pentagon is now so substantial that we should plainly assert that impact did occur*. 16 The natural corollary to the proposition that impact occurred is that the claimed north path, and consequent flyover of the Pentagon, is false. The physical implausibility of the north path proposition will be demonstrated in this paper.

We do not assert that CIT is deliberately setting up false theories in order to expose the 9/11 Truth Movement to ridicule, but that is likely to be the ultimate effect of their efforts.

Richard Gage - A&E For 9/11 Truth - Richard Gage Completely Withdraws Support from CIT | 9/11 Truth News
I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. *The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion*, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.

I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. *The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon.* (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.* I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.*

Peter Dale Scott -      Peter Dale Scott Withdraws Endorsement of CIT | 9/11 Truth News
Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT’s assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did. In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT’s methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

Jim Hoffman - Founder, 9/11Research.wtc7.net - 9-11 Research: An Independent Investigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack
The Pentagon 'flyover theory' is the central premise of _The PentaCon_, despite the fact neither CIT nor any of its supporters has provided a detailed account of how the "magic trick" could have been accomplished. That theory isn't even remotely plausible when one considers the number of observers who would have had a clear view of the purported overflight, even if the maneuver were engineered to be as inconspicuous as possible. Given the topography of the Pentagon's immediate surroundings, with its vast parking lots, highways and access roads of at least six lanes on each of its sides, and highrise buildings starting 300 feet to the south, such an event would have been witnessed by hundreds at least, as an unmistakable sight of a commercial jetliner leaving a huge explosion, as if it had bombed the building. The thunderous sound of the explosion would have guaranteed that most of the people in a position to see the event would have turned their heads to see the explosion and the plane in close proximity. The same witnesses would have been riveted to the action as the plane departed from the scene, whether it made a spectacular banking turn to land at National Airport, or made an equally spectacular climb away from the Pentagon over the Potomac.

Had that happened, nothing could have silenced the hundreds of diverse witnesses who saw something so unmistakable and so utterly irreconcilable with the official story that the silver jetliner had hit the Pentagon. Had that happened, CIT would have more to work with than a few witnesses who recalled seeing the jetliner flying to the north instead of the south of the Citgo station.


----------



## C.Doran (Feb 28, 2017)

How many blogs, forums , debates, articles have been devoted to discussing CIT and their flyover theory , for over a decade? How is it in all that discussion and endless arguments I have never seen anyone clearly point out that the conclusion that CIT present , that they say they proved beyond a reasonable doubt, was based on a piece of  illogical deduction? This is not about this witness said this or that or whether their conclusion is far fetched and bizarre - which it obviously is - but the fact that they broke the most basic rules of logical deduction that apply to investigating evidence about anything. Their argument is not logical and therefore has no credibility. Why has no one pointed this out? Why have the people who criticise them and produce these long articles not recognised the simple fact that CIT did not follow the basic rules of logical deduction? As for the people who supported them, people with PhDs and academic qualifications , what their excuse is for not spotting  a piece of illogical deduction I really can't imagine. They have been looking at it for  long enough.


----------



## C.Doran (Mar 4, 2017)

The whole dispute between CIT and  their critics was caused by one group of people who used an illogical argument to arrive at a conclusion, thinking it was a logical conclusion,   and another group who knew there was something wrong with the conclusion but didn't identify the simple fact that it was illogical. It wasn't about the details ,it was about the logical basis of the argument. 
  CIT  were so convinced they had logically conclusively proven something that they were absolutely incensed that anyone would be disputing it, and trying to explain to themselves why they were being attacked for their  indisputable conclusion. It must be because they are disinformation agents trying to hide CIT's  simple but conclusive proof.  Their critics meanwhile failed to recognise the flawed logic in CIT's reasoning and got bogged down in the details, a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees.


----------



## Faun (Mar 5, 2017)

C.Doran said:


> The whole dispute between CIT and  their critics was caused by one group of people who used an illogical argument to arrive at a conclusion, thinking it was a logical conclusion,   and another group who knew there was something wrong with the conclusion but didn't identify the simple fact that it was illogical. It wasn't about the details ,it was about the logical basis of the argument.
> CIT  were so convinced they had logically conclusively proven something that they were absolutely incensed that anyone would be disputing it, and trying to explain to themselves why they were being attacked for their  indisputable conclusion. It must be because they are disinformation agents trying to hide CIT's  simple but conclusive proof.  Their critics meanwhile failed to recognise the flawed logic in CIT's reasoning and got bogged down in the details, a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees.


I admire your efforts to bring this thread back to life like Frankenstein's monster -- but it's been thoroughly refuted. Even the OP had finally given up.


----------



## C.Doran (Mar 5, 2017)

CIT's nonsense could have been refuted 10 years ago if people had correctly identified what the problem was with it. I have never seen anyone clearly identify the fact that CIT's conclusions  were the result of a failure to follow the basic rules of logical deduction. They thought they had followed the rules but they hadn't making their conclusions invalid. The people who disputed their conclusions never clearly identify this  but got bogged down in details about this or that witness or the scientific method etc.


----------



## Faun (Mar 5, 2017)

C.Doran said:


> CIT's nonsense could have been refuted 10 years ago if people had correctly identified what the problem was with it. I have never seen anyone clearly identify the fact that CIT's conclusions  were the result of a failure to follow the basic rules of logical deduction. They thought they had followed the rules but they hadn't making their conclusions invalid. The people who disputed their conclusions never clearly identify this  but got bogged down in details about this or that witness or the scientific method etc.


It's done. Move on.


----------



## C.Doran (Mar 5, 2017)

Faun said:


> C.Doran said:
> 
> 
> > CIT's nonsense could have been refuted 10 years ago if people had correctly identified what the problem was with it. I have never seen anyone clearly identify the fact that CIT's conclusions  were the result of a failure to follow the basic rules of logical deduction. They thought they had followed the rules but they hadn't making their conclusions invalid. The people who disputed their conclusions never clearly identify this  but got bogged down in details about this or that witness or the scientific method etc.
> ...


 

Is the thread closed for comments? Other people may like to comment. The issue of how people should or shouldn't assess evidence , about anything,  is always important  and relevant - people on juries do it all the time.


----------



## Faun (Mar 5, 2017)

C.Doran said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > C.Doran said:
> ...


Of course this thread is not closed for comment. How could we be posting here if it was? 

I'm merely pointing out you're beating a dead horse.


----------



## C.Doran (Mar 5, 2017)

Faun said:


> C.Doran said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





I'm doing a post-mortem on a dead horse whose illness that was misdiagnosed.


----------



## C.Doran (Mar 10, 2017)

C.Doran said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > C.Doran said:
> ...





It actually turned out to be a pantomime horse...


----------

