911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[phoenyx]

It's quite revealing that you trust and respect truth & shadows despite their blatant lies.

Hell, you even posted a monstrous lie of theirs yourself.... quoting you, quoting them...

The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact.

...that's a bald-faced lie intended to fool gullible Twoofers into believing a 757 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and fit into a 20 foot hole. But the sad reality for truth & shadows, as well as for you.... is that 20 foot hole is not actually on the "outer ring of the Pentagon," as they falsely portay; but actually on the middle ring. Meaning that AA77 traveled through 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon before debris from the plane finally punched that 20 foot hole on the back side of the C-ring. The outer ring of the Pentagon is the E-ring, which had about 75 feet across of damage, not 20 feet as Twoofers lie about.

Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***

Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11 Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

Why did you just completely ignore what I said? Truth & Shadows portayed the 20 foot hole in the C-ring as though it were the entry point in the E-ring. That's a bald-faced lie.

I didn't measure the entry hole to the Pentagon. What size do you believe it was?

Not only did you repeat that bald-faced lie in this forum, you openly expressed your trust and respect for that organization.

I definitely trust and respect Craig Mckee and his "Truth and Shadows" website. That doesn't mean that he can't make mistakes.

An apology from you for trying to deceive the forum

I have never tried to deceive anyone here, and I'm still not sure why you think I have, but if you have what you believe to be evidence that I have, by all means present it.

 

[phoenyx]

where is the missing jet if it didn't hit the pentagon?

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

So you clearly don't.

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

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



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

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

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

View attachment 80430

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

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

Thank you for providing those pictures. I've traced them back to their site of origin, and I can see that they are from the Moussaoui trial. For those who don't know how to find their source, they are here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200047.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200042.jpg

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

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

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

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

These points are all old hat. CIT has another FAQ page for the question of Flight 77's DNA evidence:
**
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?
These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building.**

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

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

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

 

[phoenyx]

Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***

Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11 Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

Draw that with your own crayon?

I didn't draw it, I found it online. I imagine it took a little more work then the yellow circle you have in the picture below...

Yeah, accuracy takes more time than cartoonish renderings of [insult removed]

The picture I posted has an actual plane outline inserted into the picture. Your picture has circle where you believe one of AA77's 757 engines hit. Mine accounts for the damage that the -entire- plane should have done, yours just focuses on a particular part, while not accounting for the rest of the plane. And you talk about accuracy -.-

The yellow circle shows where the bottom of the port engine clipped the concrete surrounding what looked to be a Helipad outside of the Pentagon.

I must admit, you've got some imagination. But hey, if you want to believe that this picture has a "gash in the upper left hand corner" of the generator that "perfectly coincides with the outside of the starboard engine of a 757", be my guest. People are free to theorize whatever they like, regardless of how far into conjecture their theories go...

Yeah [insult removed], it's more physical evidence that buries your "theory" even further.

Actually, it's your imagination at work. But keep on telling yourself that it's "physical evidence" if you like.

Can you account for the giant gash in the generator? No.
Can you account for the gash in the concrete? No.

No one denies there was at least one explosion at the Pentagon, possibly more. Explosions can certainly cause a great deal of damage.

That they happen to line up pretty well with where the engines of a 757 would be relative to one another? Coincidence.

Or staged, as the light poles were. Regardless, they did a sloppy staging job at the Pentagon, for reasons I have mentioned in the past.

The fire that's involving the Generator?

Explosions can create fires...

 

[phoenyx]

So where else is there to go with this debate when I have evidence on my side whereas you have nothing but abject denial on yours?

Look, you want to believe that, you go right ahead. No one's forcing you to discuss things with me, or anyone else in this sub forum. I am fond of an old line: "Never argue with someone who knows they're right". It's a waste of time. Sometimes, the key to learning is to accept the possibility that your beliefs may not be correct. Or as Mark Twain once put it: "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."

What else is there to believe?

That maybe, just maybe, you're mistaken in a great many things concerning 9/11?

I'm showing physical evidence supporting the reality that a plane was flown into the Pentagon,

Your saying it's a "reality" doesn't actually make it so. I've already gone over all of your so called "evidence" and pointed out its flaws, but you've apparently forgotten judging by your stance here...

just as many eyewitnesses described....

The witnesses that CIT actually managed to film all put the plane on a North of Citgo flight path, which is inconsistent with the damage at the Pentagon.

The downed poles,

Which could have been staged...
Frequently Asked Questions >> How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

the 75+ foot wide swath of damage,

Explosives could certainly make such damage, no need for a plane...

the direction of the debris field,

Is inconsistent with the all of the witnesses interviewed by CIT, suggesting something else created said debris field (explosives maybe?)...

plane parts found among the debris,

Given all the other evidence, I strongly believe those parts were most likely planted.

DNA from passengers of flight #77,

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

documents linked to passengers known to be on that flight,

See above FAQ on DNA evidence, I imagine it would apply to the documents as well...

video evidence a plane flew into the building....

Frequently Asked Questions » Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?

 

[phoenyx]

You may well be right about that. Given the evidence, this leaves only one possibility- that it flew over it. But enough of what I and many others who disagree with the official story believe. What version of the -official- story do -you- believe? Did the aircraft fly according to the NTSB data, the 9/11 Commission data, or actual physical damage path? You can only choose one, as none of these versions concord with each other...

Now you're lying again... flying over the Pentagon is not actually the only remaining possibility.

Do you really think I’m trying to deceive you?

Yes.

I see. What would my motive be?

Obviously, you've got mental issues...

Why did I even bother asking -.-? You sound just like those accusing you and others of being shills without actually providing any evidence.

 

[phoenyx]

I have no desire to bring forward any witnesses. We've, or I, have moved beyond trying to prove anything to you since you're clearly only going to deny anything and everything which doesn't fit into your imagination of what happened. Evidence of this lies in my belief I have absolutely zero doubt that someone who has spent as much time researching this as you say you have, has already seen the witnesses who have stated they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. So why on Earth would you ask me to show you what you have already seen except to set you up with yet more denials?

Yes, some people -believe- they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. It certainly flew very close to the Pentagon, but if you were to actually closely examine the testimony from the credible witnesses who've made this allegation as CIT has, you'd see that they placed the plane on a flight path that simply couldn't have caused the damage that the Pentagon sustained. As Sherlock Holmes once said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?

None put it quite like that, but these are the witnesses that CIT lists as flyover/away witnesses:
**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

None of those people claim they saw any plane over the Pentagon.

Erik Dihle's co-workers' accounts sounds mighty close to just that. "A bomb hit and a jet kept going" sounds a lot like a flyover to me. Or do you think that after arriving at the pentagon, the plane took an instantaneous 90 degree angle turn like some UFOs have reportedly done?

Roberts said he saw another plane (after the explosion) heading SW (opposite direction of AA77) over the south parking lot.

There was no other plane in the vicinity for another 3 minutes after the explosion, meaning the plane he saw had to be the plane alleged to have caused the explosion. From a CIT article:
**
Roosevelt's is one of the most important accounts presented since he actually witnessed the plane flying away from the building immediately after the explosion.

In this official interview, recorded only a few weeks after the event, you can hear Roosevelt describe it as what he thought was a "second plane."

The pertinent details regarding timing, altitude, and description were confirmed in our independent audio interview recorded in 2008, which can be heard in Part 2 of our presentation The North Side Flyover. Excerpts of this interview are also featured in our video National Security Alert.

We now know for a fact that the only explanation for the "commercial aircraft" that he describes at about "50 feet" altitude banking and flying away from the building immediately after the explosion could only have been the same attack jet that everyone else witnessed banking on the north side flight path seconds earlier on its approach toward the Pentagon.
**

Source: Evidence » Official Interviews

Roseborough did not say he saw any plane over the Pentagon.

True. He saw it in the Pentagon's parking lot...
**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.

"Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'"**

Source: Dewitt D. Roseborough III

Here's the thing- only one plane could have been in the Pentagon parking lot moments before the explosion at the Pentagon was the plane that approached the Pentagon before the explosion. The next plane to pass by the Pentagon took another 2-3 minutes.

Dihle did not say he saw a plane period as he was inside the Pentagon when the plane hit.

CIT never stated that Dihle saw the plane, you didn't read what CIT wrote carefully. I'll quote it again:
"3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going""

De La Cerda did not say it flew over the Pentagon, she said it flew to the Pentagon.

We all agree that the plane flew to the Pentagon, what's important is what happened after that point. She reported 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"."

The thing is, there is no damage to the top of the Pentagon. If it had simply flown -over- the Pentagon, though, it makes sense.

Some folks did say they saw a second plane. Some of whom described it as a 4 engine propeller plane and at least one said it veered off after a commercial jet hit the Pentagon. But given there was an airport about a mile away and lots of air traffic in the vicinity that morning, it's neither surprising nor a conspiracy that some people saw another plane.

Just because some believed there was a second plane in the vicinity at the time of the Pentagon attack doesn't mean there was. CIT has gone into this issue at length, here:
The 2nd Plane Cover Story

 

[Faun]

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

Actually [insult removed], it’s 3 someones. A blue and white striped shirt proves it was not a member of the military.

I'm not denying that people in the Pentagon died- we're focused on the person who you believe was not in the military. There's a few issues here:
1- Who provided the photo? This is important because
2- How do we know that photo came from the Pentagon?
3- Are you suggesting that no one in the military enters the Pentagon?
4- Are you suggesting that no one in the military would wear a striped shirt in the Pentagon?

As for the other picture of what appears to be a youth…that speaks for itself.

That speaks for your belief that it was a youth. Besides, April Gallup, a Pentagon employee at the time, had her infant son in the Pentagon. Ever heard of her? She doesn't believe the official story either); it's certainly possible for youth to be in the building.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

And of course, here we go again with me asking you a question and you answering it with posting a link to a FAQ. I’m growing weary of your antics [insult removed] so I’ll just assume you’re saying they were planted.

If you would actually stop to click and -read- the articles, you wouldn't have to assume anything -.-. Fine, I'll do it for you...

**Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?
Yes, they did. There was a huge explosion which took place at the same time the plane flew over the Pentagon. This explosion killed 125 people who were inside the Pentagon at the time. Given this fact, the mere presence of dead bodies does not prove that the plane hit the building. Theunanimous placement of the plane on the north side flight path by every eyewitness who has been willing to go on record in an independent interview and who was in a position judge where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo gas station and Navy Annex proves that the plane did not hit the building or light poles, and thus did not cause the deadly explosion.

Numerous first responders and Pentagon workers have serious questions about the official story. Take a look at these powerful words of encouragement that we received from a still-enlisted Pentagon employee who heroically saved lives during the recovery efforts on 9/11.

The writer of the letter above is one of the people in this picture**

We’ll move on to the next pieces of physical evidence:

So far we have the following in your accounting for physical evidence:

1. Wreckage outside the pentagon: Planted

Likely, yes. There certainly wasn't much.

1. Wreckage inside the pentagon: Planted

Or pictures from somewhere other then the Pentagon were introduced as evidence for what was inside the Pentagon. Or evidence was 'planted' via photoshop.

1. Light Pole 1: Planted

Yes.

1. Lloyd England’s cab: Staged

Yes.

1. Why the Perps would have a cabbie on the payroll? Never explained

That would be Rule #14 in Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation:
"14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely"

1. Why the Perps would make him available for interviews? Never explained

You're assuming that the perps had an iron grip on everyone involved and that no one would make any decisions without consulting some master perp.

1. Light Pole 2: Planted
2. Light Pole 3: Planted
3. Light Pole 4: Planted
4. Light Pole 5: Planted

Yes.

1. Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Faked

Just because you imagine that the damage was caused by the 757 starboard engine doesn't mean that was the case.

1. Fire of Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Started after the explosion

I've never mentioned much about the generator- I imagine it happened at the initial explosion happened at the Pentagon, but I don't know for sure.

About at the 3rd bullet point, one gets the message that it would have been easier to simply hijack a plane and have it crash into the Pentagon.

If their goal had simply been to crash a plane into the Pentagon, I imagine they would have done that. Also, assuming the official story concerning Flight 77's flight path was true, the Pentagon could have been hit a lot faster if it had been hit somewhere other then the budget analyst's wing. Here's an article I imagine you won't click on, let alone read at length, but I'll post it anyway just in case the mood strikes...
Pentagon Missing Trillions - CBS Reports Pentagon Missing $2.3 Trillion

Lets talk Phone calls.

Renee May called her mother who, in turn, called American Airlines to tell them that AA77 was hijacked. This too is an exhibit in the Mousaui Trial:

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

Care to explain that?

I can certainly give you some interesting information on the 9/11 calls in general, and even some specific information on the call Renee May's parents apparently received. What is below is excerpted from a much longer article. You may want to look at the entire linked article, but somehow I doubt you will...

**Where might the calls have come from?

Three people in the Solicitor General’s office and two AT&T operators reported having had contact with the Olson calls from Flight 77. [27]

Renee May’s parents also reported receiving a phone call from their daughter. [28]

How is it possible to reconcile these reports with the lack of substantiating telephone records?

Perhaps we need to look outside the box. The fact that people received these calls does not necessarily mean that the calls were made from Flight 77.

Just as it has come to light in a recent study that over a dozen aircraft were unwittingly transmitting the hijack code (7500) on the morning of 9/11 [29], it has also come to light that in 2001, “it was theoretically possible to route an [AT&T] call from one location, through a ground site, to an aircraft and then back down to another ground site.” [30]

If this was possible, then the voice morphing [31] of two calls from Barbara Olson and one call from Renee May, and routing them from the ground through Flight 77 and back, would not have been out of the question.

It would certainly explain why the billing records were not available.**

Source: 9/11: What the Telephone Records Reveal about Calls from AA Flight 77: Did Barbara Olson Attempt Any Calls at All?

Here's an excerpt from Renee May's profile at History Commons. A lot of conflicting information in the media concerning exactly what happened...

**
(9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 77 Attendant Calls Parents and Confirms Hijacking, but Accounts Are Contradictory

Renee May. [Source: Family photo]Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, calls her parents in Las Vegas and reports her plane has been hijacked. [9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 9; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006] According to author Tom Murphy, May previously tried calling the American Airlines flight services office at Washington’s Reagan National Airport, but all the lines there were busy.[MURPHY, 2006, PP. 56-57] However, a summary of the phone calls made from the four hijacked planes that is presented at the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial will make no mention of this earlier call. May’s first attempt at calling her parents, at 9:11 a.m., had not connected, but her second attempt a minute later is successful, and the call lasts for two-and-a-half minutes. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006]According to reports shortly after 9/11 in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, May makes her call using a cell phone. [LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/13/2001; LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/15/2001] But at the Moussaoui trial it will be claimed she uses an Airfone. [US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006, PP. 7 ] According to most accounts, including that of the 9/11 Commission, she speaks to her mother, Nancy May. [LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/13/2001; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 9; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006, PP. 7 ] But according to Murphy, she speaks with her father, Ronald May. [MURPHY, 2006, PP. 57] Renee reports that her plane is being hijacked. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31] Although it will be officially claimed that there are five hijackers on Flight 77, she says six individuals have taken over the plane (see Between 9:12 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. September 11, 2001). [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 9/27/2001; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 2-3 AND 9] Renee says the hijackers have moved people to the rear of the aircraft, though it is unclear whether she is referring to all of the passengers or just the flight’s crew. She tells her parent (either her mother or father, depending on the account) to call American Airlines and inform it of the hijacking. She gives three numbers in Northern Virginia to call. Before the time Flight 77 crashes, Renee May’s mother (or her father, according to Murphy) is able to contact an American Airlines employee at Reagan National Airport and pass on what their daughter has reported (see (Between 9:15 a.m. and 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31; MURPHY, 2006, PP. 57]

Entity Tags: Ronald May, Nancy May, Renee May

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
**

Source: Profile: Renee May | History Commons

No one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. That's as far as I got in your post since I figured if that's bullshit, so is everything that followed.

 

[Faun]

Or a single piece of evidence that those passengers were killed somewhere else...

I've given quite a bit of evidence on that front, actually. Namely, the tons of evidence that a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. I know you don't accept it at the moment though, so we can continue to go over it if you wish. I snipped out the rest of your message, it was mainly insults anyway.

You've presented no evidence other than a handful of witnesses who claim something that a hundred other witnesses did not claim

The witnesses that CIT has presented are the witnesses who were closest to the alleged impact. In other words, they're the most credible witnesses. As to these alleged "hundred other witnesses", CIT has already dealt with that yarn...
Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

There's also the NTSB flight path data and the 9/11 Commission flight path data, neither of which concords with the physical damage path, but you seem to constantly ignore this.

Oh, and by the way.... denials are not evidence.

Exactly. If only you would apply this bit of wisdom to your own denials...

And denials are all you have. Some are quite delusional, like the two photos of the same Pentagon wall you think are different because the lighting is different.

So if someone disagrees with you, they're delusional -.-? -Prove- to me that those 2 walls were one and the same, or let this go.

And you didn't deal with the witnesses I offered earlier.... you denied they saw what they said they saw.

The world according to Faun -.-. From what I have seen, CIT has already dealt with all the witnesses I know of that have a first and a last name. Witnesses can certainly confuse what they were told happened with what actually happened, especially if they weren't in a good vantage point to truly discern the truth.

As far as your claim that I gave you no reasons for why I dismissed the CIT witnesses... You're lying again.

Whatever -.-

Why do you keep lying if truth and reality were actually on your side?

In fact, I gave you multiple reasons.... most importantly, the field of debris rejects any notion that the plane flew straight into the Pentagon; and that is their claim.

You reject what I believe is far more likely- that the plane never hit the Pentagon at all.

Secondly, Many of them never gave public interviews prior to CIT recording them, which they did many years after 9.11.

Some did, but you pay no attention to them either.

Thirdly, their claims contradict all of the other witnesses who said they saw the plane flying up either Columbia Pike or 395.

Again, they are the witnesses who were closest to the Pentagon from what I can tell, and they are very consistent in where they place the plane. You can go on about "witnesses", but unless you give them names, they will simply remain anonymous, hardly compelling evidence.

They were not the closest. If I'm not mistaken, some of them couldn't even see the first floor of the Pentagon where the plane hit. But there were others who were closer. There were many folks in their cars on the highways adjacent to the Pentagon. So now you're presenting bullshit on top of bullshit.

And again... no one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. So that is complete nonsense and a complete revision of what actually happened.

And no, a person is not delusional just because they disagree with me... but they are delusional when they disagree with the laws of physics. It's impossible for the plane to have come from north of the Citco. That's not my opinion -- it's physics. The debris field indicates the direction the plane was traveling when is struck the Pentagon.... and it wasn't straight in, as it would have been had the plane flown in from north of the Citco.

Just because you're willing to suspend reality to conform to your beliefs doesn't mean others will.

And no, CIT has not dealt with all of the witnesses. Some they could not find and some wouldn't talk to them. Most witnesses on 9.11 who described where the plane came from said either Columbia Pike or 395, which runs right along side.

As far as your nonsense the plane never hit the Pentagon, there is simply no evidence to support that. There is plenty of evidence supporting that it did. The only eyewitness accounts you rely on to support your delusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon, as opposed to into it, even though no one said they saw that -- is pointing to witnesses who said they saw the plane fly overhead, disappear from their view, and then saw the ensuing fireball. According to twoofers, that's all the evidence needed prove the plane wasn't flown onto the Pentagon.

None of the witnesses who said they saw it fly into the Pentagon matters. None of the pieces of plane found matters. None of the destruction resembling what one would expect from a plane matters. None of the items found from passengers, including DNA, matters. The fact that planes were being flown into buildings that same morning in NYC matters. People getting phone calls from passengers on flight 93, confirming their flight was hijacked like the others, matters.

This is exactly the reason rational people scoff at twoofers. Like your fellow Twoofer who actually believes it wasn't planes flown into the Twin Towers... it was a projection. Despite the harsh reality that no such technology exists. Not today, and certainly not 15 years ago. You people have to disregard reality so that your contorted views fit neatly into your deranged brain.

 

[Faun]

It's quite revealing that you trust and respect truth & shadows despite their blatant lies.

Hell, you even posted a monstrous lie of theirs yourself.... quoting you, quoting them...

The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact.

...that's a bald-faced lie intended to fool gullible Twoofers into believing a 757 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and fit into a 20 foot hole. But the sad reality for truth & shadows, as well as for you.... is that 20 foot hole is not actually on the "outer ring of the Pentagon," as they falsely portay; but actually on the middle ring. Meaning that AA77 traveled through 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon before debris from the plane finally punched that 20 foot hole on the back side of the C-ring. The outer ring of the Pentagon is the E-ring, which had about 75 feet across of damage, not 20 feet as Twoofers lie about.

Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***

Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11 Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

Why did you just completely ignore what I said? Truth & Shadows portayed the 20 foot hole in the C-ring as though it were the entry point in the E-ring. That's a bald-faced lie.

I didn't measure the entry hole to the Pentagon. What size do you believe it was?

Not only did you repeat that bald-faced lie in this forum, you openly expressed your trust and respect for that organization.

I definitely trust and respect Craig Mckee and his "Truth and Shadows" website. That doesn't mean that he can't make mistakes.

An apology from you for trying to deceive the forum

I have never tried to deceive anyone here, and I'm still not sure why you think I have, but if you have what you believe to be evidence that I have, by all means present it.

You posted a photo of the 20 foot hole in the C-ring, along with an article portaying that as the plane's entry point in the E-ring.

That you can't comprehend the dishonesty of that reveals much about where your head is at.

And personally, any "trust" and "respect" I have for any website would have been lost the moment I saw them promoting such bullshit. Case in point... truthout.org. I used to rely on them as a source until the day they posted their bullshit about Karl Rove about to be arrested in the Valerie Plame incident. Why would I "trust" them or "respect" them after that? Why would you "trust" or "respect" Truth & Shadows after they promoted the bullshit about that 20 foot hole being where AA77 flew in?

Because you don't give a shit about the truth. That's why so many people mock the moniker, Truthers. Hense... Twoofers.

 

[Faun]

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

View attachment 80430

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

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

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

You're lying again... there is no "solid evidence" the plane did not fly into the Pentagon. At best, there are some witnesses who didn't see the plane fly into it; but they're not saying they saw the plane fly over it. They just didn't happen to catch the actual impact.

But this is where your lies crumble.... many witnesses did see the plane fly right into the Pentagon.

 

[Faun]

Thank you for providing those pictures. I've traced them back to their site of origin, and I can see that they are from the Moussaoui trial. For those who don't know how to find their source, they are here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200047.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200042.jpg

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

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

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

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

These points are all old hat. CIT has another FAQ page for the question of Flight 77's DNA evidence:
**
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?
These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building.**

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

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

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

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

Ok... now discuss....

 

[Faun]

So where else is there to go with this debate when I have evidence on my side whereas you have nothing but abject denial on yours?

Look, you want to believe that, you go right ahead. No one's forcing you to discuss things with me, or anyone else in this sub forum. I am fond of an old line: "Never argue with someone who knows they're right". It's a waste of time. Sometimes, the key to learning is to accept the possibility that your beliefs may not be correct. Or as Mark Twain once put it: "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."

What else is there to believe?

That maybe, just maybe, you're mistaken in a great many things concerning 9/11?

I'm showing physical evidence supporting the reality that a plane was flown into the Pentagon,

Your saying it's a "reality" doesn't actually make it so. I've already gone over all of your so called "evidence" and pointed out its flaws, but you've apparently forgotten judging by your stance here...

just as many eyewitnesses described....

The witnesses that CIT actually managed to film all put the plane on a North of Citgo flight path, which is inconsistent with the damage at the Pentagon.

The downed poles,

Which could have been staged...
Frequently Asked Questions >> How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

the 75+ foot wide swath of damage,

Explosives could certainly make such damage, no need for a plane...

the direction of the debris field,

Is inconsistent with the all of the witnesses interviewed by CIT, suggesting something else created said debris field (explosives maybe?)...

plane parts found among the debris,

Given all the other evidence, I strongly believe those parts were most likely planted.

DNA from passengers of flight #77,

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

documents linked to passengers known to be on that flight,

See above FAQ on DNA evidence, I imagine it would apply to the documents as well...

video evidence a plane flew into the building....

Frequently Asked Questions » Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?

You've not pointed out flaws... you've injected doubt in the form of denials. Those are not flaws. They're subjective opinion designed to obfuscate what actually happened.

 

[hadit]

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

View attachment 80430

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

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

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

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

 

[hadit]

Thank you for providing those pictures. I've traced them back to their site of origin, and I can see that they are from the Moussaoui trial. For those who don't know how to find their source, they are here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200047.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200042.jpg

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

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

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

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

These points are all old hat. CIT has another FAQ page for the question of Flight 77's DNA evidence:
**
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?
These "DNA reports" are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon. Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building.**

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

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

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

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

Ok... now discuss....

To create all the evidence that points to direct plane impacts would be a greater effort than to just fly the darn planes into the darn buildings.

 

[phoenyx]

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

Actually [insult removed], it’s 3 someones. A blue and white striped shirt proves it was not a member of the military.

I'm not denying that people in the Pentagon died- we're focused on the person who you believe was not in the military. There's a few issues here:
1- Who provided the photo? This is important because
2- How do we know that photo came from the Pentagon?
3- Are you suggesting that no one in the military enters the Pentagon?
4- Are you suggesting that no one in the military would wear a striped shirt in the Pentagon?

As for the other picture of what appears to be a youth…that speaks for itself.

That speaks for your belief that it was a youth. Besides, April Gallup, a Pentagon employee at the time, had her infant son in the Pentagon. Ever heard of her? She doesn't believe the official story either); it's certainly possible for youth to be in the building.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

And of course, here we go again with me asking you a question and you answering it with posting a link to a FAQ. I’m growing weary of your antics [insult removed] so I’ll just assume you’re saying they were planted.

If you would actually stop to click and -read- the articles, you wouldn't have to assume anything -.-. Fine, I'll do it for you...

**Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?
Yes, they did. There was a huge explosion which took place at the same time the plane flew over the Pentagon. This explosion killed 125 people who were inside the Pentagon at the time. Given this fact, the mere presence of dead bodies does not prove that the plane hit the building. Theunanimous placement of the plane on the north side flight path by every eyewitness who has been willing to go on record in an independent interview and who was in a position judge where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo gas station and Navy Annex proves that the plane did not hit the building or light poles, and thus did not cause the deadly explosion.

Numerous first responders and Pentagon workers have serious questions about the official story. Take a look at these powerful words of encouragement that we received from a still-enlisted Pentagon employee who heroically saved lives during the recovery efforts on 9/11.

The writer of the letter above is one of the people in this picture**

We’ll move on to the next pieces of physical evidence:

So far we have the following in your accounting for physical evidence:

1. Wreckage outside the pentagon: Planted

Likely, yes. There certainly wasn't much.

1. Wreckage inside the pentagon: Planted

Or pictures from somewhere other then the Pentagon were introduced as evidence for what was inside the Pentagon. Or evidence was 'planted' via photoshop.

1. Light Pole 1: Planted

Yes.

1. Lloyd England’s cab: Staged

Yes.

1. Why the Perps would have a cabbie on the payroll? Never explained

That would be Rule #14 in Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation:
"14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely"

1. Why the Perps would make him available for interviews? Never explained

You're assuming that the perps had an iron grip on everyone involved and that no one would make any decisions without consulting some master perp.

1. Light Pole 2: Planted
2. Light Pole 3: Planted
3. Light Pole 4: Planted
4. Light Pole 5: Planted

Yes.

1. Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Faked

Just because you imagine that the damage was caused by the 757 starboard engine doesn't mean that was the case.

1. Fire of Super Large generator with obvious 757 starboard engine gash out of the upper right side of it: Started after the explosion

I've never mentioned much about the generator- I imagine it happened at the initial explosion happened at the Pentagon, but I don't know for sure.

About at the 3rd bullet point, one gets the message that it would have been easier to simply hijack a plane and have it crash into the Pentagon.

If their goal had simply been to crash a plane into the Pentagon, I imagine they would have done that. Also, assuming the official story concerning Flight 77's flight path was true, the Pentagon could have been hit a lot faster if it had been hit somewhere other then the budget analyst's wing. Here's an article I imagine you won't click on, let alone read at length, but I'll post it anyway just in case the mood strikes...
Pentagon Missing Trillions - CBS Reports Pentagon Missing $2.3 Trillion

Lets talk Phone calls.

Renee May called her mother who, in turn, called American Airlines to tell them that AA77 was hijacked. This too is an exhibit in the Mousaui Trial:

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

Care to explain that?

I can certainly give you some interesting information on the 9/11 calls in general, and even some specific information on the call Renee May's parents apparently received. What is below is excerpted from a much longer article. You may want to look at the entire linked article, but somehow I doubt you will...

**Where might the calls have come from?

Three people in the Solicitor General’s office and two AT&T operators reported having had contact with the Olson calls from Flight 77. [27]

Renee May’s parents also reported receiving a phone call from their daughter. [28]

How is it possible to reconcile these reports with the lack of substantiating telephone records?

Perhaps we need to look outside the box. The fact that people received these calls does not necessarily mean that the calls were made from Flight 77.

Just as it has come to light in a recent study that over a dozen aircraft were unwittingly transmitting the hijack code (7500) on the morning of 9/11 [29], it has also come to light that in 2001, “it was theoretically possible to route an [AT&T] call from one location, through a ground site, to an aircraft and then back down to another ground site.” [30]

If this was possible, then the voice morphing [31] of two calls from Barbara Olson and one call from Renee May, and routing them from the ground through Flight 77 and back, would not have been out of the question.

It would certainly explain why the billing records were not available.**

Source: 9/11: What the Telephone Records Reveal about Calls from AA Flight 77: Did Barbara Olson Attempt Any Calls at All?

Here's an excerpt from Renee May's profile at History Commons. A lot of conflicting information in the media concerning exactly what happened...

**
(9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 77 Attendant Calls Parents and Confirms Hijacking, but Accounts Are Contradictory

Renee May. [Source: Family photo]Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, calls her parents in Las Vegas and reports her plane has been hijacked. [9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 9; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006] According to author Tom Murphy, May previously tried calling the American Airlines flight services office at Washington’s Reagan National Airport, but all the lines there were busy.[MURPHY, 2006, PP. 56-57] However, a summary of the phone calls made from the four hijacked planes that is presented at the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial will make no mention of this earlier call. May’s first attempt at calling her parents, at 9:11 a.m., had not connected, but her second attempt a minute later is successful, and the call lasts for two-and-a-half minutes. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006]According to reports shortly after 9/11 in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, May makes her call using a cell phone. [LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/13/2001; LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/15/2001] But at the Moussaoui trial it will be claimed she uses an Airfone. [US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006, PP. 7 ] According to most accounts, including that of the 9/11 Commission, she speaks to her mother, Nancy May. [LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 9/13/2001; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 9; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006, PP. 7 ] But according to Murphy, she speaks with her father, Ronald May. [MURPHY, 2006, PP. 57] Renee reports that her plane is being hijacked. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31] Although it will be officially claimed that there are five hijackers on Flight 77, she says six individuals have taken over the plane (see Between 9:12 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. September 11, 2001). [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 9/27/2001; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 2-3 AND 9] Renee says the hijackers have moved people to the rear of the aircraft, though it is unclear whether she is referring to all of the passengers or just the flight’s crew. She tells her parent (either her mother or father, depending on the account) to call American Airlines and inform it of the hijacking. She gives three numbers in Northern Virginia to call. Before the time Flight 77 crashes, Renee May’s mother (or her father, according to Murphy) is able to contact an American Airlines employee at Reagan National Airport and pass on what their daughter has reported (see (Between 9:15 a.m. and 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/26/2004, PP. 31; MURPHY, 2006, PP. 57]

Entity Tags: Ronald May, Nancy May, Renee May

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
**

Source: Profile: Renee May | History Commons

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

That's as far as I got in your post

Mission accomplished eh? Why don't you go and celebrate with candycorn then? For anyone who's still interested in debating the evidence, they can continue reading...

 

[phoenyx]

Or a single piece of evidence that those passengers were killed somewhere else...

I've given quite a bit of evidence on that front, actually. Namely, the tons of evidence that a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. I know you don't accept it at the moment though, so we can continue to go over it if you wish. I snipped out the rest of your message, it was mainly insults anyway.

You've presented no evidence other than a handful of witnesses who claim something that a hundred other witnesses did not claim

The witnesses that CIT has presented are the witnesses who were closest to the alleged impact. In other words, they're the most credible witnesses. As to these alleged "hundred other witnesses", CIT has already dealt with that yarn...
Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

There's also the NTSB flight path data and the 9/11 Commission flight path data, neither of which concords with the physical damage path, but you seem to constantly ignore this.

Oh, and by the way.... denials are not evidence.

Exactly. If only you would apply this bit of wisdom to your own denials...

And denials are all you have. Some are quite delusional, like the two photos of the same Pentagon wall you think are different because the lighting is different.

So if someone disagrees with you, they're delusional -.-? -Prove- to me that those 2 walls were one and the same, or let this go.

And you didn't deal with the witnesses I offered earlier.... you denied they saw what they said they saw.

The world according to Faun -.-. From what I have seen, CIT has already dealt with all the witnesses I know of that have a first and a last name. Witnesses can certainly confuse what they were told happened with what actually happened, especially if they weren't in a good vantage point to truly discern the truth.

As far as your claim that I gave you no reasons for why I dismissed the CIT witnesses... You're lying again.

Whatever -.-

Why do you keep lying if truth and reality were actually on your side?

In fact, I gave you multiple reasons.... most importantly, the field of debris rejects any notion that the plane flew straight into the Pentagon; and that is their claim.

You reject what I believe is far more likely- that the plane never hit the Pentagon at all.

Secondly, Many of them never gave public interviews prior to CIT recording them, which they did many years after 9.11.

Some did, but you pay no attention to them either.

Thirdly, their claims contradict all of the other witnesses who said they saw the plane flying up either Columbia Pike or 395.

Again, they are the witnesses who were closest to the Pentagon from what I can tell, and they are very consistent in where they place the plane. You can go on about "witnesses", but unless you give them names, they will simply remain anonymous, hardly compelling evidence.

They were not the closest.

Who was closer?

If I'm not mistaken, some of them couldn't even see the first floor of the Pentagon where the plane hit.

Certainly. Terry Morin, the only CIT witness that you deigned to give some credit to, couldn't even see the Pentagon at all if memory serves. But he -could- ascertain that the plane was North of Columbia Pike, and witnesses CIT interviewed who were closer to the Pentagon corroborated his account.

But there were others who were closer.

Can you actually attach some names (first and last, please) to "others", or are your witnesses a bunch of anonymous people who only you know of?

There were many folks in their cars on the highways adjacent to the Pentagon.

I imagine you're referring to some if not all of the USA today parade. If you're not willing to even put out some names, this part of the discussion is over.

And again... no one said they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.

Perish the thought -.- "A bomb hit and a jet kept going" clearly couldn't imply that the plane flew over the Pentagon...

And no, a person is not delusional just because they disagree with me...

Glad you atleast realize that much...

...but they are delusional when they disagree with the laws of physics.

Certainly. Your problem is that the laws of physics are against the official narratives (whichever one you prefer) regarding the Pentagon attack.

It's impossible for the plane to have come from north of the Citco. That's not my opinion -- it's physics.

No, it's just your opinion (and a poorly informed one at that), but I'll hear you out below...

The debris field indicates the direction the plane was traveling when is struck the Pentagon....

The debris field indicates that something created said debris field. You latch on to the official conspiracy theory that posits that it was caused by a plane. An overwhelming amount of evidence suggests this was not the case, but don't let that stop you...

and it wasn't straight in, as it would have been had the plane flown in from north of the Citco

I'm glad we atleast agree on that.

And no, CIT has not dealt with all of the witnesses. Some they could not find and some wouldn't talk to them.

I never said they talked to all of the alleged witnesses. I think it's truly unfortunate that they were never able to talk to the co workers that Erik Dihle had in mind...

Most witnesses on 9.11 who described where the plane came from said either Columbia Pike or 395, which runs right along side.

From the north side of Columbia Pike and 395, yes. The plane continued going northeast up until around the Citgo gas station (going over from the north side) and finally tilting back a bit to the south at that point in its final approach to the Pentagon.

As far as your nonsense the plane never hit the Pentagon, there is simply no evidence to support that.

Except all the evidence that I've been citing over and over and which even you admit you aren't reading, apparently because no one explicitly stated that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

There is plenty of evidence supporting that it did.

Only to those eager to believe in flimsy evidence.

The only eyewitness accounts you rely on to support your delusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon, as opposed to into it, even though no one said they saw that -- is pointing to witnesses who said they saw the plane fly overhead, disappear from their view, and then saw the ensuing fireball.

Not true. The witnesses who saw something which strongly suggests a fly over were:
**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: Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

According to twoofers, that's all the evidence needed prove the plane wasn't flown onto the Pentagon.

I've never said anything is proven, though as I've reviewed the evidence over the past few days, I now believe that the evidence is pretty strong that a flyover did indeed occur.

None of the witnesses who said they saw it fly into the Pentagon matters.

I never said that. Neither did CIT. As a matter of fact, CIT actually made 2 lists with such witnesses, which can be seen in the witness list I provided above. They counted around a dozen such witnesses. They also wrote an article on the such witnesses in their FAQ which can be seen here:
Frequently Asked Questions » What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?

None of the pieces of plane found matters.

CIT has addressed the debris that the official story alleges were pieces of Flight 77 here:
Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

None of the items found from passengers, including DNA, matters.

CIT has addressed the DNA issue here:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?

The fact that planes were being flown into buildings that same morning in NYC matters.

Evidence that aircraft were being flown into the WTC buildings is not evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

 

[phoenyx]

It's quite revealing that you trust and respect truth & shadows despite their blatant lies.

Hell, you even posted a monstrous lie of theirs yourself.... quoting you, quoting them...

The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact.

...that's a bald-faced lie intended to fool gullible Twoofers into believing a 757 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and fit into a 20 foot hole. But the sad reality for truth & shadows, as well as for you.... is that 20 foot hole is not actually on the "outer ring of the Pentagon," as they falsely portay; but actually on the middle ring. Meaning that AA77 traveled through 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon before debris from the plane finally punched that 20 foot hole on the back side of the C-ring. The outer ring of the Pentagon is the E-ring, which had about 75 feet across of damage, not 20 feet as Twoofers lie about.

Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***

Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11 Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

Why did you just completely ignore what I said? Truth & Shadows portayed the 20 foot hole in the C-ring as though it were the entry point in the E-ring. That's a bald-faced lie.

I didn't measure the entry hole to the Pentagon. What size do you believe it was?

Not only did you repeat that bald-faced lie in this forum, you openly expressed your trust and respect for that organization.

I definitely trust and respect Craig Mckee and his "Truth and Shadows" website. That doesn't mean that he can't make mistakes.

An apology from you for trying to deceive the forum

I have never tried to deceive anyone here, and I'm still not sure why you think I have, but if you have what you believe to be evidence that I have, by all means present it.

You posted a photo of the 20 foot hole in the C-ring, along with an article portaying that as the plane's entry point in the E-ring.

I posted what Craig Mckee had up in his article. Maybe Craig was tired the day he wrote that article.

That you can't comprehend the dishonesty of that reveals much about where your head is at.

Posting someone else's mistake doesn't mean anyone's being dishonest. Google defines dishonesty as "deceitfulness shown in someone's character or behavior". I had no intention to deceive anyone, and I strongly believe neither did Craig Mckee.

And personally, any "trust" and "respect" I have for any website would have been lost the moment I saw them promoting such bullshit.

One mistake and an author can't be trusted eh? Meanwhile, the official story is full of discrepancies, but you seem uninterested in looking at -those-.

Case in point... truthout.org. I used to rely on them as a source until the day they posted their bullshit about Karl Rove about to be arrested in the Valerie Plame incident. Why would I "trust" them or "respect" them after that?

Truthout may at times make mistakes. Do you know any publication that has -never- made any mistakes?

 

[Faun]

I have no desire to bring forward any witnesses. We've, or I, have moved beyond trying to prove anything to you since you're clearly only going to deny anything and everything which doesn't fit into your imagination of what happened. Evidence of this lies in my belief I have absolutely zero doubt that someone who has spent as much time researching this as you say you have, has already seen the witnesses who have stated they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. So why on Earth would you ask me to show you what you have already seen except to set you up with yet more denials?

Yes, some people -believe- they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. It certainly flew very close to the Pentagon, but if you were to actually closely examine the testimony from the credible witnesses who've made this allegation as CIT has, you'd see that they placed the plane on a flight path that simply couldn't have caused the damage that the Pentagon sustained. As Sherlock Holmes once said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?

None put it quite like that, but these are the witnesses that CIT lists as flyover/away witnesses:
**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

None of those people claim they saw any plane over the Pentagon.

Erik Dihle's co-workers' accounts sounds mighty close to just that. "A bomb hit and a jet kept going" sounds a lot like a flyover to me. Or do you think that after arriving at the pentagon, the plane took an instantaneous 90 degree angle turn like some UFOs have reportedly done?

Roberts said he saw another plane (after the explosion) heading SW (opposite direction of AA77) over the south parking lot.

There was no other plane in the vicinity for another 3 minutes after the explosion, meaning the plane he saw had to be the plane alleged to have caused the explosion. From a CIT article:
**
Roosevelt's is one of the most important accounts presented since he actually witnessed the plane flying away from the building immediately after the explosion.

In this official interview, recorded only a few weeks after the event, you can hear Roosevelt describe it as what he thought was a "second plane."

The pertinent details regarding timing, altitude, and description were confirmed in our independent audio interview recorded in 2008, which can be heard in Part 2 of our presentation The North Side Flyover. Excerpts of this interview are also featured in our video National Security Alert.

We now know for a fact that the only explanation for the "commercial aircraft" that he describes at about "50 feet" altitude banking and flying away from the building immediately after the explosion could only have been the same attack jet that everyone else witnessed banking on the north side flight path seconds earlier on its approach toward the Pentagon.
**

Source: Evidence » Official Interviews

Roseborough did not say he saw any plane over the Pentagon.

True. He saw it in the Pentagon's parking lot...
**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.

"Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'"**

Source: Dewitt D. Roseborough III

Here's the thing- only one plane could have been in the Pentagon parking lot moments before the explosion at the Pentagon was the plane that approached the Pentagon before the explosion. The next plane to pass by the Pentagon took another 2-3 minutes.

Dihle did not say he saw a plane period as he was inside the Pentagon when the plane hit.

CIT never stated that Dihle saw the plane, you didn't read what CIT wrote carefully. I'll quote it again:
"3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going""

De La Cerda did not say it flew over the Pentagon, she said it flew to the Pentagon.

We all agree that the plane flew to the Pentagon, what's important is what happened after that point. She reported 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"."

The thing is, there is no damage to the top of the Pentagon. If it had simply flown -over- the Pentagon, though, it makes sense.

Some folks did say they saw a second plane. Some of whom described it as a 4 engine propeller plane and at least one said it veered off after a commercial jet hit the Pentagon. But given there was an airport about a mile away and lots of air traffic in the vicinity that morning, it's neither surprising nor a conspiracy that some people saw another plane.

Just because some believed there was a second plane in the vicinity at the time of the Pentagon attack doesn't mean there was. CIT has gone into this issue at length, here:
The 2nd Plane Cover Story

Let's start with Eric Dihle...

As you point out, he doesn't claim to have seen anything as he was inside the Pentagon at the time. Everything he said was based on hearsay. Even worse for you, while you cling to his hearsay, which doesn't even put a name or corroboration to any of the witnesses he claims to speak for, you eagerly dismiss pesky witnesses like "Barbara," who said she saw the plane come up 395, because she didn't give a last name.

Regardless of your hypocrisy, let's examine his hearsay...

First of all, he described two sets of events he says he heard. One was that a plane flew into the Pentagon. But like everything else, you dismiss that which does not comport to your beliefs. So to you, it's as though he never said that.

This other event he described was that he heard a bomb had gone off and a plane had flown away. First and foremost, ghat doesn't indicate a fly over. It could, but it doesn't mean it did. But taking a closer look at that comment.... that sounds like it came from someone who, like Dihle, was inside the Pentagon and not at a vantage point to see the plane. To anyone inside the Pentagon who heard the explosion, they would naturally assume it was a bomb. No one would even think a plane was used as a missile. So the fact that folks inside the Pentagon believed it was a bomb is meaningless. The second part of that, that a plane flew off, sounds like what some other witnesses described when they say they saw a second plane veer away from the Pentagon after another plane flew into it. And again, there is an airport nearby so it's not unusual that other planes would be seen. It's also a lie that no other planes were in that vicinity at the time. We have radar images proving that is just more Twoofer bullshit.