911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[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

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...

You made a claim which is not only not supported by any evidence -- it's not even supported by any witnesses. So why should anyone read beyond what is apparently nothing more than your fervent imagination?

 

[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.

You're lying again...

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, this is where I pull out CIT's FAQ article on such witnesses:
Frequently Asked Questions » What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?

 

[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.

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.

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

 

[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?

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.

Ah, here we go with another little sound bite. Let me guess, you read the first sentence of my reply and decided you'd reply to that and be done with my post? You will never see evidence to go against your viewpoint if you refuse to look at it. Perhaps that's what you want. Cognitive dissonance can be a terrible thing...

 

[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.

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.

True, no one put it quite that way. Faun loves bringing that up. But while the witnesses didn't put it quite that way, they -did- say things that strongly suggest they either saw the plane fly over, or that based on their testimony, this could be deduced. Here are the witnesses that CIT has amassed as people whose testimony strongly suggests a flyover:

**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

 

[Faun]

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

Now this ^^^ is divine...

You insist that I provide you full names of witnesses otherwise "the discussion is over"... yet you quote the above.

Ok, give me the name of the person who said they heard and saw, "a bomb hit and a jet kept going." .... first name ... last name ... even initials will do... C'mon... time to live by your own standards...

 

[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.

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.

True, no one put it quite that way. Faun loves bringing that up. But while the witnesses didn't put it quite that way, they -did- say things that strongly suggest they either saw the plane fly over, or that based on their testimony, this could be deduced. Here are the witnesses that CIT has amassed as people whose testimony strongly suggests a flyover:

**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

Here's a thought.... quote any one of those people saying they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon....

 

[phoenyx]

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.

The only indication we have that she exists at all is some anonymous reporter. Erik Dihle is not anonymous. Given subpoena powers, he could be required to divulge which coworkers had mentioned that a bomb had gone off and the jet kept on going.

First of all, [Erik] 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.

I dismiss it because of the preponderance of evidence that would make a south of the citgo gas station flight path extremely improbable if not impossible.

This other event he described was that he heard a bomb had gone off and a plane had flown away. First and foremost, that doesn't indicate a fly over. It could, but it doesn't mean it did.

By itself, no, it's not that much of an indication. When combined with the witness testimonies that CIT was able to film on location placing the plane on a North of Citgo flight path, however, the conclusion is inevitable; since the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon from that direction, and there's no evidence of it exploding before arriving at the pentagon, or over its roof, the most likely explanation is that it flew over the Pentagon.

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.

I disagree, but I certainly wouldn't say it's conclusive either way. Clearly, it would be best if the witnesses who mentioned this 'jet kept on going' narrative to Erik could be interviewed. Failing that, we can only speculate.

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 [insult removed]

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

 

[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.

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...

You made a claim which is not only not supported by any evidence -- it's not even supported by any witnesses.

Despite your continued dismissal of CIT's flyover witnesses, I remain convinced that they are solid evidence of a flyover.

 

[phoenyx]

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

Now this ^^^ is divine...

You insist that I provide you full names of witnesses otherwise "the discussion is over"... yet you quote the above.

Ok, give me the name of the person who said they heard and saw, "a bomb hit and a jet kept going." .... first name ... last name ... even initials will do... C'mon... time to live by your own standards...

I dealt with this in post #548 (first sentence of my reply).

 

[phoenyx]

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

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

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

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.

True, no one put it quite that way. Faun loves bringing that up. But while the witnesses didn't put it quite that way, they -did- say things that strongly suggest they either saw the plane fly over, or that based on their testimony, this could be deduced. Here are the witnesses that CIT has amassed as people whose testimony strongly suggests a flyover:

**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

Here's a thought.... quote any one of those people saying they saw a plane fly over the Pentagon....

We've gone over this before. Perhaps I should put a little humour into it. To my knowledge, no one said "I saw a plane fly over the Pentagon". You going to go celebrate your victory with candycorn now ?

 

[candycorn]

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.

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

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

 

[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.

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

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

That's what I keep coming back to. Why go through all the effort to make it LOOK like a plane flew into a building when it's just plain simpler to fly the plane into the building? Insisting that discrepancies between eyewitnesses is proof of a conspiracy is a non-starter, given the extremely short amount of time any of them had to carefully plot the aircraft's heading, altitude, and speed before it plowed into the Pentagon. Remember, none of them had any idea what was about to happen. It was more along the lines of, "Hey, isn't that airplane flying awfully low? Holy crap, it just crashed!". 3 months later they get the question, "was it flying north or south of the gas station?". I would be very surprised if any of them would be able to pinpoint it with any accuracy at all.

 

[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.

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

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

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

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

 

[SAYIT]

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.

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

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

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

Phoenyx seems to have forgotten that those who believe in the flyover theory (for which there is absolutely no evidence) or the no planes theory or the mini-nukes theory or the spiders from Mars theory have surrendered their connection to reality in order to serve some disingenuous or nefarious or malicious agenda that has no basis in fact, truth or reality.

 

[phoenyx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phoenyx seems to have forgotten that those who believe in the flyover theory (for which there is absolutely no evidence)

There's actually a lot of evidence that it occurred.

 

[phoenyx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[candycorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phoenyx seems to have forgotten that those who believe in the flyover theory (for which there is absolutely no evidence) or the no planes theory or the mini-nukes theory or the spiders from Mars theory have surrendered their connection to reality in order to serve some disingenuous or nefarious or malicious agenda that has no basis in fact, truth or reality.

Spiders from Mars has more validity than the “flyover” dream.

 

[candycorn]

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

I’m not forgetting that you’re mentally ill.
I’m not forgetting that it would have been easier to simply hijack the plane and crash it than your rancid recipe of retardeedness
I’m not forgetting that you’re mis-characterizing Secretary Rumsfeld’s comments about the $2.3 trillion dollars
And I’m not forgetting that your theory is so valid that nobody outside of a few of your fellow looney birds believe it.

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

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.**

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