Mystery Of The Pentagon C Ring Hole

Aidan Monaghan

Did American Airlines flight 77 create the unusual hole seen hundreds of feet deep into the Pentagon building on September 11, 2001 or was this hole created by an explosive wall breaching device?

The Pentagon is a huge smoking gun that has NOT received

enough attention except by the shills who keep trying to support the official version! A Boeing 757 certainly didn't make such a hole deep inside the Pentagon! An explosive-wall-breaching device is a far more likely! http://911truth.tripod.com/hole1.jpg

Add the inexplicable C-ring hole to these also, and you will see that there is no way in hell that AA-77 struck the Pentagon:

· Hani Hanjour could not have flown back 250 miles from Ohio to find & hit the Pentagon, (let alone the small, renovated wedge).

· Hanjour could not have made incredible maneuvers in a Boeing 757& fly 2 feet above the ground.

· A Boeing 757 can NOT make/disappear through a 16-foot initial impact hole. The airliner has a 125-foot wingspan & two huge steel/titanium engines that "disappeared" as did the 250 seats & the luggage.

· There is no way they could ID a planeload of people that slammed the Pentagon @ 530 mph, while the plane itself was supposedly obliterated. The fictitious DNA results were fabricated to bolster the official lie.

· 80 videos of whatever hit or blew-up the Pentagon are being withheld by the gov't for no reason. (The only videos released look like an A3 SkyWarrior!)

hmm..

If no plane hit the Pentagon then what the f*ck is
Norman Mineta talking about ?

Also, how do we know that Hanjour was even flying the plane ?
If it was remote-controlled Hanjours piloting-skills are irrelevant, in fact Hanjour himself is irrelevant .
His name isn't even on the flight-manifest.
how did they ID him ?

As you can see in this Dutch documentary it IS possible
to execute the moves that the alleged 757 is reported to have made, at least in a simulator :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-129851858930592160
"4 planes in two hours? how can that be ? I say BULLSHIT "

The smoking gun here isn't what it was that hit the Pentagon, it's the fact that ANYTHING hit it at all .
BULLSHIT I say.
But as long as we waste our time trying to prove no plane
hit the Pentagon Dick Cheney is of the hook, isn't he ?

"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

FDR data suggests a fly-over

by aa77. "hook" re-established.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

yeah, but that doesn't make

yeah, but that doesn't make any sense, does it ?
where did the plane go, undetected, AFTER the fly-over ?
and again, if that's what happened then what the f*ck is Mineta talking about ?
Why fly the plane all the way to Pentagon just to have some cruise-missile or whatever, hit the Department of the Missing Billions, leaving you with the problem of getting rid of the plane and it's passengers and rigging the crime-scene with fake "evidence"? They are dead anyway, so why not just crash the plane into the evidence ?

Or maybe Mineta IS lying? If that is the case he is the only
conspirator who hasn't been promoted .

I think the real issue here is the missing billions, everything else is just a smoke-screen. By not making the 80 or so videos of the impact public the Pentagon is in control, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out how people will react to them withholding that information ?
All the "conspiracy-nuts" are focusing on the deliberate
FUD they spread and are forgetting what was housed in the section of the Pentagon that got hit .
I say there where two targets (besides freedom) on 911 :
The enron-files stored in WTC7 and the paperwork on the
missing billions stored in the section of the Pentagon that got "destroyed"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

...

Assuming whatever flew towards the pentagon was AA77 a 757, or some other 757...

where did the plane go, undetected, AFTER the fly-over ?
I have no idea but I know for sure a 757 did not hit the pentagon

and again, if that's what happened then what the f*ck is Mineta talking about ?
Mineta is talking about hearing a "young man" incrementally updating Cheney on the object's distance. Mineta wasnt viewing a radar scope, so I dont understand the question

Why fly the plane all the way to Pentagon just to have some cruise-missile or whatever, hit the Department of the Missing Billions, leaving you with the problem of getting rid of the plane and it's passengers and rigging the crime-scene with fake "evidence"? They are dead anyway, so why not just crash the plane into the evidence ?
Thats TRILLIONS but who's counting. You make a valid point but no 757 hit that building, so again we're stuck. For everyone else (those in the gov but not involved, and civilian eyewitnesses) I think they would need a 757 to fly to the pentagon to maintain the charade, much like the planes flying into the towers in NY, they werent necessary structurally, but were needed for eye-candy. We couldnt have 2 110 storey towers falling to earth for no reason, oh wait, we did, but you know what I mean, for the story, for the sheeple.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Go to court, not?

Hey CattleRustler...

  1. where can we see what position the flaps were?
  2. Is the 24meg fdr file authentic? (surely not)
  3. Isn't it illegal to tamper with such files?
  4. Can you not go to court?
  5. Itsn't the file class-A evidence, real OR faked?

Why not file a case? Afraid for your life?

I'll entertain this...

1. I doubt flaps were extended if the plane was travelling at 500+ mph but I am not a pilot or an aeornautics engineer, so I don't know. If you take the proposed speed out of the equation, however, flaps extended or retracted would have no bearing on the question of impact or flyover. A plane can crash or maintain flight regardless of the possible flap positions.

2. I have no idea if the file is authentic or not, but one curious note is the file data opposes the OCT, it doesnt confirm it. Couple this with the fct that items were recieved that were not in the FOIA request, now ask yourself, is it possible that someone who was tasked with filling the request was trying to say something to the world, without actually physically saying it themselves...possibly. I dont know if we will ever know, however.

3. I would assume it would be illegal to tamper with any evidence, in any situation. Not a very good attempt at circular logic in your question however.

4. I can go to court, or not. I usually prefer not to have to, if I can avoid it. If you are referring to "9/11" and "court trials", I doubt anything related to 9/11 will ever see the inside of a court room, and I fear the court will be held in the streets at some point, for one reason or another, and I doubt that reason will actually be over 9/11 itself, but for bigger reasons, but thats just one person's opinion, to which I am entitled.

5. Is that a question?

Unenumerated Question: Why not file a case?
See answer 4

All of this does not suddenly make it possible that a 757 hit the pentagon. Also we should test the witnesses and see if they can see emblems, read painted letters, and see peoples faces thru tiny windows, when those things are moving at 500+ mph / 730 + feet per sec.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

ask Arabesque why he didnt

ask Arabesque why he didnt talk to ANY of the eyewitnesses and then click on this thread to see his first answer(lie?): http://www.911blogger.com/node/8953#new

to see his second answer to that question, click the link to the thread all the way at the bottom of this page.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Liars

I don't feel like wasting time with people who aren't going to change their views. Calling me a liar is offensive.

That's why I was pissed off to say it was a "waste of time" in the first place. I don't appreciate being called "insane, a liar, shill" and all this crap just because I show you contradictory evidence that is in the public domain. Maybe to you this isn't "real evidence", but to others it is.

Isn't it interesting that people claim flight 93 was shot down, but no one has come forward to claim a plane did not hit the Pentagon? The claim that the government can control witnesses is absurd. What about the bombs in the towers? What about Building 7? What about flight 93 being shot down? What about the bombs seen being taken out of the Oklahoma City Bombing? What about the firefighter oral histories, and recordings that the government BLOCKED for years after 9/11?

Did the government "control" these witnesses? Have they ever BLOCKED testimony at the Pentagon? No, they did not! So what basis do you have to claim they can control the witnesses at the Pentagon? You just have your suspicions, and you aren't going to change them no matter if I contacted the witnesses or not.

So, given the FACT that the government can NOT control witnesses, and the FACT that people don't believe the witnesses at the Pentagon, why would contacting them change your mind? Why would I waste my time contacting them, when you've already dismissed hundreds of statements without a SINGLE clear statement indicating something else happened at the Pentagon?

Did you miss the part where the PentaCon witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon? Obviously, if you think I need to "contact" the witnesses when you won't believe them anyways. Don't you agree that would be a waste of time, since you've already made up your mind? Instead, you want to believe a flyover, without one single witness claiming that it happened?

People like you aren't worth my time. I don't appreciate being called a liar.

Claiming "there's no contradictory evidence" when there are boatloads is deceptive. In fact... isn't that almost... a "lie"? Did I accuse these people of being liars? No, I gave them a chance to respond and they call ME a liar!

So I guess it's perfectly ok for someone to claim that "there is no contradictory evidence" and I can quote over 100 witness statements to show you just how false that is. And I'm the liar?

I didn't mean to say "don't contact the witnesses". Maybe you can't comprehend the fact that I was pissed off by the insults that are being thrown at me in that thread, and maybe I said something I regretted. Well I do regret it and it was a mistake. If people want to contact the witnesses, I don't object to that as long as they treat the witness statements RESPECTFULLY. That means, when someone says "A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON", you don't ignore it, turn around, and say "it's smoking gun proof it flew over". WITHOUT A SINGLE WITNESS to confirm this happened.

I guess it's pretty easy for you to sit there and call ME a liar, when these people ignore their own witnesses when they say the plane hit the Pentagon. That's a pretty sad fact now isn't it.

Maybe that's good enough "evidence" for you, but it's not for me, and I HOPE, the rest of the honest people within this movement..

1. Show me 1 single witness who has retracted their statement that a plane hit the Pentagon in the 5 years since the attack
2. Show me 1 single witness who has come forward SINCE the attack to claim that a plane did not hit the Pentagon in the 5 years since the attack.
3. Show me 1 single witness who has gone on the record as claiming a plane (not the C-130) flew over the Pentagon
4. Show me 1 single witness who claims something other than a plane hit the Light Poles
5. Show me 1 single witness who will go on the record to claim that they were CLOSE to the Pentagon, and did not see a large commercial airliner hit it. The tiny number who said it was small were from farther away. In any case, a small plane could not account for the LIGHT POLE damage.

Claiming that the "physical evidence" contradicts the testimony is false. What about the light poles that witnesses said were knocked down by a plane? What about the damage pattern to the light poles and inside the Pentagon that lines up to form a straight line of damage? What about the plane parts in the building? What about the pieces of silver debris--witnesses described the plane as silver? What about the fact that witnesses claimed the plane flew into the Pentagon, leaving little debris outside of it (remember the world trade center?)? What about the fact that the hole closely approximates the size of a large jetliner fuselage? What about the fact that the damage on the first floor is significant and approximates the wingspan of a commercial jetliner--see the composite photos, no single photo reveals the complete hole at the Pentagon. There are many more examples, and I will detail them all.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

If a plane did fly over

there is a very nice runway that lined up perfectly with the flight path, on the other side of the Pentagon at Reagan National.

That certainly is interesting.

It has always puzzled me why there was such a large amount of debris on that side of the whole. It appears that something came out of it rather than into it.

I've seen those breaching devices used by special forces before. Is there any reason why to add extra explosions and create this hole? Might there have been something a team was trying to get to that they did not have access to?

Could Have Been...

A possible explanation is that the engine's from the plane (if there was one) could have slammed through the building.

The DOD is encouraging speculation, suspoicioun and conspiracy by not releasing the evidence to support it's theory....that has to be against the law right?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

I was looking into the damage

and it appears like the plane decreased in damage as it travels through the building, but then it increases in damage by creating that hole.

See page 24.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

also the wall opposite the

also the wall opposite the hole in the C ring is pretty much undamaged, just debris along the ground...

"and it appears like the

"and it appears like the plane decreased in damage as it travels through the building, but then it increases in damage by creating that hole."

As I pointed out, the direction/shape of the damage inside of the Pentagon aligns with the knocked down light poles outside of the Pentagon.

As for a plausible reason why the hole could be created, the fuselage does not only consists of a nose. It consists of everything behind the nose. It also corresponds of course to the fuselage like shape at the front of the Pentagon. As Imgstacke notes, there is no damage to the surrounding area around the hole, and as my photo reveals in this thread, there was a lot of debris by the C-hole in an earlier photograph.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I don't rule out the use of explosives at the Pentagon

Because the eyewitness testimony supports it.

The damage at the Pentagon corresponds with a necessary flight path as suggested by the structural damage inside of the Pentagon, knocked down light poles. and generator as seen below. Eyewitness reports confirm these objects were hit, thus confirming the flight path further.

If the plane flew over the Pentagon, there would be no flight data at the crash site (or downed light poles, generator damage and overwhelming eyewitness testimony). The plane would have kept flying, the plane would have showed up on restricted airspace radar and the perpetrators would have to either use the data from the plane that flew over the Pentagon (it didn't--there is not a single witness who has confirmed a flyover) or create a fabricated set of data from scratch. Not one single witness has come forward to claim that they did not witness a plane hit the Pentagon. Of these witnesses, none have changed their claim in the 5 years since that a plane hit the Pentagon. Of the witnesses, almost 100% agree it was a large commercial plane, but the exact type is uncertain--probably a 757 or 737. The plane parts found at the crash site confirm a 757, and the physical evidence at the crash site confirms the eyewitness testimony. There is no evidence of plane part planting. In fact, witnesses observed pieces of the plane fly all over after the crash. Eyewitness testimony IS reliable because in other case, witness testimony strongly contradicts the official 9/11 narrative. It is a special pleading argument to say we can trust the testimony of explosions at the WTC, but we can't trust the testimony at the Pentagon.

Faking a plane crash at the Pentagon is just as difficult as doing it at the WTC because of the potential witnesses, and the sheer implausibility of the effort involved. It would be more practical to fly a plane into the Pentagon, assuming of course, H. Hanjour was not involved. The only practical way to ensure success would be through remote control.

As for the C hole, I believe it corresponds to the flight path diagram above? I haven't looked at this very closely yet I'll admit, but it's a good idea to not rule out possibilities. I believe it is likely that explosives WERE used at the Pentagon, and could explain structural damage that is anomalous inside of the the Pentagon.

This is what was in between the C hole and the area where the Pentagon was hit:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/118.html


“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

You believe explosives may have been used

at the pentagon, yet you use lightpoles and column damage to justify a flight path? If explosives were used at all, then isnt it possible that explosives could have been used to make it appear that a 757 approached and impacted as the diagram above suggests? Especially in light of the fact that what that diagram suggests is utterly impossible?

I am sorry, I am not trying to argue or anything, but everything about the pentagon on 9/11 stinks to high-heaven, worse than the wtc, imho

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

It's all irrelevant

None of it matters. The real crime at the pentagon is the fact that 5 anti-aircraft missile batteries were de-activated on 9/11. Further damning is tha fact that the Penatgon is refusing legal demands to release the video footage from possible 200 different cameras (penatgon security & DC trafic cameras). Why are they refusing to release all of the videos. If they obeyed the law and released the video we'd all be able to see exactly whatever it was that hit the pentagon.

Explosives at the Pentagon

Yes, I believe explosives may have been used at the Pentagon because the testimony supports it. Cars were blasted backwards, people even went flying to the ground (after the impact of the plane--as also reported by the witnesses). Others smelled cordite and saw a silvery flash (again, after the plane hit). All of these are characteristic of explosives. So why would I not think explosives were used to knock down the light poles? Because there's no evidence of that; witnesses saw the plane hit the light poles, clip the generator and hit the Pentagon.

I trust the eyewitness testimony for the simple reason that if something else happened, it would have been reported. Even at the Oklahoma City Bombing there were witnesses who saw explosives being taken out of the building, and heard multiple explosions. There are countless examples where eyewitness testimony is very valuable to figure out what actually happened and very strongly implicates government complicity in false flag attacks. i believe that there is enough evidence available to us to figure out what mostly happened at the Pentagon.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Your analysis of eye-witnesses is seriously flawed

Arabesque, to keep repeating the statement "almost 100% agree it was a large commercial plane" without assessing the credibility of any of the witnesses renders this statistic misleading and completely meaningless. Your methodology is so flawed you need to completely redo your analysis and statistics.

Here's some of the problems with witness statements that lowers the credibility, and factors that muddy the waters, that you should have considered:

1) Independence of the witness - how many are employees of the Pentagon or Mainstream Media, both institutions which are involved either with the crime or cover-up of 9/11? How many are political personalities?

2) Timelyness - were the statements given immediately on 9/11 in live interviews, or were they given days, weeks, years after the fact after they had a chance to rehearse or fabricate stories? The longer you go after the incident, the lower the credibility of the statement. The disinfo machine seems to keep churning out new "witnesses" nonstop, even years after 9/11, and many of these people coming out of the woodwork just happen to be politicians and other unsavory characters.

3) Interpretations - many flaws in how you interpret some of the witness statements. For example, many of the witnesses say that they saw a large commercial airliner fly towards the Pentagon, then disappear behind the horizon or buildings, then they saw an explosion. In other words, THEY DID NOT SEE THE AIRLINER HIT THE BUILDING, BUT ASSUMED IT DID. This is not nit-picking. In light of the multiple aircraft reported in the area at the time, and the strong possibility of a fly-over by at least one of the aircraft, the difference in actually SEEING the plane crash into the Pentagon, or ASSUMING it did, may make all the difference.

4) Reporters putting words into eyewitnesses mouths - Did the reporter taking the statement say AA77 hit the Pentagon, or did the person interviewed say they saw it? Believe it or not, there are quite a few examples of where reporters were the ones who added the crucial statement about AA77 to preface eye-witness quotes.

There are also other issues to look at in assessing the credibility, which you failed to do. Taking these issues into account would significantly alter your statistic of "almost 100%".

Arabesque, I recommend you read Dave McGowan's analysis of the witnesses to make sure you are taking all relevent factors into account. You can read it here: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html

The fact that there are so many eye-witness reports that contradicts the official story, coupled with the mountain of physical evidence that contradicts the official story, significantly discounts the eye-witnesses who support the official story. You seem to not be aware of the golden rule of criminal investigators that say physical evidence always trumps eye-witness testimony, especially when eye-witness testimony is contradictory. But, don't believe me. Just ask professional investigators for yourself. Once they have the DNA evidence, they don't need eye-witness evidence. Period.

If we all agree that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks and attempted to cover up that complicity, then those "eyewitnesses" whose testimony tends to back the official version of events become much more suspect than the testimony of eyewitnesses whose claims of having seen a "missile" or "small jet" are unlikely to be part of any disinformation campaign - unless of course one wants to suggest that some shadowy group of conspiracy theorists had foreknowledge that Arab terrorists were going to attack the Pentagon with a 757 and decided to place their operatives at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 and have them falsely testify that they saw a missile in order to unjustly implicate the US government.

Kind of far fetched...

Leaving aside the fact that Donald Rumsfeld himself has corroborated the "missile theory", to sort out the disparity between eyewitness reports we must ask ourselves a question: Which is more likely, that someone would mistake a 757 for a missile or that a drone craft with a wingspan of 117 feet could be altered in such a way as to successfully fool an eyewitness into thinking it was a commercial passenger plane?

Heck, all you have to do is look at the Pentagon's security video frames they released to see that it wasn't a 757. If you do the measurements, you can see that the object in the frames is only about 1/3 the size of a 757. Not sure why that is so hard for some people to grok. I guess some people will continue to perform mental gymnastics to prop up the official story of a 757 at the Pentagon no matter what.

http://911blogger.com/node/58

Is there a point you wanted

Is there a point you wanted to make?

I agree

I personally consider Jim Hoffman to be one of the best 9/11 researchers. Is there any researcher who approaches his consistently excellent research?

Good to see you back here imgstacke.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

You can't be serious?!

Jim Hoffman, the one who is the most divisive of all the 9/11 researchers, who spends most of his time trying to discredit all the other good researchers, including David Griffen, Barrie Zwicker, Professor Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley, and countless other 9/11 researchers who do not believe that AA77 hit the Pentagon?

"Is there any researchers who approaches his consistently excellent research?"

I think a more appropriate question is, "Is there any researchers who approaches his consistently divisive and disruptive behavior towards other researchers?"

What has Hoffman done for the movement? Oh, he talks about controlled demolition. BIG DEAL. Controlled Demoltion was already proved way before Hoffman - the NSA contractor (who also lied about when he stopped working for the NSA) - comes on the scene to establish his credentials in the truth movement by plagerizing the work of previous scientists regarding controlled demolition at the WTC. Then, after he establishing himself as a 9/11 truther, he uses that as a platform to work towards discrediing the majority of other 9/11 researchers and activists. Hmmmmm, what did you say Mr. Hoffman did for the movement again? I guess I missed it.

Alright

First of all, I will address your criticisms and welcome any criticisms of my research

1) Independence of the witness - how many are employees of the Pentagon or Mainstream Media, both institutions which are involved either with the crime or cover-up of 9/11? How many are political personalities?

Independence is irrelevant if all of the witnesses describe the same thing. There is no compelling testimony that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. "I suspect these witnesses are not telling the truth therefore they are not telling the truth" is not a convincing or *scientific* argument. If they weren't telling the truth there would be compelling contradictory testimony to show this.

By compelling I mean "contradictory over major details". Sure witnesses disagree about the exact plane (with only 10% naming a 757), but is that surprising? Can witnesses easily identify the type of plane at a fast speed? Is it surprising that more witnesses are sure about the size of the plane than the type? I have looked at all of the testimony and I can show you that there is no *compelling* contradictory testimony.

2) Timelyness - were the statements given immediately on 9/11 in live interviews, or were they given days, weeks, years after the fact after they had a chance to rehearse or fabricate stories? The longer you go after the incident, the lower the credibility of the statement. The disinfo machine seems to keep churning out new "witnesses" nonstop, even years after 9/11, and many of these people coming out of the woodwork just happen to be politicians and other unsavory characters.

I have not gone through all of the testimony to record the exact date of every statement, but if you check Somebigguy's list you will see that most of the testimony is close to the event. There are many many statements, and compiling the statements was enough work for me as it is. I'd like to see some compelling contradictory testimony before I spend my time trying to convince you that this testimony is credible. You see, there is a fatal flaw in your argument that you are not addressing. If something else happened at the Pentagon, witnesses would have come forward. The Pentagon is surrounded by LARGE highways. It is simply not practical to claim that the Pentagon COULD control all of these witnesses. Where are these witnesses that claim a large plane did NOT hit the Pentagon?

I could point you to several interviews of witnesses who still maintain that a large plane hit the Pentagon. You could claim that they are being "manipulated" but that would be non falsifiable speculation.

3) Interpretations - many flaws in how you interpret some of the witness statements. For example, many of the witnesses say that they saw a large commercial airliner fly towards the Pentagon, then disappear behind the horizon or buildings, then they saw an explosion. In other words, THEY DID NOT SEE THE AIRLINER HIT THE BUILDING, BUT ASSUMED IT DID. This is not nit-picking. In light of the multiple aircraft reported in the area at the time, and the strong possibility of a fly-over by at least one of the aircraft, the difference in actually SEEING the plane crash into the Pentagon, or ASSUMING it did, may make all the difference.

Ironically, you supply your "interpretation" that it "flew over"; but it ignores the simple fact that not one single witness has come forward to claim a flyover! Please provide one supporting eyewitness statement to *directly* confirm this suspicion. Again, the Pentagon is surrounded by LARGE highways. If it flew over someone would have reported it. Period. This is devastating evidence that a plane did not fly over. Please point me to witnesses who claim the plane was flying over 100 feet near the Pentagon--you will not find one. The Pentagon does not control all of the people on the highways. On the one hand you say the witnesses are suspect, but you don't have any witnesses of your own to support a flyover. I've already discussed the PentaCon--the witnesses in that film claimed it hit the Pentagon.

4) Reporters putting words into eyewitnesses mouths - Did the reporter taking the statement say AA77 hit the Pentagon, or did the person interviewed say they saw it? Believe it or not, there are quite a few examples of where reporters were the ones who added the crucial statement about AA77 to preface eye-witness quotes.

Really? Could you point to these witnesses please? I've read over 200 statements and I don't seem to remember this happening anywhere. If it did happen it was exceedingly rare. As I pointed out to you before, only 10% of the witnesses specifically claim it was a 757.

Dave McGowen's analysis I have read and I find it extremely problematic. The main criticism I have with it is that he again claims "we can't trust these witnesses" by simply casting suspicion. This is a straw-man argument: Show me the contradictory witnesses! If these witnesses are being manipulated it would be possible to find other witnesses who saw something else. Where are these witnesses?

People have to understand that you can't just pull off a fake attack in broad daylight beside multiple highways in typical early morning traffic and get away with it without someone coming forward. This is the fatal flaw of many Pentagon Eyewitness Critiques. You can critique the witnesses, but there are no compelling/credible contradictory accounts. If there are any, please point them out to me.

"You seem to not be aware of the golden rule of criminal investigators that say physical evidence always trumps eye-witness testimony"

Oh yes, I am aware that many pentagon skeptics believe that the testimony is contradicted by the Physical evidence but it is not. I could point to the fact that witnesses saw a silver plane and there was silver debris on the lawn, the fact that light poles were knocked down and witnesses saw a plane hit them, and I could keep giving you several more examples to show that it is actually the misinterpretation of physical evidence that is the problem here--not the witness statements. And you are claiming that the testimony does not support the physical evidence? There are plane parts that specifically indicate that the testimony is accurate. I am planning a paper to show this.

As for the Rumsfeldt quote: A plane can be used effectively as a missile, as he also says in reference to the WTC. In fact, why would the perps use a missle when they could more easily use a plane and make the hijackers look guilty. The sheer amount of effort needed to fabricate all of this evidence is overwhelmingly impractical.

To give you an example. The government did not convincingly fake a list of hijackers, and you're telling me they would go through the effort to fake hundreds of witness statements? Does that make any sense? Where are the contradictory eyewitness statements. You could equally nitpick the WTC statements, but it would not change the fact that most of them saw a large commercial plane hit the WTC, just as at the Pentagon.

Re: Mental Gymnastics

Perhaps you could go through all of the evidence the government would need to fake (including the implied flight path by the light poles and damage inside of the Pentagon), and then compare it with what they would have to do if they used a remote controlled plane. Explain to me why they would choose to fake all of the necessary evidence instead of flying a plane into the Pentagon. Try and come up with a remotely logical argument.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Sorry, you haven't even come close to addressing criticisms

You basically just keep repeating falshoods and fallacies without acknowledging the issues that were raised. For example,

"Independence is irrelevant if all of the witnesses describe the same thing. There is no compelling testimony that a plane did not hit the Pentagon."

This statement starts off with a logical falacy "independence is irrelevant", even though it was pointed out that statements made by people who are employed by the same entities who are complicit in the 9/11 crime or cover-up can't possibly be considered the most credible. What part of this do you not understand?

Then it repeats a falshood "all of the witnesses describe the same thing. There is no compelling testimony that a plane did not hit the Pentagon."

Repeating a falshood over and over again does not make it true. If you refuse to acknowledge the many witnesses who described seeing a missile, small plane, or something that is different than AA77 hitting the building, does that mean you are dishonest, or retarded? Which is it, Arabesque? This is really getting tiresome. Do I need to point you to these other witnesses again?

I really don't know why I should waste my time with you anymore. It seems pretty useless at this point. There's no reason to have to rehash the same arguments over and over again if you aren't willing to acknowledge in an honest way the issues that have been previously raised. You really are making people wonder at this point what your motivation is.

HE'S "dishonest or retarded?"

He asked you for one fucking witness who says a plane flew over the pentagon. You failed to find one. You resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Pretty clear "fallacy" there.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Ad hominems instead of debate

Isn't it interesting how "obvious" it is that a plane did "not" hit the Pentagon, that people have to resort to insults to make their case. I wonder why that is.

I don't take this guy seriously. But the fact that he is voted up is pretty depressing.

"Repeating a falshood over and over again does not make it true. If you refuse to acknowledge the many witnesses who described seeing a missile"

You mean like the falsehood that people saw a missile? Which witnesses *SAW* a missile? Please quote them for me, as my research has failed to turn up any witnesses. There are several who said the PLANE *sounded* like a missile. But no one SAW a missile.

1. “An airplane roared into view… it sounded like a missile.”

2. “We heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us.”

3. “A huge jet plane clearly with American airlines written on it… it looked like a deadly missile on the final phase of its mission into the building.”

4. I saw an American airlines jet… It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War—a missile strike that killed a Marine in my unit—that when I jumped out of my SUV, I felt like I’d jumped into my past and was in combat once again.”

5. “At that point I didn’t know it was a plane… I thought it was a missile strike - how dangerous things were. Pulling away from the Pentagon there was tons of stuff on the ground, big pieces of metal, concrete, everything. We got up to a certain point and there was this huge piece of something—I mean it was big, it looked like a piece of an engine or something—in the road.

6. “The large plane… almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course…”

7. “I saw this plane, this jet, an American airlines jet, coming. And I thought, ‘This doesn’t add up, it’s really low.’ “And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings… [years later:] I said it was like a cruise missile with wings. I never imagined for a moment that a statement like that would come back to haunt me over and over again. A French author would come out with a book describing in detail the conspiracy theory and he would use that quote out of context to help promote his conclusions. I was very angry about all of this, and I remain angry about it today.”

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Pentagon Flight Path and Pentagon Fakery

In response to my own comment above, I've made my own list of the stuff they would have needed to fake if they chose to fake a plane strike at the Pentagon:

There was some debris outside the Pentagon (you can call it planted without evidence if you want). There were plane parts—probably 757 (you can call that fake if you want). There were damaged light poles knocked down in a fashion corresponding to the wingspan of a large jetliner (you can call that fake if you want without coming up with a remotely logical explanation or motive for how or why they were knocked down). There was FAA, NEADS, and even Mineta testimony claiming that a plane was coming towards the Pentagon (you can call that fake if you want too). You can call hundreds of eyewitness statements fake if you want even though they are overwhelmingly in agreement and show us no contradictory statements. You can claim that it’s impossible due to “ground effect” to hit the lower part of the Pentagon even though it IS possible, you just have to point the plane lower (as is indicated in the testimony). You can claim that it’s impossible for planes to knock over light poles—even though they are specifically designed to be knocked over easily near airports (i.e. like the one near the Pentagon and the heliport). You could claim that the Pentagon is indestructible even though the lower floors of the building were not connected together (see the photo in my above post). You could claim that the Pentagon would literally risk all of this fakery in typical early morning traffic jams by major highways with hundreds of potential witnesses that they don’t control and who might have cameras. Right next to the Pentgon. You could claim that they would waste all of that effort on the War Games to remove air fighter defenses and then NOT take advantage of it to fly a plane into the Pentagon. You could even look at misleading photos taken out of context that misrepresent the hole size if you want to and claim that everything else is fake based on that. Lots of people do that even though the damage of the second floor is much wider than the damage on the first (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/entry-wounds.html). You could deny the claims of the witnesses who saw the plane fly into the building literally right next to it, and who still maintain a large plane hit the Pentagon years later.

Or they could fly a plane into a building using *remote control* to make Al Quaeda look guilty.

And while you're at it, explain to me how and then why they faked this flight path as suggested by the physical evidence (and confirmed by eyewitness testimony):


http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/023.jpg


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/debrispath.jpg

I consider this physical damage fingerprint to be smoking gun proof a large plane hit the Pentagon. If you disagree explain to me how they faked this damage pattern.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

for a fuller understanding.......

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9083#comment

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Although it's minorly interesting

That's all we need — yet another "theory".

Without thinking about it too much, I would suggest that the Pentagon hole does NOT look like the breach hole.

These daze I tend toward the "theory" that the firefighters made the hole for access.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent

http://www.chico911truth.org/

9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)

rapid wall breach

Heres an analysis of the exit hole i did a couple of years ago.pentagon exit hole analysis

actually i came up with the idea of the rapid wall breaching device.
(i gave that link to Russell)
Though i hadnt linked it to the second explosion.

There was a contractors trailer parked in front of the pentagon that day.
TO me this is the most overlooked part of the pentagon investigation.
It changes what the damage SHOULD look like IF a plane would to have hit the Pentagon
It would have hit the trailer FIRST !

Also to me this makes a LIAR out of everyone who said they saw a plane hit the pentagon.
If they saw a plane hit something
they would have said they saw it hit a TRAILER !

Heres a photo of what was left of it
http://physics911.ca/org/modules/myalbum/photos/23.jpg

more on the trailer...
http://911review.org/brad.com/noplane.html

pentagon trailer

Dont just think outside the box.
Think like there never was one.

Brad
911review.org

rapid wall breach + the trailer

as far as the rapid wall breaching kit
what I had first posted was that it may have created the hole in the rear ring
not the damage in front.
I think that was done by explosives in the trailer.

Why does anyone think it was a plane or missile i dont know.
it was just explosives (directed)
Personally i think 2 sets of explosives
1 in the building
and 1 in the trailer just outside.

Jet fuel doesnt even ignite that easily.
http://911review.org/_webimages/PentagonFirefighters3.JPG
even if it did
the fuel and explosion would have bounced back
burning the grass
it didnt.

Dont just think outside the box.
Think like there never was one.
Brad
911review.org