"Flight 77" The White Plane (explosive new evidence from CIT!)

CIT further exposes the mainstream media cover-up with this extremely important new 37 minute short revealing what the people of Arlington REALLY saw on 9/11.

It's clear the media is complicit in this operation and/or manipulated by the perpetrators so to accept what they report out of hand and keep turning back to the previously published eyewitness accounts as valid evidence can only push us farther from the truth.

Here we lift the veil of media deception to give you an inside look at how the operation was carried out.

Citizen Investigation Team presents:

"Flight 77" The White Plane

Great Job CIT...

Nuff Respect for getting out and interviewing witnesses "for the record".

It's clear, confusion was the name of the game at the Pentagon on 9/11.

All valid questions raised, certainly need to be put in the "boiling pot" when a "real" 9/11 investigation takes place !!!

Many thanks and best wishes

Good job Craig and crew.

Good job Craig and crew. The interview with the lady who witnessed the white plane from her bathroom, mentioned she saw the propellers (revealed @ 14:00 mins. into the vid), later in the interview standing in the doorway, you mentioned the propellers, did she observe propellers or did she mean engines? That wasn't cleared up.

Also, several witnesses mentioned only one stripe, most stated it was blue and some said red, were these witnesses seeing the same side of the airplane at each different location? If the perps were wanting to create a discrepancy in any eyewitness, they may have painted the strip on one side red and the other blue, (just brainstorming). From all accounts, it doesn't seem like any were describing a AA owned A/C, because all AA 757 & 767 are not painted white only the strips which are both red and blue horizontal on both sides , this is their trade mark because the plane is not weighted down with many applications of paint, whereby more fuel efficient. Also, did any witness mention the bubble, like in a doomsday A/C?

It's not mentioned very often, but when I first heard that Capt. Charles Burlingame, who used to work at the Pentagon in the very same area that was struck (by whatever) was the area he used to work in. Even more puzzling, (is mentioned somewhere can't remember maybe LooseChange) The Capt. Burlingame (while in reserves) ran that same exercise of a A/C hitting the Pentagon in the same area. If true, that is mind boggling.


Hi Joann,

Watch Cindy's interview again and you will see that I did clear that up. Later in the interview when I show her the pictures of the different planes including the C-130 I specifically asked her if she saw "propellers" and mention that she had said that and she said no. She then pointed out the turbine engine on the white 757 and said that was "exactly" what she saw. She was simply using the wrong terminology.

That's a good thought about a red and blue stripe but all of the witnesses in this presentation were on the starboard side of the craft INCLUDING Sgt. Brooks which proves the plane did not hit the poles or cause the damage to the building.

It's pretty clear that the first witness, Jamal, was TRYING to think of AA colors rather than what he remembered.

He is the only one who reported a red stripe.

Obviously all of them are fallible witnesses and we should not expect any of them to be 100% perfectly correct.

But CORROBORATION is the key and the white claim and the north side of the citgo claim are the two most independently corroborated details we came up with from all the confirmed first-hand testimony that we could find.

Here are 22 pentagon witness

Here are 22 pentagon witness clips i collected from the 9/11 archive. If you need any of those clips in HQ just let me know and i'll upload it for you.


We'll probably hit you up for future pieces.

Send us an email with your contact info.


There WAS a second, smaller plane

I suggest that it is close enough to impossible to call it as such to see a plane that close and confuse a large jumbo jet-type plane with a smaller passenger jet plane as the one witness mentioned. And he's not the only one. (unless he's the same one I had seen before in writing)

I think the large (white) plane over flew the Pentagon, traveling as noted to the North of the Citgo gas station, and it was the smaller plane that hit it, and that is the plane that knocked down the light poles and flew to the South of the Citgo gas station. (I think the "planted light poles" theory is almost as bad as no-planer, mini-nuke, space beams)


Quote: "...what looked to be maybe a 20-passenger corporate jet. No markings on the side..."

I think it is that small jet/nose that we almost see on the released Pentagon security video tapes.

It would be interesting if you could find more witnesses to that smaller plane on that South side, although a small plane like that is not going to be as noticeable as a large jumbo jet.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Does anybody else find this

Does anybody else find this testimony from Don Wright just a little suspicious?

DW: It came from the south
PJ: Up alond the river or across the land?
DW: It came from the south.

Why does mr Wright not answer the question if he indeed saw the plane? It seems scripted to me.

He did (sort of) at the end of interview...

stating it was a small twin engine (commuter type jet)...

so much contradiction !!!

Thanks for all the clips, best wishes

He says he saw it, but then

He says he saw it, but then why would he not answer that question. It seem like he's repeating what he was told to tell; that it was a small plane that came from the south.

Another really strange clip is this man, Aziz ElHallan, who brings a piece of the plane with him to the studio.

What is that part? Why was

What is that part?

Why was it not confiscated as evidence? Private citizens are allowed to keep "souvenirs" of AA77 but documentation of debris is "in a file exempt from disclosure" according to the FBI?

What is seriously wrong with this picture?

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

The part was white

it appeared to have rivets...
I don't think AA jets have any parts painted white.

It appeared to be some sort of external part.

there's a moving part

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

there's a moving part on the back, sort of like a small chain:

The chain on the back

The chain on the back connects to the small 'hatch' ( to prevent it from getting lost when it's opened, like most gas caps on cars).



“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

yeah man.

This interview with Aziz El Hallan is utterly disgusting.

Notice how he can barely keep from cracking a smile.

We believe we have located him in this Ingersoll image:


The problem is that this image was taken 6 to 7 minutes after the event up in the Navy Annex parking lot making it impossible for him to have been on the highway when the plane passed over and to stand out by his car for 20 minutes as he claims.

i see a similarity between

oh wow

I actually never noticed that but yeah definitely.

How do you post images here?

Just upload to

Just upload to http://imageshack.us/ and paste the proper code in your message.

It's illegal to remove evidence from a crime scene

So why isn't that asshole in jail???

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

He wasn't on that highway.

(smaller version)

I have a copy of Jason Ingersoll's photo collection. The photos are very high resolution. In staring at them I noticed Mr. "El Hallan" here up at the Navy Annex parking lot. I have spoken to Jason. I learned that this photo was taken about less than 5 minutes after the event up at the Navy Annex.

That means he could not have been on the highway, Rt 27, for 20 minutes with his girlfriend like he said.

If you don't think it is him, then I guess you have to add it to the long list of coincidences.

He claims he is a pilot (although I can find no record his license). Note the part where he starts to grin as the news caster breaks into a serious statement about the plane and the attack.

Just so you know, the DoD link that actually hosts his photo series http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=8769 , OMITS the "El Hallan" photo and this photo (that I zoomed in on and added my own details, due to the little oddity I noticed[this photo is before the cab becomes visible sideways on the highway in the next photos after this one]):

Why would they omit these two photos from their high resolution series?

deleted post

EDIT: double post.

I 100% agree.

VERY astute observation, Arie.

I am glad I am not the only one who picked up on that. Don Wright is an AP photographer, I believe. This is not confirmed though, so don't hold me to it.

We personally believe that the small plane(global hawk)/missile stuff was disinfo from jumpstreet. It kept us chasing our tails. It kept the people of Arlington thinking we were all nuts, and kept them not willing to talk to us. They knew there was a big jet.

I spoke with Steven Gerard, who WORKS FOR THE DoJ and describes the "20 passenger corporate jet no markings on the side". He was very evasive and very uncooperative. He said, "My story is it was it is. It's on the record"..."I don't want part in any conspiracy theory". I told him his account as the reason for a lot of conspiracy theories. I asked why he also told his story like this on 9/11/01 as well:

"Out of the corner of my eye, I saw this plane coming down. I was talking on my cell phone to my wife about how close I was to the airport and then I saw the fireball."

He really didn't have an answer, instead seemed to get defensive.

Ask yourself why Don Wright, Don Chauncey (saw a white one), and Steven Gerard all describe a small jet hittiing the Pentagon, yet they didn't see the "second" plane/jet that was chasing/shadowing along the same flight path, that veered away as soon as the explosion of the "crash" happened.

I kinda got to agree with Doughnut here

A smaller plane like the old Navy fighter or something but a plane of some sort had to have hit because there is evidence of wreckage of a plane. In no way could everything have been "staged" to appear like a plane hitting, something actually hit the light post & the building. We can be reasonably certain at this point that TWO flying objects were involved thanks to your work here.
One "appears" to have been what looked like a AA jet from the North coming in damn fast and low (150' or so) and pulled up at the last 10th of a second while whatever it was that came in very low (about 20' off the ground) from the south and probably much smaller hence the two differing stories we hear and that is what actually impacted the building because the physical evidence proves it.

What is weird here is WHY bother, I mean they clearly did use the other 3 planes to impact targets so why such an elaborate attack here?

I guess after further review I'm going to have to go back to my skepticism at the Pentagon attack because I need more hard irrefutable evidence that can not be mistaken for anything else.

The Laws of Physics don't lie, Controlled Demolition is a proven fact so the overwhelming evidence of the CD of buildings 1,2&7 hang them out to dry to anyone sane.

This is still fishy, but I think we are getting closer to what actually happened thanks to what you have done here.

We present nothing to support two planes.

We have found zero evidence for this.

All the people we have spoken with saw one large twin engine passenger jet.


Surely ONE of the citgo witnesses particularly Robert Turcios would have seen a plane on the south side.

Plus Lloyd's story is physically impossible.

The physical damage at the Pentagon is minuscule compared to staging 3 covert controlled demolitions in downtown Manhattan.

There was barely any debris and the part that was "hit" only had a fraction of the amount of people that any other portion of the building. had due to the years long "renovation" that was nearly complete.

There were plenty of unoccupied rooms that could have been holding plane parts or any evidence they wanted.

This was their headquarters and their backyard! Staging the damage would be a snap compared to what they pulled off in New York.

I still see no evidence

of this, speculation is just speculation.
and If there was a huge 757 highballing it to your immediate left in plain view I seriously doubt any of the Citgo folks would have or even could have seen a very low flying small craft on the other side of the gas station coming in at exactly the same time, one of the cops even said that when you asked how certain he was that what he saw was on the north side.

I have heard a few people say what they saw was a small commuter plane. No doubt this was the other object whatever it was.

In fact one of the cops actually said what he saw was the plane turn kinda sideways right when it hit, that would fit perfectly to a smaller plane coming from the south at an angle and hitting right as the big plane pulls up and goes over the pentagon.
I'm going on your witness testimony.

of course there is evidence.

1. Lloyd's story is physically impossible. The pole did not spear his windshield regardless of the size of the plane.

2. The plane was on the north side.

Robert Turcios was on the south side of the building so surely he would have heard or seen a plane over there.

Brooks would have seen it too.

Barely anyone calls it a "small plane".

Besides.....it would take a 124 foot wing span to be physically ABLE to hit the poles.

A small plane couldn't do it and would be more likely to break up after hitting them as well.

I could not care less

about "Lloyds story" Its physically impossible fine.

Yes the BIG plane was without any question on the North side you have done a fantastic job of PROVING this without any doubt in my mind.

I don't care what they call it, small plane, Missile, Global Hawk and so on which is why I just call it a flying object of some sort.

The 124' wingspan to be able to hit the poles NOW THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. that is evidence that can NOT be refuted if indeed you have the measurement correct.
A "Global Hawk" has a 116' wingspan so if indeed you can prove the wingspan needed to hit those 5 light post would have to be at least 124' then that narrows down the possibilities.
The wingspan of a A3 Skywarrior btw is only about 73'.

I am in no way against you hear, I just need tangible evidence that can not be refuted is all.

I want to pick your brain so to speak, CONVINCE me and show me why you believe what you do....The eyewitness video from Citgo was absolutely superb.

There is ZERO tangible evidence for a "global hawk".

And much evidence to refute it.

There is no logic in demanding evidence while dogmatically sticking onto an old hypothesis that is backed up by nothing.

The pole on the ground and Lloyd's undamaged hood IS physical evidence so you SHOULD care about it. You have to reconcile that evidence with whatever you believe happened. A global hawk is about the only "small plane" that would have the necessary wing span but they are quite fragile and it would have likely broken up before it reached the Pentagon and left a bunch of global hawk debris on the lawn instead of a few scraps of AA debris like was found.

But again......we have attempted to contact virtually every one of the previously published accounts and have been successful speaking with dozens.

We have canvassed the neighborhoods in search of unknown witnesses and have been incredibly successful with this as well.

NOBODY saw 2 aircraft and EVERYONE we spoke with saw a twin engine passenger jet.

The couple of "small plane" previously published accounts that exist are quite dubious as has been discussed and yes we have made contact with the most significant one...Steven Gerard, who WORKS FOR THE DoJ as Merc/Aldo has already posted. He was extremely evasive and not willing to talk at all.

Legitimate witnesses do not act that way.

Believe what you want but realize that you are the one asserting things without evidence. If we found evidence for a second aircraft or a global hawk we would certainly report it.

The two white pieces o plane

The two white pieces o plane look like planted evidence to reinforce the idea of a small light plane/UAV.

Statement from Penny Elgas
Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window. The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material.

Someone could have simply dropped it in her car.


Any one of the feds on that highway could have easily done that or she could be a plant as well.

But Penny doesn't have to be an agent.

In fact she reports the plane as being 80 feet above her which is too high to hit the poles and she also reports the plane "banked" which contradicts the official story but supports the north of the citgo flight path.

The notion that she recognized it as an AA jet could be an embellishment but her account of the plane "melting into the building" is a bit dramatic and detailed.

Frankly her highly publicized account and cush position in government has me leaning towards fabrication before embellishment.

what makes you think the "hood" has to be damaged

in order for a pole to hit the windshield? If the pole was bent at the end it could have easily hit the windshield without touching the hood.
Lloyds undamaged hood is physical evidence of his hood not being damaged that's all.

and I'm not saying a Global Hawk was the object, in fact going on what you claim as 124' wingspan needed is why I listed the Global Hawk above with 116' wingspan, also the A3 Sky warrior which the other plane in question which is even smaller note that both of these are smaller than 124' meaning they could not have been the object if indeed there was one. Get a grip

I'm not asserting ANYTHING at all, I just don't believe everything I am told until I see evidence for it.

you can not divorce Lloyd's account from the physical evidence.

Perhaps you haven't watched it yet but Lloyd tells us himself how the pole entered his car.

He could not be simply incorrectly remembering removing the long pole with the bent end "all the way through to the back seat" and the bottom heavier end "sticking out over the hood" with help from a stranger in a van who "didn't say a word" and even falling down with the pole on top of him in the process.

If even a portion of this detailed story was the least bit valid there would be significant damage to his hood.

Removing the pole would be left to the authorities anyway.

The notion that ANYONE would attempt to remove the pole themselves within 9 minutes of an event like this or any violent event is absurd.

OK I finally got to watch the Lloyd video

Well I don't get the same "absolutely impossible" vibe that you get.
What I saw was an old guy that's kinda slow, maybe early stage Alzheimer's and what he said wasn't impossible but certainly was suspicious.
I fail to see how you think these poles were all just laying around for hours without anyone noticing, there had to have been what probably about 1000 or more cars passing by where these poles were just laying around and nobody saw them? Now THAT is impossible.
Then all the debris on the freeway got there how?

Sorry but this is not irrefutable evidence of anything.

Now I did also watch the "USA Today Parade" video and nothing much stuck me as impossible or whatever about that either until the very last guy "Mike Walter" now that guy was just flat out LYING at the end there no question about it.
He also sounds like he is lying here to me.

So far the Citgo witnesses are BY FAR the best evidence that PROVES that at least one of two things happened.

1. There was a big plane decoy from the North that pulled up at the last split second while an object of some sort (Missile, A3 Sky warrior, Global Hawk, blah blah) came in from the south and hit the Pentagon (this to me sounds most believable & whether or not anyone didn't see a second plane is moot, after all according to you virtually everyone on the freeway within 1/2 mile + were all plants anyway.)

2. There was a big plane decoy from the North that pulled up at the last split second while pre planted explosives blew the Pentagon with pre planted airplane debris blowing both inward and also outward to scatter whatever fake plane parts, with 5 light post just laying on the ground unnoticed for hours & hours by 1000s of cars and somehow scattering debris all over the freeway plus punching a big hole into a car windshield unless maybe he drove the car that way to where he stopped. (Now the preplanted explosives in the Pentagon could be entirely believable, no evidence of it but none the less a possibility, the light post however is just too far fetched.)

I think its more believable that the people you seem to think are all plants (which is possible) are simply lying about NOT seeing a second object whistling in 20' off the ground and slamming into the Pentagon while taking out 5 light post.

Bit hard to believe how they were the only ones on the road at what was supposed to be rush hour. Was the freeway blocked off by FBI a mile or two from the Pentagon and they only allowed those few planted cars through?

No matter what one thing you have done is PROVE without question that a plane came from the North and NOT down what was supposed to be the official flight path which is outstanding.

It seems to me that if your scenario was true that the pilot of the decoy plane phucked up and went down the wrong flight path.

and again no matter what there is one thing that you have proven regardless whether or not you are correct about the light poles or Lloyd or anything else and that is that teh official story is a LIE and that 9/11 was an inside job. The Citgo witnesses alone do that and quite convincingly, all the other stuff is mostly speculation but it doesn't really matter.

north side is smoking gun...

It is all that matters so kudos to you for understanding that. And for the record I think it's great that you are asking questions and being skeptical and viewing the evidence.

Now......yes Lloyd seems not quite all there (easier to manipulate?) but that doesn't change the fact that his story IS physically impossible. The length and weight of the pole (40 feet & 247lbs) with the kinetic energy of a 90 ton jet would damage his hood if there was any legitimacy to his story of removing the pole with the silent stranger etc. This can not be denied.

4 out of the 5 poles were in inconspicuous areas off to the side in the grass some completely hidden. It's a very small stretch of highway and EVEN IF someone saw a pole on the side of the road before the event as they were passing by it would not matter. A pole on the side of the road is not a reason for alarm.

The downed poles were NOT a focus of the news reports in all the chaos of that day and not a single official report since then has addressed them at all.

Most average citizens and even most in the truth movement don't know anything about the poles.

So EVEN IF someone noticed the downed poles before the event and EVEN IF they put 2 and 2 together after the event and EVEN IF they decided to call the FBI about it; what do yo think would happen?

Obviously nothing.

There was little to no attention to the light poles until we came around 5 years later and shined a spot light on them.

Also....we do NOT think that "everyone" on the highway were "plants". Mike Walter is the only one that has proof he was there at all and clearly even you don't believe his story. We have even more on him that will come out in a future release. But there is no reason to believe that ANY of the other USA Today/Gannett employees were really there.

The media simply published fabricated accounts from operatives that were assigned the role of going public as "witnesses" while refusing to do their job of going out on the street to find real witnesses.

Think about it.....other previously published witnesses are people like PNAC member Gary Bauer, corrupt GOP congressman Rick Renzi, Bobby Eberle who was Jeff Gannon's boss, and right wing publisher Alfred Regnery.

The list of dubious high profile "witnesses" is long.

These are the accounts that were published.

They don't have to really have been there to fabricate their accounts to the media.


Now I think I'm getting closer to understanding.
I had thought for some reason that most of the poles were either right on or very near the road, that they were kinda hidden gives more credence to your pole theory.
and you are right even though I have followed this and to my own satisfaction have thought that the Bush administration pulled off 9/11 ever since early Dec of 2001 I have seen very few reports of the light post, just a few pictures.
I was on websites like GMA & other news sites being banned left and right by early 2002 because I was saying I thought this was a false flag attack. Then I couldn't even mention it without having the entire site jump down my throat, now I can hardly visit a site unless of course it some extreme Reich wing lunatic site where the vast majority of respondents aren't in full agreement with what I post.

EVEN IF they decided to call the FBI about it; what do yo think would happen?

Excellent point, far as we know there may have been a freaking 100 people that passed by and saw a pole or something that didn't look right how the hell would we know especially if they went to the FBI or police which would obviously just dismiss it.

I also noticed years ago the list of people that allegedly saw this as being just about a who's who of Reich wing nutbaggery which I thought years ago was awfully convenient.

and NO I don't believe a stinking word that Walter character says, I can usually tell when someone is lying and that guy sure seems like he is lying to me.

They don't have to really have been there to fabricate their accounts to the media.

True again, as long as there isn't any video or other proof of any kind about where these jokers were right at that time then its just their word given to a complicit mainstream media.
Be nice if there was some way to catch one of them in that lie, course now 6 years later the odds of that are slim to none, like a DOT camera shot or something.

Anyway I think you have done an outstanding job especially with the eyewitness accounts. This sheds light on the Pentagon after about 6 years of darkness that is indeed an accomplishment.


Kudos to you Nunya for asking honest questions and allowing your position to move because of logic and evidence.

That is a sign of a TRUE critical thinker.



Thank you

24 years as a Marine biologist has made it so that is the only way I can absorb, digest information.

I just follow the evidence as it comes to me.

Thanks for your efforts to show it to me and also to bring this out in the open since we obviously do not have an honest media.

A large jet hitting would have caused MUCH more damage imo

Relatively speaking, the damage at the Pentagon was small. Some claim it was the "reinforced" building that contained (?) the plane and the explosion and that was why it wasn't that big. Considering that Rumsfeld (supposedly) and others and their HQ were on the other side of the building, using a smaller, easier to control jet makes sense to me.

I also don't think people would have noticed a smaller, faster (?), quieter jet, especially if they were focusing on the big jet and the loud noise and spectacle it was making.

I don't see any good reason for them to fly the jet in from one direction, and then "set up" some broken, fallen light posts to make it look like it came in from another direction. To me, that is completely nonsensical. (unless they are suggesting that there was no jet at all and it was a "truck bomb", or something like that, but you still don't need to set up fake clipped light posts if you are going to do that, especially when you have people claiming they saw the jet and/or saw it hit the building, so, again, the "faked light posts" are unnecessary)

I suppose you could claim the guy is lying about the smaller jet, or claim that he is mistaken. ("they", since I believe there was more than one witness to that) I don't see any good reason for a lie, and I don't think anyone would confuse a large jumbo jet and a smaller passenger jet when you see them that close.

Of course, the CIT people have glommed onto the black taxi driver, like a pitbull who won't let go, as some sort of a lying cointelpro disinfo agent, so they are blinded at this point to anything that contradicts their beliefs and theories about that. And that fact alone, imo, is enough to cause them to not find any other witnesses to the smaller jet. They probably aren't even looking or asking around about that. It's like when in court the police are asked if they looked at any other potential perpetrators to the crime, and they say, "No, just the defendant, because we are sure that black bastard is the one who did the crime". Objectivity is always key and of the utmost importance. (and that's just an example, btw, I'm not suggesting or implying that the CIT people are racist)

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Yes I did ask.

I asked EVERYONE how many planes they saw and where they saw the plane fly.

To suggest that we are "blinded" by a desire to persecute Lloyd is absurd and a completely baseless charge on your part.

We have our position on Lloyd BECAUSE of the evidence. For all we know he is a victim of coercion or manipulation. We don't hold him responsible for 9/11! But he is a direct link to the perps. This can not be denied.

We didn't create the north side claim by looking for it.

You can't create a small plane on the south side by looking for it either.

We most certainly were looking for ANYONE to place ANYTHING on the south side of the citgo and it simply didn't happen.

We are reporting the evidence. You have no legitimate excuse to accuse us of refusing to report claims of a small plane on the south side that wouldn't even have the wingspan to knock down the poles.

Think about what you are saying.

We have found as many witnesses as we could find and reported everything that all of them said.



Congratulations, Craig&Aldo!

This is even a bigger breakthru than your first piece. This is groundbreaking research, methodologically correct and very instructive.

The deconstructing of CNN's new "evidence" is most interesting. So the E4B served as distraction and something we call "Sollbruchstelle" in German - predetermined breaking point. In case people would report the white jet over the Navy Annex in the immediate aftermath (there were some indeed, but very few, and they did not get much airtime) it could be explained away by the white jet over the White House.
But until summer 2007, it turned out not to be necessary to admit the existence of the E4B. And now they're trying to "merge" the E4B with the other white plane to only one plane: "Sollbruchstelle". This is as I interpet it.

I really hope more people will recognize the importance of your work and the value of your approach.


But congratulations will only be in order when the perps are brought to justice and then the entire movement deserves the pat on the back.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with "Sollbruchstelle".

People tend to act like CIT has a tendency to accuse all the witnesses of being liars. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We accuse the MEDIA as being the liars.

They lie by omission, they lie by confusion, and they lie by straight up fabrication.

Think about it.....the media was TOLD by the government what was going on so they would obviously try to report the witnesses that support that story and write off contradictions as anomalous and never report them. So naturally there are even some honest reporters that would fall into that trap.

This is why the web of deception is so effective. We can NOT automatically consider media reports as valid evidence.

Of course there were operatives putting out fake "witness" accounts but most of the real people on the street who were really there are honest people who were simply fooled in the maze of confusion of this complex operation.

Thanks Woody. You are an

Thanks Woody. You are an inspiration and a great influence. Everyone can take a page out of your book.

I find it sad and aggravating that you European guys are doing way more than the majority of American truthers in the way of the slogan "Investigate 9/11".

I sometimes hope we aren't right. But the evidence is what it is.

This is....

great work and very vital for the movement. You should feel proud of your accomplishment. Keep it up!

Show "Just wondering" by Victronix

37 minutes is too long to watch all the way through?

I guess that means you clearly never bothered to watch the testimony provided in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version either since that is a whopping 80 minutes!

There was no cherry picking. We knocked on doors, asked people what they saw, and reported what they said.

How can you possibly cherry pick previously unknown witnesses? You have to find them!

To accept mainstream media reports in favor of video taped first-hand testimony obtained via independent investigation from official story skeptics would be considered cherry picking.

We have demonstrated how 1 confirmed previously unknown witness is more valuable than dozens of mainstream media reports.

For those that haven't seen it yet please watch The USA Today Parade to see just how dubious some of the mainstream reports really are.

Show "Why not just answer the question?" by Victronix

answer to your question

>>>>>>>>>>Did anyone say, "That was no American Airlines that I saw on that day. That was a very different plane."?

If you would have taken 37 minutes out of your busy life you would have realized that the question was answered in the presentation.

Robert Turcios:

"I know what an American Airlines looks like, it has the colored stripes running down the sides, but I don't know what that was supposed to be."

Most of the people we talked with did not know what an AA jet looks like OR that it was an AA jet that allegedly hit the Pentagon.

You know why?

Because most people do not ever think about these kinds of details.

But even worse than that..............to make such a blatant proclamation is to outright accuse our government of one of the most heinous crimes in world history.

Do you think that is easy to do?

Do you think that people are quick to speak out on camera if they believe they witnessed such a thing?

Do you really question why Robert Turcios is reluctant to use the kind of language you are requiring?

At this point you have almost completely lost your objectivity

Which I think is why people are voting you down.

A True Skeptic is open, objective, and unbiased, or tries very hard to be so, as much as humanly possible.

Imo, you are increasingly closed-minded, subjective and biased. As your comments show. (as well as increasingly paranoid, to your detriment)

You can't even be bothered now to continue with good, skeptical research and analysis. (the implication being, in part, that your "mind is made up, and you aren't changing it, no matter what anyone says")

And you are not alone. Step back from the brink of the abyss before it's too late.

We need people to be True Skeptics. It's difficult, especially at this late date, but it's important.

Paranoia, especially hyper-paranoia, and particularly long-term hyper-paranoia, blinds people to the Truth.

And to fall into that trap gives "them" a big win.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

HA - you and nunyabiz are

HA - you and nunyabiz are playing in tandem trying desperately to insert disinfo in this thread, and all Victronix did was ask a question.
Congrats you made the list! :D
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

the list? creepy. so

the list? creepy. so Nunyabiz is disinfo now too? wow.

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

Don't worry Chris you above

Don't worry Chris you above reproach! /snicker>
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month


HA - you and nunyabiz are playing in tandem trying desperately to insert disinfo in this thread, and all Victronix did was ask a question.
Congrats you made the list! :D

Ummm you can go PHUCK YOURSELF asshole.

I am doing nothing but asking some god damn questions to things that don't seem right to me at all if that is "disinfo" then you are a paranoid freak

Well I got to tell ya

to me personally this is absolute confirmation that no plane hit the Pentagon. This is literally on par with the absolute fact (proven scientifically & by the laws of physics) that all 3 towers were taken down by controlled demolition. I have always been skeptical of the Pentagon story, whether a plane hit, or a missile, or an old navy jet or whatever because I have never seen absolute proof.
I small hole with no visible plane wreckage was good enough to make me lean towards no plane hitting the building.....

But this to me is ground breaking, OUTSTANDING! work I can not believe that nobody has interviewed these people (clear media cover up) and also that you guys were able to is equally unbelievable.

But really I can only say freaking BRAVO, this is without question a huge nail in these Fascist coffins.


I was almost in tears watching this I would like to hear Nutbag Meigs talk his way outa this evidence.

Damn good work.

You can help....

By spreading the information.

It brings me to tears regularly as we get confirmation after confirmation.

The citgo witness testimony is just as definitive so if you haven't watched it yet please do right here.

The plane plane did not look like an AA jet, crossed over from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike and the Citgo station, and pulled up over route 27.

This is corroborated by all and directly refuted by none.

The testimony we have provided is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a military deception.

This is hard EVIDENCE that will hold up in a court of law.

I talked with Lagasse just the other day and stands by his claim 100%. He will go to his grave knowing the plane flew on the north side because that is where it flew. We have 2 MORE unreleased witnesses who also support the north side claim so that is 6 total.

The cops and all of them can be subpoenaed.

The movement seriously needs to get behind this information because there is zero speculation involved.

Thanks for your support.



actually the Citgo witness

video is the one that I watched because I can rarely get google video to play anymore so I went to your site and watched the Citgo one on Divx.
I haven't even watched this short one, I saw the 1 hour & 20 min one.

Will try to watch this one also.


1- a white & striped plane repeatedly identified by witnesses in the CIT interview..

2- is later the documented 'mystery' plane, departing DC airspace after having possibly just discharged a missile into the Pentagon?

2b- can an image of the mystery plane be proffered during interviews?


At the time the only other plane that was reported seen in the area was the C-130 and that turned out to be a lie because nobody we talked to saw it and because we have had direct communication with the pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, who says that he did NOT see the plane hit the Pentagon and was so far away that that he did not even know it was the Pentagon that got hit when he saw the smoke.

We didn't even think of the E4B as a possibility at the time and did not know for sure people would call the plane white.

But here are the reasons why we do not believe the plane people in Arlington saw was the E4B......

1. NOBODY we talked to reports 4 engines.

2. We have even more reports (still unreleased) that it was more like a two tone plane like this:
click for image

3. The report from CNET radio that there was a "light white jet circling the helipad area" AND one by the white house.
(no other reports have the E4B circling the Pentagon or being over Arlington at all.)

4. The fact that the E4B was paraded out in the open CLEARLY meant to be seen by everyone and has now been touted by the mainstream media as being THE white plane.

It's quite clear this plane was used as a cover story.

CNN's John King is no

CNN's John King is no stranger to 9/11 damage control.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

the C130 is total disinfo by the government

C130's are hard to miss and they are SLOW in comparison to jets. I've seen many C130's flying overhead at different distances and am convinced that it should have been reported by numerous witnesses...so the C130 is pure BS and that scumbag pilot who's on the record should hopefully be locked up real soon!

kind of...

We think you are half right.

The media has clearly twisted the C-130 pilot's account to make it seem like he witnessed the alleged impact or to give legitimacy to some of the fabricated claims by eyewitnesses that he "shadowed" or "followed" the AA jet until it hit the building and then veered off over the Pentagon at the last moment.

But we have had direct contact with O'Brien and he does NOT make this claim.

In fact he says that after he turned around to "follow" it as ATC requested that he already saw the smoke rising.

But he was so far away and high up at that point that he did not even know the smoke was coming from the Pentagon!

So because of this, we don't have any reason to believe O'Brien was "in on it".

The twisting of details of his account is yet another example of media deception to cover up for the plane that flew over the building timed perfectly with the explosion.

oh wait.....

I didn't see that you mentioned a missile.


There was no missile.

Nobody saw a missile.

The plane was on the north side of the citgo so even if it did fire a missile that nobody saw it wouldn't line up with the physical damage.

The downed light poles were staged.

The missile is disinfo started by Rumsfeld.

Oh, interesting

Thanks for the response & continued research. Good luck and looking forward to learn more


I believe Meyssan's book was published in March 2002, and I've long tended to think of that as the initiation of the missile hypothesis (if I'm not mistaken, the first release of blurry, inconclusive security camera footage from the Pentagon took place that same month, as if in response to Meyssan). But I just checked online, and Rumsfeld's 'the missile to damage this building' comment reportedly was made to a Parade magazine interviewer on October 12, 2001 (synchronicity!--that's six years ago yesterday). Still, my impression has been that it was Meyssan's work that really breathed life into the missile hypothesis within the community of skeptics of the official story. Does anyone here know whether and to what extent Meyssan relied on Rumsfeld's remark in making his argument?

meyssan might work for rumsfeld....

...for all we know.

Bottom line NOBODY saw a missile.

It was the same M.O. as at the towers.

Real planes were used as psychological weapons while the actual destruction was initiated with pre-planted explosives.

Clearly they had no intention of completely demolishing their own headquarters so it was in their best interest to not have the plane hit the building to ensure the desired damage was accomplished with surgical precision.

That just doesn't add up

I'm afraid, something hit the light post & the building, something blew through several walls and something left wreckage.
Unless you think somehow the various plane parts were planted before the attack and made to look like wreckage but I really don't see any evidence of that, also I cant imagine the light post being pre planted on the freeway that just doesn't make any sense.
That would require the full cooperation & knowledge of planned attack by a LOT of people.
A projectile of some sort hitting the Pentagon would require maybe only about 5 people, some one to turn off the missile defense system (Rumsfeld), a couple to operate the two flying objects (One big plane from the North and one small something from the south) maybe one or 2 others on the ground.
But planting explosives, planting tons of spare plane parts and all of it out of sight of however many thousands including guards at the Pentagon is one hell of a Mission Impossible operation.

I am fully open to being convinced of this theory however I don't see any evidence of it yet.

I'm thinking maybe we should someone like Chris Angel how this could be pulled off.

Just curious,the people you

Just curious,the people you interviewed..you know exactly where they were & had them point out the planes flight path.Does their testimony support the 'North of Citco' or the 'South of Citgo' flight path?


the north or south of the citgo flight path can only be determined when you are actually at the citgo because it is at the bottom of a steep decline after the Navy Annex.

You can not even see the citgo OR the bottom floors of the Pentagon from the Navy Annex due to the decline and the trees.

Here is our estimated flight path as corroborated by ALL the genuine previously unpublished witnesses we could find:

click for image

Eyewitnesses to light pole damage?

None of the eyewitnesses you have spoken to from the highway area actually saw the plane clip the light poles, correct? Some said they heard it, others "deduced" it, and still others saw the damage after the fact. But none of them actually saw it happen. That seems crazy to me. From what you've discovered, there was standstill rush hour traffic. Hundreds of cars would have had the perfect view to witness a huge plane less than 80 ft. above the highway, clipping light poles along the way. Yet there are no witnesses who actually saw it.

Great work as always. Looking forward to more of it.


This is quite notable.

There are very few people that even mention the pole in the previously published accounts (about 16) and only 1 says that she "saw" the light light poles get hit. (wanda ramey)

We haven't been able to find her to get her to get her to confirm this but we HAVE spoken with quite a few other high profile "light pole" witnesses directly (Joel Sucherman, Mike Walter, Stephen McGraw, & Chad Brooks) who ALL admit that they did NOT see the plane hit the poles and only deduced it after the fact.

Even amongst all the unconfirmed previously published accounts not a single one mentions seeing the pole in the cab OR the cabbie removing the pole.

a few problems with the light pole

damage thing.....One is that this huge 757 would have had to been 20' off the ground traveling almost 500mph which I believe from I understand is aerodynamically impossible.
Two is how could you possibly miss an object that big going that fast taking out 5 light post.
You could however possibly miss a MUCH smaller object especially if just north of you there is a huge 757 100' up to distract you.
Still no matter what somebody had to have laid eyes on it and it is surprising that nobody actually saw anything hit the light post.

except according to you basically everyone on that part of the freeway for at least 1/2 mile were all plants, so why cant the plants just be lying about a second object?

Interesting,but if Citgo is

Interesting,but if Citgo is where I think it is from that sat.Photo,then it looks like a North of Citgo flight path!


But that is because we drew the flight path based off the citgo witnesses' and all the witnesses' testimony.

The plane banked.

This is a fact and it is even reported by high profile previously published witnesses such as Mike Walter and Penny Elgas.

The very fact that it banked is contradictory to the physical damage flight path and security video.

My point was simply that none of the witnesses in this new presentation could distinguish if the plane was headed north or south of the citgo.

But it was still a good question!

Find Witnesses from other Side?

Hi Craig,

I was wondering if the white plane didn't actually hit the Pentagon then there should be witnesses who saw the white plane flying *away* from the Pentagon after flying over it. I was wondering if you could find and interview any witnesses from the opposite side of the Pentagon? That would prove the idea that the plane flew over the Pentagon without hitting it.


Things aren't always that easy.

Certainly we have tried but there isn't much at all on the other side of the building until you cross over the Potomac into DC. At that point none of the witnesses would be aware of the event until AFTER the explosion and even then they wouldn't have a good view of much of anything.

Planes are flying away from the Pentagon up river from Reagan National 24 hours a day every 3 minutes.

Even if people did see it fly away they would think they saw a different plane and that it was insignificant.

This is likely a big part of why the E4B and C-130 were called into the area to help sow confusion.

Any witnesses on the other side who happened to coincidently catch the explosion during the split second as it happened and saw a plane flying away would likely be too afraid to talk about it at this point or else convinced themselves they were hallucinating.

It's a lot easier to get a witness to be honest about what they saw if they don't understand the implications.

Nevertheless we will never stop searching but the evidence for a military deception is crystal clear no matter how you slice it.


You're asking all the right questions!

It's an excellent video! You're asking all the right questions, Craig How many did, in fact, see a light pole struck? Great Stuff!

I can only encourage your work! We can't trust corporate media to tell us anything approaching truth, so

...don't believe them!

we have not been able to find one.

There are zero confirmed reports of someone seeing the light pole get hit.

Actually the opposite is true

Actually the opposite is true. There are no confirmed reports of anything other than a plane hitting the light poles or knocking them down. There are several accounts of persons witnessing the plane hit the light poles. in fact, there are no witnesses who saw anything fly over the Pentagon--C-130 yes, but not a commercial sized plane as described by your own witnesses. It bears repeating that the PentaCon witnesses also said the plane hit the Pentagon. I haven't had a chance to watch your video but I will later. I think you obviously do good work interviewing these people, but I don't always agree with your conclusions.

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described

Wrong again Arabasque.

>>>>There are several accounts of persons witnessing the plane hit the light poles.

Cite them.

Out of the 16 or so previously published accounts that simply MENTION the poles only 1 specifically claims they saw the pole hit. Wanda Ramey.

The anonymous military man doesn't count because well....he is an anonymous military man.

However since of course we have direct confirmation from 4 of these 16 alleged light pole witnesses including Stephen McGraw that they did NOT see the poles clipped and simply saw them on the ground after the fact it's quite clear that we can not assume that any of these mainstream media reports are accurate and that none of them should be accepted as having literally seen the light poles get clipped without confirmation.

Let us know when you can provide a confirmed first-hand account of this otherwise it makes infinite more sense to accept the corroborated confirmed north side claim that proves the official story false.

This Mike walter & Penny

This Mike walter & Penny ..whatever..where can I see their testimony?The North or South of Citgo may be the key to prove the lie. Look ,you guys have a damn good idea..going through the neighborhood trying to find eyewitnesses.That's something beyond their control! I applause you for it! Let's keep it up & dot every 'i' & cross every 'T'.Our children don't deserve a fascist police state based upon this lie.Let's do what we can to stop it.To stop them 'dead in their tracks' only 911 truth can do that!

Great Work Craig

This is excellent stuff. I re-watched the original version and the added highlights were great. Stephen Mcgraw seems to have a "Manchurian" vibe about him. The whole USA Today connection seems way to coincidental to me also. Will you be featuring more witnesses from the ground in the future? Also, what is your take on inconsistent photos of the Pentagon taking during the "firefighting" and after(such as vehicle movement, color changes, structures changing characteristics, etc.)? Do you see yourself tackling that, or is it beyond your scope?

Again, nice work by you guys. Can't wait to see the Researchers Edition.


Yes it really puts it into perspective when you watch this new presentation with genuine witnesses.

The body language and overall energy of previously unknown witnesses is so obviously and clearly different from most of the previously published witnesses we interviewed.

Most of Jack White's photo analysis has been proven incorrect due to the Bob Pugh video footage.

We don't believe photo fakery was a factor at the Pentagon.

Yes our investigation continues and yes there will be more interviews.


lyte tripp

Do you still have the photo of the interior of Llyod's (Cab Driver) car with the David Icke book? I can't find it online anywhere...
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

There's a copy on the old LC forum...


If nothing else we can NOW be 100% sure that whatever hit the Pentagon was NOT an American Airlines Jet.

No need for the Pentagon to release video footage now...We now the official story is complete bullshit.

Great job guys!!


How posibble is that the woman in the kitcken looking at the window could "identified" if it was letters or numbers on "the airplane" going 500 miles an hour??

It wasn't going that fast.

Realize that this is NOT AA77 and it did NOT hit the building as reported.

It was a decoy plane that was flown tree top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion as a deception.

We have no way of knowing it's true speed but obviously it was meant to be seen.

Even if it was going as little as 300 mph it would still be perceived as "fast" at tree top level and people would be able to make out a lot more details.

Plus.....we are not trying to suggest that any of these witnesses are 100% correct. All eyewitness accounts are fallible. Typically it's the corroborated details that are true.

White twin engine passenger jet is corroborated by all the presented witnesses.

However Cindy was on the 2nd floor which put her at eye level of the plane giving her a better look than most and Mrs. Hubbard also corroborates the numbers on the tail claim.

Speed of Plane

1. “The aircraft was moving fast… I… estimate as between 250 to 300 knots [288 to 345 mph].”
2. “About… 400 miles an hour.”
3. “I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots [400 to 460 mph].”
4. “It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … ‘I had literally a blip and nothing more.’ O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. ‘I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House… at a speed of about 500 miles an hour.”
5. “I saw this plane coming right at me at what seemed like 300 miles an hour.”
6. “[CBS news:] The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph.”



I'm looking at your blog and I see that you have witness statements associated with individual names, but where is the sourcing for the witness statements?



Nice and organized.

Obviously, there is a big methodological problem with gathering and comparing this eyewitness testimony. On the one hand, I think we have every right to be skeptical of information that is filtered through an MSM outlet and on the other, the CIT people are interviewing witnesses six years after the fact (and as Craig notes, people may still be reluctant to be completely candid.) The First Responder Oral Histories from NY are invaluable -- sucks that something similar wasn't done in DC.


No eyewitness can accurately guess the speed.

And some you cite even say 300!

Plus, Arabasque, you have failed to grasp the entire point of this video short.

We can NOT accept mainstream media reports without direct confirmation if we want to get the truth.

Your compilations of static words reported by the mainstream media simply helps to disseminate the propaganda that they wish to distribute.

You are playing right into the hands of deception.

Until you can provide first-hand confirmed testimony your are not legitimately investigating 9/11.

You are merely regurgitating what the complicit media has provided for you.

I was just going to say

anything traveling over 250MPH that close to the ground would be perceived by anybody as "fast".
But damn near impossible to the average layman that doesn't really know what 500, 400, 300 MPH looks like to tell the difference between 250 & 500mph in a 2-4 second surprise event.