Trailer for upcoming CIT release....

Here is the trailer for our upcoming presentation that will reveal more groundbreaking evidence independently obtained by CIT. This new full length feature will show you exactly how and why they were able to pull off the Pentagon flyover and we will present new evidence proving the official black box and radar data fraudulent.

"The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off"

High quality divx:

direct link

Lower quality youtube:

link to youtube direct

I hope it examines issues like these:

How did “hijacked” AA-77 fly all around the Eastern U.S., 45 minutes after the WTC was struck by 2 other “hijacked” airliners, without it being intercepted, pursued, or even observed/photographed by NORAD/Air Force?

How did flunky Hani Hanjour fly all the way back from Ohio/Kentucky, and why/how did he make those incredible acrobatics to hit the tiny, renovated section of the Pentagon?

Why won’t the gov’t release any clear video evidence of what struck the Pentagon, more than 6 years later? For what purpose is this evidence still being withheld from us?

How did they obtain DNA (delicate organic material) for 63 or 64 passengers when the seats, luggage, and most all of the airplane were supposedly vaporized in a fireball @ 530 mph?

What happened to the airliners virtually indestructible 2 huge steel/titanium engines?

How did a B-757 with a 125’ wingspan make a 16’ foot initial impact hole? (Mike Walter's assertion that the wings simply "folded back" is preposterous.)

What were Cheney & the “young man” demonstrating in front of Minetta? Why was the airliner’s location given as: “50 miles out”, “30 miles out”, “10 miles out”??? Out from what--did Cheney know the target??? Why didn’t Dick or the young man warn people in the Pentagon to get away from windows & take cover???

While those are all

While those are all excellent questions.....this presentation will be answering questions with hard evidence and proof rather than simply asking questions that cast doubt.

One very important yet ignored aspect of statements from Mineta are in regards to the specific flight path.......this alone proves the NTSB and 84 RADES data that wasn't released until 2006 and 2007 respectively false and is backed up by multiple sources.

They tried to present a very different story years later from what everyone (including officials AND eyewitnesses) originally reported.

We will be peeling back the curtain to expose the deception while dissecting the role of all planes involved.

The 2007 released 84 RADES data holds the government to their word about the flight path and take off times of ALL the planes which opens up a can of worms FULL of fatal contradictions.

CIT will simply be exposing these contradictions that end up putting many of the pieces of the Pentagon puzzle together.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Recommended reading

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...
The purpose of this review is to examine the claims made in the film the PentaCon.The eyewitness statements in the PentaCon will be examined and compared with other testimony based on my original research.Although this analysis is primarily an examination of the eyewitness statements in the film, some issues pertaining to the physical evidence will also be briefly examined. It will be shown that although the eyewitness statements in the PentaCon are largely corroborated by other testimony, the conclusions of the PentaCon are not supported by their own—or any other credible eyewitness testimony.

Recommended debunk.....

Full response to Arabesque's deceptive, inaccurate, logical fallacy filled hit piece:

Read response here

Show "Deceptive Arguments" by Arabesque

Same old spin and disingenuous nonsense.

Merc/Aldo is working a full reply to this but the failure of Arabesque's logic in all of his arguments is clear.

Evidence that contradicts the official story holds infinitely more weight than points that support it.

The operation was a deliberate deception so the notion that the witnesses were deceived into believing the impact does not cancel out the fact that they all saw the plane on the north side proving the impact could not have taken place.

To suggest it does makes no sense and is merely a hollow argument based on circular logic. One of the claims has to be true and both of them can not be true. When one proves 9/11 was an inside job and the other supports the official story it's clear which claim holds more weight given the nature of the deception we are discussing.

Plus they all physically had a much better view of the plane as it passed by the station as opposed to the alleged impact so this is another reason why their placement of the plane is more credible than their belief in an impact.


The notion that they could all be mistaken in the exact same way about such a simple right or left claim is statistically impossible yet the notion that they were deliberately fooled by a military sleight of hand deception into believing the impact/official story makes perfect sense in the context of the 9/11 operation.

To logical people who examine the evidence without the incredible bias that Arabesque displays this will be quite evident.

www.ThePentaCon.com

The anonymous spook surfaces....

Look everybody, it's the anonymous Arabesque here to manipluate minds and cast doubt. Instead of calling the witnesses himself.

I guess when you are anonymous you can keep spewing crap even after you've been corrected.

Why are you anonymous, Arabesque? Why can't you divulge who you are?

Ranke says:

"Arabesque's deceptive, inaccurate, logical fallacy filled hit piece".

On the contrary, I point out the many deceptive arguments that you employ. Here are a few examples:

Spook, you have posted people who aren't even witnesses to the event. You are no researcher you are a saboteur.

It is "deceptive" to pretend that witnesses who claim the plane North of the CITGO are EVIDENCE it flew over when they said it HIT the Pentagon. To pretend otherwise is called "cherry picking". Cherry picking is deceptive.

No it is deceptive to allow people believe that both claims can be simultaneously true. Arabesque, why don't you explain to people why you are trying confuse them? If the plane is on the north side, the witnesses were fooled into believing it hit. Sgt Brooks told us afterwards that our movie was an eye opener for him, that he could have been fooled and that he stands by where he saw the plane. Why won't you contact him? Why are you anonymous? Why do you continually post your illogical incorrect information? have you been to the area yet, Anony-besque?

It is "deceptive" to pretend that these witnesses are a smoking gun when there are close to 100 reports of an impact, and ZERO of it flying over.

This is why you are incredibly disgusting. You have never explained exactly who these close to one hundred witnesses are who saw the "impact". You just keep charging on without considering what we have told about confirming/verifying their accounts and their existence.

You guys ready to see the close to 100 witnesses he is talking about? The same witnesses that merely consist of words on a page? The same witnesses he hasn't confirmed as actual witnesses to an impact?

"Saw" impact:

1.Steve Anderson

2.Deb Anlauf

3.Pam Bradley

4.Susan Carroll

5.James R. Cissell

6.Daryl Donley

7.Bobby Eberle

8.Penny Elgas

9.Michael James

10.Mary Ann Owens

11.Scott Perry

12.Frank Probst

13.Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt.

14. G. T. Stanley (anonymous for all intents and purposes)

15. Steve Storti

16. Terrance Kean

17. Carla Thompson

18.Dave Winslow, AP Radio reporter

19. Vin Narayanan

-Joel Sucherman (debunked)

-Mike Walter (debunked)

I DARE ANYONE TO CHALLENGE ME ON THIS.

Even if you add a couple of vague accounts and even the few who were on the outer perimeter surrounding the Pentagon, it still numbers less 30, perhaps even less than 25. This is taking the account of someone who was in a position to potentially see an impact and giving their account FULL MERIT AT FACE VALUE WITHOUT CONFIRMING IT. The outer perimeter ones still don''t account for the 2nd plane chasing/shadowing and veering away at the time of the explosion.

Each of these accounts is a form of total corroboration when there is no CONTRADICTORY testimony. By this, I mean that no one says a "missile" hit the Pentagon, or a "truck bomb" damaged the Pentagon. Everyone agrees that it was a plane that struck the Pentagon. About four described it as a smaller plane from farther away out of hundreds of statements and live TV interviews.

No, ALL agree they saw a plane headed toward the Pentagon. That is the only corroboration. Why didn't your "smaller plane from farther away out " see or describe the plane that was flying with the AA that veered away after the explosion?

We have a witness who was on 27 and she didn't see plane, she thought it was simply bombs. What about her? Oh no, wait. You have your "over 100 witnesses" from published accounts.

It is one thing to claim that some evidence has been faked, fabricated, or mistaken.
It is another to claim that ALL of the evidence has been faked, fabricated, or mistaken.
It is yet another to claim that ALL of the eyewitness evidence was faked, fabricated, or mistaken, and NONE has emerged to contradict it because the government can control these witnesses too.

We've only maintained that the evidence has been faked or fabricated. Witnesses boil down to 4 categories..."deductive", "fooled", "mistaken", and "lies".

Yet, here you are trying your damndest to convince everyone how wrong and "deceptive" we are. Yet, you've never adjusted your witness list, never went to Arlington yet, never spoke with the witnesses we interviewed, never spoke with any witnesses at all, and have not divulged your identity. You don't even have a face.

I like to call the TV fakery theory the "total fakery" theory, because that's actually what it is. It is a theory that everything was faked. The no-plane impact at the Pentagon theories require a similar amount of fakery, including witnesses, plane parts, light poles, radar data, etc.

Here goes another one of your POS cointel moves. Equating our work and findings to no planes at the towers. Anony-besque, the 6 witnesses all place the plane on the north side. Take off your mask and stop your campaign.

Regardless of what you believe happened, the same amount of people died, and there is no way a plane should have hit the Pentagon in the first place. Especially not by an incompetent hijacker. Especially not when pentagon officials would have risked their own lives if they let him fly the plane fly into the building, which is why remote control would have been used to fly it into the renovated side. Would you agree to a plan in which the Pentagon is attacked while you are still in it if it could hit anywhere on the building? Remote control was used.

Where is your proof for this? Can you please show me the remote guidance system that was equipped on Flight 77? Are you using the sucker trickery Russell Pickering did? yes everyone, remote control was used, Arabesque and Russell Pickering assert this so it must be true. Now what happens is you get suckered into their ploy because if you buy remote control you buy the official story impact. They are just trying to spice up THEIR conspiracy theory so it is more sellable to the "CT" crowd.

Ranke: "“Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.”

It is outrageously "deceptive" to pretend that the fact that Lagasse gives factually INCORRECT testimony about the location about light poles and taxi cab location makes his testimony about the flight path MORE credible! This is ludicrous! A blatantly outrageous and deceptive claim.

How do you know he is incorrect? How do you know? Could it be that he merely deduced it because that is where he saw the plane fly towards? Perhaps he arrived on the scene and saw poles 4 & 5 and deduced that those were the poles that were downed. Perhaps the cab was moved...

Gordon Peterson seems to motion his had back on the overpass to where he saw the cab at...

Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket

Besides what the F does that have to do with the other 5 witnesses who all place the plane on the north side? Oh I get it. Nothing. You just like to separate Lagasse and put the magnifying glass on him while you keep every distracted from the other corroborating witnesses, while you systematically try to cast doubt on and discredit Lagasse with your backwards, twisted psy-op games.

Furthermore, each and every one of those approximately 100 claims of an impact contradicts the "north" claim and is a "deceptive" argument to claim that they do not! That is a straw-man argument.

This is an absolutely disgusting display. There is no 100 claims YOU LIAR. Stop lying, liar. An impact means nothing without corroborating details and confirmation. The FACT IS, Anony-besque not one of your IMAGINARY 100 claims- NOT ONE -DEBUNKS THE NORTH SIDE APPROACH. Not one. Even if, even IF, there was an impact of something, it came from the north side. You can't change that. This proves an inside job.

This is like saying:

100 people saw a car crash into the garage.
4 people claimed it drove in a different direction (A) but still hit the garage (B).
It is impossible both A and B happened.
CIT's argument: Therefore it didn't hit the garage because no one contradicts the claim it drove in a different direction.

Anony-besque, 100 people didn't see a car crash. Do you understand liar? I call you a liar because we go through this over and over and over.

It is actually 6 people btw. The plane is ont he north side of the Citgo Anony-besque. You have not confirmed 1 of your imaginary 100 claims. Not one have you contacted and verified their account. Do you understand what you are doing? You are a blogger repeating and rehashing the vague ambiguous crap we went to clear up in person in the first place...using our real names....and our actual identity, Anony-besque. Are you stupid or just a gov't operative here to confuse the unresearched?

This is a perfect analogy for the straw-man argument CIT is advocating if you believe that eyewitness testimony on its OWN is a "smoking gun" of an inside job (which is what CIT claims). This is a form of what they are advocating. That is deceptive.

No, corroboration is the smoking gun. Corroboration and confirmation done in person, on location. How many of your imaginary 100 claims of an impact did you confirm, did you corroborate?

It is "deceptive" to claim that "no one" contradicts the North claim, when the CIT witnesses contradict it when they said the plane HIT the Pentagon. All of the witnesses you have interviewed "corroborate" an impact and none of them corroborate a "flyover". Both a north approach and impact are impossible to account for the damage. There is no direct evidence of a flyover.

Circular logic. No they corroborate the north side approach, chief. Stop lying and deceiving people. The north side approach over rides an impact.

The light pole damage and structural damage line up to form a straight line. This is strong physical evidence disproving the "North" claim.

I am convinced you are an operative for the gov't "Arabesque". There can be no other explanation for the circles we seem to go in with you. The light pole damage and damage is admitted to be "counter-intuitive", Lloyds account makes no sense, and , guess what? The plane was on the north side of the Citgo. You can't change it.

The video evidence places a shadow on the SOUTH side, also disproving the "North" claim.

Anony-besque, there is no shadow. They released the video 5 days after we announced what Robert told us and it has been proven to be tampered with, because there is a camera angle showing the "impact" that was missing from the footage they released. Why won't you add that little detail? Why are you purposefully misleading people?

The no-757 theories FAIL to CONVINCINGLY explain how light poles were knocked down in a way to line up with the internal structural damage inside of the Pentagon.

See, what Anony-besque is doing here is to positively reinforce his rhetoric with blankets statements that he knows aren't true. He is merely reinforcing the official story, and simply saying it as if it were simply true. He knows we have offered convincing explanations and have the evidence to back it up. Saying it, don't make it true, Sunshine.

Craig Ranke: "“Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are fallible but as they become corroborated the claim becomes exponentially validated. With enough corroboration, ALL claims can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt." http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

So if you have ZERO witnesses claiming a flyover and approximately 100 claiming it hit the Pentagon, including your own witnesses... According to your own logic...

Craig Ranke: "Nobody saw a global hawk people. Nobody saw a missile. There were no missiles or global hawks." http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg11553#msg11553

So if you use this logic.... No one reported a flyover involving a commercial airliner either.

How do you know???????????

You don't, because you know the 911 tapes and transcripts were confiscated and have been sequestered ever since.

But you know what? 6 key witnesses who can be proven to have been at the scene all without hesitation stated the plane was on the north side of the Citgo....that negates the impact, darling.

Fact is, it is reported that a plane/jet was over/in the area of the Pentagon as the explosion happened that was veering away and we have proven it could not have been the C-130.

Ranke: “we have never claimed that we have a witness that claims they saw ‘the’ plane fly over.” http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

So if no one saw these things, and to believe that "corroboration" is evidence, how can you claim a flyover happened if there is NO DIRECT evidence or corroboration to support it? When your own witnesses said it was an impact?

See, you have to either be incredibly inept or just a very slippery operative who plays word games.

How can we claim a flyover happened if there is NO DIRECT evidence or corroboration to support it? ????

Anony-besque, we have the corroboration in the form of 6 KEY eyewitnesses who can prove they were there and have nothing to gain and THAT >is< DIRECT evidence.

So are Levi Stephens and Sean Boger mistaken? We had 4 , now we have 6. 2 more who confirm the north side without flinching. What now? Are they mistaken too? You going to keep moving those goal posts?

I don't care what people think of me calling you an op. You clearly are exhibiting the traits of one.No one seems to know who you are so I could be right, correct? You could be an operative correct? Prove me wrong and come out from the shadows, open a phone dialog with us like Adam L did. You should all review "Arabesque's" list of "evidence" stand-downs and all kinds of strawman nonsense and really tell me if this fraud is for 911 truth or just disinfo and subversion. Watch our interviews and read our work, then take a step back and look at what "Arabesque" is doing.

In response to pointing out the logical flaws your theory, you predictably and invariably launch into ad-hominem attacks against Pentagon researchers to divert attention away from these gaping holes in the flyover theory. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

See, here he is. He is dedicated to us. He is anonymous. He is quote-mining. He is shaping minds. Go Mr. Operative, Go. Why haven't you listed all the ad-hominem attacks against us? Why????????? Why not???????

Luckily for the 9/11 truth movement, there is boatloads of evidence to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, in contrast to the unsupported, and quite frankly, ridiculous Pentagon flyover theory.

Yes, look where we're at everyone. F------ shipwrecked and destitute. Where's your trials and grand juries? "Arabesque" here is trying to wear us all down and while he pacifies and placates with empty rhetoric. He is only here to blend in and stifle any progress we may make. That's what they pay them for. There aren't any boatloads of evidence. Where is it? Did your boat sink? If you have evidence then go out and do something about it . Why hasn't anyone been brought to justice? No you can't do something about it, you are dedicated to telling everyone what they should think of us while you keep them off the north side and onto real disinfo like a stand down order and all the other old hat crap you push.

Remember everyone, we are real people, with real names, and real faces. We speak with victims, witnesses, firefighters, rescue/recovery, camermen, bystanders. We went there for you to get closure. If the plane was on the south side of the Citgo, looked like AA, and did what it was supposed to have done, I would have 100% reported it and accepted it regardless of what I thought about the "counter-intuitive" damage and debris pattern-BUT IT DID NOT. I've spent hours studying the Pentagon attack, witness accounts, witness pov's which I spent time obtaining photographs of in order that we apply an absolute thorough examination of the official account compared to what we actually would see and learn first hand. Anony-besque is dedicated to us for whatever reasons. For crying out loud he listed people who aren't even witnesses to the event. Are you going to continue to trust this anonymous entity who is clearly not honest????

Why Victoria?

Victoria,

Why do you insist on subverting the evidence? Do you have an agenda?

You refuse to accept the logic/retorts we have presented over and over in the face of Arbesques analysis.

You both refuse to speak with witnesses.

Why can't you let go of your igorance and denial, or whatever it is?

Victoria, why do you and Jim hide from us? Why do you both work from the shadows? Why can't you engage in a recorded debate. Why won't you EVER concede? Is there something wrong with your ego?

We are NOT going anywhere my friend. We will only get stronger.

So you continue on with your campaign or agenda and we will continue to fight you.

In my eyes, you are nothing more than an ignorant, gatekeeping traitor.

The Pentagon Fly-Over? No Impact?

Is it being alleged that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon, without striking it?

Taking this position will require debunking the numerous eyewitnesses who watched a large jet strike the building and explain why there seems to be no witnesses to a fly-over.

"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."

- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"

- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001

"'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said."

- "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks." CNN, 11 Sep 2001

"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"

- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"

- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"

- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"

- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"

- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001

"'I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building,' said Carla Thompson, who works in an Arlington, Va., office building about 1,000 yards from the crash. 'I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up up—red, everything red,' she said. 'Everybody was just starting to go crazy. I was petrified.'"

- "Terrorists Attack New York, Pentagon." Los Angeles Times, 12 Sep 2001

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."

- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today

You need to re-examine all witnesses, Aidan.

Genuine witnesses deduce, Aidan. "Witnesses" who are intelligences assets also lie.

Before we continue on in showing you how you are mistaken, are you aware of the fact that it has been established that the plane approached from the north side of the former Citgo gas station?

Do you understand the implications of this?

I'm Not Trying To Debunk, Just Indicate Hurdles

I realize that there is a great deal of contradictory information that exists regarding the Pentagon and even I have entertained numerous theories.

I'm simply presenting certain info that has to be addressed.

I'm not totally schooled on the FDR data from AA 77 or what it may imply. I would however, not be surprised that certain misleading information that could redirect investigators from certain avenues, may be put into the public domain by the government.

How many witnesses have you spoken with?

Of the list you posted CIT has personally interviewed 3 of them.

We have interviews with Joel Sucherman and Stephen McGraw on video tape and we had dinner at Mike Walter's house. Many issues with their accounts have been revealed and are available in our presentations all available for free on our website.

Joel Sucherman will be featured in this upcoming presentation.

The first account you posted is anonymous and is therefore not legitimate evidence.

Omar Campos specifically describes the plane as white like many of the other genuine witnesses we could find from canvassing the neighborhoods as you can see in this presentation.

Plus if the plane flew "over his head" near Arlington Cemetery it would have been on the north side of the citgo far from the physical damage flight path. This is why it is important to plot locations and actually analyze the accounts in order to determine the truth.

Most of the accounts you posted are either anonymous or media giant USA Today employees.

Regurgitating mainstream media accounts without any investigation, scrutiny , or confirmation in support of the official story does not help expose the 9/11 deception.

We have spoken with dozens of eyewitnesses, first responders, victims, and individuals who have been demonstrated by the evidence to have been complicit in the operation.

How many have you spoken with?

www.ThePentaCon.com

Just Pointing Out Existing Accounts Of An Impact

To allege a fly-over will invite tremendous scrutiny and require a sustainable alternative to an AA 77 impact with the Pentagon.

The best approach would be to point out contradictions and let the government fill in the blanks.

It's their conspiracy.

Planes Do Fragment During High Speed Collisions

The AA 77 and UA 93 crash scenes are admittedly unusual, but jets do nearly vaporize during high speed collisions.

Aidan please

Are you honestly comparing an F4 on a track crashing into a reinforced nuclear reactor wall to the very complex angled descent of a 757 through the 14-24 inches of concrete/brick/limestone?

Can you please explain why this plane DID NOT "vaporize" into confetti on the outside of the building leaving small anomalous, "counter-intuitive" hole measuring only 2 stories of damage?

Can you please explain how the plane "collided" with the building approaching from the north side of the Citgo gas station? Can you please explain how the plane "collided" with the building as it pulled up into an ascent over the Rt 27?

"I saw it lift/pick up a little headed towards the Pentagon."

Just Indicating That Large Planes Do Fragment

Large passenger jets do nearly vaporize at times, following their impacts that can create tremendous damage.

Pan Am 103, a 747:

Look at that huge hole!

It's incredible.

Yet the 90 ton jet that according to the ASCE entered entirely on the first floor of the building with the 6 ton left engine burrowing into the foundation........
ASCE image:

.......managed to slip through to the C-ring of the Pentagon without so much as scratching the foundation.




www.ThePentaCon.com

Apple and Rocks

So where is the tremendous damage at the Pentagon, Aidan?

We are not arguing that planes break up. We are arguing the way the plane allegedly hit and damage that was left behind by the allegd impact.

None of it matches.

I am trying to understand where you are coming from. You seem to doubt the gov't's story , but you're posting old irrelevant info as if you are unsure yourself.

What I Doubt & Suspect

I doubt that Hani Hanjour piloted AA 77 into the Pentagon.

I do suspect that AA 77 was under the control of pilotless navigation systems (patents for which existed well before 9/11) and that it was navigated by these systems into the Pentagon.

Until I see conclusive proof that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, I am satisfied that cumulatively, the evidence demonstrates an American airlines 757 containing all of the reported victims, crashed into the building.

irrelevant analogy

You are comparing a 2 seat 30 ton jet smashing into a 10 or 15 foot thick solid concrete wall to a 90 ton passenger jet airliner slamming into 10 inches of concrete with some limestone and brick.

Why would you use the same deceptive irrelevant information that is regularly cited by truth movement skeptics to support the official lie?

www.ThePentaCon.com

Point Out Official Flaws, Be Careful Drawing Conclusions

Drawing conclusions can result in one being put on the defensive and obliged to explain the often unexplainable.

I think the movement is better off ridiculing the more dubious aspects of the official story, which leaves the government having to explain their official fantasy.

We assert only things we have direct evidence for.

All of our claims are backed up with hard evidence that we have independently obtained on location.

None of it is speculation.

The evidence we provide proves the official story false on many levels.

Keep an open mind because we know that the missile meme is disinfo.

We have focused on the details that have been ignored and have uncovered many fatal contradictions.

This is what we are presenting.

The flyover is not a theory it is the only logical alternative because we know there was a plane and it's true location proves it did not cause the physical damage.

Ridiculing the official story will get us nowhere but proving it false with hard evidence most certainly will.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Alleging A Fly-Over Is A Tremendous Burden

Alleging a fly-over will require you to prove that many witnesses lied.

It will also require explaining where AA 77 went after it continued its journey.

And it will require you to explain what created the explosion at the Pentagon and what caused the E-ring to later collapse.

Alleging and proving are different things.

We can prove there was a plane.

We can prove the plane could not have caused the physical damage.

We can prove that the decoy jet was not AA77.

There is no evidence that AA77 was ever in the area at all.

This does not require us to prove what happened to AA77.

That would be like saying proof of controlled demolition of building 7 is not sufficient to prove inside job unless you explain everything about the operation.

The evidence suggests that real planes were used as psychological tools while the actual destruction was implemented with pre-planted explosives.

It was the same M.O. at the Pentagon as at the WTC but they didn't plan to completely demolish the Pentagon so they wanted to have complete control of the damage to their own headquarters.

This is why all the video evidence and 911 tapes were confiscated and permanently sequestered.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Clearly you are not familiar with our work

We have proved that many lied.

In fact, my friend, do you simply accept words of someone who claims to have been there without further analysis or inquiry? Do you have proof Joel Sucherman was on the highway AT THE EXACT MOMENT? Video? A corroborating witness?

Isn't it possible that some witnesses just simply said they were there and said they saw what they saw? Isn't it possible that some were fooled. They see a large jet scream in and then an explosion, what would they think happened?

We don't have to explain were "AA77" went. We don't even have to explain where the decoy flyover/away jet went. Why don't you get this? We only have to prove it did not hit. We have accomplished that.

We have explained what caused the explosion...explosives. They were placed during the "renovation".

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

You just said we shouldn't draw conclusions and just point out flaws, then you turn around and tell us that we are REQUIRED to explain where the plane went, what caused the explosion, etc. That makes no sense, Aidan.

I'm Not Going To Debate

I'll simply wait for the release by CIT, of what is inferred to be the irrefutable proof of a fly-over.

(Anything less will be a theory, more or less plausible than others.)

Good reserve judgement until you see all the evidence.

But the north side evidence already proves a flyover.

The evidence we will release in this next presentation is further evidence of a deception that proves the NTSB and 84 RADES data fraudulent.

It will demonstrate the methodology used to pull off the flyover with the deliberate blending of accounts of the E4B and the C-130.

It exposes the true flight path of the decoy jet which is irreconcilable with the official data and statements.

The claims we make in this regard are supported by ABC News, the FAA, independently obtained eyewitness testimony, and the C-130 pilot himself.

We are exposing HOW they were able to pull this off and shining a light on their most blatant contradictions that have been ignored.

To look at the body of evidence we present and still assert that a 757 hit the building would be the same as suggesting the official story is correct in light of the fact that building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

www.ThePentaCon.com

I wish it were that simple...

You can't just point out flaws and walk away Aidan.

People want a full explanation. They want a conclusion.

The plane did not hit Aidan, it has been proven. It could not hit.

Aidan, have you called your gov't representatives about the plane being on the north side of the Citgo gas station? If not, can you tell me why?

You have a powderkeg piece of evidence and what are you, or anyone else on this blog, doing about it?

You seemed to draw a conclusion by posting debunked and dubious witness accounts that are merely words on a piece of paper or is that ok?

Did anyone of those witnesses you listed specifically state that the plane came on the SOUTH side of the Citgo? NOPE.

Do you realize that if the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, it can't hit the Pentagon. So are "witnesses" who claim to have seen an impact 100% correct, if the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo? NOPE.

Do you understand the flyover/away could easily happen at the speed the event went down at, especially considering the topography of the area and frequency of air traffic? Have you even been to the area Aidan? I suggest you do.

Meanwhile, we'll let all the chimps and subverters keep voting us down.

I wish

you guys would spend as much time and energy on WTC7 or Sibel Edmonds as you do on the Pentagon. Also, from the perps POV, what would be the point of a flyover? Why risk it when you can remotely and precisely "land" the plane into the side of the building?

FYI- I have reached no conclusions about 9/11 other than the official story is false.

complete nonsense

This is just nonsense, and part of the 911BS movement that has intruded on the 911truth movement. These folks think that downed lightpoles were planted...that Mike Walter, a lowly reporter, and Lloyd England an old black guy that has driven a cab for 30 years are in actuality, mass murderers who are involved in the conspiracy of 9/11. I wonder if you were Mike Walter what you would think of a movement that was growing and members of it, were claiming you are part of a conspiracy that murdered 3000 americans. If I were him I would be afraid for my family and think this movement was made up of insane people. How does this help? Lots of witnesses heard explosions at the WTC and lots of witnesses, saw a big plane fly into the pentagon. But this crowd wants to pick and chose what evidence is worthy to promote their view.....you know, like Cheney did to get us into Iraq. Downright embarrasing.

Mike Walter is well aware of

Mike Walter is well aware of us and our assertions.

We had dinner at his house.

He is not a "lowly" reporter and is currently the morning television news anchor on WUSA and he was one of 7 USA Today reporters or editors who allegedly just so happened to all be within a mere 1/4 mile stretch of highway late for work at the same time and all in a prime position to witness the event.

Who do you think planted the bombs at the WTC?

Robots?

Clearly SOMEBODY had to have been involved in the attack.

Is any face evil enough to make you believe they were involved just be looking at them?

You can not assert that 9/11 was an inside job and then refuse to acknowledge that any real people were involved.

The Pentagon attack is clouded in mystery and speculation because they have something to hide.

They would not have pulled off the operation physically as reported without taking advantage of the worldwide psychological impact that video footage would have provided.

We have done the leg work and the evidence implicates people.

It's not your place to exonerate everyone who is implicated by the evidence just because you refuse to believe that real people were involved with this event.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Well let's hear it

Mike Walter was there on 9/11. He claims to have seen a passenger jet with AA markings on it go into the building. IS he Lieing? Let's hear it. ---Oh, and the pentagon is clouded in mystery because they have something to hide? You mean the fact that Hani Hanjour couldn't even rent a single engine cessna in August but in Sept became one of the greatest pilots in the world? That the Pilot of the plane that flew into the pentagon was so bad that his instructors called the FAA to demand that someone explain how he could even have a liscense, and they said this under oath at the moussoui trial? How could he do that? Yea, well, he couldn't which proves the use of remote control on the planes, hang them with their own story but you have a better one? Was that a remote that did the flyover? Why? So tell us.....IS Mike Walter lieing? And keep in mind if he is he did it on the spot which means he was planted. Which means he is part of the conspiracy just like I said earlier, so? Is he lieing?

You can never prove remote control.

It's impossible.

That will remain speculation forever and can never be hard evidence.

We most certainly can prove where the plane really flew because witness testimony is valid evidence and when enough witnesses corroborate each other about where the plane flew without being directly refuted it becomes proof.

That is what we have in regards to the north side claim and now we can prove the flight path going all the way back to the east side of the river in DC. We can't say it loud enough but it's all about the FLIGHT PATH. This is the line of inquiry that they have wanted us to ignore and have tried to distract us from with slowly leaked grainy ambiguous videos depicting a perfectly level missile like object and clearly fake smoke plume. CIT has relentlessly pursued and documented evidence for the true flight path and it proves a deception. The notion that anyone in the movement would dismiss this hard evidence simply because it goes against their pet remote control impact conspiracy theory is sheer lunacy.

There are a lot of things you don't know about Mike Walter's account.

For instance did you know that he is adamant he witnessed the plane perform a "slow graceful bank"?

This is irreconcilable with the physical damage but matches the north of the citgo witness flight path that we report perfectly.

So this claim alone means Mike Walter proves the plane could not have caused the physical damage and that he must in the very least be embellishing details of the impact.

He described the bank to us in detail in person and even made a point to tell how how the FBI came to question him specifically about that one claim.

So do you think he is lying or do you accept his claim that he saw the plane in a slow and graceful bank?

Despite this fact there are other contradictions and many dubious details in Mike Walter's various accounts and we plan to expose all of them in The PentaCon Researcher's Edition.

Regardless of the notion that Mike Walter is an operative; it wouldn't mean that everyone who was quoted saying "American Airline" or deduced the impact is deliberately lying. Many were interviewed well after the event when the news reports were all in and human embellishment is a natural tendency on the part of the witness OR sometimes even the reporter. This is why we can accept no less than first hand confirmation of ALL accounts.

Plus the topography is very complex and we have demonstrated how even most of those on route 27 who could have been in a position to see the official flight path would have an obstructed view of the alleged impact due to the trees.

But there are enough questions with the physical damage and of course the flight path to prove a deception so to suggest that there were not any planted witnesses or operatives present at the Pentagon that day while claiming you believe 9/11 was an inside job is a stretch to be sure.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Working class in on 9/11 just for fun?

And there you have it. Mike Walter is in on it. Tell us how the Cab Driver who had a lightpole crash threw his windshield by the plane is also a mass murderer in on the conspiracy. And while you are smearing working class people with nothing to gain, AND NO SECRET SERVICE TO PROTECT THEM, tell us how the light poles were planted. And you forgot to explain who flew that plane over the pentagon as well. It wasn't remote control after all. I guess ATTA and the other pilots who flew SEVERAL STATES to reach their targets weren't remote control either. If they were they would use it at the pentagon no? Mike Walter gained what? An Anchor seat? And what did the Cab driver get for helping kill all those people a new cab?

Nice sarcasm.

People often resort to sarcasm when their logic and intellect fails.

Of course I believe the decoy jet was remote controlled.

But that doesn't change the fact that it is impossible to prove or that merely stating that you don't believe Hani Hanjour could have piloted the craft is evidence. It's nothing but an argument from incredulity and it has gotten the movement nowhere.

Are you really going to suggest that no "working class" were involved as patsies, dupes, or professionals in this operation? Nobody was manipulated, bribed, coerced, or even disposed of before, during, or even perhaps after the event?

The U.S. military doesn't have any professionals that work in illegal covert activities? They have never employed any mercenaries or assassins?

What about torture? No working class folk take part in that? The military men committing atrocities under orders or the pressures of war are never working class right?

I suppose The CIA never uses deep cover or double agents or has regular folk working as assets on the street.

You see none of these things seem so wild, crazy, or unbelievable when taken out of context of 9/11 so why would you think that none of these established tools and tactics would be used during the largest psychological black operation in modern world history?

Did Bush and Cheney plant the bombs in the towers?

Did the elite really execute everything with their own hands?

You are in denial if you think that no "working class" were involved with this operation.

You are also in denial if you believe that a 90 ton jet traveling 535 mph knocked this pole.....

through this windshield with the heavy and longer end sticking out over the hood after the car stopped....


...without leaving a single dent or scratch on the hood.

Why are you so concerned with making excuses for the official story when we have so much hard evidence proving it false?

www.ThePentaCon.com

Yes I am in Denial

Yes, I am in denial that the masterminds of 9/11 hired some kids off from college to plant lightpoles around the pentagon, and had top secret meetings with Lloyd England the elderly cab driver to give him his instructions, and convince Mike Walter that he could have an anchor job in the near future if he was willing to go along...yes....I am in denial. Or were Llyod England and Mike Walter the masterminds of 9/11 themselves?

Show "No stoopid" by pagan

Just listen to yourself.

Mocking the notion that 9/11 was an inside job just like a jrefer.

You think nobody got instructions and that nobody was utilized as an asset or agent yet the "elite" were able to plan, organize, physically prepare, and execute everything required for this extremely complex conspiracy all by "remote control" from Cheney's bunker.

Sure makes it a lot easier to point the finger when your mind has decided that not a single "working class" person was involved and that it was done solely by the ultra mega wealthy elite.

It's a lot easier to accuse the "gubment" but when a seemingly regular person is implicated by the evidence all of the sudden the "movement" has gone too far.

www.ThePentaCon.com

No. We have video & audio evidence of explosions at the WTC. We

have no video of any airliner slamming through the Pentagon. Big difference.

(Light poles can be brought down with small, pre-planted explosives, btw.)

Give it a chance

I look forward to seeing this video. The CIT guys have unearthed some very interesting stuff so far regarding the flight path in relation to the CITGO station, and have put in the hours to meet witnesses and verify their accounts first hand. The answer is often in the small detail. I'm personally skeptical about a possible fly-over, but I'll wait to see the video before making a judgement. I think the CIT group deserve credit for all their efforts, regardless of whether people agree with their conclusions.

Craig Ranke CIT and merc are

Craig Ranke CIT and merc are making a compelling case here in this thread, and their integrity is apparent. I think a test for being truly open-minded is to what extent one can absorb shocks to one's pet theory and then assimilate the contradictory evidence. Aidan Monaghan has been doing tremendous work and his opinions thus carry weight here. But I for one do agree that this Pentacon theory has legs

Promotional opportunities

Well, if all goes well, perhaps you will be invited to Bill 'Oreilly or another Fox show to promote your findings and explain how you think there is no reason to believe remote control was used to send a plane into the pentagon, but instead remote control was used to send a plane to fly over the pentagon(this is what you've said in these posts)I think it will make compelling television when they allow you to explain how the downed lightpoles were planted in advance in order to confuse people and I'm sure they will let you expound on the "clear evidence" of how Lloyd England and Mike Walter are mass murderers who should be in prison. And if you're able to maybe give a plug to 911blogger, and make us all proud of how "the truth" is being spread. Wont that be a great day? It could only help right?

Every word absolutely dripping with sarcasm.

>>>>>explain how you think there is no reason to believe remote control was used to send a plane into the pentagon, but instead remote control was used to send a plane to fly over the pentagon(this is what you've said in these posts)

This is not what I said. I simply said that it is impossible to prove remote control so it can never be considered valid evidence that 9/11 was an inside job like what we present.

How can you not understand that this is my point?

As if you or anyone wouldn't be pounded by O'Reiley for asserting "remote control" on 9/11 at all.

You would not be treated as any less of a "kook".

There is a ton of evidence proving that plane did not hit the building but the number one piece is the fact that all the witnesses saw it on the north side of the citgo.

www.ThePentaCon.com

You keep repeating that it is impossible

to prove that the planes were remote piloted. This is simply not true. While it may be very difficult to prove, it is not impossible. A few ways off the top of my head:

1) Wreckage of the plane confirms the actual ID of the plane involved, that plane's records show the remote piloting system was installed. (We'll probably never see any and this would only show that it COULD have been remotely piloted)

2) The person or persons involved admit their involvement. (They're probably dead)

3) Data records from the operations computers show the programming and detail the execution of the program. (It's probably been destroyed)

Unlikely does not equal impossible.

I like your approach, don't be deterred, know that it is an uphill battle all the way, keep up the good work.

For the record, I think all the planes were remotely piloted and I LEAN toward the conclusion that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. It is still too close a call to make a strong case either way at this point, imo. This is why I simply ask "how is it possible that ANYTHING happened at the Pentagon?" and leave it at that.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thanks for the rational/logical response.

But I think even you know you are reaching about proving remote control.

Let's put it this way....it's impossible to prove without evidence provided for by the perps themselves requiring a ridiculous screw up on their part.

1. All plane parts are controlled by the perps and have never been revealed and are most certainly destroyed.

2. Wishful thinking. This would blow the case wide open no matter what and is not specific to remote control.

3. It's probably been destroyed is right! We can't even get White House emails and torture video tape via court order!

Again.......I also beleive in remote control at the Pentagon AND at WTC.

It simply not valid evidence, it's merely a belief.

Until we actually have this virtually impossible to get proof of remote control there is no point lamenting about it because that will get us nowhere. This is my only point. CIT realistically focuses on obtaining hard evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job and this is what we have done.

Simply making the case that the Pentagon shouldn't have been hit is not enough which is why we seek out and provide evidence that proves their story a lie.

If you are still undecided watch all of our presentations and get back with me.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Agree Motherissue

I have a great respect for Craig, Merc, and Aidan all individually working to accomplish the same goal.

Last year on P4T, I remember coming across a thread entry where Merc or Craig or both, contacted the new landscape designer where the Sheraton was re-designing the perimeter of their parking lot facing the road. They got copies of the plans and compared that to older versions of the views thru the old landscape photos. These guys are on the street researchers, and we all need to see their work before making assumptions.

Also notable is the work of Aidan, with his mountain of FOIA request for serial numbers of equipment related to aircraft involved. As well as other Federal inquires all time consuming and expensive.

Can't wait to see the video. Thanks so much to all three for your dedication and passion to bring discovery to the table.

Thanks Joann

We appreciate people remembering the small details like that.

That was actually me. I took the initiative and decided to put to rest the notion that trees were added to simply conceal the flyover. A little clever investigating goes a long way.

I wish more people would take the iniative.

Thanks again for your support.

Hey thanks Motherissue and JCR

I know there are some logical individuals not resigned to groupthink in this forum.

The explosive evidence we have is compelling and definitive.

757 impact conspiracy theorists want to cast the "flyover" as some sort of alternative or kooky idea but it is not.

It's the ONLY alternative and a clear physical possibility that requires no exotic or unknown weaponry.

Reagan National airport is right next to the Pentagon with the runway causing planes to make low and fast ascents over the building all day long every 3 to 4 minutes!

The Pentagon is at the bottom of a hill and the alleged impact side is not visible from the surrounding areas until you are pretty much get to the citgo.

The entire event was over in a couple seconds and people did not have a clue what happened.

It was much easier to pull off then most think and going to the area, surveying the topography, and talking to the witnesses not only makes this apparent but PROVES that it had to be what happened.

The famous loop the plane made was in a completely different place then reported in 2006 by the NTSB and 2007 by 84 RADES and we can prove it.

www.ThePentaCon.com

You Imply That Dozens Of Forensic Specialists Lied

I realize I said I wasn't going to continue any debate, but I deemed this worthy of resuming this discussion.

You do realize that your position implies that dozens of members of more than one organization, lied about identifying the victims reportedly recovered at the Pentagon.

(Unless you also suggest that human remains were planted at the crash scene while hundreds of recovery workers were present.)

"What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended recently with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, together with experts from the U.S. Army's Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii, played a major role in Operation Noble Eagle investigations, officials said."

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/120701/12466-1.shtml

Absolutely incorrect.

Unless you are suggesting that the same people who worked in the lab matching and identifying the DNA are the ones who collected it at the crime scene. It makes no sense to simply trust the fact that the chain of custody of this evidence was completely preserved by the perpetrators.

There could not have been any actual bodies left from a 90 ton jet that allegedly completely disintegrated so the technicians were simply handed plastic baggies by the suspect and told to analyze it. They do not have to be in on the operation although there is no reason to suggest that absolutely none of them were.

Evidence that was collected, controlled, analyzed, and the results supplied solely by the suspect is not valid evidence in support of their story.

We have conducted an independent investigation and turned up evidence proving their story a lie so it's clear that we can not accept evidence that they controlled during this investigation.

This should be common sense.

www.ThePentaCon.com

common sense.

<>
Actually I think common sense would tell us that if they used remote control to fly a plane over the pentagon(that no one saw)which is what you said, they could have just used it to fly into the pentagon. Which people did see.

Why do you keep suggesting I'm saying things I never said?

We have never said that nobody saw it.

Fact is that there most certainly ARE reports of a so called "2nd plane" that flew over the building simultaneously as AA 77 allegedly impacted by people like Keith Wheelhouse (who we interviewed and will present in this upcoming release) & Kelly Knowles.

If this is the case then why wasn't this more widely reported?

Why didn't everyone see it?

If it's not the case then why do some people report it?

These are the questions that will be answered in our new presentation.

Planes are flying over the Pentagon in a low, fast, and steep ascent every 2 to 4 minutes all day long.

A plane flying away over the Potomac river after the explosion would not be cause for alarm or be even notable with the explosion, fireball and smoke plume acting as a rather effective diversion.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Then A Major Breach Of Protocols Is Implied

"There could not have been any actual bodies left from a 90 ton jet that allegedly completely disintegrated so the technicians were simply handed plastic baggies by the suspect and told to analyze it."

Such analysis involves sample comparison, against known samples.

Either specialists made comparison with identifiable samples or simply labeled what was handed to them.

Alleging positive ID's without comaprison would be an unprecedented breach of protocols.

That dozens of professionals would remain silent in the face of such a violation, stretches the imagination into infinity.

Why wouldn't the samples be identifiable?

Wouldn't the technicians compare the human remains that they were told came from the Pentagon, with DNA samples of people known or thought to have been on Flight 77? Isn't Craig saying that the chain of custody from the Pentagon to the lab is the issue?

Just a quick clarification:

Just a quick clarification: the identifications were not made at the site. The bodies were removed and taken to a separate facility for forensic work. And of course the majority of the victims were Pentagon employees and contractees, so their bodies were obviously recovered from the site. Additionally, do we know that the photos used for identifying personal effects many days later were taken at the crash site?

You used the phrase "reportedly recovered at the Pentagon." This is key. Who knows how the bodies from 77 got to the facility? Identifications were made of victims from Shanksville as well, but I don't remember reading an official accounting of or explanation for the fact that they were in many pieces (as reported in early responder statements) from an alleged intact crash. One would have thought that a crack forensic team would have raised a few questions over that.

Keep in mind that the official cause of death of the hundreds of victims of the Jonestown massacre was completely altered to cover up the evidence of gunshot wounds and fatal injections -- and evidence that they had not injested cyanide at all. This, even after initial reports from competent local officials which were entirely at odds with what became the official story. And don't forget the many people involved in forensic shenanigans in the 60's assassinations, plane crashes, etc. How many people are currently lying about Ground Zero illnesses and their causation? How 'bout that NIST report? In each case, many lied and many just kept quiet. As for my faith in the Army to tell the truth....well, they have been lying about the number of Americans killed in Iraq for years. That's a body count issue, isn't it?

So is it possible? Yes, it's possible. I don't espouse one theory over another at this point, but your argument here sounds like the "people would have talked" argument used by the debunkers about the entire 9/11 issue. I'm willing to reserve judgment until the CIT boys make their full case.

Just curious Aidan...

Did any of those forensic experts see the plane on the south side of the Citgo as opposed to the north side?

How about the DNA? Did the DNA see the plane on the south side of the Citgo? Did the DNA or any of the forensic experts see the plane descend low and level and skim into the first floor as opposed to ascend over the highway like Citgo gas station employee Robert Turcios saw?

What's The Significance Of The North vs. South Side Of Citgo?

Please explain.

It's quite simple.

It's impossible for a plane on the north side of the citgo to have caused the physical damage starting with the light poles and ending with the anomalous and suspicious c-ring hole.

No experts, pilots, engineers or officials will deny this fact.

Unlike controlled demolition at WTC which is spun by all the so called "experts" this can not be spun.

You can not move the plane.

The north side testimony is equivalent to us having 6 independent eyewitness accounts of people who actually witnessed bombs being planted in the towers or building 7.

Haven't you ever viewed the testimony we present?

www.ThePentaCon.com

Isn't It Possible That Witnesses Are In Error?

For example, if LaGasse were mistaken about which end of the Citgo canopy he was standing under, then the official trajectory makes perfect sense.

After all, some people claimed the plane bounced off of the lawn in front of the Pentagon before it was struck, for which there is also no evidence.

Many, many people have been wrongly convicted of crimes based on eyewitness testimony, which has been proven unreliable time and time again.

People confuse right from left all of the time.

If?

If LaGasse was mistaken about which end of the Citgo canopy he was standing under?????????????

Aidan, have you even watched any of the interviews we conducted?

Lagasse is on the Citgo surveillance video...

Photobucket

...ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CANOPY!

I understand the fallibility of witnesses. But that changes when it is corroborated and corroborated about something so simple as which side of the gas station the plane flew on.

What about Ed Paik? Robert Turcios? Sgt Chad Brooks? Levi Stephens? Sean Boger? Were they all simultaneously mistaken also?

Aidan, they all stand by where they saw the plane. They are adamant about it. Get off the compute and talk to some witnesses. It makes a world of difference.

You are out on a limb, Aidan. A weak one.

How Is Direction Of Camera Known?

How is it known that it is LaGasse in the video?

Provide the acounts of the other people you cite.

This is bad, Aidan.

How is it known????

Um, it was established over a year ago when they released the video. The windows are labeled and you can plainly tell where he is at.

He described what he did, what he was driving, and it has been established through speaking with him. You can clearly see him peel off in his white crown vic after the plane goes by and the explosion takes place.

In fact, they released that video 5 days after I spoke with Robert Turcios and announced it as a major fpiece of evidence in the Pentagon investigation. They held it for 5 years and then released it. They did that for a reason, Aidan.

Establish The Camera Direction

"Um, it was established over a year ago when they released the video. The windows are labeled and you can plainly tell where he is at."

The above response does not estalish camera direction.

It is plainly labeled "dual pump side"

And you can tell by what is seen in the video.

Lagasse describes his car and confirms all of the actions seen in the video right up to walking up to an SUV to speak with some colleagues about the attack in New York.



But we do not have to rely on Lagasse.

ALL of the witnesses place the plane on the north side while NONE of the witnesses specifically place it on the south side.

It's absolute proof of a deception in Arlington and that 9/11 was an inside job.

www.ThePentaCon.com

The accounts are avaliable to the world on video....

....and were filmed on location so as to leave no room for misinterpretation.

The data has been out for about a year now.

It really seems as though you have not even watched the interviews let alone analyzed the security video.

Why would you argue against data that proves the official story false so voraciously even though you haven't even viewed the evidence?

www.ThePentaCon.com

The Burden Is Upon CIT

CIT is making extraordinary claims, for which I have seen little supporting information.

I have watched the interviews with the 2 police officers.

I would like to see information that supports their accounts.

I suspect they may be mistaken. Prove they are not.

" extraordinary claims"?

What is extraordinary about a plane flying to the left of a gas station rather than the right?

It's a lot more than two police officers.

It's two polices officers, a citgo employee who had an even better view and saw the plane pull up, an auto mechanic, a Pentagon courier, AND the air traffic controller in the heliport at the Pentagon.

So basically absolutely every known witness who was in a position to tell while NONE directly contradict them.

It's not our claim it's their claim and it is not extraordinary it is where they all saw the plane fly.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Come on, Aidan.

Are you serious? I hate to seem bothered by this, but you would be too.

Please investigate before you debate us on this matter, Aidan. It will save a lot more time, next time around.

-The light poles
-The generator trailer/fence
-The surveillance video
-The directional damage
-The C-Ring "exit hole"

...All require the low and level SOUTH SIDE of the Citgo approach. Period.

The light poles and cab alone have proven the inside job...

Photobucket

Of Course It Requires A South Side Approach

I'm not the one alleging a north side approach - you are.

It is being alleged by CIT, based on a very small set of dubious or inconclusive items that AA 77 over-flew the Pentagon (for which there are no witnesses, even though thousands were in the middle of a morning commute), that dozens of investigative professionals lied about the positive ID's of AA 77's victims (who by CIT's account, continued on to parts unknown unobserved at 500mph aboard AA 77) and that numerous and known witnesses to the impact of AA 77 with the Pentagon are all lying.

You are wrong about our claims.

Please do not tell us what we assert because you are wrong.

It is not CIT that is alleging the north side claim.

It is the genuine witnesses to the event who were there. All of them.

There is not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence who specifically places the plane on the south side and every witness we spoke with independently places it on the north side.

>>>>>>>that dozens of investigate professionals lied about the positive ID's of AA 77's victims

We have never claimed this. In fact both myself and LEH succinctly explained how this is simply not true. You are trusting the word of the suspect as to the origin of the DNA. You are assuming that the perpetrators preserved the chain of custody. This is not a logical approach to the investigation. The DNA is government controlled and provided evidence and is therefore not valid in support of their story.

>>>>>and that numerous and known witnesses to the impact of AA 77 with the Pentagon are all lying.

All lying? We never said that. They don't have to be. We prove how they were deliberately deceived.

Were some lying? Of course! It would be silly to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job and that no operatives or planted witnesses were utilized.

But no.....all of the previously published witnesses do not have to be lying.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Your Claims Imply Alternative Outcomes

When CIT claims AA 77 (and all passengers) flew-over the Pentagon, it implies:

- Victim ID's were falsified

or

- Victims remains were planted at the crash scene to be positively ID'd.

For the 'fly-over' account to be true, people who claim to have observed AA 77 strike the Pentagon were either lying or extremely mistaken.

Did CIT take the time to interview people who may have been present on the side of the building, opposite from where the explosion occurred, to determine if there were witnesses to a fly-over?

I don't think the

I don't think the identifications were made at the Pentagon, as they were to have been in a plane that was said to be in whole or in part "incinerated."

Therefore, I don't see why any remains from 77 would have needed to be planted at the Pentagon. Not following your logic on this, but it seems to be a sticking point.

Again, for the record, I'm just analyzing the various statements as I go along, not forwarding a perspective. It has always surprised me to hear people who understand that controlled demolition killed most of the victims in New York (in full view and replayed endlessly, like a Zapruder film on steroids), but balk at believing some similar delusion could be involved in the deaths in Virginia. (There were many witnesses to the assassinations whose stories were never put before the media because they contradicted the official version. Some of them just decided they must have been wrong when they were later told "what actually happened.")

They will understand that plants like "Harley Guy" and Jerome Hauer were positioned to insert the official narrative, that amazingly newscasters never again publicly questioned what they clearly thought when the buildings imploded, the implications of the BBC's cock-up on WTC7, etc., but think nothing similar could have been operational at the Pentagon? Without the video evidence of the WTC and the videos of people who were reporting explosions as they left, there would be no CD theory, even though the actual events are exactly the same. Without the video evidence of WTC 7, never again shown after 9/11, there would be no "smoking gun" for the truth movement.

Logic is a beautiful thing.

This is consistently my point.

To argue inside job and controlled demo and then be so resistant to the evidence we provide makes no sense whatsover.

As usual, the intelligent logical mind of LEH succinctly spells out the facts.

www.ThePentaCon.com

You're losing Aidan.

Aidan,

I challenge you to contact Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks and explain to them that they are mistaken. Please. Clearly you know more than people who were there. Then, contact Robert Turcios, Ed Paik, Levi Stephens, and Sean Boger and tell them they are mistaken about the plane being on the north side also.

Aidan, do you have a list of all the documentaries or reports that explicitly document the final two seconds of the plane in relation to the gas station using witnesses flimed on location asked specifically about which side of the gas station the plane flew on????

Have you interviewed any witnesses about this, Aidan?

Have you even been to that area, Aidan?

You are wasting everybody's time with your unfounded suspicions about their testimony.

Just curious Aidan...

EDIT: Duplicate post

What Is The Nature Of Your Evidence?

Video?

Radar data?

Whistleblowers?

Eyewitness accounts of a fly-over?

We have already proven the flyover.

The north side evidence that we have already presented is 100% proof the plane did not cause the physical damage.

When a claim is independently corroborated by all and directly refuted by none it turns from evidence to proof.

But the north side evidence simply reveals the final moment of the flight path.

We now have additional testimony proving that the entire loop was nowhere near where the black box and radar data say and that it actually came from east of the Potomac.

So the new evidence we have establishes the flight path much further back and it reveals how the initial reports from ABC news, Norman Mineta/Monte Belger, Colin Scoggins on the NORAD tapes, the C-130 pilot himself, as well as numerous witnesses in the DC area ALL corroborate this new smoking gun witness we found fatally proving the recently released official radar and black box data fraudulent.

These contradictions would not exist if the plane hit the building as reported.

It's all about the flight path.

Plus we have additional testimony demonstrating how they established a fake "2nd plane" cover story by deliberately blending reports of the E4B and C-130 with the decoy jet as an explanation for anyone who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon.

We have new testimony demonstrating this as well.

It seems complex, and it is, but we will break it down for everyone nice and easy and each and every one of our assertions are 100% supported and none based on speculation.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Stop and think for a moment Aidan

What would a person have done if they saw the flyover/away? Would they have known what they saw?

Would the authorities have taken them seriously if they reported that a plane flew away from the Pentagon?

People along Pentagon row (Army-Navy Drive)in Crystal City would not be staring out their window waiting, looking at the flight path, watching a plane in slow motion fly in and away.

Do you realize how far the Pentagon is from these locations. Foreshortening of photos make things seem a lot closer, Aidan. A 757 would be pretty small compared to the Pentagon. Couple that with jets taking off every 3 minutes over the Pentagon and people would more than likely stare at the fireball, not the little plane flying away. If they did question it, there wa a cover story...

Anybody who may have noticed a plane flying over the building were handled with a cover story about a 2nd plane. There were additional planes called into the area and there were reports of a 2nd plane that allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. The two known planes there were reported are a C-130 and an E4B that came in a few minutes later. For confusion the flyover plane and the C-130 accounts were ambiguously blended by fabricated accounts of "some sort of second military plane/jet shadowing/chasing along the same flight path then veering off/peeling off and up into the air". That way anyone who might have seen the flyover jet would be thrown off by these fabricated accounts that bring "some sort of second military plane/jet" that much closer to the time of impact, essentially veering away simultaneously with the explosion...

Vin Naranayan:
-"I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second *jet* hovering in the skies". (FYI, we interviewed Vin, he maintains it was a "jet")

Joel Sucherman:
-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit.

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

Keith Wheelhouse:
-He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon....As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal, " Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west." A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport . The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport... (He) said it's possible the second plane was a military plane, but the military has not said it had a plane shadowing the hijacked jet."

*-Both Keith and Kelly, as well as at least one other person at the funeral (Pam Young), insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet... the other three witnesses say they're not sure what the plane looked like."

That's because Keith Wheelhouse will eventually confirm it as a C-130, but the "other three witnesses", want to keep it ambiguous enough to still make people think there WAS a military jet chasing/shadowing and that Keith Wheelhouse (who we've interviewed) may be "wrong". It keeps people in confusion.

...So the "second plane/jet" eventually gets blamed on the C-130 pilot who NEVER shadowed or chased the plane. He actually lost sight of it AFTER if passed in front of him and he turned around. He was NEVER near AND/OR over the Pentagon at the time of alleged impact (explosion & Fireball). He wouldn't have been able to keep up with a 530 mph jet, when a C-130 can only travel maximum 379 mph. He didn't arrive until 60 seconds later at a much higher altitude that none of our witnesses along the flight path saw...

Do those accounts sound like this plane...

And what about this?

Responding crews knew something
was up because they observed tripods and
stepladders typically used by camera operators
abandoned on the hill. As Engine 16
and Truck 3 pulled up, a uniformed officer
waved them off, telling them, “Get the f---
outta here! ******There’s a plane coming in!”
Fortunately, no plane crashed into the
White House. One reason for this false alarm
may have been a split-second decision by an
air-traffic controller. When the hijacked
plane turned into the Pentagon, it was on a
collision course with an airliner leaving Reagan
National Airport as scheduled. Without
the data from Flight 77’s transponder and
not knowing the intention of the hijacked
plane, the controller ordered the departing
aircraft to take a hard right, into the protected
airspace above the White House
.*********!!!!!!!

http://info.jems.com/911/pdf/jems0402.pdf

If National Groundstop is at 9:26, then what plane was this that was departing "as scheduled" that had to make a hard right over P56 because it was on the collision course with "AA77"???

This Trained Professional Didn't Observe A Fly-Over

This person was in a perfect position to observe a fly-over but apparently didn't see it:

Chris Stephenson, 44, controller-in-charge at Reagan National Airport tower

About 9:30, the phone that connects his tower to the Secret Service rang. A voice on the other end said an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.

The airplane was completely out of place. "I knew what had just happened in New York. I had a pretty good idea what was up," he said.

He looked out the tower window and saw the jet turning to the right and descending. The jet did a full circle and whoever was flying knew what he was doing. The wings never rocked or oscillated, Stephenson said.

The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va., and exploded into the Pentagon. A fireball blew several hundred feet into the air. For several minutes, a huge cloud of debris — paper, insulation and pulverized building materials — hung in the air.

Stephenson and the others stood in stunned silence for several seconds. But then the phones started ringing again and they got back to shutting the airport down.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-11-voices_x.htm

No, sorry.

Aidan,

He was NOT in a "perfect position" to see the flyover.

Did you miss the part when he said:

The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va.,

If anything, his account matches with our fishing boat captain on the river which would still implicate the official story.

What about heliport tower controller, Sean Boger. He too saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo?

We spoke with him and he confirms this:

Sean Boger

Sean was working inside the heliport tower giving him an incredible vantage point to be able to tell which side of the station the plane approached from.



Here is the best image we could find of his approximate vantage point but naturally he would be a further back and higher up.

Sean describes the plane as approaching from "in front of the Navy Annex" and that it was coming in "on an angle" or a bank.

He said he could see the gas station and without hesitation said the plane was on his right side of the station:


"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side."

He says he did not see it hit any light poles but strangely he thought it hit a highway sign.

In further description of the bank he says:


"As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting he aircraft to his right. It was almost like....not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle.

Sean also believes the plane hit the building while his placement of it proves that it could not have. He also missed the pull up, but instead believed that the plane hit the overhead sign. This overhead sign obviously:

Even though he believes in the impact; it can not be denied that he definitively corroborates the north side claim so this continues to demonstrate how effective the deception really was. If they weren't deceived they would have likely never talked to us in the first place.

He Saw AA 77 Disappear, Not Continue Its Flight

The ATC person saw the plane approach, disappear and then saw the explosion.

Are you suggesting that he would not have seen a 757 traveling at 500mph emerge from this very location as he continued to observe this scene?

Many people heard and saw the approach of AA 77.

No one to my knowledge observed AA 77 continue its flight beyond the Pentagon or even reported the roar of jet engines on the opposite side of the building from where it is alleged to have continued flying from.

Aidan, Aidan, Aidan.

Aidan,

You are ASSUMING that he has a perfectly unobstructed view of the Pentagon and the air traffic over or north of the Pentagon.

You clearly do not understand the power of deduction. He is DEDUCING the impact. He saw the plane, he saw the smoke/debris, he deduced the impact. There is quite a distance between the tower and the Pentagon and all the Crystal City highrises in between.

The simple fact is he COULD NOT see the plane fly away. Regardless, even if he was in a position to see it, his chances of seeing it are greatly reduced due to the fact that he watched the plane (knowing about New York also) head into a direction that would not allow him to automatcially know it was headed for the Pentagon,... then he witnessed the aftermath. His attention would be on the aftermath, not a tiny object off in the distance, Aidan.

And beyond that, did he see the plane on the south side of the north side of the Citgo? That is the criteria you need to work with.

Here is your problem...

>>>>>>No one to my knowledge observed AA 77 continue its flight beyond the Pentagon or even reported the roar of jet engines on the opposite side of the building from where it is alleged to have continued flying from.

No one to your knowledge.

1. You are assuming that the unconfirmed mainstream media accounts you read constitute the entire investigative body of evidence.

2. You are unaware of the fact that the only reports unfiltered by the media are the 911 calls and those tapes have been permanently sequestered even though they were released in New York.

Plus you are forgetting about all the alleged "2nd plane" witnesses that Merc already listed.

If they saw this 2nd plane then why didn't everyone?

The event happened so quick and was so chaotic that most people in the area had no idea what happened. The plane would have been gone in seconds and the incredible explosion, fireball, and smoke plume would distract from the extremely normal sight of a plane ascending over the river.

The media reported what the government told them and genuine witnesses to the decoy jet were blended with planted accounts of the impact.

Unless you speak with witnesses direct there is no logic in taking what was reported by the media at face value and assuming that everything that contradicted the official story would have been reported.

The media is both heavily manipulated and deliberately complicit in the crime of 9/11 and subsequent propaganda supporting the official story.

To accept it out of hand and dismiss independent research proving the official story false BASED ON this type of data is a travesty of justice and to 9/11 truth.

www.ThePentaCon.com

He also forgets that

He also forgets that reporters went to the impact side looking for witnesses. "Witnesses" who were on the outer perimeter off in the distance wereeither call-ins or published accounts days, weeks, and months later. And yet NOT ONE, mentioned this mysterious second plane/jet that chased/shadowed and veered away at the time of the explosion.

That's why the reporters arrived on the scene and found those who were confused, those who were fooled, and those who were lying.

Dave Statter, reported that one witness said the plane "tried to avert going directly into the buiilding and went to the side of the building and not directly in". Sounds like Robert's pull-up huh?

Another female reporter, Heather Cabot, interviewed Isabel James and asked her very clearly and slowly if she "actually saw the plane enter the building"..then asks if she "only saw one plane". She undoubetdly asks because people who saw the plane fly away, ASSUME it was a second plane. Isabel says she saw it hit, but admits she was coming down the columbia pike and the row of trees that run down it blocked her view of seeing what type of plane it was, these same trees would block her view of the impact. Go there, you can see for yourself. She deduced the impact or lied.

Clearly reporters were confused by the information they were getting in their earpiece and from other genuine witnesses on the scene.

Which are the reporters going to report after two planes just hit the towers in an apparent terrorist attack using planes... an impact or a miss??? Will it get reinforced when the gov't releases word that a 757, AA77, hit the building?

Do you realize how small the number is of people who would have seen the flyover/away in the immediate vicinity compared to the rest of arlington who only saw a plane and the aftermath, compared to the rest of the people of the US who saw the aftermath on the news while the gov't TOLD them what happened, compared to the rest of the world who had the US Gov't repeatedly tell them AA77 hit?

You should try taking a map of the world and shade in the area of people in the vicintiy of the explosion that would have or could have witnessed a flyover/away and then shade in the area of the rest of the US and world that would merely believe it hit because the US Gov't told them so. That should make you think Aidan

An email we received as a result of this debate/discussion.

This person is hopefully one of the many who can truly see what is happening here:

"Craig and Aldo

What you are presenting is terrific.
I'm following the CIT v Aidan
Aidan says something like he "just wants to point out", but seems intent on presenting specific examples of opposing evidence - even if it is of very poor quality.

His latest started with...
-----------------------
This person was in a perfect position to observe a fly-over but apparently didn't see it:
Chris Stephenson, 44, controller-in-charge at Reagan National Airport tower
About 9:30, the phone that connects his tower to the Secret Service rang. A voice on the other end said an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.
-----------------------
You picked up on...The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va.,

This is so obvious that he (Aidan) must know it's a poor and yet still posts it. Why?
I feel exhausted just reading all this.
I agree with almost everything you have to say.
I have the feeling you are being goaded.
There seem to be a number of posters pushing and poking you.
I imagine they are trying to exhaust you, make you feel people are against you. Maybe get you to say something that they can twist. They have already (deliberately?) misconstrued things you have said - and you have to respond.
They are making you work very hard defending individual pieces of information, making you respond to garbage.
Stay calm, conserve your energy. Maybe say a bit less for the time being and let your film do the talking.
I feel sure that there must be thousands of people like myself watching and weighing it all up.
You are in a fantastic position, being able to be there and track down these witnesses etc - and you're doing a fantastic job.
Make sure you have the energy to keep it up."

www.ThePentaCon.com

Yea I can see too

I can see what is happening as well.
You assert that
The downed lightpoles were planted. Expanding the 9/11 conspiracy--why? Why plant downed light poles? You're answer I would presume is to make people think the plane flew a different path than it really did. And what is the point of that? There is none.
That an elderly black cab driver who worked at the cab company 30 years was having top secret meetings with "his handlers" who instructed him what to do, and is therefor guilty of mass murder, and also one of the conspirators of 9/11. What was his motive again?
That a reporter for usa today was also "in on" the mass murder of 9/11, and should therefor be in prison. He was happy to help kill these people because of what again?
That a remote control plane flew right at the pentagon but then flew over it instead. And the reason they used the romote control to fly over and not into the pentagon was what again?

Jim, please stop.

Why the hell do >WE< need to answer why?

You are someone who will make up nonsense and reach anywhere you can to make this NOT true.

Let me ask you some stuff, since clearly you you have got this all figured out.

Why did they pick the most difficult and obstacle laden path for your remote controlled plane, Jim? Why didn't the plane just dive into the top of the Pentagon? Why? Why? Why?

Do you know FOR A FACT or did the perps know for a fact that a 757 wings would survive the impact of 5 250 lb light poles without impeding a successful impact into the building or did the just cross their fingers and hope that it wouldn't cause the plane to wreck into a fiery cartwheeling mess on the lawn? Did they know it was going to make it all the way through to the C-ring too Jim? Isn't it amazing how precise the damage was in the area where Auting was taking place? Do you think was just dumb luck or precision?

Why can't you take your head out of your rear end for a minute and listen to what we are telling you? The TOPOGRAPHY of the area DOES NOT allow the plane to skim low and level across the lawn. The FDR trends and descent angle/rate PROVE this.

Are you aware of the VDOT antenna or the VDOT mast and highway sign next to pole 2? Would that have not provided a set of obstacles?

Do you have proof of the existence of this very complex remote guidance and targeting system for a boeing 757? Do you have proof it was on or activated on Flight 77? I do believe the decoy plane had to be remoted guided, but I am not trying to nor do I have to prove that because the witnesses already did.

Why do all the witnesses place the plane north side of the Citgo Jim? Why does Lloyd's story not make sense, Jim? Why does the C-130 document a flight path other than NTSB/RADES data, Jim? Why did Colin Scoggins report the plane 6 SE of the White House? Why does Mineta and Monte Belger have the plane traveling DRA near Rosslyn? Why did our boat captain see the plane in the exact the place that would support all these descriptions? Why Jim? Why?

The plane is on the north side of the gas station. It's over.

Exposeing the culprits of 9/11

Here is a post Craig made on another forum exposing the people who helped carry out 9/11

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=7298.msg29092#msg29092

2 reporters(nice way to burn bridges to the MSM)an elderly cab driver, and a priest. Way to go after the bad guys!
Meanwhile I'm wasting time trying to point out the guilt of the White House and CIA.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jimd3100_080104_the_real_reason_...

Guess my priorities are screwed up. The reason I even bother with this is .....are you aware of how serious the accusations are that you are making against these people? You better have some real good evidence to accuse these folks of this and from what I see you don't. This isn't a game. These are real people and this is an important event.

Stop claiming we said things we didn't say.

Why do you keep lying about our claims?

We have not directly accused anyone as being deliberately or willingly involved.

Lloyd is the only one that we directly claim had to have been involved as implicated by the evidence but we make it clear that we do not blame him for 9/11 and that he could very well be manipulated or coerced which would make him a victim. And we most certainly do have evidence proving his story a fabrication.

We present the evidence so the viewer can make their own decision.

You are not discussing the evidence you are merely dismissing it and using an appeal to emotion to attempt and make us look like the bad guys.

Who planted the bombs at the towers? Bush and Cheney or "working class" professionals?

Why do you keep insinuating that Bush and Cheney were the only ones involved?

Are you going to give up 9/11 truth in November?

Burn bridges with the mainstream media! That's a laugh. Let me give you a hint......they are not on our side.

www.ThePentaCon.com

who did 9/11

who planted bombs in the towers? Must be some working stiff huh? Wouldn't be members of mossad who were known to be explosives experts that were part of an expose on Fox news...guess you never heard of them, and they wouldn't have access anyway would they since Urban moving systems was a front company and Zim international coincidently moved out. The media aren't on our side? I can't imagine why they wouldn't be with such well thought out and convincing evidence that you and the no planners present.

Mossad has no deep cover agents?

The CIA doesn't?

How about MI5?

Do you really think that no agents ever blend into society at all and that they all wait in secret hiding for their next murderous assignment?

Clearly the elite themselves don't do the dirty work.

We are NOT "no planers", in fact we are the ones who have disproved the missile theory and proved that there was a plane.

You have not addressed ANY of the evidence we present so I am starting to think that like Aidan you are simply attacking us personally without even having viewed the evidence.

www.ThePentaCon.com

You're silly Jim.

You clearly have not reviewed all the work we have done and evidence we have obtained. You are reacting with emotional illogical outbursts and you need to stop.

Do you we seem like the type who would not cross our t's and dot our i's? We are sure about our work and are waiting for the first lawsuit. Frankly, nothing has showed up yet. My guess is they want this to go away.

Let me ask you something Jim...

Are there such things as military/intelligence assets or deep cover agents with regular day job professions in the cloak and daggar world? Do those with day time jobs or careers actually extablish these jobs as part of their cover? Do you think editor and reporters for one of the larget news publications in the country be a pretty beneficial position? Perhaps with helping with the control of the news? Please answer this.

If I came to you as your commanding officer and told you that I need you to lie about something, because it would save our country, would you? If I told you that the US had to secure the last oil fields on the planet and we needed a pretext for war in order to do this or our country/economy would be in serious peril, would you lie and say you saw a plane hit the Pentagon? Would you sacrifice the few to save the many? If you thought that peak oil was real and they gave you your mission years before the event, wouldn't you be prepared for that day and do as you were asked or ordered to do?

The fact is, the priest, the cab driver, and the news anchor and editor, are simply not correct in their claims. Some may be mistaken and some are flat out not telling the truth.

Ye of no faith

in the immaculate inside job.

Actually I've seen all the "evidence" you have put up

I've seen all the so called evidence you've put up which is how I knew who you were slandering and the nonsense of planted lightpoles. You can stop telling me what I've researched and what "my emotions" are. Your theory is not only badly flawed, but worse, you also don't care what people you slander on your way to try and make a name for yourself.

Contain yourself there

Contain yourself there pal.

I don't want my name even involved in this mess. I don't even want to have to deal with or talk to people like you. You think I wanted to have to go there and get involved in this? I had a life before 9/11. You think I get off on believing other human beings are capable of this type of malice and deceit? It plagues me. It haunts me. I can't eescape what I've learned. I can't escape the things April Gallop has told me. I can't escape Bob Pugh, a cameraman who was there 5-7 minutes after the event, wanting to know what happened. I can't escape Levi Stephens and Robert Turcios being nervous about telling us that the plane did not look like and WAS NOT an American Airlines.

This affects me in a very profound way, Jim.

You refuse to accept the evidence that is conclusive.

It disgusts me how you people treat us. We are the first to ever live, eat, and breathe research and investigation into the Pentagon attack, to put an end to the debate one way or the other. The first to ever set foot in Arlington to embark on the most extensive and comprehensive research trip into the Pentagon attack. We went there prepared for whatever we'd find and prepared to bring back evidence of an AA jet flying down Columbia Pike on the SOUTH SIDE of the CITGO, coming over an overpass knocking pieces of a pole into a cab, then hitting 4 more poles, coming in low and level into the first floor. It did not happen. We bring back absolutely overwhelming and mind boggling evidence and now everyone is a critic, everyone is a damn know-it-all when it comes to the Pentagon. They never set foot in VA, let alone spoke to a witness on the phone and they have the audacity to try and tell us what is what after we poured hours of thought and investigation into this matter.

People like you and Victoria are armchair activists. Do-nothings imo. Blogging, posting in forums, gatekeeping. Telling people what they should think. Distracting them from the prize.

You can't move a plane Jim. Victoria can't move it either.

The more inaction there is, the more you all contribute to your country's downfall.

Need A tissue?

What a moving impersonation of Hillary Clinton sobing before NH primaries. Since you've cracked the door open about what this is really all about I'll go ahead kick it open. You said,,.."We went there prepared for whatever we'd find and prepared to bring back evidence of an AA jet flying down Columbia Pike on the SOUTH SIDE of the CITGO, coming over an overpass knocking pieces of a pole into a cab, then hitting 4 more poles, coming in low and level into the first floor. It did not happen. We bring back absolutely overwhelming and mind boggling evidence and now everyone is a critic, everyone is a damn know-it-all when it comes to the Pentagon. They never set foot in VA, let alone spoke to a witness on the phone and they have the audacity to try and tell us what is what after we poured hours of thought and investigation into this matter.

People like you and Victoria are armchair activists. Do-nothings imo. Blogging, posting in forums, gatekeeping. Telling people what they should think. Distracting them from the prize." I will respond to this at the end.

Now let's get down to it. Your star witness is a pentagon police officer. Now, of all the people you'd think he'd be the one involved in the conspiracy, but he's not. Because if he was, you wouldn't have a movie. Your star witness for a pentagon flyover claims there was no pentagon flyover. Your star witness for a plane not hitting the pentagon says he saw a plane hit the pentagon. He is your absolute proof of a flyover. You claim he is just mistaken, however he is not mistaken when he says what direction it came from, because if he was guess what? You wouldn't have a movie. Lets move on to the cab driver Lloyd England. He has got to be involved in the 9/11 conspiracy. If he isn't then...guess what? You don't have a movie. So you have no choice but to make him part of the crime of the century. Then you back off and say..well...maybe he was bribed, or coarced, or brainwashed or something else.....anything but just an elderly cab driver..because if he was...you haven't got a movie. Then there's Mike Walter. He is definately part of the conspiracy and a mass murderer. If he isn't then you haven't got a movie. Then there is the priest. You claim he is either part of the conspiracy or lies, just for fun, or is mistaken. Because if he is telling the truth, guess what? You haven't got a movie.
And that's really the whole point after all. Then we have a remote control plane approaching the pentagon. Instead of crashing into it and it being done with, it just flys over it. Otherwise, guess what? You haven't got a movie. Then the lightpoles. The lightpoles have to be planted by people involved in the conspiracy. There is no way around it. Because if they weren't planted guess what? You haven't got a movie. Of course there would be no reason to plant the lightpoles, so you have to makeone up.....otherwise you haven't got a movie. Then there is the problem of the dozens of witnesses who saw the plane clip the lightpoles. They are ALL either part of the conspiracy or lieing. Not one is telling the truth because if just one was guess what? You haven't got a movie. Then there are the 100's of witnesses who saw a plane fly into the pentagon. They are ALL either part of the conspiracy or lieing because if just one was telling the truth guess what? You haven't got a movie.
And just how did these people appear in your movie? Isn't it a fact that you decieved them? That you convinced them you were out to "set the record straight" on what happened at the pentagon? Isn't it a fact that they agreed to be in the film was because they were led to believe you would present their story? You're dishonest. But this whole thing is not about exposing who was behind 9/11, and this isn't about finding the truth. This is about how you are not like us
"armchair activists". You are after the "prize" You are special and have gone out and got "explosive evidence". It's about you. And you are willing to have dinner with Mr Walter, and decieve the police, and priest, and cab driver, in order to stab them in the back and accuse them of being part of the crime of the century, otherwise like I said you haven't got a movie.

Tell us about the planted Lightpoles

That's my favorite part. You see here's the plan. They use a remote controlled plane and fly it toward the pentagon and at the last moment fly over the pentagon the flyover is hidden by the smoke of the bombs going off at the same time. Now the good part. They planted lightpoles to make the evidence look like the plane approached from another angle. Just for fun. We know that the plane couldn't possibly have knocked down these lightpoles, because the dozens of witnesses who are on record as watching it, are in on the conspiracy, these witnesses needed work I guess as did the ones that planted the lightpoles. Why else use them?The smoking gun evidence of a flyover is the police who claim they saw the plane fly into the building ...not over it. Of course they are mistaken, but not mistaken when they say the direction, it approached from.

Incredulity is a b*tch.

This will be the last post for you from me.

Jim,

Go there. Go to Arlington, VA. Explain how the plane hit the building. Clearly you can use some more emotionally laced thoughts to string together an explanation into how the plane hit the light poles and building as outlined by the ASCE approaching from the north side. Maybe you can explain to Sgt Lagasse and Brooks that they didn't see what they said they saw. Maybe you can explain how the plane showed up low and level in the gate cam video when the topography will not allow that. Even the FDR proves this. Explain how the plane hit the trailer when the left wing tilt would not allow it.

The light poles were planted. They had to be. There is no other way around it.

They were removed months before and the broken ones placed out there the night before, 9/10. They had the perfect reason to be out on the highway and lawn:

Helipad Firefighter Alan Wallace: "Our first helicopter flight was around 10AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks."
source

This means that they had all the excuse they needed to "secure" the lawn/highway area in preparation for his arrival and this would even be quite routine and expected for the people in the area since the President travels from there regularly.

The poles could have been removed in the middle of the night on any night prior to the event in what could have been made to look like regular late night road work.

Then the pre-fabricated damaged poles could be put in place in the early am or midnight hours while they were "securing" the area for the President's scheduled arrival. A couple extended length cargo vans would do the job.

4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass...

People don't stare at the side of the road as they drive. Do you? Especially as they are on the phone or listening to the radio about NYC. If someone did see the poles...so what? What can they do? What would they do? Would they be the type of people to put two and two together? What would the authorities say to them as one person? Would the authorities believe it or put two and two together? Remember, there is no coalition of staged light pole witnesses, same with flyover/away witnesses.

These are either people who were left confused, scared or oblivious.

Pole 1 was planted on the highway with the feds that pulled up after the cab would have moved into position...

After all POLE 1 WAS moved at one point:

...and no one noticed that, no one photographed that, no one reported that detail because it was insignificant compared to the chaos and carnage going on around the scene.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=9632&st=0

Remember the plane approached from the north side of the gas station so it did not hit the light poles.

As for the bombs, how else are you going to completely destroy and control the damage of a selected area of your backyard with military precision? Wasn't the accounting office in that area??? Hmmm. You sure you're going to trust an inexperienced pilot or cross your fingers that your remote guidance system will effectively fly that needle threading flight path into the first floor? Remember, the WTC towers were a couple of 110 story buildings, while the Pentagon is a low-rise building sitting in a bowl basically. A LOT different. You should know how powerful the MSM and the power of suggestion are when combined. All you need is enough people repeating enough and the impact AA77 is born as a reality. Clearly you exemplify the fact that people are MORE inclined to believe or WANT TO believe the impact. After all, it is more believeable right? Even in light of "counter-intuitive" damage and debris patterns.

Chew on that for a while.

Potentially Thousands Of Witnesses To A Fly-Over

Yet not a single one can be found

Thousands of people traveling on nearby highways during a morning commute.

Potentially thousands more coming to and from vehicles located within vast nearby parking lots.

And not a single witness to a 500mph, roaring 757 fly-over of the Pentagon.

A low flying and roaring 767 traveling at nearly 500mph:

How would we know? Was

How would we know? Was anyone looking for them? Were April G's observations featured anywhere?

Was William Rodriguez interviewed by mainstream media outlets when he started messing with the official narrative? Is Sibel getting a lot of requests for interviews in the U.S.? Were JFK witnesses showcased?

The only reason the "testimony" of witnesses at the WTC survived the memory hole is because there were so many cameras rolling. If not for that, we would never have known about the many people reporting explosions. (The media works like the old saw that if a tree fell in the forest and no one was there to hear it, it didn't make a sound.) It all went away by the following day. We know the firefighters were gagged, that many people like Barry Jennings have been intimidated, and that people in New York have tried in vain for years to get their stories out. We have no way of knowing how many witnesses might have reported various anomolies at the Pentagon, because even if they were noted, they wouldn't have been printed or shown on the teevee. In addition, there was near complete control over all aspects of the scene from the moment it happened. It's the Pentagon, after all.

Additionally, D.C. is a company town -- no one wants to ruffle the beast's feathers here. Most people commuting into town that morning have jobs related in one way or another to the government, whether they work for public or private concerns. And people are well aware how whistleblowers and agitaters are treated. I've had people here say to me, "Even if there is something to the 9/11 thing like you say, I wouldn't touch it with a 30 foot pole. You're crazy to even go there."

Millions and millions of people around the world watched the Towers come down over and over and over again -- do you expect me to believe that they were deliberate implosions, that the ptb would be so bold as to attempt to pull this off in broad daylight? That no one would blow the whistle on something so obvious? You must be mad! ;-)

Aidan you are not thinking about this logically

And how many people saw the impact, Aidan? How many saw the plane and how many deduced the impact? We know that the plane in that video hit the building, but not everyone saw it.

Tell me, Aidan, do planes fly over Manhattan 24-7, every 3 minutes?

Hmmm, well they do in Arlington next to the Pentagon. So it is no wonder that everyone *IN THAT PART OF NYC* looked up and around for something they would not have expected to see or hear over Manhattan.

Was that parking lot you circled filled with people or just cars? After all it was after 6:30 am to 7:00 am which is when masses of people/car literally pour in. We know, because we were there. That is the benefit of actual hands-on investigation, Aidan. So at 9:37 that parking lot was all but dead. Regardless, there was that pesky second plane cover story they would have been told.

They are military, they are confused and they keep their mouth shut. We know this also from speaking with the rescue/recovery military officer/hero who gave us our midnight tour of the Pentagon. It's almost as if they know, and there is nothing they can or will do about it, due to their fears of reprisals and loss of their benefits. You would know that if you actually spoke with participants in the event and look at this event with a more critical eye.

Did you hear the roar of the jet in the Lagasse interview we conducted? He didn't even flinch. He even mentioned how he didn't even hear the 9/11 decoy jet until it went by him.

Did you know that when genuine published witness Levi Stephens was in his van and on the phone with his sister, he saw the plane come over the Navy Annex (which it would only do in the north side flight path, which coincidentally, is the side of the gas station he said it was on) and didn't even think twice about seeing it there because of Reagan air traffic, but when it turned toward the Pentagon is when he took immediate notice.

Again, the topography does not allow people to even follow the plane all the way to the impact point. People who would have been in a position to see the flyover/away, either caught it and bought the 2nd plane cover story or missed it and only saw the fireball. Those who only saw the plane would have mistaken it for Reagan Air Traffic.

You are not considering all of the facts.

1. We do not know what people really first reported because all of the 911 call tapes and transcripts have been confiscated and permanently sequestered. They did this for a reason. We have never said that nobody saw the plane flying away. Just because it wasn't reported this doesn't mean it didn't happen. This was the entire purpose of the 2nd plane cover story anyway. An alleged "2nd plane" flying away from the building immediately after the explosion WAS reported. So why wasn't it more widely reported? Because it wasn't part of the official story narrative and was only meant to serve as an explanation for the people who saw the plane flying away.

2. You circled the Pentagon parking lots which are like grand central station between 7 and 8 am but are literal ghost towns after 9:00. I know because I hung out there early in the morning trying to talk to Pentagon workers.

3. Almost none of the places you circled would have a view of the plane on the approach at all and the few that could would only see it for a fraction of a second so the event would be over before they knew what was happening. This means the bulk of these people would experience a big explosion and smoke plume and have no idea what caused it. Plus the ones that were able to see the plane for a fraction of a second would have their view of the flyaway obstructed by the smoke plume. The ones that were in front of the smoke plume would be completely oblivious as to what happened and any plane making a steep and fast ascent over the river would be overshadowed by the smoke plume and would not seem odd anyway since it happens every 2 to 4 minutes 24 hours a day.

4. LEH's brilliant response which outlines the culture of silence in DC (she knows because she lives there) and demonstrates how the media was manipulated and controlled as far as what was reported. Most published witness accounts were taken in the days and weeks following the event when reporters were looking for witnesses who supported the official version of the event. Anyone who saw a plane and heard the explosion would do. The media did not scrutinize the events of 9/11 or what they were told happened by the government. You must agree on this point. Clearly the reporters were not very interested in anyone who saw this alleged "2nd plane" flying away from the building right? Why do you think this is? Does this prove that no plane flew away at all and that the witnesses who reported this are lying? If so then why are they lying? You have to think critically about this Aidan. Simply accepting the official explanation because it is easier is not a valid approach to exposing this deception.

Your questions are the exact thing that our presentation will address because people who refuse to accept the evidence we present keep putting up these same hollow arguments but they do not hold water when the facts are scrutinized in detail.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Seen: AA 77 Approach, C-130, E4B. Unseen: AA 77 Fly-Over

The distant and comparatively silent E4B was observed by many, within the same airspace at nearly the same time, as AA 77 allegedly roared over the Pentagon at a dangerously low altitude traveling 500mph.

And absolutely no one observed an AA 77 fly-over.

Now you are misconstruing details.

The 84 RADES data claims the E4B didn't even take off until 9:43:57 so it was NOT in the air at the same time according to official data.

And the E4B was seen in P56 restricted airspace directly over the White House AFTER everyone knew that the Pentagon and of course the WTC had been attacked.

This is not equivalent to a plane flying on the regular course of departures out of Reagan over the Potomac river before anybody had a clue what was going on and WHILE the explosion, fireball, and smoke plume created the ultimate diversion.

The presence of the E4B over DC scaring everybody was essential to why they were able to pull off the fraudulent NTSB flight path released in 2006 and the entire flyover operation with the 2nd plane cover story and this is once again exactly what we are covering in this upcoming presentation.

www.ThePentaCon.com

CNN: E4B Over White House As Smoke Began Rise From Pentagon

CNN says that the E4B was spotted over the White House "just as the smoke beagn to rise across the river at the Pentagon", suggesting its presence simultaneous to the Pentagon strike.

I'm simply relating CNN's apparent inference, not trying to confirm whether it is correct or not.

Of course they did.

As we have said and will be explaining in full detail in the presentation this thread is about.....

The E4b was essential to the operation as cover for the decoy jet.

The decoy jet did not make it's loop where the NTSB says it did.

It made the loop over DC restricted airspace just like the E4B did.

This way they could effectively blend the reports of these planes. The C-130 was used similarly which is why they have some fabricated accounts suggesting it "shadowed" or "chased" AA77 and then veered away over the building at the last moment. Of course it did not do this according to the pilot himself but that doesn't stop these reports from serving as VERY effective cover for the flyover.

But the 84 RADES data released the other month holds the government to their word about the E4B. They have it taking off from Andrews AFB at 9:43:57:

So reports of a plane before or at the time of the attack CAN NOT have been the E4B according to the official data.

This makes proving more contradictions quite simple and is exactly what our presentation will be about.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Not a good comparison, AGAIN.

Aidan,

That was well AFTER the event at the Pentagon. Of course people noticed it. They heard the Pentagon was hit and started looking up and around. And just because the sound is turned down does not mean it was silent, Aidan.

You also have NO PROOF that the decoy plane would have:

-roared over the Pentagon at a dangerously low altitude
-been traveling 500mph

What about these witnesses Aidan?

As Engine 16
and Truck 3 pulled up, a uniformed officer
waved them off, telling them, “Get the f---
outta here! ******There’s a plane coming in!”
Fortunately, no plane crashed into the
White House. One reason for this false alarm
may have been a split-second decision by an
air-traffic controller. When the hijacked
plane turned into the Pentagon, it was on a
collision course with an airliner leaving Reagan
National Airport as scheduled
(When national groundstop was enacted at 9:26???). Without
the data from Flight 77’s transponder and
not knowing the intention of the hijacked
plane, the controller ordered the departing
aircraft to take a hard right, into the protected
airspace above the White House
.*********!!!!!!!

http://info.jems.com/911/pdf/jems0402.pdf

Which plane was this, Aidan? Where are the photos of this plane, Aidan? Where are all the witnesses who noticed that plane, Aidan?

What about these witnesses and this plane? It surely wasn't the C-130:

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

Joel Sucherman:
-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit.

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

Keith Wheelhouse:
-He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon....As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal, " Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west." A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport . The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport... (He) said it's possible the second plane was a military plane, but the military has not said it had a plane shadowing the hijacked jet."

*-Both Keith and Kelly, as well as at least one other person at the funeral (Pam Young), insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet... the other three witnesses say they're not sure what the plane looked like."

What about that second plane over the impact plane, that veers away as the jet plunges into the Pentagon???

Can you explain that Aidan?

BTW

Here is an actual idea of what you can see from 395:

Photobucket

Remember only Southbound lanes would have the benefit of potentially catching the flyover. Northbound would have their backs turned and would have to whip their neck around faster than Dick Cheney. The red is "unable to see", the green represents the "potential to see".

You are exaggerating without investigating, Aidan. There are not "thousands" of witnesses to the flyover/away.

We have videos showing the actual views from the highways.

For anyone who doubts our claims about what you can really see from your car in the surrounding highways/roads of the Pentagon we have published location videos that give you an idea to help reveal the complex topography and demonstrate the actual point of view.

All 3 versions are available here:

CIT Jettin' Crosstown

www.ThePentaCon.com

Very dissappointed Aidan...

You have been doing great work aggressively trying to get information through FOIA, however, your argument here seems you havent even reviewed the statements made by witnesses, not to mention cherry picking? Poor form my friend.

CIT arent the ones "alleging" a North side claim. Witnesses are... CIT is reporting it.

Aidan,

If you saw a car pass by you at high speed on its way into an intersection hundreds of yards away where there was a huge explosion followed by all types of other car crossing that intersection... which would you be more certain, which side the car passed you? Or if it were involved in the loud huge explosion....?

Further, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

People should perhaps wait till the new CIT footage/documentary is released (and actually watch it) prior to debate.

If they disagree with the filmed footage/interviews, they should go to Arlington, spend their resources/time/money as CIT has, and film their own footage as a rebuttal. Debating or trying to "debunk" on the net without ever having been there (or thoroughly examining the footage/research gathered) is like pissing in the wind. You will get wet. :-)

My .02

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

Why There Is Cause For Reasonable Doubt Of CIT View

We do not have to agree on every item.

I'm simply asking reasonable questions, in a respectful way. (Unlike Merc, who seems to think it is necessary to repeat my first name over and over, in a mocking tone when providing responses.)

CIT's theory seems to rely entirely on factors that are very subject to error, such as human memory:

"Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."

http://innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Sgt. Brooks for example, said the airplane contained 'blue United letters', not the red and blue 'AA' letters.

What Brooks also said, quote: "What I'd seen then was the plane going directly in front of the building".

In front of the building, not over it.

Sgt. LaGrasse is uncertain about which pump he was at and whether he put his car in drive or reverse after the plane struck the Pentagon. This indicates uncertainty about position and orientation, which could also have applied to his recollection about which edge of the canopy the plane was observed near (the north edge or ... the east edge.)

If LaGrasse can confuse front or back and drive or reverse, he can also confuse what direction the horizon was located during the time he observed the plane.

The most extraordinary claim (the fly-over) is completely without direct supporting evidence such as footage, radar data or independent eyewitnesses.

I cannot explain some of the conflicts created by what the interviewed people allege and I admit that there is an interesting conflict of information posed by the interviews.

I still find it more reasonable to conclude that there are errors in the accounts that I cannot yet account for, as opposed to believing that AA 77 over-flew the Pentagon unnoticed and that victim ID's were falsified by departments containing numerous individuals or that remains of such victims were later planted at the scene for positive ID's.

The north side evidence is the eyewitnesses' "view". Not CIT's.

And it proves the plane could not have hit.

I'm simply asking reasonable questions, in a respectful way. (Unlike Merc, who seems to think it is necessary to repeat my first name over and over, in a mocking tone when providing responses.)

In this discussion you have acted like you were not even aware of the evidence we present as if it doesn't exist. The email we received about our debate that I posted earlier perfectly describes your "respectful" approach. It has been a disingenuous approach to the discussion and that can be quite frustrating to deal with.

CIT's theory seems to rely entirely on factors that are very subject to error, such as human memory:
"Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."

The north side evidence is independently corroborated 6 times and directly refuted by none. Why do you only acknowledge Lagasse and Brooks? What about Robert Turcios who also saw the plane pull up? We also have Edward Paik, Levi Stephens, and the controller in the heliport Sean Boger. EVERYONE saw the plane on the north side and nobody says it was on the south side. How could they all get it wrong the same? There is no way that 6 people made the exact same ridiculously drastic mistake about such a simple and significant detail. You are making a sweeping generalization by dismissing evidence this strong simply because it is from eyewitnesses. You are refusing to look at the evidence in context and are merely generalizing it as a means to dismiss it.


Sgt. Brooks for example, said the airplane contained 'blue United letters', not the red and blue 'AA' letters.
What Brooks also said, quote: "What I'd seen then was the plane going directly in front of the building".
In front of the building, not over it.

So what? It was on the north side and so it couldn't have hit. This proves they were deceived. They saw the plane for about 2 seconds. It makes perfect sense that they would get things like color wrong. But what side of the station it flew??? No way! Plus it's all about corroboration. As honest fallible witnesses they were not 100% accurate about all details but they ALL got the north side right so clearly this is the detail that is correct. This is how investigators scientifically determine which eyewitness claims are correct. Corroboration. They don't completely throw away testimony if an eyewitness isn't 100% correct about every little detail.

Sgt. LaGrasse is uncertain about which pump he was at and whether he put his car in drive or reverse after the plane struck the Pentagon. This indicates uncertainty about position and orientation, which could also have applied to his recollection about which edge of the canopy the plane was observed near (the north edge or ... the east edge.)
If LaGrasse can confuse front or back and drive or reverse, he can also confuse what direction the horizon was located during the time he observed the plane.

You are reaching hard and far with this one and you know it. These cops are at that station every day as is Robert Turcios who you pretend doesn't exist. You don't think Lagasse knew he was looking at the Pentagon? Are you sure you watched his testimony? He made a simple mistake about front or back pump (that doesn't affect his vantage point in the least), corrected himself, and the security video CONFIRMS he was at the back pump and what way he was facing as he described after correcting himself. Plus it would not matter what way he was facing! That would not change what side of the station the plane flew. The plane would STILL be on the north side and he would not have been able to see it through the building if it was on the south side.

By the way it's Lagasse not "LaGrasse".


The most extraordinary claim (the fly-over) is completely without direct supporting evidence such as footage, radar data or independent eyewitnesses.

"Independent" eyewitnesses? What do you think we have provided? NONE of the 6 witness we present had ever talked to each other. They most certainly are independent. So now you are saying that it requires government controlled and provided data to corroborate their unrefuted and perfectly corroborated claim proving the government story is false.

Think about what you are requiring here!

All "footage" is controlled by the government. Radar data was controlled by the government and guess what? They released it in 2007 six years after the event. Our new presentation will prove it fraudulent with MANY sources including the C-130 pilot himself, ABC News, Norman Mineta and Monte Belger from the FAA, Colin Scoggins on the NORAD tapes, and the new witness we found on the river. That's a lot of corroboration proving a deception in Arlington. So basically the radar data DOES prove the north side evidence right because we can prove it fraudulent. They would have no reason to alter the radar data if AA77 hit the building as reported.

I cannot explain some of the conflicts created by what the interviewed people allege and I admit that there is an interesting conflict of information posed by the interviews.

I still find it more reasonable to conclude that there are errors in the accounts that I cannot yet account for, as opposed to believing that AA 77 over-flew the Pentagon unnoticed and that victim ID's were falsified by departments containing numerous individuals or that remains of such victims were later planted at the scene for positive ID's.

So in essence you will accept the official explanation by default despite rock solid evidence proving it false that you can not explain. You will do this simply because the official version seems more "reasonable" to you. Why would you think that ashes in a baggie controlled and supplied by the suspect who killed thousands are reason to believe the government version of the event?

And please realize that we have never asserted that "AA77" flew over the Pentagon. AA77 was completely lost and unaccounted for as early as 8:56 somewhere around the Kentucky Ohio border all the way up to allegedly a couple minutes before the event at 9:37. There is zero evidence that it was anywhere near Arlington at the time of the attack.

The evidence we present is conclusive and is not even close to limited to the north side claim. If you honestly think that 9/11 truth is important then you seriously better start letting go of your 757 impact at the Pentagon theory because evidence, logic, and truth is on our side with this one. We have done the homework. This isn't a game to us and we are not merely blogging speculation.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Excellent.

I truly believe that you guys (CIT) have solved the pentagon puzzle.

It is simply the best and most plausible explanation. And it fits beautifully into the whole 911 hoax scenario.
I am looking forward to the video.

Cheers and many thanks for your work.

CIT Should Interview Airport Personnel

Personnel at the Reagan International airport (from tarmac personnel to ATC tower personnel), who were likely in a position to observe the Pentagon explosion and an alleged fly-over by AA 77, must be interviewed for CIT's investigation to be deemed fully comprehensive.

If even 1 individual can be discovered at the airport, who observed the Pentagon explosion and did not see or hear a fly-over, then the fly-over conclusion can justifiably be called into question.

Of course, CIT may also find an essential eyewitness to the alleged fly-over at Reagan International, so such interviews seem to be in order.

Such airport personnel would be deemed expert by most as being able to distinguish between aircraft in flight associated with the airport or not.

Will CIT make the effort to interview such airport personnel?

Or even countless potential eyewitnesses to the approaching plane who were located directly across the highway in one of numerous buildings (below) and who would have been in perfect position to see a fly-over.

Isn't that a bit like saying

Isn't that a bit like saying that unless NY Port Authority engineers go on record to say that they witnessed evidence of controlled demolition, all of the observations by "less credentialed" individuals are invalidated? Don't we recognize that there are many disincentives for them to do so? Should we abandon the CD hypothesis because it isn't endorsed by FEMA or NIST? Aren't you suggesting a hypocritical appeal to authority in this case?

Just keeping you honest ;-)

One of the biggest criticisms of CD was that there were no architects and engineers with specialized knowledge who were speaking and writing on the issue. Once AE911truth was formed, the debunkers had to raise the bar further and attempt to discredit the kind of professionals they had professed to respect. But that doesn't mean that the observations and experiences of people at GZ or the "civilian" analysis of the video evidence was incorrect; rather, they were corroborated. (Remember that Richard Gage only got involved and started his organization because of a serendipitous exposure to DRG on Guns&Butter last year. He had never even thought to question the official version, despite retroactively wondering how the hell he could ever have watched those towers come down and NOT been immediately suspicious. The people who have been studying this for a long time tend to forget that all of the contradictions we notice require an unusually detailed knowledge of the official version of events.)

I agree that it would be wonderful if National Airport personnel would agree to candid interviews. In my opinion, the most revealing part of CIT's investigation thus far is that both security guards were unaware of the implications of their witness statements. They did not know that they were disputing the official story, because they did not ever know the flight path as determined by the government. They ultimately displayed classic cognitive dissonance: "What you're saying may be true, but I still don't believe it." I believed them BECAUSE they didn't change their statements when they caught on to the implications for the official story and the risks to their job security.

Having worked in media analysis, I got into the 9/11 issue from the standpoint of the media blackout on WTC7 -- if there was a non-sinister explanation, why the hell keep it closeted for so many years when they scrambled to show as much 9/11 trauma as possible? I continue to feel that way about the closeted Pentagon videos.

I don't what I will eventually conclude for myself, but I definitely encourage CIT to keep digging. It's a very large onion.

Aidan Monaghan should interview airport personnel.

Personnel at the Reagan International airport (from tarmac personnel to ATC tower personnel), who were likely in a position to observe the Pentagon explosion and an alleged fly-over by AA 77, must be interviewed for CIT's investigation to be deemed fully comprehensive.

We live in California. We have made 3 trips to Arlington and have obtained groundbreaking evidence during each trip and we were busy non-stop with a totally full itinerary.

None of what we present is not valid or not viable without ADDITIONAL interviews that you demand. Clearly you don't even understand what you are asking. It's infinitely easier to get someone to talk if they don't understand the implications of what they saw such as the police officers at the Citgo station. If there was a controller who saw the plane fly away and was nervous about it do you think they would be jumping at the chance to talk about it on camera? If they were they would have already.

If even 1 individual can be discovered at the airport, who observed the Pentagon explosion and did not see or hear a fly-over, then the fly-over conclusion can justifiably be called into question.

Of course, CIT may also find an essential eyewitness to the alleged fly-over at Reagan International, so such interviews seem to be in order.

Absence of evidence is not evidence and it certainly does not counter already corroborated and confirmed evidence. There is no way they would be able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo from the airport and there is no reason to assume they would have caught the event. The explosion, fireball, and smoke plume would not only be an incredible diversion to the plane flying away which would be gone in seconds but it would likely also block their view of the plane as it went upriver like a normal departure.

What if you could not get a hold of any witnesses at Reagan at all? Does that "disprove" the north side evidence? Of course not! We ENCOURAGE you to speak with airport personnel or ANY witness and to publish the results as we have. And while you're at it call Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios, Paik, Boger, and Stephens and tell them all that they are wrong about where they all saw the plane because you were unable to find an air traffic controller who noticed a plane flying away after the explosion.

Such airport personnel would be deemed expert by most as being able to distinguish between aircraft in flight associated with the airport or not.

Will CIT make the effort to interview such airport personnel?

Or even countless potential eyewitnesses to the approaching plane who were located directly across the highway in one of numerous buildings (below) and who would have been in perfect position to see a fly-over.

We have made efforts to contact DOZENS of the previously published witness that exists and have been successful with many. We have canvassed the neighborhoods of Arlington on foot to find previously unknown witnesses as well.

This is how we found Ed Paik, Robert Turcios, Cindy Reyes, Jamal El Kournayati, and many others. We have noticed a HUGE difference in content and demeanor between many of the previously published and the previously unknown witnesses we have spoken with.

We are willing to speak with and record on video or just audio over the phone ANY and ALL witnesses or alleged witnesses.

Of course we would talk with any airport personnel witness that was willing to talk with us.

But you can't walk up to the control tower and knock on the door. It's not easy looking for witnesses if you don't have a name and it's not always easy getting them to agree to talk if you DO have a name.

But if they saw something that contradicts the official story and they know it it's virtually impossible to get them to talk.

We have spoken with more than one first responder as well and some are rather skittish and unwilling to go public for this very reason.

But to keep moving the goal posts and suggesting that we have to find MORE and MORE confirmation even though we have confirmation many times over already is simply not logical. If 6 north side witnesses aren't enough for you when nobody directly refutes them....how many would be? 10? 20? Why are you choosing that arbitrary number?

So please.....feel free to interview witnesses yourself to prove the north side claim wrong.

It's real easy to make demands from behind your computer but try stepping up and devoting the time and energy that it takes to actually go there and really get the job done.

Or if you feel like doing the research to at least FIND these alleged airport personnel witnesses that you speak of feel free to forward their information to us and we will be happy to interview them for you.

But we are not making a 4th trip to Arlington in order to canvas Reagan National blind simply on your whim.

And the evidence we have presented so far is not any less valid because of this.

www.ThePentaCon.com

It's Not My Investigation

Your interviews present a puzzling paradox. I concede that.

"But we are not making a 4th trip to Arlington in order to canvas Reagan National blind simply on your whim."

You owe it to your investigation. The information you have gathered provides compelling cause for further research.

There is the possibility that you may find the witnesses who observed a fly-over.

Or do you fear that futher inquiry may lead to information that conflicts with your conclusion.

I have plans for numerous federal FOIA lawsuits that will ultimately cost me thousands of dollars.

Costs don't phase me ... I want answers. If costs won't stop me, they shouldn't stop you.

Additional trips to Wash. DC are completely within the realm of possibility. ATC tower personnel interviews are important and within possibility.

If a fly-over occurred, then someone observed it. An eyewitness would represent invaluable proof.

I intend no disrespect, but based on the less than 5 out of 10 score at this thread, CIT would seem to need fly-over witnesses to convince the observer of a fly-over.

9/11 truth is not "your" investigation?

We will interview anyone who claims to be a witness and we avoid nobody.

Canvassing the airport is YOUR idea so it is your responsibility to follow through with it if you deem it necessary or valuable. We do not primarily because you can not see the Pentagon OR the flight path at all from the airport.

Have you ever even been to Reagan National?

You are speaking about hypothetical witnesses that don't exist and would not physically be able to counter the north side evidence anyway even if they did exist. Nobody who was at the airport could possibly disprove the north side evidence or "paradox" as you put it.

Here is the view from the top of the parking structure at the airport looking towards the Pentagon:


If you are suggesting you can see the Pentagon from the tarmac prove it. I don't believe you can. The 14th street bridge, the river, and all the elevated highways would block the view. There is nowhere at the airport where you can see the Pentagon. Plus how would you find these witnesses? You can not walk on the tarmac or go to the control tower.

Even if you found 6 witnesses who were on the tarmac and happened to see smoke rising in the sky there is no way they would have caught the plane flying away which would be too far away to see in any detail and gone in seconds and there is no way they could EVER counter the north side side evidence.

And think about it......although I'm sure you can see the Pentagon from the control tower, the event happened so fast. They would hear a boom, look and see all the smoke rising. By then the plane would be well on it's way and would be a tiny blip that would not be noticed. It could not be seen with any detail from the airport which is a couple of miles away. So the flyaway would not be sufficiently visible to the naked eye particularly with the smoke plume diverting and concealing it. Not seeing/noticing the plane from the airport does not prove it didn't fly away and CERTAINLY does nothing to refute the rock solid north side proof. Even the one previously published alleged witness from the tower admits to having an obstructed view.

You are acting like people on the ground can see what you do in that aerial helicopter image or satellite images from google earth. That is not how the real world works. Yes the airport is close to the Pentagon for an airplane but it most certainly is NOT for an eyewitness.

What if I booked a trip, went back to Arlington, canvassed all airport personnel and didn't find any witnesses?

Would that make you accept the north side evidence?

All you are doing here is moving the goal posts so you can continue to dismiss this evidence that disproves your theory (and the official story!).

You are making ridiculous demands that have nothing to do with the context of the evidence we present.

Someone who DIDN'T see a plane fly away does not disprove the north side claim. That would take someone who saw the plane on the south side of the citgo and you can't even provide one account who claims this.

We focus on witnesses who had legitimate views of the event like this:

We do not find it a priority to search high and low for non-existent witnesses in a place where it is not physically possible to witness the event.

That would serve no purpose and would not provide any valid evidence.

Your demand is born out of a clear lack of knowledge of the area and what can be seen from the airport and a clear desire to find any angle to dismiss the evidence we have presented.

www.ThePentaCon.com

I guess you added this part to your post later.....

If a fly-over occurred, then someone observed it. An eyewitness would represent invaluable proof.

Uh-huh.

If we had video tape of Bush admitting to the attacks that would be valuable proof too.

But it does not refute the north side evidence or evidence of controlled demo if we don't have it.

Besides there already are witnesses who viewed a plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

It's called a "2nd plane" but there was no second plane that behaved in that manner.

Why didn't everyone see this if it was obvious? Why do Kelly Knowles, Keith Wheelhouse, Pam Young, and Joel Sucherman all state that this happened when nobody else does?


I intend no disrespect, but based on the less than 5 out of 10 score at this thread, CIT would seem to need fly-over witnesses to convince the observer of a fly-over.

Unreal.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

The post does not even present any evidence! It's a trailer for god's sake.

The fact that the Pentagon issue is divisive and the fact that there happens to be a core group of 757 impact conspiracy theorists regulars at this forum who will vote down anything by CIT has nothing to do with the veracity or legitimacy of what we present.

www.ThePentaCon.com

My Final Comment

The interviews are interesting. They contradict the official version and seem difficult to debunk.

But it seems CIT is committing to theories that the public will demand powerful evidence for - eyewitnesses or hard data. That's reality. And it's not there.

The average person can easily understand the conflicts created by the interviews. And that is their value. But your work as a whole runs the real risk of being rejected if an outcome that requires extensive and elaborate lies and fabrications that cannot be established, is too strongly committed to.

Point out cautiously what the information implies perhaps, but don't make declarations.

Thanks for the advice?

Do you "make declarations" that the WTC was brought down by controlled demo? Are you "committed" to that theory? Is this hard for the public to accept and understand and do you risk 9/11 truth being rejected by taking this stance?

The north side claim is evidence, not a theory.

We only assert what we have evidence for.

If you accept the north side evidence you accept that a military deception has been proven. There is no way around this.

If you refuse to believe the flyover you have to come up with something else that incorporates this evidence.

But dismissing it is not logical and is similar to the denial that the average public has about 9/11 in general.

You are now talking about the data we present in 3rd person as if your personal belief is irrelevant and that the truth doesn't matter:

But your work as a whole runs the real risk of being rejected if an outcome that requires extensive and elaborate lies and fabrications that cannot be established, is too strongly committed to.

9/11 most certainly was an extensive and elaborate lie and the movement has no choice but to commit to this claim.

We know this is hard for the public to accept and we know that people have a tendency to reject this notion.

This is the mindset we are up against so if you or anyone who claims to be part of the 9/11 truth movement chooses to ignore, dismiss, or attack the evidence we present that PROVES 9/11 was an inside job you are simply doing the work of the perpetrators for them.

www.ThePentaCon.com