Groundbreaking NEW evidence proving a miltiary deception on 9/11 now released!

If you don't have time to watch a full hour and 40 minute presentation I recommend that you at least first watch this 12 minute short that focuses on the critical testimony of charter boat captain Steve Chaconas who was bass fishing on the Potomac River on 9/11:

Steve adds to an incredible list of supporting evidence demonstrating how the plane came from east of the river in stark contradiction to all official reports and data. All of this evidence and more is featured in our new full feature release:

The Pentagon Flyover
How They Pulled It Off

In addition to Steve Chaconas' important testimony we reveal more smoking gun evidence further demonstrating how the true flight path of the Pentagon attack jet is irreconcilable with all official reports and data. We demonstrate how the plane flew over Washington DC skies and came from the east side of the Potomac River. We explain how the C-130 and white E4B or "mystery plane" were used as cover for the decoy jet that was meant to fool people into believing it hit the building. We expose the methodology behind the operation and demonstrate how they were able to successfully pull off this military deception in broad daylight.

ThePentaCon.com

It's amazing how people can

[Correcting HTML]

It's amazing how people can witness many different planes (and even confuse them) and yet not one single person reports a commercial plane flying over the Pentagon. Not one.

"What is known from records obtained from Davidson Army Airfield (under the control of the DCA TRACON), air traffic was being ordered to land ASAP during this time by the controllers at Reagan. Although not recalled by Chaconas, there were many aircraft in the sky around him as controllers brought in aircraft in their respective areas. Chaconas noted the airplane coming from the east towards DCA, simply because to him it was NOT a normal approach he was accustomed to seeing. Military aircraft departing from Andrews and climbing over the Potomac was not an unusual occurrence (normal take-off pattern to avoid the restricted airspace over the Capitol area. Now I know Craig will want to argue that point with me, but I think I’ll take my sisters word rather than his on this subject since after 26 years in the Air Force Reserve and having flown in and out of Andrews innumerable times over the years she just seems a little better qualified than he is to speak to the issue. So what Chaconas was focused on was what he considered abnormal at the time." http://911files.info/blog/?p=7

CIT Witnesses--Quotes taken from PentaCon Interview [watch film for confirmation]

Robert Turicos: "looked like it was going to crash into the street… and it pulled up a little bit... headed straight to it... it went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided.

Sgt. Chad Brooks: “if you had a penny you could almost throw it up...descending... straight line towards the Pentagon.” The plane went “directly in front of the building.” Brooks claims he saw the plane “impact” the Pentagon.

William Lagasse: Described the plane as "one of the only non-painted airliners, so it’s pretty distinctive.” He claims to have “enough experience in aviation and aircraft that I could identify stuff pretty easily.” What happened with the plane? He says it “flew into the building.”
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...

Witnesses who saw a flyover? Zero. Witnesses who confused the flight path slightly? A few--one of them misplacing the actual location of the light poles claiming that they were "not knocked down"[!!]. Coincidently or not, his alternative flight path matches where he mistakely located the light poles. Put simply if the plane flew where the light poles were not knocked down (as opposed to where he thought they were), it would have lined up with the right flight path.

Other witnesses who said the plane hit the Pentagon? More than one hundred. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

C-130 Pilot/Testimony: http://aal77.com/rades/c130frames.php
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

What's amazing is how people who.....

....claim to fight for 9/11 truth will cite government controlled data released many years after the event as a means to dismiss hard evidence that contradicts the official story.

As the 12 minute short on Chaconas I posted addresses......there are no radar returns in the government data at all that remotely match with what he witnessed. The return referenced in the video you posted came from tiny little Easton airport and therefore had have been a small commuter plane (if it is even legitimately a plane at all) and it clearly can not explain what Steve Chaconas witnessed.

So you can believe the government provided data that of course supports the official line or you can believe the independent witnesses who were really there that contradict it.

For anyone who is truly looking to expose the 9/11 deception there is no choice.

Arabesque is using the same old circular logic arguments that do not address any of the information addressed in the presentation.

We will never know what people REALLY first reported because the suspect has permanently sequestered the only evidence that can reveal this....the 911 call tapes.

If the mainstream media previously published accounts are forensically scrutinized as we have done and not automatically accepted at face value as Arabesque has done it becomes clear that they are being reported inaccurately as most were not in a position to see the alleged impact side of the Pentagon at all.

www.ThePentaCon.com

I want to emphasize why the Chaconas witness is important.

First of all, this witness comes across as level headed and credible. This is a man who is out of doors a lot and has an affinity for his environment. That environment happens to be the open to the sky Patomic he fishes near the Pentagon. All of us have our own "home" environments and are familiar with it so that we notice things that are "out of the ordinary" that a more casual observer, or an observer who wasn't as "attuned" might completely miss.

So here we have a very outspoken eye witness, a witness who doesn't seem the least bit confused or uncertain about what he saw, who is describing something THAT IS NOT CONFIRMED BY GOVERNMENT INFORMATION. In fact it flat out contradicts that information.

Now this is very interesting. We are being given a choice to accept credibility of an individual citizen who, so far as we can tell, believes what he is saying and has no apparent reason to lie about it -- and information coming to us from government sources which, must I say, have lied to us over and over and over and over again about just about everything regarding the events of 9/11. Their very own FDR data from flight 77 DOES NOT MATCH their own story. The physical damage is inconsistent with that data.

I suppose one can make whatever one wants out of that fact but first of all, we need to agree that IT IS A FACT. THESE TWO DATA SETS DO NOT MATCH. They can not BOTH BE TRUE descriptions of one and the same event. You see, the official narrative RESTS on the presumption THATA THERE WAS ONLY ONE EVENT at the Pentagon. Problem is, their evidence sets DO NOT MATCH. They can not describe one event. THEREFORE, one or both of the data sets has to be assumed to be false. Everyone needs to let that sink in.

Government data can not be accepted as factual simply because it emanates from a government (and therefore seemingly "legitimate" or "approved") source. Quite the contrary. We, as citizens of the united states who believe that the attacks of 9/11 were something other than what government and media have told us and are continuing to tell us HAVE NO REASON TO TRUST GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SOURCES. When having to CHOOSE between two information sources, an eye witness who is not substantiated by government data and government data that does not substantiate an eye witness, we would do well to consider WHY we don't want to give as much weight to the witness as the government data?

We need to stick together folks. We need to remember who the enemy is. We need to remember what it has cost us so far in fortune, human life, and the hours and hours we've spent trying to get this information out to our fellow citizens. And we need to consider those who distort, disrupt and prevent this from happening.

I know there are many here who consider the Pentagon a "Honeypot." I've been hearing it for years. You know, that is the same gate keeper attitude that many people on the left take toward the ENTIRE 9/11 issue. A trap. A dead-end. And yet, for years now, many of us have been out here in cyber space sharing information to the point where, although we may not know exactly how it was done or precisely who did it -- we have no doubt that it wasn't what we are being told. Not by a long shot. Not an iota of doubt.

So, here we are. We need to look at ALL THE EVIDENCE. Just look at it. Think it through for yourself. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon but what I DO KNOW is that what they are telling us happened didn't. And I also know, from looking at the evidence, there is NO REASON TO TRUST THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS TELLING US THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING.

Arabesque, exposed every time.

Does anyone see the pattern?

I analyze the C-130 pilot's account and discover the problem it presents. Next thing you know, John Farmer gets the RADES data ultimately uses it to twist his account trying to make it fit with the official flight path.

We released this short. Next thing you know, "John Farmer" releases his the next day.

Next thing you know, "Adam Larson" aka Caustic Logic posts it on his ever growing blog dedicated to his obsession with us.(if that's what it really is)

We post it on 911blogger. Next thing you know, "Arabesque". Shows up as his first post with Farmers dubious and DEBUNKED tripe.

They aren't trying to discuss or fairly and critically analyze the information. There trick is to simply provide convoluted, imcomplete, dishonest opposing pieces to mislead the viewers. What happens is we correct him. He ignores us and continues on as if we didn't even address his issue. This is maddening and this is the work of an infiltrator.

People wonder why we accuse Arabesqe of disinformation. Well that is EXACTLY what he is doing. I will illustrate. As always, I will address his points, he will not concede or correct his position. He ignores the inherent logic and overwhelming evidence contradicting his position and simply streamrolls on.

This is equivalent to someone simply shouting us down and trying to drown us out.

My next post will deal with his post directly and will address the various points.

"DEBUNKED tripe"

Actually, speaking of debunked tripe . . . I think the deed is done if anyone can read English and sees Arabesque's post exposing the internal contradications in the film.

Most who have been exposed to attacking nature of many who defend nonsense claims pretty much get it about why some of those who choose to speak out against nonsense don't want to use their real names. Tactics such as making unsolicited calls to people at their homes to try to intimidate them with challenges, sending legalistic threats in emails, hiring attorneys to contact people, etc., are not about "the evidence", they are about intimidation and character attacks.

http://911review.com/disinfo/intimidation.html

Truce

Yea, the beautiful part is when they asked for a "truce" and for me to "join sides" with them... the comedy never ends. That's when they aren't attacking me and practically every other Pentagon researcher who disagrees with them.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Arabesque did not address the information....

....and neither have you or Jim.

Now you are making empty baseless FALSE accusations about my actions as I have made no such attempts at "intimidation" and have only civilly requested that your illegal personal attacks stop.

YOU are the ones hurling the character attacks while avoiding the evidence like the plague. Calling us "hoax promoters" is a character attack and a lie. Your actions are libelous and that is illegal.

We are merely defending ourselves and the evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job that you work so hard to ignore, dismiss, cover-up, and confuse by making this personal.

www.ThePentaCon.com

This Air Traffic Controller Did Not Report A Fly-Over

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

...

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

ATC Tower With Direct View Of Airspace Where Fly-Over Is Alleged To Have Proceeded

Now....

Can you please show us his POV FROM the tower?

That isn't very scientific Aidan.

Did you also notice where he said...

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

Building do block views, ya know.

Did Chris Stephenson see this plane???

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

Leaving Reagan National??? After national groundstop?

How come he didn't see this plane?

What about the one hovering at the height of the Washington Mon at the Mall area??

How come he didn't see that plane?

Go there Aidan, we have had this dicussion before. Images online from the air are not at all scientific.

Peeeace!

Hundreds Of Potential Witnesses, No Fly-Over Reported

Unlike Unseen Pentagon Fly-Over, NYC Fly-Over Noted By Many

Aidan,

What did I tell you about this the last time you posted it?

Did you not learn anything from what i told you?

We already went over this.....

You said you would no longer debate it but here you are.

We go over ALL of this in detail in the new presentation in this post that you have failed to address.

Have you even watched the presentation and the new evidence?

If not why are you even posting?

Is it too much to ask for you to address our claims in the presentation direct if you choose to engage us in discussion/debate about the OP which is about the presentation?

The fact that the mainstream media only reported a few people who saw a plane flying away and they brushed it off as a "2nd plane" (that didn't really exist) doesn't mean that "nobody" saw or reported the plane flying away. We DO have evidence of a direct cover-up of what people really first reported since the 911 calls were permanently sequestered only in Arlington. This in itself has serious implications of a direct cover-up of evidence.

But most people in the Crystal City high rises would not be aware of the event until AFTER the explosion. People don't typically sit staring at planes out of their window. Particularity in that area where there are all types of strange military craft flying all of the place at any given time. It's common and quite frequent.

So think about it.....you are off in the distance in some high rise and all the sudden you hear a big explosion, you go to the window and see this massive smoke plume pouring from the Pentagon.....by then the plane would be long gone fast ascending up river as departures are doing every couple minutes and all eyes would be on the Pentagon.

Now for the few people who would have still noticed the plane fly away or actually see the entire event go down by seeing the plane on the approach, pull up, and then fly away.......what do you think would happen if they called in to the media or authorities?

On that day ALL KINDS of crazy things were being reported about the attack being at the White House, the Washington Monument, the USA Today building, all being on fire or something.

Perhaps a lot of these reports were legitimate confusion perhaps some were deliberately planted for confusion.

Most people did not have a clue what had just gone down. It was all so quick. We have an interview with someone who was on route 27 directly underneath the flight path and she had no clue there was a plane at all! She was stuck in traffic preoccupied on her cell phone (like most people) and it happened so fast that she didn't see or hear a plane at all and thought that the Pentagon was "bombed". It wasn't until she got home and listened to the news did she know anything about a plane.

The point is that anything that didn't follow what the government told the media happened was written off as "anomalous" in all the confusion.

Now put yourself back in the mind of the witness who saw it all go down. As the media reports of AA77 hitting the building started to come in...(a plane impact was first reported as early as 4 minutes after the attack, see here.) you would think to yourself...."but I saw the plane fly away."

Even if you could get through on the phones regardless of who you called it would not matter because they would simply tell you that AA77 hit the building and that you must have seen something else or they would have taken the report and hung up and later written it off as "anomalous" or inaccurate because the government said AA77 hit the building.

In the following days and weeks there would only be two places for your mind to go....

1. I guess I was just seeing things, was confused, or saw something else and simply missed the plane that hit.
2. I know for a fact that no plane hit that building, this has to be a military psyop.

We all know where number 1 would lead so what do you think most people would do with number 2?

Remember the climate of the nation. Remember the mass hysterical xenophobic desire to kill all things not American.

How loudly would your average person scream "MILITARY PSYOP" and what difference could it possibly have made anyway?

The witness would simply find reports of a 2nd plane and breathe a sigh of relief and probably never consider it again.

Or they would bury it deep in their subconscious and live in fear for what they know while vowing to themselves to never say a word.

But you can NOT accurately suggest the fact that the media didn't report details that didn't support the official narrative means that the official narrative is true.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Simple Geometry, Not Complex Science Conflicts With CIT

Can you please show us his POV FROM the tower?

I did already and I will again.

That isn't very scientific Aidan.

Complicated science is not required. Simple line of sight geometry will do. (See image)

Did you also notice where he said...

"The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va.," Building do block views, ya know."

Correct.

And there were no buildings obstructing the view of the alleged fly-over trajectory once the plane would have re-emerged over the river. (Had there been a fly-over.)

absence of evidence is not evidence

The fact that Stephenson did not report a plane flying away does not prove there wasn't one.

Does the fact that he didn't report the C-130 prove there wasn't one?

Clearly not.

You have NOT shown his POV.

From the ATC tower Chris Stephenson would NOT have a good view of the plane on the official flight path approach, final moments of the path, or alleged impact at all but would have a GREAT view of the plane as it looped around the airport like Steve Chaconas described which is likely EXACTLY why he was able to see the plane at all.

I would love to speak with him as I am virtually certain he would confirm this. We'll step up our efforts to locate him.

But the plane flying away would be an insignificant blip in the landscape particularly compared to the massive explosion and smoke plume coming from the Pentagon.

All of this is fully addressed in the presentation.

Your posts give me the impression you have not viewed it.

Why would you be so interested in heavily debating or attempting to neutralize the info if you haven't even viewed the evidence that is presented in this thread?

www.ThePentaCon.com

Aren't those buildings in the line of site of the tower taller

than the tower?

The angle from which this photograph was taken is deceptive. The yellow lines lead one to believe that anyone in the tower would have a clear line of site to the Pentagon. Now, I've not been to this location so I can't say for sure but it looks to me like at least some of the buildings in the pink triangle area would obscure the view because they are taller than the tower. Moreover, as a photographer, I'm fully aware that zoom telephoto lenses (as this photograph appears to be taken from) distort distance tremendously. How far away from the Pentagon is the tower? How tall is the tower? How high is the Pentagon? How tall are the buildings in between (and of course they will appear even taller the closer to the tower they are relative to the Pentagon which appears to be much further away and, from the tower's POV will appear very small).

In other words, unless we have a clear line of sight from the tower to the Pentagon, there is no reason to assume that a flight controller WOULD see a "fly over". Maybe. Maybe not. The tower isn't looking down on the Pentagon from some great height as is this photograph. It is probably, what, less than a hundred feet taller than the Pentagon itself at, what?, half a mile distant? A fly over would probably appear right at horizon level or there abouts? Just guessing.

Disclaimer: I do not know what happened at the Pentagon and don't claim to know. I only know this photograph is not very relevant to answering the question.

exactly

>>>>>>> I only know this photograph is not very relevant to answering the question.

You got that right painter!

The fact that the ATC did not report a plane flying away doesn't mean there wasn't one.

www.ThePentaCon.com

RELOCATED

RELOCATED

Oh bother

You do know the difference between a character attack and an attack on your ideas and behavior, right? And the bit where they aren't the same thing?

BTW: Do you know Jennifer?
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

tsk tsk

Well at least you've been slapped on the wrist about calling us a "hoax".

What have you done for 9/11 truth today, Victronix?

Actually, speaking of debunked tripe . . . I think the deed is done if anyone can read English and sees Arabesque's post exposing the internal contradications in the film.

His blog has been addressed and corrected many many times. He actually posted people who weren't even witnesses to the event. Is that strong research? lol.

Most who have been exposed to attacking nature of many who defend nonsense claims pretty much get it about why some of those who choose to speak out against nonsense don't want to use their real names. Tactics such as making unsolicited calls to people at their homes to try to intimidate them with challenges, sending legalistic threats in emails, hiring attorneys to contact people, etc., are not about "the evidence", they are about intimidation and character attacks.

http://911review.com/disinfo/intimidation.html

Yup and I noticed it works.

We don't intimidate. We confront. It is much stronger getting you on the record sounding foolish and losing a debate.

We are real people with real evidence.

Victronix,

The witnesses seen in our video, stand by their placement of the plane, WILL NOT RETRACT IT, and are willing to testify in court to the matter.

Do you support an inquiry into this matter? Or are you the judge, jury, expert witness, and executioner of 9/11?

Can you please explain why?

Can you please explain why you have not spoken with these witnesses?

Can you please explain why you have not spoken with ANY witnesses?

Can you please explain why you won't address all the other supporting evidence that has nothing to do with these witnesses?

FACT: CIT Featured Witnesses Do Not Report A Fly-Over

As can be seen in the following image, if Steve Chaconas (like all other CIT witnesses) can carefully track and recall an AA 77 approach, he would also have seen it speed away from the scene.

Aidan Aidan Aidan.

Aidan,

Come on man. lol. Do you have any idea how far away that is? Do you realize you can't even seen the planes land from where we were? They are invisible from that perspecitve. By the time the smoke rose, that is when he was alerted something being wrong. The plane was impossible to see and it was gone. The topography allows that plane to disappear behind buildings, trees, and ridge that the Pentagon sits at the bottom of. You aren't even listening to his account. You are just putting an imaginary yellow line where you want and pretending he would have seen a big yellow photoshopped line across the sky.

The flyover took the plane over the mall/central DC area. Not where you put it. Planes turn ya know? We believe it banked up across the river over the mall area doing u-turn out of the area. This based on witnesses and accounts that place a plane ascending in a hard right turn over there "at the height of the Washington Mon."

The plane disappeared. And he would have NEVER SEEN IT flying away from the area. It is impossible.

It sucks how unscientific you are. We went there to get away from photos and video. Foreshortening is a b*tch.

GO THERE AIDAN!!!

Please for the love of god, because these assertions are incredibly ridiculous and incredibly, albeit unintentionally, deceptive.

There are those of us who

There are those of us who would like to see the new witness statements that the CIT guys are garnering without having every entry hijacked using the same hackneyed information. It is perfectly understandable that they would become het up when this happens. I appreciate the hard analysis and field work of Pilots for Truth and CIT -- and I think reasonable people are capable of coming to their own conclusions. I don't appreciate "Pentagon political correctness" and reductionist thinking used to quash anomolous information being brought to the table.

I haven't seen a similar disinclination on the part of this group to accept witness statements and analysis generated well after 9/11 which support a purposeful demolition of the WTC. There is a curious contradiction here. And anyone has the right to ask why an anonymous blogger with no apparent credentials has been granted so much august authority within the skeptics' community. If a similarly anonymous poster began hijacking CD threads, the howls would be deafening.

One of the most important issues that the CIT guys have sussed out is that Pentagon witnesses who would have sworn to support the official version at the Pentagon were unaware what the official version actually was -- and how their own eyes belied that version. This is interesting stuff.

An oldy but goody on the original witness statements: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html

Correcting Arabesque, watch and see if he concedes or corrects

It's amazing how people can witness many different planes (and even confuse them) and yet not one single person reports a commercial plane flying over the Pentagon. Not one.

Really? Please by all means, show us all the people who "witnessed many planes". Again, absence of evidence is not evidence.

Funny, Arabesque didn't mention the plane that made a "hard right into protected airspace over Washington". SEE JEMS REPORT. Where are all the people that saw that Arabeque?

Why didn't you report Dave Statter's witness who said the "plane went to the side of the building and not directly in" and "the pilot tried to avert the building"?

What about the plane/jet near or "over the pentagon" "veering away" *as* the explosion happens? It ain't the C-130.

What about the witnesses who saw a jet at the height of the Wash Mon at the mall???

"What is known from records obtained from Davidson Army Airfield (under the control of the DCA TRACON), air traffic was being ordered to land ASAP during this time by the controllers at Reagan. Although not recalled by Chaconas, there were many aircraft in the sky around him as controllers brought in aircraft in their respective areas. Chaconas noted the airplane coming from the east towards DCA, simply because to him it was NOT a normal approach he was accustomed to seeing. Military aircraft departing from Andrews and climbing over the Potomac was not an unusual occurrence (normal take-off pattern to avoid the restricted airspace over the Capitol area. Now I know Craig will want to argue that point with me, but I think I’ll take my sisters word rather than his on this subject since after 26 years in the Air Force Reserve and having flown in and out of Andrews innumerable times over the years she just seems a little better qualified than he is to speak to the issue. So what Chaconas was focused on was what he considered abnormal at the time." http://911files.info/blog/?p=7

Did you even review his video, Arabesque??? Seems you haven't. They show the planes, one is ALLEGEDLY the C-130 on the fake flight path SW and the other is the SMALL COMMUTER/PRIVATE BUSINESS PLANE that lands. Neither is what Steve Chaconas saw or describes.

You, Frustraded Fraud, and Farmer are all ignoring that he didn't report either plane. He saw ONE PLANE, a commercial airliner in a high bank, not in a landing approach miles away.

CIT Witnesses--Quotes taken from PentaCon Interview [watch film for confirmation]

Robert Turicos: "looked like it was going to crash into the street… and it pulled up a little bit... headed straight to it... it went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided.”

Key words: "pulled up".

Again, Arabesque is trying to draw you away from the fact that Robert SAID the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, EXACTLY what he said on camera. This negates Robert's belief in the impact. Which again, if you "watch film for confirmation", you will even hear Robert state that fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane did if it really hit. The fact is, ONCE AGAIN, it cannot hit the light poles or the building if it is on the north side. But Arab would rather insult your intelligence and make them appear as people who genuinely witnessed the plane impact the building.

Sgt. Chad Brooks: “if you had a penny you could almost throw it up...descending... straight line towards the Pentagon.” The plane went “directly in front of the building.” Brooks claims he saw the plane “impact” the Pentagon.

No Brooks does not. That is a lie. When he said "directly in front of the building", he TOO had it approaching from the north side of the Citgo and as he illustrated it with his hand, HE DIDN'T EVEN DESCEND HIS HAND INTO THE FIRST FLOOR!!! HIS HAND WAS AT THE HEIGHT OF THE PENTAGON'S ROOF!!!

Furthermore, when we spoke with Sgt Brooks after the event, he said he liked our movie and that it was an "eye-opener" and that when it came to him being fooled, he said, "anything is possible".

but again, Arabeque would rather mislead the unresearched individuals and insult your intelligence by trying to get you on the fact that they thought it hit the building. When it is an irrelevant point, when considering the fact that they saw it approach from the north side. If they thought it flew over, would they have given us an interview?

William Lagasse: Described the plane as "one of the only non-painted airliners, so it’s pretty distinctive.” He claims to have “enough experience in aviation and aircraft that I could identify stuff pretty easily.” What happened with the plane? He says it “flew into the building.”
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...

Yes, and Bill too stands by the fact that they saw it on the north side of the Citgo. Which again, negates the impact. Bill is deducing an impact, because he is SURE the plane was on the north side. He doesn't "have eyes in the back of his head". He also ADMITTED the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane did exactly.

Witnesses who saw a flyover? Zero.

Again, this not true. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence. Sure of course people saw a flyover. Some even reported it. But we can't know until they release the 911 calls that were immediately siezed and sequesterd for the past 6 years.

What do you expect Arabesque?

Reporters arrive at the alleged "impact" side, what are they going to find? A bunch of people who THOUGHT it hit. Those who report it did not hit would not be reported, after all two planes just hit the towers in an apparent terrorist attack. Which would the reporters want as their juicy story that fits into the days events, witnesses who are "confused" about it "not hitting" or witnesses (genuine and ops) who said it did?

I think you know the logical answer to that.

Witnesses who confused the flight path slightly? A few--

No one confused anything. Why are you ignoring the fact, that not only has Robert Turcios, Ed Paik and the two officers place it on the NOC path. But so do Levi Stephens and Heliport controller, Sean Boger. No on confused anything. All of them saw it there.

In fact, Sgt Brooks and Lagasse, and Robert Turcios STAND BY where they saw the plane, WILL NOT RETRACT their claims, and are even willing to testify in court to it .

Why won't Arabesque cease his attack efforts and join us in getting an inquiry into this matter???

one of them misplacing the actual location of the light poles claiming that they were "not knocked down"[!!]. Coincidently or not, his alternative flight path matches where he mistakely located the light poles. Put simply if the plane flew where the light poles were not knocked down (as opposed to where he thought they were), it would have lined up with the right flight path.

Not one of them was so convinced by the flight path they witnessed, that their memory led them to believe the knocked poles were near the FLIGHT PATH THEY SAW!!!!!!!!! And 2 poles WERE right next to the NOC flight path. ahem.

Other witnesses who said the plane hit the Pentagon? More than one hundred. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

This is so frustrating. Arabesque is free to, ONCE AGAIN, post debunked nonsense I have corrected him on many times. This, factually, makes Arabesque a proponent of disinformaton, by default or by intent. It is no longer misinformation since he won't even acknowledge any of the corrections.

Let's see if he concedes this time. THERE ARE NOT "OVER ONE HUNDRED WITNESSES" who saw an impact. Here is an actual analyzed list that uses POV's and a critical analysis to determine whether a person was in a position to see or actually CLAIMS they saw an "impact or penetration".

Arabesque read ( I will stay on you until acknowledge these points and pieces of information):
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

C-130 Pilot/Testimony: http://aal77.com/rades/c130frames.php

Everyone, should we just shut up and let Arabesque "shout us down"?

Is it ok for him to not even acknowledge what we tell him or correct him on while he repeatedly spams INCORRECT and MISLEADING information?

Does it make sense for an anonymous "blogger" to consistently and feverishly attack researchers who use their real names to interview witnesses and clarify EXACTLY what happened at the Pentagon? An anonymous "blogger" who is supposed to be a 9/11 Truther?

Why would he attempt to slow our progress?

If you notice, the first piece Craig posted was in response to John Farmer's immediately posted and misleading, dishonest hit piece against us and Steve Chaconas. Arab, completely ignored the fact that it addressed Farmer's misleading claims and posted Farmer's video anyways.

Is that logical? Is that the work of a good researcher? Or a biased individual with an agenda?

Oh yeah,

C-130 Pilot/Testimony: http://aal77.com/rades/c130frames.php

Um, he said his first sighting of the plane was just after he had gone by the mall. Not Reagan National.

Photobucket

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

With 9/11, the arguments were all framed shortly after the event. Talking outside the box labels one as a nut. People across the nation adopt the notion:"You cannot learn anything new about something you think you know everything about." Thus, it is with the 9/11 official story. What really bothers me is the level of complicity that continues with Obama, Clinton, & McCain. They perpetrate only talking inside the box.

The fact that nobody reported.......

...a controlled demo at the WTC does not prove that this incredibly complex psychological deception was not covertly implemented.

The WTC attack was a very complex DECEPTION that used real planes as psychological weapons while the actual destruction was covertly implemented with pre-planted explosives.

It was the exact same M.O. at the Pentagon.

The fact that the media pushed the official line and the fact that most witnesses were deceived and some planted witnesses similar to "harley guy" in New York were on the scene in Arlington lying or simply lied to reporters after the fact claiming they were there does not prove the official narrative correct.

The fact that the citgo witnesses and so many others were successfully deceived does not prove the official narrative correct.

The fatal contradictions in the eyewitness accounts, physical damage, AND the official data like the FDR prove the official narrative false regardless of how many mainstream media published witness accounts Arabesque has erroneously classified and copy and pasted without any scientific confirmation, verification, or investigative scrutinizing.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Zero flyover witnesses = no flyover

I'd rather not waste energy debunking all of your mistakes... there are just so many. I'm not interested in debating any further straw-man arguments you guys prolifically come up with. You are talking about witnesses 6 years after the attack. Why haven't you found ONE who actually claims a commercial airliner flew over the Pentagon yet? It's really that simple.

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

Now, please stop distorting reality to fit your theory. No witnesses saw a flyover. Your own witnesses said it hit the Pentagon. Your own witness said that light poles were "not knocked down".

Spreading "disinfo" would be something like claiming that witnesses who said a plane hit the Pentagon are "smoking gun" evidence that it flew over, or that getting the location of light poles WRONG makes a witnesses testimony "MORE" credible.

"“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.http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286140/pg9

Lagesse: "“there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down” [Explanation: Lagasse did indeed see the light poles--he didn't see the plane hit them yes--but he said they were knocked down in the wrong location]

If Fox news pulled stunts like this along with a healthy dose of irrelevant personal attacks and irrelevant personal commentary--we would rightly call it propaganda. We don't need conspiracy theory propaganda.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

The same old "detractors" with same old agruments.....

...even though we are presenting brand NEW evidence exposing the 9/11 deception.

They aren't even addressing the new information and are still working hard to erroneously cast doubt on the north side evidence that was released a year ago.

If that evidence was so "debunked" or unilaterally rejected they wouldn't continue to work so hard to cast doubt on it.

The accusation is thrown out there that we are the attackers and the complete opposite is true.

We are constantly working hard on providing new EVIDENCE and further research. We don't have the time or inclination to attack the research of others.

Yet this 757 impact conspiracy theory crowd have made it their mission to attack ANYONE who doesn't accept THEIR Pentagon conspiracy theory without putting forth ANY new evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.

They work to divide the movement, while we work to expose the 9/11 deception.

www.ThePentaCon.com

I must say,


CIT presents a very strong argument. I now can say i have my own experiences with "the opposition". It is clear the same stale argument is being trotted out time and time again after the same rebuttal is having to be "re-typed" . For instance, i cant count how many times Arabesque has been corrected on "No flyover witnesses to ANY plane" and his list of corporate controlled media "impact witnesses" which have been completey scrutinized and shown to have numerous fabrications and spin.

With that said, Im glad to finally see a topic suited for this argument instead of the deliberate attempts to derail other topics. Keep up the good work CIT. Stay cool. Anyone who actually takes the time to read these exchanges can clearly see the stale tactics used by your "opposition". My opinion, i say let them continue. They only hurt themselves.

As i have said in another post, you dont have to agree with the conclusions CIT makes, but you have to respect the invaluable information they collected to share with the rest of us using their own resources. Thank you CIT. Remember, you dont get flak unless you're over the target. :-)

As for the opposition? You dont have a leg to stand on until you go out and film your own interviews on location with your own resources. Or, perhaps you can trot out the same stale spin. Your choice.

Regards,
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

edit to add: Any possibility a mod can close out the center tag in the original blog entry? Craig, you may want to notify the mods to check the html.

Show ""Keep up the good work CIT"" by Victronix

The new claim is quite simple and strongly corroborated.

Just as the north of the citgo claim is very simple and highly corroborated this NEW smoking evidence proving the plane was east of the Pentagon/river and flew over DC skies is just as simple and highly corroborated.

It's not just witness Steve Chaconas.

We demonstrate how the east side claim is backed up by Norman Mineta, air traffic controller Colin Scoggins (and/or Kevin Naysapany), the C-130 pilot himself, as well as a report by ABC News!

With this much evidence of such a blatant contradiction in the official data/reports how can it be denied?

WHY would it be denied by anyone who claims to fight for 9/11 truth?

Why is it so important to preserve the official narrative over so much evidence that refutes it?

www.ThePentaCon.com

Buildings Obstruct Impact, Not Alleged Fly-Over Trajectory

As indicated in the USA Today piece and as seen in the following image, the buildings (green circle) did obstruct the final approach (red line) and apparently the impact of AA 77 with the Pentagon. (Obstructed ATC line of site of AA 77 impact noted by blue line)

However, as can also be seen there is a direct line line of site (yellow lines) between the the circled ATC tower and the supposed trajectory of the alleged AA 77 flyover.

Chris Stephenson observed the approach and the apparent impact explosion. He therefore should have observed AA 77 emerge from behind the buildings (green circle) and continue over the river heading east (red line), if a fly-over had taken place.

"Should have" observed a plane emerge?

The fact that he did not does not mean there wasn't a plane.

The tower is about a mile away and the event would happen so fast.

A plane ascending over the river would be a blip in the landscape off in the distance and completely insignificant compared to the explosion and smoke plume.

No matter how you look at it this account does not disprove the evidence we present proving the plane flew over DC skies.

It has NOTHING to do with the east side claim that PROVES a military deception.

Clearly you have not even bothered to watch the presentation because you have not even referenced the evidence let alone refuted it.

You need to debunk statements from Norman Mineta, the C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien, ABC News in addition to the new independent witness Steve Chaconas, not to mention numerous other eyewitness statements ALL supporting the east side claim.

Why are your refusing to accept so much highly corroborated incredibly strong evidence proving a deception on 9/11?

Why are you refusing to even address the evidence as you attack the "theory" so strongly?

www.ThePentaCon.com

Drawing Selective Conclusions

The fact that he did not does not mean there wasn't a plane.

The tower is about a mile away and the event would happen so fast.

A plane ascending over the river would be a blip in the landscape off in the distance and completely insignificant compared to the explosion and smoke plume.

By this reasoning, he should not have observed the approach either.

the plane came from east of the river.....

.....and looped around the airport so I have no doubt he saw it.

Of course if the official flight path was correct and the plane came from the west I highly doubt he would have seen it.

Clearly you have not watched the presentation and are unaware of the evidence we present.

Why are you debating a topic when you have not even reviewed the evidence?

Why do you deny the overwhelming evidence proving the plane flew over DC skies and came from east of the River?

Please address the statements from Norman Mineta, Colin Scoggins/Kevin Naysapany, the C-130 pilot, ABC News, and the new independent witness Steve Chaconas and tell me why you refuse to accept all of this independent evidence proving the plane flew over DC skies.

You must refute the evidence if you are going to refuse the theory.

When you are done refuting all of the evidence proving the east side claim you can get started on the north side claim which you have also failed to appropriately address or come close to refuting.

Without addressing the evidence your are merely making an argument from personal incredulity which is completely faulty reasoning and therefore extremely unscientific.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Steve Chaconas Did Not Report A Fly-Over

His account seems to present problems for the RADES and NTSB accounts.

But he seemed to make no mention of an aircraft traveling away from the Pentagon upon noting smoke rising from the scene.

That's becaues it would have been impossible for him to see.

From his location on the river Chaconas could not even see the north side of the airport let alone the Pentagon.

It would be impossible for him to see the plane fly away.

He could not even see or hear the explosion at all.

He simply saw the smoke rise off in the distance and only knew it was coming from the Pentagon when they got north of the airport.

The fact that he presents "problems" for the NTSB and RADES data and the fact that the east side claim is CORROBORATED by Norman Mineta, Monte Belger, the C-130 pilot, Scoggins/Naysapany, as well as ABC News is overwhelming evidence.

The fact that the plane really flew over DC skies proves that the entire flight path reported by the government years after the event is fraudulent.

The implications are incredible and they do not look good for the official narrative in any way.

We never said that Chaconas proves a flyover but he does prove the official narrative FALSE which in turn proves a military deception.

Since it has been proven there was a plane that flew over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion the flyover theory isn't really a theory at all. It is the only alternative in light of the evidence and all the contradictions.

They have no reason to fake the flight path data if the plane flew where they said it did and hit the building.

The fact that you accept that Chaconas (and all the supporting evidence) presents a problem for the official data/flight path is good. You were also able to concede that the north side evidence poses the same problem.

Now it's time to accept the implications of this hard evidence proving a military deception.

The north side and the east side claims INDEPENDENTLY prove a military deception on 9/11.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Aidan, please think about it.

If the plane hit the building, and it's black box was found inside the Pentagon, wouldn't it show the DC flight path?

Why doesn't it show the DC flight path?

Wouldn't that mean that the plane that flew over DC skies didn't hit the Pentagon?

Secret Agent

I remember as a kid being a big fan of the Man from U.N.C.L.E. so I consider the allegations that I am a secret agent quite flattering. Of course, Craig and Aldo are such a threat to national security that the powers that be ordered me into action just to discredit them and their witnesses.

In reality, I started my research to sort out the half-truths in the public domain regarding the Pentagon attack. My initial (and continuing) efforts indicate that the government is dispensing disinformation to cover up something regarding that attack. Everything was going nicely until I dared to objectively assess the "Smoking Gun" witness set. Then the attacks began from the CIT psychos.

http://911files.info/blog/?p=11

All I have to say to the CIT folks is to use a little sanity when evaluating witness accounts. Don't take the witnesses who support your personal beliefs as gospel and then attempt to discredit thos who do not. Use the same standard for ALL witnesses and don't go trolling the internet to attack anyone who disagrees with you.

Our work speaks for itself.

More empty hollow anti-CIT/NOC rhetoric from "John Farmer".

John is trying his damndest to paint a picture.

You should see how he even entered the scene and when he entered it.

Just remember, he tried blending in with CIT, praising us for our work and even embracing the north side evidence. Then slowly he started his agenda...

-Promote a wild conspiracy theory about 2 planes approaching at the same time.

-draw everyone back to the south side path

-use the FDR data to draw everyone's attention back to the south side.

-attack Citgo employee Robert Turcios' credibility by utilizing the Citgo video we already proved was manipulated and released a mere 10 days after we spoke with Robert and obtained the damaging account from him and 5 days after we publically announced it.

Yeah, nothing suspicious about holding a vieo for 5+ years that allegedly showed nothing related to the impact, then release it 10 days after a Citgo employee blows the whole thing wide open with the camera angle that showed the impact missing. keep in mind Robert's mgr confirmed where he was and what he was doing.

-Utilize the manipulated Citgo video showing two indistinguishable dots as proof of the south side path (Interestingly, I noticed this before well before he came out and was waiting to see who was going to have the "skillful eye" who would capitalize on this. I thought it would be Pickering, but it being Farmer didn't surprise me)

-Be the only one to get an FOIA request accepted for the RADES data which he now tries to tout as actual supporting evidence for "what really happened" even though it is irreconcilable with the C-130 pilot's statements, Norman Mineta/Monte Belger Rosslyn DRA approach, the flight path Ari Fleischer was talking about, the plane Joe Candelario, Stuart Artman, and Joe Hurst all saw over DC, Colin Scoggin's plane, and the commercial airliner Steve Chaconas saw.

His gimmick now is to keep people thinking he is a genuine researcher/invesigator with a drive for figuring out "what really happened at the Pentagon" while he works against and does not represent his "findings" honestly.

He claims he was a police detective, a statistical processing engineer, ran for public office, if I am not mistaken he claims to have been other things as well. However, he refuses to validate his identity or his credentials and has embarked on a rabid campaign to cast doubt on us and our witnesses. His target audience is not skeptics (although I am sure his work will eventually be used by them to support the official story), but rather the 9/11 truth members who would be motivated by our evidence, that is why he tries to slow our progress by minimizing our NOC/EOP witness acounts and throwing out gov't supplied data to cause doubt.

He refuses to accept the DME factor involved with the FDR or any of the other problems associated with it. He won't concede to any of the other supporting factors that have nothing to do with the witnesses that direcly pose a problem for the official story..

My guess is he is either a 'you know what' or he is a scared-sh*tless republican trying to save what he considers is a sinking ship by hurriedly throwing up DUBIOUS and DEBUNKED supporting "data" for the official story.

"Then the attacks began from the CIT psychos."

That incredibly hypocritical statement says it all.

Notice how he ignored the evidence presented and went right for an attack on us personally.

This is typical and quite predictable. He can not refute what we present so he will focus on discrediting us and discrediting the witnesses. His only evidence against our claims being government controlled and provided data that the evidence we present proves fraudulent.

The "blue collar republican" did not exist as a known 9/11 researcher in any way until a few days after the release of the north side evidence.

He touted our work and even proclaimed that he BELIEVED the north side evidence but all the while putting out convoluted, incorrect, confusing blogs that simultaneously casted doubt on the information.

Now here he is making this bold claim:

>>>>>>>"My initial (and continuing) efforts indicate that the government is dispensing disinformation to cover up something regarding that attack"

So what is this government sponsored "disinfo" that your "efforts" have "indicated" exist? Come on Farmer, stop beating around the bush. Out with it. What reason is there to keep it secret? So it can continue to be effective? You now say you believe AA77 hit the building so what would even be the purpose of "disinfo" many years later if the official narrative was correct?

The fact is that we have never "attacked" Farmer. We corrected him and proved him wrong in defense but HE was the one who started with the name calling and ad hominems and crazy erratic behavior. We had no choice but to question his motives.

After spiraling out of emotional control on the Loose Change forum because we used one of his images in a post there he proclaimed that he said he had to do that because he was quitting the movement and that he had to make an effort to distance himself with anyone associated with it because of his contacts in congress that he was allegedly using to help forward the cause.

Soon after his very public attack he nuked his entire blog and so the record of all his "research" was lost from the "public domain". (A lot of it allegedly lost on accident only to have it ALL taken down on purpose soon after). He had disappeared for a while and has now quickly resurfaced and restarted his blog within a day or two of the release of our new presentation. He is now vigorously posting hollow attempts to discredit us and the witnesses since he clearly can not refute the information.

No legitimate researcher spends so much time, energy, and focus on other researchers.

They focus on evidence exposing the 9/11 deception.

Farmer chooses to focus on government provided data that supports the official narrative while attacking anything that contradicts it and painting a picture like WE are the crazy ones.

www.ThePentaCon.com