New eyewitness evidence regarding Pentagon attack to be released this month

Here is the trailer for an upcoming presentation featuring critical eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack jet.

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=6DHVH0FW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mybWY9HJXXQ

These additional eyewitnesses, officially documented by the Center for Military History and the Library of Congress, are telling a different story that further conflicts with the government's Official Conspiracy Theory in regard to the Pentagon attack.

Its obvious that more research needs to be focused on the Pentagon. With as many cameras in the area of the most surveilled installation in the world, you'd expect to have been harassed repeatedly with dozens of different video angles of the plane hitting the building, as they did ad nauseam of the Trade Tower TV Psy-Op. Instead, they only offer up 5 grainy Photoshopped still frames in 7 years time. Lucy, you got some splainin' to do.

I don't understand why this

I don't understand why this isn't getting more attention.

Isn't it a fact that both the D.C. cops' eyewitness accounts in the PentaCon, plus now these other eyewitnesses, clearly contradict the OCT regarding the flight path of the plane into the Pentagon? Maybe other info in the doc isn't 100% proven - just suggested, as in LC2, which was still the breakthrough internet blockbuster of 9/11 - but should ALL of the info be dismissed because of this?

I don't think so.

This contradictory factual info between what is recorded here and what was presented during the 9/11 Commission's expose, like much in DRG's most recent book is very important . . .

What am I missing here? Why are there no comments here?

Betsy
Summer of Truth
The Plane Truth Project REDUX - Next aerial plane banner at the NJ shore: 7.11.08

The mass halucination theory

"Isn't it a fact that both the D.C. cops' eyewitness accounts in the PentaCon, plus now these other eyewitnesses, clearly contradict the OCT regarding the flight path of the plane into the Pentagon?"

These witnesses gave their incorrect locations as seen on the CITGO gas station video, got the location of the light poles and taxi cab wrong, and most critically, claimed to have witnessed the plane hit the Pentagon. This is critical because if you can't get the placement of these objects correct, there is no reason to trust the credibility of their statements regarding the flight path. Arguing that a plane flew over the Pentagon when the witnesses you spoke to said it hit the Pentagon and got details about the placement of objects and even their location wrong is more than a little bizarre and even intellectually dishonest. Attacking researchers and character assassination against those who disagree with their theory (i.e. calling them COINTELPRO and "agents") is also intellectually dishonest. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

""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. When we are talking about a simple right or left claim of this magnitude this is particularly the case. To get the side of the station wrong for people who were literally on the station's property would be a ridiculously drastic and virtually impossible mistake to make that would require hallucinations. For all of them to hallucinate the same exact thing is simply not a viable consideration.

Corroboration of witness accounts is clearly important for determining their validity, but Ranke completely contradicts his own argument for corroborating statements when he claims that the plane approaching the Pentagon was “used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion.” So much for not believing in mass hallucination!"
source: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

Actually, the flyover theory should be actually called the "mass hallucination theory" I am afraid, since even the people cited as "evidence" for it "hallucinated (this is CIT's explanation, not mine!) that the plane struck the Pentagon.

In other words, what the CIT investigators are actually alleging is that a handful of witness statements (many of whom directly claim the plane hit the Pentagon) who give alternative flight path statements are enough to counter the hundreds of recorded witness statements of a plane impact.

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

Recommended Reading:
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

you said

You said: These witnesses gave their incorrect locations as seen on the CITGO gas station video, got the location of the light poles and taxi cab wrong, and most critically, claimed to have witnessed the plane hit the Pentagon.

Did you actually see the pentacon? The policeman said he saw the plane lift up and he saw the tail hit the roof. We know the roof was not hit. He saw the plane lift up and could have seen it pass through the fireball.believing the tail hitting the roof caused that fireball :Lots of coulds..

I think you protest too much.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Collection of Pentagon

Collection of Pentagon witnesses

___________________________________________________________
Please watch my movie: The Third Tower