New! ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'

Given the recent promotions of the latest version of the flyover theory, 911Review has added another ERROR page to it's collection of Pentagon errors:

ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'

In contrast to the the "no-plane" or small plane theories that deny the crash of a jetliner into the Pentagon on 9/11, a theory circulated since 2003 maintains that a jetliner with American Airlines livery did indeed approach the Pentagon, as reported by scores of eyewitnesses but fooled the same witnesses into thinking that it crashed there in a spectacular "magic show" in which the plane flew through the explosion and over the vast office building, slipping away unnoticed.

The 'flyover theory' has a certain appeal to people who accept the vigorously-promoted assertion that a Boeing couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon, because, unlike the 'no-Boeing' theories, it does not require the wholesale dismissal of the large number of witnesses who saw the jetliner. However, the absurdity of the flyover theory becomes obvious when one considers the number of witnesses who would have clearly seen it, given the geography of the Pentagon's immediate surroundings.


Pentagon missle

While no one wants to hear it, and few have been interested, I saw the missile that hit the Pentagon. CIT itself did a a quick interview with me and quickly dismissed my sighting. "Not possible" was the conclussion. This is tantamount to telling a rape victim that their virginity is intact.
So "hundreds of witnesses" may have, indeed, come foreward, but my own experience indicates those sightings wouldn't register anywhere. And at the moment, my own sighting is nothing more than my word. But I know what I saw.
I was three miles from the Pentagon that morning, working outdoors. I was in a perfect position to witness this. But for eight years no one has been interested in this testimony.
So be it.
But it is an outrage to state that "hundreds of witnesses" would have come forward, when in fact such action would prompt the usual belittling, gate-keeper dismissals, and general public rejection.

Pearls are made from annoyances

Pentagon Missile I have posted a photo of a craft very similar to what I saw fly overhead, and scroll down to see the map clearly marked to show my location.

Pearls are made from annoyances

Some cruise missiles look a lot like the BQM-74E Aerial Target

Drone, have you looked at photos of those?

I wonder if a BQM-74E Aerial Target Drone can be easily fitted with a warhead, as I think that if a missile was used it would have to have a warhead to penetrate and do the damage that was done. It would be far easier to hide the disappearance of a target drone from inventory, than account for a missing cruise missile, so that is one factor in its favor.

Now before you all get riled up, please note that I am only speculating here. I have no firm opinion on what happened at the Pentagon as I view the publicly available evidence as inconclusive at present. My opinion is that nothing should have happened at the Pentagon more than 30 minutes after the second tower was hit, and that Pentagon personnel certainly should have been warned and evacuated well before any commercial airplane could get close enough to crash into it.

Royster, what caused you to look up in the sky and how long did you see this object before it disappeared? Did you take note of the time when this happened? Who else have you told about your sighting and what was their reaction? Did you ask around to see if anyone else saw it?

I find it troubling that so many people take such a dogmatic position toward the "attack" on the Pentagon. Just agree to disagree and understand that it is unwise to push theories that are not well supported by all the facts in public or come across as far fetched. There is a distinct difference between semi-private open-ended research and public advocacy, and people should be very much aware of that difference and not cross that line casually, imo.

It's ok to not know what happened at the Pentagon. That why we need a real investigation.

We can easily show that there has been a massive cover-up and that the government's conspiracy theory is provably wrong on multiple counts, we already have everything we need to make our case to the general public.

Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, brothers and sisters, lets fight for a new investigation.

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

I could not agree more

"I find it troubling that so many people take such a dogmatic position toward the "attack" on the Pentagon. Just agree to disagree"

"It's ok to not know what happened at the Pentagon. That why we need a real investigation."

"We can easily show that there has been a massive cover-up and that the government's conspiracy theory is provably wrong on multiple counts"

Well put. Thank you.

>>Instead of fighting

>>Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, brothers and sisters, lets fight for a new investigation.

I agree with the intention of this, and it's great that you use this tone and work to stay neutral. But I'm not sure the penultimate investigation is somehow going to be different from what we already have been doing for years. The fact that you are speculating about AA77 being actually some type of drone is fine, but then, you need to dispose of all the passengers. These have really be examined already. If you spend some time looking into the history of investigations in to the Pentagon you will see a lot of stuff.

One of the current "9/11 Commissioners" -- Ed Asner, an 80 year old actor with a heart of gold -- apparently would believe that AA77 flew over the building because of what CIT has shown. Is that really going to be our answer? Is William Pepper going to cast aside CIT when he's getting on the stage with them in NYC this Anniversary?

The ultimate investigation is going on now and it is with each one of us. But people need to really spend some time with the history of the evidence and the tremendous amount of work examining the attack before just making claims on a public forum and saying that the penultimate investigation is as magical as "the market" in solving everything.

I know you have the best of intentions and I respect that. But all investigation proceeds from a logical hypothesis and from looking at what people have already found. Your theory has the built-in aspect of needing to get rid of passengers.

That's one of the core reasons why this issue is black and white.

Real people died. Claiming that "something else" hit the Pentagon disappears real people who lost their lives and is *incredibly* offensive to the families of those people and the victims who survived.

Just imagine it.

The general view on here has been that everyone who thinks AA77 hit there is, as CIT put it, "sucking official story dick" . . .

Are we? I tend to think we have a modicum of decency to actually believe for a half a second that hundreds of people just might have seen a real plane and real people that day, and don't automatically believe that the DNA from hundreds of people was faked, the lamp posts were staged, the belongings of those killed that were returned to family were fake, the cabbie was in on it, etc.

It's not just about treating people on here fairly and decently, it's about treating the people who actually survived that hell that day with some decency also. That's practically verboten on here, where all who survived are assumed to be "in on it." And considering the experience of the survivors requires zero capitulation in terms of the evidence or analysis. To the contrary, assuming everything is fake is where this whole thing goes completely nuts. Basic respect for the human catastrophe goes hand in hand with a scientific analysis.

In the case of the Pentagon

I think that a real investigation with subpoena powers will be able to uncover quite a bit more than we'll ever be able to discover from the outside. There is certainly some video evidence that, in all probability, will be as useful as the many videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, assuming it has not already been destroyed. The same goes for unreleased photographic evidence. Access to plane wreckage will also settle certain issues beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for what happened to the passengers, that is not really relevant as there are many scenarios that easily explain what could have happened to them. One such scenario is to crash the plane somewhere else, like Camp David, where there was a report of a plane crash on 9/11 and where a select group of government agents, perhaps the Secret Service working with others, could manage all the evidence as they saw fit. We already know that certain members of the Secret Service were involved in managing the Bush classroom charade in Florida, so this is not beyond the realm of possibility.

I have not researched the evidence regarding the Pentagon as exhaustively as I could have and I will remedy that at some point in the future. But, unless I am mistaken, no "smoking gun" proof has been uncovered that proves what happened there beyond a reasonable doubt. No photos of rows of plane seats with bodies strapped in or the battered hulks of the two massive titanium alloy engines, or even one part number off of one part that can be credibly placed at the scene and traced through records to the plane in question. Please correct me if such evidence exists and provide a link, as I'd love to see it.

I've talked to about a dozen commercial pilots about this and almost every one always comes back to the ground effect problem with the alleged approach of AA77. This, more than anything else, is what makes me straddle the fence and entertain multiple theories for the events at the Pentagon.

I find CIT's witness interviews to be interesting, but far from convincing. I have first hand experience of witnesses having vastly different experiences of the same event, and these were very simple events in comparison to the events at the Pentagon, and not on a day when the U.S seemed to be under attack. Stress can do very strange things to human beings, especially memory.

My main point is that the case is still out and to rule out any plausible scenario at this point is not good science and, that to settle on a fixed hypothesis at this moment in time is, in fact, bad science.

I'm curious, Victronix, would you be willing to concede that there is at least a 1% chance that something other than AA77 hitting the Pentagon could have happened? If not, what empirical evidence makes you so absolutely certain that AA77 did impact the building? If you are, why do you take such an uncompromising position?

To be honest, while I really want to know what happened at the Pentagon, it's just not that important to me at this moment in the movement's history. Wild sounding theories are often used by the media to distract attention from the rock solid evidence we have, as Jon Gold often rightly points out, and the endless battles over the meaning of each incremental bit of information are tiresome and discouraging, as they may have been designed to be (9/11 is a psyop, remember?). I don't want to discourage anyone from doing their research and following their leads, but keep it in perspective and certainly don't attack each over this while there is still this much uncertainty on the issue.

Far too many of the Pentagon puzzle pieces are still lost in the carpet. Until they are found, sorted and can be fit in with the few pieces we already have, we can't really even guess what the finished puzzle will look like, imho.

The truth shall set us free (and there are no short cuts to the truth).

Love is the only way forward (real love means accepting that not everyone will always agree with you).


"Royster, what caused you to look up in the sky and how long did you see this object before it disappeared? Did you take note of the time when this happened? Who else have you told about your sighting and what was their reaction? Did you ask around to see if anyone else saw it?"

I was working outdoors. The noise of its approach caught my attention, and the fact that its engine sounded malfunctioning. It was also surprising to see it flying so low.

It was in my sight at least 10 seconds, no more. Ironically, the work I was doing was for a retired air force pilot, who was indoors, glued to the t.v..

There was no way to note the time, everything happening so rapidly. I do know, beyond doubt, there were three distinct concussions after the sighting, the third concussion somewhat delayed from the first two.

Due to my immediate suspicions about 9/11, which I conveyed to the person I was working for, I have not talked to them since leaving the job upon completion.

[Edited per suggestion. Thanks, LeftWright]

Pearls are made from annoyances

Royster -

You may want to edit out that gentleman's name and address from this very public blog, just as a courtesy to him..

Let anyone who wants to follow up on the story contact you for that information, if they want it.

I thought you might have looked at a watch, a pager of a cell phone and noted the time. I worked in the trades for years and often noted the time of curious things, just in case they turned out to be more than just passing oddities.

You saw it for as long as 10 seconds? How high was it and how fast do you think it was going?

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


I am not a good judge of altitude or speed. As a carpenter my focus is in feet and inches. The best comparison would be how many 2-story houses would fit under it? Perhaps ten. It's speed was apparently decelleration mode. Had it been a car on the street I'd estimate it was going 35 mph. It sounded like it accellerated, once out of my sight.
I was, in fact, on the (cell)phone with my significant other, and lost connection 30 seconds before the explosions. It was difficult to keep cellphone connections that morning. I may well have noted the time, but my concerns were toward other things, not the least being a possible evacuation from the city.

If you look at the map I provided, the trajectory was essentially along Russell Road.
Few have been interested in this sighting, and that doesn't bother me. This sighting isn't worth much, unless I found others who saw the same thing, and the coordinates worked out. What does upset me is when someone who wasn't even in the STATE that morning informs me I did not see a missile. I adhere to all the previous postings and courtesies, but I have been highly suspicious of CIT since their dismissal of my story, and the curt way it was done. However, their work is important, too, in its own right.
To this day, I still find Serendipity.Li one of the most reliable 9/11 information sources.
Thank you for your time and consideration, LeftWright. My sighting may some day be of value. It certainly is to me.

Pearls are made from annoyances

Thanks for talking Royster.

Thanks for talking Royster. What you are describing is a plane. How or where did you see a missile? Did you see the north path of the plane?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Thank you Vic

for this excellent expose of some of the worst tripe in the movement.


Im not going to insert myself in this debate, as I've already decided with my own mind that CITs work is incredibly flawed, so no amount of lengthy posts here will sway me.

However, I will add that I do not see the benefit of this (mis)information to the families of those affected by 9/11. It has occurred to me that any time Ive ever read or viewed a hit piece or attack on the 9/11 truth movement, THEY ALWAYS FOCUS ON THE PENTAGON RESEARCH TRAP AND CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

So I wonder, why not present evidence that makes the hit piece writers and talking heads too uncomfortable to discuss?

Logical? Just maybe ..

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.


I've been making that argument for years, and been accused of being a shill, a Zionist Mole for Larry Silverstein, a "LIHOPPER," etc... etc... etc...

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

There will always be name callers

And people who help the enemy divide and conquer. Anyone can call me whatever name they like for expressing myself, but that doesn't make it right or true.

And Jon, honestly, the people who called you those things will get their place in history, but deserve no attention in the present.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Speculation vs empiricism

Demolition research has absolutely NOTHING to do with pentagon research/CIT's research!

Don't just lump it all together, as if you've never heard of the scientific method. It's offensive and denigrating, and it exposes your lack of understanding and appreciation of scientific matters. This research has empirically proven that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, just as JFK's head shot did it for him. Just like the Ames strain did it for Anthrax.

There is a direct link between the WTC and the anthrax attacks. Furthermore, the 9/11 health issue is directly related to explosive demolition, not this ridiculous notion of 'collapse'.

The shock & awe that reprogrammed the minds of millions was directly related to explosive demolition. Apparently for some, the final brainwashed remnants of this absurd collapse myth are next to impossible to remove.

Yes, I know some of you may endorse CD research here and there, but then you come on here and say it makes you a target for mockery. Like I care, I go through that non-stop, while fighting like hell to snap people out of it. My debating opponents are the ones who constantly and without exception look like complete fools, because you simply can't spin empirical data. So, I take our reward for putting our necks on the line is this griping about peer pressure from the opposition? Tell that to Bob McIlvaine, whose son died, according to him and after inspecting his son's body, due to an explosion. On behalf of demolition researchers, thanks for nothing.

I've thought long and hard about whether or not I should post this comment in this wording. I'm well aware it's inflammatory, but on the other hand, so is the offensive mantra that demolition research is somehow one of the truth movement's weak spots. I am very, very, very appreciative of everybody's hard work, but I'm not here to win a popularity contest, and I'm not here to 'sell a concept'. I'm here to take a stand for what my mind knows is true and what my hearts feels is morally correct.

So please....just please stop painting demolition research as a topic the media is 'uncomfortable' with and therefore not a 'strategic topic' or possibly even 'misinformation'. I could care LESS about Frank Wisner's "Mighty Wurlitzer" and its yellow journalist attack dogs. Please back us up, because we need you.

This research was never a trap but a liberation of the mind.

You completely missed my point

And Im starting to understand how Jon feels..

I am not offended by your post in the least. I also support research into controlled demolition; my name is on the supporters petition on A& and I've given money to them. If you look at my blog, I always let people know when they've reached a new milestone in signatories. Please keep that in mind.

Yes, I believe CITs research, while interesting, comes to too speculative a conclusion for me to swallow. Its ok for me to express this and any concern I may have about any 9/11 researchers findings.

I have not equated CITs research with Steven Jones' research. One I find credible, the other I do not. However, I'd like to point out that what I've learned from reading and viewing attacks on the truth movement is that they always point to select areas of research. Have you noticed that?

My intention is not to dissuade anyone from learning about these issues or promoting them, but to remind people that theres a lot more to "9/11 truth" and that we don't have all the answers, so we shouldn't pretend that we do.

I have no intention of going anywhere. I've been committed to this for a long time, and that's not going to change just because I might disagree on strategy with my fellow brothers and sisters in truth.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.


A perfect example of "how Jon feels." I posted my facts piece 2x on HuffPo, and emailed it to him directly, and nothing. They didn't allow either post, and he has ignored me. I think there's a reason for that. Because as long as they can define the 9/11 Truth Movement as being about A) Controlled Demolition B) Flight 77 Not Hitting The Pentagon, both, you must admit, sound "outlandish" to those who don't know any better, then the "powers that be" have little to worry about. Because it's easy to make something that sounds "outlandish" to those who don't know any better, sound "outlandish." If we hit them with what they're not prepared for, or can't refute with paragraphs about science this and science that, then we come off looking a lot better. In my opinion of course.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Jon, Richard is the biggest

Jon, Richard is the biggest asset we have, bringing in the most people who are professionals, because he has an amazing story to tell . . . that is true.

It sure does sound outlandish. But because it is true, anyone who is capable of accepting such things -- as you know well, many are not, but clearly, many are -- comes to realize what is going on.

There is a reason there was 100% media silence on nanothermite in the US YET Niels is still constantly on the circuit overseas, and dozens of news stories on major media occurred over there.

What is the reason for that silence?

Because demolition is real. The best way to stop something real -- in the US -- is to ignore it or discredit it.

And they're trying their hardest over here, but over there . . . the media went to actual scientists and asked -- is this real? And the answer was, yes, it is. That's what real reporters do who aren't controlled by the intelligence orgs.

So the problem of the outlandishness of demolition WOULD be a problem -- indeed -- but because the evidence is so strong, those who dip one toe in, are in. And then there's no going back. Some will never dip a toe in.

Your job is to find those people and reach out to them with the info you collect and expose. People come in all types and there are enough for all of us.

The difference is...

CD gets a mention. Good, bad, or otherwise.

Look, here it is in a nutshell. I think Dr. Jones, Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, are credible people that make credible arguments. I think that because of the ridiculousness of the NIST investigation into WTC7, and because the families want answers with regards to how those buildings came down, it has earned its spot if and when we ever get a real investigation. There is NO DOUBT about that.

However, it has been my experience that every single hit piece ever written has focused primarily on how those buildings came down, and our arguments about it. Most people are like me. We don't understand everything we're being told. We can not verify what's being told to us. Especially with regards to the nano-thermite. For those people who don't know what I do, they cling to those hit pieces because it enables them to stay in their little worlds, where all they have to worry about is whether or not they have a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, a car in the driveway, and multiple TV sets throughout the house.

It has also been my experience that a lot of people just wait for you to say something about those buildings, and then they jump on you. Because of the "training" of the media, and the "anti-truthers/debunkers."

I firmly believe that in order for this country to "wake up" to the fact that we have been lied to about the 9/11 attacks, and demand a real investigation, we must first convince them that the investigations we got were HORRIBLY flawed. I rarely see mention of that except from few select individuals. That is so easy to do. So VERY easy to do. If you remember, when Jesse Ventura was talking with Sean Hannity, even Sean had to admit that the 9/11 Commission was flawed.

You are right. People come in all flavors. However, for the most part, the movement has only been serving one.

It has also been my experience that most people have been trained to hate the phrase "9/11 Truth" although I am PROUD to call myself a "9/11 Truther."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


Respectfully, I disagree that CIT's conclusions are too speculative.

The north side approach proves a flyover, in my opinion. You're free to disagree, but here is how I see it:

Look at the supposed trajectory of entrance of the plane into the Pentagon in the E ring.

Then look at the exit hole in the C ring.

Look at that trajectory.

If the plane approached from the north side, which it clearly did ("no friggin way" it was on the south side according to Lagasse and corroborated by 12 others), then it could not have caused that damage. It did not hit the building. The logical conclusion: it flew over.

There is no middle ground. You can't accept the north side approach and reconcile it with "maybe the plane DID hit the building, just from the north side."

This is analagous to arguing that the laws of physics prove that an unassisted "collapse" is impossible, and then saying "oh but the case for controlled demolition is still too inconclusive." Obviously the two are irreconcilable.

And the south side approach

And the south side approach -- described by everyone CIT didn't interview, somewhere over 100 people as far as documented witnesses and probably hundreds or thousands of undocumented -- does not support a flyover.

Demolition was observed on film. The "flyover" was not.

Demolition has hard evidence in the form of dust to analyze to expose the method of destruction. The "flyover" does not.

Demolition can be observed with simple physics, as David Chandler has shown with the speeds of collapse which are impossible without removing all the the structure below the wave of destruction moving down the buildings. The Pentagon cut-out is endlessly debated within the movement -- Is that a column? Or is that a piece of flooring the upper floor hanging down? Could that spool have moved just the way it did? Or not? None of these or a dozen other points are agreed upon even within the movement. If we used the same arguments being used about the Pentagon to claim the cut-out is wrong, then we would reach the same dead-end as we do with those who are convinced that the cut-out in the WTC is "wrong", such as Leonard Spencer of Serendipity, and Reynolds, Holmgren, etc. It's a swamp when you are in constant debate over the most basic points.

To say that somehow the northside approach -- contradicted by far more people than those who claim it -- is equal to all these points on demolition is bizarre, to say the least.

The south side that you are

The south side that you are so stuck on, how much care went into identifying that path as the "south" side. People see a big plane, they may not even know the discrepancy. I think those directly under the plane had the best view of the trajectory. CIT was very careful to let people draw it out and place it over the Navy Annex. Any chance you could contact those 100's and get them to be exact?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars


Likewise, I respect your point of view and will not viciously attack you. I applaud your willingness to forget about popularity and defend your position. This is what I had to do when I first became a 9/11 researcher, and I will NEVER forget that.

It's a charged topic that could potentially rupture the movement if we're not careful. So we must be careful and respectful.

However, I'll say this, witness statements don't have the same empirical quality of physical evidence, however, when physical evidence can be manipulated, it can be an extremely strong tool of deception. (Planting DNA evidence to frame somebody, for example, or placing child pornography on somebody's computer).

Of course, physical evidence is conclusive if tampering with that evidence is scientifically impossible or if it does not change the implications. For example: hypothetical tampering with the destruction of the WTC buildings to frame either Bin Laden or the United States Government does not exonerate the United States Government, because it can be conclusively established that no entity other than the United States Government could produce and place the quantities of nano-thermite and/or cover up the crime as observed. Should I be wrong about this assertion, one could alternatively say that the likelihood of the United States Government being framed approaches infinitesimal

Demolition research, unlike contradictory statements by NORAD for example, logically and empirically proves the official story false and proves a government conspiracy.

NORAD's behavior and contradictory statements are completely unacceptable, but unacceptable does not equal empirically impossible. In a court of law, that still results in a guilty verdict for the United States Government, but it does not result in empirical, scientific certainty that the United States Government is the responsibly entity. This is why we sometimes find innocent people in jail, and guilty people on the streets.

That said, I don't feel that the physical evidence in the Pentagon can all be manipulated so as to include even the witnesses reporting the physical evidence. Is tampering scientifically impossible? No. Therefore, logically, it must follow from that reasoning that flyover isn't impossible. However, given the volume of physical evidence and testimony thereof, and the difficulty of tampering, it is unlikely. Outside the realm of empirical certainty, we rely solely on likelihood.

Therefore, my conclusion about the Pentagon is that I don't want to draw a conclusion other than that there's an extremely worrying contradiction between witness statements and physical evidence. If CIT had done that too, and if the other camp hadn't cited faulty arguments in their pursuit to debunk CIT, I tell you, none of this animosity and misunderstanding would have occurred.

Is it within their right to conclude that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon based on a flight path contradiction? In my opinion not until they also conclusively disprove the validity of the physical evidence, and they haven't done so thus far. They should have/could have independently confirmed the stories of witnesses of physical evidence in the Pentagon too, and they haven't done so thus far. (Certainly, I understand that north side flight path, if hypothetically empirically indisputable, renders the physical damage to the light poles and/or the Pentagon impossible)

As for empiricism, this often concerns physical evidence and the application of the scientific method. Empiricism is often a valuable tool to expose theories, witness statements (or government narratives) as impossible.

David Ray Griffin has a presentation about it, I'm sure you're familiar with it, but I'll link it here for reference for anyone interested. Part of theology is the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of science includes the topic of empiricism. DRG, as a theologian, is qualified to talk about empiricism and logic, and this is often the basis of discussions between theists and atheists. (That is another matter which I will not go into here)

Of course, DRG is not infallible, so neither are his books. I suspect though, that the application of empiricism and logic is just what prevented him from extending his endorsement of CIT to include flyover.

I hope I haven't offended your sense of what is logical, honest or just, I am simply reasoning to the best of my ability. Theories A and B are mutually exclusive, therefore both are in doubt. A could be correct, B could be correct, and both can be incorrect. They cannot be correct simultaneously, unless, of course, either A or B or both are revised accordingly.

I'd like to add

That there has always been something about flight AA 77 that I find extremely worrying.

Flight AA 77

  • Turned its transponder off
  • Carried Barbara Olson, whose cell phone call to her husband, the sleazy and criminal solicitor general of the United States is confirmed fake by the FBI (!!)
  • Is withheld from the information released by the BTS to Aidan Monaghan
  • Has confirmed and severe flight path anomalies and FDR inconsistencies
  • Was allowed to hit the most important military target on earth unimpeded long after the first attacks occurred, and it hits the section under renovation for blast protection, killing folks tasked with finding a whopping $ 2.3 TRILLION dollars missing from DoD accounting
  • Was piloted by an incompetent dork, who could *not* have been responsible for the maneuvers observed, reportedly making incredible descending turns as if specifically to avoid hitting the Pentagon's top brass, beating a horrible slanted obstacle course nevertheless subsequently hitting the Pentagon exactly where the ground meets the facade
  • Was followed by a C-130
  • Is seemingly faked in a "security video"
  • Initially causes (arguably) little damage to the facade but enormous damage inside the building, including an exit hole...

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

The mystery and secrecy surrounding AA 77 is disconcerting, as if it suggests a truth so dark it is incomprehensible to all of us.

Eyewitness evidence vs

Eyewitness evidence vs physical evidence is not scientific. They are both viable and are used everyday in science and courtrooms. Both take skill and the use of the scientific method.

In one case I know of, eye witness evidence was really the way the cover-up was exposed . . .

Example: A Scientific Investigation (using a body of eye witnesses)

"Interviewing witnesses closely in order to understand criminal actions or events can be a crucial instrument in exposing a cover-up or confusing event. However, the method used to investigate the witness statements must utilize the scientific method in order to be considered viable. An interesting example of manipulation of eyewitness accounts for the purpose of forcing a desired hypothesis about an event can be seen in the investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996:

TWA Flight 800
At approximately 8:30 PM (EDT), on July 17, 1996, at an altitude of 13,800 feet, TWA Flight 800, a Boeing 747, exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean about eight miles south of Long Island, NY. The jetliner was on a regularly scheduled flight from John F. Kennedy International Airport to Charles De Gaulle International Airport in Paris, France. Good weather and high summertime populations allowed hundreds to observe the crash. Officially, no less than 736 witnesses were interviewed in the immediate aftermath. . . . Moments before the crash, witnesses observed a streak of light rise from the ocean surface. These observations initially caused FBI agents "to suspect that a missile might have been used against flight 800". Ultimately however, the NTSB concluded that the witnesses mistook the aircraft itself for a missile."

Review of the Official TWA Flight 800 Witness Reports Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization; May 30, 2001

In this case, the existence of a large database of eyewitness statements allowed independent investigators to examine the data, the hypothesis, and the analysis used by the NTSB and FBI, and to reach conclusions which differed from the official reports based on these accounts.


Why do you change the

Why do you change the subject and start talking about another instance.

The physical evidence of the pentagon does not match the eye witnessed north path.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars