"If a flyover occurred at the Pentagon, it would have been unmistakable and lots of people would have reported it."

Reagan National Airport is one mile away from the Pentagon.

There are low flying planes in the vicinity of the Pentagon every 2-3 minutes. This is an extremely regular occurrence.




Low flying commercial jets landing and taking off are a continuous part of the landscape and locals are quite used to it.

What is NOT an extremely regular occurrence is a large fireball followed by a plume of smoke at the Pentagon.

Show "Fantastic video evidence Adam." by bbruhwiler8

CIT Witness Testimonials

The four CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-pentaconsgv.html

25:30
Craig: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert: Fly over the Pentagon??? No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (It) Collided.

37:56
Craig: were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: Correct

49:40
Craig: Did you see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Lagasse: Yes.

Sean Boger was in the heliport control tower at the Pentagon
Official interview 11-14-01
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299

"I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building."
"So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."

Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth

Why is anybody who is on the AE911Truth team or who is associated with the nano-thermite paper making farfetched comments or any comments at all on such a 'controversial' subject as the Pentagon attack on 9-11? Why put the integrity of AE911Truth and the nano-thermite paper into jeopardy by putting forth opinions on the Pentagon?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Because

Their testimony about impact is contradicted by the physical evidence. If they actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon, then what part of the Pentagon did they see it hit? It could not have hit the Pentagon where the damage was done if the plane was on the trajectory that more than a dozen witnesses said in detail they saw. One example is could Lagasse possibly have seen it hit the Pentagon from where he was standing? He sees the plane, he hears an explosion, he sees the aftermath of the explosion, and he hears the official word that a plane hits the Pentagon. That's all a human being needs in a period of Shock and Awe to conclude that he too saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

The light poles and more

The holes in the building walls, inside and out created a straight line trajectory that does not match the path of the plane that Lagasse drew on the map. The damage to the Pentagon does not match the trajectory that he witnessed the plane.

Plus, if you believe that the tail section of the plane just slipped through the exterior walls of the Pentagon, leaving no damage or hole, and no sign of any part of the tail section on the lawn, then I see that as too extreme of a position to take for any engineer or architect or anyone associated with AE911TRUTH and the nano-thermite paper.

Why put the integrity of AE911Truth and the nano-thermite paper into jeopardy by putting forth extreme positions on the Pentagon?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

farfetched or not

"or any comments at all on such a 'controversial' subject as the Pentagon attack on 9-11? Why put the integrity of AE911Truth and the nano-thermite paper into jeopardy by putting forth opinions on the Pentagon?"

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

AE911TRUTH

Why put the integrity of AE911Truth into jeopardy by putting forth opinions on the Pentagon?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

WARNING to commenters- Accusations of lying violate the rules

A whole bunch of comments that contained accusations of lying just got removed.

"Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated. Don't make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time. (If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)"

"Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults."
http://www.911blogger.com/rules

It is not a violation of the rules to point out that a statement is inaccurate, false, misleading, or a misrepresentation. Depending on the context, one could even say a statement is deceptive, w/o violating the rules. However, to prove 'lying', i.e. a deliberate deception, requires establishing intent.

These debates over 'what' hit the Pentagon are contentious enough- please keep it civil; consider your choice of words before you post. If you notice a post which violates the rules, alert the 911blogger team. Thank you.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Thank you.

Proving a deliberate deception, which is what lying is, requires proving intent. I agree. This is also true of the labels of "fraud" and "con men."

Please say it straight

Bruno, we met at that dinner in LA several weeks back and you seemed like a friendly and intelligent person. Yet your comments here -- clearly addressed at least partly to me -- consist of very loaded rhetorical questions. Asking rhetorical questions, especially loaded ones, is a speech act designed to manipulate both the person talking to and the "lurkers" into an unconscious adoption of your position. I would prefer that you state a case with explicit reasons for why you think what you think -- hopefully supported with some objective evidence, and not just stating an unsupported opinion. If you will do that, I will respond in kind.

ResearchGuy

Why

I don't think you and I ever discussed anything about the Pentagon, Gregg, so I am not sure why you are putting yourself into this discussion. I have never heard you say anything about the Pentagon. My concern is with those who associate themselves with AE911TRUTH and the nano-thermite paper and then express quite extreme positions regarding the Pentagon.

Why put the integrity of AE911Truth and the nano-thermite paper into jeopardy by putting forth opinions on the Pentagon?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Is this you, G Roberts?

What do you think of Sarns' "theory?"

His theory is that (1) the north of citgo approach is true and (2) the light poles were staged and (3) explosives caused the directional damage in the pentagon (on all these points he agrees with CIT) BUT that the plane impacted from the north approach and that the flyover is "fruit loops" and that Craig and Aldo are genius fraudsters who were able to con Richard Gage and many others into endorsing NSA. He has been on a relentless war path ever since July to try and get people to ignore CIT.

No other "detractor" of CIT, including your Jim Hoffman, has tried to argue for the scenario Chris tries to argue for, because it makes no sense and is laughable on its face.

What do you think of all this? If you'd care to share your view.

If I've been coming across as unreasonably harsh on Chris, it is because I have a lot of respect and admiration for the work CIT has done and I know they are not liars, frauds or con men. He is allowed to call them those things on here simply because Craig and Aldo are not site members. If they were members he'd be in trouble for such behavior.

At this point I'm very disturbed and concerned about the fact that he's officially associated with AE911Truth.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Show "I used to live near the Santa Monica airport" by Sheila Casey

There are no flyover witnesses

Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane fly away to the south-west. Craig insists he said it flew away to the north. It does not matter. A plane approaching from the west could not make either turn. The plane Roosevelt said he saw could not be the plane approaching from the west. Roosevelt is NOT a witness for flyover.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The purple path is what Mr. Roberts surmised from what he saw - the plane flying away to the south-west.
The red path combines what the north path witnesses saw combined with what Roosevelt said he saw.
The turning radius is about 350 feet. An airliner requires a 5,000 foot turning radius or more.

Erik Dihle
CIT misrepresented this second hand account by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."
It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else and no assumption can be made.
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

Show "Excellent analysis by Craig over at Pilots" by Adam Syed

Verbiage and speculation

May have been and could have been are not evidence Adam.

There are NO flyover witnesses.

Show "The fact that you would dismiss" by Adam Syed

> Low flying commercial jets

> Low flying commercial jets landing and taking off are a continuous part of the
> landscape and locals are quite used to it. What is NOT an extremely regular
> occurrence is a large fireball followed by a plume of smoke at the Pentagon.

Exactly. Which is what would've made people turn their heads and take note.

How many of those planes about to land at Reagan are going 300 to 500 miles an hour? How would the plane had landed at Reagan at that speed? If it didn't land at Reagan, where did it land, and how would its arrival not have been noticed by the local air traffic controllers? Or were they in on it too? If it crashed at sea, what happened to the debris?

Expletives deleted for the sake of the children.

ResearchGuy

Show "The plane was moving slowly" by Sheila Casey

Roosevelt Roberts

did NOT see the "hijacked" plane that approached from the west.

Please re-read post above.

Show "So let's say that someone calls the FBI to report..." by Sheila Casey

Please read transcript

Roosevelt Roberts said the plane flew away to the south-west, back over Hwy. 27.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

P4T established that a plane on the north path could collide with the Pentagon. If it were to fly over it would fly away to the south-east.
See 14:37 of this video:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Whatever Roosevelt saw was NOT the plane approaching from the west. He is NOT a flyover witness.

Show "P4T established that a plane" by Adam Syed

A lot of conjecture

"How many of those planes about to land at Reagan are going 300 to 500 miles an hour? How would the plane had landed at Reagan at that speed? If it didn't land at Reagan, where did it land, and how would its arrival not have been noticed by the local air traffic controllers? Or were they in on it too? If it crashed at sea, what happened to the debris?"

As has already been stated. the witnesses to the plane's north of citgo path, did not say the plane was going fast at all. Where do you get the 300-500 mph?

The plane would not have to land at Reagan Airport, no matter what speed it was going. Do Air traffic controllers question every plane that they see on their screen? What happens when they see military aircraft on their screen? Do they know it's military aircraft, or do they accept the command from above when they are told not to worry about that particular blip on their screen? They wouldn't have to be 'in on it'.

Crashed at sea? Not sure why you even asked that question.

Overall, these are very conjecture-oriented questions from you, and I am not sure why you would ask such questions. Now that I know who ResearchGuy is, I will re-iterate that for someone so close to AE911Truth and the nano-thermite paper, to put forth conjecture, or any comments on the Pentagon puts the integrity of both AE911Truth and nano-thermite paper into jeopardy. Why not just take an official position on the Pentagon like, "There are many unanswered questions and peculiarities about the Pentagon attack that warrant further investigation." ?

Throwing up a red flag,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Show "Two questions for Chris" by Adam Syed

Two answers - NO flyover witnesses

"Was Roosevelt Roberts hallucinating or lying when he saw a "commercial aircraft" flying away from the Pentagon "ten seconds tops" after the explosion?"

Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane fly away to the south-west. I don't know what he saw but it was NOT the plane approaching from the west. Beyond that I don't care.

Roosevelt Roberts is NOT a flyover witness.

Erik Diehle is is not a witness at all. He overheard people shouting conflicting reports. No assumption can be made about what they might have seen. Second hand unconfirmed information is not considered "eyewitness".

Craig lied about there being flyover witnesses. There are none.

Show "You believe the north path," by Adam Syed

In my opinion...

People who don't learn from their mistakes, and consistently promote discredited information shouldn't be trusted. Continually posting about CIT's nonsense is no different than Jim Fetzer promoting space beams over and over again even after being shown how ridiculous that "theory" is. Continually posting CIT's nonsense is no different than Nico Haupt promoting TV Fakery over and over again even after being shown how ridiculous that "theory" is. To me, the CIT campaign is no different.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "Jon," by Adam Syed

I didn't know...

I had "already diminished credibility" for having an opinion about CD. I didn't know having opinions diminishes credibility. I thought promoting discredited bunk does that. Also, I know enough about the Pentagon to know that CIT's flyover theory is bunk, and just as ridiculous as Fetzer and DEW. I say again, people that consistently promote discredited information should not be trusted. Either they are doing it because they care more about being right than justice and accountability, or because there is something devious to it. Either way, people that particpate in this practice shouldn't be trusted in my opinon.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "No Jon, you don't know jack" by Adam Syed

Um...

I pointed to an article I wrote, not to Arabesque's. I know enough about the Pentagon to know that the right question we should be asking is how a commercial airliner managed to penetrate the most defended airspace in the world 34 minutes after the second tower was hit when everyone in the world knew America was "under attack." That, and questions concerning Mineta's testimony. As opposed to questions that point to the idea that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. A theory that has been used against this cause countless times. As a matter of fact, the CBC just used CIT to make us look like idiots. So, keep promoting your bunk. I'm going to stick to credible facts that speak for themselves.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "And you also claimed that" by Adam Syed

The CBC...

Used the same formula for hit pieces that have been used for years. Disregard everything that is OBVIOUSLY wrong with the official account. Disregard the families, and the responders. Focus on the two designated theories of the movement (CD and the Pentagon), and introduce a highly dubious one to boot which happened to be CIT's nonsense.

This is why I have BEGGED people to share information that fits outside the boundaries of the media's painting of 9/11 Truth.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "Unfortunately that question is easy to dodge" by Sheila Casey

If it's so easy to dodge...

Then why hasn't it been addressed? The Pentagon should never have been hit. At a time when America is under attack, fighters should have been sent into the air to protect Washington D.C., and it wasn't done. Instead, a commercial airplane was allowed into D.C. airspace, which is supposed to be the most defended in the world, and hit the Pentagon. They haven't put forward a fall guy. It hasn't been addressed because it is ridiculously incriminating. I deal with reality, not theories.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "Think of this as a chess game Jon." by Sheila Casey

I have nailed them...

Too many times to count with facts.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

We will know they've been nailed

cause the world will change.

With regards to 9/11...

They have been nailed. Not enough people have woken up to that fact. That's why we have to put forward the best information possible at all times. Here's a song.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

I agree, this is the same

I agree, this is the same crap posted over and over to try and keep this topic the focus of debate on this blog. Those that agree with you agree and those that don't , don't. All your constant posts on the subject do is rehash the same insults between camps of thought over and over again.
Very unproductive at least and pretty suspicious at worst...
Now downvote me for daring to post on your thread and be done with it.

Show "Just some friendly advice.." by Sheila Casey

Just a friendly response

Thanks for your concern...I'm not worried and you shouldn't be either...

Show "To Sarns, Gold, and anyone else who'se downvoting my comments" by Adam Syed

Hollow challange

I am debating you here. You are promoting a proven fraud. You ignore the fact that Craig lied about there being flyover witnesses. There are none. You cannot challenge that. You ignore the fact that Craig left out the clear and unequivocal statements by 4 CIT witnesses that the plane hit the Pentagon. You cannot challenge that. You keep posting the same double talk crap as if you are going to convince someone. You get rebuked every time you do. This thread is a waste of space.

I will post the truth about the NSA fraud every time you promote it.

Show "statements by 4 CIT witnesses that the plane hit the Pentagon?" by Sheila Casey

OMG, it's magic!

"If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball."

I understand how difficult it is for a person of your intelligence to comprehend what they have read. Sean clearly stated that the fireball occurred AFTER the plane hit.
Please read this again, maybe you'll get it this time.

Sean Boger was in the heliport control tower at the Pentagon
Official interview 11-14-01
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299

"I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building."
"So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."

ETA: Failing to include this statement in NSA and claiming that what he said in his interview with CIT proves flyover is FRAUD!

Show "Sean Boger was fooled, Chris." by Adam Syed
Show "Yet another CIT detractor to refuse the challenge." by Adam Syed