9/11 Pentagon Eyewitnesses - Plane hit the building

Hemphill now on record confirming the North Side Approach

CIT talked with Albert Hemphill yesterday, before "shure" did and Albert confirmed the north side approach:

Hemphill is particularly interesting and important because in the past, defenders of the 757-impact narrative have tried to actually spin Hemphill as a "South of Citgo" witness based on the twisting of a few words. This phone call from Craig Ranke to Albert Hemphill just over a day ago is priceless because Hemphill confirms, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex and passed the gas station from the "cemetery side" (North).

Noel Sepulveda confirmed the north side approach as well (from May 19):

Finally, Lee Evey is the Pentagon renovation program manager who is often erroneously cited as a witness. CIT asked him investigative questions and confronted him with the north side evidence (that Evey refused to look at) in this call also with "shure" who continuously tried to derail the discussion:


Very worth listening to

Those mp3s are well worth listening to.

As the N. Side witnesses continue to mount it beggars belief that many still campaign to marginalise this evidence.

The final one, with Lee Evey, is interesting even though he wasn't a witness. Evey's behaviour when Ranke starts to outline the evidence is interesting, as is "shure"'s utterly contemptable attempts to sabotage the discussion throughout.

Hemphill says he saw the plane hit the Pentagon

His story hasn't changed since he first told it in 2001; from Ruff's "in the past" link (Adam Larson article):
"At the Navy Annex, “peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon.... the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike.” He also gives the wing bank (remember, north path means left high) “He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight […] As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings […] as he impacted low on the Westside of the building"

The Pentagon is 77' high; Hemphill saw the plane hit at the first and/or second floor. He saw it hit; then it exploded. He did not see the plane disappear into an explosion while it was flying over the Pentagon.

In 2001, he said, "“He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight." Left wing down is inconsistent w/ N path; it would mean the plane was banking/turning left, not right.

I haven't listened to Craig's interview; in the Shure one, Hemphill says the plane seemed to be over the Citgo. Hemphill, like most of the other witnesses, saw the plane for only a few seconds- likely they were more focused on the plane, and not marking exactly where it was in relation to the ground.

It is strange that Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios, Boger put the plane on the N; but all these witnesses also say the plane hit. Boger was at the Heliport, saw the plane going into the Pentagon (not flying 80-100' or more up in the air to clear the Pentagon) and recalls hearing the metal crunching into the concrete.

I haven't yet listened to the other interviews above. However, of the eighteen witness accounts Adam Larson reviewed in this article http://911blogger.com/node/22239 (which Ruff linked to), 10 were interviewed and confirmed by CIT; Hemphill now makes 11 CIT-interviewed witnesses whose testimony supports the claim that the plane hit the Pentagon.

It can be said there's contradictory witness accounts about the position of the plane in relation to the Citgo, but it can't be honestly said the body of public witness accounts supports a N path- let alone a "flyover"- even if the body of witness accounts is limited to those interviewed by CIT.

It's Obvious Witnesses Were Planted To Explain The Impossible

loose nuke,

anyone who says they saw a 757 crash, cart wheel, drag its wing into the ground, hit the helipad, etc. are VERIFIABLE LIARS, as are the six Gannett employees who said they saw a 757 impact the Pentagon even though a line of trees were blocking their view.

As Captain Lincoln Liebner's testimony affirms, witnesses were planted at the Pentagon to affirm that a 757 did the impossible: fly inches above the ground (impossible due to the massive air pressure under the aircraft that would prevent a 757 at 530 mph from getting anywhere near that close to the ground); have the starboard engine smash through a generator (the starboard engine would have been torn off its pylon!); have the stalled vehicular traffic on Washington Boulevard unaffected by the 757's engines each spewing 21.5 tons of jet blast = 400 mph air blast; and the absence of singed grass on the lawn from the 1610 F gasses being pumped out of the engines.

A 757 can dive into the Pentagon, but it can't fly level, inches off the ground, at 530 mph. If it tries to, then it will do what eyewitness David Marra said, "The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building."

757's can and do experience ground effect when approaching the runway at landing speeds of 160 mph and have to lower the speed or else the aircraft will miss its touchdown window. Now imagine a 757 trying to get anywhere near the ground at 530 mph! And ground effect isn’t (as some charlatans say) a phenomenon of aircraft flying at the low speeds associated with landing. Until 9/11, ground effect was only seen in low speed approaches, however that doesn’t mean ground effect can only happen in low speed approaches! As the Bernoulli principal says when applied to winged aircraft, if the air flowing past the top surface of an aircraft wing is moving faster than the air flowing past the bottom surface then the pressure on the surfaces of the wing will be lower above than below. This pressure difference results in an upwards lift force. As you can see, the Bernoulli principal is about the relationship of speed INCREASES and air pressure on an aerofoil. As the speed increases, the air pressure under the wing increases, while the air pressure over the wing decresaes. The aircraft naturally moves upwards towards the weaker force.

Then we have my all time favorite eyewitness account of a 757 impacting the Pentagon. And this eyewitness is the jewel in the crown of eyewitnesses due to his working relationship with Donald Rumsfeld in the Office of the Secretary of Defense: Captain Lincoln Liebner, "the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck. "We got one guy out of the [fire truck] cab," he said."

It's unconscionable that some persons in the 9/11 Truth Movement put up with the ludicrous shit we're handed on this issue of a 757 impacting the Pentagon when it's obvious that a large commercial airliner didn't impact the Pentagon.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

true skeptics are forced to choose


Your earlier blog entry purported to show that these witnesses are witnesses to a SOUTH OF CITGO flight path. Yes, we all know that not just Hemphill, but all of the other witnesses, do indeed believe the plane hit the building. However, your blog tried to spin him as a witness who saw the plane fly on the SOUTH OF CITGO flight path. This involves the plane being not just south of the Citgo, but south of the Navy Annex and Columbia Pike at all times. This has now clearly been refuted beyond doubt with Ranke's call to Hemphill.

And you know that you have attempted to prove the official narrative via the South Path approach because you clearly understand the implications of the other flight path.

Craig Ranke recently debated someone and he put it succinctly: When eyewitnesses provide mutually exclusive claims, true skeptics are forced to choose. Are they wrong about the North Path, or about the impact? And in my view it's very unreasonable to think all 14+ interviewed eyewitnesses are all wrong about what truly amounts to a left vs. right claim. The damage path can only be explained by a (fake) flight path the witnesses all corroborate didn't exist.

To be fair, it wasn't his blog

Erik was re-printing a laughable blog from Adam, both Larsons, but no relation as far as I know.

As was commented at length at the time - it was not a list of "SoC" witnesses - it was a collection of short witnesses quotes, each accompanied with a tennous argument as to why they could be SoC witnesses and an un-justified conclusion that they were.

This list included "witnesses" who had publicly stated they did not witness any part of the event, witnesses who were verefiably NoC and many witnesses who comprehensively refuted the official story (ie. over the Navy Annex witnesses).

Erik recently declared it a triumph that Adam Syed did not manage to show that all of the names on the list were not at the Pentagon at all - I think this paints a pretty clear picture of how seriously the CIT detractors take their own claims.

They don't have to demonstrate them to be true - others have to prove them false. And we do, over and over and over again.

Doesn't seem to stop them or even slow them down though.... you'd almost think this wasn't about the truth for them.

It comes down to what is and is not possible. Simple really.

Yes, Hemphill says the plane hit the building, so does Lagasse, so does Boger (Turcios says he didn't see, although you still include him on your list as though he did).

They also say the plane flew north of Citgo. As does Brookes, Stafford, Prather, Middleton, Carter and others.

Clearly claiming the plane on the North does not "support the plane hitting the Pentagon" since a plane on the north cannot cause the damage to the building we know was there, far less take out the lightpoles which we know were down after the attack.

Their testimony actually puts forward two positions that are not compatible, forcing the honest researcher to consider which is the truth.

For me, it comes down to what is and what is not possible.

Now while both Middleton and Hemphill had good but not perfect views, when we look at Brookes, Stafford, Lagasse, Prather, Carter and Turcios we can agree that they are in the ideal position to judge the flight path of the plane in relation to nearby landmarks. Further, Brookes, Lagasse and Turcios had a judgement to make that was fundamental and simple: to their left, or their right?

What CIT detractors will do anything to avoid, is making a positive statement about what the view point they are promoting rests on, so I will make it clear:

In order to support his view, loosenuke and his friends are stating with confidence that it is not just possible, but likely that every last one of these witnessess, who of all the witnesses that day were in the perfect position to judge, who three of simply had to know which side of them the plane flew, all of them, every last one not just got the position of the plane drastically wrong - but that they all got it wrong in the same way.

Rest on that for a second.

While they will never make such a positive statement outloud - that is their position and their entire argument rests on your agreement that this is not just possible, but that it actually happened.

This is the bottom line of why I will always disagree with them. As far as I am concerned it is extremely unlikely for any of them to get a major detail like this wrong, and I find it absolute nonsense to suggest that not only did they all get it wrong, but that they all got it wrong in the same way. While the detractors of this research try to make it sound incredibly complicated, it's blindinly simple: Is what they suggest likely even remotely possible?

Can anyone here, including the multiple-account-downvoters who will no doubt now contrive to bury this post, really look them selves in the mirror and say they do believe this is possible?

I doubt it.

North Path and Impact simply cannot co-exist. Since the simplicity of the judgement and the extreme corroboration of the N.Path shows it is not possible that the witnesses are wrong about it, we need to ask ourselves whether or not it is possible for the witnesses to wrong about the impact; I believe it is.

We can split the witnesses to the event into two broad categories - those who saw the plane on its approach to the Pentagon, and those who only became aware of something amiss at the sight and/or sound of the explosion.

Of the witnesses we know of who saw the plane approach the Pentagon we can see a lot of diverse reactions - some were running in the opposite direction at the crucial point, other threw themselves to the floor or dived under or inside a vehicle. This is exactly how you would expect people to react and is certainly how I would react. Whether I would duck and cover my head, run away, dive behind an object or simply close my eyes the last thing I would expect to do were I that close to a plane hitting a building was remain calm with my eyes focussed on the event. If I didn't run away or take cover in the knowledge a plane was about to hit a building in front of me, then I would likely react by covering my face at emmergence of the huge explosion that followed. CIT's claim has always been that in this moment of panic and confusion no one would be focusing on the plane and in the instant afterward, everyone would be focused on the enormous fireball and the smoke; they would miss a fly over entirely.

Of the witnesses who only became aware of the event at the explosion, or who could hear but not see the plane before, it would seem more problematic. Surely dozens if not a hundred witnesses would have seen a huge plane flying away? Well yes, I think it is very likely that they did, but I find it very unlikely they would remain beleiving this was the same plane as the "attack jet" even if that had been their initial reaction. Stories were circulated in the press of a second plane flying directly over the first before flying away as the first hit. Anyone wondering why they saw a plane emmerge from over the Pentagon after hearing the explosion were given a simple answer wrapped in a bow. Nothing to see here.

Not everyone would be fooled at first, from Eric Dihle's testimony we know that more people around him were reporting a flyover than an impact in the moments after the attack, but we also know that when people see something or hear about something they do not want to believe, the mind is capable of some incredible gymnastics to avoiding accepting. Eric Dihle does not even remember making this statement today, and Roosevelte Roberts - on actually seeing a silver commerical jet liner flying away from the building - was happy to convince himself that there must have been two there at the same time.

The bottom line is to claim the plane hit the building is to claim that all the best placed witnesses made the same fundamental error in the same way about a very simple judgement. And that is something no rational person will agree with.

We agree on this

"As far as I am concerned it is extremely unlikely for any of them to get a major detail like this wrong, and I find it absolute nonsense to suggest that not only did they all get it wrong, but that they all got it wrong in the same way."

All these CIT witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Saying they were all deceived is just plain silly. [pun intended ;-)]

You might be able to convince yourself that they were deceived but you'll have a helluva time convincing anybody else.

Sepulveda said the landing gear was down and a wheel hit two light poles. Everyone else said the gear was up. Liebner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, There was no helicopter. Their stories are too far out and I have to rule them out as a valid witness.

Helicopter is Late


those eyewitnesses you list that say they saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon are obviously lying about that aspect of their testimony.

When it comes to the eyewitness testimony of Captain Lincoln Liebner one has to affirm that witnesses were planted at the scene. Why would the bastards who carried out 9/11 need planted eyewitnesses stressing a 757 flew into the building, when there would be plenty of eyewitnesses to the event?

A note on the helicopter. Just after the explosion, a helicopter was approaching the helipad. One can see it in the five CCTV stills leaked in March 2002. Eyewitnesses said that a helicopter went around the Pentagon, then when they lost sight of it, they heard an explosion. Some witnesses thought it was the helicopter that crashed. Anyway, the original official narrative was to have the helicopter on the helipad, but the helicopter didn't make it. My guess is the helicopter on the helipad would have been used to explain why the Pentagon's six missile batteries didn't activate: they are automatically deactivated upon an approach of an aircraft transmitting a friendly military transponder signal. Because the helicopter didn't make the helipad in time, the Pentagon was forced to lie and say the Pentagon had no missile defenses. Why? Because when Flight 77 was finally reacquired on radar approaching Washington, DC, the Pentagon would have alerted all military helicopters to stay clear of the Pentagon Reservation so as to not deactivate the missile batteries, thereby jeopardizing the Pentagon to an aircraft impact as seen earlier in the WTC.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

"Saying they were all deceived is just plain silly"


Sorry, but this argument of yours, which you keep repeating over and over, holds no water.

We were ALL deceived about 9/11 on many levels Chris. Those towers were so obviously exploded in front of our eyes, yet at the time, and for years after, even people like Richard Gage were deceived into believing the official story. Hard to believe now, isn't it, but for several years Gage quietly believed the official story and none of us had heard of him.

Also, if you've taken the time to watch National Security Alert in full, you'll know that Pentagon Police Officer Chadwick Brooks, who was at the Citgo and saw the plane fly on the north side, has been in contact with CIT after having watched their presentations. Brooks says CIT's findings are "very eye-opening" and "anything is possible" with regard to his being deceived about what really happened at the Pentagon.

So a Citgo Pentagon eyewitness admits he might have been deceived, but Chris Sarns, from behind the comfort of his computer, insists such a thing is "silly."

Sorry, Sarns, no sale.

And just out of curiosity, here's a question for you, since you seem to think of yourself as such an expert on this topic: if you concede the directional damage - including the 5 downed light poles - were caused by something other than the plane, what damage, then, did the plane do? I figure that if you are here in good faith, you will kindly answer this question. If you are not, you will somehow evade it.

I know a lot of people don't read long posts...

...and I know I make them. So here is a summary of the above:

"What CIT detractors will do anything to avoid, is making a positive statement about what the view point they are promoting rests on, so I will make it clear:

In order to support his view, loosenuke and his friends are stating with confidence that it is not just possible, but likely that every last one of these witnessess, who of all the witnesses that day were in the perfect position to judge, who three of simply had to know which side of them the plane flew, all of them, every last one not just got the position of the plane drastically wrong - but that they all got it wrong in the same way.

Rest on that for a second.

While they will never make such a positive statement outloud - that is their position and their entire argument rests on your agreement that this is not just possible, but that it actually happened.

This is the bottom line of why I will always disagree with them. As far as I am concerned it is extremely unlikely for any of them to get a major detail like this wrong, and I find it absolute nonsense to suggest that not only did they all get it wrong, but that they all got it wrong in the same way. While the detractors of this research try to make it sound incredibly complicated, it's blindinly simple: Is what they suggest likely, even remotely possible?"

"It's hard to say"

Hemphill repeatedly said that the plane passed "over my right shoulder". How far over he did not say. When asked if the plane could have passed to the south of the Vdot antenna he said that was "a little too far". So it seems the plane passed between a point to his right and a point to the left of the Vdot antenna.

When he was asked if the plane passed over the Citgo station he said "It is hard to say". When pressed further he said "..draw a line from the helipad straight back over the navy annex.." "I saw him clip a light pole". He made no mention of the plane banking steeply, which is consistent with his report of a straight line. Such a line would be only about half a roof length south of Citgo.

After he had heard most of the argument that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon in the official reported manner he said "I saw one plane and I saw it hit. It didn't pull up. It didn't turn right. It didn't turn left. It went right into the Pentagon. I saw what I saw"

It seems hard to see how this can be interpreted as sure evidence that the plane flew north of Citgo and that it missed the Pentagon.

If you are really interested in getting the truth about 9/11 out in the open, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the things that are known, like Nothing Should Have Hit the Pentagon. And explosives were used to bring down all three buildings at the WTC.

What is the point of this?

I don't see the point in any of these phone calls. If you're trying to "debunk" CIT why do you not make any effiort whatsoever to establish the flight path of the plane in your conversations?

All you are actually doing is muddying the witness pool and making it harder for other genuine researchers to contact these people.

Try and be a bit more responsible. If you are going to call 9/11 witnesses your concern should be to:

1) Ask them where the plane flew in relation to a) the navy annex b) the citgo gas station c) arlington cemetary. DO NOT LEAD THEM and double check everything;

2) Confirm every detail as much as possible. I.e. if they mention a light pole being clipped make sure they actually saw this, and are not referring to something they heard. If they say they saw it ask is it fell or went flying; we have seen witnesses who actually saw the "wobble" of the plane and assumed this was when it hit a light pole rather than actually seeing it, others like Hemphill saw a "flash" and assumed this came from metal on metal but did not see the light pole fall;

3) Ask them if the plane banked of if it flew straight;

4) Ask them what speed they estimate it was flying;

5) Ask if they saw any other planes, and if so how long after, what sort of plane, what altitude, what bearing.

Essentially what I am asking is that you act professional and get some actual useful testimony which we can use to find out what happened.

What you are doing is harmful not helpful to our cause.

I will echo professionalism is important...

I also will say Shure has come a long way....leaps and bounds, like. He used to be under the spell of a "troll-who-shall-not-be-named". Goes to show there's hope for sincere people everywhere....;-)

What would be interesting is any follow ups from the interviewee's--say thank you emails(without email addresses of course) or other feedback.

It's known as...

It's known as sabotage. How terribly unfortunate for the entire 9-11 Truth movement.

Jeffrey AKA shure is very polite

Craig is really obnoxious. Jeffrey had to keep apologizing to Mr. Hemphill.

Our Shure might be over doing it...

..in the other direction, but its a bit of alright. Better to be too polite than too rude.


Here are four people who saw a small commuter sized aircraft impact the Pentagon:

Steve Patterson saw a commuter aircraft holding 8 to 12 persons

Steven Gerard saw a 20 passenger corporate jet

D. S. Khavkin saw a small commercial aircraft

Don Wright agreed with Peter Jennings when Jennings asked if he saw a small commuter plane

Where are the burn marks on the grass from the engines spitting out 1610 F gasses?

The engines, inches off the ground, were spitting out the jet blast at approximately 400 mph! As Boeing says, "When modern jet engines are operated at rated thrust levels, the exhaust wake can exceed 375 mi/h (325 kn or 603 km/h) immediately aft of the engine exhaust nozzle. This exhaust flow field extends aft in a rapidly expanding cone, with portions of the flow field contacting and extending aft along the pavement surface (fig. 1). "

As far as Captain Lincoln Liebner is concerned, let's see if his story is consistent with what he reported on September 12, 2001 to ABC in Australia, "Captain Liebner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck. "We got one guy out of the [fire truck] cab," he said, adding he could hear people crying inside the wreckage."

Looks like things didn't go as planned at the Pentagon! A helicopter was supposed to be on the helipad, but didn't make it before the impact, and Captain Liebner got stuck telling the original official narrative before it was changed for the revised official narrative we all know today. And just who was that guy Captain Liebner rescued from the fire truck? There's no mention of it here: http://www.pbs.org/memorialdayconcert/stories/sept11.html

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

What's next, Mr. Shure?

What ground-breaking truth-seeking here, Jeff, too bad you don't understand a north-of-CITGO approach makes an impact causing the well-documented directional damage totally impossible - unless you can explain how the plane managed to magically spin around in milliseconds and hit all those light poles.. And too bad you have nothing coherent to say to all the people who've taken the time to point this out to you on various web boards you hang out on... What's next? Gonna find us some NIST engineers who will finally reveal how those fires and plane impacts really did cause the Towers to collapse? And you're going to find the head of that contingent of firefighters that was "pulled" and finally reveal what Lucky Larry was actually talking about? Pretty soon you will have us all believing in the official story again - congrats!

In the flyover theory

The directional damage to the Pentagon was caused by explosives. It had nothing to do with the plane. The same would be true if the plane flew into the Pentagon.

Same with the light poles. They were staged.

It doesn't bother you that no one on either side thinks this?

No one on either side of this debate sees any sense in this view of yours.

There is no evidence for it, no reason for it, no logic behind it.

It is simply the gynastics your mind has performed to reconcile the fact that:

a) You know the plane flew NoC

b) You don't want to be attacked for supporting CIT.

You did support CIT at first didn't you?

Then you found that view got you disrespected and downvoted and then suddenly you came up with this "fix it" theory of your - of light poles being planted, Lloyde's cab being staged, the directional damage being faked and the plane being blown up on impact - and the plane still hitting the building?

Is being loved more important to you than being dignified?

You know deep down what the NoC flight path means.


The directional damage

to the Pentagon leading to the hole in the C ring and the light poles were staged, according to the CIT flyover theory.

I agree with them on those points.

"You know deep down what the NoC flight path means."

Yes, it means the plane flew North of the Citgo station but it does not mean the plane flew over the Pentagon. Since the directional damage was staged it has nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon.

You are questioning my motives. That is improper forum decorum. Please stick to the evidence.

I'm not "questioning your motives"

That term, in the context it is used, would mean I was accusing you of being an "agent" of some kind. I do not beleive this to be the case and would not suggest it.

I think I am close to unique in this debate to being the only person to never accuse anyone else of being an "agent". There are always all too human reasons for completely unreasonable behaviour.

The bottom line is, you used to have the exact same conclusion everyone else (except B.Good) does, on both sides of this debate:

If the plane did fly NoC then it did not hit the building.

The reason people on both sides of this disagreement both agree on this is that there is no conceivable reason they would go to such lengths to stage so many things intended to make an impact inevitable - the light poles, the directional damage lining up the light poles, lloydes cab, the FDR data, the CCTV stills, the RADES data...

... if they intended to hit the buiding anyway. It is 100% risk for 0% gain.

I mean really? You beleive they brough Lloyde England in and faked the scene with his cab... for what? What conceivable benefit would there be for them taking such a huge risk?

There is also no evidence of the plane being blown up on impact, as you have suggested in the past. I note you are now embarrassed of that claim you used to make and prefer to doge the question of why there is no impact damage from a plane on the NoC path except to sheepishly support B.Good when he suggests complete evaporation of the boeing on impact(!!!!).

This is why I suggest that your "motive" here is to fool your self.

The scenario you have dreamed up whereby NoC can be true AND there was still an impact is so flaky, so illogical and so bereft of evidence, you cannot seriously expect anyone else to beleive it, or even beleive that deep down you yourself beleive it.

It is completely ad hoc.

Rather than drawing a conclusion based on the evidence, you have dreamed up a scenario where the evidence can fit the conclusion you want to come to...

... the conclusion which does not see you down voted, the conclusion which wins you no plaudits from the truth action clowns, the conclusion which sees you attacked continually by other "truthers"....

the HARD path to walk...

...otherwise known as the truth.

How does NoC prove flyover?

The lack of plane parts has been known for a long time. That has nothing to do with what flight path the plane was on.

The light poles have nothing to do with whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.

The damage to the wall looks like it could have been caused by an airplane, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. That damage is not conclusive one way or the other IMO.

In any case, the damage to the wall would be about the same on either the SoC or NoC flight paths.

So how does the NoC flight path prove flyover?

More than two sides to this issue

"No one on either side of this debate sees any sense in this view of yours."

I agree with Chris. He is precisely correct regarding what the evidence supports and does not support. Which of the "two sides" of the debate am I on? Neither side, because both of the sides you are thinking of are partly wrong. There is at least one more position in this debate which is that the plane flew north of Citgo AND hit the pentagon, but did not cause the directional damage.

One assumption by Craig and CIT supporters is that an impact with the Pentagon would leave evidence different from what we saw, even if we disregard the directional damage. Specifically, the debris on the lawn was surprisingly little, and this is additional support for the belief that the plane therefore must have flown over instead. But this is not a legitimate reason because a direct impact of a plane with a solid wall is actually expected to obliterate most of the plane. I gave a supporting argument here.

Also, damage from ground effect was not apparent. But I don't think I have seen enough analysis of this. Is the ground effect as strong even when the plane does not have its flaps fully extended and down, as it would in a normal approach for a landing? It was not trying to slow down. Also, since we are discounting the directional damage of the lightpoles, the plane did not need to be that low to the ground at that time.

Is there any other physical evidence that supports the argument that the plane could not have hit the pentagon?

My mistake

I had no idea there were more than two people (B.Good and C.Sarns) who think that NoC and impact are not mutually exclusive. Welcome to a very lonely club.

For your information, a plane flying into a wall is not supposed to disintegrate it.

A lot of people make this claim having seen a video of a fighter jet disintegrate on impact with a very specially designed wall. Why not actually listen to that video?

The point is that that wall was designed to shift and give way when struck, that is why the plane is obliterated.

Here are a few more "first hand" witnesses

who saw the plane hit the Pentagon:

37:56 of NSA
Ranke "Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: "Correct"

At 49:40 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see the plane hit the building?"
Sgt. Lagasse "Yes".

Sean Boger
"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."

That makes 8 "first hand" [live interview] witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

You don't listen do you?

Why do you post on discussion forums when your only intent is to say the same things over and over again with no reference to the responses those statements have been met with dozens of times in the past?

You keep saying the same thing

NoC proves the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Problem is, there is no proof to back that statement up.

Yes, it is proof in of itself

Beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

It is childs play to dream up UNREASONABLE doubts.

It is also the realm of debunkers to do so, and completely illogical.

No, it is not proof by itself

The argument about the NoC path proving flyover requires a couple other arguments besides the NoC path alone. And I believe you would acknowledge these other arguments, which I list below. So your title is incorrect.

There is the assumption that if the plane hit, there should have been a lot more debris on the lawn. But this has not been proven, and there is some evidence to the contrary.

There is the assumption that if the plane was low enough to the ground to hit the wall, there should be ground effect damage. But this has not been explored enough, as far as I know.

I think that you take these assumptions to be true so absolutely that you don't even need to state them, and therefore the NoC path is enough by itself to prove flyover. But if you look into why that claim might make sense, you have to admit you are making these assumptions.

There are probably some more assumptions about the damage to the wall itself. Note that I am not talking about any of the directional damage, other than the impact with the wall itself.

The NoC path does seems to prove that at least some of the directional damage had to have been faked, but that is because the NoC path appears to contradict the possibility of lining up with all the directional damage. There is still a possibility of taking out one or two of the light poles, though not all of them.

Actually, it very much is proof


The last sentence of your post was kind of amusing. You are the first person I've ever encountered who suggests the possibility that the plane hit one or two light poles while the other three were staged. Dare I say that's slightly... grasping? ;-)

Here's a WTC7 analogy: Even without Steven Jones' research, even without the nanothermite paper, the 2.25 seconds of complete freefall (as admitted by NIST) is in and of itself proof of a controlled demolition. Those 2.25 seconds are all we really need to know. The rest of the research is supplemental. Granted, on a psychological level, because so many people are resistant to such explosive [pun intended] evidence, the supplemental research re: nanothermite etc. adds to the strength of the case to win over the fence sitter. No one can deny the totality of the argument is more convincing after an analysis of the dust tests positive for explosives. But the 2.25 seconds of freefall constitute proof.

And admittedly, CIT's case would be strengthened by more flyover witnesses. As Ruff pointed out in a comment above, it would be a real feather in CIT's cap if a Pentagon eyewitness who saw the flyover, but has been to scared to talk all these years, were to suddenly stumble upon CIT's work, and get the courage to contact CIT and say: "You guys are correct. I saw the flyover. For the longest time I feared for my life were I to come forward, but now I've got the courage. Here I am."

But even without such an occurrence, the devil is in the details. And in this case, the detail is all in the flight path. You can go on demanding more proof until the cows come home, but at some point it is necessary to honestly look at the various pieces of conflicting evidence and face facts.

Laughter is not a legitimate argument

There were several witnesses who said they saw the plane hit one thing, and usually they don't know what it was that got hit, but they assume it was a light pole. I don't know of any witnesses who say that they saw 5 light poles get hit.

If the NoC path allows one or two light poles to be hit, why laugh it off as just silly? Prove it could not have happened, and then I will join you in communicating that proof to others. I need to get someone to try to prove it one way or another - I don't have the means to do that proof.

Your WTC 7 analogy would apply to something that is equally solid in its evidence and connection with the laws of physics, but that is not the case here. But even so, 2.25 seconds of freefall is not quite enough by itself, as a matter of fact. The freefall descent as if falling through a vacuum does require that there must be zero structural support that whole time, but one would have to furthermore show why there could not be zero structural support without controlled demolition. Not too hard to make that subsequent argument, but it is necessary nevertheless for a complete argument. In fact, debunkers are picking at that subsequent argument, trying to make it sound like the way the collapse occurred naturally (obviously) resulted in zero support.

Back to the pentagon, I am just trying to get you to understand the nature of the argument you are making, and how you are skipping past certain assumptions as if they were true, since they are so obviously true in your mind. It is counter-productive to argue as if everyone else should be making the same assumptions you do. I am trying to expose these assumptions to the light of day, so we can examine whether they really are obvious or supported by evidence.

I forgot to mention one other major assumption built into the argument that the NoC path "proves" a flyover, in addition to the other assumptions I listed before. And that assumption is that we don't have to worry about the *lack* of witnesses who unambiguously saw the plane fly in, the explosion occurred, and then the plane flew out over the pentagon on some unknown path. I would claim that the one and only eye witness, Roosevelt Roberts, is very ambiguous at best (e.g. the time he reported and the fly-over direction). I would expect there to be many more eye witnesses given the very loud and visible alert to look up and pay attention. This case would not hold up in court. Find me more witnesses, and I will be open to learning about them.

Laws of Physics


Thanks for the response. You and Richard Gage, then, would appear to differ in opinion here, because in his lectures, he definitely cites the free fall acceleration as evidence which constitutes proof.

With regard to the laws of physics and the PentaPlane: the official story of Flight 77's approach delineates a very specific, straight line trajectory. The question is not whether eyewitnesses saw with their own eyes all five light poles get downed. The real issue is that the official story requires that all five of the light poles were hit by the plane. (If you can find any official sources that admit any of the poles were staged I'd be interested to see them.)

And, if the plane flew over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo, it certainly, at the very least, could not have hit the "light pole no. 1," the one responsible for supposedly spearing the windshield of Lloyde England's taxi. These are basic laws of physics and indeed, the Pilots for 9/11 Truth have considered the possibility of whether the plane could have flown north of the Citgo and still maneuvered itself over to light pole no. 1, and it turns out to be aerodynamically impossible.

So, just to break this down: Even if you're not convinced there's a flyover, and EVEN if you think the plane could have hit one or two of the poles, the NoC flight path PROVES that the plane could not have hit light pole no. 1.

That, in and of itself, destroys the official story, and allows us to legitimately ask whether any of the light poles were struck by a plane.

With regard to Roosevelt Roberts: Yes, he did get the time wrong about the explosion; he said it was around 9:11-9:12 in the morning. Obviously we know he meant 9:38 because that's when it happened and there was no actual explosion in the Pentagon half an hour earlier.

And yes, it's regrettable that Roberts realized the implications of his testimony, clammed up, and refused to talk any further before he had a chance to draw his perception of the flyaway plane's flight path on an overhead the way the NoC witnesses have.

Roberts saw a large airliner, over the Pentagon parking lot, banking just above light poles, flying away from the building "ten seconds TOPS" after the explosion. But neither eyewitnesses, nor official sources, document two commercial aircraft on the scene of the Pentagon at the time of the explosion. The conclusion, therefore, that one is to draw, is that this plane flying away from the building could be only one plane: the PentaPlane.

I agree that more flyover witnesses would be nice. Only time will tell whether they'll be forthcoming.

the Laws of Physics are our friends

We are in strong agreement about the NoC path being contradictory to the official path through the light poles and the directional damage inside the pentagon. But CIT overstates the argument that this therefore constitutes proof of flyover, and this exaggerated claim thus tends to discredit all the other fine work they did, so I wish they would not do that.

I'll have to check again about their proof of the impossible banking maneuvers because it seems possible the plane was flying slower than the official speed, and to be most convincing, we would have to make the case given the slowest reasonable speed. This is the strongest case we have for an inside job regarding the pentagon hit (other than the very reasonable expectation that the plane should have been shot down), so let's not blow it by exaggerating anything.

Regarding Roosevelt Roberts, I wonder about "the explosion" he reports, since there was in fact a subsequent explosion after the initial event at 9:38. Perhaps the time he reported was not a half-hour early, but a half-hour late and his watch was set an hour off. Why did he think he knew what the time was? Maybe he really heard the building falling in on itself, which happened at 10:10, and then the jet that he observed was one of the later flyovers. Just a wild speculation, trying to take him at his word, but with a different interpretation. We'd have to explain how he could have missed the impact/explosion, which seems unlikely.

I know Richard, and I will ask him to clarify whether he considers freefall as evidence that constitutes proof by itself, or if it really requires the subsequent argument about lack of structural support, etc. He may consider it as so obvious as to not need stating, but because I have heard the most creative denials by debunkers, I try to leave nothing unstated. Check out my website, where I try to make the physics easy to understand: http://911PhysicsTruth.wetpaint.com/

the second explosion possibility

Actually, you are right that there was a second explosion some minutes later according to several reports. However, in Roberts' 2001 testimony to the Center for Military History, he explains that he was watching a TV monitor of the news of what was happening at the WTC. As he was watching the screen, the massive explosion occurred which triggered him to run outside, upon which he saw a large twin engine jetliner flying away.

It is not realistically conceivable to suggest that Roosevelt Roberts would have still been inside the Pentagon watching a television screen of the NYC events after his own building had been attacked. At that point the Pentagon would be in the process of being evacuated and besides, why would he stay in the building after it had been attacked? Given that multiple airliners had hit the WTC, if I were at the Pentagon I would assume that a second hijacked airliner might be heading for another wing of the Pentagon at that very moment.

Back To Square One

liberte says,

"I'll have to check again about their proof of the impossible banking maneuvers because it seems possible the plane was flying slower than the official speed, and to be most convincing, we would have to make the case given the slowest reasonable speed."

The slowest reasonable speed? That would be 180 mph for a 757. Now please tell me why half the 757 isn't protruding from the Pentagon? And how did a 180 mph 757 penetrate six wedge walls and six corridor walls within the wedges?

Also, the maneuvers required for what you're suggesting would stall the aircraft, if the aircraft were flying at 180 mph.

Now ZERO eyewitnesses said the aircraft made wild maneuvers just before impact, so we can lay that baby to bed.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Please read more carefully

brian78046 said: "The slowest reasonable speed? That would be 180 mph for a 757. Now please tell me why half the 757 isn't protruding from the Pentagon?"

Well, that wouldn't be reasonable then, would it? You've constructed a strawman argument. Let's try to be reasonable, shall we?

Are you sure the plane would have had to penetrate six wedge walls and six corridor walls? I read somewhere that the lower floor of the Pentagon had no other interior walls out to ring-C.

If you read what I wrote a little more carefully, it should be clear that I am not supporting the idea that the plane did cause the directional damage. But I am also trying to make it clear that we need to be more careful in how we prove it. It is not enough to merely claim what you feel is obvious. It sounds like you have experience with possible flight speeds and maneuvers at various speeds. That's good, and we need your expertise, but you should realize it is not good enough for the rest of us. We need to convince many more people before we can hope to be taken seriously.

Reminder: we are trying to convince people that there is no combination of speeds and maneuvers that will allow some NoC path to transition into the directional damage path.

Pentagon Complexities


something went into the Pentagon all right, but it wasn't a 757.

The light damage to the Pentagon's wall combined with Roosevelt Robert's testimony combined with Eric Dihle's associates' testimony is all I need. That combined with the dozens of planted agents on the scene attempting to convince us a 757 flew into the Pentagon.

Reasonable persons will naturally agree that Captain Lincoln Liebner's account is proof that a script was prepared. That will convince them that no 757 hit the Pentagon. Then again, I wouldn't discuss the Pentagon with novices to 9/11 Truth. It's too complex, like the WTC. Those two subjects can be approached later with the novice after you've shown them Operation Northwoods; Osama bin Laden's FBI Wanted page; the 9/11 Commission Report saying NORAD did monitor domestic aircraft over America on 9/11; and the 1993 WTC bomb being a FBI device...all topics covered by the mainstream media/press and readily provable of government malfeasance.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Do flyover witnesses exist

I'm not as familiar with most of you in the whole witness breakdown, but are there any witnesses to a flyover? I'd imagine there'd be several.

Roosevelt Roberts & Eric Dihle's Account

J Bax,

Pentagon Police officer Roosevelt Roberts said he saw the aircraft, "coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . . and it looks like . . . that plane was heading . . . southwest." -- http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18306

Some of his directions might not be correct, but the essence of what he says has the aircraft banking away over the south parking lot.

Eric Dihle said he ran outside of his building and the people there said a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEyarCH2xYM

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

What about Bobby Eberle, owner of Talon News?!

Remember that he was one of the first plants on the nearby highways who said he saw the plane fly over the highway?! Talon News was the org that Jeff Gannon/Guckery "worked for".

GOP -- Gay Old Party


I didn't know he was also there! Thanks!

More proof that a 757 did not impact the Pentagon.

Here's a snippet of an interview Eberle did:

Q: Is President George W. Bush doing a good job with homeland security?
A: Yes, I think they're doing a good job. The president was put in a very difficult situation on Sept. 11. On that day I was here in Washington and saw [American Airlines] Flight 77 fly right over my head and crash into the Pentagon. I saw it firsthand, so I am very sensitive on that issue. And I think that the way things have progressed, going after the Taliban, after al-Qaeda, going after Iraq, the president has shown the world that we're serious. Yes, we do need to have a foreign policy that is capable of engaging both American diplomacy and American military authority. I think Bush does just that.

What a freaking psychopath he is, along with all the rest!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

There are NO flyover witnesses

Roberts is not a flyover witness.
"coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side [north] and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area [west end of south parking lot], and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . [to the west of the Pentagon] . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.

The plane Mr. Roberts describes could not have been the plane approaching from the west. No airliner can make a turn anywhere near that tight.

Erik Dihle is not a witness, he only overheard conflicting accounts (by unknown persons who may not even have been witnesses).

“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."

CIT misrepresented this hearsay account by including the persons Dihle overheard who thought the plane kept going and leaving out the part where someone said the plane ran into the building. It is not known what if anything these people saw and no assumptions can be made.

Maria de la Cerda is not a flyover witness. Here is the double talk and omission CIT uses to justify calling her one:

NSA shows the .pdf file of her statement. The camera zooms in, excluding "it seemed" and just shows "like it struck the other side".
Center for Military History #567 pg 10
Maria says and the screen has the subtitle "Yea, my mind's eye I saw it hit on top."
They underline "I saw it hit on top" and ignore "my mind's eye".
“My sense of it was not that it was a side impact but rather that it was on top”.

In other words, she did not see an impact or a flyover with her eyes, she just thought it hit top.
If her quote makes any point at all it supports the fly into possibility, not the flyover possibility. She did not even imagine the plane flying away. However, since she is not a witness at all she should be included as one.

An analysis of the omissions and misrepresentations made in National Security Alert (NSA) can be found here:

Don't Put Words In My Mouth, It Makes You Look Defensive!


I didn't mention Maria de la Cerda, so don't insinuate I did! I also didn't mention Dewitt Roseborough, thought I listened to the following interview, and it's clear Dewitt Roseborough was told not to speak to anyone concerning what he saw. -- http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15593

Chris says, "Erik Dihle is not a witness, he only overheard conflicting accounts (by unknown persons who may not even have been witnesses)."

I didn't say Eric Dihle was an eyewitness, and I don't care if the witnesses he stood around are unknown. I only care that they contradict the official narrative, as does Captain Lincoln Liebner, whose 'the aircraft crashed into a helicopter' account surly suggests he wasn't at the scene or that he was reading from a script.

So Chris, let's put the best light on the good Captain (now a Major) Liebner and say that he was at the scene. Why do you think Captain Liebner lied about what he saw?

As for Roosevelt Roberts, he certainly is a fly over eyewitness. The loading dock (where he was) is in the center of the south side of the Pentagon. Flight 77 hit the Western side of the Pentagon, with the "official narrative" damage track within the Pentagon being northeasterly. In order to get over the south parking lot, the flight path would have to conform with CIT's and the NTSB's animation of Flight 77 coming in north of the Citgo station.

Folks, isn't it interesting that Roosevelt Roberts and Eric Dihle's witnesses say the same thing: first a bomb goes off, THEN they see the aircraft in the sky, and the aircraft flies away in both accounts also!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


One witness notes the absence of landing gear. Another says wheels clipped lampposts, or something to that effect. Did I misread, or is there a conflict?

Weakest link

I highly condone the spirit of investigation in many of you, but unless new evidence -physical evidence- appears, dealing with this issue is like beating a dead horse. But more importantly, what effect does this futility create. Well:

-if I was a 911 perpetrator seeking to undermine this movement, I would begin infiltration here. It is a heated and continually re-heated issue, a currently unsolvable issue no matter which "eye-witness" you source, and most importantly, it detracts everyone involved from putting their efforts elsewhere. It gets people who should be working together divided, and keeps them away from broadcasting more compelling arguments which are more provable with physical evidence, not mostly hearsay. While you may be sincere in your beliefs, it does not help because...

-if I was one of the uninformed so-called "sheeple" and saw people bickering and nit picking over this issue, I'd continue calling you loons. I recently re-watched the CBC 5th Estate episode. When CIT came on, with their disheveled style and tall claims (I am not suggesting untrue), any uninformed person that may have begun questioning the official story probably decided right then that all 911truthers were merely tin-foil-hat nut jobs. (Sorry to be blunt CIT, but if you want to be seen as respectable 911 spokesmen and hope to convince John Q. Public to take you seriously, then buy a suit and take a friggen shower) Holy cow, if by now people within the movement can't agree to flyover, how do you ever expect someone outside the movement to ever do so? And even if all truthers did agree, it is probably still the weakest argument since there is currently so little proof.

Whether the flyover theory is factual or not, everyone here must admit that if someone had any inclination to ever begin looking into the whole 911 truth issue (as a perpetrator would definitely NOT want someone to do) then, if anything, wouldn't you say that flyover theory is a very bad place to start. And accordingly, the exact place a perpetrator would want me to look.

Does 911 Truth has a mission statement? "Find out what really happened on 911", "Speculate on what possibly may have happened" , "Convince as many people as possible that such-and-such way is the truth" ? Well, how about this: "Get a new, open investigation of the events of 9/11". Can we agree on that? Yes? OK, how do we do it? Well, it must definitely involve more people than now. It must break into the mainstream. It must involve everyone here getting on the same page with the one single focus of a new investigation. No speculation. No bickering. No wasting time on futile aspects which can only be "proven" through selected testimony. There is a wealth of solid physical evidence which would compel a hell of a lot of people if it was given straight-forwardly and without being lumped together with unsubstantiated claims.

Since including Pac-Man on Google's homepage last week, it's estimated over 5 million work hours have been eaten up by people pointlessly playing a has-been game. Accordingly, how many hours have been lost to this whole fly-over run-around? And how many more?

Why only physical evidence?

15 people all corroborating each other on the flight path the plane took is as strong evidence as is needed that this is the path it took.

I'm not so sure..

I admit I haven't investigated this issue very much. But it seems there is a group here downplaying eyewitness testimony from multiple witnesses (not just 1,2 or 3 have you) that all corroborate each other. In my world, that is some of THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE.

1. You have an obviously staged crime scene at the Pentagon.
2. You have people who seem to be 'mistaken' in ways that just happen to corroborate the official (but obviously staged) explanation of what happened at the Pentagon
3. You have many corroborating witnesses placing the plane on an approach that contradicts the official story

What more do we need? Am I missing something because this looks like an obvious GOLD NUGGET.

Also, the criticizing of CIT is probably warranted to some extent. However, I think people greatly exaggerate the effect CIT's less-then-graceful approach has on what the evidence they've uncovered suggests.

I'm going to dive into their work and the discussion of the Pentagon for the next few weeks and chime in later. But I have to admit that, IMO, these guys have done a HUGE service to those of us interested in the whole truth about the attacks on 9/11/2001. Show me why they shouldn't be getting a heroes welcome by all of us?

Well said, J Bax

and I will only add that it is amazing how the Pentagon event is so perfect for 'the other side', in the sense that the true perpetrators must be laughing their heads off at us. We bicker between ourselves, and outsiders think we are nuts.

With all the video cameras present, they give us a few frames of ambiguous video and watch us fight.

I can only hope that someday we will know what really happened at the Pentagon. But this will only happen when the perpetrators are brought to justice. And then they will no longer be laughing.

I don't agree

On your idea, Jbax, of the TM mission statement being to get a new investigation. Yes, that would be good, yet I see it much differently. We are , each one, digging for what is true about what happened on 9/11. It's a process which may never end in a new investiation and still we simply keep unpeeling the onion! We are not fishing, hoping to get a catch. We are more like the innocent child in The Emperors New Clothes who clearly sees that the emperor is naked and says so! His voice is a wake-up call to all the others who haven't the courage to say what they see; no, they fear the crowd.
I don't hope to win converts so much as to awaken those who are ready to wake up and see. So there's no need to worry over scaring people off. The truth is frightening and in this case quite uncomfortable!! The work continues no matter if it's accepted or not.


You know what, I supported neither side in this argument, just point out its futility, but am still met with resistance.

I am told that conflicting witness reports are equal/more important than physical evidence.

I am told that instead of working on spreading the enormous amount of indisputable evidence which already exist, these already grounded and fantastically more convincing efforts should be put aside so that more weeks can be devoted to wallowing in conjecture.

I was even told that 911Truth is more like some kind of personal journey of spiritual awakening. A process which "may never end in a new investigation" and that some work is important whether its accepted or not. Then what is the point? Doing this with no plan of even achieving justice for all the victims? Doing this only to let mass murders roam free, and worse, continue governing us? Continue KILLING us? Are you kidding?? Seriously, once you get people to "wake up and see"... then what? We can all then be merry in La-La Land? Some kind of cosmic singularity of peace will envelope us? We can all say: "Well Bushy, you pulled a pretty good rouse on us. Nice try, but don't worry, I'll remember to vote for your brother."

You want to see what the Emperor is wearing? He is wearing an enigma. He is wearing a spinning top, which goes around and around and around, transfixing you with wasting your time and keeping you away from what he is really afraid of. And what does he fear most? Our potential for Collective Power.

You know what, CIT may be right, but THAT DOES NOT MATTER. The jury is still out. And the jury will continue being out on CIT, on CD, on WTC, on Shanksville, on bin Laden, on Iraq, on Afganistan... UNTIL there is a new investigation. NOBODY here knows the truth, so don't act like you ever will until there is a new investigation. So therefore, effort should be put towards this end, because endless speculation leads NOWHERE.

one mistake, my bad

I stated above that nobody here knows the truth. I could be wrong if, of course, you happen to be one of the perpetrators.

So for now, Mr. Perp, hats off to continuing the run-around. But don't think we will never get organized (I hope...)

The individual is all

Collective power is simply many individuals who are seeing something and saying what they see, acting on what they see. Think of it; if 99.9% of the people of the world see that building 7 wS a controlled demolition, that is what Bush and the perpetrators fear.
I feel that each one of us is powerful. Henry Thoreau expressed this. . "I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name - if ten honest men only, - at, if one honest man, In this state of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold elVes, were actually to withdraw from this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefore. It would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it mTters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever".
Just because Thoreau didn't live to see all of his hopes materialized, does that mean his work was meaningless and that he lived in vain? No!! He believed In the individual and rather than "engineering for all America, as Emerson wanted, he just did his own thing.
The jury is still out on Beauty, Love, godliness, truth of all kinds; nothing that truly matters is ever proved, still we can go on knowing what we know!
I see the means of 9/11truth as just as important as the end result - full investigation and the guilty ones brought to justice. I see so much beauty in all that has been happening. I have found myself loving and being uplifted by people who I have not even "met". I have learned so much at 9//11blogger. I have appreciated posts from people like Stefan, Adam Ruff, Adam Syed, Alison, Robert Rice, Influence Device, Leftwright, Robin Hordon, Professor Jones, and others.
I have read much of David Ray Griffin, watched and listened to Prof. Jones, Richard Gage.....how proud I was watching Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe respond so sincerely to Cbs.....I have been in awe of Craig Ranke as he courageously interviews and investigates.. I have been deeply touched listening to the music of Paul Tassopulos, and hearing his enthusastic voice as he. Rings people together to discuss their points of view ...
Who was not moved and inspired by Naomi Breeze as she compassionately shared 9/11 truth in the face of insults Inside a Catholic church?? Watching the freeway banner activist, seeing Bruno and Jeremy of Wacla fearlessly confronting people who don't w t to be asked, with hard questions, I have been inspired and awKened even more to 9/11 truth! The pilots, the firefighters, the artists, actors, journalists, family members, Jesse Ventura ....all individuals doing what they love, what they must and can do!
We don't need one 9/11 voice. We can keep trusting that the individual voices will get the job done.
We must love the truth more than we hate the liars!!
We have been conditioned by the society from our earliest years to always be working towards some all-important end, that who we are, what we are, what we do, right now. Is never quite enough. Until we can see this past conditioning, we cannot see much else.
"Then what is the point"? We just trust that what each of us is doing will have a cumulative effect. We don't have to get too hung up on being one organized, cohesive group!

"no social arrangement can be totally right. Until each individual is right there will be no way for the collective society to be right". Osho
"I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know it's friends froms it's foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it".
Thus the State never intentionally confronts a mans sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude?" - Henry Thoreau
These are the types of people whom Bush and the perpetrators fear!!!


Your response may be short but very unkind! I am raging and I am very earthly in my efforts to unearth this 9/11 mess of lies. Henry Thoreau was busy gathering huckleberries with the children and also FULLY engaged in ending slavery and standind up to his government! Try reading The Last Days of John Brown. Or Civil Disobediencd by Thoreau. Your insults tell me something about you!!

As I said...

As I said, I wish not to upset you, and I do not seek to stifle honest and meaningful efforts. But the biggest problem with futility is not knowing you are engaging in it.

You did not upset me, but you

You did not upset me, but you ARE stifling my honest and meaningful efforts to help in ways that I see to help. "Come back to earth, you nutter"??? That makes me sad for you that you find it helpful to this movement to attack a sincere person who is looking for the truth as you must be. If my efforts look futile to you, for that I am sorry!


"I really do not mean to upset you and your sincerity. Honestly."

Oh really? I don't believe you.

"Come back to earth, you nutter.
There's a fucking war going on.
-J Bax"

Am I missing something? Isn't LillyAnne replying to this long winded post by you:


Futility defined:

An accurate definition of futility: -continuing with this conversation.

Thanks jpass!!

I notice that the post attacking me by jbax has been removed. Perhaps he was embarrassed over his words to me. I honestly don't think he got a thing I was saying. I'm not upset just sorry for him

Don' get too excited...

Kind Madam,
You need not believe that I am embarrassed. I still stand by my words- ALL of them. Seems like the moderators (or someone) removed my post. Maybe because you or jpAss began immediately moaning to someone at the site.

But what I DO find odd is the fact that the single "rude" statement which probably got my post deleted (you know, the one where I questioned your sanity...) was allowed to be re-posted out of context (and it's still there) by jpAss, thereby making it look like I was ONLY questioning your sanity and not also stating how I felt an equal degree of compassion for you as well.

Just as well, I suppose, because I no longer believe those feelings are quite so equal. So in that way of thinking, good job Mods!

Recommended reading

For anyone who hasn't looked at them yet, there are some essays on CIT and their claims:

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show', Aug 1, 2009
At the heart of it, what CIT has really created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that day. Without any viable corroborating evidence for the claim that the plane never hit, but instead flew over the building, the filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise: "Everything was faked!"

Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce, July 26, 2009
Yet absent the success of these 'no Boeing' efforts, PentaCon couldn't have achieved anything like the notoriety it now enjoys, because acceptance of the no-757-crash premise is the key prerequisite to taking The PentaCon seriously. Instead of reconciling that premise with the vast body of eyewitness evidence by insisting that onlookers mistook a cruise missile or other small aircraft for a Boeing 757, The PentaCon holds that the witnesses were right about seeing a jetliner but were fooled into thinking that it crashed. The jetliner, we are told, disappeared behind the huge explosion and snuck away, unobserved.

The cart wheeling, wing digging, helicopter impacting Flight 77

Why should CIT pay any attention to official narrative eyewitnesses when those eyewitnesses say the damnedest things and are obviously reading from a prepared script?

I might remind everyone that FIRST a bomb went off, THEN Roosevelt Roberts saw the large airliner over the south parking lot. For those who don't understand what that means, I suggest you take a course in logic, or else stop playing politics.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


I read both those essays, didn't find them terribly impressive, to be honest, and was struck by a gaping contradiction: both those articles were put out within days of each other by two closely-affiliated people who supposedly agree with each other, and yet while Ashley's article creates the image that CIT are genius "con" men who have managed to deceive the entire movement including people like Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Ed Asner, Peter Dale Scott etc, in contrast Hoffman's article paints the picture that CIT are complete idiots promoting sheer lunacy that requires anyone who considers it to be on "crack" or "PCP".

So which is it? Are they genius con-men who have brilliantly duped the entire movement or are they whacked out lunatics with nothing but idiot drug addicts for supporters?

It can't be both.

At the end of the day

we don't know what hit the Pentagon. Just like we don't know the whole story of 911 and who did it. We do know that we have not had a true investigation.

The most important thing we know FOR SURE about what happened to the Pentagon is that the EVIDENCE is being surpressed. We know the evidence exists or at least at one time it did. Video was confiscated and never released.

What we need is to DEMAND to have the EVIDENCE released. We need to come together in a mutually strong position to demand the TRUTH the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH. That's why we call it the 911 TRUTH movement.

There is little doubt that this site has been infiltrated by individuals whose primary objective is not to expose the truth. They partition the movement with machiavelian tactics getting the true patriots to fight among themselves so as they can never build a strong consensus to confront the power behind the scenes. Topics like Zionism, Global Warming, Flyovers, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Kevin Barrett, David Corn seem to do the trick.


Yes sir, I believe you are hitting the nail right on the head.

Actually, it has become my recent experience (possibly see above, but I name no names) that an additional infiltration tactic may have been deployed. Though I expect a sh*tstorm to follow this post for saying so, (and I walk a fine line to satisfy the Mods) it could very well be possible that the site/movement could be becoming hijacked by anti-truthers posing themselves as, lets just say, less-than-rational-sounding-personalities which would detract from the seriousness of our plight and make us seem more like stereotypically flakey tin-foil-hat flower children.

Bax, before you accuse me

Hi J Bax,

Your comment was probably removed because it was blatantly inflammatory and insulting. Just like your most recent accusations. Your comment should have stayed as an example a blatant insult to another member of the community.

Pointing fingers and labeling people possible 'agents' is not a rational approach. It seems you are the one upset and acting irrationally. But, 911Blogger.com doesn't exactly foster a trusting environment IMO so I expect you to feel this way and I even encourage you to feel this way.

That said, you should contact people directly before pointing fingers. I for one have never had any communication with you so I find it hard to believe that one small exchange is enough for you to make accusations like this. Like I said, this 'community' does not foster trusting relationships or else you wouldn't be making these accusations about people you don't even know nor have ever communicated with beyond a few messages about single topic.

Why not send someone private correspondence prior to making such harsh accusation? Why not actually get to know the subjects before you publicly labeled as agents? In this time of instantaneous communication, all you really have to do is click a link. But instead you decide to quickly label well meaning, rational and loving activists as 'agents'. Who's really acting irrational here? Who's really acting like an agent?

I was not going to post this here but I noticed there is no way to contact you through private messages.

My contact form is always open. and if you want to 'investigate me' I do not hide behind anonymity. You could quite easily figure it out by spending long hours googling things. Or you could e-mail me and we can solve this mystery quickly, together.


Thankyou so much for saying to jbax and the others what I was feeling as well. It's as though we have to go around here proving we are not agents and anti- truthers! I'm too busy with my own 911 investigations and other impotant things like growing flowers!


Actually jpass, I never accused you of being half-a-bubble-off-level, nor did I subsequently accuse you of being an anti-truther. I am sorry if you feel I was doing so, however you were the one who consistently included yourself within my comments, thereby making it seem like I mocked your validity, yet I was never questioning YOUR core beliefs (Yes, we may have disagreed on the original topic of this blog: you seem to support CIT's efforts, while I feel pursuing it may be doing more harm than good, despite the possibility there may be credence in what they suggest. But this is not what the fuss is is all about).

Yes, I DID suggest the possibility that people MAY be using particular tactics to infiltrate the 911TM in order to: 1- reduce the appearance of 911Truth's perceived credibility; and/or 2- create disruption within. (whether you believe it was an intentional act of infiltration or not, you can not deny that BOTH of those results have come to pass within this single blog posting) However, again, I never accused you of ever doing it. So please, lets not drag this on by including yourself in my insinuations.

And Lillyann. I have no idea who you really are. Sorry. Admittingly, I may have been entirely incorrect about judging your style. As you will see here in this recent report on the findings of Sweden's Karolinska Institute, it could have been the prejudicial mark of history which made me question you, such that instead you might actually be an intensely creative soul...

...or then again, you may not be that creative at all.

Show "ok.." by jpass

I have to laugh when I hear

I have to laugh when I hear your description the the new infiltrators of 911blogger! "anti-truthers. .. Posing themselves as ..."less than rational sounding personalities ....which would detract from the seriousness of our plight and make us seem more like stereo-typically flakey tin-foil-hat flower children ".
Yeah, I work for Cass Sunstein ! If you were to see and know me, you would be embarrSsed at your own very poor sense of who is a real truther and who is not. I am an agent because I suggest that the individual process of exploring 911 is to be valued, no matter the outcome.
Am I a flake because I speak of mystics, beauty and love? If you read my earlier post you would see how passionate I am about uncovering the truth of 911.
George Bush, Cheney, and the others didn't care how the reached their goal ... and flowers were crushed!!!
We can be serious about 911 without becoming paranoid and fearful of agents and such. When I see people arguing and debating over important issues like CIT, I don't call them loons or crazies, I call them courageous and intelligent.
I did not whine to the moderators, I have never contacted them except to sign on here. So it must have been their decision to remove your post.
I don't wish to be a "respectable 911spokesman" so that I can be taken seriously. No, I want to simply say whatever I see about 911 in the best way that I can. That is good enough!!!
The Tm is not for the faint-hearted.
Thankyou real truther Paul Tassopulos for your beautiful piano music that I listened to as I wrote here.


Come on, Lillyann! You could give me a heart attack saying such things! I might not survive it!

"You will know them by their

"You will know them by their fruits"

For all you CIT diciples:

Anyone with ears to hear can tell who is what!

In case you didn't listen to the calls with Lee Evey, maybe you could do that before commenting!

Phone call to Lee Evey 05/17/10

Craig Ranke and myself calling Lee Evey:


Craig Ranke started harassing Mr. Evey and even I was bothered by it. That is why I had to speak up and say something. What Craig did was disgusting and he also conveniently left out the part of our conversation after we got off the phone with Lee in his recording. I however, left it in my recording becasue I have nothing to hide.

Craig compares Lee Evey to Dick Cheney and basically accused the man of planting bombs in the Pentagon!!!

If you don't see something wrong with the way Craig Ranke conducted himself in that phone call, there is nothing I can do to help you.

Please stop hijacking my posts with CIT garbage and go do something productive to help further the 9/11 cause.

Personal arguments are detramental

to this forum and the TM. Someone coming here for information will be turned off and turn away.This is exactly what the "opposition" likes to see and is no doubt encouraging these endless exchanges.

The best way to handle a personal comment is to not respond. It's hard sometimes to not answer but it will only evoke more of the same.

That's "detrimental", not "detramental", Chris

And you still didn't answer my question: if you concede the internal directional damage - including the 5 downed light poles - were caused by something other than the plane, what damage, then, did the plane do? If you don't want to look stupid, you might want to show folks reading out there that you are capable of answering this simple question (and spelling simple words correctly). Another question: how old are you?