Prof Dr Legge,
thank you very much for your utmost important scientific work on issues 9/11, namely also on defining, game changing, "game over" Nanothermite Controlled Demolition Study of 2009.

Remarks on the considerably unclear "What hit Pentagon" issue.
1. As you say, many in the Movement believe "no plane hit Pentagon", and there really is no consensus at all, no hard evidence, or contradictory one, on what happened.
Well, there cannot be a consensus without knowing the facts - therefore without profound, unfettered new investigation.

2. We need to realize that we are trying to track, to recreate a fallacy, a fake theater scene operation - as nanothermite proves 9/11 is all staged controlled demolition.
This is different, and more difficult, tentative, guessing, than to investigate, to recreate a natural reality.

These two points, to me, are shifting the search for What happened at Pentagon to the sphere of little bit of an entertainment, speculation.

3. I think when referring to a "plane at Pentagon", we really need to be more specific. ..... What plane?
a) original hijacked 757 plane with hijackers, at the wheel .. -- by me, highly improbable, if not impossible - no -hard- evidence
b) original hijacked 757 plane with hijackers, remotely controlled .. -- plausible
c) switched out plane, either another 757 or smaller military one, remotely controlled, possibly other fake plane overfly .. -- plausible, and by me, this is what happened
d) a missile, possibly with conjunction with a smaller military plane .. -- plausible

4. We need to realize that
a) flight path -CIT Citizens Investigation Commission is bringing credible evidence via eye witnesses stating the plane flight path was not that offcial, Pentagon bound, therefore - an overflight
b) downed poles appear to be a flawed stage, as there is no damage to the ground around them
c) we have a lot of flat contradictory information and evidence, and by now, pool also must be getting tainted by intentionally misleading information
d) the round exit hole inside the Pentagon appears to be dug after the impact, as the sign "dig out" even says ... /? , therefore, unconnected to "what happened"

5. I am most troubled by the fact that years ago, analyses were stating that found airplane debris - rotors - are just "too small to be from 757". But lately I have read statements saying that they indeed can be from 757. ..Can you please comment on this?

6. Another flat troubling contradiction is a clean Pentagon lawn, indeed too small entry hole, seemingly no plane debris, the idea that unskilled pilot would land a plane where ground meets Pentagon wall .... yet, there are plane remains on pictures, suggesting they do come from AA 757.

7. I even do not want to mention earlier pictures of
a) open book at the 2. floor where plane hit, kerosine burned. Unburned, opened, paper book ?!! ... I be darned :/
b) wooden stool, unburned
c) a computer, a personal computer, from plastics, - unburned.
This would defy even any normal, factual reality. :] .... Would you please comment?

The point 7 might drive me to a contention that "everything is fake" at Pentagon, which it basically really is, as this all is, irrefutably, an inside, prepared operation, therefore to the contention of even "inside explosions", demolition of a roof line after the initial "aerial vehicle" impact.

Yes we can - yes we need - a new, independent, complete scientific investigation. Polygraph questioning for all involved official. As we all might be surprised who knew what, when, and who did not know, or knew partially. Who knew, but did not agree.
Very complex, and very serious issues.

Yes, that is us - 9/11 Truth Controlled Demolition Peace and Justice Great Patriotic Movement.

Let me forward one more thesis - we need to be aware, as this operation if by highest skilled, top professional level, therefore there undoubtedly will be parts of "intentional mistakes" - confusion, diversion, incredulity parts.

There also will be unintentional mistakes, as the operation is highly complex and yes, daring to carry out.
And further, there will be unintentional mistakes while carrying "intentional mistakes" parts of the whole operation. ....
I just want to illustrate, how utterly complex issues we are dealing with.

We need to keep all these facts in mind while trying to assess "what happened at Pentagon" before the real investigation starts.

And yes, I am sure US government is in possession of a number of clear photographs of all 9/11 attacks, from cameras and from satellites.
I think even foreign government must have detailed satellite footage of the scene. Down to reading a car license plates.

Am I correct?

Thank you,
Petr Buben
http://911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/911news - http://newsrecord.wordpress.com

...we run the risk of the government producing a video of AA 77 actually hitting the Pentagon.

While this was a reasonable fear early in the Movement, with each passing day, however, it becomes more and more out of place, imo. Two reasons:

1. Such revelation will hardly make a dent in the people who already are in the Movement. Why? Because every new face in it quickly learns about NUMEROUS discrepancies in official story. Any possible blowback related to one issue -- what hit the Pentagon -- therefore, will not serve as a reason for any truther to stop digging, become disillusioned and leave the Movement. The most this hypothetical video will do is to deter someone from joining the Movement. Perhaps even less than that -- postpone someone joining it, until he/she becomes aware of other numerous discrepancies in OCT.

2. Considering the above, what useful purpose would withholding the video serve in the presence of growing Truth Movement? What are they waiting for? Are they waiting for the Truth Movement to reach 50% of the population? Or 70%? Just like a wildfire, a grass-roots movement would be quashed most efficiently in the beginning, not when it has reached unsuppressable proportions, imo. By then, a small blowback by acknowledgeing one mistaken conclusion will not make any difference, whatsoever.

It seems quite far-fetched to belive that the videos have been withheld for the specific purpose of derailing the Truth Movement. The fact that quite a few bright minds in the Movement seem to seriously consider this dubious possibility is puzzling to me.

Dear Michael,

After listening to your most recent podcast featuring Frank Legge I felt compelled to write to you to explain to you why I disagree with your take on the issue of the Pentagon attack. As you started your broadcast with a brief biographical anecdote on your history with the issue, so will I.

After I accepted that 9/11 was a false flag attack and before I discovered that there was a network of 9/11 activists in the UK, I very much fitted into the category of keyboard warrior. I spent an unhealthy amount of my free time (and I'm not proud to say a lot of my paid hours as well) debating the issue on a mainstream political forum. Despite being just one pro-9/11 Truth poster against a forum hostile to the idea, I destroyed the anti-9/11 truth contingent in debate on a daily basis for months on end and on every issue I managed to win someone over. Every issue except one. The one debate I can hold my hands up and admit I lost was on the issue of the Pentagon. I made the mistake of saying that it would be impossible for the damage to the Pentagon to be caused by a large Boeing and failed to conclusively demonstrate that to be true. Despite the extreme abnormality of both the damage to the building and the wreckage allegedly left from the plane there was no ‘smoking gun’ at my disposal. There was no “freefall speed” or “molten metal” or clear impossibility which you could force an opponent into a corner with. Eventually having failed to convince a single person that the damage was not caused by the plane I dropped the issue.

When I first turned up at a 9/11 Truth Campaign meeting I explained to the people there that I didn't think we should focus on the Pentagon as it was an argument we could potentially lose, while we could not lose the argument with WTC7 or the Twin Towers. It was an unpopular view to say the least but I stuck to my guns because I was right. With the evidence we had then there was no disproving that the plane hit the Pentagon, however much we suspected it did not.

Sadly, many people are not able to sit comfortably with a question mark hanging over their heads. When we know something is not right but do not know what it is some of us chose to indulge in guess work and speculative theories began to spring up. There were three of them, the first two were wild guesses and third read like the ranting of a mad man on a soap box:

1. A global hawk hit the Pentagon.
2. A missile hit the Pentagon
3. The powers that be are trying to make us think the plane didn't hit the Pentagon so they can then release a genuine video of the plane doing just that to make us look stupid for saying one didn't.

While the first two were supported by no evidence, they at least sought to deal with the source problem that lead us to question the Pentagon; that it appeared very unlikely for a Boeing to have caused the damage we saw. The third was and it still is a paranoid fantasy and an embarrassing example of the worst kind of “outrageous conspiracy-theorism” still rampant within the online 9/11 truth community. If you can imagine it; it could be true. If enough people are imagining it at the same time, it is worthy of basing our entire strategy around.

I’m sorry to be brash but wtf???

You can slap the label "the precautionary principle" on it if you like but please don’t expect us to accept that giving it a science-sounding name makes it anything other than a fairy tale. As far as I know the works of the brothers Grimm never underwent peer review and I doubt the "booby trap" theory is going to either.

These outrageous conspiracies, which I term to mean theories based on a speculative answer to an evidential anomaly, came because we didn't have the evidence to form plausible hypotheses at that point. My view at the time was not to support any theory of what happened at the Pentagon but to wait while others continued to research it in the hope that one day we would gather enough information to get a clearer picture. That is now happening but you appear to be stuck in 2006, or at least doggedly defending a position you took in 2006, unable to see the forest for the trees.

You turned back the hands of time near the beginning of the broadcast when you said you were going to put eye witness testimony aside, which of course wipes a huge body of post 2006 evidence away. As you didn't mention contradictions the various sets of data have with each other and with the official story and as you had also put aside the issues of velocity, g-force and the like (quite rightly in this case; neither of us have the knowledge to make judgements on that sort of thing as laymen) we were essentially back in 2006 wholesale. And there we sat for the rest of the show, you sharing photographs of the Pentagon with me I'd already seen and telling me something I already knew: That from these photographs alone we cannot disprove the plane hit the building. You appear to have convinced yourself over the years that it is actually a perfectly reasonable pattern of damage and debris to have come from the claimed collision, and I am accepting that it is remotely possible but more likely untrue, but we are essentially on the same page there.

But we aren't in 2006 anymore Michael and it is not these photographs alone that we have in our possession, so why is it we cannot move on into the present day? Why is it you feel we should “put aside” all the eye witness testimony? Why did we selectively remove all of the evidence which did not conform to your preferred conclusion before commencing to discuss the issue?

The reason you gave was that eye witness testimony is unreliable. Of course any one eye witness’s testimony is unreliable; in fact it is almost guaranteed that every eye witness account will get at least a detail if not several details incorrect. Where eye witness testimony is useful both the judicial process and to investigation is when you find in a diverse body of testimony key points that corroborate one another. Corroboration found in the body of eye witness testimony is not only something we cannot "put aside" it is responsible in many court cases for helping establishing a just outcome to a trial.

Corroborated eye witness testimony is evidence, and it cannot just be excluded if it causes a problem to our preferred theory. We need to look at this evidence openly and rationally and consider the conclusions it leads us to. We have no problem doing this with the cases in New York. Richard Gage continues to present corroborated testimony of molten metal found beneath the three buildings as evidence for its existence as of course he should. He also notes how many people attested to feeling and hearing explosions within the towers, another instance of a detail in an otherwise confusing body of testimony earning relevance through corroboration.

As you may know, there are 14 confirmed witnesses CIT have presented who presently place the plane to the North of what was then called the Citgo gas station. When we look for competing evidence for the south of Citgo flight path (which is absolutely vital to the conclusion that the plane hit the building) we find no such corroboration. Many of these witnesses confirm other details in each other’s testimony, such as a path from the south to north of Columbia Pike, from south to north over the Navy Annex building and a strong bank the plane was performing as it passed the Citgo station and headed towards the Pentagon. This banking of the plane (also fatal to the south of Citgo flight path which must be straight from the first light pole to the face of the Pentagon) is rampant throughout the media mined unconfirmed body of testimony as well as that of these confirmed witnesses. While no two proposed flight paths are identical, from the placement of the plane in relation to the local major landmarks, and in relation to the eye witness themselves, we see clear corroboration on a scale that cannot be ignored. It is pretty clear from looking properly into the entire body of eye witness testimony that within the reasonable margins of error expected of eye witnesses they are all describing the same flight path from different vantage points. I doubt a court in the land (yours or mine) would not conclude in favour a detail as broadly confirmed as the north of Citgo flight path.

It is impossible to rationally conclude that they in fact saw a plane on the flight path your theory requires, as it is absurd that they all independently got every important detail regarding its path wrong in exactly the same way so as to coincidentally corroborate one another.

Yet this is precisely the scenario you are asking me to accept. Can you understand why I and many others would have a problem doing so?

And Michael, I have “done my home work”.

I have read all of Arabesque's articles on the subject, as I am sure you have.

I have read all Jim Hoffmann has written on the topic as I am sure you have.

I have read what Frank Legge, Victoria Ashley and Frustrating Fraud have had to say, as I'm sure you have.

I have also watched all of CIT’s presentations and their written counter arguments to the above party’s criticisms. Can you honestly say you have?

I always look at every side of an argument before drawing an opinion. I always check the footnotes and links and fact-check the claims. When I read the “debunking” articles regarding CIT and followed their own footnotes and checked on their own sources I found them to be illogical, poorly researched and in some cases nakedly dishonest. When I looked at CIT’s own counter arguments they were detailed, comprehensive and the sources all checked out. When I look for the responses to those responses, which should be the next step in a rational debate I find nothing. I find a continual repeating of the same initial arguments and a refusal to recognise or respond to the answers CIT have provided. I also see a pattern of ad hominem and censorship meeting anyone who tries to point this out.

A lot of people seem desperate for me to look at Arabesque’s lists of media-mined witness “quotes” who say the plane hit the building or the light poles. And I have. But I came in for heavy criticism if rather than scan the lists and hastily agree with the conclusions I take the time to look into each account to see whether it is reliable.

Could they see the Pentagon from their vantage point (very few could, there are only a few very small pockets on all of the highways around the building which had a view of the “impact zone”)? Are they actually quotes (a large number are written in the third person)? Were they even there (several have been proven not to be, a fact Arabesque has repeatedly been made aware of yet they remain on his lists)? Are they actually describing seeing a plane hit a light pole or just saying it did because they’d heard it (as at least two people who appeared to be saying they saw the light poles clipped have admitted to)? None of these questions seem to be welcomed by the contingent who demands you reject CIT’s research and I find this worrying.

By “homework” do you mean for us to engage in research and analysis, or do you want us to simply accept what the people you admire have told you on face value and do away with even the most basic level of commitment to fact-checking? If you mean the former I can assure you I have done just that, if you mean the latter then I am afraid I must resolutely refuse.

Throughout all of this no one will answer my very simple question as to what the explanation there can be for the corroboration of the north of Citgo flight path. Are the witnesses all lying and “in on it” as Frustrating Fraud claims? Or do you really believe it is statistically possible for all of these people to have made the exact same mistakes? Is there another reasonable explanation?

I have been showered with plenty of unreasonable explanations and insulted and censored when I refused to cave in and agree with them. I have been asked to take mistakes in other parts of individual witnesses testimony as a justification for dismissing the corroborated details in the whole body of testimony, as though it were not completely expected for individual testimony to be wrong in places and as though it were not the whole point that it is only when these witnesses corroborate each other on a detail that it is worthy of submission. I have been told to consider that since 9/11 was several years ago their memories have faded, as though at some point between 9/11 and today every witness’s visual memories did a mirror-flip overnight and left became right. Or perhaps the claim is that their memories slowly “drifted” and if you were to speak to the exactly half way between when CIT spoke with them and 9/11 then they would all attest to the planes being directly above their heads? Both absurd notions are negated by the fact that many of these witnesses attested to exactly the same details weeks after 9/11 and CIT were simply verifying them. I have been told that the witnesses are in such a small minority that they might as well just be ignored indeed Jim Hoffmann claimed just this on your previous show, stating that far more witnesses testify to a south of Citgo path and you agreed. Yet there is no evidence to support this claim whatsoever and unless you can provide some it must be categorised as misinformation which you have unwittingly helped to spread.

People who oppose this research appear to think it adequate to simply state it is ‘weak’ or ‘debunked’ but are unable to make a coherent case as to why. The proponents of this view have clustered and insulated themselves from debate. If we surround ourselves only with people who share our views, our arguments become weak, our understanding of an issue diminishes until eventually we begin to sink into an intellectual swamp whereby “truth” becomes whatever your in-group says it is, and all those outside of that in-group are lazily designated as “the enemy” and disregarded a priori.

I am not your enemy Michael; I'm just another person looking for the truth. If you have an explanation for why I should dismiss CIT, then I will be more than happy to listen to it and discuss it with you. But I would ask that you approach the issue in the only intellectually valid fashion, with a mind open to the fact that you might just be wrong, and I promise to do the same. When I first came across 9/11 truth I argued against it, but when I researched the issue thoroughly I had to accept I was wrong. When I first encountered CIT I argued against them, but after honestly viewing their evidence I came to realise I had been in error and admitted so. I can assure you my track record backs up my claim that I am always open to changing my position on an issue if the evidence can be provided to justify doing so.

So where do we go from here? My advice is to embrace the journalistic principle of the right to reply. You have now run two consecutive shows lambasting CIT either explicitly or indirectly. The only decent thing to do is to have a representative of the group onto the show to present their response. The longer you continue to speak out against this work yet remain unwilling to allow your audiences to hear both sides of the story the weaker your position will appear to be. If you are certain, as you seem to be, that the research is “debunked”, that it is “weak evidence” and that if we do our “homework” it falls apart, surely you could demolish them in a debate and put an end to this once and for all?

I would look forward to hearing such a debate, as I am sure would many others.

Best regards,

Stefan S

I do not see this as a legitimate debate. It is my opinion that many of those who argue in favor of this research (i.e. CIT, flyover theories) are not debating in good faith.

To those who choose to debate them: You cannot wake a man who feigns sleep.

This is just No-Planes Meme 2.0 - and anyone who has been around this movement for more than their 15 minutes of fame knows it..

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Loose Nuke said:

CIT interviewed Wheelhouse, McGraw, Zakhem, England (any others on public record?) and they confirmed the S side path, but CIT attacked them and dismissed their testimony.

Sorry, but these individuals confirmed no such thing, and upon examination their eyewitness testimony can not be believed given their POV with respect to the topography.

One by one:

Keith Wheelhouse

NOT in a position to see gas station or point of impact:

He marked his exact alleged location with an X so because we know for a fact that he would not have had a view of the Citgo or the official flight path from this location due to the topography and landscape, Keith can not fairly be considered a legitimate witness who saw the plane fly south of the former Citgo gas station. You can't be considered a witness to something you couldn't have seen.

Madeline Zakhem:

2. Zakhem refused to go on record for her claims and never provided an interview at all even after promising. Her account is proven false by infinitely more credible witnesses Paik and Morin. Even still, like Wheelhouse, she could not see the citgo at all from her location. You can't be a witness to something you can not see.

Madeline's Point of View (hint - no view of gas station):

Father McGraw

Most likely, he was not on the highway at all and the fact that he claims he didn't even realize he was next to the Pentagon is a good indicator that if he hypothetically was honest he would not have been able to point out his exact location on the highway anyway.

Realize he was one of CIT's first interviews ever and they knew nothing about the north side witnesses at the time, and simply did not even think to bring an overhead. So unfortunately, no picture exists of his supposed exact location.

It's clear McGraw's testimony is false though. He claims that upon other people jogging his memory, he remembers the plane cartwheeling into the building after hitting the ground first (clearly refuted by photos). Like Lloyd England and his dubious testimony, McGraw was used as part of the propaganda to sell the impact.

Most importantly he is NOT an SoC witness and the fact that he admits the plane had already passed over him is proof of that.

Finally, realize that the SoC and NoC paths are practically starting to converge by the time they get to route 27.

Finally, check out these rather bizarre photos. First of all, he claims he was on his way to a funeral when the Pentagon attack occurred. Under no circumstances is a priest to abandon a funeral. Yet he did so.

Strange, the body language on these guys.

The Pentagon is BLAZING, a man is sprinting by for his life, and McGraw and these guys are greeting each other as if for a business meeting, seemingly oblivious to the carnage right behind them.

Finally, Lloyd England

Well, if you believe this man I don't know what to tell you. He clearly is a part of the official propaganda machine whether he wanted to be or not. When he was confronted with the NoC evidence, he tried to change where he said his location was, while he was on camera. Off camera, but with the audio still recording, he correctly tells the truth about being "on the bridge." You can hear his wife (who works/worked for the FBI) actually say: "I know why the FBI didn't take the cab in for examination."

For all of the above reasons, these witnesses must be dismissed as being non-credible. This is not a case of CIT cherry picking their witnesses to support their pet theory. Any attempt to paint it as such is disingenuous.

In order to rebut the north side witnesses, one would need evidence of equal or greater strength. In this case, at least four people on the gas station property who are just as confident about the south approach as Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios and Middleton are emphatic about the north approach. No such eyewitnesses exist.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

The government made the plane hit pentagon claim without sufficient proof.
So it is propable there was no plane.
Is it the best 911 argument, no.

This is a response to Loose Nuke's comment of 10/2/09 at 10:11 p.m.

Keith Wheelhouse has been interviewed by CIT on camera at his summer home outside of Virgina Beach. His account has been proven false and he is arguably one of the witnesses most implicated as a part of the operation. You can view CIT's complete interview with him in their full-length supplemental presentation "How They Pulled It Off" and he is also featured in their video short "The 2nd Plane Cover Story".

Keith was a well known witness prior to our interview with him because he was heavily featured in a series of articles written for local newspaper the Daily Press by reporters Terry Scanlon and David Lerman in the first weeks after the attack that focused on a mysterious "second plane" that was allegedly in the airspace at the time of the attack. Wheelhouse was quoted going so far as to claim that this second plane was actually "shadowing" the American Airlines jet that allegedly slammed into the building.

If you follow the progression of these articles it is presented as if the identity of this plane was unknown until the reporters ultimately published a piece announcing that they had obtained confirmation from Pentagon official Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan that there was a C-130 and crew who "followed the aircraft" and "saw it crash into the building". This has been proven false and we'll explain how a bit later.

Here are the articles in chronological order for the record (right click and choose "save as" to download in PDF format):

Article #1:
HORRIFIC' IMAGE STILL HAUNTS SURRY WOMAN DISASTER VIEWED FROM ARLINGTON
Date published: Sept 14, 2001

Article #2:
HAMPTON ROADS WOMAN SAYS SHE, TOO, SAW PLANE FOLLOWING JET THAT HIT PENTAGON
Date published: Sept 15, 2001

Article #3:
C-130 CREW SAW PENTAGON STRIKE, OFFICIAL CONFIRMS
Date published: Oct 17, 2001

Keith's sister Pam Young is also referenced in the articles but in our interview you can hear Keith awkwardly volunteer that she "exaggerates some when she talks".

Since Wheelhouse was the only witness directly quoted claiming the second plane "shadowed" the airliner we knew it was important to get a hold of him to see if he would confirm this detail firsthand. He did.

To quote Craig:

It was not easy getting Wheelhouse to commit to an interview. We followed up with him for about a year and he was always uncooperative, impatient, and rather curt with us over the phone. During our November 2007 trip to Arlington we tried him again and he told us he was going to be painting his summer home and that we could show up there if we still wanted to interview him. Although it was a 3.5 hour drive from Arlington we did not hesitate to take him up on the offer. When he answered the door the confident demeanor we were used to over the phone was completely gone and he seemed rather surprised to see that we showed up at all.

In fact even as we started setting up the camera inside his house he seemed extremely nervous and a bit in denial of what was happening and strangely questioned, "so you want to video record me?" even though that was obviously the entire reason we were there to begin with and exactly what we had been trying to get him to agree to for the prior year. When we told him that we had interviewed other witnesses he went so far as to ask, "well what did they say?". We laughed off the question and did not tell him. Even more oddly, after we finished the interview, even though we didn't challenge his account, as we were packing up he said, "y'all aren't going to make me out to be a liar are ya?". Naturally this is an extremely odd question for someone who is being honest.

Keith claimed that he first saw both planes approach when they were only "maybe a mile out, half a mile out, two thirds of a mile out", so less than a mile. He claims he watched the C-130 veer away at the last moment just before a silver American Airlines jet slammed into the building on a descent angle after it "dropped its nose and gunned it". At the official speed of 460 knots during this final stretch it would only take about 7 seconds to reach the Pentagon from a mile out but let's take a closer look at his actual POV.

He indicated his exact alleged location in the cemetery on a map and admitted that he had no memory of the Citgo gas station and sure enough there is no view of the Citgo from the location he indicated at all.

Here is an image that he would later provide for us proving how the treeline blocked the view of the Pentagon making it impossible for him to have seen the alleged impact contrary to his claim.

Here is a panoramic gif of the entire area showing how he would have no view of the Citgo or the official flight at all let alone the alleged impact point:

Yet amazingly Keith Wheelhouse contradicted over a dozen other witnesses and illustrated the official south side flight path pretty much perfectly with no bank at all.

He marked his exact alleged location with an X so because we know for a fact that he would not have had a view of the Citgo or the official flight path from this location due to the topography and landscape, Keith can not fairly be considered a legitimate witness who saw the plane fly south of the former Citgo gas station. You can't be considered a witness to something you couldn't have seen.

Another extremely problematic claim by Keith is that he said he saw the two planes approach from only a mile or less out, yet he suggests that he watched them for a good "60 seconds". With the trees obstructing his view the most he would have seen a plane at the official speed on the official flight path would be a second or two of a mere flash in the distance.

Furthermore the direction he has the C-130 approaching from, and the location he has it turning away just before the Navy Annex, has been contradicted by every other witness CIT spoke with, specifically the Arlington Cemetery Employees who were right next to the area where Keith says he was located but in the maintenance yard with a clear view of the approach that is unobstructed by trees. They all independently said the C-130 approached from the northwest.

The on-location interviews with the Arlington Cemetery employees where they describe their encounter with the C-130 in detail can be viewed in CIT supplemental presentation "The North Side Flyover".

Even the alleged radar data that was officially released by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84 RADES) in 2007 contradicts Wheelhouse by showing an arrival about 90 seconds after the explosion that would appear to be coming from the south from Keith's POV, not more west as he illustrated. However this official data is also fatally contradicted by the other witnesses who all said the C-130 approached from the northwest indicating both the data and Wheelhouse's account are fraudulent.

So although the officials threw Keith Wheelhouse under the bus with the 2007 release of the 84 RADES alleged radar data, even their data has been proven fraudulent via the independently corroborated witnesses who unanimously describe a much different approach of this C-130.

But the most important point to remember is that all other evidence including all other witnesses have the C-130 flying into the scene a significant amount of time AFTER the explosion as opposed to in the last moment just before the explosion as claimed by Wheelhouse. Nobody else at all claims they saw the two planes flying together. The approach of the C-130 a few minutes later is also confirmed in photographs, video, and by statements from the C-130 pilot himself, Lt Col Steve O'Brien definitively proving Keith's account false.

O'Brien admitted via email correspondence with fellow pilot Robert Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth that he was so far away during the attack that he could not even tell the explosion was coming from the Pentagon.

When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC.
-C-130 Pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

So although air traffic control did ask O'Brien to turn around and report back on the attack jet, he never got a chance to "follow the aircraft" as stated by Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth McClellan and he certainly did not see it "crash into the building" because he was much too far away at the time.

This is independently confirmed with video evidence showing the C-130 flying into the scene recorded by Anthony Tribby who was driving on the 14th street bridge on highway 395. The C-130 appears about two minutes into the video while Tribby states at the beginning how he didn't turn on the camera until "approximately one minute after" the attack. This means the C-130 wasn't in the airspace above the Pentagon until about 3 minutes or 180 seconds later in stark contrast to both Wheelhouse's "shadow" claim and the 90 seconds indicated in the 84 RADES data.

View original video here and a close-up shot of the C-130 here.

The only possible way that Wheelhouse could be "innocent" would be if he simply lied for attention. When considering his reluctance to be interviewed and how convenient this is for the operation given the definitive evidence that the plane did not hit, CIT (and myself) finds this highly unlikely. The implications are clear. Wheelhouse's false account of a "shadowing" second plane that veered away from the building during the explosion served as a perfect cover for the flyover jet that was meant to fool people into believing it hit the building. It was expressly stated and implied in all media reports that the C-130 pilot and crew literally watched the plane impact the Pentagon when they have never made this claim. The exact details concerning its flight path and arrival time were a mystery until CIT asked questions on an investigative level to nail it all down. These important facts were left ambiguous by the media allowing various witness accounts floating around of another plane in the skies to serve as a plausible excuse for the witnesses who really saw the plane fly away during the explosion. Keith Wheelhouse's "shadowing" second plane story was critical to the success of the operation and worked wonders when conflated with legitimate accounts of the C-130 that really flew in the airspace about 3 minutes later.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

There were passengers on flight 77. Every one of them are dead. The passengers on flight 11 and 175 and flight 93 are dead to. The DNA and body parts were recovered at the scenes. Planes were flown into the WTC. If you believe the WTC towers were ready to be demolished with explosives, are you really going to cross your fingers and hold your breath and hope the hijackers who never flew passenger jets before would hit their targets? Or is it more logical to think the planes were in the control of the same perps who knew the towers were to be exploded? Which BTW would mean Flt 77 was also under control. If that were the case then flying over the pentagon would be incredibly stupid and unneccessary. No one saw a missile, and no one saw a flyover. What they saw was a plane fly into the building. How were the passengers disposed of? Not one of you no planers and flyover believers can tell us. But some of us go along with the rest of the world and realize they were where the rescue workers found them. At the locations of the plane crashes. That means the planes were not switched. It also confirms what the flight attendants told us before they died on their AIRPHONE calls. That also confirms that there were hijackers. Instead of saying "you go along with the official story", why not do some real research and realize that the AIRPHONE calls prove that the everyday person was doing their job on 9/11 most in a heroic manner, and that the military and civilian authorities knew that terrorist acts were taking place BEFORE any plane hit any building. You'd know that the plot to fly planes into buildings was a plot already 6 years old by the time of 9/11. And was known about ever since the capture of Ramzi Yousef. You'd know that CIA headquaters was an original target back in 1995 when Abdul Murad admitted it. If 9/11 was an inside job then certain components in the military and CIA would know it, and that the NRO building was staffed with members of the military and CIA and they were conducting an exercise on the morning of 9/11 of a plane flying into their building. Instead of saying the phone calls were fake you'd realize that the calls prove Rice and Bush knew that there was a terrorist act taking place before he stepped into the classroom. Instead of saying ordinary citizens like elderly cab drivers are "undercover agents" and making yourself look insane you'd realize that "plants" don't give out their name and personal information. Why don't one of you tell me the name and hometown of "the harley" guy? Go ahead and tell me he is an actor named Humphrey and make a fool of yourself. Go ahead and claim that "I support the official story" because I go along with the idea of hijackers, when you could instead point out how the money trail goes from the Saudi Embassy and Prince Bandar, to Saudi Agents assisting the hijackers. (FBI agent Steven Butler) Or perhaps you haven't figured out that Saudi Intelligence and Mossad are intelligence agencies that are much more "safe" than our own for some of this work? There is zero evidence of a flyover. There is lots of evidence of a plane crashing into the building. Saying the plane flew off into the wild blue yonder makes us look like idiots.

I think it's unfortunate that Wolsey doesn't want to have Craig/Aldo and Rob on his program after making such a big fuss about the Pentagon on his show, at which he and Legge do discuss CIT's research. Why not have them on to defend themselves?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb