Do you believe the Pentagon Fly-Over Theory as proposed by the Pentacon team (CIT)?

Already refuted

Unfortunately, if you were to put a poll on here about "Should Fetzer Stay" you would probably have had the same results because polling for popularity is about how many people can be duped by charismatic personalities and 'hype', not about the validity of anything that is being put up for the vote.

Validity requires reasoned debate and dialog among people who understand science.

A popularity contest is just that, popularity.

What intelligence agencies do is dupe people.

These ideas are all connected.

Intelligence agencies have had decades of experience doing duping and manipulating people, and countless unwitting suspects to experiment on using everything imaginable. That's a lot of data with which to keep a cover-up alive and well.

My guess -- and not just mine -- is that much of the Pentagon scam functions in these ways:

1) to distract from the powerful and provable evidences so activists and researchers will fight, instead of publish and document.

2) to excite people into believing a "magic show" went on and "everyone was fooled" into bizarre states of mind where no one notices jetliners flying over their heads, no one can identify one plane (even as they can identify the next one perfectly) etc. This also makes the Pentagon and it's workers seem invincible and capable of any feat. And pretty soon we have "PentaCon" where all the items on the lawn and in the path were "fake" and "planted" and everyone was essentially "hypnotized." This is the nonsense stuff they want us to spread all over the internet to tank us as credible people.

3) to lure people into promoting the idea that AA77 didn't hit to keep us sidelined to the DC families, to local DC activists, etc., the people who *saw* the plane or know someone who did.

4) to create a honeypot to easily blow us out of the water when it becomes necessary with one fell swoop -- just play the video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon all over the news stations over and over and over, and combine it with clips of notable members claiming a plane never could have hit there.

In other words, there are many many ways in which the Pentagon issue can be examined -- as Jon mentions -- but the extraordinary and baseless claims in "PentaCon" will mainly serve to tank our movement. Full on rebuttals have already been posted here so asking people to post all over again is a waste of time for most researchers.

ps. -- I missed the vote . . . so my vote doesn't count? You can guess what it would have been.


I haven't found anything in the 911Blogger archive about Griscom's hypothesis but they are worth a look at. He is prominently listed on the Patriots Question 911 website under the "US Government Scientists and Researchers" section. Here are some of the pdf's that come by way of his website:

and they go into some of his thinking on the fly-over hypothesis.

As a research scientist he takes a very methodical approach, following paths of inquiry to pretty conclusive ends, whether they appear plausible at first glance or not. He makes some interesting points, while making sure everyone knows that what he puts out there is by no means written in stone, and is only put up in the strictest sense of the term "hypothesis." In this strict sense, "theories" are supported by well researched facts, lack internal contradictions, and only after a good deal of back and forth are considered good theories. "Hypothesis," on the other hand, are working models that can serve to investigate a line of inquiry, but can not be taken as hard fact. If a working hypothesis lacks internal contradictions, fits well with established facts in the theory one is investigating, and prove immune to being debunked, they can be graduated to become part of the support structure of the larger theory.

The government's "surprise" theory is so full of holes and internal contradictions as to be laughable. The LIHOP and MIHOP theories have far fewer internal contradictions, and while incomplete from the lack of information being withheld or that has been destroyed, they are much better theories to use when thinking about 9/11. Griscom's hypothesis' about the fly over may apply to either, but as yet can only be thought of as working hypothesis'.

Worse than No Planers

911 blogger doesn't want to be associated with no planners but is willing to be associated with "truthers" who advocate the "theory" (and refuse to call it a theory) that working class ordinary Americans who were willing to help "911 truthers" by inviting them into their home and telling their story, be accused in the movies and websites as being accomplices in the horrible act of 9/11, while never given the chance to defend themselves against the accusations. 9/11 blogger thinks that's ok.? A direct quote.....
"This means that Lloyd England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder. . ..... he is most definitely a direct link to the perpetrators."

That's just one. Every witness who was nice enough to be willing to help and didn't give the testimony wanted, has been smeared as a lier and/or accomplice. Good luck getting people in the future to cooperate with independant 9/11 reseachers.
This is far far worse than no planes. 9/11 blogger should be setting an example of responsible 9/11 research and defend the truth movement, not help sink it.

"Lloyd's account is a

"Lloyd's account is a complete fabrication"

This is really too bad. Yet, predictable.

One could have easily said that Lloyd must have been mistaken or clearly got confused (not saying he was or wasn't) -- afterall, isn't that their claim for everyone in the multi-block vicinity anyway? -- but the PentaCon folks are the type that make baseless claims about everyone else's intentions, as though they are mind-readers and psychics who have omnicient viewpoints. We've all seen it over and over again. Why extend it onto witnesses themselves?

Very sad.


So, clearly then, knowing that the 911blogger user base is sharply divided on the issue, and having studied the CIT-related blogs here closely, and having seen that the theory has a lot of support here, and putting the theory up to a vote is of no value?

Why don't you do a blog entry (it would be your first here) with a detailed counterpoint to the CIT team, so that other 911blogger users can see what you are on about.

So that the minority vote doesn't feel slighted, I'll post links in a separate blog entry to the three harshest critical blogs out there on CIT, in the blogs section. A 10% win is not a "mandate".

As far as "no planners" (sic), every time a fakery post gets posted, it gets down-voted into oblivion. Not so with the CIT posts. That tells me something. Namely, that Fakery has no legs here. So you might as well drop that canard.

Not bad considering

Popular or not I'm in agreement with about the hardest views you'd hear. The results of this poll are in fact a testament to the quality of members at 911 Blogger. I'm sure a similar poll at other places would yield 80-97% in favor and the flyover, which passes almost as undeniable truth in such places. What do they really have? First-hand witness testimonies this is true. I always give them props for getting new evidence. But when some of their witnesses say things that are impossible, and the others are misread (what does 'out my window' or "north and west' or '2:00' mean?) No flyover witnesses? Look back to Eastman, your own flyover-proving witness NEEDS to think it hit, because everybody else did. TRICKERY is essential, even if you can't explain it, or no one will believe your witness who sticks out like a sore thumb. Just look at Turcios.... just a hint, a pull-up before impact, is almost too much since else saw anything but level or diving.

So Rep, if you'd like some counter-posts... It'd be my second. :)

That is...

Wrong. To elaborate... this statement, "This means that Lloyd England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder. . ..... he is most definitely a direct link to the perpetrators." That is wrong.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

I have a feeling...

They have just as much a clue about what happened at the Pentagon as I do. Do they have a video to show us exactly what happened at the Pentagon? No? Then this is just one of the many theories concerning the Pentagon that will be argued about for years to come. Argued about over and over again, with time wasted, and the issue never resolved. Time that could have been put to better use doing something active.

Edit: I see this post is getting voted down. Do they have a video showing a 757 flying over the Pentagon? No? Then we're in the same boat we've been in for 7 years. We don't know what happened at the Pentagon. However, we do know that evidence was withheld, and testimony omitted with regard to the Pentagon. It's not the crime that kills you, but the cover-up.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

By the way...

I know who DOES have the videos.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

And we know that...

... the Andrews Air Force Base was just 10 miles from the Pentagon, which was hit 35 minutes after the second tower had been hit.

Just how far is Andrews from the Pentagon?

I know it doesn't matter to much as it is close regardless, but I would just like to get my facts straight. Is it 10? I've heard 10, 11, 12 and 15 (the last in Loose Change Final Cut).

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

This should be easy to find out...

... but wasn't for me. Anyone?

Big base - depending on the

Big base - depending on the part of it, it's nearest edge is 11-12 miles from the actual Pentagon wall
They weren't doing nothing either/ They sent up te C-130, and the E4B....

Were those "sent up" after the Pentagon was hit?

Do you, by chance, have your source for that?

I guess the "nearest edge" or nearest runway used by fighters would both qualify as far as distance away goes.

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

That is the question

Of course, whether the base was 10 or 12 miles away from the Pentagon is totally unimportant. The important things are that it was SO CLOSE and the planes appeared in the Pentagon sky well after it was hit.

Could someone familiar with this post more info about -- when exactly the planes were sent from Andrews, when precisely they arrived, what is the official explanation for the late arrival, etc?

You're right, but I just wanted to be exact.

I'll just use 15 miles when I talk about the Pentagon's lack of timely air-cover, as it is the most conservative and still ridiculously close.

Paul Thompson's Timeline probably has that; inexcusably I don't yet own a copy...

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

Sorry no specifics handy -

Sorry no specifics handy - The 84 RADES data shows planes with flight paths matching the C130 and E4B taking off at I think 9:34? and 9:43. You can find this around - a good animation at Some say its fraudlent data. OBrien also says in interviews that he took off from Andrews, and I'm not sure if the E4B is supported as coming from there.

In my opinion, the poll

In my opinion, the poll should have had an "Uncecided" option, to gauge how large a proportion of the responders do not believe and do not not believe the fly-over theory. Due to the lack of it, I didn't vote.

agreed, an undecided option

an undecided option would have been much more conducive to an opinion on what happened at the Pentagon given current available evidence. Perhaps many leaned to 'no' siding with caution, at least in my case. Is the hypothesis supported by evidence is the question at least in my mind. The term believe, though probably more of a minor semantic peeve, has a connotation of faith implied, perhaps could have been phrases are you swayed by the evidence proposed by CIT to support the fly-over theory.

Info on poll.

This poll lasted just under a full day and was closed to the public. The polling was monitored for double-dipping and sock puppets. None was found. The poll reflects a pretty clear difference in opinion here, and the poll question was indeed phrased to get a sense of how many users are firmly opposed or firmly supportive of the fly-over theory. The poll closed with a double-digit "Yes" vote, (by one percent), but was single-digit most of the time, with an early sustained lead by the "No" vote. For the time being, CIT blogs will appear in the blog section, as there is a definite interest in the topic at this site.

a double digit margin is considered a strong win....

It's a bigger margin than Obama has over Clinton!

Let's be's no secret that 9/11 blogger has coddled the 757 impact conspiracy theory and has marginalized information that counters this notion.

It's no secret that CIT has had to fend off attacks and that we have had an uphill battle since we started posting here.

The fact that we won this poll AT ALL speaks volumes.

But imho the question was unfair and unscientific.

Scientists never put the theory before the evidence.

For example......the evidence in support of controlled demolition is not contingent on anyone's theory about exactly HOW the towers were brought down.

Similarly the evidence we present proving the plane flew on the north side of the citgo is not contingent on the flyover theory.

A more fair poll question would have been:

"Do you believe the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station as confirmed and independently corroborated by all the witnesses on the property?"

A question like that would have been about the evidence and people who were unfamiliar with the evidence would have likely refrained from voting.

As the poll question was posed anyone who is unfamiliar with the evidence would automatically vote no against the theory. And we STILL won!

The fact is there is not a reason on earth to dismiss the overwhelming evidence we present proving the plane came from east of the Potomac River and flew north of the former CITGO gas station.

The information we submit as blogs should be front paged without hesitation because it is always independent verifiable evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job and only a very few percentage of the submissions here (or anywhere) actually meet this description.

The fact that we literally have to defend what the actual genuine witnesses all independently assert even though it proves 9/11 was an inside job is simply mind boggling.

"Let's be frank..."

"Let's be's no secret that 9/11 blogger has coddled the 757 impact conspiracy theory and has marginalized information that counters this notion."

Yeah. That's the first thing that was going through my mind when I posted this:

February 2007.

"double-digit 'Yes' vote? ... single-digit most of the time"

What does a "double-digit" or "single-digit vote" mean?

When I first read this, I thought I understood, but upon rereading I realized I hadn't.

"10" v. "9" or "8" percent.

The poll did not reveal a 90 percent lopsidedness in either direction, for instance.