.
The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path

Frank Legge
(B.Sc., Ph.D., Chemistry)
and
+David+Chandler
(B.S. Physics, M.S.,Mathematics)

September 2011

Introduction

The legal and political implications of 9/11 have turned scientific research in this area into a high stakes competition for the minds of the public. Pertinent information has been kept secret, the corporate media has systematically kept "damaging" information (such as video images of the World Trade Center Building 7) out of public view, 9/11 research has been marginalized, and the official investigations have failed to answer, or in many cases even address, the most troubling questions. One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, "straw men," the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed.

Peter Dale Scott has asked me to circulate the following statement:

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT's assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT's methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

Show notes and interview by: John Bursill

This timely and important Podcast is a MUST listen!

Listen here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1874

David who describes himself as a “pacifist” talks in great depth about his journey on the campaign for 9/11 Truth and Justice which he is passionately dedicated. Many of you may be aware it was David who is credited with getting NIST to admit WTC Building 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with free-fall due to gravity; which I and many others view as the single most powerful debating tool for us as 9/11 Truth advocates! David disputes he is solely responsible for this and says that Jones, Ryan and others were central to this achievement but it was his question that drew the answer in the end so it seems. David also talks about the highly political timing and nature of the NIST Building 7 report.

Gregg Roberts

Published January 8, 2011

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

        Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191

        German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

This article is a response to “Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?”, credited to “staff writers” at the Rock Creek Free Press, November 2010 edition, available at:

http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV4No11-Web.pdf

The “leading 9/11 Truth site” being referred to is 911Blogger.com. The authors of the article critiqued here chose to remain anonymous, and the article’s title doesn’t lend itself to an easily pronounceable acronym. Therefore I will refer to the article’s authors, along with their vocal message board sympathizers and Barrie Zwicker, as The Complainers. We will abbreviate Citizen Investigation Team as “CIT” and their video National Security Alert as “NSA” (noting the irony).

Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity on 9/11

If you watch our videos and read the links on our site (http://www.911speakout.org) you will understand why we assert that the weight of the evidence points to the fact that 9/11 was orchestrated by insiders…

* with access to high tech military-grade nano-energetic materials (aka nano-thermite)
* with access to the infrastructure of some of the most highly secure buildings in New York over an extended period of time
* with the expertise to accomplish the most difficult demolitions in history
* with the ability to manage public perception of the event despite numerous contrary contemporaneous eyewitness reports
* with the ability to coordinate the take-downs of the twin towers with the airplane flights
* with the ability to coordinate with the military to not intercept the airplane flights
* with the ability to stage a highly coordinated cover-up, starting on the day of 9/11 itself
* with the ability to prevent ANY investigation for many months

1 of 2

A well known, and often committed, logical fallacy is the false dilemma.^[1] When you consider two variables (US Government, Al Qaeda), you have the following, logically possible options:

That's four possibilities, not "either the US did it, or Al Qaeda did it". As you'll note, "neither" and "both" are also options.

What happens when we add Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

UPDATE 8/15/10: Added a segment about closing statements.

Originally posted: http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2010/08/cit-is-useless.html

Some time ago I wrote an article about the importance of not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that's not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn't mean they won't be zipping around spouting their flawed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.

There's an issue I just don't see talked about often enough in regards to CIT. People are ready to talk about the things I mentioned above and more. The contradicting testimony, the over-zealous nature of their followers, the fact that the testimony contradicts physical evidence, all these things that relate to debunking them. What I don't see talked about is how this all plays into the legal implications of what CIT is proposing.

Craig Ranke has written an extensive rebuttal to the piece Erik Larson wrote a couple weeks ago. Craig's rebuttal is entitled Dawn Vignola's Account vs. Erik Larson's Methods by CIT. I'll let readers go to the link to read the whole thing. Here are my own thoughts and highlights:

Larson's essay began with the following:

"From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony."

Craig correctly points out that Larson stated this particular aspect of the OCT as proven fact (AA77 hitting the Pentagon [whether piloted by Hanjour or remote control]), with "zero skepticism or objectivity applied whatsoever (it would be impossible for any witness to definitively tell that the plane was "Flight 77" or specifically tail# N644AA)."

12-31-09 revised 7-12-10

Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" by Chris Sarns

Like many others I was impressed with the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) video "National Security Alert" (NSA) when I saw it for the first time. I thought that the unanimous testimony of the witnesses confirmed the north flight path of American Airlines flight 77, but I could not see how that in any way proved their "flyover theory". I did not give the "flyover" theory much thought because it seemed to be a minor point. As it turns out, the strong evidence for the north flight path was just the "hook", and "flyover" was actually their main point.

visit original for hyperlinks and graphics - loose nuke

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...
THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED

Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
first posted August 12 2008
last update 10/11

NOTE: The full post isn’t done – I’ll be adding some details and graphics for a couple days. I've opted to simplify the process by not citing and linking to all my sources. Dig around if you have any doubts. Props to Mangoose at JREF for a couple of these leads.

“We Tried…”

Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Original Review:

Truth News Radio Australia features Craig Ranke of CIT

Hereward Fenton with TNRA welcomes Craig Ranke to discuss the important evidence CIT presents in their latest video National Security Alert and to address the latest paper by Australian truth movement personality Frank Legge.

For those fence sitters who haven't taken the time and have only a vague idea of what CIT's research is about, perhaps based on a quick skim of the blogs, and aren't sure whether CIT or their opposition are closer to the truth, it is interesting to note that within the first couple minutes of the show, the host makes it clear that he takes a very strong stand against disinformation. He points out that the "no planes at the WTC" is a blatant example. Then he makes clear that the Pentagon is another story, and indeed, that the video National+Security+Alert goes beyond speculation; it provides a very fine compilation of verifiable information.

Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper with additional notes and discussion, “What Hit the Pentagon?” The paper is available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue. In presenting this revision, Dr. Legge notes:

“This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.”

No doubt this revised version will encourage further discussion of what hit the Pentagon, and perhaps more importantly, a renewed push to obtain release of withheld video footage that will show unequivocally what hit the Pentagon – and a renewed interest in the whistleblower testimony of Secretary of Transportation (at the time) Norman Mineta.

Hyperlinks here:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/peter-dale-scott-does-not-end...

Dr. Peter Dale Scott, researcher, author and UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus, recently praised the latest video from CIT, ‘National Security Alert’. However, due to receiving many emails critical of CIT’s work, he issued a qualifying statement, which I asked for and received permission to post publicly. CIT’s film presents witnesses whose statements indicate, or seem to indicate, that American Airlines Flight 77 did not fly the path that we have been told knocked down light poles and caused the damage at the Pentagon, as well as the testimony of an apparent eyewitness to a plane that flew over the building. The film also contends that it is “conclusive” that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that instead it flew over the building. However, in his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott says, “I do not personally believe it.” He explains, “All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses…. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does.”

This is Dr. Scott’s statement at CIT’s website:

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Researcher Jim Hoffman

This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program long time 9-11 researcher Jim Hoffman. Jim is a software engineer who has specialized in developing new algorithms, applications is computational geometry, and scientific visualization. His work has been instrumental in significant new scientific discoveries and has been featured in articles in Nature, Scientific American, Science Digest and Science News.

(Update: this transcript is now no longer a transcript of the edited interview seen in "National Security Alert", but a transcript of the full version of the interview as shown in "The North Side Flyover", part 2.)

This is a first in a series of transcripts of CIT interviews. It is not an endorsement of CIT or flyover.

Transcripts can help to eliminate confusion about what witnesses literally said. If you find any crucial errors in this transcript, report them with a comment. If justified they'll eventually be corrected. Since blog posts go through a moderation queue the number of updates will be minimized.

You can either link to this blog post or you can copy & paste from it. For copying and pasting there is a HTML version at the bottom that you can use to improve readability.

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

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

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

On Wednesday night, I posted this poll:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15478

Because I knew that the 911blogger user base was sharply divided on the Fly-over theory, I was not seeking a wide-range of opinion. I wanted to see how many were for, or against, the specific theory. Yes, there could have been one more, or many more questions added to the poll, but I was interested in identifying the split.

On Thursday, I posted this blog entry from Craig of CIT:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15472

Responding to criticism from user "jimd3100", I posted links to three blogs critical of the CIT work on Friday:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15502

Shortly afterward, I was accused by Aldo of CIT:

"You are now guilty of promoting disinformation."

This was followed by Craig's comment:

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

This, despite the fact that I was (let me stress, WAS) an early supporter of the Pentacon film, and posted it on the front page of blogger, as soon as I finished watching it, in February of 2007;

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6423

Domenic of CIT added after that:

"Your support of government agent John Farmer and toilet scrubber Adam Larson and some obsessed clown named Arabesque exposes you for the gatekeeper you are Reprehensor. Let me guess you're just another anonymous clown in the gatekeeping world. Perhaps one of Randi;s kids from the JREF Forum posing as a truther."

All of this for posting one blog entry, with 3 links to criticism of CIT's work.

People seeking future releases from CIT, the "Citizen Investigation Team", should go directly to the Pentacon website.

They won't be promoted here.

My apologies to the user base here, but if the editor of the website can't provide a few links (links!) to some criticism, without being accused of "promoting disinformation", (with the history of my support for the early version of the Pentacon completely ignored), and then the ultimate insult, a JREF'er... a JREF'er indeed, what does the 45% user base in opposition have to look forward to? This kind of behavior is just not wanted here. It's disruptive.

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

By Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth

03/13/08 - "Beware The Ides Of March" could not be a more appropriate introduction to this article as it appears the government story regarding the events at the pentagon is officially dead. Thanks to the hard work done by Citizen Investigation Team, they alerted us to review figures regarding topography and obstacles along the flight path of American 77 according to the government story. Physically and aerodynamically, Arlington's unique topography and obstacles along American 77 "final leg" to the pentagon make this approach completely impossible as we will demonstrate.

According to the government, American 77 final approach to the pentagon is depicted below.

(Picture Courtesy Citizen Investigation Team, Click to Enlarge)

Props to Caustic Logic, creator of The Frustrating Fraud blog for agreeing to accept my challenge to a recorded debate. He has declined to discuss the info over the phone in the past but the fact that he finally agreed does add a notch of credibility/legitimacy to his truth seeking efforts in my opinion.

I must admit it was strange to hear him verbalize his contradictory explanation for the north side evidence.

Although he is a self proclaimed LIHOPer he has stated that he believes the most likely scenario is that all of the CITGO witnesses are part of the conspiracy and are planted operatives put out to spread disinformation that proves the official story false.

The irony in this is that he has to accept this wild conspiracy theory (with no evidence) as a method to dismiss what he asserts is a wild conspiracy theory (that is supported with strong evidence).