What To Make of the CIT/Pentagon Controversy?
Full disclosure here--I am utterly skeptical of the official conspiracy theory's claims that AA77 was what caused the damage at the Pentagon. To the extent that I have studied CIT's work and their flyover theory I think their evidence is compelling--it certainly makes more sense than the OCT.
What I find disturbing is the elaborateness of their project and what has become their centrality in the debate about AA77 and the Pentagon. I can also say that they have unfortunately provided a fair amount of ammunition to their critics, especially with their "face to the name" thread, which seems to me to be intended to intimidate their critics. Now, some of their critics don't deserve any kind of courtesy--I'm not criticizing them on that score. I will though point out that however much their critics may malign them, sinking to their level is hardly becoming of a pair of investigators who, if sincere, have every reason to present themselves in as serious a manner as befits the importance of their work.
Now I know that people will say "But Gretavo, you of all people telling someone to be serious and take the high road? Come on!" And they will have a point, to some extent. Do we mock people? Yes, indeed. But we draw the line at posting people's pictures along with their real names. Why? Because it serves no good purpose and creates a precedent where it can be done to anyone, even honest real truthers. If no one did it, and real truthers agreed to leave tactics like that to the perps and their apologists, we would maintain the focus on facts and ideas instead of on the people promoting them.
We also understand here at WTCD that our level of brutal honesty is not something that we can expect will be endorsed by movement leaders like David Griffin, whereas CIT must understand that DRG's endorsement is valuable to them and that they should not put DRG in a position where he must defend the work AND the individuals who put it together.
What I hope is not true is that CIT is yet another form of controlled opposition, couching their very legitimate work on the Pentagon controversy in terms that deliberately facilitate rebuttals by fake truthers. I have no desire to be compelled to defend anyone just because they are being attacked by fake truthers based on the fact that their work does indeed reveal "too much". Unfortunately it seems that the existence of CIT, in addition to giving us more data than we had before in the form of seemingly credible eyewitness interviews and analysis, has also obscured the real debate that should be taking place behind allegation and counter-allegation about CIT's methods and tactics. By design? I can't say, but just in case I urge everyone to keep the focus on the facts and not on the messengers. The (real) no-planers like Nico Haupt and Killtown were easily sussed out not because they are creepy individuals but because the facts simply did not fit their claims. Likewise the debate about the Pentagon should not center around whether Aldo and Craig are naughty or nice, but on the validity of the facts they have brought to light.
"What I find disturbing...
is the elaborateness of their project".
Can you elaborate on what you are disturbed about the "elaborateness of their project?" Is it because it seems improbable that just a couple of seemingly regular Joes would have the time and resources to take on such a huge organized effort? Their research project is quite impressive, and comprehensive. I especially like that they don't just look at the Pentagon (contrary to some recent big lies by the usual suspects) but they also look at Shanksville/UA93 "crash", WTC, and other aspects of 9/11, though the Pentagon has received the most focus and resources.
A healthy level of skepticism/cautiousness is called for in regards to any high profile group in the 9/11 truth movement. I waited till this year before I really took CIT seriously, though I've been following them for a few years. I've seen their work progress and their evidence accumulate until I finally agreed that they have definitively disproved the OCT of AA77 having crashed at the Pentagon, as well as provided what seams to be the most plausible alternative theory of any others I'v heard of that explains what might have actually happened. After their release of National Security Alert video last month, I felt that they had achieved a level of credibility to the point where I would recommend their latest video.
I've also watched how the attacks and smears against CIT become more venomous and shrill seemingly in direct proportion to their increasing quality of evidence and recognition. I've also noticed that their fiercest critics seem to be virtually all the usual suspects who have a history of either trying to divide the movement with LIHOP or of engaging in disinfo tactics on a consistent basis.
The "Face to the Names" thread on the CIT forum seems to be the focus of the most recent and troubling controversy about CIT. Some of the more shrill accusations suggest that it is a "hit list" or some such. I disagree. I don't see anything in that thread that suggests that the CIT folks are threatening or implying that those people will be stalked or attacked, beyond cyber insults and demands that most of those people debate them publicly (with the possible exception of one statement by Aldo in a possible humorous remark to another anonymous poster claiming to be the target boy's mother, which is probably a joke, that "kicking him in the teeth would be a good solution" to the "mother" asking what should she do with her son. Yea, it's very bad form, especially for a group of people who are trying to gain the respect and recognition as serious researchers, to use that language and humor on a public forum. They (CIT researchers) also claim that all of that information including names and pictures were obtained on public web pages. This may be mainly a case of a metaphorical sharing of notes amongst themselves, like "who are these people who are attacking us?".
After all the vicious attacks and unfair harassment that they've had to deal with from the get go, it's not surprising that people in that situation who appear to have dedicated so much of their time and resources for helping the cause of truth and offering what appears to be valuable evidence and research, to eventually react out of frustration and anger, and push back at what they are probably convinced is an organized professional disinformation campaign, by people who they are probably convinced are not sincere truthers, in ways that may not be the most diplomatic or saintly.
Have they made some mistakes that have given their opponents ammunition? Probably. Have they done things that make them beyond the pale? I don't think so. Are they human? Most likely.
yes :)
Is it because it seems improbable that just a couple of seemingly regular Joes would have the time and resources to take on such a huge organized effort?
I think I heard them say...
they worked at a software company or something similar, which means that they could be making pretty good money. A few trips to DC and hundreds of long distance phone calls over a few years, plus creating a web site with all the info, doesn't seem that out of the range of possibility for a few people like that to afford, including whatever other miner contributions they've received in donations.
i also find the access they got surprising
seems odd that members of the pentagon police would be willing (or allowed) to go on camera for a random interview with a couple of dudes...
Kinda makes ya wonder...
About that Richard Gage dude and how he can afford to spend so much time and money traveling around the country, even to other countries, giving all those presentations for the last few years, and all the time he spends on all the other stuff like research, creating presentation materials, etc. It’s hard to see how he can keep a job and do all that at the same time.
Or Griffin for that matter,
Or Griffin for that matter, with his aversion to all things Israel when it comes to 9/11. Ive had a personal experience with him that left me less than impressed in addition to noticing he refuses to touch the subject in public.
Hes more than willing to speculate about a lot of things(cell phone calls,ISI role,Saudi role,remote avionics etc.) but not Israels role. You wont hear the names Suter or Zakheim come out of his mouth too much, if ever. And im pretty sure he makes a point NOt to point out Silversteins deep connections with power players in Israeli politics.
I will continue to read and use Griffins work but i'll also continue to wonder what motivates him to stay silent on all things Israel and 9/11. Hes not a dumb guy, its not simply an oversight.
well, Griffin was retired to begin with
so I don't wonder about him because of funding issues. is his reluctance to delve into the evidence of possible Israeli complicity an issue for me? yes, of course. can I think of several reasons for his stance besides being an agent? yep. to use a different example, (and I know some people will love my saying this) I think it's absurd to believe we landed men on the moon over 40 years ago and are told we simply can't do it again until maybe 2028. To me that is such an obvious problem that I wonder how anyone could not at least have some doubts. Do I assume that anyone who claims to strongly believe the moon landings happened is being dishonest? Of course not--they're just not me, and don't see things exactly how I do.
the question is, should you trust anyone implicitly?
and the answer is no you should not. I'm mostly happy with the way Richard Gage has conducted himself, and no one can take away the fact that he is mostly responsible for the existence of AE911truth, which has been a very positive development for the movement. Does that mean he has no other agenda or that he isn't secretly funded? It does not prove it, no, so we are left judging him and others by their fruits. Gage's work has born good fruit, ergo so far so good. I can't say that nearly as strongly in the case of CIT. Can anyone say they would be absolutely shocked--not very surprised, I mean truly shocked--if tomorrow Richard Gage went on a prime time interview and discussed his alien abduction experiences? It would surprise me, yes. But would i be shocked, after our experiences with Fetzer, Shayler, and others? No. It would be surprising, saddening, and infuriating, but there is nothing to guarantee that it couldn't happen.
Pentagon Policemen
CIT provided an excuse for the Pentagon to deny further access to any Pentagon employee witnesses such as Lagasse, who have all since been forbidden to talk to anyone. Good job, Aldo and Craig.
Yes we work for a software company
Yes we work at a software company. This has now been released to the public thanks to a former employee who was fired for harassing Craig for his beliefs on 9/11. He's already divulged the fact that Craig makes six figures a year. Between the two of us and the DVD sales we are able to pull this off and then recoup our costs.
You really can't put a price tag on making history.
Not a huge organized effort at all.
Again, these were trip spread out. What like 4 or 5 trip over the course of a couple of years, offset by DVD sales. Not a huge feat at all.
Craig, did the second trip by himself without me. Well I was on the phone every step of the way, before and after every interview. He used my questions.
There is nothing improbable about what we've done. Anyone could have done it if they were determined enough. It simply took knowing the story inside and out, flying there, scheduling interviews, and filming them as we ask them very specific questions.
Just a bit of insight for you all
Most people here don't know the history on CIT.
Just so you all know, and most people don't know this, all of the evidence we obtained or at least initially went there and obtained was supposed to end up in Loose Change Final Cut (you can see us if you watch the end credits of LCFC). Craig and I both wanted to remain anonymous and continue to use our screen names. We never had any intentions to form a citizen investigation group (although I toyed with the idea). Avery spotted me and my research on the pentagon early on his forum and when I alluded to my idea of wanting to go there to figure out what happened he jumped all over it, co-opting his planned trip with the research trip I convinced Craig we needed to do. he essentially wanted me to act as a consultant for the Pentagon section along side Russell Pickering- another alleged researcher (we now believe infiltrator) and Avery's final choice for being a LCFC Pentagon consultant. When we got back from the first trip and were being attacked and minimized by Russell Pickering, we still tried giving Dylan rights to produce the pre-CIT evidence/research we ended up obtaining-which at that time was only Robert Turcios by phone and our belief in Lagasse's "starboard side" claim. Robert Turcios was out at the time we were there with Dylan. We spoke with his mgr Barb. She told us he was outside when he saw the plane, then she referenced the north side. Keep in mind this set off bells for me because I knew of Lagasse stating he was on the starboard side of the plane while at the Citgo. Instantly Craig and I knew the plane was fatally off course from the light poles and physical damage and we could only be dealing with a flyover. After we got back, I tried reaching Robert Turcios who was back from vacation. As timid as he was, he still referenced the north side of the gas station and VOLUNTEERED the pull-up over the highway. I nearly fell out of my chair when he told me about the pull-up. I knew for sure we had to have been dealing with a flyover. Exactly 10 days after that phone call and 5 days after announced what he told me they finally released the Citgo video-which conveniently seemed to be missing Robert (he was obviously edited out), leaving in Lagasse and his cruiser which they apparently didn't think we would get him on camera I guess lol. Other CIT "detractors" also love to use that video to point out a supposed shadow of the plane on the south side(obviously bunk). We knew we obviously needed to get Robert on video, preferably along with Lagasse at least. When we went back to interview, well ambush, Robert Turcios (he gave me three phone call/interviews, then claimed he couldn't talk to the press anymore because of a washington post article on Chavez and Citgo gas where he was quoted). We still offered an olive branch to Avery and asked him to come along on these interviews. He hinted around saying he would, but in the end he ended up not going through with it, without so much as even a phone call to us. So we continued on and Craig went to Arlington gaining the now historical interviews from Ed Paik, Robert Turcios, Sgt Brooks, and Sgt Lagasse. This would be a good time to comment on the "elaborate" nature of our investigation.
There really isn't much to it. We were detained on our first trip when we were at the Citgo with Dylan Avery and Mr Pickering. Oddly, but not surprising, Mr Pickering was cited as the reason we were detained. Basically Pentagon police told us he lied to Barb the Citgo mgr and told her we could film there, when signs expressly prohibit that. We had to endure an hour plus long detaining by multiple officers including suited ones. Complete with bomb sniffing dogs through our rental car, polaroids taken of us in the parking lot, and deep interrogation and questionaire. In the end the Pentagon police simply told us we could not film there or from there without approval. They told us "all you need to do is get approval and you guys are good man" they ended up being really cool in the end.
So when Craig was scheduling our first set of interviews he also took a shot in the dark and tried obtaining permission to film on the Citgo property. We were both surprised to learn that it was fairly easy to get permission ( I am sure that changed now after us). They allowed us to film there with a military escort. We told them it was for a documentary on 9/11 and not much more than the truth which was we were documenting the flight path of the plane and putting to rest the conspiracy theories about global hawks and missiles-which, again, was the truth. This was exactly what we told Lagasse and Brooks. So after Craig got approval to film at the Citgo, he called Sgt Brooks and Lagasse whom we had already been trying to schedule and interview with and told them we have approval to film there (this is how we convinced Robert Turcios as well). Let me state that these two weren't chomping at the bit to do it. They were making excuses and were treating it as a chore they didn't have much time for. Craig, bless his heart, convinced them it would only take a few minutes and they finally accepted and scheduled. On their interviews, we didn't need a Navy escort, the police officers acted as their own. Once the camera started rolling and the dialog commenced, you can see they were drawn in.
Again, there was not supposed to be CIT. But as the old saying goes, if you want something done right, do it yourself. That is exactly what we did. I coined the name CIT and PentaCon. Craig began working hard on the docs and filmaking skills. I knew while taking this the authorities we would need to market this to the masses as a back-up and as a safety precaution (getting our name in the light).
As for the Face with the Name, I feel that our detractors should have to show their face and have the spotlight shone on them. They tend to scatter like cockroaches when you do that. As for other 9/11 truth members they only recently got added to the list after their egregious attacks on us, our efforts, and our findings. I have no qualms about it. If you are a legitimate person and have done nothing wrong you shouldn't have to worry. IMO, I think more of us should put our names to our claims. We must galvanize our forces and stop being referred to as "truthers", we all have names and we are all concerned citizens. The only people you should fear reprisals from are the troyfromwv's types. The evil-doers in the know, probably already know who you all are and troyfromwv's can't get to all of us.
Just some thoughts.
Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Thanks for all your support guys.
Interesting background -- thanks
Welcome to the forum, Aldo.
Thanks Casseia
I just saw this blog on us and it made me realize I had to join and set the record the straight. That was definitely the short version lol. There is so much history here it is not even funny. But like I said, there wasn't supposed to even be a CIT.
To be honest with all of you, I knew deep in my heart the solution to understanding what happened with 9/11 meant going to the source or sources. That was my plan for CIT. CIT was actually supposed to be a network of very knowledgeable researchers across the country who would know a specific aspect of the story, be it the Pentagon, Shanksville, hijacker irregularities etc. IOW, I envisioned a team across the country who had the cajones to get out there and chase down leads, witnesses etc and match up their story to what you learned or the anomalies.
I felt this was very dangerous to do. I still think it is. But I simply had to know what happened at the Pentagon. I knew it was the only way we were ever going to know what happened. Simply go there and ask questions.
This same style of investigation can still be applied to the hijackers. Being there were two Ziad Jarrah's in two places at once and two Mohammad Atta's. We even learned some key information by visiting a neighborhood where Waleed Alsheri allegedly lived. The problem for the OS is this address/location was wiped from his OS.
I encourage more people to get involved. The hijackers need this attention very badly. The longer we wait the harder it will be to find neighbors the more people can write of their memories of events, faces, times, dates etc.
We have to investigate 9/11 ourselves from the ground up.
Aldo, thanks for stepping up.
I can say from reading your account of things that I'm satisfied that you guys are legit, and I hope you understand why we tend to err on the side of skepticism around here. Most people who post here have gotten shit from people who are most likely infiltrators because we refuse to play along with the consensus manufacturing (or attempts at it) that seem to be the raison d'etre of places like 911blogger. Figuring out the tangled web of deception not just of 9/11 itself but also of the truth movement is an uphill battle, but slowly and surely I think our efforts at calling out BS without concern for popularity is bearing fruit. Keep up the good work!
No Problemo
I understand. The conspiracy has made it hard to trust one another fully and completely. I have been suckered by some of the early shams. Like the stuff from Karl Schwarz. You can see how I even warned Dylan about the parts that he showed in LC1 and 2 EDIT: Well you used to be able to. Looks like Phil Jayhan edited the thread to omit like 4 or 5 pages. Hmmm. Interesting. Well here is the thread from way back: http://letsrollforums.com/karl-schwarz-wrong-aboutpentagon-t7760.html
Our findings are so definitive, so conclusive, we knew people would think it was too good to be true. So we understand why people would let their mind go there.
Thanks again for the welcome.
BTW, thanks for adding the pic. I could not add a pic for some reason. It would not save.
-Aldo
hope you don't mind
i swiped your avatar from the CIT forum so people aren't confused by your having the default "annoymouse" pic
Well, since you are here... let's get a few questions in...
First of all, I think you guys have done good honest work. Thought I don't fully support your conclusions, I think the campaign to discredit your efforts is uncalled for. I am not a supporter of Hoffman's by the way. Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, I don't care how much of the FBI's "evidence' Hoffman and his crew post on his site.
That being said... now let's get to your theory.
The biggest problem you have with the flyover theory is the planes' escape. How much sense does it make, from a planning standpoint, to create a huge explosion, get about a 100,000 pairs of eyes turned and looking at the Pentagon, just as a massive passenger jet flies at tree-top level just over the building?
Do you actually think people would be looking at the smoke? Or the massive plane firing it's engines to gain altitude right over the highway?
Doesn't make sense does it? Not to me it doesn't.
Please address that issue when you have a chance. And while you are at it, let me ask you this as well...
I agree that the light pole didn't hit the cab while it was traveling at 40mph. That much is pretty obvious.
But that doesn't mean LLoyd was in on it.
Try this on for size: The cab driver told you off camera that he "wasn't SUPPOSED" to be in on it. It was about "big people"... or something like that. Did you guys ever take that as a clue?
Perhaps the cab driver was just coming along and he saw the light pole there AFTER someone else dragged it out of the bushes. LLoyd wouldn't know that it was a set up. Perhaps he just saw an opportunity to get a new cab through the insurance? So he kicked his own window out, and made up the story.
Did that ever cross your minds? Now I don't read your site so I don't know if you have dealt with that issue before. Also, this is my site, American Everyman...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/
you can check out a few articles I did that deal with Hoffman and his crew. Got a good one done today actually. Also did a nice dissection of his nanothermite theory...
I just tell you that so you don't jump to conclusions and put me on your enemies list.
To me, what hit the Pentagon was probably a Global Hawk. It could have been painted to look a bit like Flight 77 and the wing span is just as big as a jet liner.
You have your 16 or so witnesses that report the North Approach, they have their 26 that say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and there are others who claim it was a "private jet" or a "business class jet"...
And of course, when people started investigating Global Hawks years ago, just also happens to be around the time the Hoffman crew started showing up "correcting" the dialogs in the chat rooms.
So, give me reply before I get relegated to "the list" (what is that by the way?)
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Jon Gold just took credit for the term "Truther"...
on Truefaction of all places...
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5839
See that? more proof. The entire movement is all about Jon Gold.
"In my mind, a "9/11 Truther" is someone who fights alongside the family members seeking truth..."
Ah, so only the guys who blatently propagandize anything they say by wrapping themselves in the "family Member Cloak of Invincibility" are actually "Truthers"? Ok. I'll accept that...
Me personally, I am a Truth Advocate. I don't need to sign every word I type with a link to the family members in order to use the sympathy people have for them to buy me credibility. I guess that is the difference between a Truth Advocate and a "Truther"... I am so glad Gold cleared that up for me.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Flies like honey
Hi Willy
Thanks for your kind words regarding your support of our work.
First off, I can certainly sense the angst in your tone regarding the list we have over at our forum. I am on your side and I explained above what the list is all about. I am not going to discuss it any further with you.
With that being said, let's get into your theory and incorrect assumptions about our work:
I don't fully support your conclusions,
You support the north side flight path don't you? You believe the witnesses correct? If you do, then you have no choice but to accept our conclusion of a north side flight path and a subsequent flyover. If the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, then it did not/could not hit the light poles/lloyd's cab, show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the dubious surveillance video, and cause the direction damage to the Pentagon. PERIOD. North side=flyover. Roosevelt Roberts=flyover. Erik Dihle's co workers=flyover.
That being said... now let's get to your theory.
What those witnesses saw is not a theory, Willy. Are you willing to tell them they only saw a theory?
The biggest problem you have with the flyover theory is the planes' escape. How much sense does it make, from a planning standpoint, to create a huge explosion, get about a 100,000 pairs of eyes turned and looking at the Pentagon, just as a massive passenger jet flies at tree-top level just over the building?
First of all that is an argument from personal incredulity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_personal_incredulity
Just because you can't believe that witnesses could see what happened and not come forward for you to see and hear does not mean they don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have the PRESENCE of evidence, that would be the 13+ north side eyewitnesses + Roosevelt Roberts (flyaway witness)+ Erik Dihle's co-workers (flyover witnesses. We also have the fraudulent alleged black box data as evidence that Flight 77 did not strike which also supports a flyover: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en
What proof do you have that there were 100,000 pairs of eyes? There are barely even 50 published accounts to an impact!!! You are simply exaggerating and making general claims with no evidence to back it up. The fact is you can't even see the Pentagon until you are right up on it. On the highways surrounding it and the highrises on Army-Navy drive. People were not staring out their window waiting for the event to happen. They were not staring at the planes flight path waiting for it to arrive. They were surprised. Use your pre-9/11 mind, don't use your post 9/11 conspiratorial mind. The highrise witnesses more than likely looked out there window AFTER the event happened. There are planes flying over and next to the Pentagon all day 24/7 every 2-3 minute, ascending and descending. It would be easy to mistake it as another plane. In fact, Roosevelt Roberts DID mistake it for another "second" plane. That is why he was willing to talk to us. Once he understood the implications he became scared and did not want to talk. How do I know? Because I made him aware of the implications after we interviewed him and both Craig and I were rebuffed by him "because it was all moving too fast" and "he didn't want to talk about it anymore". Again, if any witnesses saw the flyover event in its entirety, they would be scare to death to talk (especially after seeing glossy news repoters come out say they saw it hit) or they would be confused. Those who simply saw a plane flying away and a fire ball rising would be in the confused category as well. They easily could have thought it was a errant plane coming in for a landing at or departure from Reagan National Airport right next to the Pentagon. See our explanation of the 2nd plane cover story. It is all over our site.
Do you actually think people would be looking at the smoke? Or the massive plane firing it's engines to gain altitude right over the highway?
Huh? Robert Turcios and Darius Prather saw it pull up over the highway, then saw a fireball and assumed it hit. People in the distance would see a fireball rising (not a common sight) and their attention would be on that not the airliner ascending next to over the Pentagon (A COMMON SIGHT).
Doesn't make sense does it? Not to me it doesn't.
You should spend a little more time thinking about it. We have. Furthermore we have evidence that it happened.
I agree that the light pole didn't hit the cab while it was traveling at 40mph. That much is pretty obvious.
But that doesn't mean LLoyd was in on it.
The north side flight path, his virtual candid admission of involvement, his lie about not being on the bridge, and his ear to ear grin means he IS in on it.
Try this on for size: The cab driver told you off camera that he "wasn't SUPPOSED" to be in on it. It was about "big people"... or something like that. Did you guys ever take that as a clue?
Of course we did.
That is called distancing himself from the people he was involved with. He knew he was caught, now he was trying to ambiguously imply he wasn't supposed to be involved.
Try this on for size: If you "wasn't SUPPOSED" to be part of mass murder, would you be eager to go on camera and tell your story? Would you grin ear to ear?
Perhaps the cab driver was just coming along and he saw the light pole there AFTER someone else dragged it out of the bushes. LLoyd wouldn't know that it was a set up. Perhaps he just saw an opportunity to get a new cab through the insurance? So he kicked his own window out, and made up the story.
Please. And he damaged his dashboard and disconnected his seatback off the center hinge??? Come now. How did he do that before the other people showed up, including the photographer?
Did that ever cross your minds?
Yes and it is not viable.
Now I don't read your site
Therein lies the problem.
To me, what hit the Pentagon was probably a Global Hawk. It could have been painted to look a bit like Flight 77 and the wing span is just as big as a jet liner.
Well you are wrong. There was no Global Hawk. The wingspan is NOT as wide as a 757: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=621&st=0#entry2277398
There is NO evidence for a global hawk. Why in the world would swap our hard evidence (which you call a "theory") for an unsupported "theory"?
The global hawk, much like the missile, was a useful tool of disinformation. Again, there was NO global hawk.
You have your 16 or so witnesses that report the North Approach,
13+ and a flyaway witness.
they have their 26 that say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon,
Who? Who did they speak with? Who did they interview on camera, on location? Who did they speak with that put the plane on the south side or refutes our witnesses? 0! None. So they don't have 26 that say the plane hit or even explain HOW it hit approaching from the north side of the Citgo.
and there are others who claim it was a "private jet" or a "business class jet"...
And those less than 5 people were far away so it would look small. Steve Gerard, of the DoJ, I spoke with and he was very evasive. He behaved exactly as someone who was lying would behave. Again, this does not negate the north side approach a large commercial aircraft WHICH proves it did not hit the building or the light poles.
And of course, when people started investigating Global Hawks years ago, just also happens to be around the time the Hoffman crew started showing up "correcting" the dialogs in the chat rooms.
That is not evidence. That is your unsupported suspicion. THERE WAS NO GLOAAL HAWK. ANYWHERE.
Right up until you wrote this comment...
... I gave you guys the benefit of the doubt. Not anymore.
In one breath you uphold the validity of your 13 (+1) witnesses as if that is the ultimate "evidence"... and then completely dismiss the 26 who claim to have seen "Flight 77" hit the Pentagon. That's somewhat disingenuous, don't you think?
Another disingenuous point you keep making is that you can hardly see the Pentagon from the street level on the highways as the streets adjacent to it.
There are several videos out there, and photos, taken from multiple angles, all around the Pentagon, that show the street level view of the Pentagon.
Anyone can go to Mapquest and take a streetside view of 395 or 110 or Washington BLVD and CLEARLY see that people would have had a clear view of the building that morning. Even if they didn't already see 20 videos shot that day from all different sides of the building from street level.
"What those witnesses saw is not a theory, Willy. Are you willing to tell them they only saw a theory?"
I don't know what the witnesses saw. But if I based my conclusions solely on what the "majority" of the witnesses saw, I would have to say Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon. But, the physical evidence, and common sense says that isn't what happened.
So, to you it's all about 13 witnesses... and a cabbie who is probably guilty of nothing more than insurance fraud...
I just read a little of your site, and you yourself say that a Global Hawks wingspan IS large enough to have knocked down the poles, and that it is ONLY 10 feet smaller than that of a 757... funny you didn't mention that just now.
Why is it so important for you to keep repeating that it WAS a "large commercial jet"... and to yell in caps lock that there was no Global Hawk? Just curious.
"Please. And he damaged his dashboard and disconnected his seatback off the center hinge???"
Who is to say when that damage occurred? the point is, the light pole didn't cause the damage. We know that. Anything else, from you or from me, is an assumption, isn't it?
"There is NO evidence for a global hawk. Why in the world would swap our hard evidence (which you call a "theory") for an unsupported "theory"?"
13 witnesses is your "hard evidence"? Is that it?
What's completely obviously hypocritical about your 13 witnesses is the fact that you then spend 2 paragraphs speculating about why no one saw a massive 757 fly over the top of the Pentagon, right after they turned and looked at it when the thing blew up... and right next to 3 highways... at 9:30 in the morning, AFTER hearing on the news in their cars that 2 PLANES just hit the Twin Towers...
uhhh... what?
Let me hit you with this...
The light poles were staged. They were placed where they were found. Do you know why? Because, just like you said on your website that I just read, the Global Hawks wings couldn't withstand the contact with the poles, and they would have to be removed to get them out of the way. Right?
And let me ask you this... why is YELLING that no Global Hawk was there so important to you?
Your story and the Global Hawk are NOT mutually exclusive, are they?
According to you, the "large commercial airliner" was the distraction...
So how do you know it wasn't there to distract from an approaching drone aircraft whos cargo bay was loaded with high explosives?
Why so tense about the Global Hawk? What do actually think did the damage?
You really are pretty defensive here. That's odd if you ask me. A drone of some kind is the most logical hypothesis, but that has pretty much nothing to do with whether or not something flew by on a North approach. So why so defensive? Why so definitive about the Global Hawk?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
"26 who claim to have seen Flight 77 hit the Pentagon"
Willy, this issue about "all those witnesses who saw AA77 hit the Pentagon on the official flight path vs the 13/14 North of Citgo witnesses" has been discussed at length on this forum. You should read the thread I started here in which I began the discussion with Stefan's excellent deconstruction of Arabesque's manipulative witness claims (103 witnesses allegedly contradicting the 13 CIT witnesses).
Based on your arguments here in this thread so far, it appears that you haven't been following the discussions of the last few months in which we have re-hashed and analyzed all of the Pentagon witness claims and CIT's research through and through. Please read the thread I linked to above to get up to speed on this issue before going much further. Thanks.
I don't care what Arabesques FBI "witnesses" say...
I don't care what that guy said who claimed the wings "folded back into the plane"...
I don't care what NIST's "witness" says (CDI owner, BTW) when he claims the Towers couldn't have come down by controlled demolition...
... and frankly, I don't care anymore what CIT's 13 "witnesses" say anymore either.
Had his response to me been without obvious obfuscation, without obvious malice, without obvious contradictions to HIS OWN WRITING on his own website, I wouldn't call them into question...
but based on what that guy just wrote, I have to wonder about all this.
I have to wonder, is this just another way to keep people from considering a drone or a missile? After all, it IS all about Flight 77 flying toward the Pentagon... that DOES make that blip Flight 77 you know, according to the flyover theory...
And even though you may be able to cast aspersions on each and every one of the witnesses that aren't CIT's (which you can not do)...
you are STILL left with the fact that NO ONE SAW A MASSIVE 757 FLYING AT TREETOP LEVEL OVER A TRAFFIC JAM ON ROUTE 395
And I also know this...
I lived in Virginia. I lived in northern Va. and I worked in Tysons Corner for 4 months on a project. I KNOW what you can and can't see from the roads around the Pentagon because I have been there, I have driven around it MANY TIMES.
Look, I got no problem with these guys, but their story just doesn't add up. Then the guy starts caps-locking all his claims about "NO GLOBAL HAWK" that makes me kind of curious... especially when he ends his little chat BY DEFENDING HOFFMAN suggesting I had no "proof" that Hoffman came along to mislead people from looking at drones as possible weapons used here.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Willy, have you read the thread yet?
Just read it. The thread I linked has nothing to do with "the guy who said the wings folded back" or most of the other things you mentioned in your post. You are just ranting from a position of being uninformed (in that you haven't been following the discussions as we already have). Can you please just read the thread, at least the first part which contains Stefan's excellent article, titled At Arabesque’s Request: Are We CITing Comfortably? Then Let’s Begin…
Perhaps you can tone down your angry ranting and accusatory tone in the mean time? I'm a bit surprised at your rhetoric and tone on this thread as previously I've come to respect you as a reasonable and thoughtful person based on your posts on other issues.
What I said was... I don't care about all the conflicting...
"witnesses". and I cited other "conflicting witnesses" to show you what I meant.
We don't need to spend weeks and months and years debating whose "witnesses" are more credible than whos. That is my point. It is not a rant. it is a statement of principle. It is how I feel about it. That's wrong?
"Accusatory tone"? really?
Did you read Aldo's statement? Let me quote from his comment below...
Aldo said: "You are behaving exactly as a disinfo operative would."
Aldo said: "you are really starting to come off like a provocateur"
Also said: "You are behaving EXACTLY like the cointel types I have ran into elsewhere"
Also said: "Jim Hoffman is that you? LOL."
Aldo said: "You go on with your conspiracy theory."
Aldo said: "no need for more baseless conspiracy theories"
and I am being "accusatory"?
The point I am making is not unique. The CIT 13 witnesses, though they may be interesting, they do not "prove" a fly-over. That is quite a leap for someone to make. Especially when no one has seen the flyover.
They are leaping to a conclusion that is not rooted in the evidence.
In fact, some of CIT's own witnesses stated they thought the plane hit the Pentagon. Why is one part of their statement worth taking to congress and the rest, worth leaving out?
Doesn't that make their case even weaker?
I started this off simply presenting some valid questions to this researcher about his conclusions, what I got back, was not rational discourse. This is NOT uncommon behavior for Aldo, is it? In fact, I believe this kind of behavior has become par for the course. In fact it's mentioned above in the original article above.
I think it's funny actually. For someone to sit here and argue that no one seeing the flyover isn't evidence that it didn't happen, and then in the same breath say that a Global Hawk COULDN'T have hit the Pentagon because NO ONE SAW IT HAPPEN is just plain funny to me.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Actually, you are the one coming off as not rational
Basically you are letting it be known that you have no interest in an evidence-based discussion at this point, and that includes analysis and dissection of eyewitness statements, while at the same time you continue to make many absolute claims (many of which are false) about witnesses and what not. You refuse to be challenged on your claims, though you reserve the right to hand wave and dismiss and ridicule the claims and evidence from others who have spent much more time than you researching the issue.
You have apparently made up your mind that there was a Global Hawk and that Aldo and CIT are full of bunk. That is at least one of your agendas that I can identify. I'm not impressed at all by your behavior on this thread. Unless there is a change of attitude on your part in which you shift from ad-hominem-based discussion to evidence-based discussion, I have to conclude that you are not here as a genuine truth advocate but are pushing an agenda as a provocateur or disinformationist.
ah. So not only does Aldo come in here and accuse....
... me of being a disinfo agent and a provocateur, but so does his main supporter. Why am I not surprised? And who have I accused? Him? you? no one at this point. I just found his instant anger a bit odd. But apparently he does that.
As I stated above, I simply asked him questions about his theory, what I got back in return was attitude. You will never see that behavior. All too often in this movement we seem to attach ourselves to personalities rather than evidence.
Again, like I said above (I don't know how pleasant I can be and still be accused of all kinds of lovely things) the discrepancies in the witness testimony that CIT found is interesting.
But in and of itself, does it prove a "fly over"? No. It doesn't. In fact, without the flyover, it doesn't fit with the damage field inside the Pentagon. So without the "fly over" the question becomes, what happened to the plane?
Which "absolute statements" did I make that are false?
I haven't refused to be challenged on my claims. challenge me. Show me that you can't see the Pentagon clearly from 395. Show me that there was no traffic that day. Show me that someone actually saw a massive 757 fly over the Pentagon after everyone turned and looked at the Pentagon when the explosion occurred.
Or better yet, just explain Aldo's logic to me: that the "flyover" must have happened even though no one saw it yet a cruise missile or Global Hawk couldn't have been used ... because no one saw it.
and that isn't an ad hom attack... that is the argument the man is making. If you take a second and step back to get some perspective, you will see that.
So far I have just been accused of being a disinfo agent and asked to read someone elses articles about going back and forth as too which "witnesses" are credible.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
You are a liar
You have not "simply asked him questions about his theory", and you know that full well. Your attacks and style of arguments, along with your unwillingness to read or respond to counter arguments and counter claims, are very much in line with the bahavior of a disinformationist. I am not accusing you of being a disinfo agent, I am comparing your behavior and rhetoric to that typically displayed by disinformationists, and I stand by that 100%.
If you really think you have been "pleasant" to Aldo, you are delusional beyond belief.
At this point, Willy, I have an extremely hard time believing you are an honest truth advocate.
And now I am a "liar" as well? nice....
Let's recap, shall we?
You said:"If you really think you have been "pleasant" to Aldo, you are delusional beyond belief."
and this is how I started this discussion with Aldo;
"First of all, I think you guys have done good honest work.Thought I don't fully support your conclusions, I think the campaign to discredit your efforts is uncalled for."
Now, you can call that what you want, but it wasn't vicious at least... and i certainly didn't use the words "disinfo agent, provocateur, cointel agent" like he and now, you, have. That much is obvious.
and quite frankly, if you are so willing to believe that a massive 757 flew at treetop level over highway 395 and no one bothered to ever mention that in the 8 years since it was reported to have hit the Pentagon... I don't care if you think of me as an "honest truth advocate" or not.
I know what I am. And I'm not the one trying to sell DVDs with a "ghost flyover" claim...
you believe what you want. I'll keep looking for facts.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Straw man arguments, bald assertions about my beliefs,
and cherry picking parts of the discussion in order to show you were "pleasant" does not impress me in the least. I'm not interested in engaging with you any more as I consider you very dishonest. Have a nice day.
I come from the Peter Dale Scott school of thought on this one
"I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it. All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses who said that Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Pike. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does. But I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened."
from another email...
“I am now aware of [CIT’s] ad hominem attacks on good people, which is a big reason why I am giving you this permission.” Peter Dale Scott
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
All of your objections and concerns have been addressed...
in Stefan's article that I keep asking you to read. Why do you refuse to read it?
You see again, you jumped to a conclusion...
just because I read something by Stefan, doesn't mean I have to agree with all of it. But that is not the point, again.
(I also happened to notice that you were tossing around terms like "disinfo agents", "Mockingbird", and "groupies" in the comments section on that thread as well...)
To argue that just because the 103 witnesses that claim a 757 hit the Pentagon are taken out of context or that they didn't really say they saw that... well, that is just fine... and in fact, I have been in agreement with that conclusion for several years now. Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
But that doesn't mean that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon.
In fact, that COULD mean that something ELSE hit the Pentagon...
Were someone to come to me with 13 witness from that day and say "look. I know Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon because THESE guys said it did"... I would listen and take it into consideration along with the other evidence.
And since I don't believe the evidence shows that a 757 hit the Pentagon, I would be very interested in that line of investigation.
However... that's not what they said. In fact, several of them said they thought the 757 hit the Pentagon. But I still think that the North of Citgo line is interesting. Just not definitive.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I am really not concerned, Willy
Right up until you wrote this comment...
new
... I gave you guys the benefit of the doubt. Not anymore.
Whatever Willy. I don't need your approval. There are PLENTY of people who get it. You take your global hawk theory to a gov't official instead of our eyewitnesses and see how far you get.
In one breath you uphold the validity of your 13 (+1) witnesses as if that is the ultimate "evidence"... and then completely dismiss the 26 who claim to have seen "Flight 77" hit the Pentagon. That's somewhat disingenuous, don't you think?
Well, Willy, our witnesses INDEPENDENTLY, VERIFIABLY prove a plane did not hit light poles or the building. Who do you think we would give more credence to?
Willy you might as well go work with Hoffman with that mentality.
I have explaied this once. I will explain it again. You haven't even listed 1 of thes alleged 26 witnesses. Second, not ONE of them comes close to refuting what we uncovered? Why are they valid? Because you read it online??? Who are they? Do they really exist? Where were they located? Could they actually see the Pentagon? Who are they associated with? If they weren't put on camera on location, at the Citgo, and place the plane on the south side of gas station heading to pole 1 then they don't refute our witnesses. Do you understand?
Another disingenuous point you keep making is that you can hardly see the Pentagon from the street level on the highways as the streets adjacent to it.
There are several videos out there, and photos, taken from multiple angles, all around the Pentagon, that show the street level view of the Pentagon.
Anyone can go to Mapquest and take a streetside view of 395 or 110 or Washington BLVD and CLEARLY see that people would have had a clear view of the building that morning. Even if they didn't already see 20 videos shot that day from all different sides of the building from street level.
Right, but have you mapped the witnesses and where they were located? I have and a vast majority of them are NOT on that "street level". I know you can see the Pentagon at street level I never denied that. Read my posts. AGAIN, just because people could have seen and obviously did see a plane flying away at street level and you've never heard from them doesn't mean they don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence, my friend. I don't understand what you are not getting.
"What those witnesses saw is not a theory, Willy. Are you willing to tell them they only saw a theory?"
I don't know what the witnesses saw. But if I based my conclusions solely on what the "majority" of the witnesses saw, I would have to say Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon. But, the physical evidence, and common sense says that isn't what happened.
A majority? WHOOOOOOOOOOO?!??!?!?! You keep saying the same things over and over but provide no examples. You seem to not understand. There was no plane on the south side. No Global hawk. Just a large commercial airliner. My God, a Global Hawk doesn't sound a large commercial airliner.
Willy, I get very suspicious of people who A. Place emphasis on "alleged impact witnesses" and B. Try to slip in info about a missile of global hawk.
I don't understand why you are taking such a Hoffmanite position on an impact or impact witnesses.
So, to you it's all about 13 witnesses... and a cabbie who is probably guilty of nothing more than insurance fraud...
Whatever Willy. You go on with your conspiracy theory. See how far it takes you.
I just read a little of your site, and you yourself say that a Global Hawks wingspan IS large enough to have knocked down the poles, and that it is ONLY 10 feet smaller than that of a 757... funny you didn't mention that just now.
Willy you should slow down. You said it was the same size as a 757, I told it wasn't and linked the source.
Willy, let go of your fantasy. There was no global hawk. I know you invested a lot of time using your imagination on this matter, but NO ONE saw a global hawk on the south side of the
Why is it so important for you to keep repeating that it WAS a "large commercial jet"... and to yell in caps lock that there was no Global Hawk? Just curious.
Honestly? Because you are pissing me off. You are behaving exactly as a disinfo operative would.
-Give validity to "impact" witnesses
-Insert a conspiracy theory to keep the conspiracy minded and global hawk proponents interested only to have them
-Give validity to light poles being downed by an aircraft on the south side.
-Make the credibility of the north side witness seem less reliable due to a higher number of alleged "impact" witnesses
Did I sum it up about just right?
Everyone, put yourself in my shoes. You spend an exorbitant amount of time on the Pentagon attack. Collecting witness accounts, finding every quote they have said, finding a POV photo, putting them on a map, classifying them, working with professional pilots on the alleged black box data, flying out there and speaking with witnesses, victims, participants then here comes mr. johnny come lately know-it-all armchair researcher with the the grand imagination that creates a fantasy that he latches onto and can't let go of because his ego is too big for that. That is all I see. Why should I have to sit under while Willy uses a divisive tone with me and tries to plead a ridiculous case for a global hawk-WITH NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP. Just his imagination.
So wait, Willy, are you telling me, with all your deep study of the Pentagon event that we are seeing a global hawk in the surveillance video? Even though integrated consultants clearly showed it was a 757 that the gov't tried to make everyone believe was in that shot?
"Please. And he damaged his dashboard and disconnected his seatback off the center hinge???"
Who is to say when that damage occurred? the point is, the light pole didn't cause the damage. We know that. Anything else, from you or from me, is an assumption, isn't it?<>
I am to say. You know why? Because I know it was impossible for him to get a last minute notion to fake that much damage to his car and then claim a pole a speared it. Your theory is ridiculous and your attempt to take Lloyd off the hook is noted.
"There is NO evidence for a global hawk. Why in the world would swap our hard evidence (which you call a "theory") for an unsupported "theory"?"
13 witnesses is your "hard evidence"? Is that it?
Jim Hoffman is that you? LOL.
What's completely obviously hypocritical about your 13 witnesses is the fact that you then spend 2 paragraphs speculating about why no one saw a massive 757 fly over the top of the Pentagon, right after they turned and looked at it when the thing blew up... and right next to 3 highways... at 9:30 in the morning, AFTER hearing on the news in their cars that 2 PLANES just hit the Twin Towers...
Speculating? YOU are talking to ME about speculating, Mr. Global Hawk.
Ok, ok, ok. Cleeeearly you have thought this through. You tell me, Jim Garrison, how did the plane on the north side of the gas station hit the light poles, show up low and level, and cause the directional damage???
uhhh... what?
Let me hit you with this...
The light poles were staged. They were placed where they were found. Do you know why? Because, just like you said on your website that I just read, the Global Hawks wings couldn't withstand the contact with the poles, and they would have to be removed to get them out of the way. Right?
And let me ask you this... why is YELLING that no Global Hawk was there so important to you?
Your story and the Global Hawk are NOT mutually exclusive, are they?
Well it must have been a global hawk, Willy, I don't know what I was thinking. You solved the Pentagon attack by simply using an overactive imagination.
According to you, the "large commercial airliner" was the distraction...
So how do you know it wasn't there to distract from an approaching drone aircraft whos cargo bay was loaded with high explosives?
Because no one saw it. No one has ever proven a explosive laden drone can cause that damage.
THERE WAS NO GLOBAL HAWK.
So Ed Paik, Robert Turcios, Chadwick Brooks, all the ANC guys they were all just mesmerized with the large plane that they didn't see the global hawk?
You realize how convoluted and stupid your theory is? There was not a glbal hawk and a large airliner. Please stop spreading disinformation, Willy. There is no need for more baseless conspiracy theories.
Why so tense about the Global Hawk? What do actually think did the damage?
I am so tense because clearly I am disinfo and you have clearly cracked the case as far as what really happened that Pentagon.
That just shows you have only paid half attention to our work. We have stated it many times before. Explosives.
You really are pretty defensive here. That's odd if you ask me.
Look now you are really starting to come off like a provocateur. Are you trying to imply something homey?
A drone of some kind is the most logical hypothesis,
No it is not. There is nothing to support the drone and the jet at the same time.
No wait, this is getting too good. Tell me, Master Researcher, so that pesky surveillance video... Explain how the drone and flyover jet approached at the same time but only one object is seen on camera.
God this is stupid, I can't believe I even have to defend myself against or debunk this nonsense
but that has pretty much nothing to do with whether or not something flew by on a North approach. So why so defensive? Why so definitive about the Global Hawk?
Willy you and I are done. I have nothing more to say on the matter. You are behaving EXACTLY like the cointel types I have ran into elsewhere. I am sorry, I no longer trust you nor do I want to engage you.
Thanks for answering...
... and clearing up any questions I had.
The last couple of months I had taken your side in this little distraction between you and the Hoffman crowd. I even put up your latest video.
You see I figured that you were just another researcher with a theory that I had questions about, but still I respected your efforts and your passion.
But after this display, I can now see that you have a different agenda. asking me to prove the validity of witnesses after I clearly stated I don't care about one "witness" or the other is just more obfuscation on your part.
Nit-picking about the difference of 10 feet in a wing span (5 feet each) of a plane moving at 500 mph is silly. Especially since you knew that when you stated here the spans "weren't the same"... no ... they weren't .. they are 5 feet different... per side... (big difference?)
The fact that you put all of this effort into the 13 witnesses and pretty much nothing else by way of evidence, plus your reactions here these past two days tells me you have a different agenda than I do.
Which I think is much ado about nothing. Ultimately what you offer is the story that Flight 77 DID in fact approach the Pentagon... it DID in fact fly over the cars (somewhere) and then a big hole ended up in the side of the building... with no real explanation for how that happened.
So, frankly I consider this a great conversation. I can now scratch your work off the list of stuff that I give any credit to at all. That of course is solely based on your combative attitude and your deliberate obfuscation.
Now you can go back to the typical troll behavior of sucking up to the others on this site to try and win them over somehow. I don't really care.
But before you come at me with your usual "guilt by association" attack, trying to link me with Hoffman, you should do a little homework...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/serious-problems-with-jim-hof...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/strange-bedfellows-ae911truth...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
So you are saying...
"Read my posts. AGAIN, just because people could have seen and obviously did see a plane flying away at street level and you've never heard from them doesn't mean they don't exist..."
So people, according to you, "obviously DID see a plane flying away..." ... they just never told anyone or reported it or video taped it...
and that is proof?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
How many names will you call me and ...
... backhanded accusations will you level?
And this is just funny: you say that no one saw Flight 77 fly over the Pentagon, but that doesn't matter because they COULD have... just not said anything...
Yet...
You say that even though some witnesses reported seeing a "small jet" and a "business class jet" hit the Pentagon (like a Global Hawk would look like)... you say a Global Hawk COULDN'T have hit the Pentagon... because... (wait for it)...
"Because no one saw it."
OMG that is funny. That is just funny.
Here are some of the names Aldo called me. this is funny. this is better than watching football...
"mr. johnny come lately know-it-all armchair researcher"
"Jim Hoffman is that you? LOL."
"Tell me, Master Researcher..."
This is good. He doesn't just infer I am EITHER "cointel", "disinfo", or a "agent provocateur"... he suggests I am ALL OF THE ABOVE... heeheehee he gets all of them in there... that's funny.
"You are behaving exactly as a disinfo operative would."
"you are really starting to come off like a provocateur"
"You are behaving EXACTLY like the cointel types I have ran into elsewhere"
this one is my favorite... accusing me of "conspiracy theories"... now that's great... that's ironic. I wonder how many Truth Advocates run around accusing other researchers of spreading "baseless conspiracy theories"? Oh the irony...
"You go on with your conspiracy theory."
"no need for more baseless conspiracy theories"
So I'm a Hoffman working, disinfo cointel agent provocateur conspiracy theorist armchair jonny come lately armchair researcher?
What? All because I question the flyover theory because no one saw the massive plane flying over the traffic jam on 395? Let me leave you with this quote of yours...
"... nor do I want to engage you."
Now THAT I can understand...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
It made a lot of sense actually...
The towers falling after the plane crashes.. they blamed on the jet fuel, and that bullshit has lasted to this day...
The ONLY mistake they made, was Flight 93. Someone "off message" shot it down, and then they had to figure out what to do with the pre-rigged Building 7. So, they chatted about it, and as Lucky Larry actually admitted, they decided to "pull it" anyway... and that is what they did.
Flight 93 had turned toward lower Manhattan. The timing was such that it would have reached Ground Zero about 10 minutes or so after the 2nd tower fell.
It would have used the clear path after the towers were gone to crash right into the base of building 7, and THAT would have been their big show finale.
So yes, it was very well thought out, actually. They covered their bases with the misdirection drills, and the put a FEMA team about a 1/4 mile away to facilitate the sealing off of the grounds, they ran the demolition in such a way that it fell where they wanted it, and looked like it could have been caused by the crashes...
They actually planned it very, very well...
And this theory suggests that all those people stuck in traffic on 395 at 9:30 in the morning going into DC, listening to their radios to the news, ... wouldn't turn their heads after a massive explosion at the Pentagon and look out their windows to see ANOTHER PASSENGER JET flying at treetop level over the building and then over the actual highway itself?
Is that the plan you would come up with? Or would you use a guided missile or a drone painted to look like a passenger jet to slam into the building, then collect all the video tapes and physical evidence from the scene?
Which plan would you chose?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
It's not insane, it's "Shock and Awe"...
the idea of Shock and Awe is too reduce the population of an enemy, through massive devastation, to the mindset of a child. To create the need for a paternal figure who will "guide" them back to normalcy.
They wanted an audience. They wanted the videos of those planes hitting the Towers shown over and over and over again.
They wanted Flight 93 to slam into Building 7 just when everyone thought they were "safe"... it's the theater of it... the spectacle.
And regardless of recent speculation, there is no way to explain how "the terrorists" could have gotten into the towers to design and plant a controlled demolition. Much less, Building 7. So they had to do something that everyone knows "the terrorists" could pull off... well, a hijacking.
Look, it's just my opinion, but we should probably rethink the logic of stopping certain investigations or theories just because someone in the movement thinks the "debunkers" will debunk it. They try and debunk everything. That's what they do. Hence the name. If we let that be our determining value of what we should and shouldn't discuss, then we would stop talking about everything.
And all we would be left with would be the evidence of bin Laden working for the government up til 9/11 and which flight school Atta went to... that doesn't serve our cause. That turns us into proponents of the OCT whether we like to admit it or not.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I got ya... I can understand that...
but can you see what I am saying? Get everyone in the area to look at the Pentagon by lighting up a massive explosion, then fly a 757 over it at 500+mph... and think no one is going to notice it flying away?
That makes about as much sense as Donald Rumsfeld sitting in his office hoping some "terrorist" who can't fly will hit just the right part of the building with the massive plane at 500 mph...
But at some point, logic has to factor in.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
just to play devil's advocate...
Wouldn't a global hawk impact have some of the same problems viz the lack of debris as a Boeing? I mean, wouldn't we expect to have seen some larger pieces outside the building, particularly if the wingspan was indeed roughly the same as a 757's? I know that Hufschmid's argument for the global hawk was that being made of some kind of carbon fiber composite it would have burned up, leaving only the smallest fragments (which he speculates is what the line of people seen in helicopter footage outside the lawn is looking for and picking up...) but does that make sense? Also, does anyone remember when Huffy got some old dude to say that he saw something that looke dlike a global hawk only to have the old guy later recant? That does sound to me like the old "fake evidence for something that really happened" technique (a la the Bush military service document). Finally, I appreciate that Willy talked in his article on this about what was n the part of the Pentagon hit, i.e. the budget analysts. That seems much more important than the debate over what kind of deception was used to make people think AA77 crashed there, esp. when we all seem to agree that AA77 did not crash there and that some kind of explosive was set off inside the building. Am I right?
Ok, let's talk about it...
Yes, the Global Hawk would have the same problems that the 757 would have with regard to pieces of debris. You would expect to see more at the site than what is there. However...
The Global Hawk, by itself, wouldn't penetrate the outer wall of the Pentagon. The Hawk has a compartment up front for carrying different types of equipment. Or, in this case, high explosives.
(remember... one of the first things they did was dump 12" of dirt on the lawn right after 911... then their "memorial" literally covers the entire lawn out there in concrete... they are covering up the residues left by the explosion, that were left covering the lawn after the explosive went off)
If a bomb or a series of bombs had gone off in the building, that exterior wall would have been blown out, not in like it was. And then you have the problem of planting a bomb secretly in the Pentagon... harder to pull off than rigging the WTCs I promise you that.
The impact and the high explosive would destroy a lot of the craft, unless they used a penetration type of cruise missile, I mean that is possible... hell, they may have designed something completely different... perhaps a drone that was a scaled down model of Flight 77 with a penetration type front end. Who knows.
Does it make sense that the first thing the culprits would do is desperately pick up composite material that proves Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? ummm, yes?
The recanting of the eye-witness testimony? hmmm, didn't the guy from WTC recant on the BBC interview, just before his untimely "death"? Jennings? Didn't he kind of "recant" his statements?
Didn't Ed begley Jr. recant to save his career as well? What's Minetta been up to these days? He didn't recant, but is he really running around telling everyone he heard them deliberately avoiding shooting down whatever it was that was headed toward the Pentagon? Recant by omission?
I don't think recanting is in and of itself proof of anything.
By contrast, I think that someone who runs around telling everyone they saw "the northern approach" and he ISN'T pressured by the powers that be to recant, probably tells you something right there.
My guess is, if you get out there and start screaming about something that you saw and that something is serious evidence that the people who did this take very seriously, they would do everything they can to get you to shut up. But again, that is just a guess. I need to read the Hufschmid work... I have to admit, I haven't read it yet.
You mention that you appriciate the part of my article that deals with the victims from the budget office. Thanks.
But, that begs the question... you don't find it odd that a leading Truth advocate like Roberts, who got his start working with the one guy who spends ALL of his time trying to prove nothing OTHER than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, is writing papers with someone who spent his career working on remote piloting systems and drone aircraft?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
One of the anomalies in the
One of the anomalies in the Pentagon impact site that I find hard to reconcile with an airplane impact (airliner, Global Hawk or any other long wingspan drone) is the lack of damage to the facade where the airplane's wings would have been. If as you speculate an explosive was placed on the nose of the aircraft and exploded on impact, then... I don't know. What would have happened to the wings then? Still, anything that would have destroyed the wing would probably have damaged the facade windows where the wings would have hit.
Altering security at the Pentagon to let explosives in should not be that hard if the secretary of defense and the service chiefs were in on it. Setting up explosives on the outside of the building (to prevent walls from blowing out instead of inward) should not be so hard either, just disguise it as building renovation. Of all things, that would have been easy with current demolition technology.
I am not ruling out a drone impact per se, but I don't find evidence for it to be any stronger compared to a flyover timed with pre planted explosives at the Pentagon.
Except for the fact...
that no one stuck in traffic on 395 or anywhere else around the Pentagon saw a massive 757 fly over the Pentagon and treetop level and then buzz the cars on 395 at something close to 500 mph...
aside from the fact that that little event wasn't seen by any of the people in the hundreds of cars on the highway... after everyone's attention was pulled to the Pentagon because of the massive explosion... sure, I would agree with you.
Now, as far as the bomb inside is concerned, the debris field in side, as illustrated by the photos and the drawing that I have up on my site, shows a very direction specific blast field. That could be done I suppose, but not just from planting explosives in the outer wall... there would have to have been additional explosives inside the building.
I'm not saying there wasn't... but in keeping with the idea that they would want to keep it as simple and controllable as possible, yet still yield the end result of the complete destruction of the records in those offices (or at least a viable "excuse" as to why they were destroyed) then the easiest way to do both THAT and to facilitate the "terrorist hijacked plane" story would be, like apparently Hoffy said, to make a drone of some kind LOOK like Flight 77 and then have it hit with "laser accuracy" the EXACT placement of that office...
So you have the easiest way, and then you have the multiple bombs and the 757 flying over a traffic jam, that no one saw 30 minutes after other passenger jets smashed into the Twin towers and that was on every single television in America... I think people would have been acutely aware of low flying 757s that morning, don't you?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Given CIT's report, I
Given CIT's report, I consider the north of Citgo flight approach as most accurate.
CIT has at least 1 fly over witness. Doesn't he count? Other fly over witnesses may just have not been interviewed. I consider the flyover by a large aircraft timed with pre-planted explosives as one possibility.
Due to lack of wing damage on the facade, a large wingspan aircraft impact including a global hawk is ruled out. A smaller drone or cruise missile, maybe, but they don't jive well with what most witnesses said. I wont rule this out yet but find it less likely compared to the flyover.
Really?
Who is that reporter guy who claimed he "witnessed" the wings of the 757 "fold back" into the body of the plane?
Does he count? Of course not... a planes wings, attached to the massive jet engines wouldn't "fold back" into the body of the plane. So I don't give a crap what that "witness" says...
"Witness" or not, logic, again, must factor into the evaluation of the story.
Saying that other witnesses just haven't come forward, doesn't equate to evidence. The fact that they are not there does not prove they are there...
"Due to lack of wing damage on the facade, a large wingspan aircraft impact including a global hawk is ruled out."
How do you know what damage to expect in a concrete and steel reinforced blast wall from a thin carbon-fiber wing? Just curious
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
High speed impact by carbon
High speed impact by carbon fiber or aluminum ought to crack the windows at least. The windows look intact on either side of the hole.
mouse comment above is mine
sorry, forgot to log in when i wrote it
A company called Physical Security LLC installed...
... 386 "blast resistant windows" in that first section of the Pentagon.
http://www.physec.com/pentagon-renovation.html
"We had already installed 386 units in Wedge One when the building was attacked on 9/11."
As best as I can tell, the windows themselves are neoprene or polycarbonate rather than glass. Of course detailed specs aren't available of security at the Pentagon, but, it the company installed "blast resistant" windows on the Pentagon project, they probably installed the same thing, or something similar, that they installed on another project.
http://www.usbulletproofing.com/USBPProductwindow.htm
From working on projects with neoprene and polycarbonate, I can tell you the stuff is extremely tough. I don't know the thickness or the size of the windows... and I don't know what a carbon fiber wing would do to one of them had it hit it directly. Perhaps it didn't.
I would imagine that an aluminum wing would have a greater inpact, only because it wouldn't shatter like the carbon fiber would... but again, I don't know for sure.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Thanks! Nice info.
Thanks! Nice info.
anytime
It's a good question. The window damage is odd, because some look like they are shattered out, some look just bentish, and I have even seen one video where a window looks like the glass itself is on fire (which would make sense if they were neoprene or polycarbonate). But it's a good question.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
a 77 look-alike
i vote drone/missile disguised as. The way the inner walls were pierced, the roundness of the hole precollapse, no airliner wing damage.
The Budget Accounting Department is key, of course, after the trillions were missing under the Dov's watchful eye. and yeah, hadn't that wing been recently "reinforced" and renovated? perfect op for busy little bomb dudes.
Then there's April Gallup's testimony. As soon as she turned on her computer! Bang! Explosion. Hey, maybe the computers were rigged... she mentioned some anomaly about the clocks, too. She walked out the original hole barefoot and saw no jet fuel or plane debris.
don't buy a jet flyover, although at one time I thought it was conceivable if it were the one that released the missile
Sorry,
There was no missile/drone, Kate.
Kate, can you please elaborate on why you are choosing to theorize about something you have no evidence for instead of utilizing eyewitness evidence, eyewitnesses that can be subpoenaed?
Ok, sorry,
Will April Gallop be on that subpoena list? do you have testimonies from survivor eyewitnesses from within the building? guess i've been trusting my own eyes (from vids and pics) more than the outside eyewitness testimonies as they vary so much. will read more when i have time.
damn all that missing cam film!
and it if it had gone as planned,
we would not have had the Achilles heel of building 7, and yes, it would have tripled the trauma-load of the shock-and-awe spectacle that day.
we can thank whomever for having taken down 93.
this theory makes so much sense to me. thanks, Willy.
Welcome to WTCD, Aldo!
Thanks for joining the discussion. You guys are doing a fantastic job and all your research efforts (as well as fighting all the abuse from fake truthers) over the years has definitely paid off!
Thank you so much, Keenan
It certainly has paid off. It's good to be here amongst supporters. Hope we can see your name pop up at our forums more often.
Question for Aldo
Hello Aldo -
Honored to meet you, as it were. Admirable work you've done. I apologize if this has been directly addressed elsewhere; i looked through your faqs and forums but didn't find a quick answer.
have you considered undertaking a similar effort with WTC plane crash witnesses?
much respect,
T
It is appreciated!
Hi Tahooey,
It is a pleasure to meet you as well.
We have thought about it to put an end to the no planes nonsense at the towers. But in the long run it is not important, there is so much work to be done with the Pentagon and Shanksville.
It has been talked about, but it is usually a challenge issued to ops like Killtown and his "useful idiot" brigade.
Perhaps some day, but I know planes hit the towers. To be honest, I would be more interested in the 1st plane. I believe it was a smaller modified military drone that fired projectiles of some sort into the building.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/95931/
Thanks again, Tahooey.
Listen to Willy
Do you see how contradicting his argument is?
He wants to convince you that people should have seen the flyover and that it is inconceivable for them not to have come forward.
All you have to do is swap "flyover" or "plane flying away" with "global hawk and large commercial airliner approaching at the same time" and you will see what I mean.
No one saw it. It did not happen. Why Willy is to neutralize our information while injecting a misleading conspiracy theory is anyone's guess.
actually, what I said was...
a number of people reported seeing a "business class" jet or a "small commercial jet" hit the Pentagon. A Global Hawk could certainly fit that description.
Now, the wingspan of a Global Hawk is very close to that of a 757. Some described the jet only by color, and the Hawk could have been painted to look like Flight 77...
So many people MAY have in fact SEEN the Global Hawk and mistaken it for a "passenger jet" as well. It was moving very quickly.
But NO ONE stuck in traffic, who turned and looked right at the Pentagon when the explosion happened, saw the 757 fly over the top of the Pentagon.
None of the hundreds of people stuck in traffic on 395 reported that.
That's what I said.
What Aldo said was that just because no one SAID they saw Flight 77 fly over the Pentagon doesn't mean it didn't. And then he said that because no one claimed they saw a "Global Hawk" that PROVES it wasn't used.
That is what was actually said, Aldo. And I stand by my conclusions. It was a drone of some kind, likely a Global Hawk.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Thanks Keenan
I appreciate you taking up a defense for us or at least noting Willy's irrational and subversive behavior. When I get brought into these types of dialogs I get so flustered. As you can tell I couldn't even finish some of my sentences, I was so eager to address his other points I had read. I am so tired of going in circles with people and it drives me nits. The people I meet in person at 9/11 conferences are SOOO distinctly different. They are warm, welcoming, supportive, curious, unaware. Even if they fully believe in a theory like global hawks/missile and we set them straight, they are appreciative. So I don't understand people like Willy here. Well I do. I can only imagine he is either a person with good intentions who is caught up in his own ego and his own idea of research evidence or he is a divisive cointel operative of some sort. I don't even want to speculate on it anymore than I have. The more I talk like that, the more people can start to wonder if I am the op-which apparently has happened or was manufactured to happen...you know because the CIA always hires hip hop emcees and reggae drummers for their covert operations.
I have already learned to just ignore these guys. But he will merely take advantage of that and sow more confusion while taking shots at me for not responding to him, as if I have something hide.
If you any of you have any questions, you can reach me at cit@citizeninvestigationteam.com
people, TRY to keep it civil?
I realize it's not always easy, but there's no point in becoming so shrill that we lose sight of the issues...
one thing I'm wondering--does anyone disagree that it is unlikely that whatever hit OR flew over the Pentagon was AA77? If so, what evidence have you seen for AA77 actually being in the air that day?
BTW, please login to elave comments if you're registered. Anyone can post an anonymous comment pretending to be you and I'd rather not have to clear up a misunderstanding resulting from that kind of crap!
One argument for the Global Hawk was that...
... it could fly at such a high altitude. From what I have gathered, Flight 77's "blip" dropped off the radar over Ohio prior to it turning back towards DC, and then it was lost on the radar screen for most of it's return trip.
Well, the Global Hawk could have flown at about 60k feet of altitude and been missed by radar at that elevation.
But you make a good point. I don't know what the basis is for Flight 77 having taken off in the first place. Are there photos of the passengers boarding or something? I don't know.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
here's a take
http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/08/where-was-flight-77-after-856.html
German dude. I like his "about this blog" and apparently sincere concern.
Good find...
"Bottom line: Whatever happened to Flight 77, it's official flight path after 8:56 is pure speculation, and the evidence suggests that it didn't fly back to Washington at all. To those who say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or are agnostic on this question, this is another serious blow."
Good article. "A radar hole"... the 911 Commission Report's official position is that Flight 77 dropped into a "radar hole" and was lost for a while?
Good god. That makes you feel good about flying, now doesn't it? Shit just flying around up there in the "hole"... no one knows where it is...
Is that kind of like the insurance industries "coverage hole" they created with the Medicare Plan "B" coverage? Just drop them in "the hole" there... it'll be alright.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Sorry for overreacting and getting shrill
I've had a really stressful last few days dealing with almost loosing my home to foreclosure amongst other things which perhaps manifested my short fuse and hasty accusations above. I apologize to Willy.
That's alright, Keenan...
The CIT debate gets heated these days, plus I admit, I can be a little bullheaded at times - like I was with Aldo here. I have never been accused of being very tactful, that's for sure.
I am sorry to hear about the trouble you are having. I certainly hope it is behind you and you have staved off the foreclosure. Is that the case? You got that worked out?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Yes, I saved the farm, for now
This is certainly tough times for lots of folks.
cool, thanks for making an effort...
...to keep cool heads. the reason a few of us post here to begin with is precisely because we engaged in heated arguments over at 911blogger. in my case it was with jon gold and while I know I was right to call out his bullshit, i can also understand why one of us had to go and why it ended up being me... :)
here the situation is different. I don't believe that either side in the debate over flyover/drone has bad intentions as I believe of jon gold, and I would hope that we can all at least pretend to agree on that point, or agree to disagree without making accusations.
maybe trying to find some common ground is in order--I take it that you, Willy, don't think that AA77 flew into OR over the Pentagon. If I may ask, Aldo, do you have an opinion as to what it was that flew over the Pentagon, namely whether it was AA77? Also, is your belief in the flyover based just on the witness testimony? Faked evidence like lightpoles, etc. does not in itself necessarily mean a flyover, right?
Believe me when I say that I am agnostic on this particular issue of flyover (of something that wasn't AA77) versus an actual impact by a drone of some kind, as I think are a few others. Instead of you guys getting annoyed with each other, we should take the opportunity to hear about the issues from two different points of view.
And no one should think that "sucking up" earns anyone points around here--we are all, to my knowledge, some of the most independent thinkers in the movement and have been qute aware for some time now of the many methods fakers use to sway people, including sycophancy as best illustrated by Jon Gold's permanent oral adhesion to the collective asses of the victims' (and alleged victims') families... It'd be nice if we who don't believe AA77 is what caused the damage to the Pentagon didn't have to choose between groupthink and vicious acrimonious division!
one of the anti flyover arguments I don't buy...
is the argument that since only one or two people have reported seeing anything fly off away from the Pentagon that it couldn't have happened (since if it had so many other people would have reported the same thing.)
Think back to that morning... most poeple would have been aware that planes had hit the towers and either been glued to a TV or listening to the radio in their car. At some point an explosion happens at the Pentagon, and a plane either does or does not simultaneously fly over. No media are there with their cameras trained on anything, they presumably get a report of an explosion and rush to the scene and start looking for witnesses. Presumably they manage to find a few who tell a total lie, that they saw a huge Boeing slam into the Pentagon. Are we to believe that if they had found a witness who said "no no I saw the plane approach and it went over the building when something exploded there" they were going to air that? It's unlikely enough that anyone happened to be looking in the right direction to have a clear view of a flyover, it is even more unlikely that they would have been found by a reporter looking for comments, and more unlikely still that such an account would have been publicized given the fact that we know the media have been complicit in the coverup.
I agree...
and in terms of speculation regarding the confiscated videos (a favorite touchstone of the pro-Boeing planers), I'd say images of some kind of plane flying away would be a much better reason to keep them locked up than an elaborate plan to trip up the truth movement many years after the fact.
You don't think they would keep the videos hidden...
if they showed a Global Hawk or a cruise missile slamming into the Pentagon?
You don't think that would be a "goof reason" to keep them locked up?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Maybe I am missing something here...
"It's unlikely enough that anyone happened to be looking in the right direction to have a clear view of a flyover..."
There was a traffic jam on 395, all around South and East of the Pentagon, all of it has a clear view of the Pentagon,...
... right after everyone hears all that in the morning about the other attacks at the Twin Towers...
... a massive explosion rocks the Pentagon that people reported hearing 2 miles away...
... and you don't think anyone would turn and look right at the Pentagon? They were stuck in traffic. What else would they look at after the massive explosion went off?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
You mean like when the media...
kept all those people from saying they saw explosions or heard explosions, or taped the firemen (even later in the day) telling people to get back because Building 7 was going to "blow up", or do you mean something like when the media didn't mention anything at all at first about how the collapse of the towers looked anything like a controlled demolition?
With that logic, I could come out here and say "ray beams from space" shot the damn hole in the Pentagon by bouncing a beam off an alien ship, but "the media" hid the evidence.
I could say, for instance, that there were actually "no planes" that hit the towers, and that "the media" just "fakeryed" them in... and kept all the witnesses from telling everyone that the towers just blew up.
To quote Chris Rock... "It ain't the MEDIA"
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong...
but my impression is that the flyover argument hinges in part on taking the damage reports at face value. That is, the damage as reported is sorta consonant with a large plane hitting from the south approach, but not at all consistent with the north approach. That means that if the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo, it didn't do the damage to the building that is alleged to have been done. If it didn't do the damage, then it didn't hit the Pentagon. If it didn't hit the Pentagon...
The problem I have with this is that it takes the official accounts of Pentagon damage without sufficient skepticism. I don't have any good reason to believe that any of the damage to the building's interior was as reported. I would be more inclined to consider an argument that a plane on the north approach could not do the damage to the outside of the building that is visible in the photographs.
Or... possibly....
1. they confiscated the videos BECAUSE they DO show something other than Flight 77 approach and strike the Pentagon (not something flying away...)
and
2. whatever hit the Pentagon actually DID explode and create the damage path inside the Pentagon, just like the photos show...
then the only thing they had to do was place 4 or 5 pieces of "evidence" (actually some of the pieces COULD have been from a cruise missile or a Global Hawk)
The damage to the inside of the building cannot be ignored. It is there. Something did it. And the path of the damage factors in as well.
We know "Bunker Busters" exist. We know they have for some time. The exterior wall of the building was blown inwards, and the damage to the inside is consistent with a missile strike of some kind, and it follows a certain path.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Pentagon damage
I've seen some photos that made me wonder if a missile might have been launched out of that metal structure that was allegedly hit by the plane on its way in. Some kind of generator or a temporary construction trailer, just outside the pentagon and just to the right (south?) of the impact point. But the damage and direction it seemed to have moved made me think perhaps a missile was launched from right inside of it. http://911review.org/_webimages/wall/reconst-wedge1-.JPG
I have to say that reading
I have to say that reading the comments on this page about whether a missile or a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon or whether a plane flew over it, is like listening to a debate about what kind of cheese the moon is made of.
Swiss, obviously
Those "craters" are in fact the work of our friend Propionibacter shermani. But seriously, I tend to agree. Until someone can show even a small shred of credible evdience of ANYTHING WHATSOEVER flying into it then it's a moot point isn't it! I'm as willing to believe that it was just a series of explosives, with shaped charges creating a "tunnel effect" with the "punch out hole" and downed lightpoles.
I have to say in my opinion
I have to say in my opinion Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon , flown by a hijacker as it's really the only plausible scenario that I can imagine. I know it's not a popular opinion on a page like this but I suppose evidence shouldn't be assessed for it's popularity. I can't remember many events that have happened in front of so many witnesses in a public place in broad daylight and it doesn't seem plausible to me that they would be mistaken about seeing a large airliner crashing into a building. People have ended up on death row because of the eyewitness evidence of one or two people - a prosecutor would give their eye teeth to have more than one eyewitness to a crime. I think the whole debate about what happened at the Pentagon is a waste of time to be honest and I hate to see people wasting their time. You maybe can't imagine how that could be - with the all that has been said and written about it surely it can't be just an islamic jihdist flying a plane into the Pentagon, but there it is. It's a bit more difficult to deal with than thinking about implausible flyovers and calculating bank angles etc. which I think is part of the problem.
Eyewitnesses like...
the priest interviewed by CIT who very candidly discusses his experience of confabulation -- hearing other people talk about the plane hitting the lawn (which it clearly did NOT do, even if it did exist and did hit the building) and then finding in his brain a "memory" of something he himself admits he does not think he actually saw, as a result of hearing those stories. Uh huh. And he doesn't remember what it looked like when the plane hit, except that flames billowed out of some upper windows. Okay. But he unequivocally states that he did SEE a large Boeing hit the Pentagon.
Yes, he'd be great on the witness stand.
did the eyewitnesses give depositions?
to investigators? because the accounts they gave to the various media personalities are so widely divergent that it is unlikely that any of them would be accepted as definitive by a jury. the evidence provided by the prosecution in the Moussaoui trial with regard to the Pentagon was very flimsy, consisting of photos of unidentified (i.e. cross-checked with serial numbers, etc.) parts allegedly from flight 77. no video or photograps of the plane approaching or striking, no official flight manifest, none of the things, in other words, you would expect to be easily provided.