All testimony from people 6 years later.....


Yet none of them saw the plane flyover. (many said they saw th impact)

I also like the way government officials that were witness to the impact are dismissed because they are suspects. What other witnesses would you have at a government building?

so are you trying to say flight 77 didnt hit the penatagon? because clearly it did and nothing suggests it didn't. if you want to latch onto witness testimony then why don't you latch on to the fact that dozens of people said they specifically saw an american airlines jet? some, familiar with aircraft, specified an AA 757. i think that cancels out anything you are offering.

double post. why does it keep doing that? i hit the button once. please erase.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

For the benifit of anyone new:

This last post by Craig is pure propaganda. As is, IMO, almost all of his posts.

First: the plane absolutely did hit the Pentagon as evidence by thousands of eyewitnesses. Many of whom were in grid lock traffic trying to get to work at the Pentagon, or nearby.


THE APPROACH

I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon - Bauer, Gary

“I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon.” - Wright, Don

“coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there—very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station…[note: this statement is ambiguous as to whether it was N. or S. of the gas station but…] then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.” - Elgas, Penny

CIT would have you believe these people are plants. Liars. Government spooks throwing out dis-info. Or, my favorite, irrelevant because they work in government and therefore, are specifically ‘in on it’.


FINAL SECONDS

“[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.” - Sepulveda, Noel

“The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.” - Washington, Rodney

“The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.” - McGraw, Stephen

Now keep in mind CIT believes these light poles were planted. As in, cut down before the event and planted after the event………with not a single witness to that ‘alleged’ activity. Not a one. More than six years later.


THE IMPACT

“I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11… [It] slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon.” - Anderson, Steve

“I saw this plane right outside my window… Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon… It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon).” - Anlauf, Deb & Jeff

“[I] saw the plane hit the Pentagon.” - Bradley, Pam

“I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon.” - Carroll, Susan

“I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first… It did not hit the roof first… and yes, it did impact the Pentagon… There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing…” - Riskus, Steve

“The plane hit the Pentagon.” - Snaman, Steve

“I saw it hit the building.” - Stanley, G. T.

“It added power on its way in…The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.” - Timmerman, Tim

‘I hadn’t even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him… Wallace switched on the truck’s radio. We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side.” - Wallace, Alan

“I just watched it hit the building. It exploded… I could actually hear the metal going through the building.” - Boger, Sean

“I saw it fly right into the Pentagon… ‘It just was amazingly precise… It completely disappeared into the Pentagon.” - Donley, Daryl

“[It went] inside the side of the Pentagon.Obviously, it was going in the Pentagon purposefully.I told my husband ‘he’s going into the Pentagon.’We heard the direct hit—huge crash, saw this fireball, flame and smoke.”Reporter: ‘so you actually saw the plane impact the side of the building?’[Isabel:] “Yes I did.” - James, Isabel

“It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere… It was very sort of surreal.” - Kean, Terrance

“We watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building.” - Mitchell, Mitch

And it goes on and on and on and on. If this was the sum total of the counter-evidence, this alone would be devastating to CIT’s crazy assertions.

Here’s the catch: it’s not even close to the sum total of the evidence surrounding the attacks of 9-11 and the Pentagon attack in particular.

The truth has thousands of eyewitnesses, bodies, missing aircraft, aircraft wreckage that clearly came from flight 77 inside and outside of the building. The entire event filmed on tape (although admittedly not ideal footage), the FDR, the FFA radar tapes, transmissions from the plane, cell phone calls from loved one on the plane to name just some of the evidence.

On CIT’s side they have four witnesses. Of these four witnesses, three disagree with CITs ‘conclusions’.

Again, in case anybody missed it: three of the four ‘witnesses’ for CIT, disagree with CIT and believe the plane hit the Pentagon..

So, in conclusion, more than six years later, the best ‘witnesses’ that CIT can come up with don’t agree with them.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Anything that isn't CIT controlled is not valid. That is your stance. You have ignored evidence from day one.

Incorrect.

Please refrain from telling me what my stance is because you are wrong and deceptive by doing so.

My "stance" is that data that was solely controlled and supplied by the government is considered invalid within the context of an investigation into government involvement.

Simple, logical, and 100% true.

You can't honestly conduct an investigation into government involvement and cite evidence that they control as proof of their innocence.

If you were a true skeptic and didn't have such incredible faith in the government story coupled with such a ridiculous confirmation bias you would understand the pure logic and truth in this "stance".

[edit on 25-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]