And now for something completely different....
Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1
I'm going to take a look at CIT's claim of a "flyover" from a realistic perspective by showing a View Shed analysis of the topography around the
Pentagon to demonstrate the visibility of any aircraft flying over the Pentagon from any location in the area.
This analysis is not needed in any way to refute CIT's claims. Numerous individuals have easily refuted all of CIT's claims (despite angry denials
to the contrary) here and on other forums. Reheat has done a masterful job right here. I am doing this because it just further illustrates why CIT
refuses to deal with evidence and eyewitness reports.
A View Shed Analysis is a common feature of GIS software and is used to determine the optimal placement and height of transmission antennas intended
for television, radio, public utility, microwave, phone, and cell phone usage. It's use is intended for hilly or mountainous areas where topography
presents obstructions in direct line-of-sight transmissions, or broadest area coverage, between transmitters and receivers.
I've done a View Shed analysis to illustrate a fundamental problem CIT has with its claims that a "flyover" took place - but no such "flyover"
has ever been reported.
CIT claims that one eyewitness, one Roosevelt Roberts, stated that he saw a jet fly over the Pentagon and then took a route to the left over the
Potomac River, flying south of The Mall. This is the only eyewitness CIT has ever presented to a so-called "flyover" after persistent requests for
eyewitnesses for a long time.
CIT now claims that this sole, apparent eyewitness, "proves" that a "flyover" took place in a planned, calculated deception by the "government"
to deceive people into believing a passenger jet, American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon.
CIT has stated, for the record, that interviews with 13 other "eyewitnesses" have demonstrated conclusively that AA77 flew on the "north side of
the Citgo gas station rather than the south side as the government has claimed," thereby flying a route to the Pentagon that, if it had crashed into
the Pentagon, would have produced damage entirely inconsistent with the observed damage. (Not insignificantly, each of CIT's 13 eyewitnesses were in
a position to see an aircraft approach the Pentagon.)
Therefore, CIT concludes, the observed jet could not have flown into the Pentagon but, consistent with the statements of 14 "eyewitnesses" CIT
found, the jet must have flown over the Pentagon to land in parts unknown. Furthermore, CIT claims, a deliberate deception was planned so that, as the
jet began its flyover, a pre-planted bomb in the Pentagon, at the intersection of the flight path of the jet, was detonated producing both an
explosion and smoke that obscured the view of the 13 apparent eyewitnesses CIT relies on for its claim that a flyover took place.
I have confined my study to the claim that a "flyover" could have taken place without there being eyewitnesses anywhere on the far side of the
Pentagon whose views would never have been obscured by the explosion and subsequent smoke column.
Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, sole members of CIT, the "Citizens Investigation Team," have declared individually and separately that no other
eyewitnesses to a "flyover" are required. They put their sole trust in 13 eyewitnesses whom they readily acknowledge whose views of an actual
flyover would have been obscured by the "explosion" and resultant smoke column at the Pentagon. There remains the one eyewitness, Roosevelt Roberts,
on whom CIT's entire claim that a "flyover" took place rests.
The observation comes immediately to mind that if a flyover took place whose flight path would take the jet over and within view of a densely
populated geographic area as it flew away from the Pentagon - and the explosion that took place - including heavily-travelled freeways and bridges,
should there not be eyewitness reports from a wide geographic area on the other side of the Pentagon in which no topographical obstructions existed?
CIT has been asked that question repeatedly and the response has either been that those eyewitnesses are not needed or, "do your own
investigation."
The topography around Washington includes obvious obstructions of buildings, trees, overpasses, etc., which are not included in this first run.
Obviously, a person standing behind trees or buildings obstructing the view toward the Pentagon, or looking in a different direction altogether,
isn't going to witness a plane over the Pentagon as an explosion takes place there. That changes, of course, as the plane moves forward, climbs, and
turns.
What is the probability that a such "flyover" could take place in a densely populated metropolis, with many drivers on various roads and bridges
around the Pentagon, a spectacular explosion and smoke alerting numerous motorists, and unrefuted testimony that a jet was seen approaching and
crashing into the Pentagon at high speed?
I am
not in a position to calculate such a probability, but I am in a position to define the extent of the geographic area in which a plane
over the Pentagon could have been easily seen.
In this view, I have deliberately limited the range to the jet to two miles, a reasonable distance in which an aircraft the size of a 757 would draw
attention moving away from the Pentagon after an explosion. Of course, the jet can been easily at a further distance away.
This instantaneous view places the jet at 100 feet above ground level (not above the building itself) over the central courtyard of the Pentagon. The
yellow-shaded area shows the geographic areas up to two miles away from that jet in which a person whose eyesight is five feet above the ground could
see that jet, given the observation limitations of structures and vegetation outlined above.
Any person within the two-mile range not shaded
yellow would be unable to see a jet 100 feet above the ground over the Pentagon courtyard. As one can see, these are very few. It should be
obvious as the jet moves forward, and climbs, on a flight path away from the Pentagon, the geographical area at a two-mile range expands, opportunity
for it to be observed increases, and the number of potential eyewitnesses increases.
It should also be obvious how the potential for drivers on the freeways and bridges, whose positions are changing and whose attention is necessarily
on their surroundings, are in an excellent position to see a jet fly away from the Pentagon, many of whom would see the jet in a direct line of sight
to the fireball rising from the Pentagon.
Yet there are no such reports.
This View Shed analysis illustrates the tremendous problem CIT has in facing the probability that many numbers of eyewitnesses would most certainly
have seen a flyover take place from a large geographic area and that
no such reports have ever surfaced. It also illustrates why CIT
refuses to look for any such eyewitnesses. We can imagine many drivers stuck in freeway traffic seeing the explosion at the Pentagon,
immediately followed by a jet flying fast and climbing from the direction of the Pentagon. Some would reasonably think there is a connection - perhaps
the aircraft dropped a bomb.
But the big problem for CIT is a very reasonable situation. These people who would have seen a flyover would wonder why there were no subsequent media
reports of a flyover. Would not even a handful contact media outlets, each competing with each other for breaking news, and say, "Wait a minute!
There was a jet flying away from the Pentagon right after the explosion!"
Furthermore, CIT's reliance on Roosevelt Roberts' description of the jet's turn to the left over the river actually puts CIT in a no-win position
of having a jet visible from a large area.
Draw your own conclusions.
