Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over.

Originally posted by LaBTop
"Fine tune" of the CIT animations together with their interviews to make sure it is an accurate representation of their witness statements.

1. Look first at this animated excerpt of the Edward Paik interview, as an animated-Gif by Craig Ranke :

i14.photobucket.com...

2. Then have a look at this drawing on this Google Earth screenshot, of the officially released FL77 flight path :
Original huge 2006 one by mcMike: img96.imageshack.us...

Big one, now saved by me at another repository: www.alsx.info...

Partly visible one, due to forum clipping of too huge pictures, but interesting for the detailed view :

Smaller, but full one :



That official flight path is in full and total contradiction with the statements of Edward Paik and Terry Morin.
No discussion possible, when you firmly believe the extensive recorded words of these two witnesses.
And all other CIT interviewed witnesses, and a few from the list by "someguyyoudontknow" from earlier in this thread.

3. In this drawing on my Google Earth screenshot, observe the blue line boundaries of the possible flight paths by FL77, originating at the corner of the rooftop of Mr. Edward Paik's garage at the corner of Columbia Pike, encircled with a yellow line by me, and following the outer boundaries of the possible positions of Terry Morin.
Mr. Paik clearly showed us in the above nr 1 Gif where the body of the plane flew over his repair shop's roof.
It is the very right roof corner, seen from his interview position on the left side of his shop aside Columbia Pike, which is where he says the plane's body flew. In addition, Mr. Morin was quite precise about his position:

Then have a good look at the clearance of the left wing of the plane, to the south wall of the Sheraton in the same drawing on that picture.
It had to keep a certain distance, at least half of its wingspan, to that wall, or it would have crashed there when it would have hit that hotel's south wall. It did not, so it flew either higher than the top of the Sheraton Hotel, or so far aside of it, that it did not hit its wall. In addition, according to both Paik's and Morin's statements, the plane flew already very low, just over the roofs of Paik's garage and the Navy Annex wings.

Then have a look again at the possible positions of Terry Morin in-between Wing 4 and 5 of the Navy Annex, indicated by the long rounded yellow form drawn by me. Note the red line indicating him running across Columbia Pike to the parking, which is the shortest way he could quickly oversee the area in the sky where the plane was still flying, much slower than the official reports want us to believe. In addition, this would cover vaguely his remark that he ran uphill.
Btw, I would have one nagging question to ask Terry Morin: why did you say you ran uphill to try to keep an eye on the plane, when every sane observer would run downhill over the parking area in front of the Wings, to Wing 8? Was that a slip of the tongue in your interview?

Big picture named by me as "Paik-FL77-overview-NavyAnnex-VDOT-antenna“:
www.alsx.info...

Forum clipped one with more details however than the fitted one:

Fitted one:



Then look at the North side of the Citgo gas station.

Now draw the possible lines as I did going through the Morin boundaries, starting from Mr. Paik's roof top corner, still within those two yellow encircled areas. Then compare that set of possible trajectories to the officially proposed fixed one from the nr 2 picture with the drawing of the official flight 77 path:

Click for big picture: www.alsx.info...
Named by me as "FL77-overview-Sheraton-NavyAnnex-Citgo".

Forum clipped one but with more details:

We also have sergeant's William Lagasse's statements and drawing on an aerial photo of the Citgo area, where he decisively places the flight path North of Citgo.
That makes it clear where Terry Morin must have stood in that space in-between those Navy Annex Wings 4 and 5, when he looked up and saw the plane's body pass over his head. He was just outside the door from Wing 5, on his way back to his parked car to get his spectacles.
Officer Brooks statement and drawing places the plane North of Citgo.
Moreover, all the ANC witnesses too, and Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas.

Thus, we have now narrowed down the real Flight 77 flight path portion.
Starting from Mr. Paik's position, over Mr. Morin's position, passing North of the Citgo gas station, and then the plane made a slight right bank towards Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas, crossed over Washington Boulevard very near to those two trees in front of the heli pad, and reached the Pentagon. Penny Elgas ads a very slight left bank to the path, after it crossed Washington Boulevard and flew over the Pentagon lawn. She saw the bottom of the left wing dipped down a little.
Christine Peterson says the plane crossed over her head and thus her car, which she told us, was standing in front of the heli pad.

Big picture/drawing : www.alsx.info...

Clipped by forum rules one, but the visible part with more details:

Smaller, forum fitted one :


...and then Penny Elgas explains vividly how the plane impacted on the wall.
That's the weird part of it, with all those smoke rings she describes, of explosions or metal dust rings going around the plane's body, which was crumbling, on impact. You nearly think that she must have used a high-speed camera to be able to describe all what she say she saw. Alternatively, the adrenaline gave her perhaps super fast eyesight for a few seconds.
What she describes could be a solid plane entering a force field. I do not take that as an option, however.
However, I do accept an eventual psychological influence by aftermath psychologists. She describes in the link I gave, that she went for counseling to overcome her fears. There are many stories about MK-Ultra psy-ops floating on this board, so take a shot at that, I do not want to become distracted by such a theory.

If she was at the spot on Washington Boulevard, where I think she was, then there is no evidence whatsoever on the Pentagon West wall behind the heli pad of a NoC flying, incoming and impacting plane.
Therefore, that part of her story is still questionable, in my opinion.


What happened thereafter is the start of a completely new discussion, of which Terry Morin's statements are a main contributing pillar, and which I will gladly engage in.

To start with, this is the official flight path rammed through by all official media slaves:

Click for original huge picture: img96.imageshack.us...

Cut-out Pentagon damage part of it with anomaly column damage patterns in it.
Named FL77-Impact-Anomalies by me:
Click for big picture : www.alsx.info...

Clipped by forum rules one with details:

The three yellow lines extending to the two trees along Washington Boulevard were where Christine Peterson car stood and where she told us the plane came crossing over her head.
They could be exactly the two engines and the main spar damage, were it not impossible since the blue lined NoC flight path in my above picture does not cross the Pentagon West wall perpendicular, but under a +/- 60° angle.
In addition, there is no West wall damage at that point indicating entrance of two heavy engines axels and the center spar beam. Moreover, there are six and four undamaged columns behind that wall.
There was still a tree standing there on 911 after "impact" with extensive burn marks and broken branches. It was not cut low at its trunk, or totally obliterated by a NoC impact.

The two regions marked with a thin red line to the left and right of the main damage pattern inside, are peculiar.
Especially the right one. One would too easily explain that away with a somewhat deviated right engine or landing gear struts damage path, but in my opinion, that is already shown as one of the red lines originating from the engines of the drawn in plane. Those two trajectories are following the pattern of most damaged red columns, and both bow inward to the main spar, entering the building (the thick blue line).

If we do accept now, that the whole damage pattern is a faked FL77 path one (impossible downed light poles on a now proven false SoC path), so why the anomaly of the by red lines indicated regions?
Were planted explosives a tad bit too strong, or were +Mach 3 bunker-buster missiles used, which no human eye would register anyway, they are far too fast incoming for the slow reacting eye.

The region in the "bulked out" portion was in my opinion the big Naval Office area, with the ONI office (Office of Naval Intelligence) in it. It was a set of long wide offices situated along the C-ring outer wall. That is where all personnel was killed, except one young man who survived since he was sent away to deliver a message. See my extensive posts on the ONI in one of my first posts on this board. And the famous "exit hole" looks suspiciously like an entrance hole blown out by detonation-cord, to finish off eventual survivors and destroy the Navy Intelligence Main Frame computers.
Yes, if you accept a military deception with numerous goals, than you can/must accept this scenario too.
You have to think it through, to the ugly end.
That's why so many intelligent opponents are psychologically blocked to even try to think about such scenarios. I do understand their reasons for that for a big part.
The world we were put in at birth is a far filthier one than most of us can and want to accept.
We were programmed after birth to color things up as much as we can, to keep believing...in what exactly?


The logical reasoning after examining all the evidence in this thread should be that a fly-over occurred very near or over the two trees and not an impact after a North of Citgo trajectory, contradicted by the official South of Citgo trajectory and the connected damage pattern inside the Pentagon.
This reasoning has a high percentage of certainty.
The SoC reasoning is lately only substantiated by the downed light poles and the damage pattern inside the building. It should be clear to subscribers of this theory, that every other new interviewed witness describes in fact a NoC flight path.
Thus, this reasoning has an increasing lower percentage of certainty.

If you after reading all this, are getting convinced that the NoC trajectory is the only right one (when you believe the extensive interviews by CIT), then it follows logically and will be clear to you, that the whole damage pattern, beginning with the light poles, is a blatant lie.
In addition, the fly-over point was probably no more than 30 to 50 meters further than the official impact point.
Thus, the plane did not have to fly through explosion debris.



[edit on 25/1/09 by LaBTop]

This is a follow up on some of my posts in this thread's page 6:
Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession of Involvement In the 9/11 Black Op :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by LaBTop
I'll start:

1. When a plane coming from a NoC direction towards the Pentagon West wall was blown up just in front of that wall, why:
a. are there no burn marks on that wall, beside the known ones
b. are there no impact marks on that wall, beside the known ones
c. are there no internal 90° damage paths seen on the damage drawings, beside the known ones
d. are there no bigger plane parts found on the lawn than the known ones


Possible answer 1.1 which covers all the above :
The NoC plane did explode in front of the west wall, exactly where we see all the impact damage in all the Immerson and Riskus pictures taken just after impact. Only the main spars and the engines proceeded further into the building, caused by the momentum of their mass, and their material strength.
The planted explosions went off a few milliseconds before the plane was blown up, thus the plane's explosion force bended all loose pieces back in again.

New question:
2. Why to blow up that plane, when they could have just let it impact?

Possible answer 2.1: Because the approx. 53° damage path was already planned and projected, by means of pre-planted explosives or a bunker buster attack, to take out the ONI offices and their main frames which held all the information on the past black operations which could not be accounted for, worth a few TRILLION of dollars of tax payers money.
Thus, plan B came into play, they blew up the NoC plane which had drifted too far away from the SoC planned approach path.
And they blew up a planned hole in the C-ring wall at the end of the approx. 53° damage path, to be able to quickly finish the job's eventual loose ends, inside the ONI offices.

That doesn't sound so alienated anymore, now you all found out what scoundrels in fact did run the USA after the Kennedy assassination. And caused all this economic turmoil which at last surfaced recently.
You are in effect being ruled by a small mob, a political one and a military one. And most of the politicians and military brass even doesn't realize that. And that mob does own the agencies. Which regulate and sanitize eventual problems.

New question :
3. Why not let it fly-over the Pentagon while the explosives were set off?

Possible answer 3.1: Because too many side and back ways oriented spectators would have seen it proceed over the roof of the Pentagon, and too many of the security cameras would record such an event.
You do not really believe yourself, that the Pentagon would not have "eyes" aimed at its whole roof area, do you? They were all over the place, you can clearly see those 360° ones f.ex. in the photos of Killtown of the damaged roof areas.

Possible counter-argument 3.2: If it was all planned, they will have thought to sabotage the computer room near the main entrance, where the Colonel ran into after the sound of impact died down, and there he tried to look at footage of the event. We never heard if he saw a recorded event.

Originally posted by LaBTop
I'm very well aware that there are certain rules.

Craig, regarding most of us here, and many of them the local rules enforcers, you don't have to convince us anymore that the plane flew NoC, and that Lloyde is clearly evading the photographic evidence laid in front of him and starts conning his way back to another 9/11 position where he would have seen the plane.
Learn to just ignore notorious thread killers, and concentrate on the last remaining piece of the puzzle.

There is just one piece of the puzzle to be cleared, and you know which one.
And that is only possible by discussing all possible explanations, and then dissect them one by one by bringing in definite arguments to shoot them down one by one, until we arrive together at the inevitable conclusion, which is a fly-over.

But you don't want to touch that most important piece of the puzzle anymore.
Why?

You want to break up the whole chain of reasoning here, let me open a whole new thread again, type all this damn text and links again and then start all over again?
Why?
Lloyde's account is clear, it's pure crap. Let's move on to the pinnacle of truth, what happened after the plane crossed Washington Boulevard?


I want, same as you, to dissect every possible counter argument and at last come to a solid conclusion, based on a solid discussion, why it is inevitable impossible for a NORTH of CITGO flying plane, crossing Washington Boulevard near the helipad, with all of its huge road signs, to cause the exact very strange first floor demolition scars as we can see in those first photos. And why there was no first floor damage inside at floor level from a cartwheeling plane.
And why so many witnesses reported a much slower flying plane as was reported in first instance. And why no plane parts were bouncing back from the West wall.

How did they manage to camouflage that fly-over of a huge plane for the spectators?
That's the last important discussion, the rest is lost energy on debaters, only interested in nitpicking.

Learn to neglect that species, concentrate on the real opponents who come up with seemingly solid counter arguments.
And be able to play the role of devils advocate yourself, that's real research, to try to attack your own conclusions, and then prove that it's all wrong, and your conclusion still stands strong.

EDIT: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Read my conclusion! And pay a bit more attention who's on your side and who are not. ENDEDIT.

[edit on 4/5/09 by LaBTop]

My opening post came from one of my many posts in this long thread :
*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I have collected there a few eyewitness accounts which have been used for more than 8 years to defend the official (South of Citgo) flight path.
I proved that to be wrong, at the contrary, they were in fact North of Citgo witnesses.


Let me first hear the thoughts of those who firmly believe in a North of Citgo flight path for the plane at the Pentagon.
And the repercussions these thoughts have for the fly-over theory, as proposed by Craig Ranke and friends of Citizen Investigation Team.

[edit on 4/5/09 by LaBTop]

Penny Elgas statements directly after the event as written down in the media are very interesting, since she gives such a vivid recollection of the events as she remembered them. See first my posts at page 13 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and my first post at this page 14 about Penny Elgas :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted by LaBTop

I want, same as you, to dissect every possible counter argument and at last come to a solid conclusion, based on a solid discussion, why it is inevitable impossible for a NORTH of CITGO flying plane, crossing Washington Boulevard near the helipad, with all of its huge road signs, to cause the exact very strange first floor demolition scars as we can see in those first photos. And why there was no first floor damage inside at floor level from a cartwheeling plane.

There is no doubt that the decoy aircraft, now proven to have flown Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo by 13+ proven and re-interviewed eyewitnesses, could not possibly have created the official damage pattern through the Pentagon 1st floor. Knocking down the light poles to the south is not possible.

To date, there are zero available eyewitnesses to prove the official Flight 77 south flight path. Flying Over the Naval Annex negates flying the official flight path.

The FAA flight path reinforces this by aiming the aircraft at a position which would enter the Pentagon at a completely different angle than the official damage path. Furthermore the aircraft is much too high to possibly dive down and impact the Pentagon 1st floor in a few seconds time. The aircraft is forced to fly above the light poles and overhead highway sign because those objects were not knocked down.

FAA flight path


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c4d51db76ffc.jpg[/atsimg]

Sean Boger inside the helipad tower, reported the aircraft approaching directly toward him from Over the Naval Annex, and banking to the right (or his left) exactly as depicted in the FAA video. There is no banking to the right in the official south flight path.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07ab3f3dc0fa.jpg[/atsimg]

LabTop,

Eyewitnesses are not computers.

We have always understood and accepted the fact that they are quite fallible and that we can only rely on them for GENERAL details that can be corroborated.

So as you obviously agree......the GENERAL detail that the plane was north of the citgo and therefore did not hit the light poles or cause the physical damage to the generator trailer or the building has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not possible for you, us, or anyone to determine the EXACT flight path down to the foot.

That being said we have plenty of direct evidence proving that the plane continued on and flew away after the explosion.

Before noticing this thread I responded to you about this in the flashbang theory thread so I will copy my response here:


LaBTop asked the question:

How did they manage to camouflage that fly-over of a huge plane for the spectators?
That's the last important discussion, the rest is lost energy on debaters, only interested in nitpicking.

The short answer is that they didn't completely camouflage it.

People saw it.

We know this for a fact and we have hard evidence for it including an officially documented AND independently confirmed account from Roosevelt Roberts Jr who saw it flying away immediately after the explosion.

And also from Arlington Cemetery employee Erik Dihle who didn't see the plane himself but told the Center for Military History only weeks after the event that as soon as he ran outside after the explosion "Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."

Yes that is his exact quote and you can download the audio recording of him telling the CMH this right here:
Erik Dihle interviewed by CMH in 2001

So although some people saw it most were simply deceived as intended.

Sheila Casey with the Rock Creek Free Press made this point very succinctly:

Less than an hour earlier, America had seen the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball. Most people were aware that an attack was underway. If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball. To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives preplanted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre-9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now.
source

And also of course, as outlined in this thread, there is hard evidence that flashbang technology was utilized that would only serve to facilitate a deception that most were primed and ready to be fooled by anyway.

Furthermore, you have to remember......people were extremely confused as to what just happened.

The initial reports were wildly mixed and nobody knew what the heck was going on.

So they simply trotted out their planted witnesses to the media to sell their myth. Of course those in control simply called even the honest or duped part of the media and just TOLD them what happened. All they had to do is call them and give the official word and that is what the loyal obedient media would say happened. The psyop would be officially launched.

Here is the first report of a plane hitting the Pentagon only 5 minutes after the event:


Done.

The myth was set in stone and would only snowball from there with ease.


Anyone who talked about a plane flying away would be considered merely anomalous and mistaken like so many others. They simply would not matter and they DID NOT matter. They were blown off like the many erroneous reports that day....some a natural occurrence during such an event, and perhaps some deliberately planted for confusion.

But they still covered their tracks just in case.

Honest witnesses who saw the plane flying away were handled with reports of blatantly false witness claims of a "2nd plane" that flew away DURING the event blended with half true but ambiguous accounts of the C-130 that flew in the scene about 3 minutes later.

We have uncovered a VERY large set of evidence for this as discussed in our video short The 2nd Plane Cover Story but in even more detail in our full length release, The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off.

We feature our exclusive interview with Keith Wheelhouse whose proven false account of a "shadowing" 2nd plane has been exposed by all the other witnesses, the C-130 pilot himself, and hard VIDEO evidence of when the C-130 really flew into the scene....about 3 full minutes later.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d77c63de82ca.gif[/atsimg]

There is simply no reason for all this if there wasn't a flyover.

Finally, realize that it's not a stretch to suggest that many or most of the reporters on the scene would have been controlled and knew exactly who they were supposed to interview. History has shown us from declassified documents that programs like Operation Mockingbird are fact, not conspiracy theory.

To suggest that it's simply a coincidence that many of the key interviewed "witnesses" happened to also be high ranking media people, however, IS a stretch.

So THAT is how they "camouflaged" the flyover.

We have presented plenty of DIRECT evidence for a flyover yet there is absolutely zero evidence for a magically disintegrating exploding plane.

We don't need to theorize any longer.

We have the evidence and it's time for action.



[edit on 5-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

If they were going blow up the plane just shy of the Pentagon there wouldn't be a reason to fly it on the north side.

We strongly feel the reason they flew it on the north side is so they can say that it was a "2nd plane" to anyone who might have seen it fly away.

The 2nd plane cover story was CRITICAL to this operation and we have uncovered a large body of evidence demonstrating how deliberate it was.

Furthermore they would not have had an exploding plane "pull up" as described by Robert Turcios & Darius Prather:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4be5841f07a4.gif[/atsimg]

Unconfirmed media reports are not evidence. You can't rely on 2nd hand accounts from mainstream media for specific details. You have no idea where Penny Elgas' exact location was or even if she was really on that highway at all that day.

I'm not saying she is for sure a plant but her piece of debris story certainly reeks of propaganda and there is no reason to assume she is a valid witness without even having a confirmed, recorded first-hand account to scrutinize.

My point is, the north side evidence proves that there were planted witnesses who lied. Some of them, like Mike Walter, blended both the north and the south side flight paths.

So just because you might be able to interpret a mainstream media quote to seem to support north side, that does not automatically mean the witness is genuine.

Confirm their exact location and full account with them directly and provide first-hand recorded interviews and THEN we will have actual evidence that we can use to make an educated determination on how accurate or truthful the account is when compared to the full body of evidence.

Otherwise it is just speculation that only serves to muddy the waters.

Prove there was no fly-over? that should be easy. The plane flew over a major highway parallel to the Pentagon, and it was rush hour traffic. If there was a fly-over there'd be a hundred witnesses among the commuters reporting there was a fly over, rather than the hundred witnesses reporting an airplane crashed into the Pentagon.

Moreover, the Pentagon isn't out in the middle of the desert. There were office buildings and residences all around the vicinity, and the people in those buildings reported seeing a plane hit the Pentagon, rather than a fly-over.

'Nuff said.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Yeah?

Then why didn't "100's" of witnesses report the alleged "2nd plane" flying away during the explosion that this guy reported?

Please explain that for me.

The fact is that the topography in the area is very complex and not flat at all. It is at the bottom of a significant decline and the maze of highways and landscape leaves very few places where you could have a clear view of the entire event go down.

Furthermore it is right next door to Reagan National Airport.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a23aae21456a.jpg[/atsimg]

There are low flying large jets departing and arriving right near the building every 3 or 4 minutes of every day all day long.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/313c827b9c28.jpg[/atsimg]

A plane flying away from the building is a VERY common sight and would not get a 2nd look from most people as a massive fireball rose from the building after a huge explosion.

Furthermore you do not know what people really first reported as you are simply accepting the word of the media based on nothing but pure faith with zero scrutinizing, confirmation, or investigation.

That runs counter to all critical thinking principals and true skepticism.

Here is direct hard evidence of what they actually first reported:

"Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."

Erik Dihle interviewed by CMH in 2001

We also have direct evidence of a deliberate cover-up of what people really first reported without the filter of the media because we know for a fact that the FBI confiscated and permanently sequestered the 911 tapes and transcripts even though they were released in NY.

This should seriously bother you and every citizen who supports transparency and honesty because there would not be a reason on earth for them to do this if the event went down as they told us.

Bottom line, the north side evidence, the 2nd plane cover story evidence, and the direct evidence we have uncovered for a flyover/flyaway 100% proves the plane kept on going.









[edit on 5-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yeah?

Then why didn't "100's" of witnesses report the alleged "2nd plane" flying away during the explosion that this guy reported?

Please explain that for me.

Since there are 100's of witnesses, and since he (according to you) is the only one who claims he saw this second plane, then you already have your answer on why noone else reported it.

A plane flying away from the building is a VERY common site and would not get a 2nd look from most people as a massive fireball rose from the building after a huge explosion.

You misunderstand. There is a highway right next to the Pentagon, and the plane flew directly over the highway in the middle of rush hour on its way to the Pentagon. Eyewitnesses had a ring side seat to the crash, and they saw the plane fly right into the building. They didn't watch a jet liner scream ten feet over their heads only to sit there lookign the other way saying "ho hum" before hearing somethign went BOOM nearby.

It wouldn't be a second look. It would be their entire look.

posted by GoodOlDave
Prove there was no fly-over? that should be easy. The plane flew over a major highway parallel to the Pentagon, and it was rush hour traffic. If there was a fly-over there'd be a hundred witnesses among the commuters reporting there was a fly over, rather than the hundred witnesses reporting an airplane crashed into the Pentagon.

Moreover, the Pentagon isn't out in the middle of the desert. There were office buildings and residences all around the vicinity, and the people in those buildings reported seeing a plane hit the Pentagon, rather than a fly-over.

Who would your 100 witnesses report the flyover to GoodOlDave? The Mainstream News Media? Not a chance. The Mainstream News Media would report no accounts not already on the approved list. Why do you think the Mainstream News Media did not pick up the Arlington National Cemetery accounts (reported by CIT recently) back in 2001 and run with them? Not on the approved list? Do you think the Mainstream News Media did not know that the CMH was interviewing hundreds of witnesses back in 2001? Of course they did. But not one single mainstream journalist decided to risk his lucrative career did he? They must know who butters their bread and who could axe their future.

Every one of those valuable CIT discovered ANC eyewitnesses was questioned by the Center for Military History back in 2001 and their names redacted and accounts censored until forced release in 2008 by FOIA lawsuit and court order. Their names were still redacted, but CIT managed to track them down and video-interview them. How is it the Mainstream News Media, with far greater resources did not track them down? Not on the approved list? Why did CIT track them down? To hell with the approved list?

Enter the U.S. Government (official documentation).

The Center for Military History (CMH) reportedly conducted over a couple hundred interviews in the weeks and months immediately following the event.

None of these interviews have been openly published but in 2008 a few dozen were released via FOIA with the names redacted.

So in essence this data amounted to nothing but a bunch of anonymous transcripts that have been sequestered, vetted, and provided for solely by the very suspect we are investigating in this crime.

Unless of course we could figure out who the alleged witnesses were, get a hold of them, and confirm their accounts first hand. Only at that point would their witness accounts become independent verifiable evidence.

www.thepentacon.com...

Why is it that after being made public by CIT, the Mainstream News Media has STILL never questioned these valuable ANC eyewitnesses and made their contrary to the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY accounts public to the entire American citizenry? STILL not on the approved list?

Why is it that OUR news media is censoring important information from the people? Do you have an answer for that Dave? Perhaps your 100 witnesses are among the hundreds of accounts STILL censored by the Center for Military History. Do you think that is a possibility Dave?

Who else would your 100 witnesses report the flyover to? The FBI? Dead end again? The FBI would sternly inform them that they were mistaken and they actually saw a 2nd aircraft, and afterall they would not want to be viewed as helping the 'terrorists' in a hostile attack against innocent American people and OUR Pentagon. The FBI would inform them that they were taking names of people assisting the 'terrorists'.

Who else would your 100 witnesses report the flyover to? The Arlington County 9-11 call-in hot line? Dead end. The FBI quickly confiscated and censored the Arlington County 9-11 call-ins and transcripts didn't they? Perhaps your 100 witnesses are among the accounts STILL censored by the FBI in the Arlington County 9-11 call-ins and transcripts. Do you think that is a possibility Dave?

But hopefully CIT will find some of your hundred witnesses and as proven before; CIT will publish their videotaped accounts. Aren't we patriotic Americans lucky to have CIT, Dave?




[edit on 5/5/09 by SPreston]

On a similar note; how come two working guys from California and one from Virginia and several from elsewhere with meager resources, can videotape their eyewitnesses on location and present them to the American public, and the Mainstream News Media with their plentiful resources cannot?

How come there are no videotaped interviews of your alleged hundreds of witnesses, but only short paragraphs? How come there are no detailed interviews with your alleged hundreds of witnesses? How come we do not even know what any of your alleged hundreds of witnesses look like?

Because they are phantoms; invented by the 9-11 perps and passed on to us by the collusive Mainstream News Media? Because these imaginary witnesses do not exist except on a script?

Could that be true of the alleged aircraft passengers too? Afterall, there was nobody meeting them at their official destinations at LAX and SFO in California were there? Why were none of their grieving friends and family arriving at LAX or SFO seeking answers and needing consolation? Scripted phantom passengers would have no families would they, and both airports were evacuated and closed to keep that fact from the American public weren't they?

Simple when a little common sense and logic is used isn't it Dave?

How come none of you government loyalists has managed to find even one of your alleged hundreds of witnesses and reinterviewed him/her and videotaped the interview? Why is that GoodOlDave?

This next picture is a screenshot of the first appearance in a FOX5 News DC network footage of the smoke at the Pentagon at 09:42 AM on 11 September 2001.
It is the first video footage aired on 9/11 of that event, and thus just 4 minutes later than the official impact time of 09:38 and some seconds. Here is the screenshot :
Link : www.alsx.info...

Big picture:



Forum fitted:



Now open the accompanying YouTube video, posted by Craig Ranke, who had another screen name in those days, he was "lytetrip" :
Direct link: www.youtube.com...



Concentrate your eyes on that yellow area I super-imposed over that above screenshot, with the USA-Today buildings in the background above it.
In that yellow area, watch carefully the fast moving traffic on both North and South bound lanes of Washington Boulevard. But not really bumper to bumper! Quite the contrary.
That road passes in front of the Pentagon West wall where the helipad is situated on the lawn in between that road and the wall. The wall where a plane officially crashed at 09:38.
The traffic keeps flowing fast in both directions all the time until the last screenshot of that video at 09:46

That peculiar short stretch was also named by news sources on that day as Route 27 or I-395, even as 110.

Thus, how about all these impact eyewitnesses like Steve Riskus (the maker of the first after-crash photos) who told us they were directly stuck in the traffic which came to a standstill or was already at a standstill at impact or directly after, of a plane?
Some say that the POV lane was already stuck before the plane crossed over those lanes. Steve said he was stuck in the last stretch of the POV lane before that lane flows back into the North bound lane, and he walked back to a point in front of the helipad while taking pictures.

But something is not adding up with all that fast moving traffic, and with the immense black smoke column, which we did not see as wide as that in the first pictures.
That traffic is not dense enough to be the cause that Riskus car could not flow back into the North bound lane. But if you look at the first few of his impact pictures, all traffic on all lanes stands still........
Did Riskus caused the traffic jam in the POV lane by halting all traffic while waiting for a plane?
Steve Riskus started a website on 9/10 2001, so one day earlier, where he has published all his 9/11 photos.
I made a post about that peculiar magical foresight in this forum a few weeks back.
I'll have to find it back, since there was something very peculiar with Riskus.

Watch also the very busy flow of Pentagon personnel streaming out of the building and all over the South parking lot. As if it was an already often times rehearsed event.

That whole immense parking lot was empty after less than an hour. And then they dumped plane debris there later, they said.
ALSO the cars from all the victims and wounded were gone!!!
Who magically got a hold of all their car keys from the still buried under the rubble, dead or wounded bodies, within ONE HOUR?
And then found out lightning fast which keys belonged to what left over cars?

That doesn't line up with the chaos we saw unfolding the first HOURS.

Can't find my post back via the ATS Search.
It's reluctant again to do any search with my name in it.
So, "Steve Riskus LaBTop" does not bring up my recent post about his strange start date and some more anomalies about Riskus website.

Steve Riskus his website :
www.criticalthrash.com...

I took these pictures less then 1 minutes after I watched the american airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on september 11 2001. I left shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks.
Feel free to contact me anytime if you have questions about my pictures.
Yes, I did actually see the plane impact the building.
Steve Riskus
steveriskus[at]aol[dot]com

We also have the account of Mike Walters, the USA-Today editor :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

MIKE WALTER: I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure. I watched as it continued to dip from the sky, diving towards the Pentagon. There are some trees that are adjacent to 27 the road I was stuck on, so the jet went out of sight momentarily.

Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion. There was a huge fireball. There was the initial shock of what had just happened. All of the drivers seemed to be in a trance. Then suddenly it ended when a woman began to scream, “They just hit the Pentagon, get back, get back.” She backed her SUV back and forth until she was able to create a crease and then she sped out of the area on the emergency lane. That’s when all hell broke loose as people began trying to get out of the area any way they could, some went forward, and others turned their cars around and drove in the wrong direction. All in an effort to get out of the area.
www.pentagonresearch.com...

I don't observe that kind of behavior in that first FOX5 video above.

reply to post by LaBTop


What does any of that have to do with the topic?

I post all kinds if evidence proving a flyover and you simply ignore it and change the discussion?

The fox video is from 5 minutes after the attack.

We have an exclusive interview with a previously unknown witness who was on route 27 northbound DURING the attack.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e5eeeb78897.jpg[/atsimg]

She was directly under a north side flight path and says she was stuck in traffic talking on the phone. Our interview is recorded on the highway were she explains explicit details of her exact location etc.

She never saw or heard a plane at all and all of the sudden there was a massive explosion at the Pentagon and she told her friend on the phone. "oh my god the Pentagon was just bombed!"

She said some people pulled over and were walking around dazed staring at the burning Pentagon while others were frantically trying to get out of there.

She pulled up far enough to make an illegal u-turn on the highway over a small divider and turned back the other way (southbound)......

They had already started blocking traffic southbound just before the bridge and were waving for her to stop but she decided not to stop and got off on the Columbia Pike exit (before the bridge) and got out of there heading back home.

You can see that section of her story towards the end of "Eye of the Storm" as direct evidence they started controlling the southbound lanes in order to stage Lloyde's scene.

Point is that it didn't take long for people to file out of there as quickly as possible and for them to completely shut down the highway all together.

But traffic most certainly was backed up (northbound lanes only) DURING the explosion.

She has no motive to lie about this and has never been interviewed by the media or govt so was not part of the propaganda.

I will say this about the traffic in the fox video......the southbound traffic seems to be moving too fast for a cab and light pole to be in the middle of the road.

I bet they didn't stage it until a couple minutes later as they were gaining control of the scene and starting to block traffic.



Now back to the topic....were you familiar with Erik Dihle's account? Did you listen to him describe how people first reported a bomb going off and a jet that "kept on going"?

Do you accept the large amount of evidence we provide for an elaborate and deliberately planned 2nd plane cover story?

Do you understand how this is all direct evidence for a flyover?





[edit on 6-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by LaBTop

That pentagonresearch.com website is now broken- no Mike Walters account there (but the videos of him abound).

I have found the "Steve Riskus tour" to be a little curious. I remember reading about it somewhere before (perhaps here at ATS) with time estimates on the photos and locations. There are several photos that show the traffic in the Pentagon vicinity at Riskus' website. Although I can tell he used an Olympus camera from the metadata, there was no date or time information on the few photos that I inspected.

My search for "Steve Riskus" pulled up these threads here:

Steve Riskus - Photos of Pentagon minutes after attack (showing before collapse)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed (94 pages)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof! (44 pages)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

How many witnesses say they saw a plane hit light poles?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by rhunter

That pentagonresearch.com website is now broken-

Heh.

Yeah the evidence against Lloyde England and for the north side approach forced Russell Pickering, the former owner of pentagonresearch.com, to completely remove his site and all his "research" from the internet and quit the movement forever...but only after launching a furious character assassination campaign against us for months when The PentaCon was initially released.

Strange isn't it?

You can hear him freaking out over the evidence we uncovered in our first trip, before we even had the north side evidence, here.

Yet when he got home everything was fine and he 100% believed in a 757 impact again with no problems.

Then after we went back and got the north side evidence he came completely unglued and eventually quit forever in a swirl of attacks.

Sad story really.

I'll never understand how evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job could get such violent reactions from someone who claimed they believe 9/11 was an inside job.

On Steve Riskus and his travel route around Arlington/DC area, read the account of "22205" over at LCF last year. It is quite informative.

Post #115 of "Lloyde England and His Cab - The Eye of the Storm; Now released!"

s1.zetaboards.com...

This appears to have been re-posted at #4 of "strange response to Route 27 cab predicament"
s1.zetaboards.com...

Then we appear to have a white Saturn with Fire Dept tags moving around the Pentagon area at the time in photos at post #73 and other later ones on "The physical damage to the cab; let's look at it in context."

s1.zetaboards.com...

The Riskus "tour" and the Saturn movements are curious to say the least IMHO.

Craig: What does any of that have to do with the topic?
I post all kinds of evidence proving a flyover and you simply ignore it and change the discussion?

No, I (or we) do not ignore it, I at least appreciate it and absorb it for future use.
No reaction does not equal disinterest or distraction.
In this case I do not feel the need to add anything to your words, for me they sufficiently cover your subject.

Craig, I don't have any difficulty and don't see any, in offering an as wide as possible coverage of the Pentagon event in this specific thread, to try to find, all together, as many anomalies as possible, perhaps unnoticed until now.

Remember, I personally feel a strong need to disprove the official story, and prove a fly-over, since I know deep inside for a long time already, that the official story is a deception on a global scale, which does affect me and everybody else on earth intensely.
Many have already died because of that deception, and many are still falling victim of this policy.
But you can't sweep all witness accounts under the carpet, and lately quite a few "ironclad" SoC proposed eyewitness proved to be in fact NoC witnesses by me and others.

It is important for me and many others, including yourself, to find as many discrepancies in the official pushed Pentagon story, to prove that that event was a staged one, at least for the few first minutes.
That's why I find all evidence of those first minutes so important.
After that they will have switched to containment mode, of unwanted evidence. That's why they don't make the 911 phone calls of the morning of 9/11available to the public.

At the moment I am not in a position that I have much time to spend behind a computer as I really would wanted to, so bear with me and my slow reaction on posts, also caused by my habit to try to read or watch all the offered links before commenting on them. Read my sig and mood.
(End of personal exchange.)


Like in the next excerpt, I tend to try to find as many details which seem to fit the overall witnessed event, and thus trying to weed out the witness reports which definitely don't fit the overall reported stories and controllable facts, and especially don't fit the CIT video-(re)interviewed eyewitnesses of an over the Annex, north of Citgo, Pentagon approaching, airplane. Especially since these CIT reports are backed up with the early military history research reports.

That next excerpt is from an interview with Alan Wallace (IAFF Local #F253), a firefighter who on the morning of September 11, 2001, was assigned to the Heliport Station at the Pentagon.
Thank you very much, "rhunter" for that link and the others!

Source: 64.233.169.104...:mq7rY5A1UnoJ:gvfd29.org/modules/news/article.php%3Fstoryid%3D438+%22%22so+many+people+think+Mark+and+he+watched+t he+plane+hit+the+building%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. We only saw it approach for an instant. I would estimate not longer than half a second. Others didn’t understand why we didn’t hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1½-2 seconds after we saw it.

--snip--
I do remember helping three men carry an unconscious man all the way out to the guardrail beside Washington Blvd. While carrying him, I noticed the 4 inch fire hose from our Fort Myer Rescue Engine #161. That meant our fellow fire fighters were on the scene. This was a relief because after I called them on the radio, I was certain it would be difficult for them to get to the Pentagon because of the traffic. But I learned later that Rescue Engine #161, Rescue Engine #162 and the Assistant Chief did not have difficulty getting to the Pentagon.

Now, pay attention to my following use of the words south bound, contrary to north bound!

Again, no mention in the first 10 minutes of any troubles to reach the Pentagon by car on the north bound lanes, the ones closest to the Pentagon lawn.
This does not vibe with many eyewitness reports from various online lists, like the Bart list, or the Someguyyoudontknow list.
And that's thus one way of weeding out false witness accounts, since we do know definitely that those fire trucks DID arrive on the lawn very early, in the first 10 minutes.
And the only traffic jammed lane was the CENTER, HOV-lane.
Both south and north bound lanes were having fast traffic at least from 09:42 to 09:46, as can be seen in that thus important first aired FOX5 News video above, which I had not ever seen before.

And that does NOT fit the Lloyde England story and photo's. As you can see the placement of his cab and the pieces of the light pole on the road would have immediately stopped all traffic trying to proceed south bound on Washington Blvd. But as you can see in the above FOX5 video, in those minutes after the alleged plane crash at 09:38, the traffic on the south bound lane is still proceeding in a fast pace.



The trouble I have with that video, is that it seems to show only the stretch of south bound lane just before the Columbia Pike exit.
So it could appear that all that south going traffic we see, all bended off to the Pike, because the main south lane was blocked by authorities.
This is very important to find out, if they immediately blocked that stretch AFTER the Pike exit, since that would be a very strong indicator of staging Lloyde's cab and pole.

And now I'm gonna try to explain to Craig why all of these so called distractions of mine are so damn important.
Because directly after Lloyde's southward bound taxi passed the Columbia Pike exit on the south bound lane, that stretch of highway seemed to have been closed off immediately by some cars with "authority", to start the staging of Lloyds "accident" with the cut off light pole on the next stretch to the overhead bridge crossing (situated above the last stretch of Columbia Pike in the direction of the south parking Pentagon lot).

These are very important pictures from the Loose Change board from the poster "22205"; thanks again "rhunter" for that important link:

s1.zetaboards.com...
and it depicts the position of Steve Riskus car after he stopped to take the first pictures.
He also said in earlier years on his website that he saw the plane crossing the highway about 100 feet in front of him, and that's exactly the spot which I described in my Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas analysis posts, namely just around or between the two trees on the Pentagon lawn, in front of the Helipad :

"His (Steve Riskus) sequence of pictures show that he never went past the Columbia Pike exit, and in fact he actually DID exit there (which might even indicate the highway was closed past this point)":







"100 ft in front of that exit (per Riskus' account), still puts the plane on the North of Citgo path, and even corroborates the ANC witnesses":



"Riskus never mentions the plane hitting any poles, nor any poles hitting the cab. Had he (been able to) keep straight on Wash Blvd, then Riskus would have been immediately behind where Lloyde's cab was on the bridge and thus Riskus should have been one of - if not - the first person to come up on Lloyde. But that didn't happen,and Riskus instead left Washington Blvd at the Columbia Pike exit."

Again, very good analysis of "22205", this did clear up a lot for us here, "rhunter"!
I repeat the second post link of "22205" for the text in it :
s1.zetaboards.com...

You see, Craig, with the might of many you can solve the big puzzle, by stitching one piece at a time in the overall, seemingly complicated patchwork. And CIT's addition to solving the puzzle was really groundbreaking.

And I do adhere to your conclusion in this quote of your post, but needed more proof, and found it as of now :

Craig: They had already started blocking traffic southbound just before the bridge and were waving for her to stop but she decided not to stop and got off on the Columbia Pike exit (before the bridge) and got out of there heading back home.
You can see that section of her story towards the end of "Eye of the Storm" as direct evidence they started controlling the southbound lanes in order to stage Lloyde's scene.
Point is that it didn't take long for people to file out of there as quickly as possible and for them to completely shut down the highway all together.
But traffic most certainly was backed up (northbound lanes only) DURING the explosion.
She has no motive to lie about this and has never been interviewed by the media or govt so was not part of the propaganda.
I will say this about the traffic in the fox video......the southbound traffic seems to be moving too fast for a cab and light pole to be in the middle of the road.
I bet they didn't stage it until a couple minutes later as they were gaining control of the scene and starting to block traffic.

Do we see traffic PAST the exit to Columbia Pike going south in the FOX5 video? The exit Riskus took.
That's the question!
Is there sharper footage than the grainy YouTube quality for that FOX5 footage, so we can be sure?

[edit on 8/5/09 by LaBTop]

New NoC witnesses, which were always considered SoC witnesses:

Thread title: *new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin
Post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
That's Christine Peterson, in front of the Helipad, already at a standstill in a traffic jam in the HOV lane.

Post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
That's Christopher Munsey, in traffic headed south on Interstate 395, saw the plane to his right flying over the Navy Annex.

Post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
That's Penny Elgas, also stuck in traffic in the center HOV lane on Washington Blvd.

And this is a very important piece of info, which was not clear to nearly no one who did not live in the DC area:

LaBTop: I found out that Columbia Pike in fact extends, better said begins at the Pentagon South parking lot, then runs to the ANC and makes a sharp round turn in front of the North side of the Citgo station, and then turns back all the way under the 8th Wing of the Navy Annex, makes a sharp turn to the right and runs then uphill along the south east side of the Navy Annex.

For me that first track from the South parking lot to the ANC was a totally unknown fact.
All the maps I had seen in the last seven years stopped naming that road just under the Navy Annex and changed it to Oakwood Drive.
The fact that the first part which runs perpendicular to Washington Boulevard (27) is also named Columbia Pike turns out to be very important.

Some quite important witnesses reported the plane flying over Columbia Pike when they saw it coming to them, and it now turns out that they, or the reporter writing down their words, meant my above bolded out stretch of it in front of the North side of the Citgo station, thus, in between Citgo, and the Arlington military Cemetery.

Post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
This is my post, that made Craig wondering if I was a dis info agent.
Too many of you see too much in too many closets.
I state again, if you want to convince the big bulk of the readers here and all over the world, you will have to address this post.
And I will start, since Craig opted that time to PM me aggressively, while he did not understand what I meant.

When the plane crossed over the area of Washington Blvd, described by Steve Riskus, Penny Elgas and Christine Peterson, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE because of the huge road signs there, for that plane, to hit the official impact point and inflict the 53° damage path as depicted, outside and inside that Pentagon west wall region.

So how come f.ex. Penny Elgas described so vividly how the plane crashed?
Again, I am convinced that certain key eyewitnesses were directly or later hypnotized to imprint such a strong memory of something which did and COULD NOT have occurred !

Originally posted by LaBTop

This is my post, that made Craig wondering if I was a dis info agent.

Excuse me?

Please do not tell people what I think or have "wondered".

I NEVER called you a disinfo agent nor did I ever think you were one.

I think you are an over-zealous "theorizer" who understands the importance of what we have uncovered and simply wants to contribute.

There is nothing wrong with that and you HAVE contributed productively but you seem to go off on tangents and tend to be unnecessarily (and incorrectly) critical at times for the complete wrong reasons.

That bothers me as does the fact that you can never stay on topic even when it's your own thread.

My "aggressive" pm's to you were actually friendly and well intended.

I was reaching out and frankly pleading for you to stop speculating and to focus on confirmed hard evidence.

So how come f.ex. Penny Elgas described so vividly how the plane crashed?
Again, I am convinced that certain key eyewitnesses were directly or later hypnotized to imprint such a strong memory of something which did and COULD NOT have occurred !

Yeah so?

That's not evidence. That is speculation and it does not help us.

She could just as easily have been effectively fooled on that day by a "flashbang" or else deliberately lying as an asset or operative.

You will NEVER know for sure one way or another and unless you can get a recorded first-hand interview with her, your interpretation of the published account that you are ASSUMING was really written by her at all is not evidence.

I have laid out the evidence proving a flyover. You have provided nothing at all that disproves it.

That's what this thread is supposed to be about so unless you are willing to concede that we certainly have provided enough evidence proving a flyover/flyaway then I really see no reason to continue participating in this thread.







[edit on 8-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]