"Flight 77" The White Plane (explosive new CIT release!)

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Craig, what is your thought about this picture with respect to your theory that it was explosives and not a drone craft that hit the Pentagon? It looks like it is part of the AA logo.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pentagon_Debris_91.jpg

Since there was very little debris and this uncharred piece is so heavily focused on it is easy to conclude that it was simply planted.

The few pieces that were found could all be lifted by humans.

This is the extent of the significant sized outside wreckage:

Other than this there was simply a bunch of tiny unrecognizable shreds that we believe were blown from these construction trailers that were completely obliterated:

 

[anart]

It's a lot easier to get a witness to be honest about what they saw if they don't understand the implications.

This is very true and you did a good job of asking questions in such a way that your interviewees did not grasp the implications - I think that was the key to your success.

The thick squiggly one is only visible in one frame of one view. There is zero logic in accepting this government controlled data as valid evidence.

Well, no question that accepting any government controlled data as evidence is illogical, if not downright silly. However, what I find odd about that one frame of video with the thick squiggly is that it makes no sense at all if it was the AA flight - well that's obvious, I mean the whole snippet of video makes no sense if it was the AA flight - but what could have caused this smoke trail?

I realize that question assumes the smoke trail even actually occurred - but what if it did (ruh roh - off into the land of 'what ifs')? Could it have been a fired missile, or do they not evidence such trails? One almost wonders if they weren't showing the missile trail in plain site, because they knew no one would 'get it' - then again, I tend to be conspiratorially minded. And - the simple fact that the government released this video indicates it cannot be the truth of the matter - but it is SUCH a bad 'not truth' one thinks they could have done better - thus, back to the 'is it hidden in plain site' idea - plus no witnesses would have seen the smoke trail if it was a missile trail only visible from the point of launch, quite close to the building - but then, where did the plane launching the missile go? - to the White House? - no, that type of plain can't launch a missile, can it? (rhetorical, 'I have no idea' question)

Since there was very little debris and this uncharred piece is so heavily focused on it is easy to conclude that it was simply planted. The few pieces that were found could all be lifted by humans.

Well, for what it's worth, I tend to agree with you here - those photos reek of 'plants' - simply because there was no 'plane' found - but only these relatively tiny pieces easily carried by people - had the fuselage actually been present, it would not be so hard to believe - but - no plane - just this handy dandy pocket-sized piece - nope - no sale.

 

[Joe]

This has been ruled out because of a few very important reasons...

1. We know the light poles were staged because Lloyd's account is impossible and a global hawk would have likely broken up after hitting the poles and certainly after hitting the generator trailer.

2. If a missile created the C-ring hole it would have done at least some damage to the outer B-ring wall on the other side.

3. None of the citgo witnesses saw or heard ANYTHING on the south side at all.

4. The fact that they had a flyover on the north side makes having an additional craft on the south side very risky and illogical.

5. The ONLY evidence supporting any type of flying anything approaching the Pentagon is the government controlled, leaked, provided, and manipulated security video which is clearly invalid evidence.


The missile/global hawk stuff has kept us chasing our tails for years when the smoking gun was in the flight path.

The 2006 NTSB release of the FDR and the recent release of the RADES data demonstrates perfectly how they are scrambling to explain and confuse because we are focusing on this now.

Believe me, it's clear we have hit a nerve.

1. there's no reason to think that any aircraft hit the light poles. They could have been brought down with small explosives. The same goes for the generator.

2. The hole in the C ring may well have been made by the "rescue workers".

3. there were other witnesses who said they saw what looked like a small passenger jet and heard a "whoosh whoosh" sound, which of course is not the noise of a 757 at close range.

4. I don't think another aircraft = more risk, quite the opposite, the more aircraft the more confusion.

5. There were witnesses who reported seeing a small aircraft.

I don't think there is any negative fall out from positing that a global hawk-type craft was used. In any case, global hawk or pre-planted explosives, the major point is that flight 77 did not, could not, have hit the Pentagon.

Joe

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

1. there's no reason to think that any aircraft hit the light poles. They could have been brought down with small explosives. The same goes for the generator.

2. The hole in the C ring may well have been made by the "rescue workers".

3. there were other witnesses who said they saw what looked like a small passenger jet and heard a "whoosh whoosh" sound, which of course is not the noise of a 757 at close range.

4. I don't think another aircraft = more risk, quite the opposite, the more aircraft the more confusion.

5. There were witnesses who reported seeing a small aircraft.

I don't think there is any negative fall out from positing that a global hawk-type craft was used. In any case, global hawk or pre-planted explosives, the major point is that flight 77 did not, could not, have hit the Pentagon.

Joe

1. The poles could not have come down in real time no matter how you look at it. Lloyd's account is clearly a fabrication. Plus the damage to the poles is not consistent with explosives as the tops of them were "pinched":

The base of pole 4 is perfectly symmetrical as if it was removed with a torch.

Here it is in comparison with the same style base from the same area of a pole that was downed by wind:

The random damage to the non-9/11 wind blown base would be more consistent with a sudden force from an actual plane crash OR explosives.

The poles could only have been planted in advance.

2. True. I agree it was certainly created by someone but it seems illogical that they would even bother if they had a plane hit the building (not to mention fired a missile) at all.

3. List them. I will show you how these mainstream media accounts are quite dubious. If I had found a single previously unknown witness on the street who said such a thing I would be more open to it.

Steven Gerard is the most prominent one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlJop6mV_sg

We spoke with Steven Gerard, who WORKS FOR THE DoJ and describes the "20 passenger corporate jet no markings on the side". He was very evasive and very uncooperative. He said, "My story is it was it is. It's on the record"..."I don't want part in any conspiracy theory". We told him his account as the reason for a lot of conspiracy theories. We asked why he also told his story like this on 9/11/01 as well:

"Out of the corner of my eye, I saw this plane coming down. I was talking on my cell phone to my wife about how close I was to the airport and then I saw the fireball."

He really didn't have an answer, instead seemed to get defensive.

And then you have Don Wright:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Pj_EZMydA

Doesn't this exchange seem suspicious to you?

DW: It came from the south
PJ: Up alond the river or across the land?
**silence**
DW: It came from the south.

Why does Mr. Wright not answer the question if he indeed saw the plane? It seems like he is trying to stick to the script at all costs.


4. We know the twin engine passenger jet was timed perfectly with the explosion. To have another aircraft ALSO in the same exact area at the same exact moment would certainly be risky and unnecessary.

5. A few dubious mainstream media reports. No confirmed genuine previously unknown ones. This is why we don't believe it. I understand that you simply have to take my word for it and I understand how it's difficult to let go of things you have decided you believe but seriously.....we were not able to find any evidence for such a thing whatsoever.

Of course you can suggest it based on speculation or mainstream media reports but we have demonstrated how doing this causes us to fall into their traps. We have demonstrated how first-hand confirmation and on site investigation is the ONLY way to get to the truth.

The time for speculation is over.

We HAVE evidence proving a military deception and it's time the movement sticks with information that we can prove.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

What I'm wondering is, why would they "create" eyewitnesses who saw a small plane and show them on mainstream media when all their efforts afterwards went into convincing everyone it was Flight 77? Why not just have them go with the official story of flight 77 right away? I don't see "small plane" as any less of a crime than explosives - the point is that it's not flight 77, which is all that needs to be shown to prove that this was an inside job. In that sense, I don't see pushing the "small plane" story as being any more benign than explosives in terms of the implications.

One possibility for such a move is to get conspiracy theorists to follow this idea and later prove it wrong and take the baby out with the bath water in the eyes of the mainstream viewer. But they have not proven it wrong after 6 years, so that doesn't appear to be the reason. I agree that anything or anyone shown on mainstream media is suspect, but it doesn't mean it's false either, especially this soon after the event. We still have to ask who benefits and how.

Also, there is some indication that the US government may not have been "in" on everything that's going to happen on 911. Don't forget Israel was a major player here. As such, the question would also be, did the US government know about the Pentagon attack, and if so how much? It's possible that they did not know enough to prepare "fake" eyewitnesses beforehand to present to the media.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

What I'm wondering is, why would they "create" eyewitnesses who saw a small plane and show them on mainstream media when all their efforts afterwards went into convincing everyone it was Flight 77? Why not just have them go with the official story of flight 77 right away? I don't see "small plane" as any less of a crime than explosives - the point is that it's not flight 77, which is all that needs to be shown to prove that this was an inside job. In that sense, I don't see pushing the "small plane" story as being any more benign than explosives in terms of the implications.

Disinfo and confusion. To throw people of track. Again if I was able to get confirmation of this from ANYONE that I spoke with I would have a different outlook.

As it stands the few accounts that exist don't pass the smell test and there is plenty to counter it.

One possibility for such a move is to get conspiracy theorists to follow this idea and later prove it wrong and take the baby out with the bath water in the eyes of the mainstream viewer. But they have not proven it wrong after 6 years, so that doesn't appear to be the reason. I agree that anything or anyone shown on mainstream media is suspect, but it doesn't mean it's false either, especially this soon after the event. We still have to ask who benefits and how.

I don't believe in any of the honeypot theories. But keeping us chasing our tail is definitely something they are constantly working on.

Also, there is some indication that the US government may not have been "in" on everything that's going to happen on 911. Don't forget Israel was a major player here. As such, the question would also be, did the US government know about the Pentagon attack, and if so how much? It's possible that they did not know enough to prepare "fake" eyewitnesses beforehand to present to the media.

This was a military operation and could not have been accomplished without involvement of elements within the U.S. government.

Whether these elements have ties to Israel, Pakistan, Britain, the Illuminati or all of the above isn't something I claim to have evidence for.

I am in a position now that I simply feel that we should hyper-focus on details that we have PROOF of with hard evidence because we have enough hard evidence to prove a military deception on 9/11.

 

[Russ]

If the white plane was a fake flight 77, then the real one must be somewhere along with its passengers. I think it would be hard to get that plane hidden away quick unless you had a lot of power in the country that the event took place.

 

[anart]

I don't believe in any of the honeypot theories. But keeping us chasing our tail is definitely something they are constantly working on.

I'm not sure I agree with this whole 'chasing our tails' idea - ultimately, it's clearly obvious - above all else - that flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon - so how much chasing are 'we' really doing? If you mean chasing by arguing over exactly how whatever did hit the Pentagon hit the Pentagon - then I have to point out that this, in the context of the bigger picture, is rather a distraction - that sort of thinking falls in the realm of 'you have to prove what happened to disprove the official theory' - and the fact of the matter is that NO - we don't have to prove what happened; we just have to prove that the official theory is categorically false ( at least in the short term) - which is what you, and we, have worked to do.

You say you don't believe in any of the 'honey pot' theories, but you seem to be quite invested in your own take on this - your own interpretation of the witness testimony. I wholly understand that, but unless we all remain open to all possibilities based on all evidence, then our conclusions are biased. The evidence you have presented clearly indicates the presence of this white plane - it does not, objectively, indicate anything else. Yet, this indication you have presented is quite significant in disproving the official theory and THAT is the point.

You see, the burden of proof is not on us - all we really have to do is prove their story wrong - which has been done many times over in many different ways, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not emotionally attached to the official theory, which the increasingly slight majority of Americans are. It's not like 'they' are going to admit that their story has been proven false and make a public television statement to that effect.

It's also not like there is an official body left in the United States with the authority, power, or inclination to stop them - they have all been co-opted or disempowered by this administration.

Are you, perhaps, so focused on proving exactly what happened - in a situation where such an accomplishement is near impossible, that you're missing the bigger, more relevant picture - that the official story cannot be true and that we already have the evidence to prove that?

To assume that we're chasing our tails because we don't all agree on exactly what did happen is akin to the idea that unless we can clearly prove what happened to the passengers on flight 77, we can't say it didn't hit the Pentagon - it's smoke and mirrors, obfuscation and distraction.

This was a military operation and could not have been accomplished without involvement of elements within the U.S. government.

Are you aware that there are many high level officials in the U.S. government who are dual Israeli/American citizens? Of course this could not have been accomplished without involvement of high level U.S. government officials, no one is saying otherwise, but if you are limiting your investigation to that, you need to broaden your horizons - there is evidence of Israeli involvement all across the board. Have you read 9/11 The Ultimate Truth by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Joe Quinn? It might serve you well to do so, if for no other reason than to get some global and historical context on the situation that will aid you in your search for proof.

It all ties together, so if you are sincere about finding the truth, which I personally believe you are, then the more information and context the better. If you have read the book, then I apologize, but it seems from your response that you might be unaware of some of the 'players' involved in this horror.

Ultimately, we are all saying the same thing - there is no tail chasing - the official story is false and that can be proven many times over.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I don't believe in any of the honeypot theories. But keeping us chasing our tail is definitely something they are constantly working on.

I'm not sure I agree with this whole 'chasing our tails' idea - ultimately, it's clearly obvious - above all else - that flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon - so how much chasing are 'we' really doing? If you mean chasing by arguing over exactly how whatever did hit the Pentagon hit the Pentagon - then I have to point out that this, in the context of the bigger picture, is rather a distraction - that sort of thinking falls in the realm of 'you have to prove what happened to disprove the official theory' - and the fact of the matter is that NO - we don't have to prove what happened; we just have to prove that the official theory is categorically false ( at least in the short term) - which is what you, and we, have worked to do.

Cointelpro exists. Disinfo exists. It exists SOLELY to get us chasing our tails. I agree 100% that we don't have to prove everything that happened. But you better believe that we better have proof or at least evidence for the aspects that we point to.

You say you don't believe in any of the 'honey pot' theories, but you seem to be quite invested in your own take on this - your own interpretation of the witness testimony. I wholly understand that, but unless we all remain open to all possibilities based on all evidence, then our conclusions are biased. The evidence you have presented clearly indicates the presence of this white plane - it does not, objectively, indicate anything else. Yet, this indication you have presented is quite significant in disproving the official theory and THAT is the point.

I am not invested in any theory. I am invested in producing evidence that proves the deception that we all know happened. The white plane evidence and just as importantly the north side evidence should be focused on only because they prove the official story is a lie and they ARE evidence. If there was evidence for a global hawk I would say focus on that but because there is not I say don't.

My only point is focus on evidence, not speculation.

You see, the burden of proof is not on us - all we really have to do is prove their story wrong - which has been done many times over in many different ways, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not emotionally attached to the official theory, which the increasingly slight majority of Americans are. It's not like 'they' are going to admit that their story has been proven false and make a public television statement to that effect.

It's also not like there is an official body left in the United States with the authority, power, or inclination to stop them - they have all been co-opted or disempowered by this administration.

Are you, perhaps, so focused on proving exactly what happened - in a situation where such an accomplishement is near impossible, that you're missing the bigger, more relevant picture - that the official story cannot be true and that we already have the evidence to prove that?

If we have the evidence for it we should focus on it. That is ALL I am saying. If the evidence we have isn't enough we need to find more. THAT is what we are DOING.

I agree 100% that we do not have to prove everything that happened. But we DO need to focus on the things we CAN prove.

Speculation was fine and necessary at one point in order to figure out what to investigate but not anymore.

We have evidence.

To assume that we're chasing our tails because we don't all agree on exactly what did happen is akin to the idea that unless we can clearly prove what happened to the passengers on flight 77, we can't say it didn't hit the Pentagon - it's smoke and mirrors, obfuscation and distraction.

Huh? I'm not following you here. It is not our responsibility to answer what happened to the passengers and flight 77. And I do not "assume" we are chasing our tails. I KNOW that we are.

Evidence evidence evidence.

Theories are a dime a dozen and get us absolutely nowhere.

Are you aware that there are many high level officials in the U.S. government who are dual Israeli/American citizens? Of course this could not have been accomplished without involvement of high level U.S. government officials, no one is saying otherwise, but if you are limiting your investigation to that, you need to broaden your horizons - there is evidence of Israeli involvement all across the board. Have you read 9/11 The Ultimate Truth by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Joe Quinn? It might serve you well to do so, if for no other reason than to get some global and historical context on the situation that will aid you in your search for proof.

It all ties together, so if you are sincere about finding the truth, which I personally believe you are, then the more information and context the better. If you have read the book, then I apologize, but it seems from your response that you might be unaware of some of the 'players' involved in this horror.

Ultimately, we are all saying the same thing - there is no tail chasing - the official story is false and that can be proven many times over.

Listen bro I don't doubt any of that.

I am quite certain that Laura and Joe are infinitely more knowledgeable on this aspect than I am and I think it's a very important line of inquiry.

But I focus on a guerrilla investigative approach on the streets to mechanically prove the official story a lie and have been 100% successful.

The only reason I continue is because the people are so brainwashed that it's going to take a mountain of evidence to convince them.

So I'll continue until we have a mountain.

My goal is to bring us to the point where an investigation into "if" 9/11 was an inside job is rendered moot so the investigation can be into who the perpetrators really are.

At that point hopefully people like Joe and Laura are called in to contribute.

 

[anart]

Cointelpro exists. Disinfo exists.

Yes, you're preaching to the choir on that one - we deal with it every single day.

It exists SOLELY to get us chasing our tails.

I seem to have not made myself very clear earlier. When I said 'we' are not chasing our tails, I meant this forum and the people behind it. You spoke of 'the movement' and I personally don't think there is a 'movement' - just a few individuals or groups who are sincerely looking for data and a gaggle of people consciously or subconsciously muddying the waters - those who I think you would consider the tail chasers, or those who encourage such tail chasing.

I agree 100% that we don't have to prove everything that happened. But you better believe that we better have proof or at least evidence for the aspects that we point to.

Of course.

I am not invested in any theory. I am invested in producing evidence that proves the deception that we all know happened. The white plane evidence and just as importantly the north side evidence should be focused on only because they prove the official story is a lie and they ARE evidence.

No question, nor with any of your other statements about evidence - these things are obvious.

And I do not "assume" we are chasing our tails. I KNOW that we are.

Exactly how do you define 'we'? Is is the "911 truth movement"? What is your impression of this 'movement'? Just curious since you keep using the word 'we' and I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you mean CIT or the 'movement' or us or ....

Theories are a dime a dozen and get us absolutely nowhere.

I never said differently.

Ultimately, we are all saying the same thing - there is no tail chasing - the official story is false and that can be proven many times over.

Listen bro I don't doubt any of that.

Actually, I'm not a 'bro', I'm a 'sis?' - or just a person, really, but, no offense taken, since there is no way you could know that if you aren't a regular reader of the forum - you would have missed the 'evidence'. ;)

But I focus on a guerrilla investigative approach on the streets to mechanically prove the official story a lie and have been 100% successful.

I agree you've been successful on gathering witness testimony very contrary to the official story.

My goal is to bring us to the point where an investigation into "if" 9/11 was an inside job is rendered moot so the investigation can be into who the perpetrators really are.

I think that's a great goal. Out of curiousity, what's your take on who would effectively conduct this investigation?

 

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

I have to echo my partner, Craig's, words.

I do believe the small plane and missile innuendo was simply disinfo set out there to sidetrack us and divide us.

Here we are with tangible proof and we STILL have to debate this issue with people. It's counter-productive and divisive, and THAT was it's intended purpose.

Look at the people who insinuate it was a missile. Lon Rains-Space News editor (heard it), Michael DiPaula-Pentagon "renovation worker", Tom Seibert-Pentagon network engineer (heard it).

All people you could consider to be deep cover assets waiting for their assignment. They could also be innocent people who simply mistook the screaming roar of a jet for a missile.

Either way, their accounts were certainly useful in promoting a theory that has very little evidence to support it and tons of eyewitness testimony against it. Talk of a missile or small drone would only REINFORCE or BOLSTER the idea of a large 757 actually hitting the building, especially when the people of Arlington saw a large twin engine 757-sized jet and NOT a missile/small military drone. A missile/small drone would even serve to reinforce the position of people that it was an AA jet, even if they didn't see one.

Think about it, Frank Probst and Don Mason (Pentagon "renovation" "workers") were cited in the ASCE report and actually established the FABRICATED south-side-of-the-Citgo, low-level across the lawn, flight path through the light poles and Frank Probst' absurd account directly supported the right engine/wing going through the fence and generator. Their accounts generated the subsequent images we saw in the ASCE report of the south side angular approach, which of course, lines up with all the official damage-starting with 5 light poles and ending with the bizarre "exit hole".

So here you have Michael DiPaula....

Michael DiPaula 41, project coordinator Pentagon Renovation Team - He left a meeting in the Pentagon just minutes before the crash, looking for an electrician who didn't show, in a construction trailer less than 75 feet away. "Suddenly, an airplane roared into view, nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring. 'It sounded like a missile,' DiPaula recalls . . . Buried in debris and covered with airplane fuel, he was briefly listed by authorities as missing, but eventually crawled from the flaming debris and the shroud of black smoke unscathed.

http://www.sunspot.net/search/bal-archive-1990.htmlstory

-Hmmm, could this electrician he was looking for be Mickey Bell?

-An airplane roars into view, but it sounded like a missile? Hmmm.

-Nearly shearing off the roof of the trailer???? Sorry Michael, didn't happen.

-Covered in airplane fuel? Hmmm, sounds like Michael is not exactly telling the truth.

-Briefly listed as missing? I thought that was Mickey Bell?

-But is able to escape and "crawled from the flaming debris and the shroud of black smoke unscathed." Unscathed? I bet he walked up on the scene like many others that day.

Renovation takes place in the exact wedge that is hit, many areas are unoccupied (planted bombs and plane debris anyone?), the EXACT AREA of the "impact" zone was "reinforced" to withstand a truck bomb blast (which might help hold a poorly simulated plane shape in the wall, would it not?), two trailers are parked right in front of "impact" zone (which we believe the shiny lawn debris came from), two Pentagon "renovation" "workers" help fabricate the official South side/physical damage flight path, another Pentagon "renovation" "project manager" helps provide an account about a missile, 2 out of the 3 have absurd and problematic physical accounts-like diving six feet away from an engine while turning to see said engine go through the fence and having a trailer roof rip off that didn't get ripped off.

Are you guys seeing a pattern?

Think about Mike Walter. We have some serious evidence against Mr. Walter direclty implicating him in the operation. But think about his account, he described a plane but his account, interestingly included the phrase, "it was like a cruise missile with wings". Then you have the Rumsfeld missile "slip". This is carefully placed innuendo I believe. The power of suggestion and subtle manipulation through controlled opposition made it easy to guide us toward a wrong conclusion. Throw in Don Wright, DS Khavkin (who never picked up her phone or returned our calls), Don Chauncey, Steve Patterson and Steve Gerard with their "small plane" and you have the makings of a great shell game.

"It was a missile"

-"No it wasn't it was a global hawk/small drone"

-"No it wasn't it was a global hawk/small drone firing a missile"

-"No it wasn't it was a AA 757"

Over and over and over.

You get the picture.

In fact, remember Steve Patterson?

Steve Patterson, 43, is a graphics artist who works at home in a 14th-floor apartment in
Pentagon City. While watching events unfold on TV he saw a silver commuter jet fly past
his window about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground,
He said it appeared to him that a commuter jet which appeared to hold about eight to 12
people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a
nonexistent runway.

The plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington
cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. "at a frightening rate ... just
slicing into that building." He saw bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.

-Barbara Vobejda Washington Post Staff Writer/ Sept. 11, 4:59 PM

Wow sounds like a genuine witness who saw the small drone right? Wrong.
Wrong size, wrong color, wrong flight path.

Look at this little piece on Steve Patterson:

Joel Skousen reported that: "I have, so far, been unable to locate a Steven Pattersonin the Pentagon City area of Arlington, Va. None of the graphic design firms in the area that I called have heard of him. Barbara Vobejda told me she didn't have a contact number for him either since his testimony was picked up by one of the dozens of "stringers" they had out in the field that day interviewing people on the ground.

 

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

You say you don't believe in any of the 'honey pot' theories, but you seem to be quite invested in your own take on this - your own interpretation of the witness testimony. I wholly understand that, but unless we all remain open to all possibilities based on all evidence, then our conclusions are biased. The evidence you have presented clearly indicates the presence of this white plane - it does not, objectively, indicate anything else.

Well I think you are misunderstanding him.

We are invested in actual evidence. The plane being on the north side of the Citgo and pulling up into an ascent over the highway, does not need interpretation, it needs acceptance.

The evidence of a white plane *and* the north side approach/ascent directly indicate something else.

A flyover/away.

 

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

5. The ONLY evidence supporting any type of flying anything approaching the Pentagon is the government controlled, leaked, provided, and manipulated security video which is clearly invalid evidence.

Hi Craig,

Just wondering - Are you saying that you think the security video is faked somehow (the white 'something'/smoke trail), or something else?

Absolutely.

It doesn't have to be completely faked but it was certainly manipulated.

The smoke trail (reported by zero witnesses) doesn't even cast a shadow while everything else does:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon folder 2/088a.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/pentanimorig-1.gif

The thick squiggly one is only visible in one frame of one view.

There is zero logic in accepting this government controlled data as valid evidence.

You also forgot to mention the descent angle required for a large 757 over this steep topography, especially coming from the north side. Here is the plane according to the FDR with obvious trends continued:

Compare that to the plane that is low and level across the grass. Remember, Lagasse thought "it hit the building where it met the ground"...

 

[Joe]

3. List them. I will show you how these mainstream media accounts are quite dubious. If I had found a single previously unknown witness on the street who said such a thing I would be more open to it.

Here's three:

Lon Rains, editor of Space.com

In light traffic the drive up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Washington takes no more than 20 minutes. But that morning, like many others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon. With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 oclock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment.

At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball.

I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.

http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html

Steve Patterson:

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City:

The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395.

It was flying so fast that he couldn’t read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.

“At first I thought ‘God, there’s a plane truly misrouted from National,’ Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon. […] I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. What’s next?”

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for be-ing so low.”

Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon “envelope” the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.
In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a “silver commuter jet”, he also said that the plane sounded like the “high-pitched squeal” of a fighter jet.

“I was right underneath the plane”, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.

“I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying.”

Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon, and because he saw it he also said, “I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying”.

What he said next, however, is not in keeping with a 757: “I guess it was hitting light poles”, said Milburn. “It was like a whoosh whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html

Three early, primary witnesses have described a sound of a “whoosh”! The second one, when he couldn’t see it, said it was like a “WHOOSH whoosh”, just like the other man who couldn’t see it, but then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane.

But what he described was most definitely not a 757 flying low over his head.

4. We know the twin engine passenger jet was timed perfectly with the explosion. To have another aircraft ALSO in the same exact area at the same exact moment would certainly be risky and unnecessary.

Again, I don't see why it was risky and unnecessary, in fact I think it would have been much more risky to have nothing actually impact the pentagon and rely simply on the facade of the Pentagon simply explode. The risks involved in doing that, with so much commuter traffic passing the Pentagon would be great.

5. A few dubious mainstream media reports. No confirmed genuine previously unknown ones. This is why we don't believe it. I understand that you simply have to take my word for it and I understand how it's difficult to let go of things you have decided you believe but seriously.....we were not able to find any evidence for such a thing whatsoever.

It's got nothing to do with holding on to sacred cows or beliefs. Believe me, I have long since let go of any *need* to believe any particular hypothesis, other than that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, and that is based on pure logic and the screamingly obvious.

Of course you can suggest it based on speculation or mainstream media reports but we have demonstrated how doing this causes us to fall into their traps. We have demonstrated how first-hand confirmation and on site investigation is the ONLY way to get to the truth.

The time for speculation is over.

We HAVE evidence proving a military deception and it's time the movement sticks with information that we can prove.

I don't see it as a trap for us to discuss the possible finer details of the 9/11 attacks (and that IS all we are doing here) because we agree on the basic argument and the data that supports it. It is only a trap if we allow ego and sacred cows to supplant our goal - to disseminate the truth that 9/11 WAS an inside job. The trap is to allow detractors to imply that if we cannot conclusively prove EXACTLY what happened then we have no right to our argument. We do not have a smoking gun in terms of something that will suddenly awaken the world to the reality of what happened on 9/11. What we do have is masses of circumstantial evidence, i.e. facts, sometimes unrelated, that when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is regularly used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. The unfortunate part is that, since those responsible for 9/11 essentially own the criminal justice system in the US, we will never have our day in court.

For these reasons, the time for speculation is far from over, because what actually happened on 9/11, ALL of the details, while likely remain secret for a long time, if not forever. While I applaud your efforts, I would urge you not to get carried away with the idea that you or your work ALONE is going to break the whole sordid deal wide open.

Joe

 

[Joe]

Think about Mike Walter. We have some serious evidence against Mr. Walter direclty implicating him in the operation. But think about his account, he described a plane but his account, interestingly included the phrase, "it was like a cruise missile with wings". Then you have the Rumsfeld missile "slip". This is carefully placed innuendo I believe. The power of suggestion and subtle manipulation through controlled opposition made it easy to guide us toward a wrong conclusion. Throw in Don Wright, DS Khavkin (who never picked up her phone or returned our calls), Don Chauncey, Steve Patterson and Steve Gerard with their "small plane" and you have the makings of a great shell game.

"It was a missile"

-"No it wasn't it was a global hawk/small drone"

-"No it wasn't it was a global hawk/small drone firing a missile"

-"No it wasn't it was a AA 757"

Over and over and over.

You get the picture.

In fact, remember Steve Patterson?

Steve Patterson, 43, is a graphics artist who works at home in a 14th-floor apartment in
Pentagon City. While watching events unfold on TV he saw a silver commuter jet fly past
his window about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground,
He said it appeared to him that a commuter jet which appeared to hold about eight to 12
people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a
nonexistent runway.

The plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington
cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. "at a frightening rate ... just
slicing into that building." He saw bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.

-Barbara Vobejda Washington Post Staff Writer/ Sept. 11, 4:59 PM

Wow sounds like a genuine witness who saw the small drone right? Wrong.
Wrong size, wrong color, wrong flight path.

Look at this little piece on Steve Patterson:

Joel Skousen reported that: "I have, so far, been unable to locate a Steven Pattersonin the Pentagon City area of Arlington, Va. None of the graphic design firms in the area that I called have heard of him. Barbara Vobejda told me she didn't have a contact number for him either since his testimony was picked up by one of the dozens of "stringers" they had out in the field that day interviewing people on the ground.

I don't think there has been any significant infighting over any "missile/global hawk" or "explosives" theories. That these two theories exist in no way detracts from the argument. They are simply the finer points of what really happened on that day and do NOT need to detract from the argument in any way. Conversely, eric hufschmidt and co and their "tv fakery" at the WTC nonsense is evidence of real diversionary tactics.

Just to clarify, we are not disputing your evidence for a flyover, in fact, I think it fits pretty well with the modus operandi of the perpetrators - flood the scene in real time with many data points in order to confuse. All we are saying is that the possibility of a global hawk-type device being used ALSO is real and need not be a source of division, unless we allow it to become one, which we certainly will not. Please note that, other than in our book, the idea that a global hawk was used in the Pentagon attack does not get any significant attention on our web site. If someone asks, we include it as a hypothesis, and from now on we will certainly including your evidence for a white plane flyover.

On that point, we'd like to give some publicity to your work on our web site. Any suggestions as to the way you would like to do this?

Email me off line if you are interested.

Joe