What actually hit the Pentagon: an old stone apparently left unturned

[EndTheEU]

the shanksville field was not a plane, and the pentagon was not a plane. there are 1000s of cameras that would have caught the plane on video, yet not a single one has been released

[grapecrusher1]

the shanksville field was not a plane, and the pentagon was not a plane. there are 1000s of cameras that would have caught the plane on video, yet not a single one has been released

the  pentagon is likely a honeypot especially with the big fat flies like CIT guiding you there.
how can you say definitively that there was NOT a plane at the pentagon?
have you seen a plane doing 500 mph plus slam into a fortified wall?

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1874

[EndTheEU]

It's 2010, you no planers are a waste of time and bandwidth. Almost 9 years and you still haven't figured out that on 9/11 planes flew into buildings. That's pretty embarrassing.

Since this happend in broad daylight in a heavily populated area, there are lots of witnesses. For every missile witness you present I will present 2 that say it was a plane.
I'll go first...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_news

Now show us 1 missile witness and I will post 2 more. If you can't then we're done.

Maybe you can convince somebody they were all fooled and confused this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM9YB5oNJYo

With a missile.  

are all the moderators on this site so sarcastic and narrow-minded?

[EndTheEU]

the  pentagon is likely a honeypot especially with the big fat flies like CIT guiding you there.
how can you say definitively that there was NOT a plane at the pentagon?
have you seen a plane doing 500 mph plus slam into a fortified wall?

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1874

maybe there was a plane, but likely there wasn't. what i do know for certain is that when a plane crashes, it doesnt vanish, and when the government suppresses the video evidence, there's usually more to the story.
it doesn't make much difference either way. plane or no plane, muslims in caves certainly werent behind it

[grapecrusher1]

maybe there was a plane, maybe there wasn't. all i know is what doesn't add up, like the lack of a visible plane in the field and Pentagon, and the lack of video evidence despite the Pentagon being filmed 24/7 from every angle.
it doesn't make much difference either way. plane or no plane, muslims in caves certainly werent behind it

Makes a huge difference, if this truth movement gets pigeon holed on inconsistent perceptions at the pentagon -- flyovers, missiles and other nonsense it writes all the concrete work at the wtc 7 off.
get it?

listen to the link

[EndTheEU]

Why do you no planers try finding a witness that said it was not a plane that hit, that should keep you busy for awhile....or better yet...find another hobby.

using terms like "no planers" makes you just as bad as fox news. using that term is just as ignorant as calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" or a "truther"

[EndTheEU]

Makes a huge difference, if this truth movement gets pigeon holed on inconsistent perceptions at the pentagon -- flyovers, missiles and other nonsense it writes all the concrete work at the wtc 7 off.
get it?

listen to the link

i'm not interested in debating with someone who says sarcastic and rude sh*t like "get it?" and "have you seen a plane doing 500 mph plus slam into a fortified wall?"

[grapecrusher1]

i'm not interested in debating with someone who says sarcastic and rude sh*t like "get it?" and "have you seen a plane doing 500 mph plus slam into a fortified wall?"

Okay, (kid gloves are on) possibly you are new to this.  Sorry if that ruffles your feathers and hope that this appraoch is more gentle on your ultra-sensitive demeanor.  Please grab yourself a pillow and warm glass of milk.

But really, do you comprehend that position?  it is not a debate by definition it is a question.

[grapecrusher1]

i'm not interested in debating with someone who says sarcastic and rude sh*t like "get it?" and "have you seen a plane doing 500 mph plus slam into a fortified wall?"

You do have to be over 18 to be on this forum.

[EndTheEU]

Okay, (kid gloves are on) possibly you are new to this.  Sorry if that ruffles your feathers and hope that this appraoch is more gentle on your ultra-sensitive demeanor.  Please grab yourself a pillow and warm glass of milk.

But really, do you comprehend that position?  it is not a debate by definition it is a question.

You do have to be over 18 to be on this forum.

pathetic

[grapecrusher1]

are all the moderators on this site so sarcastic and narrow-minded?

The more accurate question would be:
How does this particular moderator, who has FAR more knowledge on the subject, have the patience to deal with the whimsical repetitive utterances of an upstart know-it-all newbie like of me?

[EndTheEU]

The more accurate question would be:
How does this particular moderator, who has FAR more knowledge on the subject, have the patience to deal with the whimsical repetitive utterances of an upstart know-it-all newbie like of me?

its sad that you feel the need to attack people who don't agree with everything you say

[agentbluescreen]

Almost 9 years and you still haven't figured out that on 9/11 planes flew into buildings. That's pretty embarrassing.

Since this happend in broad daylight in a heavily populated area, there are lots of witnesses. For every missile witness you present I will present 2 that say it was a plane.

\\\\\

Now show us 1 missile witness and I will post 2 more. If you can't then we're done.

Maybe you can convince somebody they were all fooled and confused this......

No but I can easily convince practically everyone else on earth that they all could easily have been very, very well paid (OR OTHERWISE compensated by blackmail) to say anything to anybody, especially knowing they would never have to face a defense lawyer, court or a jury, nor testify under oath.

Having never been given on a witness stand under cross examination at a trial nor inquest and not even been submitted as affidavits, none of these statements are yet acceptable as evidence.

But honestly I don't give a damn. I have no axe to grind here. Even if Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire, himself had somehow put Flight 77 on autopilot and bailed out and showed up tomorrow and surrendered to DC police no jury in America could convict him to death (even for the murders of his supposed "cohorts") based on the scant, broken and contradictory obscured documentation, incomplete evidence and conjecture we have been fed by the coverup commission and secretive government minions to pick over here.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"

[grapecrusher1]

its sad that you feel the need to attack people who don't agree with everything you say. i didn't realize that saying i don't believe there was a plane at the Pentagon would offend someone so much

I am not offended in the least -- ignorance is nothing new.

have you looked at all the evidence in this particular subject? chandler, hoffman, CIT -- what is your depth into this?
does the CIT theories sound rational to you?

[EndTheEU]

It's 2010, you no planers are a waste of time and bandwidth. Almost 9 years and you still haven't figured out that on 9/11 planes flew into buildings. That's pretty embarrassing.

Since this happend in broad daylight in a heavily populated area, there are lots of witnesses. For every missile witness you present I will present 2 that say it was a plane.
I'll go first...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_news

Now show us 1 missile witness and I will post 2 more. If you can't then we're done.

Maybe you can convince somebody they were all fooled and confused this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM9YB5oNJYo

With a missile.  

everyone is well aware that planes hit the WTC; you are using Bill O'Reilly tactics. planes dont crash and then vanish. the official story is that a tiny hole in the ground with some tiny bits of debris is a crashed plane. look at pictures of a real plane crash and compare them to the supposed Flight 93 hole

[grapecrusher1]

everyone is well aware that planes hit the WTC; you are using Bill O'Reilly tactics. planes dont crash and then vanish. the official story is that a tiny hole in the ground with some tiny bits of debris is a crashed plane. look at pictures of a real plane crash and compare them to the supposed Flight 93 hole

show me a picture of a plane doing OVER 500 MPH and crashing into a fortified wall?

[EndTheEU]

show me a picture of a plane doing OVER 500 MPH and crashing into a fortified wall?

Flight 93 didn't hit a fortified wall...

I am not offended in the least -- ignorance is nothing new.

have you looked at all the evidence in this particular subject? chandler, hoffman, CIT -- what is your depth into this?
does the CIT theories sound rational to you?

like i said, i'm not interested in talking to someone who can't debate without using sarcasm and name-calling

[grapecrusher1]

like i said, i'm not interested in talking to someone who can't debate without using sarcasm and name-calling. goodbye

Funny how you bait the small-headed fundies in other threads yet feel so hard done by rather mild posts.

You are a putz.  Do some learning.

[EndTheEU]

Funny how you bait the small-headed fundies in other threads yet feel so hard done by rather mild posts.

You are a putz.  Do some learning.

we disagree: get over it. no amount of ranting, bashing, name-calling, or sarcasm is going to change that

[Dig]

using terms like "no planers" makes you just as bad as fox news. using that term is just as ignorant as calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" or a "truther"

Why would you say that? You are saying it was not a plane. This can be qualified as a no planer. He also followed up by saying to find one witness. Instead of rationally finding one witness you talk about Bill O'Reilly. That does not really make much sense. What does Bill O'Reilly have to do with the lack of witness reports to back up your no plane claim?

[EndTheEU]

Why would you say that? You are saying it was not a plane. This can be qualified as a no planer. He also followed up by saying to find one witness. Instead of rationally finding one witness you talk about Bill O'Reilly. That does not really make much sense. What does Bill O'Reilly have to do with the lack of witness reports to back up your no plane claim?

i also qualify as a truther and a conspiracy theorist but that doesnt make those terms any less ignorant. i bring up bill o'reilly because using these terms is a favorite tactic of mainstream media. liberal, conservative, truther, birther, conspiracy theorist: all these titles are just ways to get people to conform to political correctness instead of having an open mind

someone calling someone else on here a "no planer" is no better than fox news calling all of us "conspiracy theorists"

[citizenx]

I could still be a "pentagon no planer" myself at some future point.  What's in a name?

What people want to call me, I really couldn't give a rat's a$$.


For me, the jury is still out, and there is at least one witness -- the contract employee Ventura interviewed.  Is she the sole whistleblower?  Are the other witnesses toeing the pentagon line?  It seems possible -- not beyond the pale.


But, yes, it doesn't help that so many obvious disinfo agents like Stubblebine and the real "no planers"  (the no plane at WTC people) have poisoned the well, so I'm willing to let it be a sort of non-issue for the moment.  In fact, until some sort of new evidence is produced either way, I'm personally going to leave this alone for a while.

[grapecrusher1]

i also qualify as a truther and a conspiracy theorist but that doesnt make those terms any less ignorant. i bring up bill o'reilly because using these terms is a favorite tactic of mainstream media. liberal, conservative, truther, birther, conspiracy theorist: all these titles are just ways to get people to conform to political correctness instead of having an open mind

someone calling someone else on here a "no planer" is no better than fox news calling all of us "conspiracy theorists"

So why not say something of substance?  
You claim we disagree without citing any sources you are basing your position on, I have provided some reference.  Ignoring these references you have been gibbering through this whole thread.

[EndTheEU]

So why not say something of substance?  
You claim we disagree without citing any sources you are basing your position on, I have provided some reference.  Ignoring these references you have been gibbering through this whole thread.

you claim i havent offended you in any way, yet you take every chance you can get to insult me.
you had your chance at having a debate with me and instead you ranted about 'kid gloves,' 'warm milk,' and called me an 'ignorant' 'putz.'
i've had about enough of you as i can take. goodbye

[EndTheEU]

I could still be a "pentagon no planer" myself at some future point.  What's in a name?

What people want to call me, I really couldn't give a rat's a$$.


For me, the jury is still out, and there is at least one witness -- the contract employee Ventura interviewed.  Is she the sole whistleblower?  Are the other witnesses toeing the pentagon line?  It seems possible -- not beyond the pale.


But, yes, it doesn't help that so many obvious disinfo agents like Stubblebine and the real "no planers"  (the no plane at WTC people) have poisoned the well, so I'm willing to let it be a sort of non-issue for the moment.  In fact, until some sort of new evidence is produced either way, I'm personally going to leave this alone for a while.

yeah i agree with everything you've said. the official story doesnt add up, but there's so many other 9/11 smoking guns that there's no need to get hung up on this one issue. hopefully one day a FOIA will release a video of what happened. probably not though, since they still havent even released the OKC Murrah federal building bombing video

[grapecrusher1]

you claim i havent offended you in any way, yet you take every chance you can get to insult me.
you had your chance at having a debate with me and instead you ranted about 'kid gloves,' 'warm milk,' and called me an 'ignorant' 'putz.'
i've had about enough of you as i can take. goodbye

how about a pre-warmed blankie?

[ghost hacked]

I might be wrong.

But, was there more aircraft debris found at the WTC site than the Pentagon or Shanksville?

The only time I recall a plane 'dissapearing' is the one that crashed into the Florida Everglades someyears back. The swamp simply swallowed and concealed the plane, they could not get at it from what I recall.  Compare that to the hole in the ground at Shanksville. There is little debris, and hole that simply could not accommodate a plane.

There was no plane that hit Shanksville.
There was no plane that hit the Pentagon.

From everything I can tell (so far) is that real aircraft hit the WTC. I have heard of them being holograms, but I am not really convinced of that yet. It's not an impossible thing, but did that technology exist 10 years ago and was it good enough to form a complete realistic hologram of a plane?

One poster mentioned a plane hitting a fortified wall at 500 MPH.  Since the wall at the Pentagon was fortified, how the hell did it punch through 3 rings? Would it not simply 'disintegrate' leaving a small mark on the Pentagon?   If a 737 hit the Pentagon, the hole, damage and debris would be a lot different. It might not have punched through 3 rings, it might have left more debris, it might have left a bigger hole in the first ring.

It does not add up. But I will say that no plane hit the Pentagon.

[agentbluescreen]

How hilarious! The famous "Tent Theory"  lol

I must insist what these traitors are hustling off the edge of the Pentagon lawn by the highway in this photo is no 'Tent" - a tent does not have an elongated canvas covered aluminum cargo rail superstructure, nor a canvas chute, nor a wooden aircraft cargo pallet crate bottom! What would one put in a "tent" of this dimension if it were a "tent"? Two bunk beds end to end with no corridor? A far too narrow office one could not stand or salute in?

I'm a bit of a camping aficionado in my spare time, and I've never ever seen a tent that comes with a wooden pallet-skid, let alone one of such an impractical size and shape.

It couldn't possibly be any acceptable "cargo pallet" from a commercial airliner because it is too high and they do not ever use them, they all have and use only rigid, rectangular or square, wheeled, side-cross belted-in aluminum luggage containers with roll-top doors for speedy sorting by destination, roll-on loading and towing about the tarmac. Only a cargo jet with rear door Jitney access can carry pallet cargo, where they and their strapped-on contents can be belted down to the floors. An empty pallet only needs a rounded top "roll cage" if it needs to be suspended from above, it's own strapping is inadequate or break-away, or (worst case) it must be resistant to rolling.

Lets look at this particular peculiarly elongated high rectangular lightweight cargo crate that was already covered with a pre-made custom tarp before police, rescue fire and ems services arrived and was only later being hastily carted off by embarrassed senior al DIAduh minions, from the edge of the roadway, across the lawn from the Pentagon building by the highway guardrails near where it had struck some light poles and landed a wee bit short of the desired landing zone where it had been expected to be accurately air-dropped.


Once again this is an extraordinarily suspicious looking work detail, (clerical and supply workers) obviously whatever was originally on this pallet is long gone, and the now-empty pallet is merely being retrieved, otherwise you'd bring it out or collect it with the fork lift that brought it there.  The "pallet corollary" is that if it HAD had a load on it, no fork lift could have delivered it onto a lawn, you'd need to use a shingle/building material crane (or a cargo jet and parachutes) to have dropped it there.

Now let's look at the circa-2000 (then still PEGASYS Precision Extended Glide Airdrop System) JPADS technology. It was already fairly mature by this time. Wright Patterson had tested them exhaustively in 1999 and it seems all they were in the market for by then was some cheaper (and better) wind sensors for higher altitude drops.
 http://www.dodsbir.net/SITIS/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=10878

But they waited until Bush was sure to be re-elected in 2004 before fully declassifying and going public for general tenders in a public conference.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1448063/US-Air-Force-25002-vol1-3-

How does it work? Well aside from GPS, battery, flight controller and inertial navigation/wind sensors with control servo systems you need two or more chutes and this detachable electronic parasail "flight controller" package. The main drag-spill-chute's job is deceleration and steering, a secondary parasail would be needed for added lift and load leveling with lower altitudes and heavier payloads.

This is the third generation "Screamer" type now presumably being used to drop off arms, fuel and larger opium payments into Afghanistan, since Ben can't get in there with a helicopter safely. Note the ubiquitous wooden cargo pallet on the bottom, the larger more advanced and expensive, more light pole resistant models now have fancy aluminum skids with built-in cargo floor cleats and roll-out wheels. (Now almost 8X8 they also hold up to 70% more cocaine for discrete domestic night drops.)



So, what most likely was in this peculiar "tent"?


I'll tell you what you could easily fit into a cargo-pallet "tent" of this type, top front: an explosive cable-drag package with some fake airliner debris and a doctored FDR, top rear the Pegasys JPADS chute and control module cradle, bottom full-length: a pre- elevated for launch Tomahawk missile!

And it would have been oh so great if it had not hit those poles and thus landed a bit closer so your fat minions would have had time to not only collect and tarp over it but also have already carried it back in before photographers had arrived...



And what is in the bottom center of this photograph between the first and second white shirt, wrapped up in another sailcloth bundle in the background?

What you're all seeing as "too long" in that blurry distant video is something being towed by a missile at about 5 feet of altitude - Hidden in plain sight

Now we also have tons of evidence that there were other flights airborne that morning, evidence of depleted uranium. plus an impossible crash scene and stolen and doctored evidence, plus hugely profitable criminal motives and evidence of witness tampering.

Source: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v393/youricarma/NineOneOne/?albumview=slideshow

Kindly address the issues

[EndTheEU]

I might be wrong.

But, was there more aircraft debris found at the WTC site than the Pentagon or Shanksville?

The only time I recall a plane 'dissapearing' is the one that crashed into the Florida Everglades someyears back. The swamp simply swallowed and concealed the plane, they could not get at it from what I recall.  Compare that to the hole in the ground at Shanksville. There is little debris, and hole that simply could not accommodate a plane.

There was no plane that hit Shanksville.
There was no plane that hit the Pentagon.

From everything I can tell (so far) is that real aircraft hit the WTC. I have heard of them being holograms, but I am not really convinced of that yet. It's not an impossible thing, but did that technology exist 10 years ago and was it good enough to form a complete realistic hologram of a plane?

One poster mentioned a plane hitting a fortified wall at 500 MPH.  Since the wall at the Pentagon was fortified, how the hell did it punch through 3 rings? Would it not simply 'disintegrate' leaving a small mark on the Pentagon?   If a 737 hit the Pentagon, the hole, damage and debris would be a lot different. It might not have punched through 3 rings, it might have left more debris, it might have left a bigger hole in the first ring.

It does not add up. But I will say that no plane hit the Pentagon.

the reason people don't take the fact that no plane hit the Pentagon seriously is because it is grouped together with nonsense like the WTC planes being holograms. its just like how peope group together the truth, like 9/11 being an inside job, with other conspiracy nonsense like reptilian aliens

[grapecrusher1]

From Arabesque's website a "few" quotes from witnesses.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

The Flight Path of the Plane according to Witnesses

1.        “I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon.”[1]

2.        “We were watching the airport through binoculars, Ford said, referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon.”[2]

3.        UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the[n?] too low, and the next thing we saw was [it?] go-down below the side of the road… coming down towards the side of the—of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us”[3]

4.        I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.[4]

5.        “The jet came in from the south”[5]

6.        “At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards… in front of me”[6]

7.        “I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area,” he said. “I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low—at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down… the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon.”[7]

8.        “which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon.”[8]

9.        “He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off.”[9]

10.     “coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there—very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station… then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.”[10]

11.     “seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike—an Arlington road leading to Pentagon.”[11]

12.     “The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap… the aircraft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer.”[12]

13.     “They saw the plane hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower that the height of the Washington Monument.”[13]

14.     “At the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex. Having just reached the elevator in the 5th wing of BMDO Federal Office Building (FOB) #2. He heard “an increasingly loud rumbling” One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view… The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB)… Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon.”[14]

15.     “A silver, twin-engine American airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex.”[15]

16.     “I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd… and from my left side…I saw a silver plane… It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading.”[16]

17.     “A commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery.”[17]

18.     “It actually came up I-395 and it went over the rise and came in front of a bridge in which I was sitting [in traffic].”[18]

19.     “[It] approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.”[19]

20.     “at that point it went down because I was approaching a hill. And at that point it went straight down over the hill.”[20]

21.     “Personnel working in the Navy Annex, over which the airliner flew… saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex.”[21] 

22.     “A plane flew over my house,” (one mile away from the Pentagon). “It was loud, but not unusual because the [Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport] is by my house, on the other side of the Pentagon.”[22]

23.     “flying low over the tree tops near Seminary Rd. in Springfield, VA.”[23]

24.     “I had just passed the Pentagon and was near the Macy’s store in Crystal City when I noticed a plane making a sharp turn from north of the Pentagon. I had to look back at the road and then back to the plane as it sort of leveled off.”[24]

25.     “He left Bolling Air Force Base, D.C., for a meeting at the Pentagon, only to be told it was cancelled. Walking back to his motorcycle he saw a commercial airliner coming from the direction of Henderson Hall the Marine Corps headquarters. It “flew above a nearby hotel.”[25]

please go to the site to read more of the hundreds of accounts.

[EndTheEU]

there were plenty of eyewitnesses that said that the only shots that were fired at JFK were from the book depository. doesnt make it true

[grapecrusher1]

there were plenty of eyewitnesses that said that the only shots that were fired at JFK were from the book depository. doesnt make it true

Is plenty hundreds?
Did they see the bullets?
Hearing gun reports is much different than seeing a passenger plane.

Many even identify it as American Airlines.

Witnesses described the type of Plane:
“Commercial/Passenger Plane/Jetliner/Large Aircraft”

65.     “There was a commercial plane coming in… ENSOR: So you believe it was a commercial airliner that was hitting the Pentagon? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes… coming down towards the side of the—of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us… I did not see what kind of an airline.”[108]

66.     “Engine 101 actually saw the jetliner.”[109]

67.     “I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us.”[110]

68.     “I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House.”[111]

69.     “He saw the blur of a commercial jet… That is a big plane.”[112]

70.     “Allen Cleveland of Woodbridge Virginia looked out from a Metro train going to National Airport, to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon… I looked to the right of the train as we were coming into the station, and noticed a jet flying in real low, about a mid-sized passenger jet flying in. I know it was silver, that's the only thing I know.”[113]

71.     “[Allen Cleveland’s Brother] said that he saw a jetliner.”[114]

72.     “As we walked away, there were people on the road, because we were very close to the exit, and they were saying ‘Oh my god, did you see that?  It was an airplane!  It was an airplane!’  They kept saying it was a ‘big airplane.’”[115]

73.     “He saw a jetliner fly over the roadway. It filled his field of vision. The jet was 40-feet off the ground speeding toward the Pentagon.”[116]

74.     “I looked back and saw a jet airliner.”[117]

75.     “We were watching the airport through binoculars…The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National…[118] then it turned back to the Pentagon.”[119]

76.     “Kat Gaines, heading south on Route 110, approached the parking lots, saw a low-flying jetliner”[120]

77.     “I saw a large airliner sized plane—roughly a 767 size airliner.”[121]

78.     “I saw a plane going down—big plane, commercial airliner type going down full speed We were driving down from Columbia pike and it just flew right over us, full speed, But it was a big plane, maybe a 737—my husband said 747, but I’m not positive, I don’t know for sure.  But it was big, definitely the kind of plane when you get on when you want to fly to L.A. or wherever.”[122]

79.     “I saw this very, very large passenger jet.”[123]

80.     “[Watching from an 8th floor high-rise:] At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft…”[124]

81.     “Aydan Kizildrgli, saw the jetliner bank slightly.”[125]

82.     “I looked in the rearview mirror to check the traffic and saw only a plane, flying very low. I followed it in my left outside mirror. I braked, looked out my left window and saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon…The aircraft, so close to the ground, was banked skillfully to the right, leveled off perpendicular to the Pentagon’s southwest side, then went full throttle directly toward the building.”[126]

83.     “Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft.”[127]

84.     “I looked over and saw this big silver plane.”[128]

85.     “Alfred S. Regnery, saw (…) a jetliner…”

86.     “His brother in-law also saw a jetliner.”[129]

87.     “I was on the street driving, and then the plane went over the top of my car… It was a big aircraft just on its course.”[130]

88.     “Walking back to his motorcycle he saw a commercial airliner coming from the direction of Henderson Hall the Marine Corps headquarters.”[131]

89.     “Philip Sheuerman, exiting the freeway, turning into the parking lot, of the Pentagon saw a passenger plane.”[132]

90.     “It was headed straight for the building. It made no sense. (…) A huge jet.”[133]

91.     “I saw the jet just before it crashed. Something big and silver, nose down… Most not knowing what exactly was happening. I had more fear because I saw what happened.”[134]

92.     “[He saw] a white 737 twin-engine plane with multicolored trim fly 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line.”[135]

93.     “[he saw] what looked like a 747… I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van.”[136]

94.     “he saw a…commercial airliner…There was no reason for a plane to come in that low, that fast” …The plane took ‘a flight path straight up 395.’”[137]

95.     “I saw the plane hit the building on 9/11. It was a plane. It was big.”[138]

96.     “I saw the tail of a large airliner… I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395. It was like the rear end of the fuselage was riding on 395. I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me.”[139]

97.     “I watched this—it looked like a commuter plane, twin-engine, come down from the south real low…it just dipped down and came down right over 395.”[140]

98.     “It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike…  It was huge! It was silver. It was low—unbelievable! I could see the cockpit.”[141]

99.     “As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner… screamed overhead.”[142]

100.  “It was a commercial sized airliner.  I’m not sure how big it was.  A gentleman just said that he was sitting on 95—the plane flew very low over his car… and blew his windows out of the vehicle and he’s on interstate 395.”[143]

101.  “It was a good size jet aircraft.”[144]
 “American Airlines”

102.  “It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly… it looked like the plane was just in normal flying mode but heading straight down.  It was straight.”[145]

103.   “There was a commercial airliner that said American airlines over the side of it.”[146]

104.  “He saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner… we saw a plane coming toward us… It was like watching a train wreck. I was mesmerized. … At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level…”[147]

105.  “I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on.[148] The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station…[149] about 4-5 car lengths in front of me… It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes.”[150]

106.  “The plane flew over… He said he looked at it and saw American Airline insignia.”[151]

107.  “About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American airlines airplane.”[152]

108.  “I talked to a number of average people in route who said they saw the plane hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower that the height of the Washington Monument…they reported to him they could clearly see the markings of an American airlines airliner.”[153]

109.  “I saw this large American airlines passenger jet…”There was no doubt in my mind what I was watching. Not for a second. It was accelerating,”[154]

110.  “He saw an American airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon.”[155]

111.  “I saw a very low-flying American airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating.”[156]

112.  “Father Stephen McGraw was driving…when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American airlines Flight 77…McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon…”[157]

113.  “I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us.”[158]

114.  “The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB)[159]. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon… The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled… As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction.”[160]

115.  “A silver, twin-engine American airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex… The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by…”[161]

116.  “Then I looked up to my left and saw an American airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet.”[162]

117.  “I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American airlines jet…It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I’d just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, that’s not going to make it to National Airport.”[163]

118.  “It was an American airlines plane that came in and hit the Pentagon.  I believe it was a 737—I could be mistaken, it might have been a 707—but it was definitely a commercial plane.  I saw the plane coming down—it actually came up I-395 and it went over the rise and came in front of a bridge in which I was sitting [in traffic].”[164]

119.  “He saw the airliner in the cloudless September sky American airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon… The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze. ‘I knew I was dead’ …He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away… I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize… The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.”[165]

120.  “I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American airlines’ logo on the tail as it headed towards the building… I clearly saw the “AA” logo with the eagle in the middle…I don’t really remember the engine configuration, but it did have those turbine engines on the wing… It was definitely an American airlines jet… There is no doubt about that… When I got to work I checked it out.”[166]

121.  “On my left, right above me—a little over. I see an American airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail… I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane.”[167]

122.  “Then he caught the glint of silver out of the corner of his eye. He looked up to see a passenger plane with the trademark stainless-steel fuselage and stripes of American airlines… Time seemed to slip into slow motion as he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex.”[168]

123.  “On my way to work Sept. 11, I saw an American airlines jet come overhead… and, turning to look, saw my driver’s side window filled with the fuselage of the doomed airliner…I could see the passenger windows glide by. The plane looked as if it were coming in for a landing.”[169]

124.  “Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car.”[170]

125.  “I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American airlines jet, coming… I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked… I saw a big silver plane and those double A’s… I knew it was an American Airlines passenger jet. 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… I was surprised at how graceful and slow the banking of the jet appeared to be, and how quickly it accelerated after it had lined up the Pentagon.”[171]

126.  “Her brother… of Virginia Beach, spotted the planes first…the American airlines jet.”[172]

127.  “I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane.”[173]

128.  “No doubt about it, it was an American Airlines.”[174]

129.  “Motor 14, it was an American airlines plane, uh, headed eastbound over the Pike, possibly toward the Pentagon.” [Radio transmission tape released by the Arlington Police Department].”[175]

American Airways?

130.  “It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane.”[176]
“757”

131.  “It was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon.”[177]

132.  “A huge airplane [which] look[ed] to me like a 757, American Airlines probably flying around 60 to 70 yards on top of my car… as I mentioned to you, I do fly small airplanes occasionally, and it looked to me someone professional—especially when you manoeuvre and turn the airplane—it would take you a few seconds to put the wings equally [level].  It [looked] like it was [planned]…  Just the way I looked at the airplane, it looked like… the rear of the [airplane was] going to land on my car… Unbelievable.”[178]

133.  “Col. Bruce Elliott… watched in horror Tuesday as a hijacked 757 airliner crashed into the nerve center of the U.S. military command.”[179]

134.  “Sgt. William Lagasse… was filling up his patrol car at a gas station near the Pentagon when he noticed a jet fly in low… I have some experience as a pilot… The 757’s flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted…  I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American airlines on it.”[180]

135.  “[he saw] an American airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was…a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield… I saw the body and the tail; it was a silver jet with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an American airlines jet, it was not a… business jet, it was not a Lear jet… it was a bigger plane than that… probably a 757.”[181]

136.  “A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757… I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel.”[182]
“757” …or Airbus… or 767?

137.  “Wallace and Skipper were walking along the right side of the truck (Young was in the station) [near the crash site]when the two looked up and saw an airplane… white airplane with orange and blue trim heading almost straight at him… and was coming in low and fast… just 200 yards away-the length of two football fields… He didn’t know how long he’d have or whether he could outrun the oncoming plane… Wallace and his buddy Mark “We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus.”[183]

138.  “Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon.”[184]

139.  “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.”[185]

[EndTheEU]

Is plenty hundreds?
Did they see the bullets?
Hearing gun reports is much different than seeing a passenger plane.

Many even identify it as American Airlines.

like i said, goodbye

[grapecrusher1]

I believe the Prison Planet Forum member shure has phoned this guy and got the same response.  They all cant be plants like the harley davidson guy.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jq6e_pentagon-eyewitness-tim-timmerman_news

[grapecrusher1]

It is well understood that 911 was a sophisticated operation and this involved a highly developed psychological aspect.  Perhaps it was well thought out how the pentagon would be used as the honey pot to discredit any movement that might be on the scent.

Both Rumsfeld and Roemer deliberately slipped up.

The Honey Pot

On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories.  (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.)  This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited.  There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers.  Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms.  What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?

Despite popular belief, the physical evidence does not rule out that possibility that it was American Airlines Flight 77 that actually crashed into the Pentagon.  Confidently asserting otherwise, then being proven wrong and discredited for sloppy research, would be disastrous for the credibility of the solid science-based research at the World Trade Center.

Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the attention of the Truth Movement onto the Pentagon?  Does it sound too cynical to suggest that we are being intentionally set up?  We must remember that we are in a situation where nearly 3000 people were murdered in a day not counting the thousands who have died since, and millions killed in the resulting wars.  If agencies of the US government really are complicit, which the evidence shows to be the case, then the people who really know what happened are playing for keeps.  Any movement with real potential for arriving at incriminating truth will certainly be highly infiltrated.  This is not paranoia: it is a simple fact.  The 9/11 Truth Movement must respond by policing itself and holding itself to the highest standards of intellectual rigor.

http://911speakout.org/?page_id=219

[ghost hacked]

the reason people don't take the fact that no plane hit the Pentagon seriously is because it is grouped together with nonsense like the WTC planes being holograms. its just like how peope group together the truth, like 9/11 being an inside job, with other conspiracy nonsense like reptilian aliens

Well look at it this way. If the conclusion is that no plane hit the Pentagon, and no plane hit Shanksville,  then that opens the door for the other more wilder 'truther' angles, which includes holograms as the planes. I mean shit was so f**ked up that day, almost anything seems possible, once you understand how evil the powers that be are. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I knew in the back of my mind as I watched the events play out on TV that something was not right, but I had a feeling it was not Al-queda or a bunch of Arabs ..  when I watched the live feed (what I could think was live on CNN) when WTC7 went down, I looked at it, and said to my friend, something is not right here. But I just could not put my finger on it.

[EndTheEU]

Well look at it this way. If the conclusion is that no plane hit the Pentagon, and no plane hit Shanksville,  then that opens the door for the other more wilder 'truther' angles, which includes holograms as the planes. I mean shit was so f**ked up that day, almost anything seems possible, once you understand how evil the powers that be are. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I knew in the back of my mind as I watched the events play out on TV that something was not right, but I had a feeling it was not Al-queda or a bunch of Arabs ..  when I watched the live feed (what I could think was live on CNN) when WTC7 went down, I looked at it, and said to my friend, something is not right here. But I just could not put my finger on it.

that is true, but using that logic, then believing 9/11 was an inside job "opens the door for the other more wilder 'truther' angles"
i'm not saying there certainly was a plane, or there certainly wasn't. i don't know. i just know that the official story is a white wash. mabe it is a cointelpro op, thats possible. either way, it was an inside job and shouldnt distract from the main issue

[grapecrusher1]

To Con a Movement:
Exposing CIT's PentaCon
'Magic Show'
by
Victoria Ashley

Version 1.1, Aug 1, 2009
Version 1.0, July 26, 2009

INTRODUCTION

This essay examines the work of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to prove that a complicated "magic show" occurred during the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the "flyover" theory). CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom they believe, indicate a different flightpath from the accepted flightpath (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary "evidence" for the flyover theory.

http://www.911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html

[grapecrusher1]

Jim Hoffman obliterates the CIT cointelpro operation with plenty of illustrations.

Google Earth Exposes
Pentagon Flyover Farce
or
Critiquing PentaCon
(Smoking Crack Version) *
by Jim Hoffman

Introduction

The PentaCon is the most recent in a long series of efforts to persuade skeptics of the official account of 9/11 that the attack on the Pentagon did not involve the crash of Flight 77, a Boeing 757. However, the creators of PentaCon, the grassroots-sounding 'CIT' (Citizen's Investigation Team), have seemingly taken care to isolate their effort from its historical antecedents, even labeling as disinformation the missile strike theory advocated by earlier proponents of the premise that the crash of Flight 77 was faked, and giving scant credit to the original author of the Flight 77 flyover theory, Dick Eastman, or its subsequent supporters Jerry Russell and Richard Stanley. And PentaCon's incarnations are virtually free of references to the earlier campaigns that effectively promoted the conclusion that a Boeing 757 couldn't have crashed at the Pentagon -- from Hunt the Boeing, to Painful Deceptions, to In Plane Site, to Pentagon Strike, to Loose Change, Second Edition.

more
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

[Dig]

i also qualify as a truther and a conspiracy theorist but that doesnt make those terms any less ignorant. i bring up bill o'reilly because using these terms is a favorite tactic of mainstream media. liberal, conservative, truther, birther, conspiracy theorist: all these titles are just ways to get people to conform to political correctness instead of having an open mind

someone calling someone else on here a "no planer" is no better than fox news calling all of us "conspiracy theorists"

but you are saying that a plane did not hit the pentagon and there are documented sourced witnesses who contradict your claim. You offer not one source that says a plane did not hit the pentagon yet you insist no-plane hit the pentagon.

how do you refer to your witnessless theory of no-plane?