Pentaconned spreads disinfo (ranke CIT disinfo )

[grapecrusher1]

 
On 9/11 planes flew into buildings. All this other stuff is BS to distract you. Stop allowing yourselves to be conned by disInfo.

Excellent response.  But what is your point if those you are disputing have been "dispatched"??  I find it weak seeing these opposing and articulate views being banned, completely unnecessarily (or for the reason of having difficulty fielding them).   In reality this action has actually bolstered their argument, when if given more time, could have been discredited with constructive posts like the above.  I would suggest that those with the big hammer, strengthen their arm and learn how to properly administer it in a more judicious manner.  Flimsy arms drop hammers sloppily.    

[jimd3100]

Im sure they exist.  Do they definitively place the plane south of the citgo?

CIT also interviewed them as well.(except for Isabell- no need to they said her husband was military) Yes they do place it south of Citgo. Which is why they are all "undercover operatives" you see.

[trailhound]

jid3001 wrote

CIT also interviewed them as well.(except for Isabell- no need to they said her husband was military) Yes they do place it south of Citgo. Which is why they are all "undercover operatives" you see.

 McGraw did not see the approach. How are we to know the 'plane' he saw is the same plane the citgo, arlington, and R.Roberts witnesses saw.  

McGraw also says the plane bounced off the lawn and Wheelhouse saw two planes?

[jimd3100]

Excellent response.  But what is your point if those you are disputing have been "dispatched"??  I find it weak seeing these opposing and articulate views being banned, completely unnecessarily (or for the reason of having difficulty fielding them).   In reality this action has actually bolstered their argument, when if given more time, could have been discredited with constructive posts like the above.  I would suggest that those with the big hammer, strengthen their arm and learn how to properly administer it in a more judicious manner.  Flimsy arms drop hammers sloppily.    

DVD was banned already. The only reason he posted as long as he did was because we let him. The reason he was already banned was because he knew exactly what my stance was, and decided to test it. This debate is not new. It's been going on for over 4 years now. It has never ended. It never will. They make the rounds when they make a "new" movie and we all go through it again.

Here is my stance on censureship and banning. I've said this before. It's very simple.
If you are a no planner, I will put the hammer down on you because Chief Pfieffer started the whole plane at the WTC. It wasn't the media, it was Pfieffer who called in seeing a plane hit and we can all watch him do it on the Naudet Brothers movie. insinuating he murdered his own brother(because he must be "in on it") is the only reason I need to kick off a no planner. I have asked them to explain his role and why he insists a plane flew into the towers and get no answer.
The only other thing I wont tolerate is accusing ordinary working class Americans of being accomplices to mass murder who actually helped so called truthers by agreeing to tell their story. Accuse innocent people of being mass murder 9/11 operatives and no planers --I will not associate myself in any way with that BS. I understand some people  don't like that. I would suggest they go talk about how the operatives that were interviewed and gained nothing from 9/11 helped murder people on another forum. Want to talk about that BS go on another forum. Or contact the administrator and give your case for having me removed as a mod.
That's it. I don't care what else people want to post on. No planners and mass murder accomplice accusations against witnesses are the only thing I wont allow. Like I said, there are other forums for that crap. And the admin can be contacted and a case made to them to have me removed. This isn't new. I posted the same thing in another thread long ago. I've only requested the banning of a very few people. None on this thread but DVD because he was already banned for posting how Lloyd "confessed" when he didn't and he already knew where I stood on that. Every post he made on this thread was made because I let him have his say before he got what he wanted (his martydom). I'm not spending the rest of my life debating CIT. I've debated Ranke already when his last piece of sh*t movie was made, and it went into pages. I never deleted it. And don't know who did or why. I wish it had stayed because I knew we would go through the crap again when the next movie came out. None of this is new. This "new" movie is just clips of the north side witnesses that were in other movies. I'm not spending the rest of my life and all my time on this board debating mentally ill people. This is all they do. The debate is going on 4 years non stop on other boards. Like I said, people want to talk about how Walter and L England helped murder people on 9/11 they have to go somewhere else.

[jimd3100]

jid3001 wrote
 McGraw did not see the approach. How are we to know the 'plane' he saw is the same plane the citgo, arlington, and R.Roberts witnesses saw.  

McGraw also says the plane bounced off the lawn and Wheelhouse saw two planes?

There were two planes and he did a fine job of describing them except he had the c 130 to close to the passenger jet. McGraw wasnt the only person to think it hit the lawn because it was so close to it. Like I said before no witness is perfect, frankly I'm impressed with all the witnesses I've seen.

[trailhound]

jimd3001 wrote

There were two planes and he did a fine job of describing them except he had the c 130 to close to the passenger jet. McGraw wasnt the only person to think it hit the lawn because it was so close to it. Like I said before every no witness is perfect, frankly I'm ompressed with all the witnesses I've seen.

  Yeah the C130 was a long way behind so if Wheelhouse is accurate we have two planes within seconds of each other. Both of these planes were described by witnesses as commercial airliners. Is that all correct as far you understand it?

 I dont need to make witnesses liars in my mind. They may be telling the truth about an illusion they saw right?  I find it odd the number of witnesses who do not report seeing two planes within seconds of each other.

[jimd3100]

jimd3001 wrote
  Yeah the C130 was a long way behind so if Wheelhouse is accurate we have two planes within seconds of each other. Both of these planes were described by witnesses as commercial airliners. Is that all correct as far you understand it?

 I dont need to make witnesses liars in my mind. They may be telling the truth about an illusion they saw right?  I find it odd the number of witnesses who do not report seeing two planes within seconds of each other.

I'm not sure who you mean when  you say some describe 2 passenger planes. None of the others that I'm aware of were in the position of Wheelhouse. He was near the pentagon facing away from it so I'm not surprised he noticed the c 130. He said the plane was angled down somewhat too just as it went into the pentagon, kind of hard to do a flyover like that, but they just dismiss him as a liar. I think I know why. No flyover. And South side witness. He always gave me the impression he thought the other plane (c 130) was "guiding" the passenger jet into the pentagon...you know like he is sympathetic to 9/11 being an inside job. But sadly not anymore, after his experience with CIT he thinks 9/11 truthers are insane. That's really too bad. He seems like a nice guy.

[trailhound]

I'm not sure who you mean when  you say some describe 2 passenger planes. None of the others that I'm aware of were in the position of Wheelhouse. He was near the pentagon facing away from it so I'm not surprised he noticed the c 130. He said the plane was angled down somewhat too just as it went into the pentagon, kind of hard to do a flyover like that, but they just dismiss him as a lier. I think I know why. No flyover. And South side witness. He always gave me the impression he thought the other plane (c 130) was "guiding" the passenger jet into the pentagon...you know like he is sympathetic to 9/11 being an inside job. But sadly not anymore, after his experience with CIT he thinks 9/11 truthers are insane. That's really too bad. He seems like a nice guy.

  The C130 was too far behind to be the plane Roosevelt Roberts saw flying over the south parking lot just above the lamp posts. He said it was a silver commercial airliner.   If one crashed into the pentagon which one did Roosevelt see?

 Also did the C130 even descend that low?

[jimd3100]

 The C130 was too far behind to be the plane Roosevelt Roberts saw flying over the south parking lot just above the lamp posts. He said it was a silver commercial airliner.   If one crashed into the pentagon which one did Roosevelt see?

In the same way I don't believe wheelhouse when he has the plane to close to the passenger jet, I don't believe Roosevelt when he describes the plane that low, but I believe neither one is lying. Some think he saw the c 130, I agree with you that he probably didn't see that plane, as I stated I believe he saw the e4b doomsday plane which was just launched and and is a refurbished 747. It was definately in the area, as I showed earlier. He himself does not believe in this flyover as no one does. Well, except for CIT and their followers.

[trailhound]

In the same way I don't believe wheelhouse when he has the plane to close to the passenger jet, I don't believe Roosevelt when he describes the plane that low, but I believe neither one is lying. Some think he saw the c 130, I agree with you that he probably didn't see that plane, as I stated I believe he saw the e4b doomsday plane which was just launched and and is a refurbished 747. It was definately in the area, as I showed earlier. He himself does not believe in this flyover as no one does. Well, except for CIT and their followers.

 The problem I see with the just launched part of that is if i remember right Roosevelt described it flying away from the pentagon.  I suppose we can not find out where it took off from.

[jimd3100]

The problem I see with the just launched part of that is if i remember right Roosevelt described it flying away from the pentagon.  I suppose we can not find out where it took off from.

Classified information, They wont talk about it. But we do know it was launched "just outside Washington DC." At around the time of the pentagon attack. So it would be low, and near the pentagon.

[trailhound]

Classified information, They wont talk about it. But we do know it was launched "just outside Washington DC." At around the time of the pentagon attack. So it would be low, and near the pentagon.

 I will have to retain some doubt based on Roosevelt saying it was silver and we still dont have other witnesses or video of that giant white plane flying around low. Roosevelt also said the plane 'acted like it missed its target' made a correction and flew off.

[trailhound]

He himself does not believe in this flyover as no one does.

 No but he believes there were two commercial airliners flying very close to the pentagon within ten seconds of each other.

[Voskhod3]

DVD was banned already. The only reason he posted as long as he did was because we let him. The reason he was already banned was because he knew exactly what my stance was, and decided to test it.

What is your stance?

Are the 13 witnesses lying and spreading disinfo?

[mym]

How come no one answered our questions about the hole and the wing span?  Is that not important as well besides all the lines/paths and witnesses/false witnesses? 


just curious but those are excellent questions I think

[grapecrusher1]

DVD was banned already. The only reason he posted as long as he did was because we let him. The reason he was already banned was because he knew exactly what my stance was, and decided to test it. This debate is not new. It's been going on for over 4 years now. It has never ended. It never will. They make the rounds when they make a "new" movie and we all go through it again.

Here is my stance on censureship and banning. I've said this before. It's very simple.
If you are a no planner, I will put the hammer down on you because Chief Pfieffer started the whole plane at the WTC. It wasn't the media, it was Pfieffer who called in seeing a plane hit and we can all watch him do it on the Naudet Brothers movie. insinuating he murdered his own brother(because he must be "in on it") is the only reason I need to kick off a no planner. I have asked them to explain his role and why he insists a plane flew into the towers and get no answer.
The only other thing I wont tolerate is accusing ordinary working class Americans of being accomplices to mass murder who actually helped so called truthers by agreeing to tell their story. Accuse innocent people of being mass murder 9/11 operatives and no planers --I will not associate myself in any way with that BS. I understand some people  don't like that. I would suggest they go talk about how the operatives that were interviewed and gained nothing from 9/11 helped murder people on another forum. Want to talk about that BS go on another forum. Or contact the administrator and give your case for having me removed as a mod.
That's it. I don't care what else people want to post on. No planners and mass murder accomplice accusations against witnesses are the only thing I wont allow. Like I said, there are other forums for that crap. And the admin can be contacted and a case made to them to have me removed. This isn't new. I posted the same thing in another thread long ago. I've only requested the banning of a very few people. None on this thread but DVD because he was already banned for posting how Lloyd "confessed" when he didn't and he already knew where I stood on that. Every post he made on this thread was made because I let him have his say before he got what he wanted (his martydom). I'm not spending the rest of my life debating CIT. I've debated Ranke already when his last piece of sh*t movie was made, and it went into pages. I never deleted it. And don't know who did or why. I wish it had stayed because I knew we would go through the crap again when the next movie came out. None of this is new. This "new" movie is just clips of the north side witnesses that were in other movies. I'm not spending the rest of my life and all my time on this board debating mentally ill people. This is all they do. The debate is going on 4 years non stop on other boards. Like I said, people want to talk about how Walter and L England helped murder people on 9/11 they have to go somewhere else.

I feel you are completely justified in stifling no-plane nonsense.  As seen in the recent no-plane thread -- it is some ludicrous circular argument with a very small circumference and littered with gaping holes.  Whereas this thread has a couple guys who are either part of CIT or associated with it who are not raving lunatics and can formulate a good argument.  It is unfortunate that the historic thread with Ranke has been deleted because I would have liked to look at it.  I just think that a disservice has been done to the non-CIT position by banning when you have strong points to discredit their argument despite it being a repeated exercise.  I think they have done an excellent job cooking up this scenario and it should battled. 

Why is no-planer often spelled as no-planner?  Is this a deliberate play on words -- as in a lack of planning.

As far as Kevin Barrett goes, I think he is an asset to the movement but he really should do some homework before his interviews as indicated recently with Ranke, Jonathan Kay and Henshall.   He should also be a little more in tuned to deception, he seems to be a little naive and can be manipulated easily by snakes like Kay.

[phasma]

My problem with the round hole swallowing a plane theory is this (im not saying i believe it is impossible - would just like to see how it is possible)

Assuming a plane made that hole then of course the logical question is where did the wings go?
Did they tuck in neatly on impact? (I doubt this, the fuselage i know is strongest around the wng area because of the wings)
Could they have been destroyed on impact? (logic tells me maybe, but if this were so that the engines must have been left on the outside of the hole because there is no evidence of them going through the wall) additionally, if the wings were in fact blown up on impact then there ought to have been explosions on each side of the fuselage (one for each wing fuel tank) and there should be evidence of this exteriorly. Again i see none, only charring above the central body of the hole.
The above argument applies also for the tail fin.
I see no evidence of a strike, nor evidence that the tail went in.
Most tail fins are fastened on by 3 bolts. Im pretty sure an impact with something so solid as a wall , where the rest of the plane and wings make it through the wall (assuming they can?) would result in the shearing off of the tail fin (the plane may have hit at 250 knots, but it would have deccelerated quickly upon hitting making it more likely that the tail would remain intact - at least partially.
Can anyone help me out here? Im not a no planer, i accept there likely was a plane, can someone help me understand this vanishing trick and the points i raised above?

Come on guys ! you all know more about the pentagon crash than me - some one help me out with this !
Me and mym !

[Voskhod3]

I feel you are completely justified in stifling no-plane nonsense.  As seen in the recent no-plane thread -- it is some ludicrous circular argument with a very small circumference and littered with gaping holes. 

I totally agree, I have spent a large amount of time pointing to the massive holes in their arguments myself - no-planes is pure unadulterated disinfo.

Whereas this thread has a couple guys who are either part of CIT or associated with it who are not raving lunatics and can formulate a good argument.

 
This is absolutely true. The CIT video of the 13 witnesses is a good thought-provoking video regardless of what people think CIT did or didn't do in the past - the witnesses get to talk for themselves at length.

It is unfortunate that the historic thread with Ranke has been deleted because I would have liked to look at it.

Me too!

I just think that a disservice has been done to the non-CIT position by banning when you have strong points to discredit their argument despite it being a repeated exercise.

Indeed, the banning of DVD was puzzling as he seemed to be putting up quite a compelling and articulate argument.

I think they have done an excellent job cooking up this scenario and it should battled.

 
I'm not sure "battled" is the right way to describe it... "examined" would be better... "battled" presupposes that what they are saying is wrong.

As it stands CIT have complete interviews with the 13 witnesses who are categorical that they were not mistaken about where they saw the plane, and looking at where they were at the time it is hard to see how they could possibly be mistaken.

This leaves only two alternatives, they are telling the truth or they are spreading disinfo.

The logical position of some people in this thread has got to be that they are lying... although no one has come right out and said that (which is why I keep asking the same question... call me persistant).

But that IS the issue... are these people lying?

Because if they are not lying then the can of worms is open.

[Scootle]

What is your stance?

Are the 13 witnesses lying and spreading disinfo?

[Voskhod3]

See previous post.

[phasma]

Mym, It seems we wont get answers to these questions !  

[Scootle]

See previous post.

See:

No they're are working from trauma and fuzzy memory ....

Each one of those people would have only seen the plane for about 5 to 10 seconds tops ... then they would have discussed what they saw with other witnesses on the day ... some of who were probably agents ... then they would have gone home watched tv to see all the other chaos going on that day and would have been shocked and traumatized ... then as time went on, what they saw, what the news told them, and their discussions with other witnesses would have all blurred into one ... then 2 or 3 months later in november/december they finally put their accounts of record...

Could they accurately describe what happened during a 5 to 10 second time frame after all that?

But then I suppose you'll say: "There's 13 of them ... they can't all be wrong the same way could they?"

They weren't the only 13 witnesses... there were over a 100 in total... so what u have in fact is 13 out of 100 correlating with eachother ... which isn't suprising... with over 100 witnesses, ur bound to get some correlation.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Mym, It seems we wont get answers to these questions !  

I'm reading through this at the moment -

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html

which seems to provide some answers regarding the hole. Also this page links to this page with lots of witness accounts -

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

[grapecrusher1]

Come on guys ! you all know more about the pentagon crash than me - some one help me out with this !
Me and mym !

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/index.html

Hoffman's site is the stance generally accepted by the movement.  This should address your questions and more.
My position is unfixed and I am open to any theories -- finding it dangerous to pigeonhole one contention or another in regards to the pentagon.  Maybe there was a flyover with bombs planted, maybe a 757 hit it broadside, maybe it was a globalhawk, maybe it was a wayward drunken Santa Claus.  What is much more concrete and undisputed is nano thermite at the WTC.  Lets start our new investigation there and not give such divisive scrabbling much credence.  Sure it is worthy of intellectual discussion but not for hard and fast positions.

[Voskhod3]

No they're are working from trauma and fuzzy memory ....

You really think that all 13 people would have a "fuzzy memory" about the most intense 5 seconds of their life?

For gods sake look!

[/quote]

Just look at where they were.. they could almost touch the thing.

They are CATEGORICAL about what they saw... "zero chance" of a south citgo flight path.. some of them couldn't even see a south citgo flight path.

"fuzzy memory" doesn't work.

They are telling the truth or spreading disinfo.

I'm open to both possibilities.

[grapecrusher1]

But that IS the issue... are these people lying?

Because if they are not lying then the can of worms is open.

I dont know the explanation for this -- especially including 2 cops that seem pretty certain.  Do these 13 witnesses have 100 people saying the approach was on the otherside?  I did find the new version of the CITGO movie somewhat slanted like they were trying to appear fair yet presenting evidence that worked into their preconceived cooked idea -- which Jim proved.  I had to turn it off when they were badgering the old guy incessantly --- there is no doubt this is the case and he was discombobulated.  There are a number of inconsistencies in the story and seemingly deliberate lies that make me question the genuineness of the whole idea.
I think the idea that this is a serious issue is overblown -- really the only ones who know what happened were the perps and we are on to them -- nano thermite.  Once convicted a little waterboarding will tell us what happened at the pentagon -- case closed.  

[trailhound]

grapecrusher

I dont know the explanation for this -- especially including 2 cops that seem pretty certain.  Do these 13 witnesses have 100 people saying the approach was on the otherside?

  There are not even close to 100 witnesses who say the plane flew south of the citgo. Please post if you know of some.  

I had to turn it off when they were badgering the old guy incessantly ---

 He was trying to tell them him and his car were on a different bridge that doesnt exist closer to the pentagon which no pictures show.  They should have given him tea cookies instead of bothering him with their silly interview.  

 I too would have liked to see the Ranke thread. Forgive me if im looking at things that were previously weeded out i wasnt there and my questions have not been answered.  What do you make of Rooesevelt Roberts testimony grapecrusher?

[Voskhod3]

There are not even close to 100 witnesses who say the plane flew south of the citgo. Please post if you know of some.

I compiled a list of about 150 witnesses, I looked at the statements of probably the first 10%... there's not much going for a south of citgo path - I never found one!
I think if they were all analysed that the definite north citgo would be more or at least comparable to south citgo.

[kushfiend]

I take everything vosk says with a grain of salt....

"I have made you refute your own post!"

lol

[Voskhod3]

"I have made you refute your own post!"
lol

That happened. Get over it.

By the way, the list of witnesses statements I started to analyze is in this forum.

You can help with it if you like.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

That happened. Get over it.

By the way, the list of witnesses statements I started to analyze is in this forum.

You can help with it if you like.

Do you think that a plane hit the Pentagon or what?

[Voskhod3]

Do you think that a plane hit the Pentagon or what?

It doesn't matter.

I'm one step back, if the north citgo path is accepted then the light poles were faked and pandoras box is open.

At the moment we have 13 good clear unequivocal witnesses who say north citgo, and if you look at where they say they were standing you can understand why they are unequivocal.

The choice is clear, they are telling the truth or they are spreading disinfo.

As I said, I'm open to either option.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

You never answer any questions it's like you have this fear of being wrong. Get over yourself everybody’s learning as we go along here people like you are just stalling the process. Every thread you post in stalls as you continually repeat the same questions over and over again. Just what are you trying to achieve?

[trailhound]

Do you think that a plane hit the Pentagon or what?

  Probably but I am not 100% certain. Right now I am more interested in finding other witnesses who saw two silver commercial airliners within 10 seconds of each other.  It would be nice if someone had uncut video of the attack even from a distance so we could see. Amazing how the pentagon can be guarded from us even seeing the attack but the hijackers succeeded in attacking the pentagon 50+minutes after the second plane hit in NY. It wouldnt mean anything in court but that fact alone always made me think it was an inside job.

[grapecrusher1]

 

 I too would have liked to see the Ranke thread. Forgive me if im looking at things that were previously weeded out i wasnt there and my questions have not been answered.  What do you make of Rooesevelt Roberts testimony grapecrusher?

I think it is genuine and just adds more questions.  In my opinion, the diabolical minds that concocted this scheme anticipated the attention to be focussed on the pentagon alone.  They anticipated ,correctly, plenty of divisive theories being proposed and vociferously defended that would go nowhere.  Ranke has a certain maniacal ferverishness to him.  Where they erred is screwing up the simultaneous demolition of wtc 7 with one of the main towers forcing them to show their cards to those with their eyes open.  You dont see it on MSM, Jennings dies, his cohort doesnt talk, bbc and cnn report it early, visually obvious to experts it is a demo, etc etc -- this is the achilles heel.  In the event of a new investigation the pentagon should be ignored -- it will come out in the wash -- as i have said before.  Still interesting to contemplate but having a rigid position should be avoided.
   

[jimd3100]

How come no one answered our questions about the hole and the wing span?  Is that not important as well besides all the lines/paths and witnesses/false witnesses?  


just curious but those are excellent questions I think

That's a fair question.

The flyover theory as pcc has stated earlier is not a new theory, but when CIT revised it they did put a new and more believable (In some ways-in other ways even more outrageous) spin on it. The old theory as I understood it was a 757(or similar) flew at the pentagon on the North side and then over.... while the mesmerized people didn't notice the missile fired at the last second by a f-16 (or similar plane) which then immediately crashed into the building. That was the plane that took out the lamp poles and that plane(f-16) flew "the official" path. This explained the lamp poles and it explained why the folks seeing it on radar thought "it was a military jet". It also explained "the small hole" and lack of plane parts. It also explained Pentagon Officer Lagasse describing a "north side" path. Eastman interviewed Lagasse by email years ago, and this part of Lagasse's statement helped to "prove" this theory....
"I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft."
http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.98.html
That would be the north side approach.
Of course any parts that were found to be from anything other than a "military" jet were "planted". This theory died off when it was apparrant that the "military" craft didn't have the wingspan to knock down all those poles and no one ever witnessed any flyover anyway. No witness described two planes either.

So, with this "new" theory of CIT the lampoles being knocked down can be explained by them being "planted". Problem is one of them almost killed a cabbie. How are you going to explain that? There is no other way. He has to be "in on it". There is no way around this. If the cabbie is not "in on it" then a plane flew into the building. They already had the cabbie pegged as a mass murderer plant before ever interviewing a single witness,(you have to if you're going to prove the official story wrong) and also knew Lagasse would claim a north side path. Being familar with Eastmans work, and what Lagasee told him. (Lagassee of course said lots of other stuff but see, this is the problem in trying to prove the official story wrong.  Now a confirmation of the wrong flight path is all that's left. And an "explanation" for the lack of flyover witnesses.

Anyway, that's an introduction into what we have. Some of you on this thread have made valid points and seem genuine in wanting to find out what happaned. Perhaps you have suspicions about why a previous debate was deleted. Like I said, I don't know, I didn't do it, I wish it had stayed, my assumption is the stench emanating from the BS Ranke was dishing is why. An earlier no plane thread was also deleted I would assume for the same reasons, that I also wish was around, it had my favorite post in it, rayantocky the no plane Zionist cursing at me. In any case to hopefully ease any suspicions, you can see on the pentagon thread, in this post I reference and give a link to the since deleted thread.....
"Actually if you watched the pentacon, you've wasted moments of your life you'll never get back. I'll take Jim Hoffmans' research over BS artists any day.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/slides.html

Self promoting BS artists claims go in the garbage.....don't let yourself be manipulated

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=27201.0"
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg132870#msg132870

It's not like I was running from it I directed people to it. As did this member in this post....

"You should read all of this thread in the Faux Controversies section here at the Prison Planet forums:

The ultimate con on the 911 truth movement: Pentacon

Moderater jimd3100 does a really nice job of breaking things down.

Put simply, every single witness saw the plane crash into the building, and not one person saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

EDIT: To add, the Flight Data Recorder recovered from the crash at the Pentagon is what gives the 61.2 degree angle in that picture. Notice how it lines up with the physical damage. Also there are witnesses to the South of Citgo approach, but you and CIT will deny that."
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg133000#msg133000

Ranke, to my surprise actually, finally gave up the debate and moved on eventually to come back where I referenced where he could go--back to the same thread....

"You're movies are a joke, and a disgrace to the truth movement with outrageous smears on ordinary citizens. Spreading even more preposterous DisInfo than missiles, and no planes.
We've already gone over it.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=27201.0"
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg169574#msg169574

And again on this post when a follower was upset that I wouldn't allow his posting in the pentagon thread....

"I've never deleted anyones' post but 1 by you where you lied like you are doing now,  
And Ranke... because his 9/11 truth destroying BS has his very own thread. Pretty nice huh?"
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg170510#msg170510

It was the same BS it's not like he ever posts about anything else, and so I confined it to the same thread but he didn't want to use that because it was in the Faux section, and that's what eventually got him kicked.

The point of this is if I were in your shoes I would probably have suspicions and I'm showing that yes...we have gone thru it, and no it wasn't like "damn it ya got me I'm gonna delete everything and kick ya off."

Some of you seem sincere and I don't blame you for being confused. This is a divisive issue and people get pissed and tempers flare. If you really are interested maybe we can figure this out. But I don't have a bunch of free time and it's time consuming. I have no interest in discussing this with anyone who is "out to prove the official story wrong". Why? Because it's no better than debunkers who are only out  "to prove the Government right". I'm not trying to prove the official story wrong. That's how you get debunked and slant things to a particular view. We should be only interested in the truth. CIT was "out to prove the official story wrong". And claim they have done it. I think they have proven themselves dishonest, and made outrageous slanders against good people. But back to the original question....

How come no one answered our questions about the hole and the wing span?  Is that not important as well besides all the lines/paths and witnesses/false witnesses?  


just curious but those are excellent questions I think

This is from the original flyover theorist D Eastman....check out the picture in the link as well.....

"As the above picture and many other photos that were taken at this time show, pillar # 16 is still there, albeit blasted so that it inclines to the right; and pillar #17 is also present and accounted for. Moreover, we also see there is interior wall perpendicular to the fallen outer wall that is still standing inside the building exactly where a starboard engine, had the killer jet been a two-engine Boeing 757, would have had to have penetrated. Clearly there was no starboard engine. An explosion occurring to the left of pillar #15 caused damage to the pillars to the right of it and brought down some outer wall on the first floor wall, but a large turbofan engine of a Boeing 757 never penetrated here. Thus we know that the killer jet was a single-engine aircraft."
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman

CIT borrow heavily from this if you listen to their latest at around the 3 minute mark. They say the same thing...that an explosion from inside caused these columns on the right to fly up and out, and those columns being there prove a plane wing with an engine could not have gone thru there. (in orange)


An even better view can be seen when you freeze frame their movie at the 3:07 mark...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
Study the picture closely. You will notice, that those are not columns at all but slabs hanging down from above. The wing where the engine was did go thru. This is part of a long whole...the first floor has been completely taken out. To call these columns still standing proving the plane didn't go thru is not true, this is a gaping hole.

Jim Hoffman has already covered this (as usual), as can be seen here....

"Standing columns remained where heavy 757 parts should have obliterated them."
Hoffman response: based on the confusion of hanging sections of the second floor for columns.
"The hole was too small to accommodate wing ends and tail."
Hoffman: true, but consistent with the crash of a 757 whose wing ends and tail are too light to puncture the Pentagon's walls."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

[mr anderson]

What are your thoughts on April Gallop, Jim?

[jimd3100]

What are your thoughts on April Gallop, Jim?

Well, I don't really have any thoughts on her, other than she's lucky to be alive. As for her account, I believe her. I believe she doesn't know what happened or what hit if anything because she was inside. I believe her when she said she didn't notice plane debris. But it was dark and she was focused on finding her child and getting out. But she certainly proves there was no warning given as a plane was approaching.

[jimd3100]

"as we all know, a plane didn't hit the pentagon"
A phrase I've heard over and over and over from so called "truthers". Well, we don't all know that. Jim Hoffman doesn't know that, I don't know that, and we aren't the only "truthers" who not only think a plane did hit the pentagon, I think the evidence is overwhelming. But so what? That doesn't mean anyone else has to think that, and some don't and that's fine. But I'm not going to just sit and do nothing, and let regular working class Americans who gained nothing from 9/11 be slandered and accused because they were willing to help so called "truthers" in their quest for truth when in fact they were not in a quest for truth, and didn't like the answers they got. We also think the evidence is overwhelming for calling 9/11 an inside job.

But now that a couple of con artists showed their video some so called "truthers" are perfectly willing to accept that a passenger jet was at the pentagon. But since these guys conned some into thinking an old cab driver is an "undercover operative" and the witnesses gave the wrong flight path, well....it's only logical isn't it? That the plane flew over the building?  
These guys were out to prove the "official story" wrong, and by golly they did it. And this is why I prefer to seek out the truth as opposed to proving the "official story" wrong. I was under the impression that was what 9/11 truth was about. An emphasis on truth. I found that appealing.

Like I said, a pentagon flyover is an old debunked theory of Dick Eastman, brought back from the dead with a new and disgusting spin. Check this out to get an understanding of the original flyover theory...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x15647

As you can see, CIT already knew Lagasse had the flight path off. And most if not all of the witnesses have already been interviewed at one time or another. Just look for ones that will support your view, replace the fighter jet explanation for the downed lightpoles with, "they were planted", which means the cabbie has to be in on it. Which CIT had assumed before interviewing anyone, because that's already a given, or the theory wont work. In case you didn't know they already had decided this. Here is the thread dated Jan 2006
"Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)"
http://letsrollforums.com/meet-agent-lloyd-england-t9799.html
Some quotes from this thread...

"Note he didn't mention the plane crashing or seeing the impact. That's the thing."

"A LOT of people saw a plane, the plane, some kind of plane."

"And then at some point people saw the diversion plane making it's low flying appearance?"

"Remember, that side of the Pentagon is sourrounded by tree lines and hills, so it may be possible there were 2 and 3 planes or crafts involved in this and some people didn't see it. And he's also got it flying low and slow. That sounds like a large airliner that is about to make a brief appearance and then land at Reagan "

Working hard on "proving 9/11 was an inside job". Because after all "we all know a plane didn't hit the pentagon", because that's what the official story says. I see nothing wrong with speculating or theorizing, as long as it's done with a goal of finding the truth.

And now you have your "new" CIT flyover presentation outline.
As you comb the internet looking for interviews and statements you look for ones you can use for your theory. Here is an example of a statement you don't want to use....

"Statement from Penny Elgas
Personal Experience At The Pentagon on September 11, 2001
By Penny Elgas

I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon. For most of my drive I had been totally focused on my radio and was extremely aware of the events that were unfolding in New York. Even though the radio reporters were cautious, I was already convinced from the first strike that it was not just an unfortunate pilot error. However, I felt that New York was under attack and I couldn't have imagined what would unfold in front of me.

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that 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. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was “Oh My God, this must be World War III!” ........I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

"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. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there." That would be the South side/ the "official" path.  Think these guys wanted to talk to her? Of course it doesn't really matter. It will be easy to con "Truthers" to just call her another "plant". You just point out this other part of the statement.......
"Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window. The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material."
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

So, you don't want to include this person, they don't jive with your theory so just don't use them or contact them, but if you do simply spin it as a lie, and she is "in on it" explain how the piece of a plane landing in her car is not believable, it's impossible, the parts are planted and no plane hit(like they tried to spin about Lloyd)can you see how the game is played?

Even though her story is confirmed over and over (an AA plane hitting) it just doesn't matter.  

So when CIT interviewed Lagasse it was to get his wrong flight path. They went there not to find the truth, but to get statements contradicting the official flight path so they can try and sell you a ridiculous flyover theory, that's already been debunked. Which is why they focused on this part of Lagasse's statement (just like Eastman did)...

"I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft."
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.98.html

While ignoring other parts such as .....

"You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end."
and
"I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that morning."
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.98.html

You see, physical evidence doesn't matter, because naturally you just claim it's all "planted". And it ain't easy planting engines from a 757 in an office building, but who cares right?

So you go on a radio show and say throughout the show how everyone agrees, yes there was a passenger jet, but they all got the flight path a bit off which means it must have flown over the building and everyone was "fooled". Imply that there isn't any "south" side witnesses, like Ranke just did on Barrett's radio show... http://noliesradio.org/archives/3068

Ranke tends to lie...

Meet S Side witness M Walter
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jqaz_pentagon-eyewitness-mike-walter_...

They met him at his own home where he fed them. Isn't he horrible? He decided to not go on camera when he caught Ranke secretly recording him and knew they were no good. He's smarter than they are....

"The two said they were helping Avery and Pickering with research for their film. Walter chatted casually with the pair, and at one point, he realized that Ranke was surreptitiously tape-recording the conversation."

Although Pickering and Avery seemed relatively normal, Ranke and Marquis appeared to be on a mission to prove that the Pentagon plane crash never happened. They wouldn't listen to anything that contradicted this notion."

"Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. "They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios."

"Some of those guys [at the party] were young and nice and disaffected [about] their government," Walter concludes. "And some of them were crazy."
http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/

"Mike Walter is the only one who has proof he was there at all and he was probably in south parking lot waiting for the event to go down before he ran over to the scene to play "witness" for the news cameras."-  CIT take on Walter
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436840/pg1

Not outrageous enough for ya?

Meet S side witness Father McGraw
CIT will deny he is a S Side witness....but listen to his testimony...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5085491450059007792&ei=LdJkSvn9...

It's clear he is. After hearing his story, can you seriously believe he was "fooled" and the plane flew over?
I would like to remind you this is a man of honour who gave up a career as an attorney to use his life in a spiritual way.

He gave aid and comfort to those dead and injured, like he is supposed to do as a priest, instead of saying "get out of my way, I have an appointment!" Originally, he was on his way to a funeral.

"We know for a fact that funerals continued at ANC throughout the morning and afternoon so the notion that he simply abandoned his responsibility to some veteran's family to fraternize with the first responders and loiter around the attack scene etc is unconscionable. -CIT take on McGraw
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436840/pg1

That's some outlandish and ridiculous slander. Simply outrageous.

"AND.....McGraw claims he was late to preside over a funeral at Arlington Cemetery. Why would he get out of his car at all with such an important commitment? We know for a fact that funerals continued as scheduled at ANC.

What happened to the poor family that was waiting for him as he hung around the Pentagon?

McGraw has admitted to having a connection to the controversial fundamentalist catholic secret society Opus Dei.

This is notable because of the political intrigue surrounding this catholic cult. It is well known to be favored by the "Washington elite" as reported in the History Channel special "The Spy Next Door: Robert Hanssen".

Robert Hanssen is a convicted traitor who was an FBI employee that sold secrets to the Russians for years. He was a good friends and parish members with former head of the FBI Louis Freeh who is said to have been instrumental in the Oklahoma City bombing cover-up. Both were devout members of Opus Dei but Hanssen was exposed as a sexual deviant who had extra marital affairs with strippers and secretely video taped sex with his wife while his friend would watch from a monitor set up in their spare room in the basement."  --CIT take on Father McGrawhttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320389/pg1

Why aren't you disgusted with this slander of innocent people who did nothing but make the mistake of talking to "truthers" and who ruin their fake "flyover" con?

Meet S Side witness Keith Wheelhouse...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760&hl=en

freeze frame at 14:11 guess why they call him an "undercover operative" liar?

Even after CIT went on the internet and accused this decent man of being "in on it" and a liar, he was still trying to help these "truthers" in their quest for "truth". He didn't know they were slandering him on the internet like the disgusting little cowards they are.

As Ranke's CIT loon Partner says..."Well on 7/22/08 we received a short e-mail from Keith out of the blue. Apparently he was still either oblivious to our claims about him and his account or his MO was to play dumb on purpose to make himself seem innocent. In this e-mail he included a couple of photos...

Email from Wheelhouse:

"Just thought you would like to see a few photos.
Take care
Keith D. Wheelhouse""

Nice guy. But he will soon find out he is dealing with lunatics. Here are snippits of what Ranke replies back with...

"The charade is over."...."We know you aren't to blame for a deception on this level Keith. But things will work out a lot better for you if you come clean. Work with us."......."I think it is best you are honest now. Your whole account has been proven to be fabricated by video of the C-130 at the Pentagon on 9/11."...."There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth."......" We know it was a flyover/flyaway. We have witnesses who prove this."....."We prefer to believe you are innocent and were coerced to lie."....." The video proves you are not telling the truth, Keith."

What a disgrace.

Last communication from Wheelhouse to Ranke......

"You guys need to come clean and stop the charade. Being x-military I was their and know exactly what I saw. It is a shame that there are people of your caliber that want to try to put a spin on what happened. I do not care whether you believe me or not. Have the people who contradict my story call me. You have my cell and ok to release it. There are 52 additional photo’s to collaborate my story. From your video you do not believe an AA jet hit the pentagon. You had doubts that I was even their. Please have the pilot’s witnesses or who ever wants to contest it call. Best wishes in your search.
Craig you need help
Keith D. Wheelhouse"

It's all right here..
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/936873/1/

And you wonder why I don't want those loons here? So take it to court and guess what will happen? The judge will hear from every witness that they watched a plane fly into the pentagon. Some got details wrong(Brooks said it was united) some got details right Lagassee said it was AA. Some got the path a bit off, some got it right, no one agrees on all the details, JUST LIKE AT ANY OTHER SCENE, but everyone agrees that a passenger jet hit the pentagon. Then he will see the physical evidence and it will be 757 part after 757 part. He will see Lloyde and hear his explanation. Then he will hear Ranke's....

"A more simple explanation is that he is a long time intelligence asset who has been driving a cab around the streets of DC with a wire in it for decades."      
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread406249/pg3

And guess what will happen? For all of you who say "you support the Official story". Well, CIT just proved it.
The judgement will not only be that the OCT is true, but that truthers are disgusting, and dishonest lunatics.
And you wonder why I don't want to be associated with that crap? I'm not here to try and destroy and discredit the truth movement.

For those more conspiracy minded. You might want to take notice that these guys have accused some top 9/11 truth movement advocates as operatives. Notice how the only people who they slander are all civilians with no ties to the pentagon, while those associated with the pentagon are "helping" with their "theory"?

If you ignore their spin and just listen to the witnesses, they pretty well prove the "official story" true in regards to what hit the pentagon. And if you notice how they treat the civilian witnesses, they also proved that if a "truther" comes at you with a camera or microphone you should run in the opposite direction.

Lunatics or operatives the result is the same.

 

[trailhound]

jimd3100

"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. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there." That would be the South side/ the "official" path.  Think these guys wanted to talk to her? Of course it doesn't really matter. It will be easy to con "Truthers" to just call her another "plant". You just point out this other part of the statement.......
"Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window. The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material."
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

Here's a phone call to Penny Elgas. She doesnt recall hearing the plane which i note as odd because a witness who claims to have come within 6 feet of the engine says he did not hear the explosion.  She is on record saying she saw the tail ' slip into the building' but in the interview she said it got about as far as the wings then exploded into a fireball.  Also she doesnt say which side of the station it was on but sounds like she could have seen a similar approach that Lagasse describes depending on where her view was, from a distance drastic errors can be made in describing the true location of the plane. In Lagasse's case it doesnt matter how wrong he was cause if it wasnt on the north side of the station he didnt see it. Add to that the two other people at the gas station who confirm they saw the same thing. 

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pe_060509.mp3

 
 Father Mcgraw said it bounced off the lawn but later decided that idea was put in his head.  He did not see the approach, just says it went right over him and disappeared into the building. Father McGraw is the best south path witness so far but he didnt actually see the approach.

Wheelhouse ,as you noted,  was provably wrong about the jet in relation to the c130. Wheelhouse may be telling the truth, he may have been in a position to see through the illusion but rectified it in his mind by saying there were two planes.  Other witnesses say it dragged a wing. Im not sure what to make of the conflicting witnesses.


“I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." -Gary Bauer

Gary confirms the right bank many other witnesses saw...
 
  Kelly Knowles says that seconds after seeing Flight 77 pass, she sees a “second plane that seemed to be chasing the first [pass] over at a slightly different angle.” [Daily Press (Newport News), 9/15/2001]
 
USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, who sees the Pentagon explosion, later says, “I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies.” [USA Today, 9/17/2001]

Joel Sucherman:
-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit.

Probst, Frank
Frank Probst . . . [a] Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer, . . . stopped by the renovation workers' trailer just south of the Pentagon heliport. . . .
          Probst took a sidewalk alongside Route 27, which runs near the Pentagon's western face. . . .
          "He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze.
          "I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, `Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'."
          He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away.
          The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart. . . .
          He still can't remember the sound of the explosion. . . .
          "It was pretty horrible," he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust, and bits of metal and concrete drifting down like confetti.
          On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away. ( note that peggy estimates the plane being
"Fortress Reborn," by Vince Crawley, Military.com, 9/11/02
. . . I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize . . . It looked like a huge fireball, pieces were flying out everywhere."
"Pentagon hit by terrorist attack," by Sgt. Jamelle A. Colbert, Pentagram / dcmilitary.com, 9/21/01

Close enough to clip the antenna of a jeep but didnt hit the ground? Some witnesses have it flying at a 45 degree angle while hitting the light posts Also Penny had it alot higher in her story.  Also im looking for this 'low wall' he describes seeing the engine hit right before it 'vaporized'.

 Congresswoman Judy Biggert describes seeing the tail of the plane that Peggy, McGraw and others had watched 'disappear' into the pentagon. 
Biggert, Judy
Members of Congress have been shuttled to the site to inspect the damage.
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) made the trip on Thursday. She saw remnants of
the airplane.
"There was a seat from a plane, there was part of the tail and
then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a
part of the outside of the plane," she said. "It smelled like it was
still burning."
 
Defina, Michael
The ARFF [National's aircraft rescue firefighters] foam units knocked down the bulk of the fire in the first seven minutes after their arrival, said Captain Michael Defina, who was the shift commander that day at National. . . .
          That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood, as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring.
          "The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. . . .

 HUH? Pieces of the nose gear? Is that fireman speaking in code?

        Skarlet
        "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?" That's the conversation I had with myself on the way to work. . . .
                  I spent an eternity in my car. I couldn't roll up the windows, the car smelled like the Inferno. Concrete dust coats the outside of the car, turning it a weird color. . . .
                  . . . The gash in the building looks so small on TV. The massiveness of the structure lost in the tight shots of the fire. There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building.
                   . . . It's weird to watch it on TV while the same smoke drifts by your windows.
        "Rerun: September 11, 2001, by Skarlet (webmaster of punkprincess.com), Overly Caffeinated: The Punk Princess Weblog, 9/11/01

 Her testimony makes me wonder if there was some kind of Copperfieldesque illusion going on that day.   Why didnt the WTC planes burst into flames prior to getting all the way into the building? Im not suggesting I know what happened, I am thoroughly bewildered.
 
Witness Statement by AA Flight Attendant
An American Airlines flight attendant, would have been scheduled to fly on her regular flight, AA 77, on September 11, 2001. That day she was excused from work because her father was ill. Her friend and fellow flight attendant, Renee, was on that plane.
          Renee boarded AA 77 in Washington DC on this regularly scheduled route to Los Angeles. Over Ohio, Renee called her mother on her cell phone and told her to call American Airlines Operations and report that the plane had been hijacked. Renee said there were six hijackers. Press releases since then have only reported five hijackers. But that is a separate subject due to its size and scope. There were no sounds of struggle when Renee phoned her mother. Her mother could also hear crew members calling out phone numbers for American Airlines. Renee did not call her again.
          The flight attendant states that she went to the crash site on Friday September 21st during the 10pm to 10am shift with her mother to give support to the crews working on the clean-up of the wreckage. She went inside the Pentagon crash site and saw parts of the plane that she recognized to be a American Airlines Boeing 757 that she was familiar with from her years of flying. She recognized part of a tail section bearing the A/A logo. She saw charred human bones. She has no doubts that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th.
          I first heard this person describe her memories of the Pentagon crash, in Dallas at the COPA Conference on the anniversary of the JFK assassination, on November 23, 2002. She was still shaken by the loss of her friend and the devastation she had seen on September 11, 2001. Her words can be heard on the website, http://www.parapolitics.info/copa/copa2002gallery/.
See Also: "The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77," by John Judge, 2/21/04

 She saw a piece of the tail none of us has ever seen....on the following friday.

 http://www.openpr.com/pdf/18331/OFFICIAL-ACCOUNT-OF-9-11-FLIGHT-CONTRADICTED-BY-GOVERNMENT-S-OWN-DATA.pdf