I will be posting a theory (that with the help all of the hard working researchers and my own 7 years worth of in-depth research) I have come up with, by the New Year. The "Debunkers" always claim that the "Truthers" have no other theories than the "NEW PEARL HARBOUR" theory involving the switching of airplanes.... well today a missing link, a piece of information (maybe originally under-estimated) connected in my mind, and this connection created a theory that can answer quite a few, if not all of the anomalies regarding the flights in some way!!!! I am going through some of the final possible initial arguments I may face in order to be prepared, but I will be posting the theory very soon, hopefully by Monday! SO here's A heads up for those of you who are interested:

The theory includes some of the following components,

-All 4 planes crashed at their respected locations...BUT... ;)
-An explanation for the mysterious "Fifth" flight
-An explanation for the Pentagon flight path discrepancies
-United 93's initial target and American 77's possible error
-Why American 11 was thought to be airborne after it hit the North Tower

There will be alot more, but most importantly I have to offer thanks to the proof that CIT provided in the videos! Thanks and I hope this theory will shed a new light on the hope of achieving the real truth behind 9/11!!!

its already seriously flawed.....

:facepalm:

Not necessarily, I think everyone might actually be very satisfied by the explanation of why. It explains the FDR (I am trying to confirm this one still), the eyewitnesses seeing a 757 fly into the Pentigon, no-flyover of a 757 witnessed, why there was a last minute "pull up" attempt witnessed, why pieces of the AA77 ended up on the lawn, why the many camera were confiscated. This is the most important answer I think.... many wonder why the government would fake the plane crash and not just hit the Pentagon with AA77, this explains how due to a mistake the government had to cover up the mistake!!! This is why all of the weird anomalies are sighted with the Pentagon and UA 93 in Shankesville. This was definitely an inside job and this theory might actually see some heads turn. Please trust me on this. :) I want the same thing all of you want....justice and truth. :)

oh so you haven't watched national security alert?

:facepalm:

lets hear it then....... ;)

I may not have seen that video yet (think I did, I will check now). I did watch many of the videos on your very well documented site and I agree with the evidence, but not all eyewitness accounts can be right, and not many witnessed a flyover of a 757 over the pentagon, so I developed part of this theory based on the most compelling and common eyewitness reports.

The theory was NOT only composed from the evidence presented at all of the 9/11 events, but also a very important part is based on the speculation that I have. This speculation I have is that some of the intended actions on 9/11 were disrupted, causing the government to have to cover up the unexpected changes in the original well laid out plan, thus leading to all of the misinformation we continue to receive and continue to watch change over the years as we call them on it!

I am working on the final prep of this theory, with as many possible solutions to the questions (that we have all been trying to answer as possible), during this coming weekend. I want to publish it by Sunday/Monday. The idea came to me on Wednesday (2 days ago) and I want to confirm a few last things before posting, to avoid any unprepared arguments against!

Here are just a few of the unanswered questions that inspired me to this conclude this theory/idea include, (And I want to remind you that I DO 100% believe that the government was atleast aware if not responsible for the attacks).

If flyover did occur,why wouldn't American 77 just be flown into the Pentagon...why leave any room for debate?

Why would United 93 hijackers wait so long to be hijack the aircraft before turning back to Washington?

What explains the unknown target that was thought to be American 11 after that aircraft had already hit the WTC?

Why did some expect another inbound aircraft heading towards the Pentagon after American 77 hit it?

I just kept getting stalled on those and many of the lingering questions, they seem answered to me now.

This is actually quite obvious. Because the Pentagon wasn't going to be destroyed like the towers, they wanted complete control over the scene (which flying a plane into wouldn't give.)

I hope your ´theory´ can explain away the NOC witnesses, the non existence of SOC witnesses, the fact that NO witnesses contradict NOC, that witnesses who had a unique perspective dismiss the low-level official trajectory across the lawn (namely Sean Boger and Wanda Ramey)
We have in NO WAY been presented with ALL witness accounts. The ordinary public accounts which are still being withheld in the form of 911 calls STILL sequestered to this day!
Roosevelt Roberts, Maria de la Cerda, Dewitt Roseborough, Statter´s 404ed live interview that morning (who described the plane trying to ´avert´the building), have made statements that describe a flyover and have been either ridiculed or brushed aside.

A better question would be why fake the lightpoles if they indeed crashed the plane into the Pentagon?
How could the damage be caused between the first and second floors at a specific angle be caused when NOBODY describes neither the altitude nor the trajectory necessary?

I hope all these points (among many others) are taken into account before you start speculating to try and counter solid proof that the damage and any ´impact´ were impossible given the only largely unbiased evidence available to us.
A couple of eyewitnesses may be wrong as individuals but corraborrated testimony from crucial areas on details which are as basic as whether they saw a plane to the right or to the left, or whether they thought the plane was coming straight at them is another matter.
Witnesses are fallible in regards to remembering the smaller details like describing individual features such as colour, size, etc but to dismiss them entirely on the repeated detractor mantra that eyewitness testimony is null and void is ridiculous.

On this basis should we dismiss the witness testimony at the Towers? The explosions? The basement witness statements? Barry Jennings? The firefighters both pre and post collapse?

Dangerous ground and pretext mate. That´s why FACTS always overrule speculation.

Peace.

(Not my Theory yet...it will be posted by Monday)
I appreciate the last post,

I have been investigating 9/11 for 7 years (maybe not as many as others...but...). I have found that there is so much contradictory information that I have been all over the board, I first believed no plane when I started, then I believed there was a plane a couple years in, and then back to no plane within the last little while until now...I started think outside of the box on this one again:

Logic would have it that, with most eyewitnesses reporting that an aircraft (757), an explosion, pieces that resemble an AA aircraft on site and ATC who tracked a blip they seemed to have reason to believe was a AA77...so maybe we should start (the investigation process) by agreeing and finding a reasons to support the "official theory" rather then finding why it doesn't work.

Most of the official story "makes sense" or cannot be proved wrong by us... except for evidence of the contradictory flight path.
For instance:
1.No one has definitively proven the pieces of AA on the lawn were fake
2.No one has proved the dynamics of what would happen when a 757 hits the Pentagon
3.No one has proved any of the photos are real, or any of the FDR data is real.

So I work with what is definitive:

1.We all know an explosion of some sort occurred at the Pentagon.
2.We all know there were poles on the ground.
3.We now know (thanks to CIT) that the eyewitnesses are all agreeing the aircraft was not where the power poles were knocked down. But they all agree an aircraft flew down and infront of the Pentagon.
4.We all know the attack happened around 9:37 AM.

In other words I like to work with what I feel comfortable is a fact.
I hate being wrong, which is why I am trying to validate the points for my theory. A few items I have tried to validate did not come through for me this weekend and some items actually opened up more valid pieces to support it.
And I am ready for the scrutiny, but I am sick of hearing that Truthers don't offer theories so I am gonna throw one out there!

Oh fine, I will give you a hint :) .... Maybe the lightpoles were knocked down prior (9/10/01 overnight) to where the airplane (AA77 or UA93 or... the other UNITED flight) was "SUPPOSED" to come from....and since it didn't come from there on 9/11 a cover up at the pentagon began because the photos would most definitely prove a lie when the eyewitnesses communicated a North of Citgo report. Do you get the idea now, a little? That's one little part of my theory, and it can explain alot already.

You forgot another definitive fact:

It is physically impossible for a plane north of the citgo to cause any of the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the building itself leading to the C-ring hole.

This scientifically proves the plane did not hit.

It is my understanding that the evidence supported here from the videos I have seen is that the poles were pre-planted, thus any other damage could be preset. Has anyone we know had the opportunity to survey the actual physical damage at the Pentagon post 9/11 or are we going based on reports we have seen on paper, print or produced on television? If the poles were fabricated, then we can only assume the the rest of the documents supporting the "official" explanation might also be.

I feel one of the only explanations that explain the "cover up", the "incorrectly knocked down power poles", the "confiscation of videos", the fact that there are pieces that resemble an "American" airliner in the photos, the "inconsistent flight path", the "overly modified clips that try to show the low level 757 with white smoke behind it" and the fake FDR readings would be the explanation of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon from the wrong path. My theory can hopefully shine light on that possibility, including why the airplane hit at the wrong path. B)

I am not trying to debate against your theory, I just can't understand why the government would go to so much trouble in trying to dupe everyone, I more feel they are trying to cover up evidence that mistakes that occurred on 9/11 can reveal their involvement/coordination regarding the 9/11 events.

This is where you are confused.

The directional damage is independently established via photographic and video evidence.

I'm talking about 4 separate points within the same trajectory all independently established without relying on a single govt report.

The light poles, generator trailer, outer damage to the facade of the E-ring, and the ending damage with the round C-ring hole.

ALL of the damage requires the plane to approach on the south side of the gas station and the location of this damage is a proven fact.

It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side of the gas station to cause any of that damage and this is particularly the case when you consider the right bank and relatively slow speeds as reported.

I am not suggesting that American 77 created the South of Citgo damage. I am suggesting that the aircraft flew the path the eyewitnesses all agreed on and crashed into the building BUT did not cause the pole damage. I am suggesting that the pole damage was created to support a planned path, but the planned path did not happen, so the government needed to cover up the damage.

If an airplane approached from the Northside of the Citgo (which I believe) then what caused the damage path that appears to be coming from the Southside of the Citgo? Where no one seems to have witnessed an aircraft fly?
I am not confused, I know where the damage lies, I am trying to determine a reason for physical damage that was where no one saw an airplane fly, and why it was there if no airplane flew that path or hit the pentagon. Your videos clearly prove that an aircraft must have flown North of the Citgo which could not have caused damage to the poles and generator. I fully get that... what I don't get is why a damage path is located where no airplane flew, and why so many anomalies are surrounding the Pentagon impact. I don't think any aircraft flew the South Citgo route, so why was there damage there? I am offering a fair suggestion of why.

Can you please offer your thoughts on these for me:

Why did no one see a plane fly South of Citgo?

If no plane hit or flew the path South of the Citgo, why would there be damage to suggest one?

If there was an overfly, why was there no apparent jetblast damage to vehicles or ground/trees or smoke distortion withing the plume of smoke by jetblast due to a large jet full powering up and away from the Pentagon? (A full powered 757 engine can produce a trail easily 600-2000ft behind the engine of high pressure thrust force and that will cause wind damage that I don't see in the photos)

I am not providing evidence you did, I am offering a theory based on evidence you have provided.

Thoughts from my Theory
American 77 was not following intended path, (which was the South of Citgo path), the flight actually flies the North of Citgo path, the pilot guns engines and attempts a "pull up" at the last minute but fails an smashes into the Pentagon. Pieces from the very front are blown out on to lawn an over Pentagon landing within the rings. The mid and aft sections are forced at high speed into the pentagon explaining the smaller hole, the fire/explosion and depth in to the Pentagon. Government realizes the mistake would have been captured and confiscated tapes. The mistake was they had pre-planned the damage leading to the Pentagon and the aircraft course did not follow the route as intended. Infact American 77 was not supposed to hit the Pentagon, but actually did. This will have an offered explanation when I release the Theory in full. Unfortunately I cannot offer a 100% perfect answer for why the damaged would have been pre-fabricated but I can suggest that it may have been for a visual aid for pilot, to ensure a smooth hit into the pentagon, or an exercise to simulate a plane crash/attack for employees on the morning of 9/11 etc.

The point is that ALL the physical damage requires a south side approach and NONE of the physical damage is reconcilable with the north side approach particularly with the right bank and relatively slow speeds reported.

This is not limited to the light poles. The generator trailer, the outer damage to the facade of the E-ring and the inner damage to the C-ring all require a trajectory south of the citgo.

Since there is no physical damage that is reconcilable with a north side approach, we can rule out the notion of the plane hitting.

Sure enough people saw it flying away after the explosion confirming this beyond a reasonable doubt.

We can only hypothesize but since there is no evidence for a flying object the most logical conclusion would be that the poles were staged, generator trailer probably moved in advance, with the damage to the building and generator trailer created in real-time with pre-planted explosives.

We think they flew the plane in a relatively slightly different place to help facilitate the 2nd plane cover story.

Have you looked into our presentations about that yet? We present a lot of evidence for this and we have more that we need to compile.

I recommend How They Pulled It Off and The 2nd Plane Cover Story.

Our next full-length presentation will put it together more concisely.

Right but what you don't seem to get is that it could not have caused the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole either. Especially without knocking down light poles on the north path on the way.

The answer why is because the scene was staged. If you want me to speculate why they would stage the damage instead of using a real plane to hit I feel the obvious answer is that they wanted complete control of the damage to their own headquarters with surgical precision. Obviously they did not plan to completely demolish the building as they did the WTC.

Because no plane flew there.

Because they had to stage the damage somewhere. A better question is why fly the plane in a relatively slightly different place and we believe the answer is to facilitate the 2nd plane cover story (that we provide ample evidence for).

Because as shown in National Security Alert key witnesses such as heliport tower air traffic controller Sean Boger report the plane was going much slower than officially reported.

It probably never got below about 75 feet from the ground.

The jet could very well have passed the facade just before the explosion and the incredible amount of heat and energy from the manufactured fireball would likely easily cancel out any residual wake vortices.

Plus the right bank of the plane probably had it closer to south parking rather than exactly where the explosion took place.

Furthermore the only "video" evidence of the explosion is dubious at best and automatically invalid evidence since it was sequestered, controlled, and provided for by the suspect.

In fact the independent evidence proves it has been manipulated to remove the plane.

There is no way the low and level "object" shown in the security video was the right banking relatively slow moving north side plane that was not low enough to hit light poles.

That's fine man. Please don't get frustrated or feel disrespected.

We simply discourage theory in this forum unless there is hard evidence to back it up.

So far the evidence fatally contradicts a plane impact.

Again no disrespect but the evidence proves your theory false.

It is physically impossible for any of the damage to the building to be created by the right banking, relatively slow moving, north of the citgo plane reported by the witnesses.

No disrespect felt,

I envy your passion to finding the Truth about 9/11! I have no problems with the evidence presented here. I just don't use anything as a fact unless I see/experience it myself. Evidence may support an aircraft hitting aswell as not hitting. A photograph can be used as evidence and some show parts of aircraft, eyewitness testimony can also suggest a hit on the Pentagon. Regardless, I will post a link to my theory still, as it might make more sense on the bigger picture. If not, it is something to work with atleast. I support your ideas aswell, I mean I am not saying Im right but I do want to get opinions on this theory, you seem to have recruited/attracted some rather good truthers here on this site!

:thumbsup:

Hey guys, I thought this was better suited to the discussion section than the Pentagon research section, so I moved it. Carry on. :thumbsup:

As promised I posted my theory on some or most of the flight anomalies. Please remember I am on your team, I am just looking for the right answers!
Flightplan 9/11...the theory :thumbsup:

no offense, bro, but I legit LOL'd a few times reading your theory.

if you were going for comedy gold, you succeeded. ;)

Nice, you thought I cut up the official story so well that it made you laugh...I was that right??? Oh wait you mentioned "no offense", darn that implies you thought it was horrible...

:lol: "no offense" taken bro, however the thought that there could have been an "offense" taken...well now that deserves a "legit lol"... believe me there was none taken. So you got any theories of your own? Well...until then...

I don't see you taking any shots at one (that is a possible theory). I find it funny that, the above was all you had to say about it! You didn't even classically quote the parts and explain how it couldn't work, Im rather disappointed, if you wanted to cut me up you are far from it. Tell me how the above couldn't have worked, then I will take you seriously. :lol: (another legit LOL) I am sure you have some great evidence how I am wrong!!! I am only responding to your comment, so I can get some actual criticism out of you other then your, "HAHAHA... that was so funny because it was stupid, but I have no reasons to prove that." If I am wrong or my theory doesn't work, so be it, but I think mine atleast makes more sense than the official story.

Cheers

There is zero physical damage to support a north of the gas station impact.

Zero.

A plane can't hit without creating any damage (and leaving a significant amount of recognizable debris).

This proves your theory false.

End of story.

I am not really disagreeing with any of your evidence. I am offering another possible explanation.

I believe the evidence your videos bring forward is that a NOC path is the path the aircraft took, no doubt. In all fairness though evidence also suggests that an aircraft did hit the Pentagon weather it was from a SOC path or a NOC path. More importantly evidence supports that an aircraft with an American Airlines livery may have hit. We all seem to agree now that the light-poles and trailers were quite possibly pre-fabricated, so why not any holes to support the "official" trajectory? The Pentagon from what I understand was made to withstand aircraft hits and attacks, just like the WTC. So if a 757 hit the Pentagon, damage would be minimal, so more damage would have to be caused (by preplanned interior explosives) for a greater "fear" impact on the population. It could quite easily be a trend, WTC's had aircraft/explosives used so why not at the Pentagon? The initial impact damage appears to be from an aircraft that would have been more "straight on" against the building, just like the NOC path evidence you have provided supports. American Airlines can appear close to white during many daylight times.

I agree the trajectory of the NOC Citgo path may not line up with the downed poles and damaged trailers, but aside from that, the hit on the building face itself offers a hit from either NOC or SOC.
-To me, the governments building damage vs their own official path does not appear match
and
- the NOC evidence and evidence of a 757 actually crashing at the Pentagon...

... is why I am theorizing all the inconsistencies may be actually be due to the aircraft hitting from a farther North angle when it should have followed a set up path.

My theory is possible, just as yours is. I support your theories and evidence as quite possible even though there is evidence against some of them. I am offering a alternate take that's all.

B)

Incorrect. It is not possible for a relatively slow moving right banking plane NoC as reported to hit the building and not cause any observable damage or leave any significant large pieces of debris consistent with this.

Incorrect. The evidence does not suggest that an aircraft hit at all but it can only be considered with a south of the gas station approach.

No it doesn't.

A few unidentified and uncharred scraps on the ground are not evidence of a plane crash.

To suggest so would be a post hoc logical fallacy.

Don't forget that the suspicious lack of debris and anomalous damage to the building is what made everyone suspicious in the first place. The north side evidence proves why.

Agreed. The north side approach proves they were fabricated.

Your theory suggests that the plane hit the Pentagon on accident after missing the Capitol building. They would not have time to prepare to stage all the damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the building itself if they never even planned to have the plane hit there.

You have been misinformed. This is a false claim which is why you will find no sources to back it up.

No the fear/hysteria would be created from a plane hitting the building at all (or the belief that one did) and if the plane really hit there would be no reason to stage the damage.

If the plane wasn't even MEANT to hit that building at all and was supposed to hit the Capitol building (as you suggest in your theory) they would not have been prepared to stage any damage anyway.

Regardless of what you personally think it "appears" like, the building damage (limited primarily to the first floor) is not consistent with a relatively slow right banking plane that PULLED UP over the highway as reported.

In order to hit the building low and level as reported it would have to take out light poles on the north path (if this was even possible). No poles were downed on the north path.

Furthermore they STILL would have to fake the C-ring hole and there would be no motive for this if the plane hit NOR would they be prepared for this if they planned on hitting the Capitol building as you hypothesize.

Nothing about your theory makes sense or is reconcilable with the evidence.

Incorrect. The C-ring hole is not reconcilable with the north path and the right banking pull up is not reconcilable with the damage to the facade that is primarily limited to the first floor.

It matches a south of the gas station heading perfectly so I don't know where you get that.

There is no evidence for this and in fact the evidence proves this did not happen.

Furthermore people saw the plane flying away. Why would you dismiss this?

Right but your theory is proven false by the evidence.

I'm sorry but your theory is only hypothetically "possible". It is certainly not reconcilable with the evidence.

Hi Craig, I was thinking about the only video footage of the explosion,fireball at the Pentagon, has anyone played it back,reversing the sequence? In other words, video was doctored to make it look like something was entering Pentagon instead of exiting. I haven't run it in reverse slo-mo. just a thought. Also Mike Ruppert was on Kpfk on Jan 1st. a few days ago at 6pm(go to audio archives under"Evening News Friday 6pm friday" although I like his work on 9-11 and research he gets it totally wrong about the Pentagon. The show is an hour long and is worth a listen. Apparently he hasn't seen "National Security Alert"

On Nov 2, 2009 Ruppert said:

Frankly I find it virtually impossible that he is that poorly researched on this matter.

1. Why fabricate the damage to the Pentagon? Simple. To make it look like a plane hit on that SoC path to match the damage path.

2. Why has no-one been confirmed seeing a SoC flight path? Simple it didn't fly that route but the damage needed to be that route.

3. Why was the damage path the way it was? The perps controlled the kill zone for maximum effect with as little collateral damage to the rest of the structure and innocents as possible. Without proof,I think the trailer was meant to be part of the "smoke screen". They killed the people in that section for a reason and those poor folks were victims of murder.

4. Why no power up after a fly over leaving a trail of evidence?
a. Don't draw attention to the fly over.
b. I'm not aware of any photographs of the 'back' of the
Pentagon that might show jet wash.
c. During a huge explosion, one would think the sound of a plane flying by would
mask acceleration.
d. No live video released of that day from any source at the Pentagon other than
the security tapes.
e. No transcripts or records of calls to 9/11 as withheld by the FBI. Perhaps this
hold the clues you are looking for.

5. Why didn't they match the path of the plane with the SOC?
a. Great question. After all were only dealing with how many
feet here?
b. See #6

6. Without the excellent investigative reporting by CIT, the NoC is the SoC because no one would know any better! Think about it. Keep in mind, your question is moot without the eyewitnesses simply because there is no rebuttal to the official path.

7. I suspect the "perps" did not count on citizens questioning the official story to such an extent.

8 Now there are at least two fly over accounts. One of course one doesn't quite commit but doesn't deny either.

PS. Sorry for format mistake.

I realize that some evidence can be against my theory, but it doesn't prove it to be false. There is evidence that can prove it as quite possible.

There is a large hole, just to the "left-of-center" that can suggest a straight on impact, engines on the 757 are rather small compared to larger aircraft, and in the very "center" of the photograph could be where the engine went through.



From what I got, only two of the witnesses in your videos explained a slow moving aircraft. The majority implied they witnessed a fast aircraft for only a couple of seconds. The ATC operator at the Pentagon said he witnessed it for longer, (I think more than 10 seconds or so), which may have been due to getting a head on view and noticing it earlier than others.

I am not trying to be rude or cocky or anything but the pieces of debris that were "silver" or custom to the livery of "American Airlines" may have been lacking, but many interior aircraft metal parts are white, yellow, green. The are many metal aircraft parts in these following photos from the Pentagon.

There are alot of pieces in this photo, internal metal not the exterior chrome


This is a part from the rear section of the engine, not the forward fan blades


Contrary to popular belief, this is not the only part to an aircraft shown in this photo, there are many small pieces in the background.


Most of these parts are confirmed to be from a 757.




I originally believed there were not enough pieces at the Pentagon when I first started investigating, but then I also looked at the fact that I had never seen a crash of a 757 hitting a concrete building at 500 or so mph. The faster something hits and the "matter" that it hits can make a huge difference between how many recognizable parts found.

You may have misunderstood that, I am theorizing that AA77 was aimed for the Capitol Building, but control was lost due to the physics of a heavy 757 performing a spiral downwards from 7000ft. That flightpath had the Pentagon and Capitol Building practically in-line. (AA77 may have been intended for the Pentagon, but was unable to fly the originally planned path. I am working on research and more evidence to prove either possibility)

I do realize that your investigation seems more aimed towards the Pentagon as of now, but if you had read my theories fully including all five planes, then you would have read that, I believe, United 23 was supposed to hit the Pentagon. That theory could explain the "misguided" pre-planned report that "American 11 was still airborne and headed towards the Washington". United 23 should have been airborne around that time, and had it been hijacked it could have been turned around quite quicker and more efficiently to attack the Pentagon then AA77 that was so far East. That also could explain why Norad claims not to have been informed about AA77 until 0925, because that was the time that "United 23" was supposed to be hijacked and inbound. So in other words the pre-fab damage would have been created for United 23, not American 77. Also, I am not totally hung on any actual outcome at the Pentagon specifically, I was more trying to pass that idea that after United 23 was "cancelled" the attack plan became unorganized due to priority changes. If you think about it, everything went "well" for the operation until around 0915 or so when United 23 was supposed to be airborne. Then a bunch of anomalies occurred.




The majority of the evidence I've seen,actually points towards a 757 hitting the Pentagon including the witnesses who saw the aircraft fly "down" and in-front of the building and imply it most likely hit. When I first watched your videos, I started looking at the possibility of a fly over again. Then I thought about how, without your new evidence, it seemed clear a had 757 hit, but then you have proved the government is lying. Why lie, and risk being found out? I found that more of a hassel then it's worth to fake an airliner hitting, so I feel a reasonable explanation could be covering up a botched approach path that was not intended to happen. Your theories regarding a the governments need for a "controlled" damage is great and I find it to be a very great theory. I just find it doesn't answer enough questions for the satisfaction of the mainstream public. Such as and not limited to:
Where is N644AA now?

Where are the passengers?

Why are there claims of identifying the passengers and the aircraft parts to N644AA?

Why are there no reports of an American 757 departing the site, including from the DCA ATC tower who would have had a great view with radars and visual?

Why would they risk the exposing false lightpole damage when all they had to do was claim the aircraft hit at a higher angle above the light poles?

Those questions are answered with my theory. We are all trying to get more people interested and those questions need to be answered to get the public interested. You have proved it was a lie, my theory is aimed at trying to offer answers to enough questions to spark more interest from the public. I am trying to work with you not against you.
B)

OR

Because the attack aircraft had a flightplan to follow and that did not happen, now the government needs to cover up their downed flight poles. Keep in mind, a planned flightpath would have allowed them to keep the attack controlled.

AGREED that supports my theory as well!!

OR

The damage path was pre-planned for the inbound United 23 to follow, weather it was by the aircraft's FMC or whoever was controlling the aircraft. I am not so sure the damage to the trailer was caused by the aircraft hitting or the subsequent explosion, but again this also supports my theory as I believe it was pre-planned damage, but for a slightly different reason.

OR

There was no fly-over.

a.some people saw a C-130, so why not a high speed 757?
b.There is footage from within a minute or so after the attack, do you see a 757 or remnants from a fly-over? I see what looks like a C130 about a minute or so after.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4jaijNqyo

c.Possible, but not for those who are farther away from the explosion and could have been witness to an approaching jet.

d.No live video, well they wouldnt be live unless we saw it at 937am, but aside from that, why show proof a 757 hit the Pentagon following the NOC which did not line up with their damage? That would hurt them as much as no plane hitting wouldn't it?

e.Maybe, but not disproving the possibility of my theory.

Agreed that CIT did an amazing job! The rest of that kinda went under my head.

OR

They knew exactly what to do to keep us on dead ends for a long-long-long time.

OR

Eyewitness accounts can be the worst piece of evidence. CIT has done a great job in making the NOC eyewitness accounts worth something, but not 2 random fly-over accounts. Sorry. I am not sold on those.

This forum is not for theorizing so we are going to have to ask you to keep it in your blog.

We have purposefully discouraged all speculation and theorizing here since day one. Please limit your participation to research, evidence, and questions about our investigation.

And what happened to the rest of the plane? This is a pretty ridiculous assertion.

Furthermore as corroborated by MULTIPLE witnesses the plane was NOT flying straight on and was in a significant right bank. You keep ignoring this.

As an air traffic controller Sean Boger is an expert witness. Terry Morin is an aviator as well and he also puts it over 10 seconds from the Navy Annex to the explosion. William Middleton ALSO puts it over 10 seconds. The location of these witnesses puts them in a better position to judge speed than most.

The right bank would be facilitated by this slower speed.

You keep ignoring the right bank.

Apparently you do not know the definition of a post hoc logical fallacy.

Please look it up.

A few scraps of unidentified plane parts do not equal evidence of a plane crash.

How do you know?

Regardless it has NOT been identified as a part from a 757 nor is it evidence of a plane crash. To suggest it is in light of the evidence we provide proving a deception would be a post hoc logical fallacy.

So what?

Small pieces of unidentifiable scraps are not evidence of a plane crash.

To suggest they are in light of the evidence we provide proving a deception would be a post hoc logical fallacy.

False statement. Only three of them have been and that would be the wheel rim, diffuser case, and landing gear. Only the wheel rim was photographed on that day outside of the C-ring hole. You have no evidence the landing gear or the diffuser case photos were taken inside the Pentagon at all.

Even if they were you have no evidence they came from a plane crash. To suggest they did would be a post hoc logical fallacy.

Faulty logic does not refute the independent verifiable evidence that the plane flew away after the explosion.

Right which is why you are DISMISSING the corroborated hard evidence we provide demonstrating a right banking relatively slow moving plane and making up your own speed with no evidence at all.

Furthermore the Pentagon is not solid concrete. You're only talking about 2 feet of layers of brick, concrete, and limestone.

The notion that it could disintegrate a 757 is ludicrous.

They would not stage damage AT ALL if they planned for a plane to hit.

The notion is ridiculous and pointless.

None of this makes sense. I never heard of United 23.

Please keep your theories off this forum and on your blog.

This forum is for research and theories are strongly discouraged.

It is not our job to answer ALL questions nor is that possible. Once we prove a deception, as you believe we have, it is now our job to seek justice. Period.

Theories will only obfuscate the definitive evidence we DO have and divert us from our goal of seeking justice while creating the false impression the evidence we have is not conclusive.

If you truly want to help you will implement Operation Accountability.

Impossible to prove and irrelevant to the fact that the north side approach proves a deception.

Impossible to prove and irrelevant to the fact that the north side approach proves a deception.

Because the govt lied.

There ARE reports of this. Roosevelt Roberts proves it as do the people that Erik Dihle heard say the plane kept on going.

Dismissing this definitive evidence in favor of your theory is not logical.

You admit the plane was on the north side and did not hit the poles so I have no clue why would ask this question.

Speculation answers nothing.

Evidence is what we demand and you have provided none.

I am going to have to politely ask you to keep your theories on your blog and limit your participation on this forum to research, evidence, and questions about our investigation.

Thanks.

I will keep theories to myself then,

But can I ask...
Why have a discussion or questions section? You completely dismiss people who are on your-side, (fighting for the truth) we are wrong if we don't agree 100% with your findings? I am willing, for the cause of finding the TRUTH to agree that my theory is not fully proved yet. I don't agree that American 77 flew over the Pentagon yet I still accept that your theory is quite real. Why are you continually cutting down theories that support the ultimate truth, the government was behind 9/11?

Until you can tell someone where American 77 is... most mainstream public will not support your evidence. I do support the possibilities you provide because I have been investigating this for a LONG time.

But for others, it is like trying to offer reasons why someone is still alive without having the "alive" person standing next to you. People want answers, not proof why something doesn't sound right. If you forced another investigation by the "government" or even 3rd parties, what makes you think they will all of sudden say, "were sorry, we missed the part about United 93 not crashing and American 77 flying over the Pentagon? This is what I learned from the 7 years of investigating, people could careless about 'why the governments story couldn't work', they want to know ideas how it didn't work.

Thank you.

For questions and discussion regarding our investigation.

There is a description for the purpose of this section of the forum underneath the title:

"This section is reserved for intellectually honest people who have questions about our research and want to educate themselves as a means to better argue against detractors. Debate will be limited to personal invites of known CIT detractors."

I didn't say that.

But we launched our investigation specifically to put an end to the theorizing, speculation, and debate that we felt was keeping everyone confused and running around in circles.

Our goal was to find hard evidence proving a deception (if in fact there was one). We achieved that goal so now it's time to move on to seeking accountability and we are asking for everyone's help with this.

We don't believe that American 77 flew over the building either and we aren't asking you to accept ANY theory.

Just the hard evidence we present proving a deception.

That should be enough to force accountability without theory and speculation.

We don't have to prove exactly what happened, we only have to prove the official story false. This we have done.

Because most if not all theories are wrong while sending people down the wrong path and ultimately creating the impression we're doing this for fun. We're not. We're doing this to end the theorizing and provide the definitive evidence that proves a deception.

This is what we have done as you have already agreed. Speculation and theory only keeps the info mired in debate. That is what we launched this investigation to put an end to.

Well if you believe that it means you believe they will never support the evidence.

It is impossible to prove where American 77 is. Impossible.

Sound right? We provide proof that something is NOT right, namely the official story. We provide proof that it is a lie. If that is not enough nothing will be.

People don't want "ideas" they want proof. We provide proof of a deception.

But we agree that a govt or supposed 3rd party "investigation" will not solve anything.

This is why we are not calling for a new investigation into if 9/11 was an inside job. We already know that will uncover nothing. We are demanding indictments of those who are implicated by the evidence provided that already proves 9/11 was an inside job.

Thanks for your understanding.

false.

your theory is put to rest.

I agree you guys have achieved this! And there are so many points (maybe not as thoroughly proven as your presentation) throughout all of the 9/11 events though that offer something is wrong. Yet, the public is just not eating it up very fast.

I think many people though find it hard to believe that with all of the evidence that supports the governments theory, that they are finding evidence like yours hard to believe.

Your evidence offers quite a case, but some can have speculation on the evidence you offer. For instance:

- the "actual" internal damage at the Pentagon, can that be proved? Or was that fabricated as well? If false information about everything else is floating around, then who can prove the validity (not including published University/company studies, I want physical proof, we saw what "studies" did to the WTC physics) of the internal damage that proves the aircraft's damage path would have to be from SOC? I can only see the front face and some internal pictures I am not sure what part of the building there from. The blow out holes could be from aircraft engines, or by rescuers to enter the building.

If the government did fake the crash, why did they do such a horrible job? I| mean why not make it look like the WTC, clear evidence that an aircraft atleast hit? Why not place chairs on the lawn with dead people supposedly from AA77, instead of just little parts that don't seem to resemble a plane?

-You tell me that just because there are "plane parts" on the lawn does not prove there was a plane crash. Well technically, eyewitnesses who saw an aircraft not fly the SOC path, does not prove an aircraft didn't hit just because the government says the damage was internal along the SOC path.

These are some of the reasons why I feel the fake crash theory is not valid or completely proved yet. The only thing that your videos seem to make clear is the contradiction between the NOC and SOC path and that it was most likely a highspeed 757. You keep saying slow with right bank, but seeing a plane for only a couple seconds according to most witnesses, means rather fast I think.

I do appreciate your time discussing this with me. :)

Quite true. Unfortunately that is the nature of a psychological black operation on this level.

The Big Lie technique clearly works.

Of course you CAN have speculation and no doubt many will. We just think that it is not productive and is in fact damaging to our efforts to seek justice because it fosters confusion and doubt at a time when people should be taking action.

The C-ring hole (there is only one) is not from rescuers otherwise there would not be a pile of debris on the outside of it. It's obviously not from an engine because there is no engine on the outside of it!

The exact location of the C-ring hole is all that's necessary to know to determine the trajectory of the damage starting from the outer facade of the building. This is definitively and independently established via photographic and video evidence from multiple sources.



A hypothetical north side impact can NOT line up with the C-ring hole.


The C-ring hole lines up perfectly with the generator trailer and light poles so clearly this is not some random hole. It was MEANT to line up with the damage.

There is zero ambiguity when considering the damage trajectory because we are talking about 4 independent points definitively established without relying on a single govt report.

Any north side impact theory requires that the light poles, generator trailer, the C-ring hole, the security video, AND the entire ASCE report are all completely faked.

But there is simply no motive for all of this faking if they planned to have the plane hit the building. It is not a reasonable assertion particularly in light of the fact that you are required to dismiss the witnesses who saw the plane flying away.

It is not logical to suggest that a reason the plane must have hit is because they did such a horrible job faking that a plane hit.

In essence you are arguing the less the evidence seems to support a plane crash the more likely it is to have been a plane crash.

This argument makes no sense.

It has nothing to do with what "the govt says" regarding the damage. It has everything to do with what we can definitively establish regarding the damage via multiple independent sources of photographs and video.

So your analogy is not remotely accurate.

It is impossible for ANY of the damage to be caused by a plane NoC. Particularly if you consider the fact that the initial damage to the building is primarily on the first floor yet no light poles on the north path were knocked down.

Actually you have admitted that a NoC impact requires faking of the light poles and generator trailer as well as the to building so either way there is most definitely "fake" damage.

And let's not forget about the elaborate staging of the cab damage and Lloyde's preposterous story (and subsequent virtual confession).

The right bank is corroborated by several witnesses we interviewed as well as many more in the previously published witness list who we have not interviewed.

A bank of this nature can NOT be accomplished by a "highspeed" 757 (particularly at 460 knots) nor is this reconcilable with the physical damage.

In order to assert your theory you are forced to dismiss a lot of evidence that fatally contradicts the official story.

No problem.

Discussion is fine. It's theorizing and speculation that we strongly discourage.

Sure, but it's just that ... speculation.

The important difference is that they have a reason to believe what they believe. You do not have such a thing ... it makes no sense to completely stage a flight path from SOC and then fly a plane into Pentagon on NOC path. Of course you can make up dozens of virtual scenarios which would possibly be plausible but there is no good reason to believe them.

Also you're making fundamental mistake, you're trying to make the evidence fit your theory instead of the other way around. Your suggestion that there may be some damage to the facade where the plane could potentially impact from NOC is indicative of very wrong mindset.

It seems you're just thinking out loud, you have no reason to believe your pet theory, you're just entertaining that possibility. And that's ok, just bear in mind that it's very exhaustive to respond to your speculative posts ... that's why they're asking you to discuss it on your blog.

Here is some evidence that makes me think the way I do in regards to an aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

What is your take on the following videos (not sure if you have watched them). I realize these may not be exactly the Full Speed ahead that American 77 was travelling at, but still rather fast speeds.

Please while watching the first video note the minimum how long the plane is visible for (from atleast the 00:20 mark to 00:30+) and how long it would be noticed from the point of hearing the sound (from only 00:24-00:30+).

The eyewitnesses who saw it flypast them would have probably noticed the sound first whereas the air traffic controller (Pentagon) may have gotten a visual front view of an aircraft and saw the aircraft approaching longer. That is why when the "flyby" witnesses suggest no more than a few seconds and the controller witnesses the aircraft for a longer time I am convinced the plane was travelling fast. The 757 in the video is not traveling 500+mph but is most likely between 250 and 350 mph and is visible for a flyby for only about 6 seconds, so high speed of near 500mph can be proven when witnesses say in a few seconds it passed.

As for banking, an aircraft at low altitudes and from the side can appear to be banking because the wing closest to you and the perspective of a larger aircraft flying by can throw someone off. Interestingly enough, for anyone on the right-hand side watching a flyby may get the impression the aircraft is banking "left" as it flies passed them. Now you explain it is "right" that the witnesses have described, well I will review your videos again to see the exact placement for witnesses again.

757 Highspeed Pass (notice the seconds)

Larger Airbus A310 Performing Low Fast Flying with some Banking.

747 Low Passes/ Slight Banks

Boeing 737 Low Flyby

The videos show that at higher speeds large commercial jets can pull of banks, and more striking is that the last video shows the appearance of a a bank in the video due to the point of view. So this can explain the appearance of a bank.

I have some more to post but I dont want them to be huge posts. If your theory is right, I am all for it, I just need confirmation of those things which I am still not convinced of yet.

Those videos are not "evidence" that support the illogical contention that the plane hit the building without causing any physical damage while all the physical damage was staged.

You are not making a valid point to support your argument at all.

Everything you just said is rather silly, and to me, you just put your foot in your mouth.

The Pentagon Conspiracy started with a "THEORY"...that theory was "NO PLANE HIT IT".

Simple TIMELINE:

1. Theory: Someone said, "hey...that hole looks too small for a 757 to have hit the building....."

THEN ON TO...

2. Evidence Photos started getting scanned and then "evidence" regarding a lack of pieces began.

3. Eyewitness accounts started getting scanned and every little discrepancy was used in favor of NO AA77 or 757, but avoiding the many other accounts that stated it probably was.

4.Stalemate, no definitive answers for eitherside

BUT THEN....

5."EVIDENCE", CIT brought forward regarding path discrepancy is very convincing.

6."MY THEORY", I create a Theory which I believe can answer many unanswered questions. Some may be based on speculation but reasonable speculation.

7.I am in the trying to gather evidence to prove the rest of my theory. I am trying to work in conjunction with other Truthers who seem reasonable, because I have dealt with my share of unreasonable Truthers.

So please DO NOT, accuse me of speaking my mindlessly about 9/11 because I have printouts and documents from as long ago as 2003-2004, I have watched evidence change over the years. I worked at Toronto Airport on 9/11 on the ramp and dealt with a few of the diverted flights and I have been involved with aviation since I was young.

I am sure you are very well educated (911) too, but the means in which someone finds the answers doesn't matter.

And keep in mind,technically my theory did start with evidence, the CIT evidence against the official flightpath. B)

Perhaps but there is nothing reasonable about it at all and there is no evidence to back it up (eg, damage on the north path) and you are forced to DISMISS eyewitnesses who saw the plane flying away.

How is that a remotely logical approach to this information?

It's is in fact ridiculous to suggest that a large transport aircraft completely disintegrated at ground level (without hitting any light poles on the way) while they faked the security video, ASCE report, light poles, generator trailer, C-ring hole, AND the NTSB data from 2006.

None of this makes sense and your theory is fatally contradicted by the evidence.

I was not trying to prove my theory with those, I mentioned I wanted you to understand why I can't just agree with your findings 100%. This is why I still theorize an aircraft hit the Pentagon.

This is what I said at the beginning of the post....not that it proves my theory.

Those videos are evidence that can support the following with regards to witnesses:

1.The aircraft, the witnesses saw, was a large commercial jet, traveling at a FAST speed, not slow speed. [The aircraft passes in 6 seconds traveling at roughly 250-350mph. Your witnesses, the majority, mention around a "few" seconds...this mean the aircraft they saw was probably traveling roughly twice the speed = 500-700mph.] So your suggestion of a slow moving aircraft is most likely not possible.

2. A FAST approaching aircraft, viewed from the front, can be viewed longer then an aircraft flying by. The same aircraft in the video was visible for more than 10 seconds until the sound (which probably got most of the witnesses attention) was heard. An air traffic control is trained to watch airplanes, so there is no reason why that inbound aircraft could not have been seen much earlier by an ATC.

3.Eyewitnesses may have been under the impression of a bank due to their perspective. This video evidence can be used against the validity of an eyewitness statement, the video shows a rather interesting illusion created by one's point of view. A witness viewing this for a few seconds can easily mix that with an actual bank.

Aside from the videos specifically:

Your evidence suggests more that American 77 hit the building then a slow moving plane flyover and trick everyone. Infact, all I have to do is prove AA77 hit the building from the NOC path and all of your evidence could support a theory of my nature.

Your best evidence CAN suggest the following...if I didn't interpret the any of the following right then let me know.

1. A 757 approached the Pentagon.
2. It flew a path North of the Citgo Gas station.
3. Damage path was staged. If it was staged, it doesn't matter what the path was.
4. Path followed also was around the White House, across the river.
All of the above support my theory.

I am going to watch the videos again right now, I have a day off work.