Aerial illusion: facts support 757 flying over and not into the Pentagon on 9/11


By Craig McKee

You have to admire the creativity. And you have to admire the sheer scale of the deception.

One of the largest examples of misdirection ever attempted has, for the most part, worked. But that’s only because people haven’t looked closely at the evidence.

It seems clear that a large airliner did fly towards the Pentagon just after 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001 (I’ll get to how we know this momentarily). It is also clear that there was a large explosion that rocked the outer ring of the building as the plane arrived at its supposed target. But there’s one more thing that is clear: the plane didn’t hit the building and didn’t cause the explosion.

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was supposedly flown into the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour by an incompetent pilot who was denied permission to rent a Cessna the month before because of his poor flying skills. After negotiating an incredible 330-degree spiral descent, alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour is supposed to have flown just a few feet above the ground, hitting five light poles before crashing into the ground floor of a newly renovated section of the Pentagon.

There are two main reasons why the evidence supports the conclusion that the plane the witnesses saw never hit the building – and that it flew over. One is that the Flight Data Recorder supposedly found in the Pentagon wreckage showed that the plane was too high to have hit the building, and that its flight path was inconsistent with knocking over the light poles. This was shown in an animation created by the National Transportation Safety Board that was based on the FDR.

In the animation, data from the last second of the flight is inexplicably and conveniently missing. I have explored the issues of the Flight Data Recorder and the fallen light poles in past articles (Sept, 29, 2010 and Nov. 15, 2010 on this site).

But another reason is the witness accounts of people on or near the property of the former Citgo gas station, across the street from the Pentagon. These accounts are chronicled in the documentary National Security Alert by Citizen Investigation Team. Witnesses interviewed on site clearly and consistently recount seeing the plane flying to the north of the gas station. I strong recommend that anyone reading this watch this film. You can judge the credibility of the eyewitness accounts for yourselves. It can be found at (http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html).

Why is it important that the plane flew to the north of the gas station? It’s important because if it did, it could not have hit the light poles. And if it didn’t hit the poles, then that evidence was planted, and the whole government version falls apart.

The film shows very detailed interviews, shot at the site of the former Citgo station, that clearly indicate that the plane approached the Pentagon to the north of that gas station.

Robert Turcios, who was an employee of the station, said in the film that the plane passed over to the north of the gas station. He also said that the plane actually pulled up to avoid hitting an overpass sign.

The north side path account was backed up strongly by several other witnesses, including two Pentagon cops, Sgt. Chadwick Brooks and Sgt. William Lagasse. Both said without hesitation that the plane passed to the north of the station.

What’s particularly fascinating about these two interviews is that both cops drew virtually the exact same flight path on an aerial photo supplied by the filmmakers. And after being interviewed individually, the filmmakers brought the two together (they had never talked about this before) to compare notes. Both said there was a zero chance that the plane actually saw the plane fly to the south of the station. And both appeared to be unaware how their version was undermining the official story.

For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the “flyover theory” seems to get a lot of people angry – even self-described 9/11 truthers. When I suggested sympathy for the flyover theory a few weeks back, I was attacked by people on the web site 9/11 Blogger as being “divisive” along with a few other choice words. The tone seemed very similar to what the defenders of the official story employ. I have since been blocked from contributing to this site.

But if witnesses agree that they saw a large airliner flying towards the Pentagon, then that plane either hit the building or it didn’t. Frankly, I can’t see how a truther could believe a 757 hit the Pentagon. It’s one of the easiest elements of the official story to destroy. There was virtually no wreckage outside the building and not nearly enough damage to be accounted for by a 757. There was no damage to the lawn. And there was no damage to the building where the wings, engines, or tail section would have hit.

So, if it didn’t hit the building, where did it go?

Most of the people who oppose the conclusions in National Security Alert say that CIT has not proven the flyover theory. Maybe there is doubt about this, but does this prove it’s wrong? Based on what I’ve seen and read, it is more likely than the plane hitting poles at 530 mph without leaving any chunks of wing behind.

If the plane flew over the building just as the explosion took place then it would have been convincing to a lot of people. The Pentagon is also just a mile from Reagan National Airport, so landing the plane quickly could have been done.

There was also a C-130 flying in the area, and some have used this to suggest that any plane that flew away from the Pentagon must have been this plane. But the officers in the film say this is not what they saw. They, and all the witnesses in the film, say there was just one plane. Some have criticized the film because witnesses supporting the south side path were not included. Maybe not, but these witnesses were extremely credible and perfectly placed to assess where the plane was.

What about the witnesses who were sitting in traffic? Some saw a commuter jet, some saw the plane as so low that it was hitting car antennae, some say the plane was in a sharp descent even though that would also have made it physically impossible to level out and hit the light poles without hitting the ground. There are a lot of issues with the eyewitness accounts, including whether some were outright fabrications. I’ve already pointed to the story told by USA Today’s Mike Walter as a likely example of this.

So, here’s your assignment: watch the film and then let me know how all of this could have happened without the airliner flying over the Pentagon on that day. I’ll keep an open mind if you will.

10 comments

    1. I assume you mean the inner rings of the Pentagon? I addressed this in a post on Nov. 9, 2010. Here’s the link: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/evidence-points-to-bombs-detonated-inside-the-pentagon-on-911/

      This addresses the possibility that explosives were set inside the building.

      Here’s another post from Oct. 2 that goes into the pattern of damage inside the Pentagon and how it didn’t fit with the alleged plane impact: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/how-could-flight-77-have-caused-interior-pentagon-damage-on-911/

      I don’t believe that any of the physical evidence from the Pentagon supports the idea that a 757 hit that building. We don’t have proof of the “flyover” theory, but at the moment it makes the most sense. Witnesses clearly described a large airliner flying very low towards the Pentagon from an angle incompatible with the knocking down of the light poles.

    2. Dear Mr. Stewart,

      I am so happy you asked:

      What about the people who died in the “inner circle”?

      I am with Mr. McKee in assuming that you mean the inner rings of the Pentagon.

      As I understand it, the only tenants to move into the newly renovated Pentagon wing was the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Their records and a good portion of their staff were wiped out.

      Want to hear another rinky-dink coincidence? Guess who the ONI was investigating at the time of their demise? Former President G.H.W. Bush. Why?

      The Black Eagle Fund was a cache of gold taken by the Nazi’s from those it “final solution’ed.” It was found by the Americans, but this news was suppressed, because to acknowledge its existence would require repatriating it with its rightful heirs. The Black Eagle fund was used to finance a whole series of US covert operations on other nations, with the benefit that it wasn’t traceable back to US military budgets.

      On the other side of the world, the gold stolen by the Japanese was stashed in the Phillipines, and it was even more massive ($250 billion) than the Black Eagle Fund. Marcos was the US man watching it; his obsessive spending was but drops in the bucket of what the cache was. The US played rough to get control of that fund.

      The fund was used as collateral on some bonds that were ultimately used to manipulate the Russian markets, to force Russia into bankruptcy, and to buy up & control very cheaply major oil, gas, and mineral concerns in the former Soviet Union.

      Oh, damn! Another rinky-dink coincidence is that those bonds from the early 1990s under Bush I were coming due on 9/11/2001 under Bush II. It is these fishy financial transactions that the ONI was investigating.

      Oh, snap! Could it have been a coincidence that the SEC in WTC-7 was taken out on purpose to destroy its financial records as well?

      Oh, man, I just can’t believe the coincidence of what the leaders of the Stock Exchange did after 9/11! In order to supposedly stabilize the markets when they were eventually opened later that week (I believe), they temporarily loosened some restrictions on transactions and thereby allowed the clearing of the aforementioned bonds, effectively laundering it slicker than anything Lichtenstein Bankers could conceive of.

      Hey, do you think that short-selling of airline stocks leading up to 9/11 is a coincidental indication that the perpetrators had financial expertise and motivations?

      The above outlines half of the motivation of the true 9/11 perpetrators, who had also both the means (obviously from the funds and unaccounted for budget we’re talking about) and the opportunity. The other half of the motivation isn’t facing to fix things from the past but to fix things for the future; it is outlined in the manifestos from the Project for a New American Century that talks about what it wants to gain by changing the rules for military engagement, establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East, and needing a “New Pearl Harbor” to galvanize the public’s support.

      So, great question, Mr. Stewart.

      1. I wrote:

        “Oh, man, I just can’t believe the coincidence of what the leaders of the Stock Exchange did after 9/11! In order to supposedly stabilize the markets when they were eventually opened later that week (I believe), they temporarily loosened some restrictions on transactions and thereby allowed the clearing of the aforementioned bonds, effectively laundering it slicker than anything Lichtenstein Bankers could conceive of.”

        I forgot to point out that this injected a lot of capital into our economy. This is a contributing factor the mortgage crisis we experienced.

        How so?

        Capital, to be useful, has to be put to work. The influx of laundered capital into the coffers of banks meant that it and 100-fold multipliers of it had to be made available as loans. Remember, a banks’ physical reserves are only a small fraction of what it can actually loan by law.

        So, when the banks’ reserves increased, so did the amount of fiat money that they would want to put into circulation (and profit from massively), which kind of explains two other aspects of the mortgage crisis. Namely one, that they were making loans to just about anyone whether or not financially qualified and encouraged re-financing to take equity out. And two, that they ramped up the usage of the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM). The ARM would serve to churn mortgages that lead to the housing bubble; to dupe unwitting mortgage holders with teaser interest rates that they could barely afford when low; and to con those mortgage holders into appeasing their selfish interests by removing equity on their house. When the music stopped, people owed more on their houses than they were worth which factored into an inability to re-finance at affordable rates; interest rates jacked up to levels they couldn’t afford; economic ripples affected the stability of employment and the ability to meet those payments. Can you just hear the bankers laughing and calling them “suckers”?

        When the smoke cleared, those with the means were able to swoop in and pick up real brick-and-mortar establishments (not just promissory stock from the same) for dimes on the dollar.

        If a terrorist wanted to bring America to its knees and gain handsomely, don’t you think the above achieved that?

        The only points to dispute are who the real terrorists were and that they probably were of the domestic variety.

        1. Yes, and wasn’t it Sept. 10 that Rumsfeld announced the missing $2.3 trillion? Another of those coincidences you were talking about. I also came across the “$300 billion” the other day. It keeps adding up, doesn’t it?

  1. Craig said

    “Some have criticized the film because witnesses supporting the south side path were not included.”

    As well as the eyewitness testimony supporting the “North of Citgo” flightpath there are many more accounts which place the plane directly over the Navy Annex, from where it would be impossible for the lightpole and Pentagon damage to occur.

    What is more revealing is how hard it is to find a single witness to the “official” flightpath. The cab driver appears to be the only witness who saw the plane hit the lightpoles and there appears to be no other witness who saw the pole impale the cab. Similarly I am yet to find a witness who states that the plane flew to the side of the Navy Annex, as it would have to do in order to line up with the damage path.

    But don’t take my word for it, some simple digging into the copy and pastes of witness evidence on the internet soon shows how people are included as “lightpole witnesses” who weren’t even at the Pentagon at the time of the incident.

    Happy digging!
    KP

  2. Zzzzzz – as the US public just doesn’t give a damn. Back to voting for Hillary and Trump. Idiotic. Hey but the US is #1 and free and capitalism is the best. Oh man. What a bunch of horsecrap.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s