Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over (11 posts)

  1. Victronix
    Member

    New page on 911Review:

    ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'

    In contrast to the the "no-plane" or small plane theories that deny the crash of a jetliner into the Pentagon on 9/11, a theory circulated since 2003 maintains that a jetliner with American Airlines livery did indeed approach the Pentagon, as reported by scores of eyewitnesses but fooled the same witnesses into thinking that it crashed there in a spectacular "magic show" in which the plane flew through the explosion and over the vast office building, slipping away unnoticed.

    The 'flyover theory' has a certain appeal to people who accept the vigorously-promoted assertion that a Boeing couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon, because, unlike the 'no-Boeing' theories, it does not require the wholesale dismissal of the large number of witnesses who saw the jetliner. However, the absurdity of the flyover theory becomes obvious when one considers the number of witnesses who would have clearly seen it, given the geography of the Pentagon's immediate surroundings.

    Continued: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/flyover.html

    Posted 14 years ago #
  2. christs4sale
    Administrator

    I read through some of this yesterday. You and Arabesque have done some really great work pulling Pentacon apart. Do you really think that all those people, particularly Peter Dale Scott, endorsed the Pentacon film?

    Posted 14 years ago #
  3. Victronix
    Member

    Yes, they did. It's posted in their own words.

    What's sad is how many people on blogger will automatically defend CIT. It's sad when they are surprised when confronted with the actual evidence that CIT has tried to distort for them, and it gets exposed.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  4. truthmover
    Administrator

    I'm frustrated at the fans, but seeing prominent movement figures endorse a video featuring totally bogus conclusions is really upsetting.

    Let me qualify that. I think that the 13 witnesses featured believe that they are telling the truth, which in no way guarantees the accuracy of their statements. I think that their testimony is curious and should encourage anyone finding it interesting to compare it with other witness testimony recorded by the government after the attack. I think that even relative to the other testimony I've seen that the testimony of the 13 witnesses is still curious and may suggest that we don't have the full story of what happened at the Pentagon.

    However, none of that has anything to do whatsoever with the entirely bogus conclusion that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon. One plus one does not equal four.

    CIT sets you up to find the testimony anomalous and then jumps past any evidence contradicting what can only be called a desired conclusion.

    So here's the big question. Why would they be so vigorously promoting a desired conclusion that was so clearly a fallacy?

    And the next big question. Why do all these movement leaders appear willing to lend any credibility to CIT, regardless of how compelling their data may be, when they have been so startlingly willing to promote a bogus conclusion.

    And finally, what do you think a family member of a victim of the Flight 77 crash would have to say about the idea that their loved one didn't die at the Pentagon?

    I should repeat the fact that CIT is promoting a desired conclusion.

    And great article, Vic. It's really encouraging to have more we can refer to when debating or informing people about this issue.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  5. Arabesque
    Member

    I read through some of this yesterday. You and Arabesque have done some really great work pulling Pentacon apart. Do you really think that all those people, particularly Peter Dale Scott, endorsed the Pentacon film?

    Amazingly, I just read some of the endorsements on 911blogger.

    Yes, they did. It's posted in their own words. What's sad is how many people on blogger will automatically defend CIT. It's sad when they are surprised when confronted with the actual evidence that CIT has tried to distort for them, and it gets exposed.

    Yes, this is really unbelievable.

    Apparently people don't notice that CIT claim that a witness was "edited" out of the CITGO video to "discredit" his testimony or that a witness who claims the plane flew a "u-turn" (the flight path of the C-130) is a "flyover" witness. Since when is a "u-turn" a "flyover", anyways? Or that they claim that the fact a witness got the location of the light poles wrong makes his testimony "more credible". Or pretend that "hit the Pentagon" is not a description of the flight path. I got accused of a "personal attack" for writing an article that quoted their personal attacks. It is really that ridiculous.

    Unfortunately it takes a lot of time and energy to debunk their claims.

    What's worse is that lately the promotion of their claims has been taken up by sock puppets (I can't believe they are genuine, but that's just my opinion) who repeat the same talking points and claims on various forums (including this one). And now these people are attacking me and taking my words (ridiculously) out of context and slandering me in blatantly dishonest fashion. The usual suspects in some cases, so no surprises there.

    At this point I'm just hoping President Obama will release the damn videos.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  6. JohnA
    Member

    At this point I'm just hoping President Obama will release the damn videos.

    and if Obama would just release his birth certificate also.

    oh wait - he did! i forgot - facts do not matter in a democracy. majority rule determines what's true.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  7. Victronix
    Member

    It's already been decided that any video showing the AA77 hitting is "faked".

    Any video showing anything else is "real".

    Posted 14 years ago #
  8. Arabesque
    Member

    It's already been decided that any video showing the AA77 hitting is "faked".

    Any video showing anything else is "real".

    That's ok. I'm not concerned about the "fake" 9/11 truth activists out there (:

    I've seen for myself people saying that if the video shows a plane hitting the Pentagon, they "know" it will have been faked too.

    When I pointed out that none of the videos show any hint of a flyover, I got attacked for that, too.

    Pentagon Flyover Theory: RIP http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-...

    Posted 14 years ago #
  9. Arcterus
    Member

    I didn't notice the article because I was gone for a few days but Jim just sent me the update. Great job. This is the best debunking of CIT's work since Arabesque's article about The Pentacon.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  10. thevillage
    Member

    Well, there happened to have been a witnesses immediately inside the walls of the Pentagon in the renovated wing who was injured in the blast -- her son as well -- but she walked out of that round hole more than likely caused by a bunker buster -- and she saw NO PLANE go by her in either direction nor any evidence of a plane.

    Meanwhile, was there ever a cake sale to raise money for cameras for the Pentagon?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. mark
    Member

    They will never stop flogging this hoax.

    Posted 11 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.