Sunday, September 4, 2011

Is This WHAT REALLY HAPPENED at the Pentagon on 9/11?

The Pentagon 911 We Know

One of the four sites "targeted" by the alleged 9/11 hijackers, the Pentagon may be the thickest part of the thicket. First we have the official flight path, a tight circle and descent that defies Boeing 757 capabilities, and certainly those of an amateur pilot like Hani Hanjour. Then we have a 16-foot hole in the wall of the building, with no verifiable plane wreckage and no damage to the building from the plane's wings. Then we have the witnesses.

(If a Boeing 757 that has a 124 FOOT wingspan did crash into the Pentagon, then shouldn't those huge wings damaged the walls or at least left some paint scratches?
You can barely scrape a brick or concrete wall with your car door and it leaves paint smudges, so where's that type of evidence in the above picture?)
Enter the work of two stalwart young men from California, known as CIT (for Citizen Investigation Team). Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis have obtained and recorded many eyewitness accounts of a white low-flying jet and an explosion ensuing thereafter. Did the plane strike the Pentagon, or was this a psy-op flyover intended to make people THINK the plane had flown into the building, with explosives doing the rest of the work? 9/11 was in its entirety a "psychological operation" -- designed to radically change the views and emotions of Americans, conditioning them to give up freedoms and experience fear as never before.

Visit the CIT website.

CIT's newest video is getting a ton of attention ... but major 9/11 websites make no report of it. Why?

We finally have the Pentagon evidence tightly and succinctly laid out, in fatal conflict with the government's story, and nobody wants to talk about it. Makes you wonder!
Look at the picture above. You see two plane approaches -- one reported by the government and the other reported by independent witnesses. Here you have the witnesses' own drawings of the plane's trajectory (see yellow lines). The little white circles in the red flight path (south side of the Citgo gas station) are the famous "downed light poles," which were official "proof" that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Yet the independent witnesses reported seeing a plane come in from the north side of the Citgo station, and some said it then "pulled up." Look at the north side approach -- it misses the light poles altogether.

What did the white plane do ...? "Pulling up" means it passed over the building, just as a big fireball and explosion went off at the Pentagon itself. (Watch CIT's "North Side Flyover" DVD for the full witness interviews.) What happened to the real American Airlines Flight 77? No one knows. It was lost from radar as early as 8:56. Could the white plane that witnesses saw have been Flight 77? No. American Airlines planes are silver; witnesses reported seeing a white or off-white plane. Did anything hit the Pentagon? See CIT's new website for the the best information collected to date on 9/11 and the Pentagon.

The Flight Path

The official story tells us that a Boeing 757 (allegedly American Airlines Flight 77) swooped in from south side of the [former] Citgo gas station and knocked down five light poles before hitting the west side of the Pentagon. (Interestingly, this was where an investigation into the $2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon's coffers was taking place, and it also happened to be a region of the building that was undergoing renovation.) But 13 independent witnesses unanimously say they saw a plane coming in from the north side of the gas station. The famous "downed light poles" cited by authorities as proof that a plane struck the building are in line with the south-side path, as was all the "physical damage" we were shown. Questions remain ... Why is there no damage to the Pentagon's lawn, and why do witnesses insist that the plane they saw was on the north side?
Craig Ranke Interviewed - September 2009

Here you have it -- eyewitness evidence that CRUSHES the official story of the Pentagon attack. Watch this interview with CIT's Craig Ranke and make up your own mind.

Craig Ranke on Matrix News Network part 1

Lloyde England, the Cab Driver

The plot gets weirder. Here is an elderly black taxicab driver who claims his Lincoln Town Car was struck by one of the falling light poles as the Boeing 757 headed for the famous Pentagon strike. (Remember, this is nowhere near where 13 witnesses place the plane.) Lloyde England was interviewed extensively by the media on national TV and considered a hero of 9/11. (His wife, interestingly, works for the FBI.) The story is that Lloyde's car was headed south on Washington Boulevard, traveling at 40 miles per hour when it was hit. He slammed on his brakes, coming to a skidding stop on the side of the road.

Lloyde claims the streetlight was sticking out of his car when he stopped. His story is that a silent stranger came over to help him pull the enormous metal pole out of it. Amazingly, there is not a SCRATCH on the hood of Lloyde's car, and nor did the light pole mar the upholstery, as shown by the photos below. A pole like this is about 40 feet tall and weighs some 250 pounds.
Telling Excerpts from Lloyde England

Watch this 9-minute YouTube video from CIT that got 20,000 hits over a single weekend ... Here, the Pentagon cab driver admits the whole event was planned and he was "a small man ... in it." (For the full interviews, watch the DVD "Lloyde England and his Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm")

Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm

This video was originally released on 10/29/2008 as a follow-up to the presentation "The First Known Accomplice?" It chronicles Citizen Investigation Team's (CIT) surreal, intense, and disturbing personal experience with the famous (now infamous) taxicab driver Lloyde England who claims that the windshield of his cab was speared by a 40 foot, 247 pound light pole that was allegedly hit by the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11, yet did not even leave a scratch on the hood, even while he was allegedly pulling it out of the car with (according to him) the help of a silent stranger who "didn't say a word".

There is not a single photograph or eyewitness corroborating Lloyde's claim that the pole was ever in his car.

In light of the proven fact that the plane approached from the north side of the gas station we now know why Lloyde's story simply doesn't add up: the plane did not fly anywhere near that light pole.

FBI Withholding 84 More Tapes of Pentagon on 9/11



  1. I look at the pic of the hole and ask myself, "where is the plane and where is the damage from the wings.

    I then read a Global Research article this morning by Dr. Frank Legge and David Chandler and I see these two paragraphs that lead me to believe that they are disinformation:

    In the case of the Pentagon the outer wall had been reinforced to an unusual degree during renovation so it appears reasonable that the impact hole would be smaller and that more of the plane would fail to penetrate the building. Photographs and videos show the entire wingspan of the plane damaged the face of the building but the entry hole was smaller. On the ground outside the Pentagon a substantial amount of debris was observed and recorded in photographs and videos. Again the amount of debris outside appeared roughly commensurate with the portion of the impact area not penetrated.

    As two incidents had occurred that morning in which planes had been observed to deeply penetrate buildings, it should not have been surprising that a plane could penetrate the Pentagon, and there was initially general acceptance of the impact report. Unfortunately, however, a number of observers saw the debris outside the Pentagon but did not see the sizable hole in the wall, more than adequate to allow most of the aircraft to enter. They reported that the amount of debris was not sufficient. Thus was created the fertile field in which alternative theories developed to explain the observed damage.

    Notice that they claim precisely what your picture denies; damage by the wings. They say that the hole is big enough for most of the plane to have fit in (which the pic obviously denies).

    Who are these two authors who write foolishness when the pics show their folly?

  2. Who are these two authors who write foolishness when the pics show their folly?

    One's a 'doctor?' I'm guessing a PhD in something, which probably means he gets research grants from the same people in DC who keep telling the same lies.

    That hole is too perfectly cut in a circle to be damage from 200,000 pounds of a Boeing 757 smashing into the wall.

    That initial opening was thru TWO FEET OF CONCRETE, so no one is going to tell me it was an aluminum skinned and framed jetliner that penetrated a total of NINE FEET of CONCRETE.

    No way, no how.

  3. Greg:

    As someone that knows aeronautics and the physics of flight... It is an impossibility for any aircraft the size of a jet airliner to maintain a level flight less than 50 ft as claimed by the WRH and RDawson crowd... Not only would the aircraft not be airborne, but it would have cartwheeled and jackknifed into the ground long before it would have hit the Pentagram..errr..Pentagon....

    I believe that many people are kept out of the loop about the physics of air flight to start with, and the attack on the Pentagram..err..pentagon is a case in point....

    I really wish that the focus would be what was in that wing of the Pentagram...errr...pentagon.. that was actually hit by the missile... The files about the stolen 2.3 trillion dollars by the ultimate Jew, Dov Zhakheim, were stored there, and magically were destroyed right on cue by that missile.... Wow.. talk about the coincidences!!!!

  4. As someone that knows aeronautics and the physics of flight...

    NTS, at the link above that has the original story, they go into the physics and use math to show that if a Boeing did try to fly that path into the Pentagon, it would put around 8.5 MILLION pounds of stress on the plane, tearing it apart before it ever reached the Pentagon.

    I didn't put that 'wonky' part in, since my first attempt at college level physics got me a D and only by taking the class again was I able to get a C.

    But I've got an extensive background in concrete, both in building the forms and then pouring the concrete into swimming pools; building footers and basement walls, so I'm more than familiar at how tough that stuff is once it sets up.


Please stick to the topic at hand. Anyone trying to hijack this blog with long, winding comments about other topics or spam will be booted.

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.

Blog Archive