9/11 Pentagon was a sham !!! new vid from CIT puts official story to bed.

But CIT cannot explain why the 9/11 perps would bother to lay down a false trail, at the same time flying a big jet nearly at tree level north of the Citgo gas station, thereby risking blowing the official story sky high if enough people had seen it at the time and reported to the media what they had see. What bother? Just remote fly the damn thing into the Pentagon.

This may well be true. But it merely creates more problems rather than solves them.

This video ironically convinces me more than ever that the official story is true!

Where is the evidence of any type of object OTHER than a jet hitting the Pentagon???

Where is the evidence of a missile strike???

I see lots of very convincing eyewitness testimony of a very low-flying plane approaching the Pentagon.

But I see NO evidence of any other type of alternative explanation for the subsequent impact (e.g., missile strike, etc.).

Surely, if a cruise missile was launched at the Pentagon very nearly simultaneously, someone would have seen that???

And, btw, most importantly: Why bother with the elaborate ruse of a passenger jet impact? (Why would there be a need to use a cruise missile, for example?) Why not simply fly the jet into the Pentagon? It worked perfectly well for the Twin Towers.

This "alternative theory" simply makes no sense!

They are attempting square one only....it would be a mistake to go too far. This video is properly showing the initial evidence that no plane hit the pentagon.


But they did NOT establish that at all in the video!

All they established in the video is the most likely flight path of the jet that was observed to be approaching the Pentagon immediately prior to a large explosion and fireball.

They did NOT establish that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Hmmm… let’s see:

1. Cherry pick eyewitnesses who contradict the official account
2. Claim their accounts “prove” there is a Government conspiracy.
3. When an eyewitness claims they’ve seen the airplane hit the Pentagon when they could not have from their vantage point, use this discrepancy as “evidence” that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.
4. ?
5. Profit??

It's called ground effect. Any dumbass pilot who's flown in it knows damnwell that no jumbo jet flew at 400MPH 10 feet off the ground. No way, no how.

Ground effect begins at the wingspan of the plane above the ground. Think of it as a solid cushion of air, like a speed boat going along on the water. The faster they would go, the more solid it would become and push the plane up, unless they drove the nose into the ground, but there is no way they could have approached and struck a target at that speed and altitude.

But CIT cannot explain why the 9/11 perps would bother to lay down a false trail, at the same time flying a big jet nearly at tree level north of the Citgo gas station, thereby risking blowing the official story sky high if enough people had seen it at the time and reported to the media what they had see. What bother? Just remote fly the damn thing into the Pentagon.

This may well be true. But it merely creates more problems rather than solves them.



God knows what the scumbag perps had in mind but the video evidence shows clearly that the plane made a Northside flyover.
But yeah I know what youre saying about why bother.

CIT just set out to give us the facts. And they did.

This video ironically convinces me more than ever that the official story is true!

Where is the evidence of any type of object OTHER than a jet hitting the Pentagon???

Where is the evidence of a missile strike???

I see lots of very convincing eyewitness testimony of a very low-flying plane approaching the Pentagon.

But I see NO evidence of any other type of alternative explanation for the subsequent impact (e.g., missile strike, etc.).

Surely, if a cruise missile was launched at the Pentagon very nearly simultaneously, someone would have seen that???

And, btw, most importantly: Why bother with the elaborate ruse of a passenger jet impact? (Why would there be a need to use a cruise missile, for example?) Why not simply fly the jet into the Pentagon? It worked perfectly well for the Twin Towers.

This "alternative theory" simply makes no sense!




I think you must have skipped through the video mate. The evidence in the video clearly shows that the ANGLE needed to knock down the lightposts and subsequently pinpoint the official flight path was way off. It was staged.
It does not mention a missile or how they did the damage. That is for another video.
Respect to CIT for presenting FACTS not theory.

And only GOD knows the method in their madness.

Personally speaking, if they had simply flown the jet into the building do you think it would have had the same effect as well placed directional explosives?
Dont you think that if they had done this that thw jet may not penetrate the outer wall?
9/11 physics could not be taken a chance on in this case or we may have seen what REALLY happens when an airplane crashes into a building..

This video ironically convinces me more than ever that the official story is true!

Where is the evidence of any type of object OTHER than a jet hitting the Pentagon???

Where is the evidence of a missile strike???

I see lots of very convincing eyewitness testimony of a very low-flying plane approaching the Pentagon.

But I see NO evidence of any other type of alternative explanation for the subsequent impact (e.g., missile strike, etc.).

Surely, if a cruise missile was launched at the Pentagon very nearly simultaneously, someone would have seen that???

And, btw, most importantly: Why bother with the elaborate ruse of a passenger jet impact? (Why would there be a need to use a cruise missile, for example?) Why not simply fly the jet into the Pentagon? It worked perfectly well for the Twin Towers.

This "alternative theory" simply makes no sense!




I think you must have skipped through the video mate. The evidence in the video clearly shows that the ANGLE needed to knock down the lightposts and subsequently pinpoint the official flight path was way off. It was staged.
It does not mention a missile or how they did the damage. That is for another video.
Respect to CIT for presenting FACTS not theory.

And only GOD knows the method in their madness.

Personally speaking, if they had simply flown the jet into the building do you think it would have had the same effect as well placed directional explosives?
Dont you think that if they had done this that thw jet may not penetrate the outer wall?
9/11 physics could not be taken a chance on in this case or we may have seen what REALLY happens when an airplane crashes into a building..


This is a very astute post.

Would they have the same effect if they crashed a jet? No. More than likely not. Especially if they were targeting a specific area looking to destroy specific targets within that section.

What didn't "Hani" the "pilot" try and just dive straight down into the top of the pentagon? Why did he instead turn right(instead of left to dive down) do a slow moving spiral without a worry in the world of being shot down or intercepted, to then skim tree top level over and THROUGH very difficult obstacles, that could have, and in the case of the light poles SHOULD HAVE wrecked him before making a susccessful penentration/impact into the side of building-the 1st floor no less.

None of it makes sense.

This video ironically convinces me more than ever that the official story is true!

Where is the evidence of any type of object OTHER than a jet hitting the Pentagon???

Where is the evidence of a missile strike???

I see lots of very convincing eyewitness testimony of a very low-flying plane approaching the Pentagon.

But I see NO evidence of any other type of alternative explanation for the subsequent impact (e.g., missile strike, etc.).

Surely, if a cruise missile was launched at the Pentagon very nearly simultaneously, someone would have seen that???

And, btw, most importantly: Why bother with the elaborate ruse of a passenger jet impact? (Why would there be a need to use a cruise missile, for example?) Why not simply fly the jet into the Pentagon? It worked perfectly well for the Twin Towers.

This "alternative theory" simply makes no sense!




I think you must have skipped through the video mate. The evidence in the video clearly shows that the ANGLE needed to knock down the lightposts and subsequently pinpoint the official flight path was way off. It was staged.
It does not mention a missile or how they did the damage. That is for another video.
Respect to CIT for presenting FACTS not theory.

And only GOD knows the method in their madness.

Personally speaking, if they had simply flown the jet into the building do you think it would have had the same effect as well placed directional explosives?
Dont you think that if they had done this that thw jet may not penetrate the outer wall?
9/11 physics could not be taken a chance on in this case or we may have seen what REALLY happens when an airplane crashes into a building..


This is a very astute post.

Would they have the same effect if they crashed a jet? No. More than likely not. Especially if they were targeting a specific area looking to destroy specific targets within that section.

What didn't "Hani" the "pilot" try and just dive straight down into the top of the pentagon? Why did he instead turn right(instead of left to dive down) do a slow moving spiral without a worry in the world of being shot down or intercepted, to then skim tree top level over and THROUGH very difficult obstacles, that could have, and in the case of the light poles SHOULD HAVE wrecked him before making a susccessful penentration/impact into the side of building-the 1st floor no less.

None of it makes sense.

Got that lightpole info from the VADOT yet?

How about the document number of your denied FOIA request for it?

Got that lightpole info from the VADOT yet?

How about the document number of your denied FOIA request for it?



You talk to those witnesses yet and tell them they didn't see what they said they saw?

How about a video of you confronting them?

No? Really? Why is that?

Got that lightpole info from the VADOT yet?

How about the document number of your denied FOIA request for it?



You talk to those witnesses yet and tell them they didn't see what they said they saw?

How about a video of you confronting them?

No? Really? Why is that?

Why bother? I'm not looking to destroy people's reputations on the internet for simply being a 9/11 witness as you are. The only person I'm looking to destroy is you and you won't talk to me.

I'll take it that you didn't do the proper and complete investigation to prove the light poles were staged and add actual factual support to your story.

Besides, you're amateur interview techniques have all but ruined these witnesses for other interviewers.

Who wants to run the risk of being labeled an government spy complicit in 9/11 if they don't agree with you or after you twist their statements into whatever you like.

LaGasse doesn't remember where he was standing.
What the hell does that matter? He was not standing south of the Citgo. LOL!
Trujillo said it hit the building.
That's only his opinion. He was too far away to be able to see any plane hit the Pentagon.
The light poles were not staged.
Nope. They had to have been.

The world looks much different when you leave mom's basement.
Which is where you must be, pretending you aren't.
Your investigation is fail and so are you, Craigy-poo.
No. You fail for ignoring the testimony of the Pentagon police officers. That's the centre of the CIT investigation. You cannot refute what they said, so you ignore it.

Critical thinking requires a bit more than staring at a YouTube video.

Try again.