May 25, 2007

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’

Pentagon Flyover or “Left/Right” Straw-man Argument?

NOTE to reader: The PentaCon researchers have engaged in ad-hominem attacks against other researchers including myself. See a sample along with more reviews of the false claims of the PentaCon researchers here: CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

NOTE: A few of these statements are statements by witnesses given after the event and are therefore not firsthand accounts. I need to correct these small errors when I have the time to fully update my research on the eyewitness testimony. I will also be adding transcripts of of live television witnesses, never before transcribed.

By Arabesque[1]

Updated: 28/05/07 with revisions.


The purpose of this review is to examine the claims made in the film the PentaCon.The eyewitness statements in the PentaCon will be examined and compared with other testimony based on my original research.Although this analysis is primarily an examination of the eyewitness statements in the film, some issues pertaining to the physical evidence will also be briefly examined. It will be shown that although the eyewitness statements in the PentaCon are largely corroborated by other testimony, the conclusions of the PentaCon are not supported by their own—or any other credible eyewitness testimony.

The PentaCon – Smoking Gun Version[2]

The film begins with two scenarios and accompanying visuals:

1. The PentaCon Hypothesis A commercial plane approaches the Pentagon from NORTH of the CITGO gas station on 9/11, and then flies over it.

2. The ‘Official Story’ A commercial plane approaches from SOUTH of the CITGO gas station on 9/11, knocks over light poles, hits a generator, and crashes into the bottom floors of the Pentagon.

The first scenario would imply that the Pentagon attack was staged; lamp pole damage was faked, damage to the generator was faked, explosives were used to fake the hole damage (speculation by the PentaCon), the plane flew over the Pentagon, and that plane debris was planted.All of these claims will be examined.

The PentaCon claims that four eyewitness statements are “smoking gun proof” that the entire official story is a “farce.

The Flight 77 NSTB report study by Pilots for 9/11 Truth is briefly mentioned and deserves separate study by 9/11 researchers.[3]

The film tries to make the case that four eyewitness statements are enough evidence to counter all other physical evidence (and implicitly, all other contradictory eyewitness statements).One of the main defects of the PentaCon is that it only considers four eyewitness statements—ignoring a very large body of eyewitness statements and previous research into the testimony.[4]

Why is this significant?Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING.[5]

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

  1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
  2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
  3. Therefore A is exempt from S.[6]

Typically, special pleading is used in studies of the Pentagon Eyewitness testimony to claim that a few statements are more relevant or important than the rest of the eyewitness testimony combined.Special pleading is not only used to ignore other evidence; it can be used to take certain portions of one statement from a witness as being true, while ignoring all contradictory evidence by the same and other witnesses.The most famous example of this practice is seen in this Pentagon eyewitness quotation taken out of context:

It was like a cruise missile with wings.[7]

Quoting this statement to give the impression that this witness saw a missile is special pleading because it ignores the full context of the statement:

I saw this plane, this jet, an American airlines jet, coming. And I thought, This doesnt add up, its really low. And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings.[8]

Commenting years later, this witness remarked “I never imagined for a moment that a statement like that would come back to haunt me over and over again. A French author would come out with a book describing in detail the conspiracy theory and he would use that quote out of context to help promote his conclusions.[9]

Special pleading has even been used to claim that all eyewitness accounts reported in the Mainstream media are suspect and therefore should be ignored if they support the official narrative that a commercial plane hit the Pentagon.There are several reasons why this is not a sustainable position.

1. The eyewitness testimony is virtually all in agreement except for very specific details that are open to interpretation (i.e. the exact model of plane).

2. A complete analysis of the testimony shows that there are relatively few anomalies.

3. The Media does not control all witnesses.Anyone with an internet connection could counter the official narrative with an anonymous posting on a forum.

4. Most of the so-called “anomalies” in the Pentagon testimony have obvious explanations (i.e. the few who claimed to see a small plane were from farther away).

5. The Pentagon is surrounded by large highways and on 9/11 these were filled with stand still traffic jams; there were many potential witnesses and many didn’t even leave reports.One would assume that an anomaly would be reported by some of them.

6. The media did not control the witnesses at the WTC and blocked firefighter testimony for years after 9/11. These witnesses strongly contradict the official narrative at the WTC. No such witness blocking has ever occurred at the Pentagon.

Those who doubt the credibility of this testimony should be able to find at least some witnesses who support their theory.This is much easier said than done, and maintaining “this testimony is false because I believe it’s false” is a very weak position and is not a scientific argument.

All of the PentaCon“six reasons” listed below for why their testimony is credible are used to set up an argument based on special pleading as a huge body of eyewitness testimony is left ignored by the filmmakers.

1. “High level of corroboration from independent accounts.”

The film claims that there is not a single contradicting eyewitness statementin the entire investigative body of evidence.

This claim is false—in fact the opposite is true.In assembling the largest collection of the eyewitness testimony available, it is easily demonstrable that this statement is completely false. There is no other obvious evidence confirming that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station. I could not find any clear eyewitness accounts supporting the flight path alleged by these four witnesses. This single point reveals the “special pleading” argument of the PentaCon as relevant evidence and studies are ignored.

The PentaCon commits two special pleading arguments that reveal that their hypothesis is not a “smoking gun”:

1. There is no contradictory evidence.

2. These witnesses saw the plane fly north of the CITGO gas station, therefore it did not hit the Pentagon.

These two arguments are the entire basis of the film and are extremely suspect.The first claim is overwhelmingly disproved below with physical and eyewitness evidence that the filmmakers ignore or imply was faked without proving their case.The second claim is also a special pleading argument because the 3 of the 4 witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

The fatal Special Pleading argument of the PentaCon in summary:

A person saw X and Y.X and Y could not have both happened—it is impossible.Therefore X happened and Y did not.

The PentaCon witnesses saw a plane fly north of the CITGO Gas station (X) and the plane hit the Pentagon (Y).It is impossible that they witnessed both. Therefore the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

If both X and Y could not have happened, what basis do the filmmakers have for ignoring the possibility that Y happened instead of X?They don’t have any basis—they simply claim that they saw X, therefore Y didn’t happen.They don’t consider the opposite possibility.Actually their argument is even more absurd than this:

A person saw X and Y. Y is supported by physical evidence and overwhelming eyewitness testimony. X is not.X and Y could not have both happened.Therefore X happened and everything else was faked.

This is a special pleading argument and is essentially what the PentaCon claims. In fact they take this one step further when they argue a flyover, which is not supported by any credible corroborating evidence and is contradicted by their own eyewitness statements. It will be shown that the evidence for why these witnesses are wrong about the flight path (i.e. X) is overwhelming:

Witnesses who directly contradict the flight path of the witnesses in the PentaCon[10]

1. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the[n?] too low, and the next thing we saw was [it?] go-down below the side of the road coming down towards the side of the—of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us[11]

2. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.[12]

3. coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there—very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station…[note: this statement is ambiguous as to whether it was N. or S. of the gas station but…] then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.[13]

4. I was right underneath the plane, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395.[14]

5. I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon.[15]

6. The plane flew very low over his car and hit the building and blew his windows out of the vehicle and hes on interstate 395.[16]

These witnesses claim that the plane was flying near I-395 just before it hit the Pentagon, which would directly contradict the flight path implied by the PentaCon.If the plane was flying north of the CITGO gas station it would not have been near I-395 just before the plane approached the Pentagon. Furthermore, the physical damage of light poles is very strong evidence of a large commercial aircraft flying into the Pentagon:

The minimum wingspan required to create the pole damage was approximately 100 feet. The maximum wingspan before you would have had additional poles impacted is approximately 140 feet. The wingspan of a 757-200 is 124 feet 10 inches. This accounts for the minimum of 100 feet and allows for a 16 foot tolerance which is exactly what we see in the diagrams.”[17]

Other objects including a generator were also alleged to have been hit by a 757.[18]A simulation shows how this would look like while revealing the necessary flight path.[19]

Physical evidence is always more credible than eyewitness statements.When eyewitness statements and physical evidence confirm each other, the evidence is doubly credible:

1. It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.[20]

2. He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.[21]

3. Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.[22]

4. The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.[23]

5. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.[24]

6. [she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.[25]

7. It hit some lampposts on the way in.[26]

8. [the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.[27]

9. [he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.[28]

10. The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.[29]

11. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.[30]

12. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.[31]

13. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.[32]

14. On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliners wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.

15. I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.[33]

16. It knocked over a few light poles in its way…[34]

17. [It] struck a light poleThe plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.[35]

18. It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles[36]

19. The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.[37]

20. I saw it clip a light pole.[38]

Physical evidence and corroborating eyewitness testimony are very strong evidence that a plane knocked down these light poles.[39] All of these statements and physical evidence directly contradict the flight path testimony suggested in the PentaCon.

However, there is even more evidence contradicting the flight path indicated in the PentaCon.Eyewitnesses confirm that “an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off. [40]

1. the plane approached… clipping a construction trailer and an emergency generator[41]

2. The plane had sliced through the emergency lighting generators leaving everything in blackness.[42]

3. He witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing.[43]

4. The planes right wing went through a generator trailer like butter.’[44]

Again, these statements are also corroborated by physical evidence, thus strongly contradicting the flight path testimony implied by the PentaCon witnesses.In order for the plane to hit the generator there would have been no chance of it missing the building.In fact, it aligns perfectly with the flight path suggested by the downed light poles.

Physical Evidence on its own suggests a flight path:

Even more significant is that the structural damage inside of the Pentagon aligns perfectly with the flight path as suggested by the light pole damage and generator as shown above.The filmmakers even acknowledge this point when they claim that the plane could not have caused the structural damage inside of the Pentagon if it approached from north of the CITGO gas station. This is very strong evidence that the PentaCon eyewitnesses are wrong.Not only is there physical evidence suggesting a plane hit the Pentagon, there is compelling eyewitness testimony corroborating what happened.The PentaCon ignores all of this and claim that there is “no evidence” contradicting the flight path suggested by their witnesses.False.

There is even more contradicting evidence of the PentaCon flight path testimony as witnesses claimed that the plane was flying so low that its left wing touched the ground by the helicopter pad:

1. It drug its wing along the ground.[45]

2. He appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building.[46]

3. Then it looked like it hit the helicopter pad and skipped up.[47]

4. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground. There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there.[48]

5. I…grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area. [49]

6. The plane's left wing actually came in near the ground and the right wing was tilted up in the air. That right wing went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would have hit the trailer.[50]

Again, this further contradicts the flight path suggested by the PentaCon.The filmmakers imply that there was a flyover.This claim is overwhelmingly contradicted by the eyewitness testimony—even their own witnesses contradict this possibility (special pleading).The film argues a “Left/Right” straw-man argument; they completely ignore the question of “up/down” in the eyewitness testimony. All of the testimony that implies that the plane flew very low—so low that it couldn’t have missed the building is ignored by the PentaCon:

1. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left…[51]

2. I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low… at treetop level.[52]

3. [the plane was coming in too fast and the[n?] too low.[53]

4. It was very, very low—at the height of the street lights.[54]

5. [He] wondered why it was flying so low.[55]

6. Flying at just above treetop height.[56]

7. He saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Sprigfield, VA.[57]

8. It was no more than 30 feet off the ground.[58]

9. John aged 12, pointed out the window yelling, Dad look how low that plane is![59]

10. The jet was 40-feet off the ground.[60]

11. It was flying very low… The aircraft was so very low -- as an aircraft would be on its final approach to an airport.[61]

12. It was odd that it was flying so low he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees.[62]

13. The plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground.[63]

14. The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground.[64]

15. A Vietnam veteran—jumped prone onto the ground so the aircraft would not actually—he thinks it (would have) hit him; it was that low.[65]

16. [she saw] a low-flying jetliner.[66]

17. (The plane) was flying fast and low[67]

18. That plane is too low; its going to crash.

19. Low. Too low. Fast.[68]

20. He saw a plane flying very low and close to nearby buildings. I thought something was coming down on me. I know this plane is going to crash. Ive never seen a plane like this so low.[69]

21. [the plane was] 20 feet high over Washington Blvd[70]

22. I heard a low flying plane.[71]

23. Look at how low its flying.[72]

24. I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground.[73]

25. Fast and low…My first thought was Ive never seen one that high.[74]

26. It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in.[75]

27. It was unusually loud and low.[76]

28. The plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon.[77]

29. [the plane was] about 20 feet altitude.[78]

30. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me, 30 to 50 feet above the Federal office building #2 [by the Navy Annex].[79]

31. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet.[80]

32. Elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low.[81]

33. [it was] about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said… the plane… approached the Pentagon below treetop level.[82]

34. At treetop height.[83]

35. On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliners wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground.[84]

36. [The plane was] not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground.[85]

37. [it was] flying low over the tree tops near Seminary Rd.[86]

38. [it flew] just over the treetops.[87]

39. Within a hundred feet. It was very low.[88]

40. The plane was also alarmingly low, passing behind nearby apartment buildings that were only several stories high[89]

41. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground.[90]

42. You just knew he was going to hit the pentagon, I mean there was no way he could not have hit it.[91]

43. It was flying only a couple of hundred feet off the ground—I could see the passenger windows glide by.[92]

44. [the plane flew] just above the tree linecoming in lower and lower on what he instantly registered as the wrong side of the flight path to the airport. There was no reason for a plane to come in that low, that fast.’[93]

45. It was about 25 feet off the ground.[94]

46. Its really low.[95]

47. The plane was flying low.[96]

48. It was flying low.[97]

49. I watched it come in very low over the trees.[98]

50. About 100 yards off the ground.[99]

51. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level.[100]

52. Not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground.[101]

53. The plane flew very low over his car.[102]

Keep in mind that these witnesses are describing the altitude of the plane at different points before its final destination.Again, the PentaCon argues a flyover.How did witnesses describe the trajectory of the plane?

1. It was coming on less than a 45 degree angle.[103]

2. It was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft.[104]

3. If you have watched any aircraft come in for a landing, even though the aircraft is descending, it is angled up slightly. This aircraft was angled downward.[105]

4. It came in… at an angle?[106]

5. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon.[107]

6. I saw a plane coming what I thought was toward National Airport, which is very close. You see that all the time. But this one looked different. It was at a very steep angle[108]

7. A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington at an unusual angle.’[109]

8. It was a straight-in flight, angled slightly down, and there was--there was no intent to turn or to maneuver in any way.[110]

9. I didnt think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp.[111]

10. The plane came in at an incredibly steep angle… The jet creamed in at a dive bombing angle[112]

11. The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory.[113]

12. The plane [flew] at a 45-degree angle… The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon.[114]

13. [The] nose [was] down… going aimed like a dart straight into it.[115]

14. The plane… rapidly descended.[116]

This testimony is significant because a plane in normal landing mode has the front of the aircraft pointing slightly up so that the plane does not land head first.These witnesses claimed it was pointing directly down—at a 45-degree angle.Again, this eyewitness testimony further demolishes any notion of a Pentagon flyover as suggested by the PentaCon.

The PentaCon argues that if the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station it couldn’t account for the damage at the Pentagon. While this is true, it assumes that the eyewitnesses correctly remembered what happened.This is the fatal straw-man argument of the film as I have shown these claims are contradicted by substantial evidence.The PentaCon ignores their own witnesses when they claim that the plane hit the Pentagon!This is a special pleading argument because there are two possibilities suggested by the eyewitness testimony:

1. The Plane Flew South of the CITGO gas station, very low, and hit the Pentagon (as supported by the evidence I have provided)

2. The Plane Flew North of the CITGO gas station, very low and hit the Pentagon

The PentaCon commits special pleading when they ignore the full context of the 2nd possibility as suggested by their own witnesses.They ignore the fact that 3/4 of their witnesses claimed that the plane flew very low and hit the Pentagon. This is significant because both could not have happened. Either:

1. The witnesses were wrong about the Plane hitting the Pentagonsomehow misremembering this event

2. The witnesses were wrong about the flight path.

Observations that are GENERAL (I saw a plane, I saw a plane crash into a building) are more easily remembered than details that are SPECIFIC (I saw where the plane flew from, I saw the type of plane, I saw the colors of the plane, etc).The PentaCon ignores the 2nd possibility without justifiable reason[117] and claims that these witnesses would somehow be wrong about watching a plane fly into a building (i.e. general observation), at the same time as being correct about what angle it flew in (i.e specific observation).In other words, the PentaCon claims that it is easier to remember a flight path than the sight of a plane flying into a building. This is absurd.

The film also ignores just how overwhelming the testimony is that a plane hit the Pentagon:

1. I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11… [It] slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon.[118]

2. I saw this plane right outside my window… Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon… It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). [119]

3. It was coming down head first, he said. And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking.[120]

4. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing…[121]

5. And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking.[122]

6. [The plane] impacted the side of the building.[123]

7. [I] saw the plane hit the Pentagon.[124]

8. Mark Bright, actually saw the plane hit the building.[125]

9. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.[126]

10. I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon.[127]

11. He realized he had a front-row seat to history, as the plane plowed into the Pentagon.[128]

12. I thought, Theres no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks, Before he could process that thought, he saw a huge mushroom cloud.[129]

13. He was in front of one of the blast-resistant windows [inside of the Pentagon as he saw the plane coming in to crash]…[130]

14. [The plane] nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring.[131]

15. [he saw the plane] strike the building. It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion, he said later Tuesday. I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running.[132]

16. This plane was going to slam into the Pentagon. I steeled myself for the explosion.[133]

17. The airliner crashed into the Pentagon and exploded.[134]

18. He saw the plane approach and slam into the west side of the structure… it crashed into the building and burst into flames.[135]

19. The plane approached the Pentagon… slicing into the building, said Lee Evey.[136]

20. The plane hit the building.[137]

21. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building.[138]

22. When [the plane] made impact with the Pentagon initially he saw smoke, then flames.[139]

23. It seemed like [the plane] made impact just before the wedge.[140]

24. He impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo[copter], tower.[141]

25. What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom.[142]

26. This plane is going down into the Pentagon![143]

27. By the time I looked up, the plane was moving so fast all I saw was an explosion.[144]

28. The crash was exceptionally loud… It shook the building and knocked people down who were closer to the point of impact.[145]

29. I [saw] an airplane descend into the side of the Pentagon.[146]

30. [He saw the plane] strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nations military.[147]

31. He watched as the plane plowed into the Pentagon.[148]

32. [We] watched it crash.[149]

33. I turned my head to the right and saw it crash into the Pentagon about 200 yards away.[150]

34. There was a big noise when it hit the building, said Oscar Martinez, who witnessed the attack.[151]

35. My first thought was just No, no, no, no, because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash.[152]

36. I saw it crash into the building…My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing.[153]

37. I saw…this big silver planerun into the side of the Pentagon.[154]

38. The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking whoomp as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon.[155]

39. I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass.[156]

40. [He] saw a plane crash into the building.[157]

41. I saw it crash.[158]

42. it was an American airlines plane that came in and hit the Pentagon.[159]

43. I knew it was about to crash.[160]

44. The impact created a huge yellow and orange fireball, he added.[161]

45. I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first… It did not hit the roof first… and yes, it did impact the Pentagon… There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing[162]

46. The Pentagon is about a mile and half distant in the center of the tableau. I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck.[163]

47. I saw the airplane a split second before it struck.[164]

48. I looked back at the road, and when I turned to look again, I felt and heard a terrible explosion. I looked back and saw flames shooting up and smoke starting to climb into the sky.[165]

49. [He saw the plane] seconds before it exploded into the building.[166]

50. [the plane was] aimed like a dart straight into it.[167]

51. The plane hit the Pentagon.[168]

52. I saw it hit the building.[169]

53. The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. My first thought was hes not going to make it across the river to National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction.[170]

54. [he saw it] fly 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon.[171]

55. [it] plowed into the south side of the Pentagon.[172]

56. And then he just slammed into the Pentagon.[173]

57. I saw an American airlines jet come overhead and slam into the Pentagon.[174]

58. [the plane flew] fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon.[175]

59. It added power on its way in…The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.[176]

60. A few minutes later, Vaughn witnessed the crafts impact.[177]

61. Wallace hadnt gotten far when the plane hit. I hadnt even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him… Wallace switched on the trucks radio. We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side.[178]

62. They watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon.[179]

63. It hit the Pentagon.[180]

64. [I saw the plane] crash right into the Pentagon.[181]

65. The only intelligent thought that came into my head was, Oh my God, they hit the pentagon.[182]

66. They turned and ran, and at the point of impact were partially shielded by their fire truck from the flying debris of shrapnel and flames.[183]

67. It slammed right into the building.[184]

68. [I saw the plane] keep coming and then slam into the front of the building.[185]

69. Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.[186]

70. [The plane] came from behind us and banked to the right and went into the Pentagon.[187]

71. The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building.[188]

72. Engine 101… saw the airliner plow into the northwest side of the Pentagon. The radio crackled, Engine 101—emergency traffic, a plane has gone down into the Pentagon.’[189]

73. I just watched it hit the building. It exploded… I could actually hear the metal going through the building.[190]

74. I saw it fly right into the Pentagon…It just was amazingly preciseIt completely disappeared into the Pentagon.[191]

75. The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. [Note: this eyewitness claims he watched everything in slow motion due to adrenaline].At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again—only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon……I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building[192]

76. The next thing we saw, the airplane crashed into the Pentagon[It] sucked in the airplane.[193]

77. My people who did see it enter the building described it as entering the building and then there being flames coming out immediately afterwards.[194]

78. [It went] inside the side of the Pentagon.Obviously, it was going in the Pentagon purposefully.I told my husband hes going into the Pentagon.’We heard the direct hit—huge crash, saw this fireball, flame and smoke.Reporter: so you actually saw the plane impact the side of the building?[Isabel:] Yes I did.[195]

79. I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time. As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge… The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage.[196]

80. I saw it hit the pentagon. It happened so fast… it was in the air one moment and in the building the next[197]

81. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere… It was very sort of surreal.[198]

82. The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky.[199]

83. The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. The plane completely entered the building… The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cakeThe aircraft went in between the second and third floors.[200]

84. I think I actually heard it accelerate—and then it disappeared and a cloud of smoke started billowing.[201]

85. It hit the pentagon. It happened so fast… it was in the air one moment and in the building the next… I still have a hard time believing it, but every time I look out the window, it seems to be more real than it did the time before.[202]

86. A groundskeeper who watched in horror as the plane crashed into the Pentagon… The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.[203]

87. We watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building.[204]

88. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon… the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building.[205]

89. The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagons wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball. The people who built that wall should be proud. Its ability to withstand the initial impact of the jet probably saved thousands of lives.[206]

90. He also recalled seeing the tail of the plane as it entered the building, followed by a fireball that erupted upon the planes impact.[207]

91. The nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact. An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me. The plane, the wall and the victims disappeared under coal-black smoke, three-storey tall flames and intense heat.[208]

92. [It] headed for the Pentagon at a frightening rate… just slicing into that buildingThen this thing just became part of the Pentagon he saw the Pentagon envelope the plane.[209]

93. It was pretty horrible… he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust the memory starts to come back when he hears a particularly low-flying airliner heading into nearby Reagan National Airport.[210]

94. [It] crashed into the west side of the building…It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone. Recalling those moments again, Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside.[211]

95. It was headed straight for the building. It made no sense… A huge jet. Then it was gone. A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts? That's the conversation I had with myself on the way to work… There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building.[212]

96. [it veered] sharply and then slice into the Pentagon… [he] watched the plane slide silently into the Pentagon like a car entering a garage [note: witness was far from Pentagon causing a delay before the explosion could be heard].[213]

97. I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building…I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up up—red, everything red.[214]

98. It was an American airlines jet. And I watched it go into the building. I saw the big AA on the side…[215]

99. [The plane went] into the Pentagon.[216]

100. It ploughed right into the Pentagon.[217]

All of these claims indirectly contradict the North of the CITGO gas station claim because as the filmmakers admit, the physical damage to the Pentagon could not have been caused if the plane had hit after following a north of CITGO gas station flight path.

On their website, the filmmakers claim “We sure haven't been able to find ANYONE who is willing to directly contradict the north side claim AND we have not found a single previously published account that directly contradicts it either.”I have shown directly above that this statement is overwhelmingly false.Even their own witnesses contradict the PentaCon when they claim that the plane hit the Pentagon for the reason indicated in the previous paragraph

Again, two possibilities:

1. 4 Witnesses.3 claim the plane hit the Pentagon.4 Claim it flew north of the CITGO gas station.PentaCon Hypothesis: this proves that the plane flew over the Pentagon

2. 100’s of Witnesses.Over 100 claim the plane hit the Pentagon.At least 20 saw it hit light poles.Others saw it hit the generator.Others were in traffic jams and even on the ground right beside the impact site.[218] Corroborating physical evidence of light pole damage and generator damage.A flight path is strongly suggested by the physical damage done to the light poles, generator and physical damage within the Pentagon. Arabesque’s Hypothesis: A large commercial airliner with American Airlines markings hit the Pentagon (note: this does not necessarily prove it was flight 77, or even a 757. The government has never convincingly proven that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon)..

The PentaCon ignores their own testimony that the plane flew into the Pentagon.They ignore the rest of the testimony.They ignore the corroborating physical damage supported by the eyewitness testimony.They ignore the physical damage which strongly confirms the flight path suggested by other witnesses directly into the Pentagon.From these facts it is clear that their interpretation of the eyewitness testimony is anything but a “smoking gun.”I will further analyze the PentaCon testimony to show why there is even more doubt about the flight path suggested by their eyewitness statements.

2. “The Right/Left Nature of their claim.”

The film argues that because all of these four witnesses claim that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station, it must be true.

Unfortunately, this claim is misleading and it sets up a straw-man argument as the central premise of the film.If you take a non-representative sample of any witnesses that agree with your theory, then it will give the impression that your theory is true.As I have shown, an examination of the full body of eyewitness statements reveals that these claims are simply not supported by any significant testimony.[219]As well, most of this testimony came from five years after 9/11.All eyewitness testimony is less reliable the further away from the event.It will be shown in this analysis how some of the testimony in the film is factually inaccurate putting into question the entire validity of the eyewitness testimony.Furthermore, it is not simply a question of “right/left” but also of “up/down.”The filmmakers completely ignore this point and simply claim, if it was flying left, it MUST have been flying high—ignoring 3 out of 4 of their own witnesses who claimed it was flying low and hit the Pentagon!They have no supporting testimony or credible evidence to support a flyover.If the plane was flying very low, then it could not have missed the Pentagon. This is overwhelming evidence that the PentaCon hypothesis is weakly supported.

3. “The Perfect Vantage Point.”

The film claims that their four witnesses “were in the best position possible” to observe the flight path.Were they?While they were in fairly good position, it was not the best.There were stand-still traffic jams right next to the Pentagon on 9/11 as well as other nearby highways.[220]Lagasse confirms the fact that drivers on I-395 would have had a “great view.”This is clearly evident in the top photo.These witnesses in stand-still traffic would have been in full view of the Pentagon and would have been able to see if any large commercial aircraft had approached, flew over, or crashed into it.Obviously, the perfect location to witness what happened at the Pentagon would have been closest to the Pentagon.[221]There is a highway right next to the Pentagon with a great view of the building with typical, early morning “stand-still” traffic on 9/11.[222]There were literally hundreds of witnesses right beside the Pentagon.If anything happened at the Pentagon, these people would have been in the ideal location to see what happened.

4. “High level of the credibility of the Witnesses themselves.”

“Two are Pentagon Police Officers”

The filmmakers are apparently oblivious to the fact that one of the favorite tactics of those who discredit the worth of the Pentagon eyewitness testimony is to cast doubt anyone who works for the Pentagon!As Jim Hoffman says “one of the most frequent arguments used to dismiss the body of eyewitness evidence in order to deny that a jetliner attacked the Pentagon is that the majority of witnesses have connections to the military or the press, and therefore their accounts are suspect.[223] However, according to Hoffman, “regardless of the number of witnesses with connections to the military or press, there are a substantial number of witnesses with no apparent connections, and the accounts of both groups are substantially in agreement.”[224] My analysis shows this statement to be true. Therefore, debates about the credibility of individual witnesses are speculative distractions.A scientific analysis of the testimony would look at all of the testimony; it wouldn’t nitpick testimony from a handful of witnesses and then claim that they are more important/relevant/irrelevant than the full combined weight of the testimony.

In my analysis of eyewitness testimony, credibility is defined by repetition:

· Testimony that does not occur or occurs very rarely is not credible (i.e. the north of CITGO gas station claim).

· Testimony that is soon after the event is more credible than testimony later after the event.

· The more times testimony is corroborated means the testimony is more credible (i.e. the PentaCon testimony about the flight path is not supported by other statements, but other observations about the plane and the Pentagon crash are supported by the overall testimony).

5. “The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.”

Again, this is misleading.If their testimony is 3-5 years after 9/11, it is less reliable as details are easily forgotten and misremembered.This is demonstrable with any testimony of any event, including the 9/11 PentaCon eyewitness testimony.

6. “The extreme magnitude of the event being virtually impossible to forget.”

Again, while somewhat true, it is not always true.The filmmakers implicitly argue that it is easier to forget the sight of a plane hitting the Pentagon than it is to remember the flight path.It is a simple fact that the farther away from an event, specific details are forgotten.Although GENERAL details are more easily remembered (i.e. there was a plane, I saw a plane hit a building), SPECIFIC details (i.e. the colours of the plane, the type of plane) are not.

It is possible to forget and they have forgotten.This is provable.A review of the PentaCon by Caustic Logic provides the following graphic.[225]It is very clear the PentaCon witnesses do not even agree with each other.They can’t all be correct; therefore at least one of the witnesses is wrong about the precise flight path—very wrong.The fact that the witnesses are drastically different should have been a red flag that some of their testimony is not credible.Instead, the filmmakers present it to be “smoking gun” proof! However, it should be remarked that the official story flight path could still be wrong and the plane still hit the Pentagon as there is strong evidence that the plane did fly over the Navy Annex (as suggested by Paik), but that the plane still hit the Pentagon. Furthermore, the flight paths by Turcios and Paik are not too far away from what is claimed by other witnesses. See the eyewitness flight path constructed by Eric Bart just below.

Edward Paik

Edward was a witness who was located near the Navy Annex.Edward Paik’s diagram above closely corresponds with other eyewitness testimony, as many claimed the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex.[226]

The PentaCon does not mention other research into the Eyewitness Testimony and flight path.There is a composite of combined eyewitness testimony as made by Pentagon researcher Eric Bart.[227] Eric Bart has complied one of the largest collections of the eyewitness testimony and also used physical evidence as the basis for his diagram on the left.[228]

Noteworthy is the fact that his diagram places the flight path south of the CITGO gas station and that the path is not directly straight as it turns slightly North after reaching the point closest to the I-395.

The filmmakers claim that there is no evidence of eyewitness testimony confirming a flight path south of the CITGO gas station.Clearly, they are unaware of the work of Eric Bart, his eyewitness testimony compilation, and the contradictory evidence I quoted above.Although Bart has not quoted his sources for this flight path, I have done my own research and can confirm his flight path based on the eyewitness testimony.[229]

Paik claims that the plane was very low flying; at rooftop level of a nearby building—at the height of a nearby lamp pole.[230] His claim that the plane wing was black could be explained simply by a lack of visible light on the wing.Furthermore, he later comments that the plane was grey.Witnesses overwhelmingly described the colors of the plane as “sliver, red and blue”—not black.[231] He also confirms the fact that the plane was loud; also supported by the testimony,[232] shook the ground, and was “dark grey.”In response to being shown a photograph of a C-130, he claims that it was not what he saw. It should be pointed out that C-130’s are quiet—the testimony overwhelmingly indicates that the plane was very loud, which rules out a C-130.[233]

Robert Turcios

Robert Turcios worked at the CITGO gas station near the Pentagon. Again, this witness confirms other eyewitness statements when he says that he “heard a loud engine sound,” and that it was louder than the normal “flybys.”[234] Also supported by the overall testimony is his assertion that the plane was “very low to the ground,”[235] and that it was “silver-grey,” or “silver coloured.”[236] He saw it for only “two seconds.”[237] However, he claims that the plane flew by the North side of the CITGO gas station (marked with red square above).If this was true, it would have missed the light poles (marked with light green).Noteworthy is the fact that this witness claims the plane “looked like it was going to crash into the street… and it pulled up a little bit,” by a bridge near the Pentagon and “headed straight to it.”Then he heard a big explosion and saw a fireball and lots of smoke.[238] He did not see the plane hit the Pentagon and could only see the fireball “as [his view] was obstructed.”He did not see it fly over the Pentagon and claims “it went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided.” He also claims he saw “the big turbine engine” on the wing closest to him, thus implying it was a twin-engine plane.

Sgt. Chad Brooks

Sgt. Brooks claims that the plane was low over the North Side of the CITGO gas station: “if you had a penny you could almost throw it up” and hit the plane.It was “descending,” in a “straight line towards the Pentagon.”The plane went “directly in front of the building.”He confirms he saw the plane “impact” the Pentagon.“It was a big plane,” “white,” “very large,” “carried a lot of passengers,” and he “assumes it was a 737.”In the overall testimony, there are many who observed a “737”, but more believed it to be a “757.”[239] Some also described it as “white,” but silver is close to this and is more commonly seen in the testimony.[240]He “thinks it was United,” because he saw “just a regular logo” in “blue letters.” His claim that it was “United” is an obvious anomaly.There is not a single statement by another witness that I have found that has claimed it was “United.”[241] The vast majority of eyewitnesses claimed it was “American Airlines.”[242]

William Lagasse

The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is…well it was in the building…I saw it everywhere… Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos…? There usually isn’t huge amounts of debris left[243] how much did you see from the WTC?[244] William Lagasse, in a separate interview

Sgt. William Lagasse saw the plane before he heard it.He describes it as “American Airlines,” “bright silver,” “blue and red stripes… on the fuselage,” “shiny,” and “saw both engines.” He remarks that American Airlines “is one of the only non-painted airliners, so it’s pretty distinctive.” He claims to have “enough experience in aviation and aircraft that I could identify stuff pretty easily.”Many of Legasse’s observations have been recorded previously.[245] Like his partner, Lagasse claims that the plane “flew into the building,” and “when the plane hit, it kind of disappeared.” However, he claims that the plane flew north of the Navy Annex (contradicting the testimony of Paik and many others—but later says “in that direction”),[246] and north of the CITGO gas station: “100% sure—I’d bet my life on it.”He claims that people on highway 27 would have difficulty seeing the plane heading South because of the trees[247] and that “people on [interstate-395] had a great view.[248] He remarks that “American Airlines is the only polished aluminum airline… blue and red strip and the big “AA” on the back [i.e. tail].” This statement is true, and many witnesses remarked that it was silver and described it as American Airlines.[249]

The interviewer then explains that “the official story says that the plane came on the south side and hit the light poles here [pointing].” Legasse responds:

No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over herenone of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.

Absolutely false! Lagasse is wrong.

Lagasse continues, “I don’t have eyes in the back of my head.”

This assumes he was facing in the direction he remembered.This is a possibility as Lagasse misremembers where he was standing at the gas station.He claims with confidence:

This is where the taxi cab was.Right here.Not over there. Nothing happened over here!

Wrong again.So much for “100%—I’d bet my life on it” certainty (which the filmmakers exploit with slow motion replay for manipulative effect). Lagasse is 100% wrong about the taxi cab and the light pole location.

This shows that Laggase’s entire testimony about the flight path is in doubt.If he cannot determine where the real lamp poles and the taxi cab were, we have strong reasons to doubt his testimony about the flight path.If he does not know where these objects were located how could he remember which direction the plane flew?Especially noteworthy is the fact that he claims that the flight path was approximately where he thought the light poles and taxi cab were—is it reasonable to think that the plane flew where the real lamp poles were—not where he thought they were?This example vividly illustrates why testimony years after the event is less reliable.Although some details are clearly remembered, others are not.Even the interviewer admits, “everyone knows people’s memories—it’s hard to recollect things sometimes.[250]

It is even possible to be “100%” sure of one’s memory and still be wrong, as this clearly demonstrates; Lagasse appeared to be just as confident of the location of the light pole damage and taxi cab as he was that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station.He even doubts the “official story” of the light pole damage and taxi cab location when this is explained to him!

What official story?The only official story would have been the Arlington County Police Report done after the event.There’s no official story other than that… I’ve never seen anything that said it was on the south side of that gas station.Ever [looks upwards in bewilderment].These were the light poles.This is where the taxi cab was [pointing to the same incorrect location].Nothing [emphasizing] happened over here.I can’t be any clearer about it.

100% false!We know that Lagasse is definitely wrong about the location of the light pole damage and taxi cab.We know that he thought the plane flew in the location where he believed these objects were.The PentaCon ignores the possibility that he saw the plane where the light poles and taxi cab were actually located.

Unfortunately, they did not interview Brooks about this same question, so we do not know how he would respond to this information.Stunningly, the filmmakers do not acknowledge that Lagasse is wrong leaving the viewer in a state of bewilderment: ‘What is Lagasse talking about?Is he right the location about the taxi cab and light poles?’The filmmakers amazingly ignore this question as if it were an insignificant detail.At the very least it shows that Lagasse’s testimony about the flight path is in doubt.

Instead, the film simply moves on and concludes that there is “smoking gun” proof that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station and flew over the Pentagon completely ignoring their testimony (and all other testimony) that claimed the plane hit the Pentagon.Robert Turcios did not see it hit, but claimed “it went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided.” Cherry picking their own testimony (i.e. special pleading), the filmmakers do not provide us with a single statement that the plane flew over the Pentagon.I challenge the filmmakers to find one single statement to support this conclusion from less than 5 years after the attack. The Pentagon is surrounded by several major highways and was filled with stand-still traffic jams on 9/11.[251] If a flyover actually happened on 9/11, it should be easy to find several witnesses who actually saw this.In contrast, how many witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon?


The PentaCon Hypothesis examined:

· Four witnesses (3-5 years after the fact) claim that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station.

· The damage to the Pentagon could only have been caused if it had approached from south—not north.

· Four witnesses claim it flew north of the CITGO gas station

· Three of these same witnesses claim it hit the Pentagon

· The PentaCon testimony is self contradictory:

1. The plane could not have accounted for the damage at the Pentagon and fly North of the CITGO gas station at the same time.

2. The witnesses do not agree with each other about the flight path. Some of the testimony is wildly different thus showing at least some of the testimony is not credible.

· The PentaCon commits a special pleading argument when:

1. They ignore their own testimony of the plane hitting the Pentagon

2. They ignore all contradictory evidence that disproves their theory

· Physical evidence implicating a flight path is ignored by thePentaCon (light pole damage, generator damage, structural damage inside the Pentagon) andclaimed to be faked without corroborating evidence besides these weakly supported witnesses claims.[252]

· The PentaCon conclusion: “Therefore the plane did not hit the Pentagonit flew over is not supported by any corroborating evidence.Even the PentaCon witnesses contradict this claim.

The PentaCon Hypothesis is a special pleading straw-man argument:

· 4 witnesses observe X and Y.

· X and Y could not have both happened.

· The 4 witnesses do not agree with each other on the specific details of X.

· X is not supported by any other eyewitness testimony; in fact it is directly contradicted by substantial testimony.

· X is contradicted by physical evidence that strongly supports Y and is corroborated by eyewitness testimony

· Z is contradicted by Y and all of the evidence supporting Y.

Therefore, the PentaCon concludes: X and Z happened, Y did not.

· X = North of CITGO flight path

· Y = Hit the Pentagon

· Z = Flew over the Pentagon

I have shown that this is not a logical conclusion.

However, the eyewitness testimony is largely supported by other testimony aside from the flight path.Although Legasse’s testimony in general is corroborated by other testimony, his flight path testimony, the position of the light poles, and his claims about the taxi cab are not corroborated strongly throwing doubt on his testimony about the flight path.Furthermore, as indicated all of the flight paths disagree—some drastically, further throwing doubt on the PentaCon testimony.They can’t all be right.

In conclusion, I have showed that although the testimony in the film the PentaCon is largely supported by the overall eyewitness testimony, the conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon and that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station is not supported by any other credible testimony or evidence. Physical evidence corroborated by eyewitness testimony overwhelmingly contradicts the flight path suggested by the PentaCon testimony because the pattern of light pole damage, generator damage, and structural damage inside of the Pentagon strongly indicates an object moving in a straight line was responsible for this physical damage.Furthermore, this evidence is supported by overwhelming eyewitness testimony that a plane hit the Pentagon that indirectly contradicts the north of the CITGO gas station claim.

[1] Arabesque, 9/11 Blogger and researcher.

[4] See these eyewitness testimony collections and analyses:

Jim Hoffman, Pentagon Eyewitnesses: Analysis of the Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Accounts,

911 - Dump of quotes about the impact of flight 77 in the Pentagon,

Some Eyewitness Accounts: Flight 77 Crash at the Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001

Penny Schoner, Analysis of Eyewitness Statements on 9/11: American Airlines Flight 77 Crash into the Pentagon,,

Eric Bart, Eyewitness Accounts,

‘SomeGuyYouDontKnow33’, Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts,

Ron Harvey, They Saw the Aircraft,

Joël van der Reijden, Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself,

Killtown, Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon?

Arlington Fire Journal: Arlington County Fire Dept, ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - SEPT. 11, 2001,

See also, my analysis of the eyewitness testimony.I have assembled the largest collection of the Pentagon Eyewitness testimony anywhere here:

Arabesque, The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony,

Arabesque, 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described,

[5] Arabesque, 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples, the “Fifth Type” of disinformation as defined by Jim Fetzer.

[6] The Nizkor Project, Special Pleading,

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.

2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.

3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

[7] Arabesque, The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony.Walter, Mike.All witnesses listed by name below in the footnotes are taken from this source.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Arabesque, 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described

See here for more descriptions of the flight path.Some of the testimony is ambiguous.

[11] “Barbara”

[12] Bauer, Gary

[13] Elgas, Penny

[14] Milburn, Kirk

[15] Wright, Don

[16] Unidentified Pentagon Worker

[17] Pentagon Research, Lamp Poles,

[20] Bright, Mark

[21] Elliott, Bruce

[22] Elgas, Penny

[23] Evey, Walker Lee

[24] Fortunato, Don

[25] Gaines, Kat

[26] Hagos, Afework

[27] Hovis, Tom

[28] Mason, Don

[29] McGraw, Stephen

[30] Milburn, Kirk

[31] Morin, Terry

[32] Owens, Mary Ann

[33] Ramey, Wanda

[34] Riskus, Steve

[35] Sepulveda, Noel

[36] Walter, Mike

[37] Washington, Rodney

[38] Unnamed Navy admiral

[39] Pentagon Research, Lamp Poles,

[40] Evey, Walker Lee

[41] Elliott, Bruce

[42] Henson, Jerry

[43] Mason, Don

[44] Probst, Frank

[45] Anderson, Steve

[46] Hemphill Albert

[47] James, Michael

[48] Marra, David

[49] Owens, Mary Ann

[50] Singleton, Jack

[51] Anderson. Steve

[52] Anderson, Steve

[53] "Barbara"

[54] Bright, Mark

[55] Cissell, James R.

[56] Clem, Dennis

[57] Cleveland, Allen

[58] Creed, Dan

[59] "Div Devlin"

[60] Dubill, Bob

[61] Eberle, Bobby

[62] Eiden, Steve

[63] Elgas, Penny

[64] Evey, Walker Lee

[65] Evey, Walker Lee

[66] Gaines, Kat

[67] Fred, Gaskins

[68] Gus

[69] Hagos, Afework

[70] Harrington, Joe

[71] K.M.

[72] Krug, Ann

[73] Lagasse, William

[74] Liebner, Lincoln

[75] Marra, David

[76] McAdams, Cynthia and Daniel

[77] Middleton, William Sr.

[78] Mitchell, Mitch

[79] Morin, Terry

[80] Narayanan, Vin

[81] Owens, Mary Ann

[82] Patterson, Steve

[83] Plaisted, Linda

[84] Probst, Frank

[85] Regnery, Alfred S.

[86] Rodriguez, Meseidy

[87] Royster, Joseph

[88] Ryan, James

[89] Storti, Steve

[90] Sucherman, Joel

[91] Taylor, Shari

[92] Thompson, Phillip

[93] Tinyk, Michael

[94] Wallace, Alan

[95] Walter, Mike

[96] Washington, Rodney

[97] Whisper2i

[98] Wright, Don

[99] Wyatt, Ian

[100] Zakhem, Madelyn

[101] Unidentified man #4

[102] Unidentified Pentagon Worker

[103] "Barbara"

[104] Cook, Scott P.

[105] Eberle, Bobby

[106] Evey, Walker Lee

[107] Hemphill Albert

[108] Mary Lyman

[109] Kenneth McClellan

[110] Mitchell, Mitch

[111] Owens Mary Ann

[112] Renzi Rick

[113] Robbins James

[114] Sepulveda Noel

[115] Steve

[116] Washington, Rodney

[117] As I have shown above, the PentaCon has ignored significant—indeed, overwhelming contradictory evidence.

[118] Anderson, Steve

[119] Anlauf, Deb & Jeff

[120] Battle

[121] Bauer, Gary

[122] Battle

[123] Bouchoux, Donald R.

[124] Bradley, Pam

[125] Bright, Mark

[126] Candelario, Joseph

[127] Carroll, Susan

[128] Cissell, James R.

[129] Cleveland, Allen

[130] Day, Wayne T.

[131] DiPaula, Michael

[132] Dobbs, Mike

[133] Dubill, Bob

[134] Eberle, Bobby

[135] Elliott, Bruce

[136] Evey, Walker Lee

[137] Flyler, Kim

[138] Ford, Ken

[139] Hagos, Afework

[140] Harrington, Joe

[141] Hemphill, Albert

[142] Hemphill, Albert

[143] Hey, Fred

[144] Kaiser, Andrea

[145] Keglovich, James

[146] Kelly, Leslie

[147] Kizildrgli, Aydan

[148] Lagasse, William

[149] M.J.

[150] M., Rick

[151] Martinez, Oscar

[152] McCusker, Elaine

[153] McGraw, Stephen

[154] Mosley, James

[155] Munsey, Christopher

[156] O’Keefe, John

[157] Pak, Zinovy

[158] Perry, Scott

[159] Petitt, Mark

[160] Regnery, Alfred S.

[161] Renzi, Rick

[162] Riskus, Steve

[163] Robbins, James S

[164] Ryan, Darb

[165] Scott, Don

[166] Smith, Dennis

[167] Steve

[168] Snaman, Steve

[169] Stanley, G. T.

[170] Sucherman, Joel

[171] Sutherland, Jim

[172] Stephens, Levi

[173] Taylor, Shari

[174] Thompson, Phillip

[175] Ticknor, Henry

[176] Timmerman, Tim

[177] Vaughn, Clyde A.

[178] Wallace, Alan

[179] Wheelhouse, Keith

[180] Whisper2i

[181] Wright, Don

[182] Wyatt, Ian

[183] Yeingst, William

[184] Unidentified man #1

[185] Unnamed Navy admiral

[186] O’Brien, Steve

[187] Bauer, Gary

[188] Bell, Mickey

[189] Blunt, Ed

[190] Boger, Sean

[191] Donley, Daryl

[192] Elgas, Penny

[193] ElHallan, Aziz

[194] Evey, Walker Lee

[195] James, Isabel

[196] Hovis, Tom

[197] K.M.

[198] Kean, Terrance

[199] Leonard, Robert A.

[200] Liebner, Lincoln

[201] Lyman, Mary

[202] M. K.

[203] Middleton, William Sr.

[204] Mitchell, Mitch

[205] Morin, Terry

[206] Narayanan, Vin

[207] Mason, Don

[208] Owens, Mary Ann

[209] Patterson, Steve

[210] Probst, Frank

[211] Ramey, Wanda

[212] Skarlet, Skarlet

[213] Storti, Steve

[214] Thompson, Carla

[215] Walter, Mike

[216] Washington, Rodney

[217] Winslow, Dave

[219] Ibid.

[220] Ibid.

[224] Ibid.

[228] Eric Bart Testimony.I have since compiled the largest available collection of the Pentagon eyewitness testimony.

Arabesque, The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony

[229] Arabesque, 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described.See testimony quoted earlier in article.

[230] Arabesque, 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described, is claim is overwhelmingly supported by the eyewitness testimony.

[231] Ibid.

[232] Ibid.

[233] Ibid.

[234] Ibid.

[235] Ibid.

[236] Ibid.

[237] Ibid.Witnesses observed the plane for at most 10 seconds.

[238] Arabesque, The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony, http://arabesque911.blogspot.comObservations of an “explosion” as the plane hit the pentagon, an “orange fireball,” and smoke afterwards are commonly seen in the testimony.

[240] Ibid.

[241] Ibid.United airline planes are characteristic by their dark blue tail; there are no observations of this in the testimony.

[242] Flight 93 was United Airlines.Brook could have confused this detail here.

[248] Google Maps, The Pentagon and I-395, also previous note.

[252] Watch another simulation of the Pentagon attack here: