Theory: A plane flew over the Pentagon. Question: Why?

When I read about any ‘theory’ associated with 9/11, I have to accept, for the most part, that I’m not a subject matter expert. So how do I evaluate either a new ‘theory’ or any new evidence that relates to an existing one?

Well, as long as what’s presented cannot be ruled out, I ask “Why?”

I want to ask that question in relation to the evidence developed by CIT that a large commercial aircraft executed a flyover manoeuvre at the Pentagon.

Why?

It’s fair to say that, by and large, both sides of the ‘Pentagon debate’ accept that Flight 77 - or else another large commercial aircraft - flew in the direction of the Pentagon building at around the time of the impact.

What was to be gained by simulating an impact as the real plane flew over?

I know that one response (rather than answer), to this question might be, ”if that’s what the evidence shows, then it doesn’t matter why.”

But, it does to me. In a situation such as this, where nothing appears to be conclusive, the “Why?” could well hold the casting vote.

I don’t want this to become another “did it or didn’t it?” thread; we already have enough of those. I just want peoples’ views on this one particular aspect.

#1 Draw attention away from WTC towers, specifically #7, so the media could have something else to focus on.

#2 Continual fear effect.

#3 Test new weaponry on a purposely recently renovated structure (perfectly round punch out hole my axe)

[edit on 21-10-2007 by drannno]

The PentaCon psyop is quite possible for our military masterminds. They could have faked the light poles, had explosives built in during the renovation (which BTW would explain the entry wound but not the majority of internal damage, which was in the NON-RENOVATED section) had all the plane parts stored inside the scatter about, the planted shady witnesses choreographed outside, etc. IF they had wanted to do this, they could and would.

As far as why... I'm wracking my brain a bit and having a hard time coming up with my own good reason. Aldo and Craig would say it was a day of decetion, so anything deceptive - especially illogical, counter-intuitive, deceptive - is just what they'd do, obviously. "It's deceptive, ain't it? It involves planted explosives like at the WTC... oh, and it's proven by our non-plated witnesses."

Was 9/11 really on a Tuesday, or did they deceive us on that point as well?

Originally posted by drannno
#1 Draw attention away from WTC towers, specifically #7, so the media could have something else to focus on.

#2 Continual fear effect.

#3 Test new weaponry on a purposely recently renovated structure (perfectly round punch out hole my axe)

[edit on 21-10-2007 by drannno]

Hello Dranno. For someone new to the subject, your terse sentences display a cartain uncanny awareness of just what to say to help CIT's case, if underplayed a bit.

#1) how many cameras were pulled off WTC to watch the Pentagon? If anything worth seeing was filmed in NY, don't you think they'd cut to it or play the tape later? And also, wouldn't a plane impact at the Pgon draw as much attention as a flyover? Does this even answer the question? The OP wondered why a flyover rather than an impact.

#2) Same - since we were led to believe it was an impact, a real one would be just as scary as a simulated one (at least during the active psyop faze of that scary ass morning)

#3) new weaponry? Planted bombs are new? Remote control might be new, but it wasn't used as a weapon, just a diversion, in this case. New explosives then? Maybe. And are you aware the punch-out and most internal damage was in the non-renovated section?

Any other attempts?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Aldo and Craig would say it was a day of decetion, so anything deceptive - especially illogical, counter-intuitive, deceptive - is just what they'd do, obviously. "It's deceptive, ain't it? It involves planted explosives like at the WTC... oh, and it's proven by our non-plated witnesses."

Was 9/11 really on a Tuesday, or did they deceive us on that point as well?

Please do not EVER tell people what "Aldo and Craig" would say because as usual, you are once again wrong.

To incorrectly state our position and do it with dripping sarcasm is pretty lame.

This question is actually quite simple to answer. (although it's certainly not our responsibility and it has zero bearing on the evidence.)

Ok so the M.O. of the perps was to use real planes as psychological weapons while the actual destruction was covertly initiated with pre-planted explosives.

The main difference between the Pentagon and WTC is that the the Pentagon is their headquarters and clearly they did not plan to completely demolish it.

So it was imperative to have 100% control of the damage.

Surgical precision was of the utmost importance.

The desired area to be struck would be very difficult to reach due to the complex topography and all the obstacles.

Russell Pickering put it very well in this quote reference from David Ray Griffin's latest book:

Wedge 1, and only Wedge 1, presented an obstacle course for an attacking airplane. Because of its location by a highway with elevated signs and also because of the control tower for the Pentagon's heliport, the plane, as Pickering points out, "would have had to change altitude after narrowly missing the VDOT 125 foot radio antenna on Columbia/Pike, then dip down and level out in a relatively short distance in order to strike where [it] did without touching the lawn."
pg.284 debunking 9/11 debunking

It would probably even be too difficult for a military drone.

Surgical precision and complete control of the damage to their own headquarters with a better chance of success are all very good reasons not to have the plane hit the building.

But the reverse of your question is even more poignant.

If they had gone through all of the trouble of actually flying a 757 into the building as reported it would make zero sense to contradict the entire purpose of the operation by NOT taking advantage of the world wide psychological benefits that media footage would give them.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Wedge 1, and only Wedge 1, presented an obstacle course for an attacking airplane.

Given the reasons in support of this statement, why not simply attack another wedge?

If they had gone through all of the trouble of actually flying a 757 into the building as reported it would make zero sense to contradict the entire purpose of the operation by NOT taking advantage of the world wide psychological benefits that media footage would give them.

Unless they were sophisticated enough to realise there was capital to be gained by allowing suspicion to develop.

They might have calculated that the psychological effect of having the world see the planes impact the towers was enough. Further, by allowing a sense of mystery to shroud the Pentagon impact, they ensured a split within the CT community, which they must have known would spring up after the attacks.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
#1) how many cameras were pulled off WTC to watch the Pentagon? If anything worth seeing was filmed in NY, don't you think they'd cut to it or play the tape later? And also, wouldn't a plane impact at the Pgon draw as much attention as a flyover? Does this even answer the question? The OP wondered why a flyover rather than an impact.

No "cameras pulled off the WTC", that's not the point. The point is you're watching TV and wondering what is happening and the media is sitting there with nothing to do except tell you about the attacks because it's 9/11 and that's the news. If all they had was the WTCs to report on, I am absolutely certain that building #7 would have been reported on because the WTCs is all the media would have had to focus on (and of course Shanksville). It's very easy for an editor to make the decision to go over and cover the Pentagon or Shanksville once WTC 7 was becoming an issue. It's all a matter of illusion, did you watch the sleight of hand video Craig posted on the other thread?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
#2) Same - since we were led to believe it was an impact, a real one would be just as scary as a simulated one (at least during the active psyop faze of that scary ass morning)

Duh. This one is easy

It would have been a lot more difficult to remove the plane parts from the white plane that flew over the Pentagon and replace them with the parts from the 1995 757 American Airlines crash than simply scattering a couple pieces of plane about that they happened to keep as evidence (of course the rest of the evidence for that case was probably being kept in building #7 so nobody will ever look for it again)

Probably so that people though tit really was a plane! If they saw it with their "own 2 eyes" it's much easier to believe their story and spread their experience. When in reality it was a missile.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Wedge 1, and only Wedge 1, presented an obstacle course for an attacking airplane.

Given the reasons in support of this statement, why not simply attack another wedge?

You are going down a rabbit hole of speculation.

There is no question that this was the portion that was targeted.

People have speculated this may have been because this was the office of accounting and records in regards to the missing trillions were targeted.

Perhaps particular individuals were targeted as well.

There are 100's potential reasons "why" and there is no way any of could answer that question definitively.

They might have calculated that the psychological effect of having the world see the planes impact the towers was enough. Further, by allowing a sense of mystery to shroud the Pentagon impact, they ensured a split within the CT community, which they must have known would spring up after the attacks.

That's the standard speculative answer but it simply isn't sufficient to counter the evidence that no boeing hit that building.

There are many ways to initiate confusion and division etc.

They would not need to sacrifice the incredible value that this footage would have given them and there would be more evidence that the plane really hit.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

You are going down a rabbit hole of speculation.

And I'm doing so deliberately because, as I set out in the OP, the evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. That's why I'm looking at all the theories and asking "Why?"

That's the standard speculative answer but it simply isn't sufficient to counter the evidence that no boeing hit that building.

Again, I understand it doesn't contribute to the evidence. I'm not trying to question the evidence, at least not directly.

I'm asking myself a very simple question. If a plane was flown to the Pentagon, why not simply fly it into the building rather than introduce all the manifold and considerable risks associated with a flyover/pyrotechnic combo? This seems illogical to me.

I do understand that, if the evidence supports a flyover, one might reasonably argue that the "why?" is less important in the great scheme of things. But I nonetheless want to know.

reply to post by coughymachine


Sure.

And I speculated for you as per your request.

Did my answer satisfy your need for speculation in this regard?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I certainly welcome your input.

I can understand that, if it had to be Wedge 1 then, given the topography, maybe a false strike was the only way to ensure the goal was accomplished.

Did it have to be Wedge 1? Maybe. But that would require the destruction of those particular offices to be paramount in order to warrant taking the risk.

As for the business of the ‘missing’ footage, it could well be that this has been held back in case of ‘emergencies’. If the plot looks in danger of unravelling, or else they need some sort of political boost, there would be nothing better than a Pentagon impact tape to get things back on track.

Ok cool.

A feasible speculative "reason" for the evidence has been provided.

Cheers.

Originally posted by drannno
It would have been a lot more difficult to remove the plane parts from the white plane that flew over the Pentagon and replace them with the parts from the 1995 757 American Airlines crash than simply scattering a couple pieces of plane about that they happened to keep as evidence (of course the rest of the evidence for that case was probably being kept in building #7 so nobody will ever look for it again)

What? Remove parts from the flyover plane? But the parts were planted immediately, and you think you know from just which plane? There's one reason I know of to suspect 'the 1995 crash' evidence, and that's Jim Hanson's call that the debris had liana vines it it. Do you seriously support this? They stored the majority of an aircraft's debris in Building 7 in NY? And can't remove the vegetation before carting some of it down to the Pentagon?


[edit on 22-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

If they had a specific reason to want to achieve the damage that was in fact achieved, then an airplane crash scenario is the simplest way to do it and have the public accept that it COULD BE DONE in that manner.

Unfortunately, in real life as opposed to the public's notion of same, to achieve the desired damage with a real airplane crash in a precise manner, achieving all aims, is almost impossible.

Fine, we then crash an airplane AND blow stuff up with our own explosives. Sorry, too unpridictable still. You can't have an uncontrolled airplane explosion here, plus extra explosives going off. Too much room for unforseen effects from the airplane crash.

The only way to achieve precise destruction of your targets, with no possiblility of embarassing and revealing screw ups, is to pretend to crash a plane, but use precision placed charges in the building.

Why in the place targeted? Important stuff related to inquiry into missing trillions was there, plus the place was being worked on, so that placing explosives could be desguised as normal labor on site.

I think all the pieces of the puzzle fit tightly together.