News Paper Article Three Aircraft Crash Into Pentagon, Herald Sun 9/11 News Article Options

[Paul]

Hi there i have this 9/11 news article scanned and saved to computer from the Australian Herald Sun
September 11th edition, is shows the time line of events on 9/11 and when it show WASHINGTON the
attack on the pentagon up to three aircraft have crashed into the pentagon on possibly a helicopter.

Since when did three aircraft crash into the pentagon? Surely the people doing the editing for the paper must have been confused or mistaken about number of aircraft hitting the pentagon. We know one of them was a military E-4B but unless the aircraft had flown directly near or over the pentagon how could anyone mistake up to three aircraft impacting the pentagon?

(IMG:http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6550/911heraldsun03.gif)
By thecritta at 2009-06-10

And the most strange of all a uncomfirmed report of a helicopter possibly impacting the pentagon?

Could it fit in with this report somehow.

A military helicopter seen circling the pentagon around the alledged time of the impact then disapearing and landing at the penatgon?

Now i am starting to think that they used a pentagon military helicopter to shoot the pentagon that created that huge fireball

Chris Plant, helicopter, Pentagon, CNN, 9/11, 09:48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a-8TUdrN04

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

This post has been edited by Paul: Jun 10 2009, 12:40 PM

[Paul]

Early report of a witness near the the pentagon at the time of the attack of a said he saw a military helicopter circle the building dissapear and then saw the fireball wtf?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...sses/other.html

"Lincoln Leibner --
He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky. [...] It's a very tense situation obviously, but initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was in fact a helicopter circling the building, contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnesses I've spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building, and that there was then an explosion."

Another witness

"Skarlet --
As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters. That's not strange. It's the Pentagon. Then I saw the plane. There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building. It made no sense. The pilot didn't seem to be planning to pull up anytime soon. It was there. A huge jet. *"

Maybe the CIT guys should try find these witnesses interview them on camera and get their testimony.

It seems possible to me that maybe the fireball at the pentagon was caused by a military helicopter not a plane
a bomb or a missile we should consider looking into this possibility more?

[dMz]

Early report of a witness near the the pentagon at the time of the attack of a said he saw a military helicopter circle the building dissapear and then saw the fireball wtf?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...sses/other.html

"Lincoln Leibner --
He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky. [...] It's a very tense situation obviously, but initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was in fact a helicopter circling the building, contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnesses I've spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building, and that there was then an explosion."

Also from that same source:

Lincoln Leibner --
the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck.

Paul Begala --
He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded.

* CORRECTION: Before Site Version 1.055, this page contained a shorter and garbled excerpt from Skarlet's account in the Helicopter section. Because the excerpt was taken out of context, it incorrectly implied that Skarlet reported seeing a helicopter rather than a jetliner hit the Pentagon. In fact Skarlet's full account is quite emphatic that a "huge jet" flew into the Pentagon, and is consistent with all the other eyewitness accounts.

Since there is absolutely no evidence of a helicopter being struck (or exploding), I would consider these witness accounts as questionable and inconclusive (like very many of the other Pentagon witnesses and WTC/Fox News' very suspicious "Harley Guy.").

CIT has done a lot of work attempting to verify/reconcile the witness accounts for at least 2 years now- see CIT's website and this thread:

Witness List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10632

Who else besides CIT has gone to the Arlington area and interviewed witnesses firsthand on-location, rather than citing media accounts and hearsay? Who else has photo diagrams signed by the eyewitnesses?

[KP50]

Who else besides CIT has gone to the Arlington area and interviewed witnesses firsthand on-location, rather than citing media accounts and hearsay? Who else has photo diagrams signed by the eyewitnesses?

There was always a lot of bizarre Pentagon witness reports immediately after 9/11. I picked this up from the CIT forum - Penny Elgas was often quoted as having a piece of the plane fall through the sunroof into her car. Here

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/1757591/1/

she states that she picked it up from the road, which may or may not be true but at least is feasible.

It is almost as if the media was given the task of embellishing accounts, rearranging facts, to make the eye-witness accounts paint a picture of total confusion as to what happened. Thus making it difficult for anyone to work out that the plane actually flew a different path altogether. It took the CIT boys actually conducting interviews and being methodical about the eye-witnesses, until a pattern starts to emerge - and we can see the deception having argued amongst ourselves for years each having our own pet theories. Hence people still cling to the smaller plane, the missile, whatever. The problem is that nobody wants to be shown up as wrong so they stick to their theory, long after it has lost credibility. That's a generous view - a less generous view is that some people with some theories were put in place to muddy the waters from the start.