- Another Hampton Roads native says she saw a second plane in the air over the Pentagon as a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress Tuesday.
Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.
"Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane," Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason."


''The plane came in at an incredibly steep angle with incredibly high speed,''... was driving by the Pentagon at the time of the crash about 9:40 a.m. The impact created a huge yellow and orange fireball, he added. Renzi, who was interviewed at the scene by FBI agents, said he stopped his car to watch and saw another plane following and turn off after the first craft's impact.

Noel Sepulveda, Master Sgt., Air Force He saw the plane fly above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear.
(bombing run?)

"Her brother, Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach, spotted the planes first. ...... He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.
(dropping its payload?)

Pam Young - Perhaps more remarkable is her insistence that a second plane was flying near and along the same path as the hijacked jet. - Daily Press/Newport News (09/14/01) [Reprinted at: cooperativeresearch.org]


Arlington worker - Another Arlington worker who declined to be interviewed in front of the media told a story that the military historians had not heard in the 244 interviews they had conducted through last week. The man said a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon. - South Coast Today/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (12/20/01)

Certainly appears to be a bombing run.

It would explain the physical damage and the FDR.

This is a video game, but the HUD and sim effects are pretty accurate.. Depending on the type of guided weapon, its very possible the attack on the pentagon was some type of bombing run with some type of MOAB.


Bombing run
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...mbing+run&hl=en

Bombing run?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0


MOAB (dropped from high altitude at slow speed with a drag chute)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=59...05&q=moab&hl=en


This is a MOAB that is obviously declassified. It is impossible to use this type due to the physical damage being alot larger. But this is just to give an idea of what these look like.


Picture also just to give an idea... not intended to show exact event or exact types of aircraft/ordinace used





All pure speculation of course..

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/moab.html

But that "second plane" is well-documented and not mysterious to anyone familiar with the Pentagon / 9/11 day. It was a C-130. I've read statements from its pilot. Why are you pretending that it's mysterious? It was also like a mile away.

All those statements you list support that.

The C-130 was trailing AA77 by more than 4 miles. The Commander of the aircraft even says AA77 was "hard to pick out in the haze". That is a total lie as we have the weather for that day showing 10 miles and clear. Not to mention we all know the visibility was crystal clear that day up and down the eastern seaboard.

Eyewitness testimony shows a "plane on top of another".

I'll let you in on a little secret, a C-130 cannot do 463 knots.

The C-130 showed up almost a minute after the explosion. The above witness testimony does not suggest that.

Certainly not the testiimony of "dropping its gear".

My question is this. Why would they remove the FDR from a perfectly good plane that conducted a bombing run or flyover, damage and burn it, falsify it by removing the rest of the flight but not correct the altitude data while falsifying it, then plant it at the Pentagon to be discovered and then released 5 years later in conflict with the official story? Why release it even if they did decide to remove it from the plane?

The C-130 is well documented and is even on video. The pilot has made statements. It did not arrive "on the tail" of the other plane by video evidence.

It is interesting that the same C-130 was also spotted as close as 17 miles to the Shanksville incident. If I were to have a theory on the C-130 is that it could have been involved in the electronic aspects of whatever scenario did happen.

That type of control can be seen as far back as 1947. See the section B-17 DRONE TAKE-OFF - Control Aircraft At Top Right. http://fas.org/spp/military/program/6555th/6555c1-1.htm

How would an ordinance drop work in regards to the VDOT mast, the tree, and the light poles?

All great questions.. how about we ask the govt?

That would depend on the type of ordinance now wouldnt it?


Smarten up there Einstein...

But i can tell you a 757 doesnt line up with all of the above. (although we know you like to try and fit it)

I'm sorry, I don't see any eyewitness testimony that says those words. Even the guy who said he believes it flew directly above didn't say anything like that.

Read the above quote.. re-read.. and read again.. comprehend.

Perhaps you dont know what "directly above" means?

One of the stories says the plan was spotted circiling the area and the other was spotted above the other plane, which means these seem like two different stories. If one was trying to become non-existent to radar by being above the object below, then the other story says it was circiling, which means that radar would have picked it up. So, I'm thinking these stories don't relate as much as I'd want to think.

What do you think about that ? I can see this being possible though and have thought of it before. Also the c-130 being spotted near both area's is suspect in what it was used for. We need to be able to tell which stories relate to eachother. It's the Arlington worker story at the end, which seems different. I'd like to see your thoughts.

I agree. But you can never tell since there was in fact a C-130 circling after the explosion.

Lyte and Merc always bring up the point that there might be many more eyewitnessess to a type of flyover, but they were told it was the C-130.

Misdirection and slight of hand seems to be one of the main themes to the events of Sept 11.

With that said.. that specific testimony can go either way imo.

I rarely get into speculation or theory.. but i figure since others here push theirs so much.. i may as well introduce my opinion based on ALL the facts.. the Physical damage.. FDR and eyewitnesses. Not just one...

By the way... any speculation i offer is my own personal opinion and exploration of the possibilities... it is not representative of Pilots for Truth.

Good to know and I see your point about the c-130. It's something that was there and in a flight path discribed, so that means the stories do relate after all when looking at it in that perspective.

I'd say the mystery 4-engine white plane might fit the bill.

If the eyewitnesses are correct, then we have a Commercial Jet (AA), a C-130 Cargo plane, and then another white plane following right behind it.

here's the picture of the 4 engine white plane that was in the area BEFORE the plane hit the pentagon (right before it)



There was even a close-up video of the side view of the plane, definitely a large 4 engine plane. Could this be the plane missing from the equation?

a while back russ forwarded me to eric bart's list of witness testimonies and instructed me to search the words light and pole(s). his intention was to convince me that many saw the light poles being struck by a plane. here are some of the relevant testimonies:


Sepulveda Noel: "Noel Sepulveda, a Master Sgt. received the awards during a special ceremony at the Pentagon April 15. He left Bolling Air Force Base, D.C., for a meeting at the Pentagon, only to be told it was cancelled. Walking back to his motorcycle he saw a commercial airliner coming from the direction of Henderson Hall the Marine Corps headquarters.. It "flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane's right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle", he said. The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle. "You could hear the engines being revved up even higher," The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. "The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low. For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it." An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole. "if the airliner had not hit the light poles, it would have slammed into the Pentagon's 9th and 10th corridor "A" ring, and the loss of life would have been greater."
http://www.jimroche.com/pentagon_hero.htm
http://www.af.mil/news/Apr2002/n20020415_0585.shtml
plus:
Recognition of Master Sergeant Noel Sepulveda : (…) on September 11, 2001, Master Sergeant Noel Sepulveda was on assignment at the Pentagon as a Medic. He was standing in the parking lot at the Pentagon when he noticed a jetliner lower its landing gear as if to make a landing an then he realized that the airplane was actually heading towards the southwest wall of the Pentagon; and he was standing only 150 feet from the point of impact and for a brief moment he could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building, followed by an explosion; and the blast of the impact was so tremendous, that from his vantage point, it threw him backward over 100 feet slamming into a light pole causing him internal injuries; and despite his internal injuries, Master Sergeant Noel Sepulveda remained on his duty station at the Pentagon for seven days after this attack while manning a triage station to assist the other victims of the attack.
http://www.lulac.org/Issues/Resolve/2002/30%20Sepulveda.html


Lets start with what drew his attention to the plane first: "Walking back to his motorcycle he saw a commercial airliner coming from the direction of Henderson Hall the Marine Corps headquarters... It flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear...". So he simply "saw" a "commercial jetliner". The first thing he saw was a plane flying over a "nearby hotel". Strange thing to call it, since it is the ONLY hotel around that area, and everyone readily knows and calls it the Sheraton, because the big letters S H E R A T O N on its side give it away. But nevermind that, can he really see a plane so far away, over the Sheraton from his vantage point? Wouldnt he have been more likely to spot the "plane" over Navy Annex? Especially if he wasnt looking up in the sky searching for planes to begin with? Does he usually watch the sky instead of what's in front of him?

So he noticed the plane as early as the Sheraton, but based only on sight. There is no mention of any sounds triggering him to look that way first. And if he saw it over the Sheraton, why did he keep watching the plane? At the point he first saw the plane, there was no reason to consider any foul play, it was a commercial jetliner. He is afterall near National Airport, and unless he knows they dont fly in the route he was witnessing, there was no real reason to watch or worry about this plane.

He never mentions being alarmed, or having knowledge of the WTC "attacks". In fact, while the news of the second plane at the WTC was circulating, he was probably on the road on a motorcycle (NO RADIO) and then walked in to the Pentagon for his "meeting". Perhaps people in the Pentagon were already abuzz with the WTC events and someone told him about it, before or after "his meeting was cancelled". But his testimony makes no mention of any alarm or suspicion or knowledge of the possibility of foul play.

He is walking to his bike and sees a plane over the Sheraton, but instead of going along with his business, he stops and watches this plane. He follows it visually in fact all the way to when it hits some light poles (very near his supposed location) and then crashes. He doesnt feel alarmed or jump for cover at any point even though this plane could crash anywhere in his vicinity. He is so close to the impact (his claim) that he is knocked 100ft into a pole.100 feet? Really? And he was not knocked unconscious? Internal injuries? How did they know that if he immediately joined the rescue effort? And what exactly are "internal injuries"? Whick kind of such injuries dont need immediate care? If he was bleeding internally he could die! He flew 100ft and hit a pole, but was able to immediately play the "hero".

With superman like resilience he got up and had the wherewithall to actually know what happened, instead of being in some sort of shock from the being thrown against a pole. And what about his physical location? In the second quote he seems to describe his view partially blocked (by the building): " for a brief moment he could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building, followed by an explosion." This contradicts not only his first statement (where he fully saw the impact, even describing the attitude of the wings), but it is also contradictory because if the impact zone was out of his view, then how could the "blast wave" hit him so directly? 100 feet? Even if he is exaggerating, and only flew 50ft, how come he isnt burned? And which way would such a blast wave go upon impact anyway? Outward? Sideways? Wouldnt its strongest energy be pointed at the bullseye in question? As in directly into the wall?

And what about his prediction that ""if the airliner had not hit the light poles, it would have slammed into the Pentagon's 9th and 10th corridor "A" ring, and the loss of life would have been greater." How does he know that? How does he know that the poles impeded the flight to such an exact degree? And since he only mentioned two poles, i wonder what his prediction would be if he knew the plane supposedly hit 5 poles?

How about his light pole testimony? He says he saw a jetliner lower its landing gear, and he claims that the "right tire" is what knocked over the poles. Which right tire, the front or the rear? Which rear, right or left? Then he describes something (the plane or the pole?) being caused to fly at 45 degree angle. He says the plane attempted to recover, but hit a second pole. In his description the plane hits the Pentagon next. There is no mention of the 3 other poles. His supposed location should have put him in view of all the poles, but there is no mention of the 3 poles that i contend were already down.

So his testimony seems embellished, where he took artistic license to paint himself as a self-sacrificing hero, and helped to bolster the governments claims to some degree, while contradicting them at the same time. Why? Because chances are they didnt quite have the story "straight" yet at the time of his statements. He tried to corroborate the "official" story, but did not have enough details to do so sufficiently.

sepulveda gets award for his actions on 9-11:
http://www.jimroche.com/pentagon_hero.htm



DIRECTLY REFUTING THE "landing gear" testimony:
Hemphill, Albert: from a window in the Navy Annex building, directly facing the Pentagon west wall, says "The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5.


missile possibility:
http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/911_1068139.html

Phillip Thompson: "knew what was about to happen, but my brain couldn’t quite process the information. Like the other commuters on the road, I was stunned into disbelief. The fireball that erupted upon impact blossomed skyward, and the blast hit us in a wave. I don’t remember hearing a sound.

It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War — a missile strike that killed a Marine in my unit — that when I jumped out of my SUV, I felt like I’d jumped into my past and was in combat once again. The feeling was the same, but the context was all wrong."

he also mentions NO flaps and NO landing gear:
"The plane looked as if it were coming in for a landing — cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady. But, strangely, the landing gear was up and the flaps weren’t down."

same guy mentions c-130:
"I started directing cars to pull to the side of the HOV lanes to make way for emergency vehicles. On the way in to work, I’d heard about the two planes that attacked the World Trade Center, and now that came to mind. What if “dash two” was inbound to the Pentagon? Then a gray C-130 flew overhead, setting off a new round of panic. I tried to reassure people that the plane was not a threat."



***


this following first-hand account is a must read in my opinion. parts of it are lies of omission, but the majority of it is a very detailed view of what was seen, and what happened immediately after the explosion:

http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm - read this

Morin, Terry says: a former USMC aviator, Program Manager for SPARTA, Inc was working as a contractor at the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex. Having just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO Federal Office Building (FOB) #2. He heard "an increasingly loud rumbling" One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn't be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. 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). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you. At once there was a huge cloud of black smoke that rose several hundred feet up. Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds. (...) the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building....


light pole: "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)."

He does NOT say that the flash had anything to do with the light poles, he simply states two seperate things in one statement. Nevermind that he only heard of one (NOT 5) poles, and never mind that he never says that the flash actually caused what he heard about later. The "flash" he saw could indeed be the missile firing. He omits mentioning that, but never explains what this flash was, so he isnt guilty of lying (if ever in court). Plus this mention: "For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you, " is also very similar to a describing a possible missile (when coupled with his mention of a "flash").

His account also describes the timeline of the fbi's arrival and involvement. It also details the various times that the people on the scene were forced to go and hide under cover of the bridge/tunnel, while threats of more incoming planes were repeated (to me this allows the scene to be alterred by the "bad guys" while everyone else is forced away from the crime scene, and are busy looking to the skies for planes).