911 Pentagon

Strange how they have for many years indulged in the most vehement hateful no-holds-barred public slanging matches with McKee, totally devoid of any discussion of the evidence from either side!

I confess I haven't been carefully followed the vehement mud-slinging venues. But my impression is that McKee does a pretty good job of answering Chandler's case, if you look at some of the long-form posts at his truthandshadows site.

Chandler & his cohorts & minions might look solid if one just looks at their videos, but fail completely upon comparison with the information provided by McKee and/or CIT.

The correct solution to the puzzle of Lloyde England, is icing on the cake of CIT's work. Although hardly anyone seems ready to admit it.

That Chandler's willing to argue back and forth with McKee but not you kind of proves that he's not interested in debate as an evenue to arrive at truth. It's more like a spectacle.

Or perhaps, somehow, Chandler has the opinion that McKee has greater reach, or more prestige? I wonder if there's any basis for that.
Winston Smith
Michael and Isabel James were driving to work at the Pentagon on Columbia Pike, when the plane flew directly overhead of their car.

Isabel James was being interviewed within 45 minutes, some as the Citgo.


Official story supporters used this for decades as proof for the southside flightpath, stating that this road runs along the south side of the Navy Annex.

This is true, but not the whole truth.
Columbia Pike takes a steep loop to the north and around what was formerly the Citgo station.

There are traffic lights at the junction of Columbia Pike and South Joyce Street, northwest of the Citgo.



Here is an aerial view, showing that junction, directly beneath the North of Citgo flightpath.


Isabel stated that she saw the plane hit the Pentagon, although it seems she drew this inference from the low flying jet and subsequent fireball.

There was doubt as to whether they could have witnessed an impact, due to trees reportedly blocking their view of the ground floor.

It was many years later that Michael James's early official interview was released, in which he pinpointed their location as approaching the traffic lights on Columbia Pike, near the Citgo station.


The Jameses therefore are North of Citgo eyewitnesses, and the physical impact on their car, when engine wake bounced it into the median, is valid evidence that the plane never flew on the South side path.
Last edited:
WTVR CBS 6 interview with Mary Ann Owens. I wonder if you've seen this, Ruby? From 2021.
Thankyou for posting this. Yes, I had seen it.

Her claim that the plane's left wing scraped the helipad, causing sparks, is clearly a flawed perception. There was no mark on the helipad to substantiate this.

However, those exploding trailers could certainly have caused sparks to fly across the helipad.

In other accounts, she described ducking down in her car from fear. From that position, how much could she have seen?

She could have seen "sparks" shooting up from over the helipad, however they were caused.
She could have seen the plane, only if it was lifting up over the Pentagon.

As she was next to the tree at the southern side of the helipad, the plane was in front of her, not coming diagonally from across the bridge. Therefore not skimming the lawn on her right side, as shown in the Gatecam videos.

She indicated a very steep left bank with her hand, which is not compatible with other witness testimony of a right bank, nor with the shallow left banking "wing marks" on the wall.

But it does suggest that she (like Penny Elgas, close behind her) saw the underside of the plane, which must have been above her car, and north of her, therefore over the helipad.

Her claim that the nose of the plane entered between the 2nd and 3rd floors, is also incompatible with the Southside flightpath, and especially with the ground floor hole.

Like Lincoln Liebner, Sean Boger, Robert Turcios and Darius Prather, it seems her mind split the difference in height between a flyover plane which they saw, and a ground floor explosion, which they rationalised to have been caused by the plane.

Elsewhere, she stated that the plane was 50 to 80 feet above her car.

It's as though she never looked at photos of the hole, or maps of the flightpath, or positions of the downed poles, or the Gatecam videos.

She was confident in her account, although it contradicted the official story.

But it confirmed her having seen the underside of the plane as it flew perpendicular to the wall, across the helipad, and high enough to clear the roof.

EDIT: Owens died recently, sadly. Here's her obituary:
That is sad! She is one of many I'd have liked to speak with.
Interesting that her 9/11 story was included in her obituary!
Especially that it says she took "many" pictures, which were posted on the news.

Only one photo was ever released, which was badly discoloured, perhaps from heat affecting the film.
However, it does show that she was directly opposite the fireball, and this proves she saw a north of Citgo flightpath.
This image shows that there was no radar data between the southernmost point, and the point north of the Pentagon. It doesn't show "the helicopter lifting off the helipad at 100 feet".


This segment is when the helicopter was seen flying in the sky for several seconds, to the west of the Pentagon. It must have been much more than 100' AGL, as the 77 foot high Pentagon was completely hidden behind the I-395, but the helicopter is high in the sky.


Here's the field of view from the DoubleTree.

The time stamp for the southernmost point on the radar image is equivalent to 9:27:32.

My estimate for the frame showing the helicopter from the DoubleTree is 9:27:30, so I'm very close there.

This is just one of the numerous lines of evidence which contradicts BSH's timeline, with her "first explosion" that nobody noticed at 9:32 a.m., and the fighter jet then flying that 270° loop prior to the "exploding drone over the heelypad".

I find the fighter jet story interesting, but the timing just doesn't work. More investigation necessary there.
DCA radar file showing 5175 (center) at 100 feet. 001 is 100 feet and 00 means no speed. This is the first hit after the ~5 minute gap, indicating it had landed and was now airborne headed north. The helicopter was seen on the south end of the Pentagon by Jeff Parsons, moving east to west until it dropped below the 395 highway and he assumed it was going to the helipad on the west side.5175_100_feet.png
I don't have much to add here except that if 84RADES is suspect due to timing of the C-130's arrival over the Pentagon (60 seconds versus 3 and 1/2 minutes), then it's possible other manipulations were done. A NEADS technician caught a no-transponder plane blip over D.C. when she looked in the opposite direction from the FAA (NEADS looked North, FAA looked West):

* NEADS Technician Clip

And apparently Dave Canoles had an eyewitness in FAA HQ who looked out the window and saw the plane. JWD knows the name of the FAA HQ witness, but has redacted it for some reason. And to clarify, "JWD" is johnny_walker_dulles A.K.A. Christopher Taylor of CIT – he was the cameraman behind the group's field interviews with the northside witnesses.


The text reads:

[top cut off] looking for 2 other aircraft.

– Dulles reported to Canoles (maybe through AEA) that a plane was headed to D.C.
– He asked [redacted] [top line] to go next door and [bottom line] to look for A/C from window.

This visual sighting of the errant plane from FAA HQ is discussed at some length by Adam Larson:


who has a back-and-forth with Craig Ranke in the comments of that post.

Of course, neither of these radar or visual sightings matches up with the officially released RADAR or FDR files.

JWD has said (my bold):
Scoggins is misinformed by mouth and the radar he (and Danelle O’Brien and the rest of the FAA ATC towers) see is different than the radar NORAD uses. Nasypany's (and Marr's) attention is diverted elsewhere. It is only Deskins and her tracker tech who home in on the unidentified blip on their radar. In a fortuitous game of phone tag, Scoggins makes the false assumption that the American Airlines plane which was still airborne is American Airlines 11, up in NYC. As such, Deskins focuses her POV North instead of West. That's how she catches the real plane for "6 or 7" blips. I have tried (unsuccessfully) to FOIA the Air Force for the coordinates of those blips.Anyway, I’m not well-versed on it, but the FAA and NORAD use two different kinds of radar. but strangely, the impostor plane (and a second* plane) are missing from both the FAA and the 84-RADES (military) radars.

JWD has a theory there was a second plane following the fly-over plane which was not the C-130. Ruby disagrees with this, and I don't know enough to comment, but I left his original comment as is.

FWIW, there were false blips on FAA controller screens. Officially, the exercise for that day only involved false blips on NEADS technician screens and not FAA. But New York Center vectored a plane to AA 11's radar position (primary only) to confirm last known altitude, yet they couldn't see any plane:

https://streamable.com/gqu6j8 (video clip link)

This is also repeated in a 9/11 Commission interview with David Bottiglia:

source: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2610771 (can download PDF). There's also a 2-hour long audio interview with Bottiglia I just found: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/178994844

Should be interesting.

It's not clear to me whether AA 11 was in what's called a "coast mode" track (as it was for United 93)...but it's odd that NY ATC apparently had a live radar track and couldn't see the plane.
Last edited:
Need to find out what the track data means. No transponder, so it has to be primary radar.View attachment 1275
Yes. It was primary only and the last known altitude the NY controllers had was 29,000 feet. They vectored an aircraft – Delta 2433 – to 31,000 feet to obtain visual on the target and get an altitude but the pilot couldn't see anything.

Transponder will broadcast the plane's Flight ID, speed, altitude, heading as well as flight plan. With primary only's, you can estimate the speed, but
you won't have flight ID, heading or altitude.
At last I found the photo which I have elsewhere seen attributed to Tony Terronez. It does match his account of his location when he was taking photos. I wonder whether the van driving north is Cheryl Ryefield's.

He's an enigma!! He literally had the front row seat to CIT's NOC investigation, but he posts a lot of stuff which contradicts it!!

And he's stubborn. For someone as smart as he is, he clings to peculiar and impractical ideas. Like his instantaneous extreme left-right bank just as the plane crossed the Pentagon's west wall, with a curve of impossible radius, and the plane needing to be ridiculously high to avoid hitting the roof with its vertical, 63 foot wingspan. Which nobody witnessed, obviously.

Now he is placing Ryefield beneath the I-395 at the moment she witnessed the plane cross the road. Amazing how some people insist that just because she mentioned having entered Route 27 there, where she found the traffic almost at a standstill, she was there at 9:37:46 a.m. That's nonsense of course.

Taking all her various testimonies together, plus the photos and videos of the abandoned van with its open door beside the helipad, and Steven McHale's testimony about rear-ending a van driven by a lady next to the helipad, and the frames of the amateur video showing her running up the road past Lloyde's cab - we know that she had progressed right up Route 27 to be opposite the Pentagon by then.

Plus, why is he using graphics of the plane on the SOUTH side flightpath??
Ryefield stated that she looked to her left to see the plane coming towards her, over the hill where the Navy Annex was.