Pentacon DVD: 9/11 Pentagon overflight concept vindicated?

The “Citizen’s Investigation Team” will be releasing the “smoking gun” DVD version of their video “The Pentacon:  Eyewitnesses speak, conspiracy revealed” within a few days.   This video presents interviews with eyewitnesses Robert Turcios, William Lagasse, Edward Paik and Chad Brooks, all of whom place the path of Flight 77 to the north of the Citgo gas station.  This flight path is incompatible with the “official” flight path which passed to the south of the gas station, in line with the light pole damage.

I am really looking forward to the longer “researcher’s edition” of the video, which will also include interviews with taxi driver Lloyd England;  Opus Dei priest Stephen McGraw; Route 27 eyewitness Mike Walter; Pentagon lawn eyewitness Frank Probst; and many more.  The Citizens Investigation Team has acquired an encyclopedic knowledge base about the Pentagon explosion, and have been finding more and more evidence consistent with the overflight / demolition theory we originally proposed at in the article “The Five-Sided Fantasy Island.”

The “Citizen’s Investigation Team” website is at

5 thoughts on “Pentacon DVD: 9/11 Pentagon overflight concept vindicated?”

  1. Hello again, I noticed apon rereading the site that the article was written by a Gerald Holmgren.
    My mistake, but since you posted it and I agreed with what was said , I sent my thoughts also.

    I see the point of researching things as finding something that fits the facts, and until I find that I will keep doing research.


  2. Hi Dianne,

    Gerard contacted me a while ago and asked me to pull down all of his materials from my sites. I thought I’d complied with that request.

    So I’m confused because I don’t understand what article you’re writing about.

    1. Hi Scott,

      The 90,000 ton estimate came out of a discussion I had with Jim Hoffman of 911-research. Here was my analysis which was posted at :

      Hoffman’s first draft of his paper relied on my estimates of the volume of concrete in the towers. In my “powder analysis” I estimated that the mass of concrete in the towers was 650,000 tons. This was based on reports of the total amount of concrete poured for the WTC, which probably included plazas, roads, subways and so forth, in addition to the towers themselves. This was probably a serious over-estimate (although it would have no effect on the conclusion of the “powder analysis” since the gravitational energy per kg of concrete would be essentially unchanged.)

      From the FEMA report, for the floors of each WTC tower, we have ~40,000 sq ft of floor area (including the core) * 117 floors * 4″ thick of “lightweight” concrete (5″ in the core), which works out to about 58,000 cubic yards.

      “Normal” concrete ways about 2 tons per cubic yard, but “light weight” concrete can be anywhere from about 600 to 3000 pounds per cubic yard. If we take a figure towards the high end of the range, we would estimate about 90,000 tons of concrete, but the correct figure could be much lower.

      Additionally, all of the exterior columns (and presumably core columns and spandrel plates as well) were coated with several inches of a fireproofing plaster containing either asbestos or “inorganic fibers” which presumably might include fiberglass. From the Guardian, the exterior columns were about 13″ square (240 columns) and the core columns were about 14″x36″ (48 columns) so the surface area of all the columns would be 17280 square feet per floor, or 2 million square feet for the entire building. Covering with a 3″ layer of fireproof plaster would require 19,000 cubic yards, which could easily amount to another 10,000 or 20,000 tons of fiberglass-rich material.

      Overall, the mass of concrete and fibrous material in each WTC tower is probably not more than 110,000 tons. This revised estimate was used in Hoffman’s later revisions of his paper.

      As you can see, this was nothing more than a very rough estimate. So if there’s some calculation where it’s important to know an exact number, I can’t claim to have that information.

      Also, I noticed that my very early article “Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC” was linked in the thread at sciforums. I agree with the posters who said that this article contained some serious errors. My retraction is posted at .

  3. Thanks for the reply Jerry :-). As things stand, your calculations seem to be the most anyone has done on the subject. I’ll relay the information you gave me to psikey, the poster on sciforums who is the most interested in this issue. I will keep the issue of the retractions in mind. Thanks a lot for the info :-).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s