Support 911Blogger


THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED by Adam Larson

visit original for hyperlinks and graphics - loose nuke

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documented.html
THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED

Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
first posted August 12 2008
last update 10/11

NOTE: The full post isn’t done – I’ll be adding some details and graphics for a couple days. I've opted to simplify the process by not citing and linking to all my sources. Dig around if you have any doubts. Props to Mangoose at JREF for a couple of these leads.

“We Tried…”
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) brags of their growing list of explicit eyewitnesses to a North-of-Citgo (NoC) flight path that rules out their decoy plane hitting the Pentagon or anything on the ground, no matter what any of the same witnesses themselves say to the contrary. I believe they’re claiming 13 such witnesses at the moment, as featured in their latest full-length mockumentary, and sure to grow judging to their rhetoric. Corroborated 13 times! That’s fatal to the “official story”, which has the plane passing south of the Citgo station along the path of physical destruction before and into the Pentagon and ending there. CIT frequently boast how “all the witnesses” place the plane north of the Citgo, as clearly as they saw it crash into the building anyway, and NONE of them saw the plane on the south path.

The claim was repeated, for example, in our first phone ‘debate’ in November 2007 [40:00–42:00 or so], in their new video [link above, 3:20 in] and recently at the Loose Change Forum, when Aidan Monaghan was probing CIT’s Aldo Marquis. "Are there any south-of-Citgo witnesses?" he asked. Marquis responded simply “That is a negative,” and re-posted the one-liner ten minutes later for emphasis. And it’s not that they haven’t looked; they tried hard to debunk their own findings, but as their main site explains:

“We tried to find someone who might have seen it on the south side but it just wasn't happening.
[…]
We sure haven't been able to find ANYONE who is willing to directly contradict the north side claim AND we have not found a single previously published account that directly contradicts it either.”

How odd. I didn’t really have to even try to find previously published south path accounts, although a startling number have been pre-dismissed by CIT as among the suspect. I will offer my services free of charge. I found 13 worth making graphics for, though I’m sure there are some others. In fact, it could be said that all witnesses who saw the plane at all, whatever they may say later, saw it on the south path.

The Scene and the Spectators
The “official path” (violet in the graphics below) runs roughly along I-395 at its bend, but nearer parallel with Columbia Pike and the edge of the Navy Annex it flanks (the big harmonica building). The path had to be nearly straight but with a slight left curve and accompanying mild wing bank - left low, right high. After the Annex (entirely south), it passed south of the Citgo station (the smallish structure after), descending as it crossed Route 27, striking lamp poles, skimming the lawn, and entering the building low. The north path is also shown below for comparison, in yellow. This is CIT’s most-widely promoted possibility, never meant to be THE path, and shown to be aeronautically improbable (as have their others, to differing degrees). This angles across the Annex s-n, banking hard right along the way (left high), passing to the north of the Citgo almost at Arlington National Cemetery, descending a bit, then pulling up to fly over, yet somehow appearing to still impact low into the building.

The reason their case has some traction is the same reason that even 13 accounts can’t override the overwhelming case for the real event - eyewitnesses are the weakest type of evidence. Memory is notoriously prone to various errors and psychic distortions. Their memories are usually vague on trivial details like which side of a gas station the plane passed by, easy to be confused, misread, and maybe deliberately dishonest, especially when pushed on points like the above. There are however exceptions that freely and clearly delineate the “official path.” Now just as the whole point of NoC is that it means no impact, the unanimous impact reports could be taken as evidence the plane was on the path consistent with the damage caused. I could also use altitude clues to rule out a pull-up above the light poles, ruling out all but the “official path.” Either would make my job entirely too easy, so here I will only cite specific South of the Citgo (SoC) clues as they sporadically pop up. This is a short list and there are plenty of others that offer decent clues pointing directly at a south path, but these here are13 of the strongest that each confirm it in multiple ways.

1) Albert Hemphill
At the Navy Annex, “peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon.... the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike.” He also gives the wing bank (remember, north path means left high) “He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight […] As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings […] as he impacted low on the Westside of the building

2) Terry Morin
Another witness at the Annex (“FOB” in account). From his stated vantage point, Morin could only see the plane for the length and detail he describes if it were on the south path. CIT and Pilots for Truth have cited problems with the line of sight blocking final moment and this is valid – and doubly so for a plane passing entirely north of that line. "Teri" Morin has changed his once-vilified story and this one has gotten very weird, to hear the dispatches from CIT-land. I don’t believe them. This is what we know Terry Morin said right after the event:

“I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling […] One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. […] 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). […] The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage […] Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. […] 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.”

Trees to the northeast of the building is the only thing that doesn’t fit – he must mean northeast of where the plane had passed the Annex. These run along the Pike as it bends, at the crest of the hill looking down over the Pentagon (at the "n" in "line of sight"). Seeing stripes is consistent with it being a tad south of him and banked left.

3) Madelyn Zakhem
A VDOT employee previously published as a witness, Zakhem was verified by the LTW/CIT/Pickering entourage in August 2006. Aldo Marquis was not impressed and noted soon after participating “her account placed the plane "inches" from the roof of this small building [she was at]. With the left tilted down. Unfortunately, this would place it BELOW treetop level which we all know is impossible.” A figure of speech read too literally and debunked is a straw man tactic of course, and a convenient one, as the building that plane was (some number of) inches directly above, clearly puts it on the south path, and with the official bank to the left. Marquis later expanded at Above Top Secret : "Trees blocking her view. Madlene is a suspect witness. She is clearly lying about the flight path. We know because Edward blew it out of the water and we interviewed her, and now her bizarre behavior is explained.” [For Edward Paik, see below]. They can’t find any south path witnesses who’ll go on record, but the reason for strenuously denouncing this witness specifically IS that she’s a south path liar on record with THEM. So Aldo pulls the old Crypyo-Jew move: “Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw."

4) Edward Paik
The guy who blows "Madlene"'s account "out of the water" is not really a strong case for a south path in that his testimony and flight path drawn for CIT in late 2006 directly contradicts it - three versions running across the Navy Annex and thus pointing either OTC (Over-the-Citgo) or slightly NoC. However, his account is jumbled and has south path clues mixed in. When he first talked to the CIT guys and Russell Pickering earlier, he had said he thought the plane clipped an antenna tower just south of Columbia Pike: the wing "knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna." It didn’t really do this, (or did it?) but for him to think so, it would have to be close to it, which it almost certainly was. Also even as he draws a path entirely north of the Pike, his instinctive gestures belie ambiguity, pointing almost straight down the road, and indicating a left bank, which directly contradicts the massive right bank needed to go ONA and NoC. I believe he’s a south path witness and for whatever reason his account came out sort of supporting the north path (really it’s right between the two). How odd that the guy who proves suspicious crypto-Jew Zakhem a liar matches her account more than it differs!
5) Keith Wheelhouse
Wheelhouse, the famous C-130 ‘shadowing’ witness, was actually ‘verified’ by CIT, and for their cameras DREW the south-of-Citgo path to a T. The graphic below is based on his drawing as shown by CIT, rotated correctly to north, CIT’s path added for reference, and his lines color-coded. Light blue is his 77 path, south of the Citgo, .Lavender is the C-130 divergence he put down, happening at about the same time. They already felt he was part of the “ambiguous blending” of the C-130 and the decoy - timewise - to disguise the flyover jet (oh, it was the other plane that veered away a few seconds later…). So this drawing only affirmed their suspicions that he’s a government operative by showing the decoy plane come in on the south path while the “2nd plane,” which he describes as a C-130, peels away well short of the impact point. Once ‘verified’ at least, this here could only provide cover for… the gray, 4-prop C-130 that flew that path about a minute after The silver/white 2-engine flyover plane that no one saw or reported anywhere near the fireball and flyover point is left naked. Some operative!

6) Alan Wallace
One of three firefighters at the heliport for the President’s scheduled arrival later in the day. “The plane had two big engines, appeared to be in level flight, and was only approximately 25 feet off the ground and only about 200 YARDS from our location.” He was a bit off on the color, but felt it was close enough to match: “The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Air Bus 320- white with blue and orange stripes. Mark later recalled the plane was silver and even identified that it was American Airlines.” White/orange/blue – silver/red/blue - close enough. Similarly with heading? “I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees.” I’m presuming here he means relative to the building’s west wall, where 90 would be a perpendicular track. From this there are two 45 degree-angle paths (in orange below). His account shows no perceived discrepancy between the angle he thought he saw and the final official path he saw later, so we must look for the “45 degrees” closest to this. Which one is a fit for ANY proposed path?

7) Timmerman/Vignola
Witnesses Hugh “Tim” Timmerman and his then-girlfriend Dawn Vignola saw the plane from a upper-floor apartment south of impact. With a panoramic view, they were able to see most of the path from at least the Navy Annex and forward. Timmerman had more plane knowledge and lodged a detailed report, while Dawn first spoke to the news on 9/11 and years later talked with another person going by the name Plan 271 online, who drew this path (in blue) based on her description. The apartment location wrong and the view blocked by another building (long red arrow) is set a bit wide, perhaps to fudge it in the interests of privacy (too late!) So the span where it passed the Citgo is deduced – did it suddenly swerve north there? No, because it had no time to correct from the left turn it was observed in (surely not as shown here, distorted by perspective, but the idea is the same), and a north path would mean the plane pulled-up and over, but to these witnesses it seemingly crashed into the ground just before the building.

8) Father Stephen McGraw
*Alleged witness DoJ lawyer and spooky just-ordained Opus Dei Catholic-priest* Stephen McGraw has described the flight path as from directly over his car, about 20 feet up and descending ahead of him and to his right to the impact point where he clearly saw it impact. He even told this to Aldo and Craig, and so all we need is his location to draw the path to the building, which CIT didn’t think to gather and hasn’t tried since. This line should also include, as McGraw deduced afterwards, the light pole that was clipped “just before it got to us” and the taxi damaged by it (see England, below) that was “just a few feet away from my car.” The plane passed from over the pole/cab area to over him and descended ahead all on a line he feels was “controlled and straight” into the building and CIT dismisses him as a “no-pather” witness and highly suspicious. CIT got no verification of his location, and they doubt he was at the scene at all, more likely fabricating for his Opus Dei NWO masters. He was placed in the correct spot (“a few feet” from England’s taxi and ahead of pole 1) in their graphics, “because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story,” which, in CIT land, is now a proven lie.

9) Penny Elgas
Headed north on Route 27 “almost in front of the Pentagon,” Penny Elgas reported “I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.” Finally a witness that mentions the Citgo, and a reason others don’t, and a side! It’s tempting to simply declare it was passing along Columbia, which puts it south, but she only placed it over the road. Below I offer NoC and SoC variants for comparison. She recalled it coming “toward my car” and passing low “about 4-5 car lengths in front of me.” Along the way, the plane was descending and “banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.” Left or right turn? Coming from NoC, it’d have to bank right, which means right wing low. South path could be level and straight or, some evidence shows, banking slightly left wing low. With the right wing closest to her, Elgas said “I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.”

Straight at her, banking left and passing ahead of, and then impacting, which she is quite clear on. She actually had a piece of the plane
land in her car, confirming her location about under the plane as it started losing parts, which a NoC plane would not do. She is a south path witness, plain as day, and no hunt was necessary. Why does CIT still claim no published SoC witnesses even though this one is quite well-published? Oh she’s all kinds of suspicious, her account is too public, too detailed, the plane part thing is too weird, and she has government connections. Not a real DC witness and not worth talking to. “Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect," they say.

10) NEIT 567
This witness is among the CMH interviews, designated with a number like the rest, and according to CIT “one of the most compelling accounts.” A member of an Army band who was at the ANC, her location as read by CIT is actually accurate, I believe, and labeled below. Partial account:

“I hear what I think is a fly over, over my head because that's standard. [...] And I looked, I looked directly up for it, and I also had some tree cover so I wasn't able to see, but I was facing the Pentagon [...] And we're facing the site that was struck. And that's what was also weird, is that it seemed like it struck on the other side whereas I found out later, I saw [the impact point?] so that whatever plane that disappeared, it was it happened so quickly.”

Aldo Marquis announced “She describes the plane as being "over my head" and having looked "directly up" for it which can only be the north side flight path,” which is not true. It would be A north path, but nowhere near the one they’ve been promoting. “Tree cover” implies a lateral distance with several trees in the way, rather than straight up through a single tree’s branches. This means it was at some distance, I think we can all agree to the south. Marquis also trumpets how she “thought that it flew over the Pentagon and crashed on the other side!!! […] Sounds like a flyover account to me.” She said no such thing. What did she mean about the other side thing? She knew where it hit, so we have four choices to work with here, below. Only one makes sense to me and it strongly implies a south path with perspective error.

ETA: A more detailed debunking of her inclusion as a CIT NoC witness

11) Steve Riskus
Headed south on Route 27, well north of the crash site when he saw the plane come in low and crash square into the building. When offered a graphic showing two possible flight paths he explained “The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit...”
He erroneously gives his distance from the plane about 100 feet or so when he actually would have been over 1,000 feet up the road from the plane. A 10x factor mis-estimation might seem unlikely, but he himself placed the plane about right on the map and just that far away. Just not a numbers guy apparently, but definitely a south path witness.
Riskus also said “It knocked over a few light poles in its way,” but has affirmed to others and to me in an e-mail that he did not actually notice this event. Like most other pole-impact witnesses, he admits deducing this from the evidence and, one might suspect, from the match between the observed path and damage.

12) Wanda Ramey
However, at least one observer bucks the trend – DPS/PFPS officer Wanda Ramey says she saw the poles clipped by the plane. "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building.” Ramey says, explicitly, that she saw this, unlike most other deducing light pole witnesses. CIT say they have tried to find her and verify that she truly differs from the others, but have had no luck. The original article described her as having “a clear view” from “the mall plaza booth.” My best guess as to the exact location of this is included below, and gives here a wide-angle view from a moderate distance of about 900 feet from the pole impacts. Perhaps the key to noticing the pole pruning is distance, not closeness, as CIT have presumed.
ETA: Ramey was at some point interviewed by CIT, and they have made the audio available. They'd been trying a while to get ahold of here to confirm or deny that she saw the poles actually hit. She could do neither, after years of memory atrophy, etc,, couldn't recall if she actually saw that or not. She does however specify a left bank, the "slant" being the wing nearest her lower than the other, which further supports the south path.

13) Lloyd England
So suspicious is this elderly cab driver that he gets his own short video; ‘The First Known Accomplice?” It’s not surprising that CIT and their allies make a huge deal of his account all over the place and put his damaged taxi cab on their main page. Unluckily for their case, he’s the best light pole witness, who says plane that passed right over his car “was so low it hit the light pole. And when it hit the pole it knocked the light part off and nothing came through the car but the pole itself." He screeched to a halt at an angle there, he says. “Did you actually SEE the plane hit the poles,” the old CIT standard, gets real silly in this case, but oddly enough, even Lloyd, who was closest of all, failed to actually SEE the pole(s) being struck, and offers a possible clue to why others missed it. He told the CIT/LTW/Pickering “elite research team” “this airplane flew over top of my car. It was real close, and uh, I just looked at it. And when I looked at it flying over, something - [glass?] - a loud noise happened and the pole came through the dashboard, right through the car, all the way to the rear.”

This looks bad for their planted light debris theory. Luckily, the specifics of England’s accountare problematic. He has clarified in detail how the big curved pole segment is what stabbed his car and nearly killed him (the one out front in the picture below). That this would enter the windshield and come to rest long heavy end out as he says without leaving a mark on the hood doesn’t make much sense. This proves nothing except that a witness is telling a story that apparently makes no sense; his windshield was likely damaged by a different pieces than he says, and he constructed the memory he’s shared, perhaps honestly or perhaps not. This shows why witness accounts are weaker than objective verifiable evidence, but CIT is determined to make it a strong something. Since “his story is physically impossible and proven false by the evidence,” they’ve decided he was actuallt involved in the planting of the pole and was making the story up to cover for it. They’re unsure if he’s a willing accomplice or simply a “coerced […] victim,” but simply wrong is not an option, nor is it conceivable to them that he’s actually right, even though most people who think it out can’t see how.

As the CIT video asks of this account, “isn’t it interesting how Lloyd’s story supports the official flight path while being irreconcilable with the eyewitness flight path?” That’s right – not a witness. “At this point the debate regarding what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd.” Well whaddya know, a fasle dichotomy.

Conclusion: 8=0?
CIT’s wild-eyed fast talker Ranke recently reiterated the bogus claim yet again, in response to Mangoose at the JREF forum: “None of the witnesses we spoke with placed the plane on the south side of the gas station.”

Alright then, just from this list of people who place (or at least strongly imply) Flight 77 SoC, they spoke with Zakhem (understood her south path testimony, and used it to dismiss itself), Vignola (breaking agreements and burning bridges along the way), and with that liar Wheelhouse (it was THEY who gave him the paper to draw his south path on!) When they talked with Paik, and got him to draw lines that were either NoC or OtC they also video-recorded his south-path-supporting gestures. They of course talked to Morin, Ranke says, and I think they talked with Riskus via e-mail as it seems everyone has. McGraw spoke more with Avery and Pickering, but CIT was present at the taping, and they used the footage in a video dedicated to tearing down and obfuscating his south path testimony. Same with Lloyd England, and they even make it look like they defied ‘the devil by stealing his cab light. Where’s Mr. T when you need him to defend his fellow DC cab drivers? So just out of these thirteen south path witnesses, the CIT have spoken with EIGHT! Of these eight witnesses, at least four have been strenuously dismissed as non-witnesses of the most sinister kind, doubt cast on two, and two distorted and claimed as NoC after all. So by CIT logic, no, they haven’t found any south path witnesses in their journeys and likely never will. That’s just neat how much they’re winning. Good for them.
---
Post-13 witnesses with no graphics guaranteed:

14) Here's another, if weaker, SoC witness, using Aldo's formula for NEIT 567: Levi Stephens, who later is said to have said it was NoC, had earlier said "I was driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot when I hear this huge rumble, the ground started shaking … I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere." Now no one is saying it was directly over the van, but how far NoC could it be and even seem that way? Hasn't he been placed around the lane one area? Why does he report a plane over there before the explosion rather than "after" like Roberts?
ETA: Also, a real SoC view is strengthened by CIT's own interview with Stephens, where they say he says it was north of the Citgo. As if it helps their case, they point out how he thought it was not an AA jet due to its unusual paint scheme - including a brown or tan underbelly. No one else really reported this (except I think Omar Campos), and most people thought it was a silver in color, as AA would be. Funny enough, the bottom of a silver plane would reflect the colors beneath it. A north-of-Citgo path would mostly show grass green, while a SoC passage would put it over the brown or tan unseeded, just built dirt mound just south of the station.

15) Roosevelt Roberts: Speaking of Roberts, his full interview reveals quite clearly a witness to Flight 77's actual SoC approach. It was a silver airliner with jet engines, he saw it in the space to the west over the south lot ("around the lane one area"). It was coming from the west ("from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC", from the southwest, past where I-395 merges with Route 27, from "almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction." And it was banking about 50-100 feet above the ground, just above the light poles. All the stuff about a second plane headed away is made up. The "another plane" he saw was clearly NOT after 77's impact, if he saw it coming in on the path 77 took, at its altitude, with its appearance.

16) NEIT 405: Another CMH interviewee, on one of the walkways on either side of the loading dock at the south lot. So nearly the same position as Roberts. "Walking on that elevated area that's right outside the door. It's actually on the second floor level. And I turned and glanced off to my right [...] I saw a plane coming over 395 and very, very low. Essentially coming into eye level as it flew across 395 and come across the end of the south parking off to my right as I went through that door." Across 395 probably means 27, and it appearing over the end (lane one edge) of the lot indicates it was probably SoC.

17) George Aman: CMH witness NEIT 419, Arlington Nat'l Cemetery facilities manager, inside a south-facing office at the time of the attack. He saw the plane descending and impacting out the window, and said so to CIT. His ability to determine just how far away it was or what it was over, would have been very limited. He placed it as passing between the Citgo and the ANC south maintenance parking lot. That's north of the Citgo, about as far north as witness should be expected to warp a plane passing them over a great distance. [Fuller explanation]. So how on earth is he a SoC witness? Light poles. CIT says no one actually saw them get hit. Ramey had said she did but can't remember now when they ask. Brooks said he did, but recanted to CIT. It was deduction, he said. George Aman, from his perspective, had a clear view of the first poles up on the bridge mound a few hundred feet away, and had said back in 2001/02 "When I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there, not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were street lights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off." CIT had every chance to ask him if he deduced this, but just decided instead that he clearly was and it wasn't worth asking. [see comments at link above] They know he's a SoC witness.

S or N? More S Path Witnesses, compiled by Bart/Arabesque:

I've previously included links to the above article by Adam Larson and the below eyewitnesses from Arabesque's compilation (largely based on Eric Bart's) in various comments. I'm posting the full text of the above article and these particular sections below which support the South path, so they can be properly critiqued and discussed.

CIT cites the testimony of 13 people and claim it proves that the plane believed to have struck the Pentagon on 9/11 (AA 77) actually flew on a path North of the Citgo gas station that was near the Pentagon on 9/11 (N path), which is contrary to the official flight path (S path), and therefore did not cause the damage path outside and inside the Pentagon (CIT claims the plane flew over the Pentagon, that the damage outside was staged, and that explosives caused the damage to the Pentagon).

As can be seen from the above article and the additional witnesses quoted in this comment, there are far more eyewitness accounts supporting the S path than the N path. CIT has attempted to discredit certain people whose testimony supports the official flight path, and it would be helpful if CIT supporters would quote and link to any evidence in comments below which they feel discredits any of these S path witnesses, so it can be critiqued and discussed as well.

* NOTE- Not quoted here, but in the following section at Arabesque's site, there are a number of accounts who describe the plane as coming OVER the Navy Annex- CIT cites a few witnesses who were in Arlington Cemetery, who were North of the plane, who describe it that way. I've cited these 3 accounts to show there were witnesses who described it as coming UP I-395 (South of Columbia Pike; according to the official path, the plane was traveling along Columbia Pike near the Annex, not I-395). Perspective error could well account for these various eyewitnesses placing the plane in these contradictory locations in relation to the ground.

EDIT: Source links for the witnesses cited in the below Arabesque compilation:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20061124070632/http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/

EDIT 2: Added the names for the below quotes, next to the note #:

The Flight Path of the Plane according to Witnesses
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

12. “The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap… the aircraft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer.”[12] - Hovis, Tom

18.     “It actually came up I-395 and it went over the rise and came in front of a bridge in which I was sitting [in traffic].”[18] - Pettit, Mark

27.     “I was right underneath the plane, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395.”[27] - Mlburn, Kirk

Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

1.        “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.”[387] - Bright, Mark

2.        “He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.”[388] - Elliott, Bruce

3.        “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”[389] - Elgas, Penny

4.        “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.”[390] - Evey, Walker Lee

5.        “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”[391] - Fortunato, Don

6.        “[she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.”[392] - Gaines, Kat

7.        “It hit some lampposts on the way in.”[393] - Hagos, Afework

8.        “[the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.”[394] - Hovis, Tom

9.        “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.”[395] - Mason, Don

10.     “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”[396] - McGraw, Stephen

11.     “I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.”[397] - Milburn, Kirk

12.     “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.”[398] - Morin, Terry

13.     “The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me.”[399] - Narayanan, Vin

14.     “Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.”[400] - Owens, Mary Ann

15.     “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.” - Probst, Frank http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/fortress1.html

16.     “I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”[401] - Ramey, Wanda

17.     “It knocked over a few light poles in its way…”[402] - Riskus, Steve

18.     “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403] - Sepulveda, Noel

19.     “There were light poles down.”[404] - Sucherman, Joel

20.     “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405] - Walter, Mike

21.     “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406] - Washington, Rodney

22.     “I saw it clip a light pole.”[407] - Unnamed Navy admiral

[23.] “As he reached the west side of the building he saw a light post bent in half.”[408] - DeChiaro, Steve

[24.] “The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a… the tail of a lamp post.” [Richard Benedetto http://web.archive.org/web/20061130004634/eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness... ]

Witnesses described the plane hitting a generator
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

1.        “the plane approached… clipping a construction trailer and an emergency generator”[409] - Elliott, Bruce

2.        “Our guess is an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off.”[410] - Evey, Walker Lee

3.        “The plane had sliced through the emergency lighting generators leaving everything in blackness.”[411] - Henson, Jerry

4.        “He witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing.”[412] - Mason, Don

5.        “The plane’s right wing went through a generator trailer ‘like butter.’”[413] - Probst, Frank

NOTE: Approximately 100 eyewitnesses have given statements that indicate they saw the plane impact the Pentagon. These accounts also would seem to support the S path (they certainly contradict the flyover theory), although 911blogger user Chris Sarns maintains that a N path is not irreconcilable with a Pentagon impact.

Witnesses described the plane hitting the Pentagon
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

S or N? Debate status report, Dec. 28

[EDIT: Edited Dec 31 to acknowledge which names below don't belong on a list of witnesses to light poles being hit: see the list below, updates in bold [brackets]

So far the CIT promoters (primarily Adam Syed, who has insisted there are "zero" S path witnesses) have commented on 10 of the 39 total S path witnesses, which are cited between Adam Larson/Caustic Logic's article, and the lists (see first comment) compiled by Eric Bart/Arabesque.

Adam Larson cited witnesses- commented on by CIT promoters:

Albert Hemphill
Madelyn Zakhem
Keith Wheelhouse
Stephen McGraw
Terry Morin
Roosevelt Roberts
Penny Elgas
Edward Paik
Alan Wallace

CIT promoters have pointed out a discrepancy in Wheelhouse's account; he described the C-130 as being directly above AA 77, and all other witnesses have described it as being behind AA 77, some saying it was up to 1-3" behind. They have also attempted to establish he couldn't see what he saw, but there is a still unexplained discrepancy between the gif created by CIT allegedly of Wheelhouse's vantage point, and the vantage point Wheelhouse's photos were taken from- and even in CIT's gif it's clear he could've seen the plane above and between trees- which were shorter in 2001, anyway. CIT and their promoters have claimed Wheelhouse is lying, is complicit in the cover up and/or is an "operative". I don't see that's been established.

McGraw clarified for CIT what he actually saw, and what he inferred from other witnesses. His location near England's cab, seeing the plane in front of him and then impacting the Pentagon remain unchanged. He did not report a flyover, despite having a clear view.

Adam Larson has noted that parts of the accounts of CIT witnesses Paik, Morin and Roberts actually support the S path- other parts of their account support the N path; so where was the plane? 3 of the Bart/Arabesque cited witnesses described the plane as coming up 395; that people S of the plane had a perspective error like this may explain why witnesses in Arlington Cemetery (N of the plane) perceived the plane as being far N of the official path.

Roosevelt Roberts described seeing a "silver" "commercial aircraft" flying along AA 77's path; "no more than 50 feet, less than 100 feet [above the ground]", "in the South parking lot, over Lane 1", "banking just above the light poles", "coming from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC" and THEN he describes a plane flying away to the south-west. The CIT promoters have not explained this plane as anything other than AA 77, and it's not clear from Roberts' account when the impact occurred in relation to this- see the article and film here: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/last-word-on-flyover-witnes...

The accounts of Zakhem, Wallace, Elgas have not been discredited; read their accounts, Adam Larson's analysis, Adam's 'debunking' comments and my replies, and judge for yourself.

Bart/Arabesque witnesses- commented on by CIT promoters:

Mike Walter- In addition to seeing AA 77 impact the Pentagon, he reported seeing a light pole get clipped. Adam attempted to cast him as a N side witness and failed, and hasn't debunked or discredited the other elements of his account.

IN ADDITION to the above, there are these Adam Larson cited witnesses that remain to be addressed by the CIT promoters in this thread, and debunked/discredited, if possible:

Tim Timmerman
Dawn Vignola
NEIT 567 aka Maria De La Cerda
Steve Riskus
Wanda Ramey
Lloyd England
Levi Stephens
NEIT 405
George Aman

The first comment in this thread has the names of 21 people not discussed in CL's article; 3 reported the plane as coming up 395 (S of Columbia Pike), and the others described the plane hitting light poles and/or the generator.

24 of the people cited in the first comment are cited in relation to the downed light poles. Seven of them appear to have inferred the plane hit the poles from seeing them down immediately after the crash. Four of the witnesses, possibly more, are not directly quoted; their accounts are referenced in media reports. At least eight, and possibly thirteen, directly report seeing light poles get clipped, and three of them also directly report seeing the generator get hit. These are S path witnesses that remain to be addressed by CIT promoters, and debunked/discredited if possible.

Hovis, Tom [Not a witness]
Pettit, Mark
Mlburn, Kirk
Bright, Mark
Elliott, Bruce
Evey, Walker Lee [Not a witness]
Fortunato, Don [Not a witness]
Gaines, Kat
Hagos, Afework
Mason, Don
Narayanan, Vin
Owens, Mary Ann
Probst, Frank
Sepulveda, Noel
Sucherman, Joel
Washington, Rodney
Unnamed Navy admiral
DeChiaro, Steve [Not a witness]
Richard Benedetto
Henson, Jerry

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Dad gummit Erik!

The plane Roberts described could not be flight 77. It would be physically impossible for a plane approaching from the west on the south or north flight paths to make a turn and fly away to the south-west.

But what was the plane flying EAST???

Chris: "It would be physically impossible for a plane approaching from the west on the south or north flight paths to make a turn and fly away to the south-west."

I wasn't disputing your claim there; i was quoting Roberts, who said what I quoted- he saw a plane flying East, toward the Pentagon, and his description puts it on AA 77's path; what was that plane, if not AA 77?

Roberts said he saw a "silver" "commercial aircraft" flying along AA 77's path; "no more than 50 feet, less than 100 feet [above the ground]", "in the South parking lot, over Lane 1", "banking just above the light poles", "coming from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC" and THEN he describes a plane flying away to the south-west. The CIT promoters have not explained this plane as anything other than AA 77, and it's not clear from Roberts' account when the impact occurred in relation to this- see the article and film here: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/last-word-on-flyover-witnes...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

"not clear from Roberts' account when the impact occurred"

Actually it is clear. Roberts felt the explosion, and then ran outside. He said he was just a few steps from the door and was outside in seconds, in time to see a silver commercial airliner flying very low over the south parking lot.

His statement that it flew to the southwest was probably an error, since he first said it was heading east. He was driving at the time, maybe a bit distracted. People often say west when they mean east.

reply to Sheila and Chris re Roberts

2 sources for the CIT/Roberts interview transcript:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20826
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

After Marquis has Roberts confirm that he saw a silver commercial airliner over the S parking lot:

Aldo Marquis: "Okay. Do you remember in which direction it was headed?"

Roosevelt Roberts: "Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh... uh east towards DC, coming from that area ..uh.. was the highway."

Marquis, by his question/statement that it was "banking around, turning back around?" shows that he understands Robert has seen a plane coming in heading east, which Robert then says turns around and goes southwest:

Roosevelt Roberts: "It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... south west.. coming out."

Aldo Marquis: "So like banking around, turning back around?"

Later on, Ranke has Roberts confirm where the plane came from, and then Ranke confirms that he understood, that Roberts saw a plane coming IN; FROM the southwest- before it turns around and AWAY, southwest:

Craig Ranke: "Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?"

Roosevelt Roberts: "It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction."

Craig Ranke: "So from the same direction as as as the f.." (Marquis interrupts)

---------

Sheila: "His statement that it flew to the southwest was probably an error, since he first said it was heading east. He was driving at the time, maybe a bit distracted. People often say west when they mean east."

Sheila has proposed a possible explanation; [EDIT: Correction; i misread Sheila's comment just above- she's suggesting that Roberts' statement "that it flew to the southwest was probably an error, since he first said it was heading east."] This is speculation, of course- and, furthermore, given Roberts' location on the southwest side of the Pentagon, southwest is the only direction he could've seen an aircraft heading away (or coming in). Sheila, are you suggesting that Roberts meant to say the flying away plane was heading east? And do you accept that Roberts clearly referred to a "silver" "commercial airliner" flying in, from the southwest, that it was heading east, and that this was confirmed by both Marquis and Ranke?

Seems to me Roberts was clear, and Marquis and Ranke were clear, that Roberts said he had seen a plane fly in from the southwest, heading east [EDIT: and THEN fly AWAY to the southwest]. Possible explanations for the explosion Robert was referring to; perhaps a bomb went off in the Pentagon shortly before AA 77's impact, or perhaps Roberts is referring to the explosion of the plane hitting the WTC, which he had just seen on the TV.

Chris: "The purple dots are what Roberts surmised from what he saw - a plane approaching from the north-west and flying away to the south-west."

This is speculation as well- Roberts did not say he was surmising; he said he saw this plane- crossing 27, over lane 1 in the S parking lot, "banking above the light poles". Then he talks about it heading away to the southwest. We do know for sure that, that from Roberts' vantage point, he couldn't see the plane heading off over the mall entrance and crossing 27; that would be Roberts surmising.

So what was the plane Roberts saw coming from the southwest, heading east?

Also, keep in mind, that while it does seem that Marquis and Ranke are doing their best to simply let Roberts tell his story, and are asking questions to clarify what he's saying, they have gone into the interview convinced that Roberts saw a flyover, and are asking questions based on the premise that it's a fact.

This is what Roberts said in his 2001 LoC interview- transcript from frustratingfraud; if anyone has a more complete transcript, or if there are any errors in this, please post/point them out:

2001 LoC interview, partial:
“I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap] and as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh… all of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed. And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents. I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television. And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta. As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness. So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream. So what I did was I turned around, and I drew out my weapon, I didn’t know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn’t know what was happening. So I ran back into south loading and I start forcing people out of the building.”
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/05/flyover-witness-roberts-whe...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

What a tangled web

A plane cannot approach from the south-west and leave the same way. This is a tight turn for an airliner.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
From Pilots for 911 Truth video at 14:40
The speed is 200 knots, the turning radius is 5,090 feet and requires a 35 degree bank.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509&hl=en#
A plane on the south flight path would have flown away to the east.

The Pentagon is 77 feet high. The North side was over 1,000 feet away. Roberts could not see the north side [Mall area] from the loading dock. [about 100 feet from building to edge]

The link to the CIT transcript:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

It would be a big turn, if it did.

and it could've been a big turn; Roberts couldn't see the turn; he must've been guessing what this "silver" "commercial" airliner, coming from the southwest and heading east, did after it disappeared out of his line of sight. I'm guessing he was guessing it went out over the mall entrance and crossed 27, apparently because it appeared back in his line heading southwest. That is, if that's what Roberts is actually referring to- he may have been confused by what CIT's questions, which were based on their belief that there was a flyover.

Roberts: "It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction."

Roberts is making a distinction between 2 planes. CIT was working on the premise it was the same plane. Roberts is less clear that the 2nd plane, the plane heading away, was a silver commercial airliner, though CIT refers to it as such. There's no radar track for this plane- unless it was the C-130, which turned north after AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and then turned soutwest:

C-130 radar track http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/C-1...

correct me if i'm wrong about anything above, and also this: CIT says Roberts never responded to their follow up email, is that correct?

At this point, it seems there are a number of questions raised by Roberts account that are not going to get answered w/o more info from Roberts, or more info from some other source. I'm not at all convinced he saw a "flyover"- but there are some strong indications he saw AA 77 flying in on the S path just before it crashed into the Pentagon, and that either a bomb went off in the Pentagon prior to the hit, or the "explosion" he referred to was on TV. And it's also puzzling how he was a HALF HOUR off on the time, even though he was interviewed quite some time after 9/11, and you'd think he would've learned what time it was believed to have hit.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "You are still ignoring" by Chris Sarns

What did Roberts see? C-130, mystery 3rd plane or flyover?

Chris, what am i ignoring? I acknowledge in all my comments above that Roberts said he saw a plane heading south west. I also acknowledge that Roberts said he saw a plane coming in from the southwest, "heading east towards DC" "around the south parking lot" "banking just above the light poles" "over lane one"?

Do you acknowledge that Roberts said he saw what he referred to as a "silver" "commercial airliner" coming in from the southwest, "heading east towards DC"? What was the plane coming in, if not AA 77?

Chris: "When he saw the plane, it was facing west and headed back over Hwy 27."

Chris, are you going on the assumption that the plane Roberts saw coming in is the same plane he saw going out, or a different plane? Roberts said he's sure it was two different planes; "Yes sir, that's not what I think I saw it, it was two aircraft that's for sure." Do you hear the surprise in Roberts' voice when Marquis refers to the first plane as the one going out? Roberts asks Marquis to repeat his question, and this time Marquis refers to "the second plane":

Aldo Marquis: "So from where, from where then headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?"

Roosevelt Roberts: "From the... uh.. can you repeat that one more time please?"

Aldo Marquis: "Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this .. this second plane, do you remember which direction it was heading?"
...
Craig Ranke: "Now where, where did it seem like it came from?"

Roosevelt Roberts: "It seemed like [incomprehensible], by the time I got the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one, and it was so large, you couldn't miss from seeing it."

In the above, how did Roberts interpret Ranke's first question? In reference to when he first saw the 2nd plane coming from the SW, or when he saw it heading back SW?

Craig Ranke: "Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?"

Roosevelt Roberts: "It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction."

That's the direction the C-130 came from; from the SW, behind AA 77. The C-130 turned N, then SW; that would've made it reappear as coming "from the impact side", if it had briefly disappeared out of his field of view from his vantage point, which was at the base of a 77' tall, very wide building.

Roberts: "it was heading, um. . . back across 27." I wonder if you're reading this too literally- is the active word here, according to Roberts, "heading", or "27", as in fixing a moving object's location up in the sky as precisely over 27? It was "heading back" when he saw it. And it was "across 27".

I don't see that what you posted in the above comment rules out the C-130 being the 2nd plane Roberts referred to. Also, if there was another plane coming from over the top of the Pentagon, as in the purple dotted line in your drawing, it would've been in full view of traffic on 27 and 395. Not only is there no radar data for this mystery plane, there's no other eyewitness reports, and no ATC reports- that is, if Roberts is actually referring to the 2nd plane as being there, and he's not talking about the C-130. Of course, some will claim the eyewitnesses and ATC's were all silenced or in on it, and the radar could've been scrubbed. But there's no evidence of this, either.

Many questions about Roberts' account. However, we should all be able to agree that NOTHING should've hit the Pentagon.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "Irrelevant to "flyover"" by Chris Sarns

What Roberts said- audio and transcript

Chris: "No, he did not say he "saw" the plane coming in from the southwest, "heading east towards DC""

How can you say the above, when Roberts said the following:

After Marquis has Roberts confirm that he saw a silver commercial airliner over the S parking lot:

Aldo Marquis: "Okay. Do you remember in which direction it was headed?"

Roosevelt Roberts: "Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh... uh east towards DC, coming from that area ..uh.. was the highway."

Marquis, by his question/statement that it was "banking around, turning back around?" shows that he understands Robert has seen a plane coming in heading east, which Robert then says turns around and goes southwest:

Roosevelt Roberts: "It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... south west.. coming out."

Aldo Marquis: "So like banking around, turning back around?"

Later on, Ranke has Roberts confirm where the plane came from, and then Ranke confirms that he understood, that Roberts saw a plane coming IN; FROM the southwest- before it turns around and AWAY, southwest:

Craig Ranke: "Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?"

Roosevelt Roberts: "It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction."

Craig Ranke: "So from the same direction as as as the f.." (Marquis interrupts)

It sounds to me as if he saw 2 planes come in from the SW- one hit the Pentagon, one left going SW. The C-130 would've been far enough away when it was going away, that he might have mistaken it for a commercial airliner; he was clear that he'd seen 2 aircraft. Roberts needs to be interviewed again to clarify these things.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

He saw the plane once, for about 5 seconds, going away.

He said the plane was facing west and it was about 50 to 100 feet over lane 1 at the west end of the south parking lot. Lane 1 is over 400 feet from the south flight path. The plane he described was NOT the plane approaching on the south path. Furthermore, he said the explosion was before he ran outside and saw the plane. He made no mention of an explosion after he saw the plane.

His statement is not clear or we would not be having this discussion. The only thing that is clear is that CIT did a rotten job of asking questions and getting a clear understanding of what he saw. Their habit of accusing people of "being in on it" has made it impossible to get further information. In effect, they are a two man information demolition team. ;-)

Going round and round on which way the plane came from misses the point.

In any case, the plane he described flying away to the south-west is NOT the plane approaching from the south-west.

He did not see the the plane flying east.

He saw the plane over the south parking lot. Later he said the plane flew back over Hwy 27 which is to the west so he did not get his directions mixed up. He said the plane flew away to the south-west.

Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?
Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.
Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?
Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.
Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27.

This gives the impression that the plane approached over the south parking lot but it could not make a 180 degree turn over the parking lot so the other alternative is what I have depicted, the plane approaching from the north-west and flying away to the south-west. That is consistent with the statements where the south approach is not.

Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?
Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?
Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-?
Roosevelt: Right.
Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-
Roosevelt: Right.
Aldo: -which direction it was heading?
Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.
Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?
Roosevelt: Correct.
-snip-
Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side [north] and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.
Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?
Roosevelt: Right.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The green line is the official flight path. The orange lines are the flight paths drawn by the CIT witnesses. The purple dots are what Roberts surmised from what he saw - a plane approaching from the north-west and flying away to the south-west. The red dots combine what the north path witnesses saw with what Mr. Roberts describes. As shown, the resulting turning radius is about 350 feet. But an airliner flying at 200 knots requires a turning radius of about 5,000 feet. So clearly the plane Mr. Roberts describes could not have been the plane approaching from the west.

General response to Loose Nuke

loose nuke,

Feel free to add a link to this thread to your anti-CIT arsenal all you want "for the record" because it will not even begin to sway people who have viewed National Security Alert. What is so definitive and convincing about the north side evidence is that the witness accounts are FIRSTHAND and filmed on location to leave no room for ambiguity or spin. They prove the official story false and all Caustic Logic did is confidently state that some north side witnesses support the opposite and list a bunch of unconfirmed ambiguous media reports and proclaim that they support a "south path". South of what?? Certainly not the Citgo since none of them discuss the plane's location in relation to the Citgo at all! None of them. This isn't some arbitrary question. It's about the location of the plane in relation to the citgo. People who watch National Security Alert easily understand this so 2nd hand media reports of witnesses who do not mention the Citgo will not sway them.

In fact, in your list of additional witnsses you are demanding we address, you have included several who admit to not being witnesses at all! This is because you have made no effort whatsoever to actually research the info let alone investigate.

Let's see if you can figure out who are the admitted non-witnesses and report back.

This is why the work of CIT is so important. They have made the unprecedented effort to contact the witnesses, document their POV, and prove exactly what they claim they saw in relation to a very specific question regarding the most critically siginficant landmark in the flight path. The former Citgo gas station. So for you or anyone to refute this thorough effort it is up to YOU to do the same work and provide evidence on the same level to counter what CIT provides. Throwing up random witness names and asking us to debunk them is a clear cop-out on your part. Particularly since you won't address the info with CIT directly or even let them post here. How about you challenge Craig to a podcast debate over this if you are so confident? It's up to YOU to prove that the witnesses listed by Caustic Logic actually report the plane south of the gas station, and in order to do this you must put forward the same effort that CIT has. You must contact the witnesses and record their accounts firsthand while confirming their location, documenting their POV and proving that they could even SEE the Citgo in the first place. Then you must ask them where the plane was in relation to it.

But of course in your desperate attempt at damage control after the Ranke/Bursill debate, you have merely chosen to rehash an article from over a year ago by a known jrefer/blogger who has never spoken with a single witness his entire life, was admittedly obsessed with CIT, and whose final conclusion after months of this daily obsession is that the north side witnesses are LIARS who could not POSSIBLY be mistaken about the north side! So while the north side evidence certainly does implicate others as willingly participating in a black operation of mass murder (that clearly had to have involved real people) you have chosen to prop up the blatant spin of a former blogger who reconciles this information by accusing the witnesses who expose the deception as the liars! There is no logic in this behavior. Why aren't you condeming Cautic Logic for calling the north side witnesses liars? Will you only believe witnesses if they support the official story? Funny how you ignore this clear double standard.

CIT lied about the witnesses being "unanimous"

They interviewed 4 south path witnesses but did not include them because they were "dubious" or an "accomplice". They did not say "There are no credible south flight path witnesses". That would have been an honest statement as it acknowledges that it is their opinion but they did not do that. They left the viewer with the impression that there were NO south path witnesses. Don't repeat the excuse "That info is available at the website" because most people don't have the time to review all the info on the website that was that was left out of NSA.

Leading people to believe something that is not true is the same as telling a lie.

CIT is entitled to their opinion but they did not say it was opinion, they stated numerous times that the witnesses were "unanimous" as if it were a fact. It is not.

They also lied about there being flyover witnesses. As I have pointed out above, Roberts is not a flyover witness. The plane he describes could not be the plane approaching from the west on the north or south flight paths.

Chris, there are NO south path witnesses

You are grasping at straws. It's not a question of "no credible south path witnesses." There are zero witnesses, who had a vantage point to see the gas station and the plane's relation to it, who put the plane south of citgo. Zero. None. Nada. You have absolutely nothing to support the veracity of the south path being true. Keith Wheelhouse is not a south side witness, neither is Zakhem or Elgass, or any of the other names offered up by Caustic Logic. In my below comments in this thread, I deconstruct Adam Larson's blog just as DRG deconstructs Popular Mechanics in Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Loose Nuke's "answers" to my debunkings are basically like Ryan Mackey's "answer" to D911D, just lots of verbiage and fluff. Oh, but it's 200 pages!, the uninitiated might say! With all that, Mackey MUST have debunked Griffin, right?

Meantime, I'm waiting for Loose Nuke to come back out and play. There are several names he lists as "south path witnesses" who admitted to not actually being a witness at all. I wonder if he can figure out who these are?

IYO

You can fool yourself with that BS but you will be laughed at by everyone who knows about the numerous south path witnesses. They may well be wrong but to say they don't exist is a blatant lie. Your criteria is silly. "Only those who had a vantage point to see the gas station and the plane's relation to it" are valid. This eliminates most of your own witnesses. Who is grasping at straws?

You did not deny that Roberts is not a flyover witness because it's true.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question:

Could something other than the plane cause the directional damage to the Pentagon?

You know the answer but you will not say it.

you will be laughed at by

you will be laughed at by everyone who knows about the numerous south path witnesses.

If this were the case Bursill would have won the debate.

He was not able to name a "south side witness" and explain in detail why the person's account is credible as a SoC witness. What to know why this is? (Hint: It wasn't because he hadn't done his homework.)

Could something other than the plane cause the directional damage to the Pentagon?

Um, yes. That is precisely what CIT concludes. That the directional damage was done by explosives, and that the light poles were prepared in advance.

Untrue statements and no basis for flyover

Craig said the witnesses were "unanimous".
That is not true.

You said "There are NO south path witnesses."
That is not true.

CIT concludes that "the directional damage was done by explosives, and that the light poles were prepared in advance."
This is probably true.

This is the so called "proof" that a plane on the north path did not hit the Pentagon.

"A plane on this flight path cannot hit the light poles [agreed], show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video [agreed], and cause the directional external [not directional] and internal damage leading to the curiously round C ring hole. [CIT concludes that the directional damage was done by explosives, and that the light poles were prepared in advance]

All these things are common to the flyover and fly into theories.

Therefore, The north flight path does NOT prove the plane did not fly into the Pentagon any more than it proves the plane did not fly over the Pentagon.

How can you say "There are NO south path witnesses" ?

CIT even made a video about south flight path witnesses.

"The USA Today Parade"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3506984191989953274#

In your circular logic world The NFP [north flight path] witnesses are telling the truth and therefore the SFP witnesses don't exist.

CIT does not have proof of north flight path. I though so until I learned the whole truth. CIT is dishonest in the presentation of evidence. They did not tell the whole truth. They and you are acting like lawyers for the defense of the flyover theory and therefore are not required to tell the whole truth.

CIT calls people liars because their accounts are "dubious" or not accurate yet they ignore the contradictions of their own witnesses. Lagasse and Turcios said they only saw the plane for one or two seconds. CIT uses these quotes to call Wheelhouse a liar. But that would also mean that Terry Morin, William Middleton, and Darrell Stafford are lying too.

Their whole case is misrepresentations, omissions, assumptions and double talk.
In their defense, you make absurd statements like "There are NO south path witnesses".

Chris Sarns Nails it

Yes! Chris Sarns gets it! Very well said! I thought we lost you buddy, when you fell down the rabbit hole of accepting the North Path, you never fell for the flyover which kept you in the game, but you did it. You figured it out. It's a con job. It's the perception of where you are located. Adam and Stefan and the rest got Pentaconned! LOL, the ironic thing is these no planers have now proven a passenger jet hit the pentagon. LOL!

OK, silence from Loose Nuke.

Are you aware that you presented several "south of citgo witnesses" who admitted to not even seeing the event?

Here are a few that I checked up on:

1. Lee Evey

Lee Evey was a worker for the Pentagon's Renovation (PENTREN) program. Here are a few of the many examples of out of context quotes that have been used to not just support AA77 crashing into the Pentagon, but specifically, the official flight path.

"the plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.” -Lee Evey

“The plane approached the Pentagon… slicing into the building" -Lee Evey

"The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off." -Lee Eveys

He himself stated that he was not a witness and was not present at the Pentagon at the time of the attack in a DoD+press+conference+on+9/15/01.

QUESTION: Would you say that the plane, since it had a lot of fuel on it at the impact, and the fact that there are very small pieces, virtually exploded in flames when it tore into the building? I mean, since there are not large pieces of the wings laying outside, did it virtually explode?

EVEY: I didn't see it. My people [Ed note: Don Mason and Frank Pobst] who did see it enter the building describe it as entering the building and then there being flames coming out immediately afterwards. Whether you describe it as an explosion or not, people I talk to who were there, some called it an explosion. Others called it a large fire. I'm not sure. I wasn't there, sir. It's just a guess on my part.

It's also clear from this exchange in an interview with Today's Faculity Manager (LE = Lee Evey).

TFM: Can you describe what it felt like to see the Pentagon in person, for the first time after the attack?

LE: It was a shock. Everyone has seen pictures of the outer wall. Naturally, it was shocking to see on the front page of the newspaper and on television. But believe me, as shocking as those things were, they didn't come anywhere close to the visceral response I got when I saw it myself.

Details about Evey's exact whereabouts at the time of the attack were published by The Retired Officer magazine in January of 2002. The article states that, not only was Evey NOT at the Pentagon and not a witness to the attack, but that he was in North Carolina and did not arrive on the scene until over 9 hours after the attack.

Lee Evey, manager of the Pentagon Renovation Program since November 1997, had planned to retire in January 2002. His plans, like his nation, changed Sept. 11. Because of a death in his family, Evey was driving to Tennessee that morning. When he stopped for lunch in North Carolina, the waitress apologized for the slow service. The kitchen staff, she said, was watching television, gripped by the terror in New York and Washington, D.C.

Evey jumped in his car and headed north. By cell phone, he directed his staff to give rescue teams whatever they needed, from heavy equipment to shoring materials. He arrived at the scene by seven that evening, his backseat filled with bags of fast food for staff and rescuers.

The article contains exclusive quotations from Evey, so the author (or someone else at the magazine) presumably spoke with him directly.

Next: Don Fortunato

Another witness presented by Adam Larson and Arabesque as being a "south of citgo witness."

Don Fortunato is a detective with the Arlington County Police Department (or at least was on 9/11/01). Defenders of the official story sometimes quote him as saying:

"Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts."

Taken out of context this sounds like perhaps Fortunato was on the highway when the plane flew by. However, Fortunato was not a witness to the attack at all. He was first responder who drove to the scene after hearing about the attack over his radio.

The out of context quote above is taken from a "Web Exclusive" Newsweek article from September 28, 2001, entitled "Washington’s Heroes" and subtitled "On the ground at the Pentagon on Sept. 11". In the very same paragraph, right before the quote above, it says (bold added):

Don Fortunato, a plainclothes detective with the Arlington (Va.) Police Department, was walking into his office, when he heard a muffled explosion—construction, he thought. Then his radio started squawking news of a plane crash at the Pentagon. I grabbed my radio, ran to my car and pulled on my bulletproof vest and headed toward the thick, black smoke billowing out of the sky", he said. “Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts."

This was further confirmed by Fortunato himself on video at a press conference on 9/13/2001, where he said (bold added):

I arrived into work and had heard over the radio of what had happened in New York. As I was driving in I was kind of wondering, or waiting, if and when it was gonna happen in Washington. So as I arrived in there was reports of, that, uh, possible plane crash at the Pentagon. And hearing everything unfold over WTOP, um, I just turned around and came back in, uhh, to the scene. I came down Washington Boulevard where I ended up, ummm, next to a cab that was struck by one of the street lamps apparently that was knocked down from the air craft as it was making its descent into the Pentagon. I parked my vehicle and I got out and just ran to what was quickly being established as a triage area over on the south lawn of the Pentagon.

Next: Tom Hovis

Some like to imply that Tom Hovis saw the light poles get knocked down or that he saw the plane hit the building, but in fact he was 8 miles from the Pentagon and did not see the plane at all.

In an e-mail that he sent out on 9/14/2001, he said:

My office is 8 miles from the site. The recovery teams working 18 hour shifts are just now getting to the body of the aircraft that went right through the outer ring at full power according to eyewitnesses.

He then proceeds to go into more detail about his understanding of what had happened based on the damage path and what he had heard second- and third-hand. Quotes from this description are sometimes taken out of context to imply that he was a witness when he was not.

The full e-mail can be read here.

In a nutshell, loose nuke (and Adam Larson if you're reading)

This is what happens to the "south of citgo" defense upon scrutiny. It falls apart all over the place.

Hovis, Fortunato and Evey are not witnesses; 34 remain

Thank you, Adam, for posting this info here; you're correct, Tom Hovis, Don Fortunato and Lee Evey are NOT witnesses. I was not aware of this before posting the names here- as I noted a few times in this thread, I posted Adam Larson's article, and witnesses from the Bart/Arabesque compilation whose testimony indicates S path (i.e. referring to the plane as coming up 395, hitting light poles, hitting the generator), so they could be debunked as 'S side' witnesses, if possible.

And as I noted in my update, I realized that some of the people are not direct witnesses, and I should've named them. However, on further review I'm not sure that number is higher than 4. If any on that list have been legitimately debunked by CIT or anyone else, that info should be readily available to Adam and other CIT fans. Adam and CIT are the ones who've claimed there are "zero" S side witnesses- despite the existing accounts- and Adam previously posted a list, claiming it was debunked eyewitnesses- so bring the evidence, like you did w/ the 3 above.

In the list in my 'Debate status report' comment above http://www.911blogger.com/node/22239#comment-224718 , Terry Morin is obviously not a direct witness to light poles being hit; he mentioned seeing a flash from that area and inferred it. However, the elements of his 2001 testimony supporting the S path- for instance, being able to see "red and blue stripes down the fuselage" and having a better view of it than is implied in NSA; "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.” have not yet been explained, if he's a so-called 'N path' witness.

Closer review of Steve DeChiaro's account shows he didn't see the light pole get hit; he saw one "bent in half" after the crash, so no need to debunk that one.

In a comment above, Adam asserted that witnesses quoted in MSM reports need to be personally confirmed before their testimony can be considered as supporting the official flight path; this argument is based on the fact that MSM are known to have put out false and inaccurate information in some cases. However, I don't accept that this is grounds for considering the accounts bogus until proven otherwise, let alone claim N path and flyover until proven otherwise. My basic argument is not that AA 77 hit the Pentagon; it's that NOTHING should've hit. And I argue that the argument and 'evidence' that AA 77 flew N of Citgo and flew over the Pentagon, which is supported solely by eyewitness accounts- is unsupportable, as it's contradicted by a far greater number of eyewitness accounts to a S path, and an even greater number of eyewitness accounts to impact- as well as the damage path, plane parts, bodies in plane seats, autopsy reports, personal effects, etc.

To sum up, Adam's claim of "zero" eyewitnesses supporting the S path still has not been backed up. So far, these Hovis, Fortunato, Evey and DeChiaro are the only ones that have been legitimately debunked as 'S side' witnesses- which makes the list 34 (not 31). There may be others who should come off, but I stand by my previous statement that the 10 previously addressed in this thread, whose testimony contains elements wholly or partially supporting the official aka 'S path', have not been debunked or discredited.

PS this graphic is useful for placing some of the eyewitnesses- and I've previously seen this on a CIT site, so afaik it's accepted by both 'sides' of the debate.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/CIT...

EDIT: Forgot; 34 cuz there are other witnesses who described the plane as being close behind AA 77- not 3" behind, as CIT insists. Wheelhouse might be the only one who placed it directly overhead, but perhaps it appeared that way. And the questions about the difference between the CIT gif and his vantage point haven't been addressed here- not to mention no actual proof that he's intentionally trying to deceive people- let alone an 'operative'- scroll down for these C-130 witnesses:
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html#search

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Dude, those were just three random ones.

It makes me wonder how many other "south of citgo witnesses" are legit.

Also, if I successfully debunked those three, why would some of our colleagues vote the posts down? Oh, that's right. Faction-based voting.

Here's a suggestion for you, especially you Erik, since you live in DC:

Why don't YOU do expend some of this enormous energy doing some citizen investigating yourself? Why don't you try and track down some of these "south of citgo" witnesses and attempt to interview them on location?

you made the claim of "zero"; bring the evidence

I actually voted those posts up, cuz you were correct- in this instance.

CIT hasn't made their case for N path and flyover. There's already a great preponderance of evidence that AA 77 hit. I'll continue to point this out from time to time when CIT stuff is pushed at 911blogger, and ignore it at other times (as i have been) but mainly I'll continue devoting more time to other research and activism.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

north path conclusively proven

CIT hasn't made their case for N path and flyover.

Yes they have.

This idea that the 13 north side witnesses are contradicted by "dozens" or "hundreds" of south side witnesses does not hold water. The mathematical odds of all 13 north path witnesses coincidentally being wrong is essentially zero for all practical purposes. Even Sarns concedes that the north path has been proven to his satisfaction. (If he backpedals on this I will call him out for sure.)

Even Adam Larson, the author of the very blog entry you posted, agreed with Craig, in debate, that there's no way all 13 north path witnesses are wrong.

Even Adam Larson, the author of the very blog entry you posted, agreed with Craig that the only other alternative is that all 13 witnesses, plus CIT, are all in on one massive disinfo conspiracy.

And of course, everyone (sans Sarns) agrees that the north approach = flyover. Otherwise, why such a massive attempt to defend the south approach?

Sorry. Please play again. :-)

You called?

"Even Sarns concedes that the north path has been proven to his satisfaction. (If he backpedals on this I will call him out for sure.)"

I am no longer sure about that. The more I investigate CIT and NSA, the more omissions, misrepresentations and outright lies I find.

Sgt. Lagasse and Robert Turcios refute Terry Morin, William Middleton, and Darrell Stafford or the other way around. Lagasse and Turcios say it only took a second or two for the plane to get from the Citgo station to the Pentagon while Morin, Middleton and Stafford say it took 10 to 13 seconds for the plane to travel less than twice that distance. You would call one of these two groups liars if they were south flight path witnesses. CIT called Wheelhouse a liar based on what Lagasse and Turcios said.

Haha.

It took you long enough, but you finally figured it out: If you're gonna be a CIT detractor, you can not accept the north path evidence and still argue against flyover! I can just imagine the cringing occurring on the faces of all the other detractors when you were trying to reconcile a north approach with an impact.

I have debunked, in detail, at least 13 of the supposed "south side witnesses" presented in this blog.

Don't forget, this entry was titled, avec caps, "THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED."

We were presented with AT LEAST three witnesses, discussed on this first comment page, who had been offered as "documentation of a south impact," and these people did not even see the event at all!

This is in addition to the first 10 I debunked.

What you claim to be the case about CIT and NSA, I find to be the case with the other side. The more I study "Causting Logic" and "Arabesque," the more omissions, misrepresentations and outright lies I find.

But, keep burning calories in your never-ending quest to convince people of how evil Craig is.

I disagree with CL and Arabesque on some points

"But, keep burning calories in your never-ending quest to convince people of how evil Craig is."

But I don't adopt a snotty condescending attitude and insult them. Grow up and learn how to debate like an adult.

You still have not answered this question:

Could the directional damage to the Pentagon have been caused by something other than the plane?

HAH!!!!

But I don't adopt a snotty condescending attitude and insult them.

Thanks for a good laugh, and naturally the wine helps. You have expended untold amounts of energy, going all the way back to July, in dozens of threads on multiple sites, calling CIT's claims "fruit loops," and "bonkers," and you've claimed that they are "liars," "frauds," "con artists," and of course the obligatory "disinformation."

I've still got Red Zinfandel in my nostrils from the uncontrolled laugh which erupted upon reading your words "I don't adopt a snotty condescending attitude and insult them." Damn you Chris! :D :D :D

I don't talk about them personally

I point out the lies, the misrepresentations and the total lack of evidence for the "fruit loops - pig flew over the rainbow" theory. ;-)
That may not be very "cool" but those are the words that came to mind as I read Craig's reasoning. I find absurd very funny and his reasoning is absurd. Maybe I watched too much Monty Python, who knows?
I did go off when I saw the "enemies" list. That's repugnant.

It's impossible to point out a lie or misrepresentation without being "personal" so that is a non statement.

You, on the other hand, talk about your opponent more than you address the issue.
Please address this issue:
Do you think the directional damage to the Pentagon could have been caused by something other than the plane?

3-4 debunked by Adam; Adam falsely claims 13

Adam: "I have debunked, in detail, at least 13 of the supposed "south side witnesses" presented in this blog."

Adam debunked Hovis, Evey and Fortunato, I eliminated DeChiaro. Wheelhouse's account is problematic, as no other eyewitness, that I know of, is on record claiming the C-130 was directly over AA 77- although some placed it seconds behind. http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html#search (scroll down from this anchor link) I don't see the evidence that he's being intentionally deceptive, participating in the cover up of CIT's alleged flyover, or an 'operative', as CIT accused him. Wheelhouse may- like Lagasse and Brooks, and most eyewitnesses- have gotten certain details wrong, and remembered things incorrectly. Adam has not addressed the contradictions between the vantage point in Wheelhouse's photo, and the location CIT place him in their gif.

McGraw acknowledged to CIT what he actually saw, and what he 'recalled' based on what he heard from others. When they interviewed him, he maintained having been on the highway, having seen the plane cross in front of him and hit the Pentagon- not fly over. It's highly unlikely he got major details like that wrong- and his testimony is corroborated by dozens and dozens of other people. It's known McGraw was very near England's cab; that's where CIT places him.

If we exclude Wheelhouse, Adam still has to debunk 33 eyewitnesses whose testimony, in whole or part supports the S path, in order to back up his clam of "zero" witnesses. In previous threads, Adam has posted a link he claimed debunks the eyewitnesses to impact, which include many of the eyewitnesses to light poles being struck. If that's been done, he should be able to quickly copy/paste the evidence, but he hasn't done so, w/ the exception of Hovis, Evey and Fortunato.

Adam has acknowledged in the thread on my 'Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Flyover' article, after being busted essentially plagiarizing from Ranke; "I know Craig in person and consulted with him, and yes he has directed me to certain posts and articles on their site clarifying their claims and positions. Yes, I have used their language and direct claims when discussing the information. That should be considered a good thing because you know I am representing their postion accurately in this discussion." http://www.911blogger.com/node/20877#comment-214293 (see page 3)

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Dawn Vignola, Daniel Ferrigno, William Lagasse

I have personally spoken to Dawn Vignola Ferrigno both on the phone and by email. Her and her husband Daniel Ferrigno have experience with cit. I know they invited cit to their home but from what I understand, eventually declined to go on camera with them for an unknown reason. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here. I have tried to get Dawn to interview on this matter but she has refused on the grounds of not knowing or trusting me because of her experience with cit. There can be no doubt that Dawn was a south side witness, yet because of her experience with cit, interviewing her for the record is impossible, at least for now. She has stated to me that her and her husband would post a statement on a website that they control, but despite a follow up email to her, I have not received notice of this statement to date. I will bring it to everyone's attention if and when they post it. I will not quote from her email without permission, but I can say that they were not happy with the way cit twisted her words to fit their very obvious and documented agenda.

In the same spirit, I have also talked to Lagasse, who would love to talk to me about cit. He is very pissed about what the cit folks have done. However, new rules have been implemented with his Pentagon employer since what happened with cit and now Lagasse requires Pentagon approval to talk to anyone about this issue. A request to the Pentagon went unanswered.

Con job put out and endorsed by proven Liars

"I am no longer sure about that. The more I investigate CIT and NSA, the more omissions, misrepresentations and outright lies I find."

Exactly! Which is why you are not allowed to "attack them", nor present any physical evidence, physical evidence being more important than eyewitness testimony, and it seals the deal, it proves which witnesses were correct. Which BTW, is all of them, since they all agree the plane hit the pentagon. There are no witnesses who are liars, the liars are the ones pushing this BS.

Wow, not a good start...

...the entry begins by giving props to a JREFer and refers to CIT's work as a "mockumentary." Anyone should be able to see that this is a biased essay from the outset. Ah, how "damage control mode" can be so transparent sometimes...

More to come soon...

Seriously

"Props to Mangoose at JREF for a couple of these leads."

What the heck is that all about? Earlier this week loosenuke and Jon Gold were giving props to screwloosechange, and now they are giving props to the JREFfers.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Adam Larson (Caustic Logic) is himself a celebrated JREFer...

If I recall correctly, he doesn't even believe WTC7 was controlled demo.

Notice the date on this article, August 12 2008. I wonder why loose nuke is posting it well over a year later? Why would he post an article written by a JREFer at all? Caustic Logic even gives props to another hardcore regular JREF poster "mangoose"! Is this what we have come to expect from 911blogger?

Sure enough the information in this article is just as deceptive as we should expect from the lying govt loyalist obsessive official story defenders at JREF. Many of the cited witnesses unequivocally support the north side approach as shown in National Security Alert and other CIT presentations like The North Side Flyover. Caustic Logic is simply pulling a typical JREF move by claiming that black is white and up is down hoping you'll accept it.

Never forget that Caustic Logic actually debated Craig 2 years ago before John Bursill did and he ADMITTED that it's impossible for the north side witnesses to be simultaneously mistaken and said they therefore must be willing participants in a disinformation conspiracy theory. Is that what loose nuke believes too? Craig's debate with Caustic Logic debate set the standard and makes it clear why nobody else was willing to debate Craig until 2 years later and we all know how that turned out for his opponent.

Listen to the debate between Craig Ranke and Adam Larson:

ad hominem attacks

Adam and Bruno have both started their critique of this post by attempting to discredit Caustic Logic (CL) by association w/ JREF. This is ad hominem; a logical fallacy- attacking the person rather than the evidence or arguments. Sometimes it creates the appearance that an argument or evidence has been discredited by association, and it's a rhetorical technique sometimes employed in a debate, when the evidence and arguments can't be discredited directly.

Bruno: "Earlier this week loosenuke and Jon Gold were giving props to screwloosechange, and now they are giving props to the JREFfers."

This is false; in this post I have not given "props" to JREF, and Jon Gold hasn't commented. As I noted in my first comment, I'm posting this information for critique and discussion- truth activists should be aware of these witness accounts and this analysis, and consider the claims of CIT in this context. It's true that in an earlier post I said that Screw Loose and other debunker sites are useful for identifying bogus or weak claims and for learning how things are used against the 9/11 truth movement, and I stand by that statement. Where JREF, Screw Loose, CIT, Adam or Bruno are correct or incorrect, I'll acknowledge it. Arguments and evidence stand and fall on their own merit.

Adam: "Sure enough the information in this article is just as deceptive as we should expect from the lying govt loyalist obsessive official story defenders at JREF. Many of the cited witnesses unequivocally support the north side approach as shown in National Security Alert and other CIT presentations like The North Side Flyover. Caustic Logic is simply pulling a typical JREF move by claiming that black is white and up is down hoping you'll accept it."

An assertion w/ a heaping of ad hom; we'll see if Adam can actually produce any evidence that CL's article is "deceptive", and if he can actually debunk the points made by him regarding Paik, Morin and Roberts. Not to mention the other 14 witnesses- and all the witness quoted in my first comment.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

we'll see if Adam can

we'll see if Adam can actually produce any evidence that CL's article is "deceptive"

Doing that right now... it's not too hard as I've done it in earlier discussions this year, only to be greeted with no response yet tons of downvotes...

Giving props to ScrewLooseChange?

Really Bruno? Did I do that? I believe what I said was just because SLC posts a link, does not make the link illegitimate. On top of that, my name isn't anywhere in this post. Your statement is a falsehood. I despise ScrewLooseChange, and the people that run it. They are hideous individuals who cherry pick the worst the 9/11 Truth Movement has to offer, and do their very best to portray them as the whole. They lie, and omit crucial information from most of their arguments. Part of the reason I debated Pat Curley was because I wanted to discredit him, and people like him.

All of that being said, what makes a person a better 9/11 Truth Activist is looking at BOTH SIDES of the argument. My arguments regarding 9/11 Truth have changed a lot over the years and IMPROVED because I have looked at both sides of the argument.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't post falsehoods about me. Thanks.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

give direct link next time

Why direct anyone to screwloosechange? Why bring screwloosechange up in a conversation as if they are the source for anything, whether direct or indirect? By doing so, you are promoting them. By quoting a link from their website you are giving them props.

Next time try giving the direct link.

And I do disagree with you about sharing BOTH SIDES of the argument. Let's keep the discussion legitimate.

Also, why post this article from JREFfers without qualifying it as a debunker's approach? By posting this article, loose nuke is promoting JREFfers.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

I believe...

LooseNuke was trying to show how the arguments being presented have been used against us.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

First observations

Of the witnesses listed, Terry Morin, Ed Paik, NEIT 567 (Maria De La Cerda), Levi Stephens, and George Aman are all 100% confirmed north side witnesses who have been interviewed firsthand and presented by CIT. Of the rest, NONE of them are firsthand witness accounts from people who were in a position to see the gas station who place the plane on the south side. None.

Frankly, it's an insult to many of our intelligence to post such blatant JREF-style deceptive spin at 911blogger. There isn't a need for me to go over each of these witnesses one by one as we've done this with most of them in plenty of other threads in the past. But I probably will any way. Stay tuned...

Lloyde England and Roosevelt Roberts south side witnesses???? Haha.

What a joke. This would be funny if it wasn't so important.

More detailed observations...

1. Albert Hemphill

It is not stated where on the east side of the annex Albert's office was. He said the plane seemed to come and over his right shoulder. For both of these conditions to be true, his office had to be more toward the north-east corner.

Adam Larson tries to indicate that the 'left wing bank' indicates the south path. Quite the contrary, a left bank after coming over the annex puts the plane right where the guys in the equipment yard saw it headed straight for them. Furthermore, a left bank as the plane clears the annex puts it further away from the south flight path.

Directly over the annex, Mr. Larson, directly over the annex. This is what I mean by JREF-style spin. You took the words "over my right shoulder" and tried to spin that as south of the gas station.

More to come...

Plagiarism by Adam Syed

The above comment re: Albert Helphill has been copy/pasted verbatim from the following comment by Chris Sarns- but unlike Caustic Logic, Adam Syed gives no credit to the source- see pg 8 of the "Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 Researcher Jim Hoffman" thread:

Thank you loose nuke for the south side witness list
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20833?page=7

"Albert Hemphill
"It is not stated where on the east side of the annex Albert's office was. He said the plane seemed to come directly over the annex and over his right shoulder. For both of these conditions to be true, his office had to be more toward the north-east corner.

"Adam Larson tries to indicate that the 'left wing bank' indicates the south path. Quite the contrary, a left bank after coming over the annex puts the plane right where the guys in the equipment yard saw it headed straight for them. Furthermore, a left bank as the plane clears the annex puts it further away from the south flight path."

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

I'm stealing from myself too.

This Adam Larson blog about "13 south side witnesses" has indeed been gone over in numerous previous discussions in 2009. You just had to post it for damage control after the Bursill interview, so it's not too hard to go back and find stuff.

But yes, that particular prose was copied from a Sarns comment and I didn't attribute him. My bad. How telling, though, that you should pick up on that, rather than actually address the content of what was said. My other comments below were originally written by me.

Adam acknowledges plagiarism- my Hemphill response

"You just had to post it for damage control after the Bursill interview" Actually, for the 3rd time; I've posted this article (and the Bart/Arabesque compilation- don't forget, there's over a couple dozen witness statements in that first comment indicating S path) so it can be properly critiqued and discussed.

From CL's article, quoting Hemphill:
"seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike.” He also gives the wing bank (remember, north path means left high) “He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight […] As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings […] as he impacted low on the Westside of the building"

Sarns (yes, as Adam acknowledged, that's Sarns' analysis that he 'stole') commented on the 'left wing down' observation re: Hemphill and some other witnesses; however, I dispute his contention that a plane making the CIT-alleged N path could be doing anything but a right-wing down bank at that part of the flight path, as the N path already shows it curving RIGHT as it goes over the Annex; left-wing down would've sent the plane over Arlington Cemetery, not over (or into) the Pentagon:
EDIT:

Thanks to Adam for posting the above graphic. Also notice that the vast majority of the witness drawn lines place the flight path significant NORTH of the Annex- only 3 definitely show it going OVER the Annex- and the Southern-most one makes a physically impossible sharp left turn at the East edge of the Annex. That witnesses believed the plane was on this path may simply indicate perspective error, which would've been the most extreme in the case of the Arlington Cemetery witnesses. Hemphill perceived the plane as coming over his right shoulder- as CL notes, we don't know if his office was on the N or S side of the Annex- if it was on the N side, right shoulder conflicts with MOST of the witness drawn paths. If it was on the S side, right shoulder conflicts with ALL of them.

However, it seems unlikely the plane was actually on the N path, given the majority of eyewitness statements (and the damage path) indicate a S path. The FDR data also supports the S path, although there's no way of knowing at this point if it was tampered with- although we don't know what/how, if anything was altered.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Continuing...

I'm gonna go out of numerical order; here's witness...

No. 5 Keith Wheelhouse

This is the one and only witness interviewed by CIT who drew a South of Citgo flight path on the overhead map. However, when one sees where he was standing, one can see that he clearly could not see the gas station, let alone the plane's relation to the gas station:

He was clearly not in a position to see the impact.

He marked his exact alleged location with an X, so because we know for a fact that he would not have had a view of the Citgo, or the official flight path from this location due to the topography and landscape, Keith can not fairly be considered a legitimate witness who saw the plane fly south of the former Citgo gas station. You can't be considered a witness to something you couldn't have seen.

Wheelhouse is the lone "witness" to a C-130 plane "shadowing" the attack plane and then veering off and flying away just before the impact. The actual C-130 didn't show up for another few minutes. No other witness corroborates a "shadowing" C-130. Wheelhouse's story was put forth by at least one MSM outlet; it seems his story likely was created to serve as cover for any potential witnesses who might have come forward with the remark that they saw a plane flying away after the explosion. Authorities could comfort these people's cognitive dissonance and simply claim that it was a 2nd plane.

If anything it should scare you that this dubious witness who put out a proven false account of a "shadowing" 2nd plane and could not see the citgo is the ONLY one to draw the official flight path so perfectly.

Adam on Wheelhouse: "dubious witness" and "proven false account"

Adam on Wheelhouse: "dubious witness who put out a proven false account"

Is that a 'fact'? Is Wheelhouse a "dubious witness" and has his account been "proven false"? In 2001 the trees would've been about 6 years shorter than CIT's 2007 Wheelhouse interview. However, in that gif Adam posted (is that supposed to be Wheelhouse's location?) it seems to me he might've been able to see (and hear) the plane in between/thru/above the trees, and if it had flown over the Pentagon, he probably would've seen that, too.

Wheelhouse has also claimed he saw the C-130 over AA 77. For 11 eyewitness accounts re the C-130, incl. Wheelhouse's, scroll down to:
"Witnesses described a second plane, a C-130 following the plane that hit the Pentagon"
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

The C-130 was much higher in the air than AA 77, according to video that captured it. Wheelhouse speculated that the C-130 was intentionally hiding AA 77 from radar. That seems slightly strange, given that the planes weren't close together. However, from his perspective, it may have seemed like the C-130 was "over" AA 77, and his figure of speech and demonstration w/ his hands may have been a "figure of speech". It may be that, like many eyewitnesses, some parts of his account are off in the details. However, elements of his account- the S path, the crash, no flyover, and the presence of a C-130 are corroborated by other witnesses. I'm not convinced his account is "proven false" or that he's a "dubious witness" by what Adam posted above. I'm definitely not convinced he's a "complicit operative" or "having some involvement in the cover-up" as CIT have alleged- see video of the C-130 youtube links in this comment- the C-130 was flying in the area immediately after the crash, as you can see from the still rising smoke plume:
z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=467&view=findpost&p=2116352

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Um... yes he is clearly proven false

Are you actually trying to claim that there was a C-130 shadowing the other plane, somehow keeping speed with it? And that no other witness saw it? And that radar did not pick it up? And... well do I even have to go on? He is lying, plane and simple.

And are you actually saying there is nothing suspect about his drawing of a nearly perfect official flight path on the aerial photo when he did not have the vantage point to judge it?

More desperation and absurdity...

Stefan on Wheelhouse: "lying, plane and simple"

Stefan, w/o actual evidence, accuses Wheelhouse of "lying, plane and simple". I pointed out in my comment that Wheelhouse, like many eyewitnesses (including CIT witnesses Brooks and Lagasse), is fuzzy on details of an event that was over in a matter of seconds, in addition to the fact that in his CIT interview he's recalling it 6 years later.

Stefan: "nothing suspect about his drawing of a nearly perfect official flight path on the aerial photo when he did not have the vantage point to judge it?"

In addition, Stefan dismisses Wheelhouse's drawn path cuz "he did not have the vantage point to judge it". One could say the same thing about the other Arlington Cemetery witnesses- but Stefan accepts their accounts without question, and does not consider the possibility/likelihood of perspective error from their vantage points.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

I don't accept anything without question...

...but there are certain questions that are easier to answer than others.

Was Wheelhouse's view obscured by trees?

Yes

If Wheelhouse's view was not obscured by trees, would he have had to judge the position of the plane by depth perception?

Yes

Did any other witness speak of the C-130 shadowing the plane?

Except for his sister, no.

Is there photographic evidence to show this didn't happen?

Yes

Is there video evidence to show this didn't happen?

Yes

Is there over whelming eye witness testimony to show this didn't happen?

Yes

Is there any way someone could actually see one plane and think it was two planes, one shadowing the other?

No

Did Wheelhouse draw the plane on the official flight path?

Yes

Did any of the other witnesses presented with an aerial photo do this?

No

What is Wheelhouse?

A liar

In addition, Wheelhouse's behavior is quite shady.

He kept stalling on an interview with CIT for over a year. Then when he finally agreed, he still clearly was surprised that they showed up at his house, even though he had given them his address. (His house is apparently 3 hours away from DC.)

Craig+tells+the+story:

***

A bit nervous?

He opened the door and turned white as a ghost!

It was clear he did not expect us to really show up.

You can even hear him breathe erratic and heavy when the interview first begins.

His entire demeanor in person was completely opposite the way he was on the phone.

I expected him to be brash, confident, and aggressive but he came off as meek, scared, and unsure.

After the interview, after we had packed up and were outside his door shaking hands before leaving, in a kind of defeated tone he said....

"You guys are really dedicated to this, aren't you?"

Like he knew he just made a big mistake by giving us the interview.

In my opinion his energy and demeanor was more revealing than any of the other witnesses we met.

***

Voted down?

What would make someone vote this comment down?? Yet another example of how silly the voting is here...

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

Voted down because it is Vile

CIT went into this mans home and then called him a liar and an accomplice in mass murder on the international web. They attack witnesses and people who disprove their theory and then whine incessantly about how they are being attacked.

CIT quotes the government 530 mph speed in an attempt to discredit Wheelhouse despite the fact they say the plane was going much slower in NSA. They claim they were in the "exact" spot when the center of the X Wheelhouse drew was about 100 feet in diameter. They say that witness testimony is inaccurate but call Wheelhouse a liar because his memory of the C-130 is wrong. It's obvious that they are groping for reasons to call him a liar.

I guess I'm vile too.

I also conclude, based on his words and his body language, that Keith Wheelhouse is a planted witness within a govt false flag operation.

Oh, the depths of my eeeeeeeeeeeeevil!

Treason is vile

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Exact?

As usual, CIT believes what they want to believe and they disregard the rest. Wheelhouse said he saw the plane evaporate into the Pentagon but of course he is lying because Craig went to the "exact" spot and videoed the view from there 5 years later. The center of the X Wheelhouse made is about 100 feet in diameter. [using the Pentagon side of 921' as a scale] Furthermore, he was looking at a satellite photo 5 years later and trying to determine where he was. Craig claiming he was in the "exact" spot is absurd. It's just another misrepresentation to discredit a witness and justify leaving out his statement because it disagrees with the predetermined flyover theory. I agree that he was not in a good position to accurately determine the flight path but that does not justify leaving out the path he drew and falsely claim that the witnesses were "unanimous".

BTW; Your opinion of me is irrelevant so just keep it to yourself and address the issue. I disagree with Jim and Erik on some points. Disagreement is good. Adults can disagree without adopting a snotty condescending attitude and berating the person they are disagreeing with.

The information in NSA is skewed IMO. I watched the video of Wheelhouse and I don't think he is lying. I think his memory is not "exact" after 5 years. Using the requirement of "exactness" to call someone a liar is fraudulent and contemptible.

good point, Chris- and what's up w/ the CIT gif location?

The location the CIT gif was filmed from doesn't fit w/ Wheelhouse's actual photo, which was taken so soon after the impact that smoke has just risen above the trees. Perhaps he ran over there from his original vantage point? But if so, why is his camera facing south-west, when CIT has him looking south-west toward the Pentagon? Why wouldn't he run directly to the best vantage point, as opposed to past it?

And as Chris points out, that "X" marked w/ felt tip is actually a large area- in addition to the fact that it was drawn 6 years after the event.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

If there was a C-130...

What kind of weapon payload could it deliver?
___________________
Together in Truth!

Fr. Steve McGraw

No. 8: Fr. Steve McGraw

Those who defend the South Side Approach are fond of citing Father McGraw.

In fact, here's a witness by CIT whose testimony supports a SOUTH path that they completely omit from their claims" - Arabesque

I'm really beginning to conclude that CIT's detractors (south side defenders) bank on the hope that fence sitters will take them at their word without clicking on the links (or taking the time to watch the vids).

I watched this video. His testimony is extremely suspect, so much so as to not be believable.

Here is his testimony starting at 5:18 on that video. Tell me if this matches the photographic evidence:

"I will say that I have a memory, um, which was you might say was revived after the fact, of the plane bouncing on the lawn before it went into the building. That basically, uh, came to me, um, after hearing of other witness testimony, from other witnesses that were in the area. I heard that other witnesses had supported that the plane had bounced, you know, had hit the ground before it crashed into the building. When I heard that, it kind of, sort of, provoked something, or um, I thought, 'Yes, that's the image I remember having."

There is no damage on the lawn which would indicate that the plane bounced.

He also indicates that his mind's eye recollected the event after his memory was jogged by other people; in essence, he was told what to think.

Hardly a credible "south side witness" and any jury or judge would be able to see the non-credible nature of his testimony (as it is easily refuted by photo/video evidence).

Attorney for Justice Department

Funny how 'Father' McGraw was an Attorney for the Justice Department prior to being ordained for the priesthood.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Let's slander innocent people

bbruhwiler8 said...."Funny how 'Father' McGraw was an Attorney for the Justice Department prior to being ordained for the priesthood."

Yes indeed! To the layman it looks like a person giving up a career as a lawyer in favor of more spiritual pursuits, that spirituality was more important than material things, but thankfully we have people like yourself to point out that clearly his "handlers" had him do all that in order to be more "convincing" as a plane impact witness, at the pentagon on 9/11.

It's odd that they would do all that when no one even knows who this guy is except for some truthers on the internet.
But don't let that stop any of you from slandering this man. Maybe next time he'll think twice about granting any interviews to "independant researchers".
Yea......that's real f**king helpfull.

jimd3100 is slandering me

What I said is nothing of the sort, but you falsely accusing me of slander is slander in itself. Have another drink, or stick to the subject.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Show "Slander??" by Dave Nehring

I don't personally think his previous career is that relevant

Compared to the fact that he admitted to piecing together what happened based on what others told him.

He was facing the wrong way to make a judgement about the plane.

His actual experience would have been a second at most and an extremely traumatic one. He has clearly tried to piece together what happened from various things he heard and read, and has come up with a load on nonsense.

No need to talk about Opus Dei or previous career path - all that does is muddy the water with speculation and innuendo.

There is enough there, even considering him to be 100% honest, to conclude that using him as a S.Citgo witness is an act of desperation.

McGraw: Opus Dei liar or eyewitness to impact?

This McGraw statement Adam quotes is indicative of how memory and imagination can influence the accuracy of eyewitness perception and recall:
"I will say that I have a memory, um, which was you might say was revived after the fact, of the plane bouncing on the lawn before it went into the building. That basically, uh, came to me, um, after hearing of other witness testimony, from other witnesses that were in the area. I heard that other witnesses had supported that the plane had bounced, you know, had hit the ground before it crashed into the building. When I heard that, it kind of, sort of, provoked something, or um, I thought, 'Yes, that's the image I remember having."

CL- "Stephen McGraw has described the flight path as from directly over his car, about 20 feet up and descending ahead of him and to his right to the impact point where he clearly saw it impact. He even told this to Aldo and Craig, and so all we need is his location to draw the path to the building, which CIT didn’t think to gather and hasn’t tried since."

McGraw's account just after 9/11:

"The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church.

"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.

"I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said.

"I hadn't heard about the World Trade Center at that point, and so I was thinking this was an accident. I figured it was just an accident.

"There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020220042248/http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/P...

So where was McGraw, and is he credible? As CL notes, CIT didn't try to confirm McGraw's actual location, and they and their supporters simply dismiss him as a witness, due to his DOJ background, Opus Dei connection, the fact that he didn't continue on to the funeral he was scheduled to be at (he went to the Pentagon to help, according to his account), that he inferred from other witness statements that the plane bounced into the Pentagon and that light poles were struck- as well as the fact that his testimony to having seen the crash conflicts with CIT's flyover theory.

McGraw is driving along Rt 27, perhaps thinking about the funeral he was on his way to, and a plane flies over his car and into the Pentagon. the 2 most memorable and distinctive things that McGraw would've noticed and remembered were 1) the plane flying over top of him, and 2) it hitting the Pentagon, both of which he testified directly to. He may not even clearly recall his location, but his statement at the time indicates he was near England's cab, the location of which is documented by photos. This is where CIT puts him as well (as they consider him an operative). His statement from the time notes the light pole damaged England's cab, so inferring the plane knocked the light pole down is pretty obvious.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

^ As I said above...

As I said above, I don't dismiss him as an eye witness because of who he used to work for, or any group he is a part of. That is one of the points on which I disagree with CIT.

I do not consider his testimony credibly on his admission that his account is based on other people jogging his memory, things he read, and things other people told him.

His close proximity to the building and the fact that he was not aware of the plane for more than a second or so before a huge explosion happened very close to him gives you a clear picture of what his actual perception of events would have been - hopelessly confused and extremely traumatic.

His description of any flight path is not based on what he witnessed, but what he learned, and he simply re-tells his experience within the framwork of that learned knowledge.

In a court of law his testimony would be taken to pieces pretty quickly. Wheelhouse in a court of law would probably end up being charged for perverting the course of justice and perjury.

If the above list of text based accounts was presented as evidence of a S. path approach, and the opposing lawyers presented CITs actual real, confirmed witnesses in person on the stand - you would be laughed out of court.

But this isn't about proof, this isn't about truth - this is about your ever more desperate attempt to bury this evidence on this mis-guided dogma that Pentagon evidence will harm "the truth movement" - or more succinctly - your inability to admit you have been massively wrong.

But go ahead by all means and continue to discard the remaining shreds of credibility and dignity you have left on this very public online stage - it makes quite an entertaining side show.

500mph

So was it going 500 mph or coming in for a landing? I don't think anyone could possibly describe a jetliner rocketing at 500 mph into the Pentagon as coming for a landing. I see a contradiction here.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Who said it was going 500 mph?

The government - and CIT when they were calling Wheelhouse a liar. Other times CIT says the plane was going much slower.

Now you are using the same double standard to question McGraw. CITers have no shame.

Jim Hoffman

Jim Hoffman says it was going 500 mph. I think most if not all of the north side flyover witnesses say it was not going excessively fast. 500 mph is excessively fast, don't you think?

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

We don't know for sure how fast the plane was giong

The point is; CIT argues it both ways which is dishonest.

Show "What credibility??" by Dave Nehring

Madeline Zakhem

A+sticky+account.

From the link:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
QUOTE of Madeline Zakhem:

The hijacked plane was coming up Columbia Pike, unbelievably low. It
exploded into the Pentagon seconds after nearly skimming the rooftop of
the Smart Traffic Center.

Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside
for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was
a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming
straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver.
It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the
ground.... I was crying and scared," Zakhem recalls.

"If I had been on top of our building, I would have been close enough to
reach up and catch it," Madelyn Zakhem, an executive secretary in the
Smart Traffic Center (STC) in Arlington, said two days after the terrorist
plane rocketed directly over her.

When we went there to interview her she said we had to get permission from the VDOT PR dept to be able to film her at the VDOT, so we walked outside onto the lawn area she claims she was standing at and conducted an impromptu off camera interview. She came off as very standoffish. She stood there with her arms crossed and was not very verbal in her description. It was like we had to pull details out of her. We stood out here on the VDOT lawn and interviewed her.

She maintained her story about the plane coming over the VDOT/STC (Smart Traffic Center), only she described it as inches above the roof of the brick building with the right wing hanging over, at least that is how Russell Pickering decided to interpret it. [The below image faces away from the Pentagon - Syed]

As we stood there, I knew the north of the Citgo flight path as cited by Lagasse was still a possibility so I asked her when it came up Columbia Pike was it 1). closer to the Sheraton, 2) closer to the white house next to the brick building, or 3)closer to (coming from) 395 in an attempt to determine the direction:

When I did that she indicated a path more in line with the plane coming from the direction of 395 and heading toward north of the Citgo:

So it seems that when pressed, Madlene knew the plane headed in that general direction and subtly abandoned her already vague and ambiguous SoC claim.

...

...there are some serious problems with Madlene's account...

1. We have corroborated eyewitnesses statements that place the plane flying over Ed Paik's shop, over the Navy Annex, and north of the Citgo. The plane would essentially have been across the street from her and nowhere near over her.

2. As you can see from the blue Official SoC flight path line in the graphic above, the plane didn't even fly over the Smart Traffic Center OR Madlene according to the official data from the FDR and the official story. So her story doesn't even match with the gov't's and the physical damage path.

Continue+reading+more+here.

All in all, a fishy account indeed.

Zakhem: intentional deception or unclear on certain details?

I've been to the park at the runway just N of National/Reagan airport, and I can attest that some of the planes landing seem awfully close. Her account shows that she was shocked by how low it was, and as AA 77 was far lower than any of those planes, I can see why Zakhem might feel like it she was "close enough to reach up and catch it", although it was not actually that close.

However, she clearly recalls it going over top of her, and whether it was actually somewhat to the side of what she recalls, this puts it on the South path, hence Adam's attempt here, and Marquis' attempt to discredit her:
"Trees blocking her view. Madlene is a suspect witness. She is clearly lying about the flight path. We know because Edward blew it out of the water and we interviewed her, and now her bizarre behavior is explained.” ... “Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw."

As far as the the FDR and radar data and the official flight path, obviously there's some margin of error- anyone know how within how many feet/yards that data is accurate to?

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Either case - she's an unreliable witness

Not all eyewitness testimony weight is created equal. Any prosecutor, defender, judge or jury knows this.

Whether it was an intentional deception or mistaken details, it shows she can not truly be taken seriously as a witness. This is why the scientific approach to determining the truth based on voluminous eyewitness testimony is independent corroboration.

We all know that witnesses are fallible. No witness is 100% reliable. The brain does make mistakes.

Step back and look at the big picture here. Not only does her placement of the plane lack the mutual corroboration that the north approach does (I refer you to my paragraph about statistics and probability in the Bursill debate blog entry), but the cornerstone issue, perhaps more so than the planes location as it passed the Navy Annex, is the plane's location in relation to the gas station as it passed by the station.

We can not possibly give Zakhem's testimony the same weight of credibility as, for example, William Lagasse, a witness on the gas station property and would bet his life on the plane's location north and coming over Arlington National Cemetery.

Remember the big picture about strength of evidence. To successfully refute the north side evidence you have to provide evidence or greater or equal strength. Specifically, three people either on or close enough to the gas station and who place the plane on the south side as emphatically as Lagasse, Turcios and Brooks place it on the north.

Zakhem, Paik and Lagasse

Zakhem and Paik were on opposite sides of Columbia Pike, a block away from each other; that's Paik's auto shop in the bottom left of the "Madlene here" pic Adam posted above. Both described the plane as being directly above them, very low. Both can't be right, but it seems plausible it appeared that way to them.

The FDR and radar data that place the plane S of Columbia Pike obviously have some margin of error; it may actually have been slightly further North than has been drawn.

Adam acknowledges "We all know that witnesses are fallible. No witness is 100% reliable. The brain does make mistakes."

Adam has tried to discredit Zakhem's testimony because she described the plane being lower than it was, but overlooks the info in Paik's account that conflicts w/ the N path. In addition, he's cited Lagasse, who reported light poles being down [EDIT and England's cab] in a location where they weren't and couldn't recall which side of the Citgo he was on. In addition, Lagasse is absolutely sure the plane hit- and did NOT fly over- the Pentagon. AND he says he saw plane parts at the Pentagon.

See this article and the hyperlinks:
LAGASSE'S EYES: WHICH SIDE OF HIS HEAD?
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/10/lagasses-eyes-which-side-of...

EDIT: Also see:
A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Continuing...

No. 2: Terry Morin

Not quite sure what would motivate Larson to consider this man a "south side witness" because he's actually one of the 13 North Side Witnesses. He describes the plane flying over the Navy Annexe. This is highly problematic for the official account. The official flight path has the plane south of the Navy Annexe and Columbia Pike at all times.

Craig Ranke: Let me as you this. What are the chances that the plane was actually on the south side of Columbia Pike completely, or the south side of the VDOT?

Terry: No friggin' way.

Craig: No friggin' way?

Terry: No friggin' way. It was right over the top of me... It was on the edge of the naval annex, not completely over me.

Craig: ...There's no way that the plane itself, or even the right wing, was on the south side of Columbia Pike?

Terry: Nope.

Check out the video short Over the Navy Annex for more details.

Morin: "south side witness"?

"Not quite sure what would motivate Larson to consider this man a "south side witness" because he's actually one of the 13 North Side Witnesses."

It's true that CIT cites Morin as a N side witness. However, Adam has not responded to the reasons CL cites him in the above article, which stem from his 2001 testimony, and which was far closer in time to the actual event; as CL notes, Morin's story has changed since then. Morin in 2001, as quoted by CL:

“I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling […] One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. […] 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). […] The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage […] Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. […] 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.”

NSA puts Morin in between the wings of the Annex and seeing the plane for about a second, looking up between the walls of the wings at the fuselage directly overhead. In 2001, Morin describes seeing "red and blue stripes down the fuselage"; impossible if the fuselage was directly overhead, unless it was banking severely to the right or left- but entirely possible if the plane was on the S path. A 727 has a 125' wingspan; the "essentially right over the top of me" may be a figure of speech, and as in the case of Zakhem and Paik and many other witnesses, it may well have seemed that way.

Morin also describes seeing the plane for far longer than in the NSA account, as well as from a different perspective, which is more consistent w/ the plane being on the S path: "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.”

If CIT supporters are going to rule out Morin as a possible S path witness, they need to address the above.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Roosevelt Roberts?!?!

You have got to be kidding! He was in the Pentagon when the EXPLOSION occurred. He saw the aircraft he saw AFTER the explosion when he ran outside the loading dock and looked up.

Seriously Larsen and Larson, you gotta do a bit better than this.

Let me take this brief pause to mention:

A jury and judge would never accept printed testimonies (3rd hand testimonies) which were not confirmed first hand.

In order to definitively refute the north side evidence, one would need to produce at least three on-camera interviews with three individuals who were either on the gas station property or in an appropriate vantage point to see the gas station and the plane's relation to it, and who place the plane on the south side every bit as emphatically as Brooks, Lagasse and Turcios place it on the north.

To accept anything less exposes a confirmation bias against this definitive evidence.

Roberts saw a plane "heading EAST towards DC" "over Lane 1"

As Adam didn't actually address the reason CL included Roberts, I'm posting that here, for everyone's convenience:

"15) Roosevelt Roberts: Speaking of Roberts, his full interview reveals quite clearly a witness to Flight 77's actual SoC approach. It was a silver airliner with jet engines, he saw it in the space to the west over the south lot ("around the lane one area"). It was coming from the west ("from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC", from the southwest, past where I-395 merges with Route 27, from "almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction." And it was banking about 50-100 feet above the ground, just above the light poles. All the stuff about a second plane headed away is made up. The "another plane" he saw was clearly NOT after 77's impact, if he saw it coming in on the path 77 took, at its altitude, with its appearance."

Adam: "He was in the Pentagon when the EXPLOSION occurred. He saw the aircraft he saw AFTER the explosion when he ran outside the loading dock and looked up."

So what plane did he see BEFORE the alleged flyover, "no more than 50 feet, less than 100 feet [above the ground]", "in the South parking lot, over Lane 1", "banking just above the light poles", "coming from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC"? See the video and article just below (linked from the above 15) post), where CL goes into more detail:

THE LAST WORD ON THE "FLYOVER WITNESS"
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/last-word-on-flyover-witnes...

And also the follow up:
I KNEW IT WOULDN’T BE THE LAST WORD…
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-knew-it-wouldnt-be-last-w...

All of CL's posts on Roberts:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/search/label/Roberts%20R

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

???

Loose Nuke: So what plane did he see BEFORE the alleged flyover, "no more than 50 feet, less than 100 feet [above the ground]", "in the South parking lot, over Lane 1", "banking just above the light poles", "coming from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC"?

He saw one plane. He was in the building when the explosion occurred. According to the official story, there were no explosives detonated in the Pentagon, so if we accept the official account we have to accept that this explosion was the plane crash.

Then Roosevelt Roberts saw, after running outside after the explosion, the plane you cite: "no more than 50 feet, less than 100 feet [above the ground]", "in the South parking lot, over Lane 1", "banking just above the light poles", "coming from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC"

No amount of spin can change this. He is not a witness to anything pre-explosion.

Adam, listen to the interview

and study the analysis: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/last-word-on-flyover-witnes...

Roberts is describing that stuff as happening BEFORE the turn and fly away that he describes after he says these things.

How in the world could he see anything heading east AWAY from the Pentagon, when he's on the South-West side? And how can it be heading East, when in the 2nd part of his account, he's talking about a plane "U-turning ... south-west coming out ... so it went south-west away from the Pentagon"?

"No amount of spin can change this."

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Oh for crying out loud

I just watched the video in the link you provided. This is spin taken to the next degree.

And I HAVE listened to Roosevelt Roberts' words many times.

Yes, Roberts mistakenly said that the explosion occurred at 9:11-9:12. He is clearly almost half an hour early, as the "impact" was 9:38.

Clearly there was no major event or explosion at the Pentagon at 9:11-9:12.

Either Roberts made an innocent mistake with his recollection of the exact time, or there was a huge explosion in the Pentagon at 9:11-9:12 that has never been reported or photographed by anyone else.

Please stop this ridiculous desperation.

No explanation provided by Adam in the above comment

regarding what plane Roberts described BEFORE the alleged flyover- a plane "no more than 50 feet, less than 100 feet [above the ground]", "in the South parking lot, over Lane 1", "banking just above the light poles", "coming from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC"

Adam asserts CL's video is "spin taken to the next degree", but doesn't point out any errors in it, and he doesn't explain what this plane is, that Roberts saw coming TOWARD the Pentagon, BEFORE he talks about a plane flying AWAY from the Pentagon.

Then Adam changes the subject: I didn't even bring up the fact that Roberts said this all happened around "9:12, 9:11 [am]", but it is worth noting that he puts his episode a HALF HOUR before the Pentagon crash.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

CL and CIT have it wrong

CL and CIT have misinterpreted what Roberts said. When Aldo asked Roberts where the plane went, Roberts started with where it came from. He was inside when the plane hit so he was just guessing. He clearly said it flew away to the south west.

Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?

Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.

Aldo: -which direction it was heading?

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side [guess] and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.

Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?

Roosevelt: Right.

CITers do what JREFers do, accuse their opponent of exactly what they are doing. At the P4T forum, Craig repeatedly accused me of calling Roberts a liar. This is a lie. I made no comment about his honesty, I only said that the plane he described could not be the plane approaching from the west.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The green line is the official flight path. The orange lines are the flight paths drawn by the CIT witnesses. The purple dots are what Roberts surmised from what he saw - a plane flying away to the south-west. The red dots combine what the north path witnesses saw with what Mr. Roberts describes. As shown, the resulting turning radius is about 350 feet. But an airliner flying at 200 knots requires a turning radius of about 5,000 feet. So clearly the plane Mr. Roberts describes could not have been the plane approaching from the west.

Orwellian response

So deep is the division, so hardened the positions, that the truth is rejected by both sides in this farce.

Both sides take Roberts' statements out of context and rearrange them to mean something other than what he said.

Roberts described a plane flying away to the south-west.

He was driving and trying to talk on the phone. The communication was very bad but if you read the whole transcript it is clear that he said the plane flew back over Hwy 27 to the south-west.

Here is the part where Roberts describes where the plane flew:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?

Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.

Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?

Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.

Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27.

Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?

Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?

Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-?

Roosevelt: Right.

Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-

Roosevelt: Right.

Aldo: -which direction it was heading?

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?

Roosevelt: Correct.

Aldo: Okay.

Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.

Aldo: Okay, so-

Roosevelt: And that was-

Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side [north] and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.

Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?

Roosevelt: Right.

* * * * *

Honest people answer directly, deniers deny, sidestep or refuse to answer.
Which are you?
Did Roberts say the plane flew back across Hwy 27 to the south-west?

Roosevelt Roberts described a plane flying East THEN West

Roberts described a silver commercial aircraft flying along AA 77's path; "no more than 50 feet, less than 100 feet [above the ground]", "in the South parking lot, over Lane 1", "banking just above the light poles", "coming from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC"?

THEN he describes what must be a guesstimation as his view was obstructed by the Pentagon roof line; that it flew over the Mall entrance crossed 27 and came back around and flew off to the south-west. And he said this happened around "9:12-9:11" am

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Thanks for replying

The first part of his statement gives the impression that the plane was approaching from the west over the south parking lot but he later says it flew away back over 27 to the south-west. It's obvious both things cannot be true. That would require the plane making a U turn over the Pentagon.

Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-? -snip- which direction it was heading?

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?

Roosevelt: Correct.
-snip-
Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side [north] and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.

He could not see the north side of the Pentagon so he is just guessing about that part. In any case, the plane he describes could not be flight 77.

Continuing...

No. 9: Penny Elgass

Upon looking at Adam Larson's blog to which Loose Nuke linked at the top of this blog entry, I find the following quote by Penny Elgass, used to support the claim of a south of citgo approach. Incidentally, Larson does not provide a source for this quote. (Though some googling shows the original source to be here.) But anyway, here is the quote. The bolding is Larson's, as he uses the bold text to support a SoC approach.

“I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.”

Now let's be clear here. Larson is emphasizing "over the road" because Columbia Pike lies south of the navy annex, and that the plane being "over" Columbia Pike would seem to contradict the plane going "over" the Navy Annex.

However, if we look at a map, we see that going from west to east, Columbia Pike takes a turn and curves like a question mark, and it is here that Columbia Pike actually goes north and passes the gas station on the station's north side. And moreover, THIS portion of Columbia Pike, continuing east, is LITERALLY perpendicular as the Pike approaches the cloverleaf junction with Route 27. This is easy to see:

And the rest of Elgas' account?

"It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground." http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

As CL points out, Elgas seeing the "underside of the other wing" indicates left bank; a right bank, the kind required by the hard turn of the N path, would've obscured the "underside of the other wing"

In addition, not noted in her personal account or in CL's article above (but included in Arabesque's list- see first comment), Elgas is said to have seen a light pole get clipped, which could only happen on the S path:
"Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her, and then crash into the Pentagon.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=28

Elgas is also an impact witness- this is from her personal account:
"Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was “Oh My God, this must be World War III!”

"In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.

"In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds.

"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke."
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

CIT is aware of her account, and attempt to dismiss it, as CL notes, by saying, “Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect"

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Small correction

Two or three of the five light poles could have been hit on the north path.

Again, CITers hear what they want to hear

and disregard the rest. Adam believes everything she says about the north flight path but does not believe her when she says she saw the plane melt into the building.

Now

that's scientific, isnt it?

________________________
DEFEAT THE NWO!!1!!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein

I'll add one Larson didn't mention, Mike Walter

And I'm surprised Larson doesn't mention him. Mike Walter, of course, is the eyewitness perhaps most famous for his statement, taken out of context by early online film makers, in which he reported "It was like a cruise missile with wings." (Of course, right before that, he said "I saw a jet, an American Airlines jet..." and the missile remark was meant as an analogy.)

Mike Walter, of USA Today, has been one of the more prominent eyewitnesses used by the corporate media to sell the official story. As such, one would think he's a South of Citgo witness, right?

Guess what? Early this year in 2009, he did an interview for a French television program on 9/11. If you haven't seen this yet, your eyes will pop.

Here he is, being interviewed standing at the north side of the Citgo station as he points upwards and describes a right-banking approach.

How ironic! One of the media's main impact witnesses is a North of Citgo witness!

By the way, Walter has described the right hand bank from the beginning, even though he maintains that the plane dove downward (unlike Turcios who saw the plane lift up, or ascend) Here's a gif, working on finding vid:

Mike Walter, S path/impact witness, or N path witness?

CL's article was specifically regarding witness testimony indicating a S or N path, and I'm not aware of any statements by Walter that shed light on that particular aspect, although as he is an impact witness, his testimony does support the S path, and it certainly contradicts the flyover theory.

Adam: "How ironic! One of the media's main impact witnesses is a North of Citgo witness!"

False. Walter was not at Citgo on 9/11, and his being interviewed on the N side of Citgo does not make him a N of Citgo witness:
"I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'

"And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.

"Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out. And then it was chaos on the highway as people tried to either move around the traffic and go down, either forward or backward."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses/

Walter goes into more detail in this follow up interview posted at Russell Pickering's PentagonResearch.com, but I didn't see any specific clues clearly indicating N or S of Citgo.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050204090408/http://www.pentagonresearch.co...

"By the way, Walter has described the right hand bank from the beginning"

According to what? Yeah, you should find the vid, cuz in that gif he doesn't specify right or left.

EDIT: While adding the names to the quotes in the 1st comment, I discovered that Note [405] is Mike Walter, referencing a quote about the plane hitting a light pole, which places the plane on the S path. That quote comes from the following statement, made in an interview w/ Digipresse:

"...it turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there." "Now there are some people who say that it skipped and went into the Pentagon and it may have gone that way, but that’s not what I saw. What I saw was the jet went very low into the Pentagon and it went straight." "It seemed like it was a slow, graceful bank and then once it straightened out, that's when it sped up." "...you could see chunks of the wreckage on the ground, pieces of the plane.... It literally disintegrated on impact. It hit, and as it went into the side of the building it sheared off the wings."
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html (scroll down to Mike Walter)
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/492... (Archive page for the digipresse link; it's a downloadable audio file)

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

interview

and his being interviewed on the N side of Citgo does not make him a N of Citgo witness

Correct. His being interviewed on the N side of Citgo does not make him a N of Citgo witness.

However, his facing north and pointing up and north, to the airspace above ANC (even if he were being interviewed on the S side of Citgo) does suggest very strongly that the flight path he saw corroborates the ANC employees interviewed by CIT who also place the plane as coming from there.

What's the reason he was taken to Citgo?

and taken to the N side of the station? And the camera man standing so that Walter would be facing North? Was this set up in an attempt to cast Walter as a N side witness- as you and the youtube poster are doing?

Walter was driving North on 9/11, in the youtube vid he's facing North- probably seemed right to him.

Adam still has not explained how Walter was able to see a light pole getting hit if he saw the plane on the N path:

Walter: "...it turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there."
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html (scroll down to Mike Walter)
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/492... (Archive page for the digipresse link; it's a downloadable audio file)

Not to mention that Walter gave a vivid description of AA 77's impact- and not a flyover.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Continuing...

No. 4: Edward Paik

As with Terry Morin, Edward Paik is one of the 13 north side witnesses and it is bewildering why Adam Larson would consider him a "south side witness."

Larson even admits:

[Ed Paik] is not really a strong case for a south path in that his testimony and flight path drawn for CIT in late 2006 directly contradicts it - three versions running across the Navy Annex and thus pointing either OTC (Over-the-Citgo) or slightly NoC.

So why does Larson think that Paik is a SoC witness when his testimony thrice indicates that he is a NoC witness?

When he first+talked+to+the+CIT+guys+and+Russell+Pickering+earlier, he had said he thought the plane clipped an antenna tower just south of Columbia Pike: the wing "knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna." It didn’t really do this, (or did it?) but for him to think so, it would have to be close to it, which it almost certainly was. Also even as he draws a path entirely north of the Pike, his instinctive gestures belie ambiguity, pointing almost straight down the road, and indicating a left bank, which directly contradicts the massive right bank needed to go ONA and NoC

This kind of flimsy speculation does not counter the fact that three times he was explicit in drawing the flight path north of the Annex and Citgo. He "thought" the plane hit the Antenna? Please. And then to acknowledge that if the plane did in fact do this, it had to be close to the antenna, and then say: "which it almost certainly was" is employing circular logic of using your conclusion to support your conclusion.

And as far as this "ambiguity" you speak of. Go to 3:28 in this video short. He clearly turns his body toward his shop (back facing Columbia Pike) and he says: "...I thought at that time that the airplane hit... uhhh roof. My roof. My building roof."

So much for the plane being close to the VDOT antenna.

Paik, N or S? Conflicting elements in his testimony

Adam: "He "thought" the plane hit the Antenna? Please."

What is Adam saying? Paik said he thought the antenna was hit; why would he think so, if the plane's wing didn't seem to be near it? Paik does describe the fuselage as being on his side of Columbia Pike, and with about 50' of wing on the right side of a 757.

Paik: "...I thought at that time that the airplane hit... uhhh roof. My roof. My building roof."

Here's a clear example of perspective error, and an analogy; the plane was not close to his roof, but was flying abnormally low, and disappeared out of Paik's line of sight, over the roof. Paik's view of the Annex is obscured by this building, but he draws flight paths based on his recall of the direction it came from and seemed to be headed. In another example of how perspective errors happen, 2 of these drawings clearly put the plane far N of Columbia Pike, but in 1 he draws it going OVER the Annex and SOUTH of Citgo:
ed paik,edward paik,citizen investigation team,cit,9/11,9/11 truth

Also significant is that Paik clearly demonstrates a bank to the left at one point in the vid; NOT the right bank that is required by the curving N path drawn by various witnesses:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Pai...

And it's also worth noting that at one point Paik points STRAIGHT down Columbia Pike- if I recall correctly, this part was left out of the Paik section of NSA:
citizen investigation team,ed paik,edward paik,9/11,9/11 truth

So is Paik a S or N path witness? Clearly, some elements of his testimony conflict with others, leaving the testimony as a whole unclear. His perception of a N path may be due largely to perspective error.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Nice try, but...

You said

So is Paik a S or N path witness? Clearly, some elements of his testimony conflict with others, leaving the testimony as a whole unclear. His perception of a N path may be due largely to perspective error.

Now you are trying to backpedal by admitting that his testimony is "as a whole unclear" (with which I disagree). However, CL, and you by extension, included his testimony quite confidently (as exemplified by the capital letters) in a blog entry entitled "THE SOUTH PATH: DOCUMENTED."

Now that serious holes and flaws were pointed out in these supposed "south of citgo witnesses," you backpedal while still not truly conceding anything.

Given where Ed Paik was standing, and the roofline of his shop (and navy annex beyond) which prevented his having any view of the plane once it cleared the buildings, let alone a view of the Citgo, it's not at all surprising that his placement of the plane on that diagram might have the line be south of citgo if indeed the citgo's location is correctly represented, which I believe it is.

However: According to the official flight path, the plane is SOUTH of Columbia Pike at all times. And three times, he explicitly indicated that this was not so.

Before I go to work on Alan Wallace

I should mention that in Adam Larson's "Frustrating Fraud" blog entry, he does not provide sources for his quotes of eyewitnesses. I have to google them. This makes it more difficult to ascertain the veracity of witness testimony.

Okay.

No. 6: Alan Wallace

Seeing as Alan Wallace was a name unfamiliar to me, I was curious about this one. Turns out his testimony is hardly specific enough to be a south of citgo witness. Judge for yourself. He saw a large airliner crossing S. Washington Blvd (Rt. 27), which is the highway that runs almost parallel with the West Wing of the pentagon. The "45 degree angle" Adam Larson cites is meaningless without any other landmark references, as S. Washington Blvd. runs north-south at this point.

Most interesting of all, Wallace is clear that he missed viewing the actual impact, as did his friend Mark.

http://www.heartofamericaquilt.com/files/alanwallace.pdf

Wallace: his "45 degree angle" = S path

Adam: "Most interesting of all, Wallace is clear that he missed viewing the actual impact, as did his friend Mark."

Alan Wallace and Mark Skipper were working at the Pentagon heliport that morning, very near the crash site. When they saw the plane flying in low, fast and headed right for the Pentagon, they ran away from it. Wallace describes hearing the crunching sound, hearing and feeling the explosion, and a shower of debris.

Scroll down to Wallace for numerous links:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html

Adam: "Turns out his testimony is hardly specific enough to be a south of citgo witness. Judge for yourself."

Yes, judge for yourself; Wallace describes the plane coming in at a "45 degree angle". If he means relative to the Pentagon's West wall where he was, which seems most likely, this puts the plane on the S path, which is clear from this graphic:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Wal...

Wallace: “I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees.” At the time he made this statement, he's seen the official path- by saying "60 degrees" he likely means relative to North, not the Pentagon wall- unless he's changing his testimony to match the unofficial North path, after he's seen the official one? That makes no sense.

In CL's graphic, the compass is rotated about 10 degrees right of North, but the graphic itself is correctly aligned N-S.

Wallace is a S path witness.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

I'm signing off for now...

...but I think I've clearly begun to demonstrate the many, many problems with the Adam Larson blog.

The last comment I posted, dealing with Alan Wallace, is a prime example of the desperation to defend the official south side flight path. To think that such a testimony actually has equal weight to (let alone "refutes"), say, the testimony of Lagasse, is grasping at straws.

I don't think it's really necessary to keep continuing with this exercise to show that the "south of citgo" path has not at all been "documented."

This is all desperation mode on the part of the anti CIT crowd after one of their own conceded that Craig was the "winner" in the recent debate.

My challenge for them is to prove that the 13 north side witnesses are either hallucinating or lying, because for all 13 to be coincidentally mistaken is mathematically improbable for all practical purposes.

Not a bad session, though! I investigated 10 of the names provided.

Bravo Adam!

Great job deconstructing this fluff.

I look at submissions like this collection of claimed "S. Path witnesses" and come to the conclusion that the detractors are indeed wearing the shoes of debunkers.

By this I mean, they are writing stuff they know people who are already aware of CIT's evidence will piss themselves laughing at - but that's not the point - the target audience is people who are not informed of the work and the only motive to discourage them and misinform them.

I think people should be extremely wary of these people.

My advice is, if you read anything on the Pentagon by Loose Nuke/Rancho Truth, Jim Hoffman, Caustic Logic, Arabesque, Victoria Ashley or their entourage of half-wit cheerleaders you do a [b]thorough[/b] fact check of what they are telling you - check the footnotes to their own claims, watch the videos or articles they are attacking - check what they are claiming is the case is really the case.

Unlike their tactic, which revolves around trying to convince people to ignore their opposition I [b]implore you[/b] to read every word of what they write, and fact check it all.

You will find this process enlightening.

Thank you Stefan.

I actually think you do an even better job at this than I do; I was most impressed with your comments in the 100+ comment thread re the Bursill debate.

check the footnotes to their own claims, watch the videos or articles they are attacking - check what they are claiming is the case is really the case.

The first really true red flag I noticed, about 8 or 9 months ago, was when Victoria Ashely made a comment somewhere that Roosevelt Roberts "said he saw the C-130."

A C-130, of course, is a military propeller plane. So when I saw that, I was like, "Woah! There's no way she's right about that!"

But, her telling me what to think, made me do a double take and made me question whether I really knew my stuff thoroughly. I was like, "I could have SWORN that Roberts said he saw a 'commercial aircraft' with jet engines. But let me go back again and check." Sure enough, I was right.

(Plus, of course, the C-130 didn't show up for another 2-3 minutes, and the plane Roosevelt saw was "ten seconds tops" after the explosion.)

There was yet another time when a CIT detractor claimed that Roosevelt Roberts said he saw the plane hit the building. What hogwash! Roberts was in the building at the time of the explosion! It turned out that this CIT detractor mixed up (and one can only assume deliberately at this point) Roosevelt Roberts and Robert Turcios, because upon clicking on the hyperlink accompanying the text "Roosevelt Roberts said he saw the plane hit the building," it took the reader to a quote of Robert Turcios, who is a north approach witness.

But anyone who doesn't know who's who re the eyewitnesses, or who only has a sketchy understanding of this issue, might have taken Ashley's word on face value, and thought, "CIT debunked. Let's move on."

Yes, they do indeed wear the shoes of "debunkers."

How Embarrassing........

The plane according to Ranke is remote controlled that's what he told me anyway........
"Of course I believe the decoy jet was remote controlled." --Ranke
http://911blogger.com/node/13279?page=1

So they slam a plane into the north tower then slam a plane into the south tower and they almost slam a plane into the pentagon but they don't. Instead they just want everyone to think they did and fly the plane off to somewhere else, meanwhile on an operation as big as 9/11 naturally they have their top operative cagey old Lloyd the mass murdering cab driver staging his scene and have lower ranking CIA guys planting lightpoles. Why you ask? So they can make a fake flight path just for fun. They also put some more operatives like M Walter and Father McGraw along with Wheelhouse (these guys work for almost nothing....they just like killing people) in order to try and make this fake flight path they created for fun more convincing. They also planted plane parts in the building some from the wrong plane(good cointel help is so hard to find) they almost got away with it to if it weren't for those meddling CIT kids. But their operatives were instructed to give CIT full access, just don't panic, just act like you got nothing to hide, but gosh it sure backfired. CIT could tell they were all operatives and lying through their teeth.

Or maybe a plane flew into the building like the witnesses claim, and physical evidence confirms.

The witnesses also claim a north path...

Jim,
You have to consider the differences between New York and the Pentagon.

In New York they knew all too well that the planes that hit the buildings would be blown to pieces with nano thermite and god knows what else.

Any... discrepancies with the planes would be of no trouble to them.

Despite what you have been telling people, I very much doubt that the perpetrators would be banking on the plane leaving no large identifying pieces. I'd say that would be a ridiculous thing to bank on.

The crime scene would also be seen by many Pentagon workers, and filmed by the media who would not be in on it.

So if there was anything untoward about the planes used, or who (if anyone) was inside them, then there would have to be a different plan for the Pentagon.

This is just hypothetical ruminations Jim, I'm not proposing theories. I'm just pointing out it is not hard to think of reasons they would be doing this, rather than conclude they were doing it for "no reason".

For the record, I do not think Walter is an "operative". Wheelhouse is clearly dodgy.

And you know what - 9/11 wasn't done by nobody.

Somebody did this so you "these guys work for nothing, they just like killing people" argument to incredulty is somewhat hollow - we know people DID kill people on 9/11 - EVERYONE on the planet accepts this - whether they think it was Islamic extremists, government operatives or both.

Murder happened. So to roll your eyes at the suggestion that people were involved is a somewhat puzzling stance to take.

Who's been fooled?

Interview with Craig Ranke 12/12/09....

2:15: "myself and Aldo Marquiz went to Arlington with no pre conceived notions of what happened, went there with no particular theory in mind....
http://podcast.com/show/12525/

Really? What's this then? A post by CIT, before they ever went to Arlington in Jan 2006 titled "Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)" ...claiming the cab driver is a plant. Well.....he has to be doesn't he? If he's not then, a plane hit the pentagon, and we can't have that can we?....

Post by CIT member Aldo....

"01-11-2006, 14:22
Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)"
http://letsrollforums.com/meet-agent-lloyd-england-t9799.html

Post by CIT member Ranke, just after their first trip to Arlington...

Sep 5 2006, 07:11 PM
"It's looking more and more like a "fly-over" scenario every day."
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12296...

But of course they had no pre concieved theories right? LOL. Of course not....

2:15 mark.... "myself and Aldo Marquis went to Arlington with no pre concieved notions of what happened, went there with no particular theory in mind"....
http://podcast.com/show/12525/

"Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. "They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios."

"Some of those guys [at the party] were young and nice and disaffected [about] their government," Walter concludes. "And some of them were crazy."
http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/

Interview with Craig Ranke 12/12/09.....

4:17 mark: "We've had to deal with people trying to counter the information most people by attacking us personally but even by resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not, so that's kind of where we are at."--Ranke
http://podcast.com/show/12525/

" but even by resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not".--Ranke.....Oh really?

Who's attacking witnesses?.....

"Mike Walter: This is from an earlier interview that I did here in the United States. My view was very good. There were some trees...so I was being honest....I wasn't exactly sure if the plane skipped before entering or just crashed into the Pentagon at a very low point in the building. But as far as my view...that was the only part that I had any question about..the exact way it entered. I saw the plane go into the Pentagon, there is no doubt, I had a very good view. I saw the wings fold back; I saw the huge explosion, the fireball and everything else that happened that day."
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2009/11/mike-walter-pentagon-eyewitn...

"We can prove [Walter] is a liar," Ranke says."
http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/6

"You want me to cut to the chase?" Marquis interrupts. "He's an operative. One hundred percent, without a doubt. A deep-cover operative or asset."

"They are deep cover," Marquis says, shaking his head in resignation. "They have to be. It's obvious."

"Maybe not all of them, but some of them for sure," Ranke offers.

"And if not, they're assets," Marquis adds thoughtfully. "I hate to even speculate."
http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/6

LOL! So while they speculate about who's an "operative" or an "asset", they hate to even speculate...LOL...How f**king embarrassing!

"Mike Walter is the only one who has proof he was there at all and he was probably in south parking lot waiting for the event to go down before he ran over to the scene to play "witness" for the news cameras."--- CIT take on Witness M Walter
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436840/pg1

Witness Father Mcgraw....

"AND.....McGraw claims he was late to preside over a funeral at Arlington Cemetery. Why would he get out of his car at all with such an important commitment? We know for a fact that funerals continued as scheduled at ANC.

"What happened to the poor family that was waiting for him as he hung around the Pentagon?"

"McGraw has admitted to having a connection to the controversial fundamentalist catholic secret society Opus Dei."

"This is notable because of the political intrigue surrounding this catholic cult. It is well known to be favored by the "Washington elite" as reported in the History Channel special "The Spy Next Door: Robert Hanssen".

"Robert Hanssen is a convicted traitor who was an FBI employee that sold secrets to the Russians for years. He was a good friends and parish members with former head of the FBI Louis Freeh who is said to have been instrumental in the Oklahoma City bombing cover-up. Both were devout members of Opus Dei but Hanssen was exposed as a sexual deviant who had extra marital affairs with strippers and secretely video taped sex with his wife while his friend would watch from a monitor set up in their spare room in the basement." ---CIT take on Witness Father McGraw
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320389/pg1

Witness K Wheelhouse....

Even though unknown to Wheelhouse he was being called an "operative" and liar by CIT on the internet, he was still trying to be helpfull....

email from Wheelhouse to CIT...

"Just thought you would like to see a few photos.
Take care
Keith D. Wheelhouse""

response from Ranke...
"But things will work out a lot better for you if you come clean. ...."There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth."......" We know it was a flyover/flyaway. We have witnesses who prove this."....."We prefer to believe you are innocent and were coerced to lie."....." The video proves you are not telling the truth, Keith."
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/936873/1/

Wheelhouse to Ranke....
"You guys need to come clean and stop the charade. Being x-military I was their and know exactly what I saw. It is a shame that there are people of your caliber that want to try to put a spin on what happened. I do not care whether you believe me or not. Have the people who contradict my story call me. You have my cell and ok to release it. There are 52 additional photo’s to collaborate my story. From your video you do not believe an AA jet hit the pentagon. You had doubts that I was even their. Please have the pilot’s witnesses or who ever wants to contest it call. Best wishes in your search."
Craig you need help
Keith D. Wheelhouse"
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/936873/1/

Ranke thinks it's to bad that we have to resort to attacking the witnesses? When his entire silly theory depends on this disgusting tactic? This is some pretty demented stuff.

"By 2001, Capitol Cab could no longer pay its bills. The company filed for bankruptcy.

"Lloyde A. England sank onto the wooden bench in a D.C. courtroom as the last major asset of the company he joined in 1959 went to the highest bidder."

"The logo, colors and radio-dispatch system of Capitol Cab Cooperative Association Inc., started by black cabbies in the 1930s, sold for $58,000."

"Now I've got to change my colors," said England, 70, as he stared down at the cowboy hat on his knee.

"Standing next to England's Capitol Cab No. 677 after the bankruptcy proceeding, he and Bugg say they'll keep on driving."

"We don't have anything but our cars," England said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4111-2004Feb1?language=printer

Inspector Ranke is to smart for that......

"A more simple explanation is that he is a long time intelligence asset who has been driving a cab around the streets of DC with a wire in it for decades." --Ranke
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread406249/pg3

"Lloyde England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder."
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic2.htm

Yup, Ranke says people even resort to attacking the witnesses in order to support faulty beliefs.....I agree. People like....CIT who have entire pages on their pathetic website calling witnesses accomplices if they ruin their pre-concieved theories that they deny were pre concieved....see....
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentacon/slander.html

So who was REALLY fooled? All the witnesses at the Pentagon, or the people falling for this BS?

People only play the man if they know they cannot play the ball

Jim,
Your previous post is pretty much exclusively about Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis.

I thought we were talking about eye witnesses to the Pentagon attack?

You have done nothing, throughout all your attacks on CIT to demonstrate why anyone should not consider over a dozen people placing the plane north of Citgo constitutes proof that it flew there.

The is the bottom line.

Sure, you've gone around and claimed there are "hundreds" of explicit south path witnesses - but as you can see from the painfully embarrassing attempt to draw together some above - that was not true.

You can throw all the mud at CIT you like, but be aware that a little bit of your credibility flys away with every attack until, that is, you actually produce a reason for us not to consider the N.path valid, or concede that it is and accept the implications of that.

Am I "in on it" too?

Stefan said ..."You can throw all the mud at CIT you like, but be aware that a little bit of your credibility flys away with every attack until, that is, you actually produce a reason for us not to consider the N.path valid, or concede that it is and accept the implications of that"

Of course no one can prove the N Path invalid, In the cult of no plane at the pentagon. In the real world we'd just show south side witnesses, but they are all "in on it" so their testimoney is invalid. Lagassee's testimoney is also invalid, the part where he saw plane parts in the pentagon, and the part where he watched it hit....but his testimoney of the path being 15 degress off the official path wow, that proves everything and that part is valid. The physical evidence also shows an impact and the direction it came from, but that also cannot be considered, (except in the real world)because naturally it has to be planted therefor since the parts are planted the physical evidence is invalid. Which is why debating the issue with no plane cultists is a waste of time.

No Jim, you're not "in on it"...

No Jim, of course I don't think you're "in on it" - I don't even know where that comment came from. It is this sort of paranoia displayed between members of this online community that damage out credibility most with people in the broader public.

Why do you feign to speak so authorititively of the "real of the world" - have you seen for your self what non-9/11 truth people think of National Security Alert?

I have - I've shown it to many friends and family members and they have all had no problem understanding what it means, although since it was opening the door to 9/11 truth to them, many were profoundly shocked and moved by what they had learnt.

Maybe I should go back to them and tell them I've changed my mind and present the above lists for their attention? Do you think it would change their minds too? Having watched with their own eyes real person after real person definitively place the plane on the north side, do you think they will read this guff and decide they'd been fooled? Or would they think I'd lost it, back away slowly and make sure no sharp objects were placed near me?

The latter I think.

You have NOT shown the "South Side Witnesses" you have contrived to find any scrap of text based reportage you feel COULD be a "South Side Witness" and claimed they are. As Adam has displayed above even the most cursory commitment to fact-checking sees the whole house of cards tumble to the ground.

You do realise the difference between the ACTUAL witnesses CIT have presented, and this rather pathetic attempt at "claiming" people as witnesses to your point of view based on the slightest turn of words in some copy and pasted text? It is completely absurb,

You have lost all perspective. Before CIT appeared on the scene you had already made up your mind that the so-called "truth movement" should never speak about the Pentagon therefore your reaction to their work was neither objective nor without bias. As the years have gone on and witness after witness after witness have appeared and conclusively proved the north approach you should have had the decency to back down and accept you had been wrong. Instead you have gone into a fenzy spin, tabloid journalism and ad hominem, and yes - you have pretty much lost all credibility for it.

You got pentaconned -- and loved it!

Stefan said..."No Jim, of course I don't think you're "in on it" - I don't even know where that comment came from. It is this sort of paranoia displayed between members of this online community that damage out credibility most with people in the broader public."

Gee....where would that come from? So you agree that Aldo and Ranke suffer from paranoia? They have claimed, Hoffman, Arabescue, Wheelhouse, Farmer, Walter, England and a bunch of others either helped kill people on 9/11 or are under cover "operatives".

Stefan said..."Why do you feign to speak so authorititively of the "real of the world" - have you seen for your self what non-9/11 truth people think of National Security Alert?"

Yes, I have and they think it's f**king stupid. BTW. ever collect witness statement at a crime scene? I have. And you don't see me slandering a single witness do you? Frankly they are rather impressive, particularly Wheelhouse, who you call a liar, and who isn't. But I can prove Ranke is, but according to you that's not fair...to bad.

Stefan said..."I have - I've shown it to many friends and family members and they have all had no problem understanding what it means, although since it was opening the door to 9/11 truth to them, many were profoundly shocked and moved by what they had learnt."

So what? It's a con job. That 16 foot hole at the pentagon was really the first floor, and the engines didn't evaperate. But people fell for that BS too and that fake "missile" didn't go through 6 walls either, but it convinced some people, and according to you that seems to be good enough. Some of us are more interested in the facts and the truth, rather than "recruiting" people through any means possible including dishonesty.

Stefan said..."You do realise the difference between the ACTUAL witnesses CIT have presented, and this rather pathetic attempt at "claiming" people as witnesses to your point of view based on the slightest turn of words in some copy and pasted text? It is completely absurb,"

You seem to be making things up, I claimed what?

Stefan said...."You have lost all perspective. Before CIT appeared on the scene you had already made up your mind that the so-called "truth movement" should never speak about the Pentagon therefore your reaction to their work was neither objective nor without bias."

That is an outright lie. I would suggest you not try and speak for me because you don't know me nor what I think now or then.

Stefan said...."As the years have gone on and witness after witness after witness have appeared and conclusively proved the north approach you should have had the decency to back down and accept you had been wrong. Instead you have gone into a fenzy spin, tabloid journalism and ad hominem, and yes - you have pretty much lost all credibility for it."

Actually it has been you who's been proven wrong again and again.....what happened to that missile theory? This is why you don't mind CIT being liars, and try to prevent that FACT from being shown, because you can point to their con job and say ..."see? no plane at the pentagon, just like I've always said"...being the good no planer that you've always been.

As for "credibility". You claim over and over throught the thread of the witnesses being liars. And claim I can't attack the "evidence" so I attack CIT. Guess what? I can't attack the evidence because there is none. There is no evidence of a flyover. None. So as you call witnesses liars, you claim that I should not show concrete proof of CIT being the liars. To bad. I wont take orders from you nor follow any of your "rules". It matters. It's a con job from the start made by dishonest loons.

Ranke is a proven liar in this interview done less than 2 weeks ago...
Interview with Craig Ranke 12/12/09....

2:15: "myself and Aldo Marquiz went to Arlington with no pre conceived notions of what happened, went there with no particular theory in mind....
http://podcast.com/show/12525/

Post by CIT member Aldo nearly 4 years ago, before any visit to Arlington VA....

"01-11-2006, 14:22
Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)"
http://letsrollforums.com/meet-agent-lloyd-england-t9799.html

Proof they went with an agenda.....

"Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. "They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios."

"Some of those guys [at the party] were young and nice and disaffected [about] their government," Walter concludes. "And some of them were crazy."
http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/

Post by CIT member Ranke, just after their first trip to Arlington...
Sep 5 2006, 07:11 PM
"It's looking more and more like a "fly-over" scenario every day."
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12296...

This is actual proof that they went to Arlington with an agenda and have been lieing about that ever since. You can pretend it's ok to slander innocent witnesses but it's not ok to PROVE the BS you promote is nothing but a con job put out by self promoting liars, but like I said, your "rules" mean nothing to me.

Interview with Craig Ranke 12/12/09....
4:17 mark: "We've had to deal with people trying to counter the information most people by attacking us personally but even by resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not, so that's kind of where we are at."--Ranke
http://podcast.com/show/12525/

The entire theory put forth by you no planers depends on attacking the witnesses, as anyone who reads this thread proves.

Posts from CIT detractors remind me of a dying wildebeast

This has been such a good year for the Citizen Investigation Team: They produced their film National Security Alert which received an unprecedented level of endorsement from many movement intellectuals, which was a death blow to the official Truthaction dogma that "no serious credible researchers support CIT." Then just recently John Bursill concedes defeat in a debate with Craig Ranke, and he has officially withdrawn his position that CIT are intentional disinfo. He finds the 13 north side witnesses credible. Now, there is this incredible desperation among the anti CIT contingent to give one last stab at proving the south path and the OCT that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Like a dying animal thrashing and flailing its legs before expiring.

May be

the most pompous dodge I've ever come across on this here site.

________________________
DEFEAT THE NWO!!1!!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein

Calm down mate...

Jim Said:
"Gee....where would that come from? So you agree that Aldo and Ranke suffer from paranoia? They have claimed, Hoffman, Arabescue, Wheelhouse, Farmer, Walter, England and a bunch of others either helped kill people on 9/11 or are under cover "operatives"."

Yeah I do think Craig and Aldo share the widespread paranoia across this online community that everyone who disagrees with them are agents.

However, Wheelhouse and England are both clearly lying, there is no sense in trying to gloss over that.

Jim Said:
"Yes, I have [shown people NSA] and they think it's f**king stupid."

Really? I find that incredibly hard to believe. What was it about over a dozen people all saying the plane flew to the north of citgo that made them think it flew to the south? Maybe you sitting in the corner of the room claiming "hundreds" of witnesses saw it fly on the official path? ;-) Still looking forward to the day someone produces them. ;-)

"Frankly they are rather impressive, particularly Wheelhouse, who you call a liar, and who isn't."

This is new. So you believe the C-130 was shadowing the 757, before peeling off? Wow....

Just... wow.

Really?

Jim Said:
So what? [NSA is a] con job. That 16 foot hole at the pentagon was really the first floor, and the engines didn't evaperate. But people fell for that BS too and that fake "missile" didn't go through 6 walls either, but it convinced some people, and according to you that seems to be good enough. Some of us are more interested in the facts and the truth, rather than "recruiting" people through any means possible including dishonesty.

Take it easy there mate. I show my friends and family information because I believe they deserve to see it. I'm not trying to "recruit" anyone. And what they found solid, just like everyone else - is that over a dozen people corroborate the plane being on the north of citgo.

Jim Said:
You seem to be making things up, I claimed what?

I noticed that mistake after the edit option had gone. I meant to write Larsen hasn't, but mis-typed.

Jim Said:
Actually it has been you who's been proven wrong again and again.....what happened to that missile theory?

I've never supported the missile theory. From day one. Not many people can claim that.

Jim Said:
This is why you don't mind CIT being liars, and try to prevent that FACT from being shown, because you can point to their con job and say ..."see? no plane at the pentagon, just like I've always said"...being the good no planer that you've always been.

Wrong again. I was the first person I know of who was saying the Pentagon was too weak an area to focus on. I didn't believe a plane had hit, true, but I didn't think it was provable and urged my local group to avoid it - and this was before it was fashionable to do this.

Then hard evidence appeared, and that changed.

The cab driver is a plant.

CIT did a great job exposing him as a plant, with hidden camera and all.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

The sentence to focus on:

"Which is why debating the issue with no plane cultists is a waste of time."

Interesting.

Adam Larson debates Craig Ranke - makes an utter fool of himself and claims all the north side witnesses are government agents

John Bursil debates Craig Ranke - makes a very good account of himself as an honest person but ultimately concedes defeat

If CIT is as worthy of scorn as Jim's frantic tone suggests - why does every Boeing Impact Theorist who actually steps up to debate them walks away the loser... and is it the reason the rest of them consider it a "waste of time" to do so?

I think when Jim says "the real world" he means the small clique of a dozen or so people and their hangers on who stills rejects this evidence...

I have two questions for CIT advocates...

1. Is there any reason in the world to believe that a plane hit the Pentagon?

2. Do you accept the fact that the flyover theory has no basis in fact whatsoever, and should not be promoted?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

If you weren't aware of the evidence

1. If you weren't aware of the evidence. That would be a reason for thinking a plane hit the Pentagon.

2. Do you accept that the plane has been proved to have flown on the north of the former Citgo gas station?

Please answer my questions...

Thanks, and no, I do not think it has been proven.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Didn't I answer your questions?

So over a dozen witnesses does not constitute proof?

What's your magic number?

How many confirmed, independently verified witnesses unambiguously saying it flew north would it take?

No, you did not...

And I would appreciate it if someone from the CIT advocates would.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

I thought I did...

The first question I answered pretty explicitly:

1. If they weren't aware of the evidence.

That is the only reason I can think of that someone would believe the plane hit the Pentagon.

Actually there is one other

1. Politics

If the person had previously taken a stance and set out a stall with a pre-decided position on an issue - they might irrationally fight against evidence that showed they were wrong - even if they knew they were. They might think the ends justified the means if they believed their political stance was correct.

The second question I felt needed to be answered in stages.

The reason people (and by people I mean everyone outside of the tiny clique you hang out in) believe the plane didn't hit the building is because the north approach has been established, and it is the only logical explanation.

So the first part of the answer is to establish whether or not we are on the same page on that one.

So to move on I need an answer to my question -

How many witnesses would it take to establish the north approach?

But...

I am aware of evidence that suggests a plane hit the Pentagon, and anyone who is an advocate for 9/11 Truth should be equally aware of that evidence. Those who act as though it doesn't exist just to promote the idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon don't exactly seem honest to me.

The "tiny clique" you describe who don't think CIT have proven anything isn't exactly "tiny." 911blogger.com is not a true representation of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Especially not in the last few months.

I would prefer if a video was shown to me showing a "north approach" since witnesses aren't always reliable.

Since a video doesn't exist, I am going to focus on more credible lines of inquiry that don't take up everyone's time. Just as I've always done.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Strength of evidence needs to be considered

Jon,
The evidence you point to in that blog entry either relies on our taking the word of the people we suspect to be guilty for the crime:

1. [B]The authorities tell us that[/B] Two or three documents belonging to the alleged Flight 77 hijackers were found in the rubble at the Pentagon. Some of the alleged hijackers obtained fake IDs, so the IDs are questionable. However, they were nevertheless found.

2. [B]The authorities tell us that[B] The passengers and crew of Flight 77 were supposedly identified through the use of their DNA. A recent report indicates that DNA can be faked, however that does not prove that the DNA used to identify people on 9/11 was fake. Just that the possibility exists.

Or is pretty unsubstantial:

3. There were pieces of debris found at the Pentagon, and specifically, two pieces with the American Airlines logo on them. Picture One, and Picture Two.

If you were going to stage a scene of a plane crash where there wasn't one - is there any circumstance under which you would not ensure there were plane parts at the scene. That would be pretty basic. This claim carries all the weight of:

"The twin towers began their collapse at the point of plane impact - showing the plane impacts caused the collapse"

Or just showing that the perpetrators were not idiots...

The final could fits in to either category:

4. A book entitled, "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11" was released that mentions that they "found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI." According to a review of the book by John Maclean, "the bodies of the five hijackers were found about 100 feet from the point of impact."

Plane seats could have been placed in the attacked area (although if it was it's surprising they didn't photograph it as it would be good for the official story to do so) as far as bodies being in them - we again are asked to take it on trust. All this shows is that the author was told by the authorities this was the case.

You need to consider strength of evidence Jon, and this evidence is inconsequential.

Now you say eye witnesses are often wrong...

You're wrong about that...

In some way they are [B]ALMOST ALWAYS[/B] wrong.

The memory is quite subjective, and it should be considered taken as said that details of their testimony are incorrect.

[B]Corroboration[B] is quite a different issue.

While we expect eye witnesses individually to get details wrong, if two eye witnesses attest to the same details - we would consider this strong evidence this thing happened - as there is little chance of the two people making the same mistake. Some chance though...

Four witnesses? Open and shut case.

Twelve witnesses? Proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is really, really basic logic Jon, you understand that right?

I don't play with people...

Who proclaim that everything is fake/planted when they have no evidence of this.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Jon, you are very trusting of your government

Do you not understand that the government saying

"We found hijacker artifacts/passenger dna/bodies at the crash site"

Does not mean they did?

You appear to be acting as though a pronouncement by the government is evidence of something. Really?

You "won't play with me" because I expect evidence to believe something and don't just take the government's word for it?

You say I have no evidence that these claims from the government are untrue - I never claimed I did - I was pointing out that there is not a shred of evidence that they are true - yet you present them as though they are strong evidence.

Until you provide evidence...

That what I provided is fake/planted, then I have no reason to suspect they are fake/planted other than the fact that our Government lies (but not everyone in Government. There are good people working in Government). So, until you can provide reason to suspect something is fake/planted, I have to take it at face value. It saves time, and helps me focus on more incriminating things like the 9/11 Commission, NORAD, etc... things that are extremely incriminating, and have information to substantiate the fact that they are incriminating. Unlike things like the "flyover theory."


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

You're missing the point

I am trying to impact on you the difference between evidence of something and a claim of something.

The government says -

Artefacts of hijackers, passenger dna, passenger bodies, aircraft seats etc were found in the rubble.

We have no evidence they were.

Yet you present government claims that they were as though these claims were evidence.

I was demonstrating other possibilities; ambiguity.

With the N.Path witnesses there is no ambiguity, it is confirmed and verified first hand evidence.

Are we on the same page?

Stefan, you're doing an admirable job in this thread

but you're wasting your time arguing with Jon Gold. He keeps insisting that controlled demolition has NOT been proven, even with the (NIST admitted) 2.5 seconds of freefall acceleration not to mention the nanothermite paper. He used to argue very strongly against the movement "promoting" that.

Likewise if he thinks the north path has not been proven, there's no point in discussing with him.

He is stepping into this thread to offer his opinion and at the same time dissuade people from going down this path of investigation.

Just let it die.

Thanks Adam... one thing though...

How do you make text bold on blogger? This is getting embarrassing! :-D

Bold

use the < and the > instead of the [ and the ]

TEST

Cheers mate

Cheers mate ;-)

I believe I stated my position...

Regarding the buildings here, and in it, it says, "I think they (people who advocate there were explosives in the buildings) are right."

Is that the same as saying there was a "Controlled Demolition?" No.

As for trying to "dissuade people," you're right. I am trying to dissuade people from wasting their precious time arguing over a theory that has no basis in fact whatsoever, which is ultimately what CIT is trying to promote. That there was a "flyover."

You are trying to push CIT, and what seems to be only CIT, over and over and over and over and over again for whatever reason. So Adam, have fun with that.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Attack will always equal defence

As I've said a hundred times - why don't we agree to disagree?

Let CIT do their work without half baked hit-pieces and ad hominem attacks hitting them at every point and just don't promote it if you don't want to.

I am satisfied that the N.Path is established - so I am going to promote that.

If that position continues to be propagandised against, I will continue to defend it.

Give me a good reason to reject this evidence and I'll consider it, until then your choices are to let sleeping dogs lie, or accept the fact that every reaction has an equal reaction, and no one is going to lie down and take a kicking without fighting back.

People like this would see a flyover

Not a single person on this planet has claimed to see the plane fly over the pentagon. Not one. Why is that? It's either because they were all "fooled" or you were. I say, you were. People living in apartments overlooking the pentagon were fooled to right? Wrong

He lives on the 16th floor overlooking the pentagon. He wasn't fooled...you were......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBmgsjC6Nc&feature=related

Well that's not quite true is it?

Quite a few people around Erik Dihle claim to have seen just that, and Roberts saw the plane after the explosion too.

From that Youtube video I don't know what Timmermans view was. He says he lost it's view behind a building then he saw it hit the ground in front of the Pentagon (which didn't happen in the official story) and pieces fly up. It is possible he lost sight of it and then saw the explosion and debris flying. This is the problem with all evidence presented on the Boing Impact Theory side of this debate - it is not confirmed, not verefied, not clear cut - it is ambiguous while the opposing evidence is completely clear.

Why don't you just ease down on the aggression a little and stop ranting at people how they were "fooled".

We aren't mindless drones and you aren't some higher intellect who can see things we can't.

What I have seen is over a dozen witnesses place the plane on the north of citgo.

What I have seen is an absolutely pathetic attempt to present "south of citgo" witnesses, above, fall apart within a few minutes fact checking.

What I have seen is tabloid and manipulative and ad hominem arguments hurled with vitriol at this evidence and the people presenting it.

What no one had managed to do is explain to me why I should not consider over a dozen people placing the plane on the north does not constitute proof it was there.

Why don't you take a deep breath, stop acting like the people who disagree with you are sub-humans who no longer deserve to be treated with respect and actually make a coherent case for your point of view.

Not attacking them, no huffing, no puffing - no childish campaigns between you and your buddies to hide every comment that disagrees with you below the viewing thresh hold. Let's be grown ups can we?

Just explain to me like (gasp) I was another human being why it is I should not conclude the evidence presented demonstrates a N.approach.

Because to me, and to everyone I have shown it to, it clearly does.

7) Timmerman/Vignola

Stefan: "From that Youtube video I don't know what Timmermans view was."

Apparently Stefan did not read CL's article- or missed 7). In the original there's a hyperlink; the location of Tim Timmerman/Dawn Vignola's apartment building was made public, and google earth can confirm their vantage point- w/ a clear view of the air space over top of the Pentagon (at the time; a building is being built up that obstructs the view now). Other people thought the plane had hit the ground in front of the Pentagon- it may have seemed that way, as he was on the 16th floor, and it went in at the first floor. Also, CIT interviewed them, and have since attempted to discredit them on a number of occasions, in the same way they've attempted to discredit all S path witnesses.

Stefan: "What I have seen is over a dozen witnesses place the plane on the north of citgo." and "What I have seen is an absolutely pathetic attempt to present "south of citgo" witnesses, above, fall apart within a few minutes fact checking."

As I noted in my "Debate Status" comment in a reply to my first comment on the first page, 39 witnesses have been presented (including 4 that CIT claims support the N path); 10 have been addressed so far. The elements of their testimony that support the S path haven't been debunked, although Adam and Stefan have made a pretense of doing so. Even eliminating Wheelhouse due to his claim that the C-130 was above AA 77 [EDIT: and the 7 who apparently saw the poles on the ground after the crash] leaves [31] witnesses.

Stefan: "What no one had managed to do is explain to me why I should not consider over a dozen people placing the plane on the north does not constitute proof it was there."

This thread was created to present the witnesses whose testimony supports the S path so they could be critiqued and discussed. Adam has repeatedly claimed at 911Blogger that there are none, and so far his claim has not been backed up. So with at least [EDIT: 31] witnesses whose testimony support the S path, including 4 alleged N path witnesses, why are you so devoted to the claim of N path? Do you acknowledge there's conflicting testimony?

Stefan: "Because to me, and to everyone I have shown it to, it clearly does."

If you only view CIT's films, and view them uncritically, perhaps.

Stefan, back up this claim w/ quotes, please: "What I have seen is tabloid and manipulative and ad hominem arguments hurled with vitriol at this evidence and the people presenting it."

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Thanks Erik,

Thanks Erik

Of course I read the leading artical, I just didn't put two and two together. I was more interested in the claims than the names. The claim regaridng these two does not in any way show a south path, just like all of the claimed witnesses except the ones CIT have already acknowledged and offered analysis of.

Erik, do you really believe that anyone should take this list seriously compared to actual eye witnesses who have been confirmed and questioned?

There is a world of difference between the actual confirmed witnesses CIT have presented, and Larsen searching through the internet and finding a scrap of text and proclaiming:

"There! There he could be a south side witness couldn't he? Well maybe he could... No.. No definitely he is. Yep. A south side witness alright. Right next... google google google"

Do you think that would fly in a court of law?

It's desperation.

I think a court of law might take issue with the fact that almost all of the witnesses above either explicitly are or just as likely are north path witnesses.

As has been poitned out - these are not S.Side witnesses, these are people your name sake has claimed as S.Side witnesses and in most cases completely tennuously and quite embarrassing. I haven't gone into them myself on this thread as Adam did such a good job. So a min run down:

Hemphill - Not a south path witness - puts plane going over the Annex
Morin - North path witness - puts plane going over the Annex
Zakhem - S.Path witness already referenced by CIT - contradicted by Paik and Morin and refused to be filmed
Paik - North path witness - put plane going over the Annex
Wheelhouse - S.path witenss already referenced by CIT. Proven liar.
Wallace - Very tennuous claim - no evidence he is a S.path witness
Vignola/Timmerman - Very tennous claim - no evidence either is a S.path witness
McGraw - Very close to the plane on either path, he admits to putting together details of his account based on what he learnt. Therefore not a courtable south path witness.
Elgas - If you look into this witness properly, she is actually more likely a N.Path witness,
De La Cerda - Is he even taking himself seriously anymore? The conclusion he comes to is she made a mistake and is a S.Path witness? He's taking the piss now. Just try and imagine this in a court of law...
Riskus - Again, just as likely a N.path as S.path witness. For Larsen, if he wants them to be S.path, they are - no evidence needed.
Ramey - Places the plane going over the navy annex - not a S.Path witness
Lloyde England - You have to be kidding right???
Stephens - over the navy annex. North path witness
Roberts - He's losing it...
405 - "indicates it was probably south path" .... good god...
Aman - has he completely lost it? This is an explicit North path witness and Larsen says he's south why exactly? Because he says he "saw stuff flying up" and later learnt they must have been lightpoles... is he even trying any more?

Erik this is pathetic, and I think on some level you know this. Just try and imagine a court room with one lawyer presenting the CIT witneses, in person, running through the questions CIT asked. Then Caustic Logic bumbles up with a stack of paper

"hmm... here! *jabbing finger at piece of paper* - this guy could be a south path witness right... well he could be couldn't he? No proof one way or the other so,,, yes,,, yes your honour he's south of citgo... so... now.. umm..... here .... this one - he probably is as well.... and um.... um.... sure, half of those guys who just said it flew north as well - yeah they're south of citgo alright um..."

It really is quite that pathetic.

When I say present me with a reason not to consider over a dozen CONFIRMED ACTUAL NORTH SIDE WITNESSES not proof of a N.path and you say I should look at the above .... do you even take your self seriously?

The signs of a dying theory...

The signs of a dying theory are the "anything will go" attitude of desperation.

Here are some handy tips if you want to join the anti-CIT campaign:

Zakhem contradicts CIT - so is a good witness, even though she also contradicts almost all the other witnesses we are trying to claim are S.Side witnesses. Just point out that she is a S.side witness and move on quickly. If someone points this out, say they are calling a witness to 9/11 a liar and again, move on as quickly as you can.

Wheelhouse contradicts CIT - so is an "impressive witness" - of course his claims about the C-130 are proven lies - but that doesn't matter. Make a big thing out of CIT calling him a liar, but don't worry about making a case for him not being one - that's a lot tougher, just move on quickly.

Lloyde England - he's a good witness isn't he? Ignore the fact that he now claims to be where he wasn't and his story has more holes in than the finest cheese Switzerland has to offer, before he changed his mind to NoC he said SoC so ignore the later claim and focus on that. He's the kind of guy we want on our side. Call him a "sweet old man" who CIT are accusing of being a liar. Do not, I repeat, do not, try and demonstrate he is not a liar as this will only serve to distract us from our task.

Witnesses saying the plane went over the Annex are no longer problematic, because the plane could be half over the Annex and still go South of Citgo... don't worry about the fact that this fatally contradicts the official story. You need to quickly learn if you're going to be part of our club that the official story can be wrong when it suits us and right when it doesn't. So long as the end result is a meaty boeing impact against the Pentagon wall, then all is well.

The plane banking after the Annex is cool too. Don't worry about the fact that this didn't happen in the official story - if they said left instead of right - don't contact them to clear this up, just chalk them down as a S.side witness.

In fact a good rule of thumb is never to verefy anything if you're looking for S.side "evidence" - any facts you might learn will only muddy that waters and get in front of a perfectly good assumption. This is about quantity not quality. We need long lists of "witnesses" so anyone who could potentially be a witness, certainly is.

If you want to be a good supporter of the Boeing Impact Theory - anything goes - doesn't matter if it can be shown to be false with five minutes fact checking - anyone still supporting us doesn't fact check or they wouldn't be with us in the first place right?

And maybe just maybe we'll convince some others not to look into this in the first place.

The important thing to remember is that talking about the Pentagon will harm the "truth movement" - never forget this, and never, ever ask why it is true. We made this decision a long time ago, before all this pesky CIT evidence came along, and we'll be damned if we're going to let the truth get in the way of it.

Assertions, conjecture, irrelevant commentary

Stefan named the 18 people in CL's article, but didn't address the elements of their testimony that support the S path- let alone refute them.

Stefan did not name any of the 21 additional people cited in the first comment- and didn't address and refute their testimony.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Wheelhouse or Stefan--Who's the Liar?

I claimed that not a single person on this planet has claimed they saw a plane fly over the pentagon on 9/11. You titled your post..."Well that's not quite true is it?

Either you admit that it is, in fact true, or face the same wrath you dished to Wheelhouse, that is...be prepared to be called a liar and not worthy of consideration, with no credibility.

Stefan said...."Quite a few people around Erik Dihle claim to have seen just that, and Roberts saw the plane after the explosion too."

Roberts has never claimed to see any plane fly over the pentagon. And as for Erik Dihle....

His Interview shortly after the event he said......

"We got up and ran outside, and the first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn't even tell....some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon, and that a jet kept on going, somebody else was yelling no, no, no, a jet had rammed into the building."
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

Ranke interviewed him, over 7 years later and asked about that and he said he didn't remember anything about anyone saying the plane kept going, he doesn't really recall that because the plane crashed into the pentagon. So much for a flyover witness. But he did say that there are no ifs, ands, or buts, the plane struck the building. He also said, "I'm confident and will go on the record with anybody, that the plane struck the building. We know the plane struck the building."
http://www.thepentacon.com/ErikDihle.WMA

Either admit that your title of post "Well that's not quite true is it?" is wrong...and it is true that no person has ever claimed to see a plane fly over the pentagon, or be labled a liar, as you did to Wheelhouse who was right about everything he said, but was off on the spatial locations of the two planes, and the time it took for the approaching plane. Making him imperfect, not a liar. You had no problem putting that label on Wheelhouse. It will be attached to you now, unless you admit there is no person on earth who is a witness to a flyover at the pentagon.

Yep, if anyone saw the flyover it would be ALL OVER the media

I'm sure they would've reserved a big spot for them on NBC Nightly News and all the other networks. I can just imagine how the promo would go, playing over and over again on that horrific day, with the nation paralyzed by shock and horror.

First a big animated logo spins into view: "Cover up at the Pentagon?" Then the announcer's dramatic voice comes in:

"Fourteen eyewitnesses are claiming that the plane actually flew over the Pentagon and they saw it with their own eyes. Can it be true? Was it all a fake? Who is responsible? Where is flight 77 now? We'll have these stories, and more, on NBC Nightly News at seven."

Yep, that's what would've happened, had anyone seen the flyover. It'd be big news, and you know the media is hungry for truth! They'd be all over it.

And today, those fourteen people would be national heroes. There would be no wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would be doing hard time at Sing Sing.

That's just how it would've gone, if there really were a flyover, doncha think, jimd3100?

Good post, Sheila.

Here's my "stock" answer now to those who use the argument from incredulity as a "rebuttal" to the flyover of "many people would have seen and reported it."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have come to the conclusion that you are absolutely correct when you say that "everybody and their third cousin" would have seen the flyover.

In addition, I have come to the conclusion that they would all have reported it.

They would have all gone to their local authorities and media, as well as the corporate media, and they would have said: "Hey! What Dan Rather and Larry King are telling us is not true! I saw something that proves that this whole 'terrorist attack' is a big hoax!"

And while I used to think that the media and law enforcement would write these testimonies off as anomalous, I now agree that these people in authority would have listened. And taken the testimonies seriously. And given them ample time on the corporate airwaves. I came to this epiphany five minutes ago.

And then, while everyone is waving their flags and vowing to find Bin Laden 'dead or alive,' the media would have then actively challenged the government on their claim of a plane crash into the Pentagon.

Tim Russert, in his very first interview with Cheney a few days after the event, would have challenged Cheney on these flyover witnesses. And he would have been a true patriot and asked the toughest of questions: "Is this all a staged hoax by the government?" And Cheney would have gulped and struggled for an answer. And the entire 9/11 deception would have unraveled right then and there on Meet the Press, just as the "balloon boy" hoax unraveled on live national TV.

And the entire War on Terror would have been terminated before it could get started. I can imagine Rumsfeld: "DAMMIT!!! We actually FOOLED the world with the World Trade Center deception, but GOD DAMN those Pentagon eyewitnesses! They came forward and ruined our whole plan!!! ARGH!!! CURSES!!!! I was SO wanting to start a series of invasions of the Middle East... Now I'll end up being publicly put to death before a worldwide TV audience for treason and mass murder. #*&%(#*&%&!!!!!!!!!!"

Yes, you're right. Thank you for helping me wake up to my logical fallacies.

If there really were a flyover....

Ever consider the idea, that only an idiot would even try it?
LOL....or do you think it's a brilliant plan?

BTW ever figure out why no Air Traffic Controlers noticed that plane fly away? Is it because they are all "in on it" or because they're all cowards?

There's a scoop for ya.

Or maybe because it didn't happen?

A piece of work.

Why would only an idiot try it? Ever consider the idea that only and idiot would try bringing down three of the tallest skyscrapers in NYC in controlled demolition in broad daylight?

Jim, forget everything else, just tell me why any Air Traffic Controllers would give notice to that plane flying over the Pentagon if it were a military plane? Do they have to be '"in on it" (your new favorite phrase, which coincidentally is a favorite phrase of debunkers and those that want to dismiss 9-11 Truth as incredulous because of the "1000s" of people who would have to be "in on it"), Do the Air Traffic Controllers have to be "in on it" to accept their commander telling them to "disregard that military blip on their screen"?

Let's get out of the realm of speculation and stick to the facts.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

You do that a lot I'm noticing...

Potray individuals as "debunkers" if they dare contradict something that's being said. We are all "debunkers" in a sense that we strive to find the best arguments to help this cause. Just because someone provides information that contradicts something, or provides arguments that contradict something doesn't mean they are trying to "dismiss 9-11 Truth" or are "debunkers." We should be more concerned about people who ignore information that contradict what they're saying, just so they can continue to promote whatever pet theory is being promoted.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Stick to the facts?

bbruhwiler8 said... "Why would only an idiot try it? Ever consider the idea that only and idiot would try bringing down three of the tallest skyscrapers in NYC in controlled demolition in broad daylight?"

What? Everybody just thinks those towers fell. They were all "fooled". Yea, that's an idiotic plan. It didn't happen. But you think it did at the pentagon? LOL. "Plane crash? Naaaa....that stuff was all planted. They just think they watched the plane enter the building. They were all fooled."

They were all fooled....
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7094731948913014445&q=pentagon+...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTRsuRao7A

would have seen a flyover, no doubt about it....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBmgsjC6Nc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A86038...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6VuMHaZGuA&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A86038...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXq6H2kCtEU&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A86038...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IURJBJ6tnC4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE25srBooWM&feature=related

bbruhwiler8 said.... "Jim, forget everything else, just tell me why any Air Traffic Controllers would give notice to that plane flying over the Pentagon if it were a military plane?"

LOL! Point out the "independantly verified officially documented" witness that describes this "military plane" you just made up. You can't. Because you simply made up this "fact".

bbruhwiler8 said...."Let's get out of the realm of speculation and stick to the facts"

LOL!! Like the FACT that ALL the so called witnesses proving a plane flew over the pentagon swear they watched it fly into it? That fact? The fact that not one of them describe this military plane that you just made up? The fact that you no plane cultists damage this movement more than any debunker could ever dream of? Those facts? Or the "facts" you make up to tell a silly story?

Another possibility

There is one other possible explanation for the radar not reporting the correct position of the aircraft - the wargames that were occurring at that very moment - some of them involved radar injects, and most likely manipulated images all together. It is foolish to completely ignore any possibility...

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

^ Funniest voting down of a thread ever?

A call for peace gets voted down more than any other post in a thread?

Speaks volumes :-)

^ Even funnier

When there is a campaign to hide comments, you know the posts are worth reading ;-)

Notice how I have never opposed your work

Unlike certain people at certain websites, I have never opposed your work, or suggested that your blogging, or your list of facts, or whatever, is too "LIHOPpy."

As you've said before, "My name is Jon Gold and I'm going to do my own thing."

It was when you opposed me and others who were doing OUR own thing (particularly, your de-friending me on facebook the day I broke the story of the CIT endorsements in July), and would jump in to conversations to oppose us, without addressing of the facts we were presenting, that made me sometimes get snarky with you.

So let others do their own thing too, and stop trying to act as the self appointed "thought police" for the movement.

I haven't showed up in your threads and accused you of "pushing 'ignored warnings from al Qaeda' over and over and over and over and over again."

Also, check out my blog entries. I have done far more for this movement than just promote CIT. But I'm proud to promote CIT and even stand up to the face of hostility on forums where their research is not welcome.

Yes, I agree with Stefan that the north approach has been proven and I too will continue to promote it.

What I see from so many anti CIT people is a desperation to divert people away from even watching National Security Alert. Why are you so worried that people might "waste" 80 minutes of their life watching CIT's video? Let them watch it, let them read Arabesque's blog, and make up their own mind. But so many people don't want others to even take that first step, but rather, look away from the get go, under the 'good faith' that "this has all been debunked." Why the fear? Are the anti CIT people afraid that a thorough investigator, like myself or Stefan, will realize that CIT's work is solid and that the "Arabesque" and "Caustic Logic" blogs are ultimately very flimsy, i.e. the Popular Mechanics of CIT debunking?

Calling it "a theory that has no basis in fact whatsoever" is frankly, stupid and ignorant, sorry to be so blunt. The only two people who have actually tried to oppose CIT in debate have lost the debate; one snarkily (Adam Larson) and one with humility and dignity (John Bursill) and the reason they lost is NOT because Craig Ranke is a professional con-man (he's not) but because the facts didn't support the other side of the debate.

Adam Larson, who wrote the current blog entry (pasted by Erik Larsen), even admitted in debate that there's no way that the 13 north path witnesses can all be wrong. The only other alternative is if not just CIT but also the 13 witnesses were part of one massive disinfo conspiracy.

Incidentally Jon, you never actually jump into these Pentagon threads to address any facts regarding the eyewitnesses. You just jump in to express your chagrin that CIT and their work even exists, and then get on the moralistic soap box about how people like myself haven't learned our lessons from the Fetzer/Wood days, and you bunch CIT's credible work up with the truly absurd nonsense about no planes at the WTC and space beams.

Incidentally, for the record: I think that the WTC no planes "theories" were carefully constructed disinfo to muddy the waters and neutralize the damning evidence of actual no-plane crashes in Arlington and Shanksville.

How does at least [EDIT: 31] become "zero"?

And where's the "conclusive proof" of the N path or a flyover?

Adam: "So let others do their own thing too, and stop trying to act as the self appointed "thought police" for the movement."

Adam, you've repeatedly claimed "zero" S path witnesses, which is a false statement- is repeating false statements one of your 'things'?

We're still waiting for the 39 witnesses listed in the CL article and the first comment to be debunked/discredited as witnesses, or as witnesses whose testimony supports the S path. So far, an attempt has been made by you and Stefan on 10, and you've failed to debunk/discredit them- this comment thread is a permanent record, which I will be citing every time I see you making the "zero" S path witnesses claim here at 911blogger. Even eliminating Wheelhouse, whose C-130 account does conflict w/ the radar data and other witnesses [EDIT: and the 7 witnesses who apparently saw the light poles on the ground after the impact], that leaves [31]- including the 4 CIT witnesses, elements of whose testimony support the S path.

Adam: "Yes, I agree with Stefan that the north approach has been proven and I too will continue to promote it."

At a minimum, you should acknowledge there's conflicting witness accounts, and therefore there isn't 'conclusive proof' of the N path- or a flyover.

Adam: "the "Arabesque" and "Caustic Logic" blogs are ultimately very flimsy, i.e. the Popular Mechanics of CIT debunking"

Having failed to point out any errors in Arabesque's or CL's articles, Adam resorts to an ad hom.

Adam: "Calling it "a theory that has no basis in fact whatsoever" is frankly, stupid and ignorant, sorry to be so blunt. The only two people who have actually tried to oppose CIT in debate have lost the debate; one snarkily (Adam Larson) and one with humility and dignity (John Bursill) and the reason they lost is NOT because Craig Ranke is a professional con-man (he's not) but because the facts didn't support the other side of the debate."

There's conflicting witness accounts- and real reasons to question Lagasse's credibility (he claimed England's cab and light poles were down in a location where they weren't, and couldn't recall which side of the Citgo he was on); claims that the N path and flyover are proven, are unjustified. Therefore, claiming that they are, to quote you, is "stupid and ignorant"; if your goal is to make a credible, persuasive case to the public, media and public officials that the OCT is false and 9/11 needs to be investigated.

I've been taking the time to do this debate with Adam, Stefan and any other CIT promoter at 911blogger, as the CIT stuff continues to get promoted here, and Adam, as I noted, has repeatedly claimed there are "zero" S path witnesses- clearly a false claim. This will be an open thread, and any new or previously overlooked info can be added at any time, and it will be addressed. And the CIT promoters are welcome to consult with Ranke and Marquis- It was previously documented by John Schroder that Adam has a penchant for parroting Ranke's arguments and even his words:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20877#comment-214293 (see page 3)
"Are you Craig's parrot?
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=677&st=0

Craig: "To refute this evidence it is necessary to provide evidence to the contrary of greater strength."

Adam: "To refute this evidence (and all evidence) it is necessary to provide evidence to the contrary of greater strength."
----------------
Craig: "The only way to refute the north side would be to provide 4 first hand accounts of people who were on the gas station property and 100% emphatically support a south side approach as strongly and certainly as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios support a north side approach."

Adam: "So the only way to effectively refute the already existing evidence for a north side approach would be to provide 4 firsthand accounts of people who were on the gas station property and 100% emphatically support a south side approach as strongly and certainly as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios support a north side approach."
----------------
Craig: "To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias in favor of the official story."

Adam: "To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias in favor of the official flight path and impact narrative.""

In reply, Adam acknowledged:
"I know Craig in person and consulted with him, and yes he has directed me to certain posts and articles on their site clarifying their claims and positions. Yes, I have used their language and direct claims when discussing the information. That should be considered a good thing because you know I am representing their postion accurately in this discussion."

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Where's the proof of a N.Path? Are you serious?

You know very well where - there are a lot of videos on CITs site that documents both them, and also the verefied S.Citgo witnesses. And there is NSA which presents an abridged selection of them.

A point you lot don't seem to realise is that CIT are the sole source of verified North and South side witnesses.

They interviewed Wheelhouse, England and Zakhem. I don't consider McGraw a S.approach witness for reasons I have outlined repeatedly, but they also provided verification of him.

Detractors spam continually about CIT ignoring witnesses who contradict them, yet in reality they are the ones who presented us with their confirmed and verified accounts.

In stark contrast Larsen, Arabesque, Hoffman, Ashley et al have trawled the internet for third and second hand scraps of witness accounts and made tenuous arguments that they are S.side witnesses too. None of these arguments I have found to be remotely credible.

It might help if you stopped looking at this as a factional thing. I am not CIT. I am on the other side of the world to them, and I started out opposing them. I have made judgements based on the strength of evidence presented on either side and come to my conclusions independently. If you want me to change my mind - make your case in a grown up way not like I am on the other side of some illusory and childish "good guys and bad guys" dynamic you have dreamed up. As a tip I'd say you need a much better case as well.

As for the contradictory testimony - yes I see it - I see it largely in the list you provided us with here - the people on it describe various things which do not match one another. Most of them match what the CIT witnesses say perfectly and are only "claimed" as S.Citgo based on the most tenuous leaps of logic.

CIT see Zakhem, Paik and Morin (and all the other "over the annex" witnesses) and say - something's got to give. They can't all be part of the same body of testimony. So they exclude Zakhem as the anomaly contradicted by the others.

Larsen sees Zahem, Paik and Morin (and all the other "over the annex" witnesses) and says - yeah, I think I can make an argument for them all being south of Citgo witnesses, even though they contradict one another.

This logical redundancy does not bother him in the slightest, and it clearly doesn't bother you either.

Neither of any trouble to any of you is the fact that a bank of the plane or the plane going over the Annex directly contradicts the flight path you are promoting. You've dreamed up a way that these elements of a flight path could result in S.path and gone with it.

Don't you care that this is a jumbled mess of an argument? Apparently not.

I also see the contradictions between what Wheelhouse says... contradictions that is between his claims and the video evidence, photographic evidence and all other eye witness testimony - even the official story!

But this doesn't bother you at all does it? Jim says he's an "impressive" witness and certainly not a liar... good god have you no dignity?

And I see the contradictions between Lloyde England's testimony.... and Lloyde England's testimony.

I also see how that contradiction was triggered by a camera being turned on.

Again - no problem for you whatsoever. The key point for you is he's a ,sweet old man and CIT are calling a sweet old man a liar. Doesn't matter one bit that there is no way he can be telling the truth.

But the truth doesn't matter does it? Being right matters. Not backing down matters. Nobbody talking about the Pentagon really matters.

Because if we talk about the Pentagon, even if the evidence we talk about proves the official story wrong, we will DAMAGE THE TRUTH MOVEMENT.

Don't ask why, because that certainly doesn't matter...

^ Violation of site rules

from

http://911blogger.com/rules

Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated.

jimd3100's comment [edited] and policy re: accusations & insults

There are rules in place which, among other things, are intended to help preserve civil discussion of contentious subjects:

"Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated. Don't make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time. (If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)"
http://www.911blogger.com/rules

It is possible (and more helpful, imho) to point out false statements w/o calling the person making them a liar, and it's possible to point out that someone is refusing to concede an 'error', even when the facts have been clearly displayed for everyone to see. Someone who maintains their position even after their argument/evidence has been discredited, is discrediting their own self- ultimately it doesn't matter if the reason they're doing so is out of a desire to intentionally deceive or provoke people, sow discord and cause division, or if it's simply out of ignorance, denial, stubbornness, uncertainty, suspicion of the 'opposing' view, etc. Some issues are black and white, others are gray, and some things that may seem black and white to some, may seem gray to others.

It is clear to me there's no "conclusive proof" that the the N path or a flyover happened. It is clear to me there are at least 33 (34 if you count Wheelhouse) witnesses whose testimony, in whole or part, supports the S path (as well as other evidence). It is clear that Adam and Stefan are refusing to concede this. I conceded that Adam had correctly pointed out that Hovis, Fortunato and Evey did not belong on the list of "witnesses" to light poles being clipped, and I discovered that DeChiaro didn't belong there either. Last I saw, Adam was still claiming he'd debunked 13 witnesses, even though he had ignored the evidence CL presented in some cases, or failed to discredit the witnesses in others. By the standard that Adam applies to the S path witnesses, he would have to dismiss Lagasse and Brooks as well, as they were Pentagon cops, and had gotten significant details wrong. However, it may be these things really are not so clear to Adam and Stefan. I don't know what's going on in their heads, hearts and lives, but I can read what they post.

I'm reposting jimd3100's comment below, with the accusations edited out and my own 'rephrasing' in [brackets] to demonstrate how essentially the same points can be made w/o accusations:

------

In a post titled "People like this would see a flyover" I said..."Not a single person on this planet has claimed to see the plane fly over the pentagon. Not one."

Stefan replied with a post titled "Well that's not quite true is it?" Where he said....."Quite a few people around Erik Dihle claim to have seen just that, and Roberts saw the plane after the explosion too."

In a post titled by me "Wheelhouse or Stefan--Who's the Liar?" I said ...."Either you admit that it is, in fact true, or face the same wrath you dished to Wheelhouse, that is...be prepared to be [considered] not worthy of consideration, with no credibility."

Roberts has never claimed to see a plane fly over the pentagon and as for Erik Dihle I provide 2 interviews, one shortly after the event and the second 7 years later conducted by C Ranke.

early interview...
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

Later with Ranke...
http://www.thepentacon.com/ErikDihle.WMA

It's clear from both interviews that neither Erik Dihle nor anyone he knows witnessed a plane fly over the pentagon. In fact he makes it very clear to Ranke that the plane impacted the pentagon. He is not a flyover witness.

Stefan was givin the opportunity to admit this but has refused. Therfor Stefan [has been discredited], who points at innocent witnesses and smears them as liars when they are not perfect witnesses, while others such as Adam Syed accuses the same witness as being a "Gov plant", for being to perfect a witness. This is the CIT way and the way of their [...] supporters.

In a post Stefan titled "Where's the proof of a N.Path? Are you serious?"

Stefan said in referernce to Wheelhouse...."Jim says he's an "impressive" witness and certainly not a liar... good god have you no dignity?"

Stefan also said...."But the truth doesn't matter does it? Being right matters."

This shows Stefan to not only [to have discredited himself, but to have double standards] as well. Stefan has proven himself to be [unreasonable], with zero credibility.

Stefan said in regards to wheelhouse..."Stefan: "nothing suspect about his drawing of a nearly perfect official flight path on the aerial photo when he did not have the vantage point to judge it?"

See? He's to perfect. But Stefan also claims he's to imperfect...."Are you actually trying to claim that there was a C-130 shadowing the other plane, somehow keeping speed with it?" "He is lying, plane and simple."

Stefan [...] also said this in regards to an innocent man who did nothing but answer his phone and agree to allow [CIT] into his home....."What is Wheelhouse? A liar"

So Stefan who has been proven [to have made false statements and discredited arguments, and insisted on the truth of them, even after being shown they were false and discredited] on this thread, attacks innocent decent witnesses who are very good but imperfect as liars. [...]. Adam probably even more so with this comment..."I also conclude, based on his words and his body language, that Keith Wheelhouse is a planted witness within a govt false flag operation."

So CIT and their supporters prop up their phoney claims by [...] slandering honest decent people.

In regards to Wheelhouse......

Keith Wheelhouse was attending a funeral and was very near the impact point. He stated that he saw the plane coming in, described the plane and the impact to perfection. He also noticed another plane that most hadn't, (Schuleman also saw this plane) he also described this other plane as a c 130. He drew the flight path of the plane that impacted the pentagon, and the direction the c 130 flew off in. He was exactly right about all that, confirmed by the radar data. That is very impressive. However, he had the placement of the c130 closer to the other plane than it was, and when asked how long did you see the plane coming in he said something like a minute or so. AHA! Got you! According to Stefan this makes him a liar with no credibility. This is particularly disgusting, because Wheelhouse, was seemingly sympathetic to our cause or could have been. He was obviously thinking that c 130 could have been trying to conceal the other plane from radar, meaning he was suspitious of the government and what it was doing on 9/11. In fact because of Wheelhouse and his excellent observations that day, the Gov was asked about that plane. This was embarrassing because they didn't want to advertise the idea that an hour after the first hit a plane hit the pentagon while being tracked by an old slow c 130. Where were the fighters!?!? It took several weeks for the Gov to in fact confirm what Wheelhouse had already told the press.

"Sep 15, 2001
At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet...."
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/dailypress/access/81771249.html?dids=8177124...

"Daily Press, 17 October 2001

The crew of a military cargo plane watched helplessly on Sept. 11 as a hijacked airliner plunged into the Pentagon, a defense official confirmed Tuesday.

Keith Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach, still has a vivid image of that fireball etched in his mind.

But Wheelhouse, a three-year Army veteran, thought it looked like aC-130, although he wasn't certain.

Tuesday, he was pleased to hear the military is finally verifying what he's been telling people.

Wheelhouse and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time.

"So I wasn't losing my mind," he said.

In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said.

"It was very hard to get any information out," McClellan said.
http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/C130sawF772P.html

Wheelhouse draws the flight paths so perfect that he is accused of "being a plant", or maybe going on the internet for research, to "get it right". This is particularly disgusting because if he had gone on the internet and done his research one would expect he would have come accross CIT calling him a liar and Gov operative. He didn't because this decent and nice man was emailing Ranke in order to assist more with their so called research project, as I've already documented in this thread and can be seen here.....

"Just thought you would like to see a few photos.
Take care
Keith D. Wheelhouse"

CIT's response...
"The charade is over."
"There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth."

Wheelhouse...
You guys need to come clean and stop the charade.
Best wishes in your search.
Craig you need help
Keith D. Wheelhouse
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/936873/1/

CIT and their supporters Stefan and Adam Syed have disgraced themselves promoting this disgusting garbage.

All I can say is...

Confirmed, first hand testimony carries far greater weight than second hand media quotes.

You can throw me 1000 "south side witnesses" and to me, it does not carry the same weight as a video of Lagasse saying "100%. Bet my life on it" with regard to the north path.

It's not that second and third hand testimony doesn't matter at all; of course it does. And it deserves to be analyzed. But first hand is always the best.

Get some witnesses on camera, preferably on location where they were standing at the time, who definitively put the plane not only on the south side, but express certainty that the north approach witnesses are mistaken.

One final thing before I depart this thread:

CIT does not rest on their laurels. Their drive and energy makes them keep on digging and digging. NSA is hardly their last project.

There are definitely some surprises in store for everyone in 2010 with regard to CIT. I'm not gonna say any more than that, but... It's gonna be da bomb diggity snip snap snazzle!

Adam: "It's gonna be da bomb diggity snip snap snazzle!"

Adam says: "It's gonna be da bomb diggity snip snap snazzle!"

9/11 didn't have to happen; people in key positions related to national security, who had sworn an Oath to defend the US Constitution, failed to act to prevent 9/11, obstructed others from acting to prevent it, and demo'd WTC 1, 2 & 7 as part of the 'shock & awe' psyop of the world's sole superpower allegedly getting hit by surprise despite a trillion dollar defense establishment, by the shadowy decentralized terrorist network 'Al Qaeda', led by the elusive never-dying boogey man Bin Laden.

People died, were injured, lost loved ones on 9/11. The people most responsible have declared that we live in a "post 9/11 world", that there needs to be a "war on terror" that will not end in our life times. 9/11 has been used to justify 2 unnecessary wars in which well over a million people have died. 9/11 has been used to justify indefinite detention, rendition, torture, warrantless wiretapping and huge funding increases for the military-industrial complex, which bears the most responsibility for 9/11.

But most here already know that. I mainly replied to the above comment to preserve this:

Adam says: "It's gonna be da bomb diggity snip snap snazzle!"

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Terry Morin's plane

Terry Morin, south of Citgo, even when flying through the Sheraton and the Airforce memorial

Gov't Can't Even Support Its Own Account

I find it damn curious that long before anyone began collecting statements from witnesses the gov't commissioned two separate recreations of the event and BOTH OF THEM!! showed a NOC approach.

See them here and watch the endings slowly, carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0 (@ mark 4:00)

The NORAD animation shows the aircraft going diagonally over the Annex, banking hard right and slamming into the Pentagon at almost a 90 degree angle.

The NTSB animation shows the aircraft North of the Annex and banking right to hit the Pentagon at almost a 90 degree angle.

So why is it that two agencies, charged with creating a professional animation, cannot come up with a path that fits the damages seen on the ground?

Neither one supports the light pole or generator trailer damages. BOTH support the NOC path that several witnesses described.

What, pray tell, did these agencies use for their database? Or was this just some sloppy estimation with no basis in fact?

I DON"T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. What I do know is that whoever paid for this shoddy work got taken for fools.