8 out of 8 at Citgo station

Childlike Empress said:

JohnG, dismissing evidence out of incredulity is called faulty logic. I have absolutely no idea what happened to Lloyde England, it seems bizarre eighter way. Should i therefore dismiss corroborated witness testimony by more than a dozen credible witnesses?

Click to expand...

JohnG said:

How come when anyone disputes the generally accepted narrative of the Pentagon attack and they are asked to lay out their own narrative, all we seem to get is the internet equivalent of a blank stare or at best some bluster about a cleverly culled subset of eyewitnesses, misguided ideas on how security cameras work and supposedly suspicious light poles? How come no one steps up to the plate and explains why all the bait and switch missiles/bombs/decoy planes would be considered a good idea by any supposedly cunning and sinister cabal planning an attack on the Pentagon?

Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:

...

Click to expand...

Annnd there's the "blank stare" I was referring to. You are of course under no obligation to respond to that post, but I'm disappointed that you didn't even try. You cling to a small group of witnesses (who awkwardly do not back you up on the whole jet not hitting the Pentagon thing) but can't face having to own up to the absurd conclusion your questioning of the accepted narrative inevitably leads because (consciously or not) you know how deeply stupid the whole "missile(or bomb)/passenger switcheroo/air show/hastily planted evidence pit crew/hope no one catches them in the act" theory really is.

NO one has EVER laid out a sane, logical counter theory to explain what happened at the Pentagon that day or to explain why the bad guys (whoever you think they were) would have signed off on such a bizarre, unnecessarily complicated "multiple points of failure" type scheme like the one CIT and their followers suggest. It's clear you are likely never going to be talked out of believing that the Government wasn't somehow involved in the attack, but try to wrap your brain around this: If anything goes wrong with the attack, like...

* The jet is videoed flying over the Pentagon after the blast and the footage is leaked to the web or TV before the Men in Black can get to it.

* Someone with a camera captures the teams planting wreckage, downed light poles, etc. and gets it on the web or TV before the Men in Black can get to them.

* The timing is a bit off and the bomb or missile goes off while the jet is still miles away from the target.

* The jet accidentally crashes somewhere other than the target but the bomb/missile still goes off on the preselected target.

* The bomb or missile is a dud and fails to go off (what do they do with the jet in that case?).

...or any number of other SNAFUs that would inevitably lead to uncovering the actual perpetrators??

Now, contrast that to what would happen if the Government was still somehow behind the plot (if you must) but the scheme was simply to dupe some disgruntled middle eastern men to hijack the jet and crash it into the Pentagon (no missiles or preplanted bombs), BUT the jet crashed, say, into another part of the Pentagon, resulting in roughly the same number of deaths and amount of damage. "They" still get what they wanted but with no more possibilty of their involvement being discovered as if the jet crashed "on target". No fears about coordinating the planting of evidence, no fears about the attack being captured on camera and released to the media.

Now can you or somebody please explain to me why when the evil cabal was originally brainstorming their 9/11 scheme, they decided to go with the first scheme I laid out above and not the second (extra credit if you can avoid misusing the term "shock and awe")?

You are demanding impossible things from me. You are confusing a scientific experiment with a criminal investigation (what we are dealing with here). I quoted Sherlock Holmes earlier. If a suspect in a criminal investigation turns out to have a bulletproof alibi, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative". The investigators have to restart from scratch or continue where they left the path of evidence.

Oh brother the CIT shill has lost his ****.

Just do the math.

REad the first 5 or 8 posts on this topic, then reflect on how it got to 16 pages. This is the absolutely worst case of reasoning ever employed. A plane was hijacked, crashed into the Pentagon killing all on board and a bunch of others.

But none of this happened because years later a few witnesses point the wrong way?

I hope none of these idiots ever gets on a jury.

16.5 said:

Stop with the idiots from PFFT already, for god's sake.

Do you not realize the mopes did two separate calculations, one with the descent (with no bank), and one in gentle flat banking turn (with no descent). Neither of which fits the CIT magical path. There are several threads on that article, use the search feature.

You are the latest, persistent CIT fan boy. It is your path, calculate the whole thing, from Paik to Morin to banking north around the CITGO to descending below the level of the trees, to pulling up and over the Pentagon at the impact site. here is a hint: the ANC workers banks are completely insufficient. Make it fit all CIT witnesses, or at least tell us who you re throwing out

I won't even ask you to calculate the magical pirouette over the Pentagon, causing the plane to go in complete circle and exit over the South parking lot.

C'mon fan boy, do it. DO IT. Make history, CIT! DO IT!

Click to expand...

mudlark said:

I´m still waiting on the math or at least a link debunking Balsamo´s North flight path scenario.
It´s only ´drivel´ because you have no counterargument against these witnesses. The plane could NOT have impacted from NOC.
Large numbers of witnesses seeing a right bank, describing NOC, NONE seeing SOC...the nonsense that they ALL misremembered doesn´t fly any more.

Click to expand...

Several of us have provided links to real math, while noting Rob Balsamo's stupefying incompetence in that subject.

As 16.5 noted above, neither you nor Balsamo have presented a coherent north-of-Citgo flight path.

Hundreds of regularly scheduled flights pass north of that building every day, most of them hundreds of miles north, so nobody is saying an aircraft can't fly north of that building. The question is whether the specific flight path you advocate was possible. We have been unable to determine that because you have yet to specify a specific flight path.

You have cited the infallibility of witnesses who say the aircraft flew north of Citgo and knocked down light poles in places where there is no record of light poles ever standing. When pressed to address that problem or others, you have continued to spam us with images and irrelevant text.

You offer nothing but air, whipped into a froth of words and images.

mudlark said:

´forgetfulness´?

a) This would apply to witnesses having to remember details such as colours, shapes, etc. This would be applicable to people trying to remember facial details, car details, NOT a bigass plane flying at them (ANC workers)

Click to expand...

18 witnesses, so you, claim out of another 100 or so. That's less than 1/5 consistency in favor of the North approach you're trying to cram down my throat. And all of your witnesses STILL have it hitting the Pentagon, along with the other hundred people. The physical evidence CONFIRMS that the plane hit it.[/quote]

mudlark said:

b) They were in a PERFECT position to see this.

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. Inaccuracies in witness testimony occur even from the first person standpoint during something that happens suddenly and within the span of only a few seconds. The flight paths as testified by witnesses is absolutely no exception to this.

mudlark said:

c) Now these guys have ´physical/mental disabilities´?? Low.

Click to expand...

You illegitimately malign me; I quoted the content expecting you to have the basic essentials to understand what's relevant - you know - the idea that witness testimony is prone to areas of inaccuracy. Since when does any of it explicitly require maligned intentions? Neither does it require mental impairments. Where the hell did you think I said that?

mudlark said:

d) Exactly what ´bias´ would these guys have? They looked after a famous military cemetary...so..no.

Click to expand...

What the heck does the location have to do with whether somebody is biased or not?

mudlark said:

They were simply asked where they were and what they saw. Again, they all corraborrated.

Click to expand...

I stopped reading this part right here; tell me again how you develop a sound model of consistency when the witness sampling includes less than 20% of all those in the immediate vicinity at that point in time. That's a hell of a way to crash and burn a court case, in fact, I'd go as far to say that in a real life court case a this sort of practice would amount to purgery given that CIT KNOWS that there were more than 18 witnesses. That just makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

mudlark said:

This has nothing to do with collusion. It was an incredible sight that was etched into their minds.
The rest has nothing to do with this case.

Click to expand...

And of course happening fast. I'd definitely remember a seeing a plane crash into a building, just like I'd remember quite vividly taking a horrible fall onto the pavement. Everything that happens in between however may as well be a blur. Luckily physical evidence fills in the spaces; light poles getting knocked down for example. Visible damage to a building, or things that got slammed by a 100-ton jet ahead of the main impact event.

Again you seem under the impression that memory works like a photograph catching every detail. No no no, like a photo it does not.

mudlark said:

using factors that have no bearing at all on this type of eyewitness testimony.

Click to expand...

Really? None of the above factors in? Very telling.

mudlark said:

They corraborrate. End of story.

Click to expand...

Okay let me ask you; if the NOC testimony is accurate because it has a consistent track of witnesses consistently placing it along that path, then why is the testimony that the plane hit the pentagon left out; replaced instead by a flyover "theory"?

mudlark said:

What ´100 witnesses´? Tell me how they contradict them. Many of them actually reinforce their statements.

Click to expand...

They place a plane inside the pentagon, rather than over it perhaps. Perhaps that hasn't settled in yet.

Childlike Empress said:

If a suspect in a criminal investigation turns out to have a bulletproof alibi, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative".

Click to expand...

Glad to see you admit defending Al Qaeda.

Nobody asked you to be their defense lawyer, you took the role upon yourself. Why is that?

ETA: no, wait, don't tell me, I already know. You hate America so much, you're willing to put yourself on the side of the worst scum on the Earth.

BTW, people, can't you see you are playing their game?

Nobody in the world is talking about this "fly over" idiocy, not even truthers, except here, you're giving insane people an audience they normally shouldn't have.

And @ mudlark, all this effort and skill you put in your pictures and animations, why don't you try working on something worthwhile, and more healthy for your sanity?

^^This.

Plus a reality check:

1) there aren't more than half a dozen people on the entire planet who purport to believe the Craptastically Illogical Treefort nonsense;

2) the few who promulgate said nonsense apparently can't even identify "north" with a compass in one hand and a magnet in the other;

3) the denizens of the treefort are hopelessly inept at interviewing people in anything even remotely approaching a legitimate fashion;

4) the evidence of flight 77 crashing at the Pentagon cannot be gainsaid. It is comprehensive, conclusive and overwhelming; and

5) ^^see above.

LashL...does this mean you do not believe in the tooth fairy

mudlark said:

Mind showing how what he describes matches the FDR/RADES data?
You guys talk about math from a discredited and highly dubious FDR yet none of you have ever plotted the plane´s course from the Annex to lightpole 1.
You talk a lot Beachnut but you don´t actually say anything.

Click to expand...

You post a lot of delusional rants.

What is turn radius for the bank angles you posted?
In fact, what were the bank angles you posted?

The plane did not fly over the Annex, it flew over the Annex as in higher than, not exactly over.

All the witnesses describe what is in the FDR. Maybe the fact you are not a trained aircraft accident investigator keeps you from understanding 911.

p4t can't do math, they post 2,223Gs are required to pull out but fail to understand they are wrong. Balsamo does not have an ATP, no wonder he comes up with delusional G forces for 77. You can't present any math either; why?

Please post the NoC path you have. Please explain the G force required. Try to do something other than talk and spewing delusions.

What is the bank angle you posted in the photos; don't forget to do the math.?
What is the turn radius at the bank angle you can't define but posted as the CIT who pointed to the South Flight path has the little model 5 years after 911; how professional of CIT to make up delusions. Cool you believe the idiotic lies but can't do the math to support your delusions. Sad

My physics professor talked, and I listened. My engineering professors talked and I listened. When they asked for the math, I gave them the math and graduated. When will you do the math? Can you do math? Got physics?


Boger (a CIT witness) saw 77 impact the Pentagon, the 61.2 to 61.5 degree true track from that impact point is the flight path all the witnesses saw for the last 10 to 20 seconds of flight. All the witnesses describe this exact flight path from their frame of reference. The best part of CIT videos are CIT witnesses pointing to the flight path that knocked down the lampposts and impacted the Pentagon. The sad part is CIT making up lies about a NoC path that never existed.

The wall o'text post is reported for personal information disclosed. We don't do that here, Mudlark.

Childlike Empress said:

You are demanding impossible things from me. You are confusing a scientific experiment with a criminal investigation (what we are dealing with here). I quoted Sherlock Holmes earlier. If a suspect in a criminal investigation turns out to have a bulletproof alibi, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative". The investigators have to restart from scratch or continue where they left the path of evidence.

Click to expand...

As a life long Sherlock Holmes fan I put it to you that you are ideologically (in this instance at least) ill-equipped to distinguish the "impossible" from the "improbable". Your unwavering conviction that the government (and non government experts) lied about virtually all aspects of the 9/11 attacks is forcing you into an absurd and untenable corner.

You don't really mean to suggest that a small group of (IMO) misled and confused witnesses provide a "bulletproof alibi" for Al-Qaeda?? How does that logically follow?

Any Defense Attorney, no matter how certain they may be about their client's innocence would surely be at least curious about how and why the actual perpetrator carried out the crime?

Just once (call it a thought experiment if you want) ask yourself if the alternative theory suggested by CIT makes any sense and if not why would anyone (no matter how supposedly diabolical) approve it and carry it out?

Childlike Empress said:

You are demanding impossible things from me. You are confusing a scientific experiment with a criminal investigation (what we are dealing with here). I quoted Sherlock Holmes earlier. If a suspect in a criminal investigation turns out to have a bulletproof alibi, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative". The investigators have to restart from scratch or continue where they left the path of evidence.

Click to expand...

But if ALL the evidence is considered, DNA, physical, etc, AND eye witness, any competent investigator would come to the conclusion that what you call the "official story" is the best narrative for the events. In that case, the defense better be trotting something a little more compelling than a handful of witnesses who saw the plane on another path, yet still claim the plane hit the Pentagon, or it's going to be a long day in court for them.

If I were the defense I'd start trying desperately to find an eye witness to a flyover or somebody planting evidence and lay off your little core of contrary witnesses.

A plane hit the Pentagon.

why? cause I said so.

parky76 said:

A plane hit the Pentagon.

why? cause I said so.

Click to expand...

Hey, it's as good as anything CIT has.

jhunter1163 said:

Hey, it's as good as better than anything CIT has.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. At least parky wouldn't freak out his audience or demand their personal info.

mudlark said:

Why didn´t you speak to any of these NOC witnesses while you were there?
Name the witnesses you talked to.
Brooks ADMITTED in the CIT interview that he did not see the poles being hit.

You want us to take YOUR word for it over the likes of Lagasse (the ´police officer´) who was actually THERE that day as the plane flew by him?

Talking of tooth fairies, have you dug out any SOC witnesses yet?

Click to expand...

So Brooks lied in his 2001 interview? And yet you are calling him credible? They did not ask him about his earlier interview, so which account is the correct one? The one he did closer to the event, or the one where he is playing to the camera years later?

Actually, I have posted audio and named a number of those witnesses here at JREF. However, most I do not post or identify simply because I won't subject innocent 'bystanders' to the CIT hit machine. However, you will find one or two new ones in the book. I don't put much stock in interviews of witnesses done years after the event after the story has been told hundreds of times and distorted for a number of reasons. In this case, the ONLY useful information that can be gained is where they were located, what general direction they saw the plane traverse, and anything else is just personal perception (very prone to error).

For example, the ANC witnesses saw the plane generally south traveling west to east terminating at the Pentagon. It turns out that the VDOT witness (the jew CIT likes to dismiss) gives an account very consistent with the fdr path. Paik describes the 'black' which would result from being in the plane's shadow, again a perfect match for the fdr path and altitude considering the sun's elevation and describes it south moving west to east. Morin is facing south and could not see north, so he also describes the plane south, moving west to east. I could go on, but you get the idea. And CIT has a tape recording of me telling them just this very thing a number of years ago, so they know better.

The Citgo witnesses are an exception, but in statistics they would be called 'outliers'. Data points outside the range of the majority of data points. There could be a thousand reasons why that is so, but most likely it has to do with their location under a canopy. In the case of Brooks, he can't make up his mind what he saw, so I consider that he saw a plane moving west to east, but not much beyond that.

So post all of the little pictures you want, but tooth fairy paths that are aerodynamicly and mathematically impossible at the speeds involved only suggests that the witnesses perceived the plane closer to them than it actually was. A common observational error among eyewitnesses.

mudlark said:

Talking of tooth fairies, have you dug out any SOC witnesses yet?

Click to expand...

We've already mentioned Morin about a dozen times in this thread so far. But since you have a penchant for denial, you have not bothered to explain how Morin was able to see the things he describes if he were not a SOC witness. Forget tooth faires, how about witnesses with super powers?

mudlark said:

Why don´t you contact Lagasse and tell him he was wrong? See what he says. Tell me how it goes.
Brooks backed his trajectory and placement of the plane as it passed Citgo
almost exactly.


[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/middletonpath1-2.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Why don't you or the CiT contact Middleton and Morin and tell them that one of them is wrong given that Morin COULD NOT have seen the aircraft had it flown Middleton's drawn path. Not even if he had been facing north, which he was not.
Not sure that Paik would have indicated the path he did either if Middleton was in any way close as Middleton would be putting the a/c north of Paik's location too..

YOu make it easy. All your posts so far on this thread regarding witnesses have been exposed. Keep posting man.

Click to expand...

Witnesses who have been 'exposed'
Of course that's the ticket isn't it? Any witness who the CiT cannot twist to make fit their extrodinary contentions gets labeled an agent or a shill or simply lieing.
Work's for the military=shill
Work's for a news agnecy=shill
Work's for a miltary contractor=shill
Taxi driver who's account would nail the CiT contentions=shill

,,,,,,,add to that the twisting of witness accounts such as boger who states that he SAW the plane hit the building. Oh, but he can't be a shill because he puts the a/c over the Navy Annex, but he can be lieing about seeing it hit the building.

FACTS ARE that no one at all, from any angle or location, has ever reported seeing a 100 ton aircraft, or any aircraft at all, fly towards the Pentagon then rise up and over it as the fireball occured, and yet this is the contention of the CiT. This despite dozens of witnesses who say that it did hit, that they saw it hit.

In-freakin-credible!

mudlark said:

You guys talk about math from a discredited and highly dubious FDR yet none of you have ever plotted the plane´s course from the Annex to lightpole 1.
.

Click to expand...

If the data reported on the FDR is a grave mismatch to what the commonly accepted flight path was then PfT should have written (on paper with references) a purely techincal work-up of how they conclude this and sent it to ICOA, the various pilot's unions, L3 Communications, Aviation Week magazine, Scientic American and, of course, the NTSB. This would throw doubt on the veracity of all FDR data and would be of great interest to all of the above and other organizations.

Not done though..............

Instead they wrote a 'press release' with a link to their web site. This press release and their web site are rampant with accusations of cover-ups and complicity of various organizations and in a few instances, individuals. This relegates the PfT 'crazy old man' status similar to those who one might encounter on the street with a sign that says "the end is nigh".

In FACT the FDR does indeed indicate a flight path consistent with the commonly accepted one. There are threads on this subject.

to sum up:

FDR data- consistent with accepted path
Witnesses- the majority description is consistent with the accepted flight path
RADES data- consistent with accepted flight path
DNA evidence- indicates the remains of the passengers of Flight 77 were in the Pentagon
Aircraft parts- consistent with a/c type in the Pentagon
Damage to the Pentagon- consistent with a massive object having hit the building



Witnesses- a minority report a path grossly different from the accepted flight path and NONE indicate an aircraft that flew over rather than into the Pentagon.
Damage to the Pentagon- completely inconsistent with an explosive device(including a missile) having impacted the building
FDR data, DNA results, aircraft debris, light pole damage, all ignored by the CiT because it does not fit their extrodinary contention but the excuse they use is that it is information that flows from a government source.

Also, flying through an explosion like Ranquis posits would be foolhardy in the extreme. It's very possible, in fact likely, that a plane that attempted to do so would be so severely damaged that it could not stay airborne. And what happens to your nefarious plan when the "attack jet" crashes?

Mudlark - the blue 'NoC flightpath' you posted earlier would require in excess of 70° of bank at high speed. To many witnesses this would make the plane's wings appear very close to vertical. Yet not a single witness mentions anything even resembling this. Not close.

At lower speeds the plane is in serious danger of stalling to make the turn, then has to level up and climb within a few hundred yards. These are unforgettable aerobatics for an airliner close to the ground over a busy road, yet nobody mentions such things. Why is that?

Then nobody recorded or reported a plane flying over The Pentagon after the explosion, even though thousands of eyes would be turned that way.

There is something profoundly wrong with the proposed NoC flightpath.

There's something profoundly wrong with their thinking. They want there to be a US conspiracy, and they think they've found a few discrepancies in the eyewitnesses testimonies (which always happens in every event), and then try to retrofit everything according to that.

Completely backwards thinking.

GlennB said:

Then nobody recorded or reported a plane flying over The Pentagon after the explosion, even though thousands of eyes would be turned that way.

Click to expand...

Nope. From one of those memorable CIT threads here:

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant." -- Wanda Ramey

"I knew it [the plane] was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." -- Mark Bright

"It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts." -- Afework Hagos

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It hit dead center on the side... It was not completely level but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on its way." -- Steve Riskus

"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." -- Stephen McGraw

"First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side of the Pentagon." -- D. S. Khavkin

"I was right underneath the plane. I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles. It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." -- Kirk Milburn

"Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard." -- Mary Ann Owens
_________________

The worker, William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft.
Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.
"My sweeper has three wheels. I almost tipped it over as I watched," Middleton said.
www.s-t.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm

Click to expand...

Middleton is an NOC witness. NOC = NO IMPACT.

Click to expand...

Evidence?

You´ll notice too that in that entire piece Middletons only quoted words are

Quote:
"My sweeper has three wheels. I almost tipped it over as I watched,"
How did he almost ´tip over´ from the OTHER side of the Annex to where the plane allegedly flew according to you?

Click to expand...

Yes, the article strongly implies he witnessed the impact, but does not quote him as such. Thankfully, you just provided an interview where he does report having witnessed the impact. (http://www.thepentacon.com/WMiddleton.mp3)

As for "how did he almost tip over...?" I can't see the relevance of this question. Maybe you can explain what you mean.

"I was standing on the platform high above the [Washington Reagan] airport awaiting a Metro subway train to my office in the heart of the district, on Constitution Avenue, admiring the lovely blue skies when I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon. At first, I didn't believe what I saw. At about the same time, the train approached the platform, and I remember turning to a fellow passenger and asking, 'What should we do?'
-- Susan Carroll
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-onlin...10395718.shtml

Click to expand...

Mind telling me how she could possibly have seen anything, never mind an ´impact´ from here?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u...nCarroll-2.jpg

Click to expand...

Not sure what this picture is intended to prove.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u...rrollmetro.jpg

Impossible.

Click to expand...

How do you (or I) know that this photo was taken from her vantage point?

First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke. Fire and rescue vehicles arrived soon thereafter and begin to attempt to put out the fire and rescue victims. Since then, the West side of the Pentagon has collapsed and is still smouldering. The city of Washington, DC and Northern Virginia where the Pentagon and many other defence-related facilities are located is under a state of emergency and high alert, with helicopters and F-16s flying overheard. The enormity of what we witnessed and what has happened has just begun to sink in. We just thank God we are okay and that it happened in Washington, DC where we are prepared to handle situations such as this.
D. S. Khavkin, Arlington, VA, USA
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud...-s-khavkin.htm

Click to expand...

This is the only Khavkin that lives on the top floor of an 8 story building in Arlington within range of the Pentagon:

Click to expand...

She didn't say it was an 8 story building, she said she lived on the eight floor.

http://www.google.com/search?q=(703)...i=rwp&ct=title

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u...l2001pikeC.jpg

From the ROOF of this apartment to the immediate right of the Sheraton the top floor the top right hand corner of the Pentagon can be seen.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u...avkinpov-1.jpg

There is NO view of the lightpoles OR the ´impact zone´ and DEFINITELY no view of the lawn.

Click to expand...

Even assuming this is the same Khavkin, I can't conclude that just from one photo.

On Sept. 11, I was standing in a break room of an office . . . in downtown D.C., when I looked out the window to see an airplane descend into the side of the Pentagon, where the Navy offices where five friends and colleagues of mine were located. Twenty-four hours earlier, I had been in the Pentagon visiting those friends and others in the building.
As I watched the fireball and during the evacuation of Washington that followed, I can remember being overwhelmed by two things -- what can I do to help, and how never again would I leave a friend or loved one without telling them how much I cared for them.
-- Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.), Gresham
web.archive.org/web/20021218082116/http:...1031572536213280.xml

Click to expand...

´Downtown D.C.´?
The west face of the Pentagon cannot be seen from here and it is too far for anybody to be called a witness to an ´impact´

Click to expand...

I can't just take your word for that. And "Downtown DC" could refer to a wide range of places.

Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military.
'Nobody could believe it'
"There was a big boom," he said. "Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled ‘Did you see that?' Nobody could believe it."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ttack-usat.htm

Click to expand...

This is a reporter´s version. Nowhere is he directly quoted on any ´impact´
´There was a loud boom´...That´s it.

Click to expand...

A reporter's version yes.. "[Aydan] saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military." Has anyone contacted Aydan Kizildrgli to see if the reporter was lying?

Ann Krug's kindergarten class saw the plane crash outside the classroom's window.
"I actually pointed it out and said: 'Look at this plane; look at how low it's flying,' " Krug recalled. "And then we all saw it come down."
www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rjhymel.htm

Click to expand...

Here is the school.

It is a two story building.

Here is the view from the I-395 in the direction of the Pentagon/Navy Annex, of the school (the POV is VERY limited)

Click to expand...

This appears to me to be the opposite side of the school :shurg:

This is the view looking towards the Navy Annex.

Remember that the streetview cam is one metre above the car.

There is NO view of the Pentagon.

Click to expand...

It does seem unlikely from that area that she saw the direct impact. Perhaps she just saw the plane descend into an explosion. Then again google street view has poor resolution and I can't confirm that the height from that point was the same as the school's second floor. The best thing to do would probably be to contact Ann Krug for clarification.

"The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately. Within five minutes, police and emergency vehicles began arriving," said Vin Narayanan, a reporter at USA TODAY.com, who was driving near the Pentagon when the plane hit.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/.../washscene.htm
Scott Perry of Spotsylvania County heard a plane's engines rumbling above the Navy Annex building where he works, so he looked out his window, which faces the Pentagon.
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/F...inter_friendly

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-person.htm

¨At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.¨
Quote:
http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20020909002/tscript.htm

¨ Actually, that huge fireball exploded right toward me. I was on the road right next to where the American Airlines jet hit Pentagon wall. That wall is about 50 yards from the road. I was listening to the WTC coverage as well when I looked up to the left and saw a plane flying at my car. At first, I thought it was heading toward National just to get out of the air. But the closer it got, the more it looked like it was going to hit my car. The tail of the jet clipped an overhanging exit sign above me on it's way down. Then it slammed into the Pentagon wall.¨

Click to expand...

Given his description, he places himself here.

´alongside the Pentagon´,´jet flying right at me´,¨over my head¨,
¨The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me¨

Click to expand...

Okay.

His next interview reinforces his positioning:

Quote:
´that huge fireball exploded right toward me. I was on the road right next to where the American Airlines jet hit Pentagon wall. That wall is about 50 yards from the road.¨
Here is the view from the roadsign beside which the first 2 lightpoles which were allegedly struck.

It is taken from the Southbound lanes. he was allegedly two lanes over at a more acute angle to the ´impact zone´.
Does ANY of the above testimony correspond with this POV?
Is this ´50 yards (150 feet)´ from the explosion?

Click to expand...

I don't know how many yards it was, nor am I sure what point you're trying to make. Furthermore, would you really expect a witness to recall the exact distance accurately?

Could the fireball go ´right toward´ him?

Click to expand...

It could certainly look that way to him.

How could he NOT see the lightpoles being struck if he was here?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware that he said he didn't see the light poles being struck. But him not seeing it would be by no means implausible.

How could he see this overhead sign beside the poles being struck by the TAIL of the plane? How could he NOT see Lloyd England´s cab being speared by a lightpole??

Click to expand...

Again I'm not aware of him claiming to not see these things. But:

1) He was driving on the highway
2) A plane appeared to be flying at him
3) Some light poles getting knocked over is fairly insignificant given the overall experience

And to show the fictional, creational side of Naranyan, only to be expected of a journalist here are further quotes from him:

Quote:
¨The plane actually skidded off the ground before it hit the wall¨

¨the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball.¨

¨I think I saw the bodies of passengers burning. But I'm not sure. It could have been Pentagon workers.¨

¨the tail came off and it began burning immediately¨

Click to expand...

Memory and perception are highly fallible. This is well known in law practice. None of this is particularly remarkable.

IF Naranyan is continued to be labelled an ´impact witness´, his testimony describes the plane as coming from the NOC direction.

Click to expand...

Not particularly remarkable if true, but still I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion.

I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing.
And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire. Now I wanted to get as far away as I could, but that was impossible. The people around me had gotten out of their cars. At least half had cameras and the others were on their cell phones. I experienced a moment of irrelevant amazement that so many people had cameras in their cars.
-Christine Peterson
http://www.naualumni.com/site/apps/s...7233&ct=489385

Click to expand...

Like Frank Probst, this witness puts herself ´in front of the helipad
at the Pentagon´.

Her story corraborates the entrance of the plane onto Route 27 at the same point other witnesses in the same vicinity do, at the point where Robert Turcios claims to have seen the plane ´lift´.
This is covered here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=873

Here is her described position on the road.

Click to expand...

1. She said on "the road in front of the helipad", not that she was directly adjacent to the helipad.

2. It would be easy for her to missremember minor details like this, anyway.

As such, I don't see that she corroborates any specific flight path.

´Then the plane crashed.´

Does that actually sound like the account of someone who saw something so dramatic?

Click to expand...

No idea what you mean by this.

To me, it appears she has left out the description of what happened from the plane flew over her car to actually reaching the facade.
The plane flew over, ´low´, her car ´shook´, she had actually thought that the plane was going to hit her car. What would you do at this very point? Duck? Close your eyes? Or would you continue to follow the plane with your eyes?

Click to expand...

Having not experienced it, I couldn't say. I certainly wouldn't close my eyes and doubt I would duck since that would be pointless.

Dennis Smith, a building inspector and former Marine, was smoking a cigarette in the center courtyard when he heard the roar of engines and looked up in time to see the tail of a plane seconds before it exploded into the building. He took off toward the crash to help get people out of the building. "I looked up to the third floor - there were people banging on the windows. The smoke was filling up, and then they were just gone."
www.govexec.com/features/1001/1001spec1.htm

Click to expand...

Are you serious? There would have been no view from within the centre court of the Pentagon.
Even his stated view of ´the tail of a plane seconds before it exploded´ is an impossibility. Unless it was MUCH higher.

Click to expand...

I don't know what the height of the plane was shortly before crashing (obviously instantly before crashing it was very low, I mean before that). Do you?

TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.
And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.

Click to expand...

Here is Timmerman´s ´panoramic view´

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u.../timmVig-1.gif

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u...et/timview.jpg

His view was obstructed.

Click to expand...

When he "lost it behind a building", yes.

The plane disappeared from his view seconds after passing the Sheraton. What was he doing?

Click to expand...

Looking out the window, apparently.

Watching the exact spot of the explosion after that hirise to catch the alleged 0.3 seconds ´window´?

Click to expand...

To catch the what?

He claimed the plane desintegrated on the lawn before ´hitting the building´

Click to expand...

From your own picture it's easy to see how it could look that way to him and not in any way remarkable.

He has obviously caught the explosion as it went off.

Click to expand...

Are you saying he just saw an explosion and no plane?

"I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible."

Memory and perception are indeed fallible, but it's unlikely he would have seen both the nose and the wings in the crash if he was witnessing something else.

Furthermore, his view would have been perfect to catch a flyover, but he reports no such thing.

"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.
-Mike Walter
www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/witnesses/index.html

Click to expand...

I think images speak a thousand words. Especially for this guy.
He admitted the plane went out of his view and then he saw the fireball.

Click to expand...

Where?

He describes the plane ´banking´.

"It seemed like it was a slow, graceful bank and then once it straightened out, that's when it sped up."

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u...walter-NoC.gif

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u...terbankgif.gif

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/u...terstories.jpg
He is not an ´impact´ witness and he contradicts the official flight path with the assertion that he saw the plane banking.

Click to expand...

How so?

"I watched this - it looked like a commuter plane, two-engined come down from the south real low proceed right on and crash right into the Pentagon. I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon."
-Don Wright
http://www.sunspot.net/news/custom/a...s-ra.realaudio

Click to expand...

This guy was allegedly watching from his 12th floor office in Roslyn.
There is a view from the NINETEENTH floor zoomed in in this video (00:04-00:20)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1f...n-ashburn_news

From 7 floors below how would this person get ANY perspective of the approach of the plane?

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't he? That video has terrible resolution, but it looks like it would be a very clear view otherwise.

He describes it as a commuter jet.
He also says that it was ´very low over the trees and it just dipped down´ . It went out of his sight?
Look at the trees between this building and the Pentagon in the video.

Click to expand...

The resolution is too low.

He never said he saw an impact. Again, weak.

Click to expand...

It appears to me he did: "I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon."

"I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It ploughed right into the Pentagon."
-Dave Winslow
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...600839,00.html

Click to expand...

Wow, even detractors (with a bit of honesty) won´t touch this quote.

His original quote which became twisted along the way:

David Winslow, a reporter with AP's Broadcast News Center in Washington, was sitting in his tenth-floor apartment, looking out at the capital, when he saw a jumbo tail go by him. "I heard this enormous sound of turbulence. . .As I turned to my right, I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395. It was like the rear end of the fuselage was riding on 395. I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me. In a split second, you heard this boom. A combination of a crack and a thud. It rattled my windows. I thought they were going to blow out. Then came an enormous fireball."
http://www.ap.org/BreakingNews/quote.html

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Are you saying this is the only quote by David Winslow on the attack and that the Guardian derived their quote from this one? Can you confirm this?

In the 8th video down the witness saw the plane hit the pentagon. Additionally he claims a piece of the plane hit his car, breaking his windshield. He brought into the news studio with him.

Click to expand...

Elhallan, Aziz (debris guy you mention)

He claims he was on route 27 for "a good 20 minutes" after the event.

Click to expand...

No, he said "we spent a good 20 minutes by the pentagon".

He is also quoted as saying "most of the cars had their windshields broken because of the sound of the airplane." No they didn´t.

Click to expand...

Okay, so he got that wrong.

How did he get from his alleged position on Route27 to here within less than 5 minutes given the heavy traffic AND the fact that people had stopped dead on the roads when the explosion occurred.

Click to expand...

How long do you think it should have taken and what do you base it on? Also how do you know the "3-4 minutes after" label on the picture is accurate?

Why did he say he was there for ´20 minutes´?

Click to expand...

What makes you think he wasn't?

In the 3rd and 4th videos down witnesses saw parts of the plane.

Here pilot Steve O'Brien recounts a view of the crash from above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ag6brfWro

Click to expand...

I hope this will be the last time I have to quote this guy O´Brien.

When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC.
-Lt Col Steve O'Brien

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Fair enough (assuming accurate). But he still saw the plane impact something (i.e. crash and explode).

jhunter1163 said:

Also, flying through an explosion like Ranquis posits would be foolhardy in the extreme. It's very possible, in fact likely, that a plane that attempted to do so would be so severely damaged that it could not stay airborne. And what happens to your nefarious plan when the "attack jet" crashes?

Click to expand...

Ok, let's add this aspect;

No one sees the a/c enter the fireball. (several of those witnesses that do mention the fireball report a very slight delay between impact and fireball)This would be extremely memorable as it would be completely inconsistent with the fireball being the result of the crash. A few might re-arrange their memory on the assumption that they could not have seen the fireball develop first but certainly there would be someone who says that it went into the fireball.
So its highly unlikely that the fireball occurs before the a/c gets to the geometric plane of the side of the Pentagon.

What is left then is that the fireball rose as the plane flew by the front of the building. However any witness west of the building would then have seen daylight between the a/c and the top of the building before the fireball gets to a height of over 77 feet (the height of the wall). Some witnesses, such as Boger, would not be able to miss the a/c rising as it came closer towards them. Others, on the east or south side would see an a/c framed by a fireball. In fact their attention would be drawn to the fireball rising above the Pentagon and where is the plane supposedly at this time? Over the Pentagon! Unless it was the size of a hang glider it would be hard to miss.

Yet no one at all, from any location, reports a plane that either enters the fireball, or that is seen above a rising fireball, nor does any witness report seeing a plane buzz low over the top of the Pentagon.

The CiT will try to say that it ascended quickly but they also want the a/c going slowly in order to perform the manouvers prior to the impact. This will severely limit the climb rate of any a/c, and as pointed out by others, its gonna look bad if your a/c that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon instead stalls out and crashes into the Potomac or worse.

The CiT are no-planers as much as any WTC no-planer. They are saying that an aircraft did not crash and cause the damage and siad damage was caused by some other means.

No-planers are,IMHO, only one step above space-beamers and mini-nukers.

mudlark,

Aside from the details, I would like to better understand your argument.

You seem to be claiming that these witnesses are lying and that they are contradicting the "official flight path".

If they are lying why do you think that is? If it was for the sake of a cover up why would they lie in a way that contradicts the "official flightpath"?

I wonder how many people were in a position to see the screaming jet they ALL saw, pull up and over the Pentagon?

Quote:
The worker, William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft.
Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.
"My sweeper has three wheels. I almost tipped it over as I watched," Middleton said.

Middleton is an NOC witness. NOC = NO IMPACT

Click to expand...

.

Click to expand...

Nothing in this quote suggests a NoC. Middleton was looking SW and saw a plane that was above his line of sight of the Navy Annex. He simply got the distance wrong.

His drawing is inconsistent with Morin's statement in that if the a/c was where he depicts it, Morin would not have even seen it.

How did he almost ´tip over´ from the OTHER side of the Annex to where the plane allegedly flew according to you?

Click to expand...

Ever drive a three wheeled machine? I have, its easy to tip over especially if you are not watching what you are doing.

cornsail said:

Evidence?

{A whole bunch of good stuff}

Click to expand...

Good summary. I would add one thing. I was challenged by someone about who the witnesses I found were and blah, blah, blah, blah....

I would remind the CIT cultists that yours truly obtained the CMH interviews (at great expense I might add) which contain the ANC eyewitnesses that CIT loves to expoit. They did not go looking for those witnesses, I did. I knew that CMH had interviewed them and obtained their interviews. Of course CIT had to run down to Arlington to make some nice videos years after the fact, and sure enough managed to turn 'plane hit the Pentagon' statements into something entirely different.

I have a different batch of historical statements on the way as well. I may well keep those for my own personal research. I see no reason to expose anyone new to the CIT stalkers. But if any of the CIT folks really want to know what happened, then take a little trip of your own down to Arlington. Start walking down Columbia Pike in and around Walter Reed towards the Pentagon. At the beginning of your walk, you'll find people living nearby who's houses were rattled as the plane flew by (a rather well-known witness lives nearby). Walk into the businesses along the way and you'll either find somone who was working there that morning, or if you wait around long enough someone will walk in who was.

Just keep on walking and talk to people you pass on the street. They either saw something, or can direct you to a neighbor who did (Craig and Alpo found this out over by the golf course, so they know I'm telling the truth). After about a mile-and-a-half you'll come to the Sheraton. The workers there are not allowed to talk about it, but if you catch them out back smoking a cigarette they'll be happy to chat with you. Just a block away is A-One Auto, and Shinki enjoys talking to people about that day. While you are there, ask him about the VSP antenna, he'll draw a picture for you. Behind his shop are some houses, so knock on a few doors and don't forget the offices across the street. You'll hear some interesting stuff over there. Just don't make the mistake I did and take pictures in the area or you might come face-to-face with LT Lagasse or Brooks. The back of those police cars are a lot of fun.

Just keep on walking and you'll see the line of trees Morin talked about and the 'steep' descent from the Annex towards the Pentagon. Once you see it for yourself, you'll understand just how absurd this whole NoC thing really is. Go stand under the gas station canopy where Lagasse and Turcios were standing, then you'll understand just how limited they were in seeing anything airborne. Walk on over to the ANC shops and the grave sites. You'll then understand that Craig likes to take POV camera shots at locations where you can't see that are just a few dozen feet away from POV's where you can see very well.

I know you won't do any of this because you want to believe. What would you do without the tooth fairy?

Childlike Empress said:

None of the witnesses report the plane at that speed.

Click to expand...

None of them reported a plane flying over the Pentagon, either...

Childlike Empress said:

None of the witnesses report the plane at that speed.

Click to expand...

They all confirm the speed, but you have to be a skilled investigator to figure it out. Got training? Poor CIT don't even know directions let alone how to interview witnesses. Lack of training shows as CIT fails.

It is obtuse to weigh made up conclusions from witness statements over the FDR information. For CIT ignoring evidence is standard procedure why do you insist on ignoring real evidence?

Please point to the many witnesses you have who do not support the full throttle acceleration of 77 ending at about 483 KIAS at impact. Go ahead make my day.

The damage done to the Pentagon is exactly the damage a 757 would do and all the mangled moronic delusions made up by CIT have not refuted the physics of 911. Understanding physics could keep people from falling for idiotic lies from CIT. fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

oh beachnut, the TM will always cite people who say 'it looked like it was coming in slow motion" or some such and claim that means it WAS slow.

I have watched two Voodoo fighters scream in over a large lake and go vertical at the shoreline (1980's air show). The announcer stated they were doing 450 knots but until they actually got real close they really seem to be poking along. Incidentally the loud "BOOM" as they hit full afterburner shook the air and sounded like,,,, guess what?

I've frequently seen jets on approach to Logan Airport that looked like they were practically motionless in the air. The first time I noticed this phenomenon 20 odd years ago I was sincerely convinced that the jet was seconds away from stalling and crashing onto the expressway. Turns out they were flying faster than my untrained eye suggested. I'm sure to an air traffic controller or pilot the jets looked like they were approaching perfectly normally, though. Just goes to show that you can't take certain eyewitness testimony (however sincere) at face value.

JohnG said:

I've frequently seen jets on approach to Logan Airport that looked like they were practically motionless in the air.

Click to expand...

Yup. I live very near Cleveland-Hopkins airport; I've seen that phenomena a hundred times.

W.D.Clinger said:

Several of us have provided links to real math, while noting Rob Balsamo's stupefying incompetence in that subject.

As 16.5 noted above, neither you nor Balsamo have presented a coherent north-of-Citgo flight path.

Hundreds of regularly scheduled flights pass north of that building every day, most of them hundreds of miles north, so nobody is saying an aircraft can't fly north of that building. The question is whether the specific flight path you advocate was possible. We have been unable to determine that because you have yet to specify a specific flight path.

You have cited the infallibility of witnesses who say the aircraft flew north of Citgo and knocked down light poles in places where there is no record of light poles ever standing. When pressed to address that problem or others, you have continued to spam us with images and irrelevant text.

You offer nothing but air, whipped into a froth of words and images.

Click to expand...

Tell me yes or no, is this path what your ´math´ is based on?



If not show me the math that contradicts Pilotsfor911truth´s paper

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509

If it IS, exactly WHAT is this flightpath based on?

None of those paths could be fact, based on the damage inside the Pentagon.

Aand the blue one is so far out of wack that is has the plane coming in the complete opposite direction as the debris field, and damage inside the Pentagon!

You're not very good at this whole fact thing are you?