It's merely a cut and paste blog job, not research.
How many of the witnesses that he refers to has he contacted to confirm their accounts and how many has he even bothered to analyze in detail or to plot their actual location/point of view?
I personally challenge Gravy to separately list each account of the 105 witnesses that he alleges "saw the plane hit the Pentagon."
List them one by one each with their own dedicated post.
They deserve at least that much don't they?
Gravy has given them way less respect by not even listing their names!
This is because he is deceptively disingenuous and completely wrong.
I will agree that there are way MORE than 105 that saw the plane but only a fraction of that even claim that they literally "saw" the impact and even less than that possibly could have.
Any honest researcher who has actually studied the Pentagon attack will agree that the building is at the bottom of a hill and the alleged impact point is difficult to see in detail from almost anywhere but route 27.
Well we have demonstrated how even the route 27 witnesses wouldn't have been able to see the alleged impact with much detail.
As far as the alleged 16 "light pole witnesses" go; none of their accounts have been confirmed as having actually seen the light poles get clipped and we have personally interviewed the most significant ones (McGraw, Sucherman, Walter, and Brooks) who ALL personally told us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit by the plane and merely deduced it after the fact.
This is particularly odd in the case of McGraw, Sucherman, and Walter who were all allegedly on route 27 with a PERFECT view of the poles but a not so perfect view of the alleged impact that they all suspiciously claim they saw in detail.
Here is the real life view of the confirmed position of Sucherman and Walter:
McGraw would have had the best view of the alleged impact but an even better view of poles 3, 4, and 5.
Here is his alleged real life view:
So how come he claims he didn't see the light poles get hit and how come not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence mentions the alleged smoke trail?
How many of the witnesses that he refers to has he contacted to confirm their accounts and how many has he even bothered to analyze in detail or to plot their actual location/point of view?
I personally challenge Gravy to separately list each account of the 105 witnesses that he alleges "saw the plane hit the Pentagon."
List them one by one each with their own dedicated post.
They deserve at least that much don't they?
Gravy has given them way less respect by not even listing their names!
This is because he is deceptively disingenuous and completely wrong.
I will agree that there are way MORE than 105 that saw the plane but only a fraction of that even claim that they literally "saw" the impact and even less than that possibly could have.
Any honest researcher who has actually studied the Pentagon attack will agree that the building is at the bottom of a hill and the alleged impact point is difficult to see in detail from almost anywhere but route 27.
Well we have demonstrated how even the route 27 witnesses wouldn't have been able to see the alleged impact with much detail.
As far as the alleged 16 "light pole witnesses" go; none of their accounts have been confirmed as having actually seen the light poles get clipped and we have personally interviewed the most significant ones (McGraw, Sucherman, Walter, and Brooks) who ALL personally told us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit by the plane and merely deduced it after the fact.
This is particularly odd in the case of McGraw, Sucherman, and Walter who were all allegedly on route 27 with a PERFECT view of the poles but a not so perfect view of the alleged impact that they all suspiciously claim they saw in detail.
Here is the real life view of the confirmed position of Sucherman and Walter:
McGraw would have had the best view of the alleged impact but an even better view of poles 3, 4, and 5.
Here is his alleged real life view:
So how come he claims he didn't see the light poles get hit and how come not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence mentions the alleged smoke trail?
Last edited:
