I am breaking this discussion off from the other thread.

CL claims he can find more than 4 people that definitively and specifically claim they saw the plane on the south of the citgo or hitting the poles.

I know that he can not.



He will not find ONE eyewitness that definitively places the plane on the south of the citgo station. Of course none had a perfect vantage point to tell except for the witnesses on the station's property and we all know where they place the plane.

Now in regards to the light poles......

He will only find 2 that specifically say that they "saw" the light poles being clipped.

Wanda Ramey and an "anonymous" military man.

The rest merely mention the light poles in their accounts because they heard about them or saw them on the ground after the fact.

There are about 20 total that mention the poles.

We have interviewed 3 of them personally and ALL THREE admitted to us that they did NOT see the light poles get clipped and merely deduced it after the fact.

Those three would be Chad Brooks, Father McGraw, and Joel Sucherman.

We tried to contact Wanda Ramey to get her to confirm or clarify her statement but we were unable to reach her.

My guess is that she deduced the poles being hit like the others but of course she could have been embellishing or lying.

Frank Probst also directly supports the official flight path with his account of diving away from the plane as it clipped the generator trailer.

He was an employee of the Pentagon rennovation project and is therefore suspicious right off the get go. Naturally he is one of two accounts cited in the ASCE report also.

Coincidence?

Yeah right.


So here you go CL.

Prove me wrong!

It was more of a rhetorical question, I need to guard my energy, and sounds like you got a pretty good handle already, so I might say nah, but...

I've been meaning to look into witnesses closer anyway. So challenge accepted. It'll take a little while to get some together. Maybe you'll win the challenge. I dunno. We'll see.

Okay, here's the first thingg I'll post, what I think is one for you guys:

Witness: Lon Raines
Creds: Upstanding editor of Space News.
Location: “With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o'clock on the dial of a clock"
Account: “I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball.”

Pentagon on left at 10:00 means just north of or at the north end of the building and facing south. “From behind” means from further north. He didn’t see anything it sounds like, but our ears are good at direction-finding. If he’s right, there’s another northern flight account. Did you interview him?

So that gives me negative one to my goal of at least five, so I better get crackin'. Next up:

Witness: Bruce Elliot
Creds: Former commander of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant who, reassigned to the Pentagon in July.
Location: bout to board a shuttle van in a south parking lot
Account: "I looked to my left and saw the plane coming in," said Elliott, who watched it for several seconds. "It was banking and garnering speed. I felt it was headed for the Pentagon." (...) "It was like a kamikaze pilot. I felt it was going to ram the Pentagon," he said. He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire, which may have slowed it down a bit before it crashed into the building and burst into flames.

south means looking north. Seeing the plane for several seconds means a longer vantag point and relatively unobstructed view. This means nothing for north-south. nothing tall enough to obstruct either path for the last prob. 2-4 sec. Just open...

So nothing yet. go ahead and gloat. No law against that either. I'll be back tomorrow. Today. later.





[edit on 8-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire, which may have slowed it down a bit before it crashed into the building and burst into flames.

Maybe this guidewire stretched across the damaged poles and pulled them down near their base?

I've never seen guide wires, so this is just imagination

So nothing yet. go ahead and gloat. No law against that either. I'll be back tomorrow. Today. later.

I have no intentions of gloating.

I just want you to acknowledge the truth.

And that is that the evidence supports the fact that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to hit the light poles and damage the building as outlined in the ASCE report.

It would be nice if you could post another article in this regard and state that upon further consideration and research that you find the testimony presented in the PentaCon to be extremely important and groundbreaking in regards to figuring out what happened (or didn't happen) at the pentagon.

Oh and that you no longer believe that CIT is pentagon sponsored disinfo!

I don't believe you're disinfo Jack. Not the CIT. the PentaCon itself, ultimately, whether it means to be or not, does fit the pattern I already identified. It happens. I'll revise as I see fit.

you were smart to put me on the eyewitness track. I'm now less certain you're wrong but i just started here. and besides the big Qs i have on the south path damage would still be unanswered. Hell of a bomb-special effects job to plant the lightpoles, fake a 39d 757 impact and penetration, tear out a corner of fencs, smash a generator, and leave plane parts and bodies of passengers we're told inside.

But more witnesses coming soon. My schedule's just weird.

and so what I'm saying is go ahead and gloat, since I won't be acknowledging your truth until I at least have sorted everything out to a higher degree. If then.


[edit on 8-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I don't believe you're disinfo Jack. Not the CIT. the PentaCon itself, ultimately, whether it means to be or not, does fit the pattern I already identified. It happens. I'll revise as I see fit.

The PentaCon is CIT. We created CIT and The PentaCon because of this testimony. So if it is disinfo we are disinfo. There is no separating them.

CatHerder is disinfo.

My research partner and I originally came to this forum for the sole purpose of exposing CatHerder's bs pack of lies. We weren't greeted very well at the time.

you were smart to put me on the eyewitness track. I'm now less certain you're wrong but i just started here. and besides the big Qs i have on the south path damage would still be unanswered. Hell of a bomb-special effects job to plant the lightpoles, fake a 39d 757 impact and penetration, tear out a corner of fencs, smash a generator, and leave plane parts and bodies of passengers we're told inside.

The anomalous physical evidence is what put us on this track to begin with. The physical evidence IS the crime. I'm going to post a thread outlining this for everyone.

But more witnesses coming soon. My schedule's just weird.

and so what I'm saying is go ahead and gloat, since I won't be acknowledging your truth until I at least have sorted everything out to a higher degree. If then.

Keep digging man. I appreciate that you are listening, searching for truth, and that you have already revised your article once.

It's the sign of an honest person with integrity if you can acknowledge that you were wrong or made a mistake.

Cheers!

Witness: Levi Stephens
Location: "driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot."
Account: "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."
Notes: drawing his literally – from the Navy annex to directly over him in the S. parking lot – clearly makes no sense, but I did that anyway in the picture below to prove a point. We could adjust the line so it makes more sense; the end point of the line should be the impact point, but no matter where you put the other end, it makes more sense to the south than it does to the north. Here's why:

From his view to the east-ish, placement regarding the Annex is more useful – seen from north or south, esp. at a great distance, use of the Annex as a general guide is less informative. Seen from the east, it becomes more a hard locator as far as north or south. From over the annex he says, to “over their van” and then impact. No report of turn to the right, so I presume a straight line. If it came in from the North on the CIT path, he probably would have said "north" of the annex, not over, and mentioned the noticeable turn to approach the bldg. Also note he did report impact and saw no flyover and did not mention the sound of the jet continuing past the blast. Depending on where he was in the lot, he might not have been able to even see a northerly approach, whereas all but the last seconds of the official path would be viible across the lot.

Map of witnesses so far minus Bruce Elliot, whose account is not speciic enough to draw anything: Lon Raines, Mickey Bell, Levi Stephens. The "right over me effect" ROME is uncorrected, accounts read as literal. Raines' line stopping short is an oversight - oops. It runs to the building.

Do these serious discrepancies cast doubt on the official story? I'll be back with more.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by BigMoser

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire, which may have slowed it down a bit before it crashed into the building and burst into flames.

Maybe this guidewire stretched across the damaged poles and pulled them down near their base?

I've never seen guide wires, so this is just imagination

I don't know what he's talking about. "utility pole" is odd, since everyone else saw lamp polesmore specifically. I'm sure it was a confusing moment... the slowing part is just silly of course.

You are not going off the correct spirit of the challenge.

You are supposed to find more than 4 people that definitively and specifically claim they saw the plane on the south of the citgo or hitting the poles.


So far you have found none.

You are merely interpreting accounts to match the official flight path.

Yeah, well here's the thing with that. None of the accounts I'm seeing mention a path north of it either. You guys got the jump on it, before it became an issue, and found four + people to say they saw this. If I go and ask now, after it's become an issue, anyone who says south will appear tainted, trying to defend the off. story against your video. No one at the time asked or specified north or south of the Citgo, besides Lagasse's testimony which did always imply it was to his north. That said, Stephens' account is too vague to be sure, but looks much more like a southern path than a northern, and I'm far from done.

I also admit I cheated a bit and changed the subject there adding a few things to Bell's account. I don't think I'll need to cover that again. Earwitnesses can also damage your case by reporting not the jet noise-explosion-jet fading off sound you'd need, but rather jet noise-explosion-silence, as specifically rep. by England and Raines at least. but again that'd be off subject, so back to all eye-witness reports verifiably of a south-of-Citgo path and-or light pole clipping.

And re; light poles: not too many people should have seen them fall, as many were far away. Close-up accounts I'll get too, but here's another account, from a distant but observant eye, that I'm sure you have a retort ready for (and yes I know what the BMDO is):

Witness: Terry Morin
location: mid-south side of Navy Annex/Federal office Building 2. More precisely:

"Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4"

morin's account:

"I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. 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). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. 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). 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. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise "

Notes: straight path along south edge of annex would require only the slightest right turn, basically a straight line to the building just south of the Citgo station. Even from a distance he sees the flash - not verifiably the pole popping, but this is what he felt made sense and he's probably right. Anyway, pole points or no, here's his flight path along with the others (LS corrected for ROME: since he specified only over annex, i put it about down the middle, which places it just over the south side of the Citgo - I'll map in the poles on the next version) and one of yours, Chad Brooks (did I place him about right? It is nice to have exact placements as with him and Morin but few others):



[edit on 12-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

There is absolutely no way Terry Morin could possibly see the poles get clipped from the navy annex.

And his account says specifically that he "later found out".

Don't pollute this thread with irrelevant accounts. Either adhere to the challenge properly or concede.

Here is Edward's flight path with the plane on the way to the north of the citgo.



There is nothing in Teri Morin's account that contradicts this.

But do you hear yourself?

You are actually suggesting that because CIT "got the jump on it" that we literally created the "issue" of where the witnesses saw the plane!

Why do you keep making this about us while ignoring the witnesses?

Do you think this is a game?

When you watch Bill, Chad, and Robert give their testimony do you think.....

a. They are insane.
b. They simultaneously hallucinated the opposite of reality.
c. They all accidentally remembered the opposite of reality.
d. Any combination of a, b, and c between them.
e. They remembered the approximate placement of the plane accurately.


Please let go of all your prior beliefs and reach deep into your heart and soul to answer that question honestly.

Feel free to fill in an answer of your own but I can't think of any more options.




[edit on 12-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]

You accepted the challenge.

Yes Teri Morin's account is irrelevant to the challenge since he did not and could not see the light poles get clipped from the navy annex nor does he definitively state he saw it on the south of the citgo. If it was literally straight along the edge of the navy annex and not at an angle as Edward says it would have hit the sheraton.

I would think that as a logical intellectual person you would understand the serious implications of the testimony presented in The PentaCon.

Obviously if Chad, Bill, and Robert are correct this means the plane didn't hit the building and of course it stands to reason there would be planted and/or fabricated accounts.

But the fact that you can't even rise up to this challenge and find definitive accounts that counter them should really be sounding off alarm bells for you.

Oh and it most certainly IS opposite relative to their point of view.

It's not "a few dozen" feet it's hundreds of feet and the trajectory angle is opposite too.

It is intellectually dishonest for you to suggest otherwise.