Originally posted by LaBTop

1. Can you provide statements of the first, most northerly, 3 witnesses with free impact view, you named in your following picture :

2. Did you manage to find the origin of the traffic jam on Route 27 ?
I read there was an "accident" somewhere there, and the 2 fire trucks arriving within 3 minutes after official impact, were actually on their way to that accident. That's why they were the first on the scene.
Or was it just stuck by digestion on the rest of the roads?

3. Were both lanes stuck ?

4. Why do you project your blue line directly above the second, northerly positioned, southbound half of Route 27 spanning traffic signs board ?
That one only spans the southbound lanes, btw.
Is there a solid reason to do so ?
Because if so, your reasoning of a fly over gains much more weight, since we know that board did not get hit, and the only way for a plane missing that one, is to dive from above, over that sign. And all three of your eyewitnesses say, the plane they saw north of Citgo, flew straight and level.

1. I could but I am too busy as usual. Google them bro. They'll come up for sure!

2. We have not been able to find a definitive cause for this and we have looked. We checked with the police and fire dispatch and I asked Brooks and Lagasse. If it was blocked somehow it was hidden from "the books". But maybe it wasn't even blocked. In fact Daryl Donnelly claims that traffic "came to a stop" so for all we know accounts of it already being at a stand-still are false. Joel Sucherman told us there was nothing that caused it and it was just normal heavy traffic.

3. No. The southbound lane, Lloyd's lane, was clear.

4. It simply crosses over because that is where the straight lines extended meet. No reason for doing so. But yes.....none of the objects in the way of the north of citgo flight path were touched. Plus Robert literally saw the plane "pull up" to miss that stuff. Obviously this is HUGE evidence for a flyover.

This image depicts the poles that were and weren't hit in relation to the wingspan of a 757.




This is why the poles couldn't have been downed by the "blast" or wing vortices because none of the surrounding poles were downed.

Only the ones that match up perfectly with the physical damage flight path.

She's an OS'er obviously.

(official story supporter)


Why are all the best accounts in support of the official story at the Pentagon always either USA Today/Gannett or PenRen (Pentagon Renovation) employees?

Hmmm?

And then of course you have Lloyd the cab driver.

Just a little bit suspicious?

Quite obviously.

It reads like a script.

You got that damn right Jack.. would you be so descriptive of the attack? I think not!


"Oh it did this (Insert big dictionary descriptive words here for the remainder of the account).. I was so shocked!"

Thanks for the info. I'll have to look closer at the agles, the trees, and method of exact witness location (you seem to have better info on that than I)
Qs: People north of the trajectory couldn't see it becuase it was behind them? Motorists are supposed to be able to see back - rearview mirrors. Also they had necks. Heads can turn when hearing a jet engine. They're at a disadvantage, sure, but couldn't they see it if they tried?
USA Today: Most witnesses I've seen metion being in the HOV lane. Car pool, van pool. Is it ruled out that these guys were all in th same USA Today van? That's what I always guessed, but I don't know for sure...

I don't know what to think of any big journalistic companies.. they all tell things in very descriptive manners, like a story. I don't like that. Doesn't sound real.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Qs: People north of the trajectory couldn't see it becuase it was behind them? Motorists are supposed to be able to see back - rearview mirrors. Also they had necks. Heads can turn when hearing a jet engine. They're at a disadvantage, sure, but couldn't they see it if they tried?

If the plane was going as fast at the official story says it was the doppler effect would prevent them from hearing it first. Even if they saw it in the rearview mirror it would be for a fraction of a second coming at them head on which is not a very detailed view of any plane.

USA Today: Most witnesses I've seen metion being in the HOV lane. Car pool, van pool. Is it ruled out that these guys were all in th same USA Today van? That's what I always guessed, but I don't know for sure...

I went to the new USA Today/Gannett building and interviewed Joel Sucherman and Peter Kopf and both were in cars.

Joel is an editor and Peter is a director of IT and their interviews will be featured in the Researcher's Edition.

Almost all of the USA Today employee witnesses were Reporters or editors or held some other high level position.

It's uncanny.

Well I hope the Researcher's Edition will answer alot more questions and maybe them being on camera will they remember something that they did not put into their accounts from earlier years.