Showing You How Published Witnesses to the Pentagon Attack aren't proof of an AA 757 Impact from th

"It was about 25 feet off the ground.” [94]

[94] Alan Wallace

Alan Wallace:

So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT.

We only saw it approach for an instant. I would estimate not longer than half a second. Others didn’t understand why we didn’t hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1½-2 seconds after we saw it. What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it, we heard the noise; the engines, I’m sure. I described that as a terrible noise – loud, scary, and horrible. At the time we saw the plane I said, “LET’S GO!” and Mark and I ran away from the area. I turned and ran to my right, going north. (I do not remember which way Mark went, since I did not see him until I crawled out from under the Ford Van.)

You just lost two more.



[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the[n?] too low, and the next thing we saw was [it?] go-down below the side of the road… coming down towards the side of the—of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us”[11]

[11] “Barbara”

Nice. Unidentified.

Let's look closely at what she is saying. Shall we?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the too low, and the next thing we saw was a go-down below the side of the road, and we just saw the fire that came up after that.

...

ENSOR: Was there a sound as well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We -- that I can't verify, because the windows were up in the vehicle.

...

ENSOR: So you believe it was a commercial airliner that was hitting the Pentagon?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship top where the plane went down. You know, but it was relatively close to one another. Whether it hit any of the Pentagon, I am not sure.

...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was coming on less than a 45 degree angle, and coming down towards the side of the -- of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us, and then you saw the boom -- the fire come up from it.

... No, I did not see what kind of an airline.

...

ENSOR: What did you think was happening?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know that that hit the ground and exploded.

--"Barbara" 9/11/01 [C] tried to take the Memorial Bridge exit from I-395

Barbara herself states that she was on I-395. Exit 10c seems to bear the name "Memorial Bridge" for whatever reason (there seem to be several Memorial Bridges in DC).

Here's the picture:

"Barbara", was the wife of a friend of CNN correspondent David Ensor.
By: Woody Box


You see the little dot near the Potomac bridge marked "10c"? This is exit "Memorial Bridge" of Interstate 395, and this is where Barbara was sitting in her car, looking towards downtown Washington.


So if a Boeing 757 crashed into the west side of the Pentagon, how the hell could she see that? Did she have eyes in her backhead? Don't tell me she saw it in the car mirror.

And what the hell did she see going down "below the side of the road"?

Her description is perfect if a plane crashed into the Pentagon Lagoon, the little Potomac branch east of the Pentagon. But it doesn't fit at all to a plane crash at the Pentagon's west side. I think she has neither eyes in her backhead, nor an X-ray view.

Maybe that's why she said:

"Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down but they are relatively close to one another. ... whether it hit any part of that pentagon, I'm not sure."

Did she a flyover?

She did NOT see it?

Could she be lying?

Yes.

She is anonymous and wife of a friend of a msm reporter.

Do you have any proof of she was on the highway other than a phone call into her "friend"?

Does she contradict the North side flight path? Does she have a view to do it?

A resounding NO.

Why doesn't she report the second plane/jet over the Pentagon?

Looks like you just lost another one.






[edit on 9-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.[12]

[12] Bauer, Gary

More of Arabesque's imcomplete and deceptive work.

"Well here is the "the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395", as he is "heading to Washington DC"...



(Red line is "AA77" trajectory...Red Circle is the exit...Green Arrow is the exit lane...Yellow arrow is "just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395")









-So he had no view of the impact.
-He did not debunk the North side flight path.
-He said the plane 'banked right', which DOES support the North side flight path.
-THERE IS NO PROOF HE WAS ON EVEN ON THE HIGHWAY.
-He is one of the PNAC signers. That would make him a suspect "witness".



You just lost another one.

“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.”[14]

[14] Kirk Milburn

Wow, not even a witness to a impact. Did not even have a view from here:




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

-Did not see it impact.
-Did not see poles hit, had GUESSED it had happened.
-Does not refute the North side flight path.

We tried contacting Kirk Milburn. We spoke with his son. His son said he died in a motorcycle accident in 2006.

You just lost another one.

51. “It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level.”[100]

[100] Zakhem, Madelyn

Here is the VDOT:


Approximate view from the VDOT (across the street):



She did not have a view of the impact. In fact, she did not even have a good view of the plane as she claims.

SHE IS LYING ABOUT THE PLANE COMING OVER HER BUILDING.

She also said, "I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared," Zakhem recalls.

Note there WERE trees surrounding her on the lawn of the VDOT.

Trees AFTER 9/11:



No trees AFTER 9/11:




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.

Originally posted by Aldo Marquis

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.

This is very telling imo. "Zackem" is a Jewish last name? I don't know.

Isreali accent on the other hand I DO know something about. I work with an Isreali and he sound European. Polish, Hungarian. A Pole or Hungarian would probably be wearing a cross. I think YOU might be reaching here.

Originally posted by intrepid

Isreali accent on the other hand I DO know something about. I work with an Isreali and he sound European. Polish, Hungarian. A Pole or Hungarian would probably be wearing a cross. I think YOU might be reaching here.

He is not reaching in regards to the fact that she is not telling the truth.

Edward Paik has definitively shown her story to be incorrect as do the details when her account is scrutinized.

I believe in honest research.

That means it's possible for researchers to make mistakes and then correct them when they are pointed out. Simply deriding my work because I haven't examined all 200 or so eyewitness statements as carefully as possible is disingenuous. The testimony is massive and fills many many pages. I will examine all of the comments in this thread and will correct my research as necessary. Name calling ('liar', 'research') is juvenile and I don't engage in that.

However, it should be pointed out that:

1. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that a large commercial plane did not hit the Pentagon. This is if you take away the very small percentage who claimed it was a small plane from from farther away.

2. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that a plane flew over the Pentagon--excluding the C-130. The Pentagon is surrounded by large highways.

3. No single witness has ever come forward to retract his claim that a plane hit the Pentagon.

4. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that anything other than a plane knocked down the light poles.

5. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that any debris was planted at the crash site.

This is significant because of the traffic jams next to the Pentagon. Eyewitness testimony has been used to incriminate official complicity in events such as the WTC attack, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the shoot down of flight 93 and other events. So why is there no compelling witness testimony at the Pentagon to *directly* support a flyover, or alternative event at the Pentagon? In any case, the fact that a plane could hit the ground floor of the Pentagon is incriminating enough evidence as it is. Hanni Hanjour could not have accomplished this feat, and this alone proves an inside job. This is the strongest evidence of all--no speculation required.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Arabesque]

Originally posted by Arabesque
I believe in honest research.

That means it's possible for researchers to make mistakes and then correct them when they are pointed out. Simply deriding my work because I haven't examined all 200 or so eyewitness statements as carefully as possible is disingenuous. The testimony is massive and fills many many pages. I will examine all of the comments in this thread and will correct my research as necessary. Name calling ('liar', 'research') is juvenile and I don't engage in that.

Of course you have to examine, analyze, and confirm or deny the accounts! If you don't it is not research it is merely blogging/compiling.

You were deceptive in your review.

I will give you credit for fixing my quote to Lagasse.

1. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that a large commercial plane did not hit the Pentagon. This is if you take away the very small percentage who claimed it was a small plane from from farther away.

You do not know this. The 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered just like all video was. We know because we checked. How can you make claims about what people reported when you didn't even check?

The fact that this data was confiscated is incriminating in its own right. They would not hide this data if they had nothing to hide.

2. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that a plane flew over the Pentagon--excluding the C-130. The Pentagon is surrounded by large highways.

Not all witnesses claim it was a c-130 and at least one even claims it was a "jet". Bottom line there WERE reports of a plane flying over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. So why weren't there more of them? And again.....you don't know what people reported because you didn't check. And even if you did you wouldn't have found anything because the data has been sequestered.

3. No single witness has ever come forward to retract his claim that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Huh? Why would they? Many people were fooled into believing the plane hit. Most of them couldn't even see the Pentagon.

4. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that anything other than a plane knocked down the light poles.

Because they were staged in advance. Every "light pole witness" that we have talked to said they did NOT see the poles get hit after all. This includes Sucherman, McGraw, Brooks, and Walter. How many have you talked to?

5. No single witness has ever come forward to claim that any debris was planted at the crash site.

Why would they see it? That could have been planted in advance and/or blown out of the construction trailers that were destroyed.

This is significant because of the traffic jams next to the Pentagon. Eyewitness testimony has been used to incriminate official complicity in events such as the WTC attack, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the shoot down of flight 93 and other events. So why is there no compelling witness testimony at the Pentagon to *directly* support a flyover, or alternative event at the Pentagon? In any case, the fact that a plane could hit the ground floor of the Pentagon is incriminating enough evidence as it is. Hanni Hanjour could not have accomplished this feat, and this alone proves an inside job. This is the strongest evidence of all--no speculation required.

You have not been to the area. There are not many good views on 395 which is set away from that wedge and there is only a TINY less than quarter mile stretch of highway on route 27 where people may have seen the plane according to the official flight path:




But guess what? Even the people on that tiny stretch of highway would not have had a good view of the alleged impact because of the trees! See detailed research with real images of their POV here:
Route 27 Witnesses POV Of Flight Path.

That small stretch of highway would have been EASILY controlled in this extremely secure area.

The incredibly high percentage of USA Today/Gannett employees certainly has suspicious implications as well.




But there is ZERO speculation required in the north side claim.

You have basically not really said anything about any of the citgo witnesses that proves them wrong but Lagasse and with him you merely go off on the absurd logical fallacy argument that he is discredited because he was wrong about the poles and the cab that he DID NOT WITNESS.

You have no valid reason to dismiss their testimony and your report does not provide a single account that directly contradicts them about the north side.

Not one.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


What a nut case idea. Good job

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by intrepid

Isreali accent on the other hand I DO know something about. I work with an Isreali and he sound European. Polish, Hungarian. A Pole or Hungarian would probably be wearing a cross. I think YOU might be reaching here.

He is not reaching in regards to the fact that she is not telling the truth.

Edward Paik has definitively shown her story to be incorrect as do the details when her account is scrutinized.

Craig,
Are you saying that EP commented specifically on another of your "witnesses" statements?
What is with Aldo's comments about her having a jewish last name?
Does he mean because she is Jewish that means she cannot be trusted?
What does the CIT have against Jewish people?

[edit on 2-8-2008 by TheBobert]

Funny thread!

CIT's own witness saw 77 hit the Pentagon. He exposes CIT ideas and conclusion, or implication there of, to be false and manufactured to sell your researcher edition DVDs. The CT is not about 9/11, it is capitalistic cashing in; a noble cause in this economy. I do not agree with the disrespect needed to blame the military, FAA, and others for something 19 terrorist did. But selling false ideas in not new or illegal, and contributes to the GNP. There are bright sides even when people engage in fraud, albeit fraudulent ideas.

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building."

Sean said "… I just watched it hit the building."

Sean saw 77 hit the building. Makes all your other efforts on this topic amusing at best.

You do realize you just posted in a thread that is over a year old, right? The only reason it's at the top is because an Anonymous Ats post is waiting to be approved.
Do you just go to every thread you can find with or about Craig and try to post attacks, either direct or disguised, to try to discredit them rather than the evidence? I believe that is an ad hominem attack.

I guess this is to both of you(beachnut and bobert)

[edit on 2-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]

Sorry bud but Aldo is part of the CIT and a very public group making accusations of mass murder against innocent people.
They refuse to bring their evidence to a court.
Aldo is making a judgement about a witness statement based on her having a JEWISH last name and saying she cannot be trusted.
This is is ALDO's words not mine.
This is not an Adhom.
I am calling him out on HIS STATEMENT not attacking him.
You partnered me with Beachnut.
I have a lot of respect for him BUT i am not speaking for him.
Please address your issue with him, I can only speak for myself.
BTW is there a rule about posting to a thread that is a year old?
Are you an admin?

[edit on 2-8-2008 by TheBobert]