Her story is very interesting. She had a very detailed slow motion style view of the impact, but she doesn't say anything about seeing smoke trailing from the plane, as is seen in the video frames released by the Bush administration.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

I've seen it and I will say her story is interesting but really unbelievable, literally. I mean lets say a piece did fall through her sunroof How did she not notice when it happened? And the box she made, really good job there, seriously, she sure did go out of her way with all that. But to come out with that story after so long of a time... and btw, who is this woman anyway?

And welcome to ATS. I hope you get somewhere with you're research, I know I haven't...

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Techsnow]

These are exactly the kind of questions that do not make sense...Conflicting reports about the final flight path..Actually two stories which I was going to make another post about but will address here: I would say that story one would be the one that was touched on in the pentacon movie with the police officers reporting the flight path overhead which put the path of flight almost at a 90 degree angle slamming directly into the side. This story was the very first one that was put out.Oddly, when they put it out they didnt account for the light poles at all. I have a ..I wanna say Life magazine that was put out directly after 911 it was a special edition explaining everything that was known, then. In this issue of Life it has a detailed diagram of the first story ( matching exactly the police officers story and hitting the building flat on). Second story being the one that matches the damages to the building. The flight path is the one that goes over the flight poles and hits the building at a 55 degree angle(dont quote me) but at a crooked angle.

So two stories both elaborated on by media and by witnesses ...and one by actual damage to the building. Why this is happening...Is a big question.

What no word yet on here from the pentacon or PFT guys yet?? I thought you guys would be able to help with some of these questions about this womans story whether or not it was or was not checked out.

Hey! I really don't know the case too well. Do a little digging around - there is contention over where Elgas was, how far from the flight path, what could have caused this part to fly that far and land in her car, and the over-explicitness of her account.

These are things I haven't looked into much, but would be interesting to see what comes up.

This is why eyewitness testimony on its own is not reliable evidence. What really happened and how people remember things are rarely the same, even if you have multiple witnesses. Yet groups like Pentagon rely soley on eyewitness testimony as an attempt to dismiss physical evidence. Using the weakest form of evidence to dismiss the strongest forms of evidence is not honest research.

Was the woman's account accurate? Who knows. That's the problem with such testimony. We can be pretty sure however from the 100s of reports that there was a plane, as it's not something that could be mistaken for a missile. The key is to use ALL the evidence and not dismiss the evidence that doesn't support ones pre-determined conclusions. And anyone who claims they are just asking questions and doesn't bother to provide a complete report supporting their conclusions and instead just pokes holes in someone else's work to promote their speculation si not doing honest research.

Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect.

She claims the plane was 80 feet up which is too high to hit the poles and that it "banked" which also contradicts the official story while a bank is required in the north of the citgo flight path.

This may or may not be her Dodge Neon if she was ever actually on the highway to begin with:



Bottom line her account has been proven incorrect because the plane could not have hit the building.

So she is either lying or embellishing her account to support the official story.

If she is merely embellishing her account and that is really her Dodge Neon, for all we know an operative could have quite easily dropped the piece of debris in her car or it could have been blown from the construction trailers into her car.

Of course if she is lying she was probably never there at all.





[edit on 16-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect.

translation: her account doesn't match the CIT version so she's instantly suspect.

This may or may not be her Dodge Neon if she was ever actually on the highway to begin with:

Location: Headed north on I-395 to DC, "stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon" 395 runs generally north-ish, but near the Pentagon runs east for a stretch. You have her pointed north on Route 27, so no, she never was on that road. It's 395 that goes to DC, and part of Columbia Pike runs perpedicular to it (n-s) near the Citgo, which she mentions it passig by, not behind, which strongly implies a south path, as 395 runs south of the Citgo.

But luckily she's suspect, so just dismiss it. And besides,

Bottom line her account has been proven incorrect because the plane could not have hit the building.

Too bad this same critique does not apply to ALL witnesses who saw it hit the building. You'd have to dismiss your best evidence to keep this formula consistent.



[edit on 16-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Location: Headed north on I-395 to DC, "stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon" 395 runs generally north-ish, but near the Pentagon runs east for a stretch. You have her pointed north on Route 27, so no, she never was on that road. It's 395 that goes to DC, and part of Columbia Pike runs perpedicular to it (n-s) near the Citgo, which she mentions it passig by, not behind, which strongly implies a south path, as 395 runs south of the Citgo.

It's always a nice comedic break when you interject incorrect information with a know-it-all attitude thinking you are correcting me.

As usual...you are wrong.

Columbia Pike runs parallel to 395 and perpendicular to Route 27. The last little curve on Columbia Pike just before it hits route 27 would NOT be considered the direction of Columbia Pike under any description.

Route 27 is a tiny stretch of hwy less than a mile long and is often referred to as "395" or even "110" by locals depending on which way they are traveling.

Of course you wouldn't know this because you have never been there or talked to anyone who lives there.

Plus you can not reconcile her account with being further back on 395.

I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me.

She would not describe it as 4-5 car lengths in FRONT of her if she wasn't on route 27. Plus the bank towards the heliport she describes is not reconcilable with the official flight path and downing the poles.

Also:

I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on.

These details can ONLY make sense if she was on Route 27.

Plus she further describes her location when talking about how she left the area:

So I made my way across the lanes of traffic and instead, I exited into the Pentagon's parking lot. I circled around to the right and came out under the road that I had just been on -- headed toward I-66 West.

This leaves no doubt that she was describing being on route 27 all along.

Do you even read stuff before you comment on it?

Clearly you don't bother analyzing it.

You really ought to tone down the know-it-all attitude because it's clear you know very little.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You really ought to tone down the know-it-all attitude because it's clear you know very little.

I admit I over-reached here, and thanks for the advice. You're probably right. I thought 395 meant 395 and that was the way to DC, but it's a big town with a north and a south, and her account does fit better on 27, as does the plausibility of that plane bit landing in the backseat. Still odd but not as odd. So alrighty, you got me on one and I admit that.

Good work then on possibly identifying her very car in location photos, That could be useful.

Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect.

Hmmm. The most interesting point here. Her story should be "suspect" because of her involvement with the government?? A "significant" position?

Yeah she's REALLY high brass... driving a Dodge NEON ??? a 2002 Neon(if a 2002 was available at the time)...top of the line (if there is such a one) cost $16,190.

Keep in mind that the only reason Craig is relying ONLY on eyewitness testimony on both sides of the argument is because it's unreliable. Regardless of the side one is on, it's unreliable. So therefore much of the testimony that goes against theirs is easy to manipulate into seeming false. But of course they don't hold their testimony to the same standards because it is backed up by their pre-determined conclusion. Which is based on what again? The same faulty eye-witness testimony.

This is honestly just a scam, nothing more. Look at al the arguments against one form of unreliable evidence. Oh they are "suspect". Anything that doesn't fit, is easy to find some reason to dismiss it. Until all you have left is the testimon that supports the Pentagon's speculation and conjecture. But again, that's all they have. Just as they cannot explain past these holes they look for. This is not research., Research would involve providing research on the entire event, not trying to poke holes in someone else's by using unreliable evidence. Not by completely dismissing evidence by using less reliable evidence.

This is why Pentacon is not taken seriously by any legitimate institutions (which i am sure they simply pretend are either in on it or just sheep, etc). Until they present a credible case, it will remain a little documentary done by some kids pretending to be real researchers. And until they take responsibility and start doing real research, it will remain some widly unknown home video on youtube by some kids with the hopes of gaining fame and fortune.

Arguing over it is pointless because it comes down to one argument. Which eyewitnesses are more credible than others. Which eyewitnesses to dismiss and which to take as golden. All the while ignoring all other evidence.