It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

William Middleton Sr - north side approach witness, the ultimate validation

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Arlington National Cemetery worker of 39 years William Middleton Sr. is a fairly well known previously published witness of the Pentagon attack whose account has been used to support the official story.



He was running the cemetery street sweeper when he saw the plane. An archive of the most famous article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette with his original account can be read here.

Of course there was no way to tell his location or where he saw the plane from that article or any other that has been published.

He was interviewed by the Center for Military History but his official account has yet to be released.

Here he is making a right banking gesture while describing his account to them within the first weeks of the attack:


CIT's exclusive on-site interview with him nails down all the critical details about his exact placement of the plane. Billy Middleton's passionate account turned out to be the ultimate validation/corroboration regarding the north side approach as perfectly described by his colleagues over at the cemetery maintenance buildings just east of him and of course all the witnesses at the former CITGO station.




There are many critical points regarding his account and all are outlined in detail along with his entire interview towards the end of Part 1 of our latest presentation The North Side Flyover.

But probably the most important point is the fact that Mr. Middleton would have only been able to see the tail of the plane for about one second or so if the official flight path was true yet this is nothing like what he describes.

He saw the plane approach from the Sheraton and over the Navy Annex and feels he saw it for a good 10 to 15 seconds. This relatively slow approach corroborates similar claims from aviator Terry Morin who was at the Navy Annex directly across from him, as well as Air Traffic Controller in the Pentagon heliport tower, Sean Boger.

In addition to exposing the impossibility of the official flight path, Pilots for 9/11 Truth's new release 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON contains full scale animations contrasting the difference in point of view between the north and south side approach for all the critical witness accounts including William Middleton Sr.

Check out this 3 minute excerpt detailing how there is no way Billy Middleton could be mistaken regarding his critical north side account.





posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   
So, according to Middleton, your service station "witnesses" (Lagasse and brooks) are lying, as is Morin as are anyone else who claimed the aircraft passed either over the Annex or just to the north of the service station or anywhere else than down the Southgate Road, as Middleton claims.

My head hurts from all these "witnesses" and their accounts - north of the Citgo, along Southgate, hitting the building, along the edge of the FOB, over the FOB, left of the Pentagon, right of the Pentagon, a 125-foot wingspan making a huge bank at 50 or 100 feet off the ground so Roberts could see it, at 9:11, or 9:12, heading back across 27 or over the tidal basin or who knows where.

This just keeps getting better and better! Keep digging, oh Cover Girls of the CIT!


[edit on 24-9-2008 by pinch]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


I'm not following you Pinch.

Why does your head hurt?

It's actually quite simple.

They all place it on the north side.

They all match perfectly in this regard.

Middleton has the plane in the exact same place as Lagasse and all the ANC maintenance workers.

He said "it flew right over the parking lot" (of the ANC).

He also said it approached from the Sheraton which corroborates Edward Paik perfectly.

Obviously he had a different perspective than all of them but this is what makes his account so strong.




As you can see in the animation done by the professional aviators of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a north side approach would most certainly appear to be coming right up Southgate Rd to someone at his location.

You can't expect all witnesses to be mathematically precise.

The would be illogical.

We sure don't expect that.

It's the very GENERAL north side approach that gets corroborated over and over and has therefore been proven to be true.

If the official story were true Middleton would pretty much have to be making up his entire account.

Is that what you believe?

Did you watch his full interview?

I highly recommend that you do and that you note note what an honest credible witness he is:

It's 32:00 minutes in:

Google Video Link



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
It would appear that Mr Middleton specifically contradicts Mr Paik who describes the plane being on the southern side of Oakwood Drive. It is obviously well beyond the limits of any plane to follow both Mr Paik's indicated path and Mr Middleton's indicated path.

Your provided pictures don't seem to show this clearly, but I believe you have a copy of a map that Mr Paik drew on? Could you post this?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Have you watched the animation in the OP and William Middleton's interview in full?

He specifically says he saw it approach from the Sheraton which corroborates Paik perfectly.

The animation from Middleton's point of view demonstrates how the plane would appear to be coming straight up Southgate road from his perspective.

This image includes the illustrations of Paik, Morin, and all the witnesses showing you how different perspectives will certainly cause a degree of variance, as should be expected, but the general placement of the plane on the north side of the gas station is continuously and unanimously corroborated from ALL surrounding perspectives.




posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Great news!

When will you be taking this, and all the other evidence you have amassed and seeking justice through a criminal court? Stop wasting time! Stop tinkling out new evidence and get on the docket somewhere. Get before a jury and get the perps brought to justice!

Do you plan on taking actual action, or continuing to troll for internet forum attention? After all, you have amassed 'smoking gun' evidence that any fool can understand and comprehend, correct?

Surely there are some respected journalists who would be interested in what you have accumulated, right? They can't all be "in on it", can they? Surely, someone in government could help get things moving, correct? Or are they all "in on it" too?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Glad you agree this is great news. Would you like to help us in getting this info out and in a court, SAP?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by exponent
 





Is that Sean Boger?

Yes Boger confirms 77 hit the Pentagon. You confirmed that when you talked to him.

He said.



Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building."
And he said it again for you. Now you have to make up a story to discredit what Sean saw. Did you tell him you would do that?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Make up a story?

What are you talking about?

Sean told us it was banking on the north side of the gas station like everyone else.

This proves it could not have hit the building.

We did not make up anything and the recorded interviews we present prove it.

The fact that all of the witnesses unanimously place the plane on the north side approach has nothing to do with us.

It simply proves 9/11 was an inside job.

Sorry!

I know this gets you mad and forces you to obsess over our every word even though you constantly accuse us of lying or being delusional (so which is it?) but all the witnesses stand by the north side approach to this day.

Let me know if you can get any of them to retract.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Glad you agree this is great news. Would you like to help us in getting this info out and in a court, SAP?


The judge would see your impossible flight paths of 14 and 24 Gs, your hearsay, and your misinterpretations of witness statements and charge you court costs.

Posting those orange flight paths, impossible to fly, ruins your opinions based on mangled witness statements made over 6 years after the event.

Better drop the flight paths, a lot of people understand math and physics. Those paths ruin your credibility.

You work hard to make up this stuff, what do you think the courts and news agencies will say?
www.ocweekly.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Hearsay?

First-hand accounts are not hearsay.

Do you even know what that means?

I have no idea why this so hard for you to understand but this is NOT what CIT says happened.

We did not draw the flight paths.

The witnesses did.

This is where all the witnesses who were really there unanimously report the general placement of the plane.

Banking north of the gas station.

It has nothing to do with us.

Your calculations of g forces based on fabricated values is hearsay.

Actually it's not even hearsay. It's pure fabrication.

The unanimous witness placement of the plane on the north side is scientifically validated proof of a military deception.

Now do you have any comments regarding the OP about William Middleton's account or are you going to continue with your same circular argumentative talking points while ignoring the topic?






[edit on 24-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut
 


Make up a story?

What are you talking about?

Sean told us it was banking on the north side of the gas station like everyone else.

This proves it could not have hit the building.




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

I read that a little different. Sean saw 77 hit.

If he saw 77 north of the CITGO it would have pulled it's wings off to be over or next to him as he saw it when it hit. So physics, not me prove you wrong. Sorry, but I used physics, not made up statements from interviews 6 years after 9/11. Sean said in 2001 he saw 77 hit the Pentagon, he still says that.

Now you get new testimony 6 years later. The 2001 testimony stands. Sean saw 77 hit as did dozens of others. The FDR confirm Sean as does the DNA. Solid hard evidence never refuted with fact and evidence.

You need to use physics when you get these impossible flight paths. Those orange ones need to go, they ruin the whole thing. I see 86 degrees of bank and 14 Gs and all your post becomes discredited by science.

I can check them for you if you need help before you post more impossible paths.

What bank angle, the exact angle, did your witnesses see?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


This topic is about William Middleton's account.

He and many others described the same north side banking approach to the Center For Military History only weeks after the event so no, it's not limited to what they all confirmed with us 6 years later.

Boger describes the same thing and he is an aviation professional witness.

Your calculations are irrelevant since you have to fabricate all the values but regardless, it is COMPLETELY off topic.

There is a thread for g force calculations already so unless you have something specifically to state about William Middleton's account you have no business posting here.

You do realize that William Middleton wouldn't have seen the plane approach or fly past him AT ALL on the official flight path don't you?

You do realize the Navy Annex would completely block his view right?

Why do you insist on suggesting that William Middleton fabricated his entire account and that all the other 12 north side witnesses simultaneously hallucinated the same thing?

Do you really see that as logical?

Why is your faith in the government so strong that you are willing to spend every day of your life trying to spin the evidence we present?

Do you really think we are that much of a threat or do you think we are crazy conspiracy theorists? Which is it?








[edit on 24-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut
 

I have no idea why this so hard for you to understand but this is NOT what We did not draw the flight paths.

The witnesses did.

Banking north of the gas station.

It has nothing to do with us.

Your calculations of g forces based on fabricated values is hearsay.

.... It's pure fabrication.

The unanimous witness placement of the plane on the north side is scientifically validated proof of a military deception.
Which path is his?

Show me the path.

The G force is physics. Physics is not hearsay or fabrication, it is pure fact.


One path takes over 88.3 degrees of bank, the plane is on it's side at over 33.7 Gs.

The worse path for Gs, greater than 89 degrees, and 57 Gs.

The best path according to physics is 85 degrees of bank, and 11 G, wings fall off!

Do you want to go back and tell your witnesses where 77 was for real and see if they forgot something after 6 years?

This is pure physics; not one viable path.

After 6 years, what bank angle did the OP witness see and which of these paths is his?
I thought we were talking OP, you posted all these paths, which is the OP guy's?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Which path is his?



What??

You haven't even watched his interview?

You haven't even read the OP??!!

What are you doing commenting on evidence you haven't even viewed or paid the slightest bit of attention to???

Do you think that is a scientific approach?

Hardly.

Furthermore you can not fabricate values and call it science.

Witness accounts are subjective, not mathematical.

NO witness would be able to accurately provide ANY values for your calculations.

It is unreasonable to expect them to.

We simply claim that their unanimously corroborated GENERALIZED placement of the plane on the north side is accurate.

THAT'S IT!

This general claim really has nothing whatsoever to do with any flight path.

Now unless you have a direct comment regarding William Middleton's account you really ought to go find yourself something else to do.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut
 


This topic is about William Middleton's account.

Boger describes the same thing and he is an aviation professional witness.

Your calculations are irrelevant since you have to fabricate all the values but regardless, it is COMPLETELY off topic.


Which path is Middleton's?

You said Boger again -


Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building."
Sean is an expert who saw 77 impact the Pentagon. I would drop Sean if you are trying for a 77 did not hit thing.

Pure physics is what I used, I used your paths, applied physics and got up to 57 Gs. So you guys fabricate your numbers when you did the video about Gs? I did just like you did, but I used your numbers from your paths. Once you draw a path, there are radii to use, numbers, plug them into the equations, and you get bank angle and Gs.

I used your numbers from your paths, are you saying you fabricated the paths?

So is Middleton's path the 57 G one?

Why do you trust testimony from 6 years after the event?

Don’t' post but Middleton's path next time. Which one is it?

Which path is his?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


You have not even viewed the evidence or bothered to read the OP!

You are repeating yourself and ignoring the facts and refusing to address the topic.

Many of the north side accounts described the same banking north side approach to the Center for Military History only weeks after the event.

Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

Why do you refuse to discuss the topic direct which is regarding William Middleton's account?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
If I may suggest an approach.....

What I'm seeing, both in the witness recounting [youtube], the photo overlay of flight paths, and ALL of the poster on this thread is ..... a validation that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Can we agree upon that? 77 hit the Pentagon -- an airplane hit the Pentagon.

Now. From there, consider whether the nuances of the differing testimony of the approach really represents significant variables. Put another way, several observers on the ground can withness a flyover. It can easily appear to them that the craft is directly overhead. It's more a function of human depth perception -- the closer the plane is to you, the more accurate your gauge or visual measurement of degrees in relation to the plane. Okay so far?

So is it really significant at all? I think most of us can agree that much of the evidence indicates a possibility or probability of the OS being in error. Perhaps intentionally, perhaps just a screwup. In regard to the Pentagon, I find this whole thread significant as it is colossal evidence -- but not proof -- that 77 is what damaged the Pentagon. It didn't do a mystery ballet of flyover whilst a secret missile zipped in there and "distracted" all the ground witnesses so 77 could "sneak" away.

So if we accept that the OS flight path is in error, then the question is what would they have to gain by misrepresenting it? Further, could it be that an idealized line was drawn and witnesses (from the ground) challenge that path?

I really think all of you are pretty much on the same page, just quibbling over perhaps insignificant differences.

I don't have a dog in this race. I just want to know the whole truth. We break it down component/module/section by section and find out -- to the best of our collective abilities -- the truth of each.

Thanks for the space.

Cheers



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join