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.

 

Pentagon Eyewitness Verifies Hwy 27 Southbound Traffic Diversion

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Soon after the explosion at the Pentagon, eyewitness makes a u-turn from the northbound Hwy 27 to the southbound Hwy 27, and is diverted around the taxicab and downed light poles staging area, and up Columbia Pike past the Naval Annex.

Pentagon Attack Witness Jerri Davis



Witness Jerri Davis was on Route 27 stuck in traffic talking on her cell phone right in front of the alleged impact point of the Pentagon when the attack took place. She did not see or hear the plane at all and her first impression was that the Pentagon was being "bombed". Jerri did an illegal U-turn on the highway to get back home and was witness to the fact that southbound traffic was being diverted off the highway just prior to where the scene was staged with the taxicab and light pole.

vimeo.com...






posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Why are the moderators on hyper-alert? Afraid of whom?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Soon after the explosion at the Pentagon, eyewitness makes a u-turn from the northbound Hwy 27 to the southbound Hwy 27, and is diverted around the taxicab and downed light poles staging area, and up Columbia Pike past the Naval Annex.

Pentagon Attack Witness Jerri Davis



Witness Jerri Davis was on Route 27 stuck in traffic talking on her cell phone right in front of the alleged impact point of the Pentagon when the attack took place. She did not see or hear the plane at all and her first impression was that the Pentagon was being "bombed". Jerri did an illegal U-turn on the highway to get back home and was witness to the fact that southbound traffic was being diverted off the highway just prior to where the scene was staged with the taxicab and light pole.

vimeo.com...






Thanks , SPreston! That was the funniest thing I've seen since you guys started pimping Roosevelt Roberts as the best "fly-over" witness!

So...Ms. Davis is stuck in traffic, stock-still or close to it, chatting on her cell phone, and the "NOC" flight path is RIGHT ABOVE HER - even annotated in the video - and she does not hear a 757 just above her car, in *at least* 50-60 degree angle of bank in order to get over to the South Parking lot so Roosevelt Roberts can say he saw it there, headed South.

I swear....you guys NEVER let me down!!!!!



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


And Ms Jerri Davis also never heard the phantom official Flight 77 aircraft which was allegedly knocking down light poles behind her at 530 mph with the turbofan engines allegedly maxed out at full throttle. What is so unusual about a woman on a cell phone hearing nothing around her? I encounter it every day.



But she did find out that the Secret Service security already had traffic detoured around the taxicab/Lloyde England/light pole staging area; even though all day they periodically allowed traffic through on southbound Hwy 27 to witness the neat staging of light pole #1 and the taxi with the neat hole in the windshield and the Federal agents guarding the scene.



Unfortunately they forgot to stick the light pole in the windshield; so there is nobody on planet Earth who witnessed it sticking out of the windshield, except for the proven liar Lloyde England standing at attention on Hwy 27. What a fairy tale this 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY has turned into and the pseudoskeptics and government loyalists are stuck with it and no way out.




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



I'm sorry. But that is absurd. Quote mining and ignoring the majority just doesnt cut it.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

posted by conrad x
reply to post by SPreston
 

I'm sorry. But that is absurd. Quote mining and ignoring the majority just doesnt cut it.


What majority? Did you mean the alleged 104 official south flight path witnesses, many of whom are unidentifiable with no last names, and many of whom were admittedly not within miles of the Pentagon, or those at the Reagan subway platform where they could not possibly have seen a danged thing?

Or did you mean the hundreds of official south flight path witnesses of which the JREFers who traveled to Arlington could not find even one? Perhaps you have tracked down many of these official south flight path witnesses and have verified they actually exist and can present them to us here on ATS with their faces and names. We would be much obliged.

Or did you mean the dozens of Mainstream News Media witnesses who would not know truth if it slapped them in the face and two of which (Mike Walters and Jamie McIntyre) changed their initial accounts?

So there is no majority to ignore as far as we can tell. We can only go by those witnesses who have been found and questioned and verified by name and face. Your alleged majority witnesses are nowhere to be found and our eyewitnesses are unafraid to testify in public.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by conrad x
 


So are you gathering up your interviews with the majority conrad?

Are you going to post your research efforts here on ATS to amaze us Truthers?




[edit on 7/8/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston




Just curious. The above annotated "North Of Citgo Flight Path" doesn't really look like Roosevelt Roberts can say he saw the aircraft on a "fly-by" "50 to 100 feet" above South parking.

Also, if you don't think someone in a stopped vehicle would not hear a 757 airliner pass over their head at 50 to 100 feet, once again you talk about things (engine sounds) you have no idea about.

Care to explain?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Hmm, so did anyone find out what exact make and model car she was in at the time, and whether she had the windows all the way up or not? That could make a difference as to why she did not hear the plane. Especially if it was a car insulated well against outside noise.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

So...Ms. Davis is stuck in traffic, stock-still or close to it, chatting on her cell phone, and the "NOC" flight path is RIGHT ABOVE HER - even annotated in the video - and she does not hear a 757 just above her car


The video is incorrect about the flight path being above her, actually. If you plot Jerri' location in the video on an overhead and overlay the witness drawings, all of them have the fuselage behind her, and most have the entire plane, behind her . I messaged Craig about this the other day (before SPreson even created this thread) and recommended that he change the language in the video to reflect this fact just because I knew someone would try to be make a big deal out of it. He probably didn't feel like going through the hassle of deleting the old one, going back in and correcting one or two words, re-rendering, and re-uploading, or else just hasn't gotten around to it yet.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
It's a non-issue.

The fact that she didn't see the plane can not possibly refute any the north side evidence.

To suggest it does would be a logical fallacy.

Clearly she didn't see it and there is no legitimate reason to think that she would have to even if it was directly over her.

We have never claimed we know exactly where the plane was located down to the foot and I'm not going to hyper-scrutinize it for fear of spin from anonymous people online.

We simply make the general claim that the evidence proves the plane was directly over the Navy Annex, north of the gas station, and kept on going after the explosion.

But as Ligon stated it would most like have been behind Jerri as opposed to above her even on the north side approach as unanimously confirmed by all the witnesses in this critical area.








[edit on 8-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It's a non-issue.


Of course its a "non-issue". Anything that you a) can't explain or b) run scounter to your theories is a non-issue, not worthy o fdiscussion because you can't discuss it.


The fact that she didn't see the plane can not possibly refute any the north side evidence.


I could care less if she saw the plane or not. She didn't because it was significantly behind her, but if the aircraft *was* where you claim it was and if she *was* where she claimed she was in that video, she *would* have heard a 757 at 500 knots 50 feet over her head. To simply hand-wave it away with a "It's a non-issue" is yet another example of why this crusade of yours is such a laughing stock.

Moving right along....


We simply make the general claim that the evidence proves the plane was directly over the Navy Annex, north of the gas station, and kept on going after the explosion.


Do you agree this image, frequently posted by your buddy SPreston, is accurate? Perhaps you could answer my question since Preston can't:



How can Roosevelt Roberts claim he saw the aircraft flying away "50 to 100 feet" above the south parking lot if the aircraft is unable to get TO the south parking lot from its position in this graphic?

Plus, based on where Ms Davis said she was stopped, the aircraft would have been close to being directly over her head, in a severe bank (with a 124 foot wingspan, it is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than "50 to 100 feet").

Wave away.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451


I could care less if she saw the plane or not. She didn't because it was significantly behind her, but if the aircraft *was* where you claim it was and if she *was* where she claimed she was in that video, she *would* have heard a 757 at 500 knots 50 feet over her head.



Prove it was a 757 even though there is no evidence for this.

Prove it was moving 500 knots even though this is contrary to the evidence.

Prove it was 50 feet above her head even though as I explained an estimated north path would STILL be behind her.

And then prove it's impossible for her to have missed it.

Of course you can't because you are dismissing hard independent evidence based on nothing but irrelevant speculation.




Do you agree this image, frequently posted by your buddy SPreston, is accurate?


It is an accurate representation of a hypothetical north side flight path.

Is it perfectly accurate down to the foot as to exactly where the plane really flew?

I do not believe so.

Of course that would be impossible for anyone to know.

Even the witnesses.




How can Roosevelt Roberts claim he saw the aircraft flying away "50 to 100 feet" above the south parking lot if the aircraft is unable to get TO the south parking lot from its position in this graphic?


Since the graphic is not meant to depict exactly where the plane flew down to the foot your question is irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that Roosevelt lied about the plane or that he hallucinated it?



Plus, based on where Ms Davis said she was stopped, the aircraft would have been close to being directly over her head, in a severe bank (with a 124 foot wingspan, it is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than "50 to 100 feet").



According to who?

You are completely making up all pertinent values such as speed, radius, exact location of the plane, and type of aircraft so your claims are based off nothing but pure irrelevant speculation.

Why is your faith in what you were told by the govt so strong that you are willing to dismiss hard evidence with nothing but pure speculation?





[edit on 8-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
She didn't because it was significantly behind her, but if the aircraft *was* where you claim it was and if she *was* where she claimed she was in that video, she *would* have heard a 757 at 500 knots 50 feet over her head.

Completely unfounded speculation on your part, trebor. Not that I am surprised, in fact I would expect you to do so.

Just yesterday, I was driving home. I witnessed numerous cars blocking the fast lane while an ambulance with full lights and sirens on, was being held up by them. That proves how some people can not see out of their own rear window!

Planes fly in the sky! Most cars have solid roofs, with limited visibility above the road. I've driven near the airport before and I know that I don't always see or hear planes that are over me.

For you to assume to know what a witness should or should not have seen is really telling.

Even jthomas admitted that he doesn't know how many witnesses should or could have seen a plane.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
tezzajw, trebor is saying she would have HEARD it.

Your argument is fallacious though, trebor.

Even if the plane was on the south side flight path it still would have passed very close to her, and would have been at an even lower altitude than the north path.

Also, you imply that the faster the aircraft was going the louder it would have been. The plane is only required to go the FDR speed if it is on the south side flight path. If the plane was on the north side flight path as all of the witnesses seen in National Security Alert insist then the FDR data is proven fraudulent (it's proven fraudulent on multiple other levels too). The witnesses report a much slower (quieter) speed for the north side flight path.

To say that she absolutely would have had to have heard it behind her if it were on a northern path and imply that her not hearing it proves that it was on the southern path is not reasonable. Regardless of which flight path it was on it would have been well within range for her to hear. The fact that she didn't hear it indicates that she was distracted by her cell phone call. Also, the sound of low flying commercial planes is very common for that area since Reagan is only about a mile away.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon
tezzajw, trebor is saying she would have HEARD it.

See, hear, makes no difference. That ambulance I saw had all sirens going and yet the cars in front did not see/hear it to move out of the way immediately.

It doesn't take much to distract some drivers from noticing anything more than the road ahead.

trebor is trying to guess what the witness should have seen/heard, when he wasn't there. Very poor form and pure speculation.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The fact that she didn't see the plane can not possibly refute any the north side evidence.


posted by trebor451

I could care less if she saw the plane or not. She didn't because it was significantly behind her, but if the aircraft *was* where you claim it was and if she *was* where she claimed she was in that video, she *would* have heard a 757 at 500 knots 50 feet over her head.


More evidence that trebor has done little to no research on the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY and even less time studying the research disproving the official fairy tale.

The official speed of Flight 77 as it allegedly flew across Hwy 27 knocking down light poles and skimming the lawn was 460 knots (530 mph 776 fps); not 500 knots.

The actual speed of the decoy aircraft after it flew directly Over the Naval Annex and banked to the right high above the light poles and overhead highway sign over Hwy 27, was probably half that or less; 200 knots (230 mph 337 fps). It would be a lot quieter than the alleged full throttle Flight 77 behind her.

She was on her cell phone and people on cell phones in cars tend to ignore other noises. She may have had her air conditioning and radio on; with the windows rolled up.



[edit on 7/8/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Great! The whole CIT Team is out in force! We have tezz saying he can't see OR hear anything outside of his car, ligon saying simply because someone is talking on a cell phone they would not hear an airliner pass above them, we have Preston contradicting CITs Prime Witness, Lagasse, by saying the aircraft was flying at 200 knots in a great bank, and we have Ranke not even believing his own graphics.

Heckuva team you got there, Craig. Are they ALL going to be in Arlington? Where's Aldo?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
We have tezz saying he can't see OR hear anything outside of his car,

trebor will not quote me here, because he knows that I did not state this.

Clearly, trebor, you can not substantiate what the witness should or should not have seen and heard. Therefore, you resort to fabricating your story to suit your needs.

You consistently fail to show coherency with your poor logical arguments from thread to thread.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


This is one of the saddest posts I've seen from you trebor. What a pathetic and dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. The fact is Jerri Davis not hearing or seeing the plane is not evidence that it flew on the south side flight path at all (let alone evidence sufficient countering the conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence proving that it flew on the north side and thus proving that 9/11 was an inside job).

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Ligon]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join