Hey, I put together this list of pentagon witnesses. Can somebody check over this and tell me if it's accurate, and if there are some witnesses I need to add, let me know.

As a note, "no" for NOC does not mean that they say it was south of the Citgo (SOC), but "yes" means they say it was north of Citgo. To be listed as "yes" for NOC, they must have been in a position to see if it was NOC (e.g. Ed Paik is not NOC, because he was not in a position to see). The path they saw it in does not count; they must have been able to see it NOC. That is the criteria I am using.



Thanks,

bc

biscuit cough's list in jpg format for those who have trouble with png.



edit: replaced image

Thanks for converting it, SPreston.

bc

Hmmmm.

Well now.

Clearly you have been following our work extremely closely.

Tell us the internet entity/screen name/names that exist in any forum where 9/11 has been discussed attributed to you and I will answer your question in full.

Walter, McGraw, & Sucherman don't put it SoC either so is that fair to include them?

and if it is then doesn't the fact that they didn't witness it tearing light poles out of the ground prove they're NoC?

Yes I have been following your work. However, I have never participated in any 9/11 forum before this.

Yeah, I would agree with you that they are probably north side witnesses. However, I did not see in their testimony that they were in a position or that they saw that it was NOC.

But really, though, I guess they could be south side witnesses and just didn't see the poles coming out. But I really don't buy that.

Any other issues with the presentation?

Thanks,

bc

Suspect doesn't mean automatically complicit and valid doesn't automatically mean accurate or non-complicit.

To be perfectly clear, I was only responding to the "valid" or "suspect" column and leaving plenty of room for even that to change or be interpreted differently with any witness.

There is nothing complete or scientifically accurate about that table and the "opinion" of CIT so we do not endorse it in any way.

It makes too many absolute claims and reduces the scope of the "NoC" evidence.

In other words......it's deceptive and inaccurate and clearly designed to be used for propaganda against the evidence we present.

ANY witness who contradicts the official flight path in essence supports "NoC" at this point.

In fact I object to the very title of the table and this thread.

There is no such thing as "CIT witnesses".

We did not create them.

We don't own them.

That is a deceptive attempt to reduce their significance.

Furthermore it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to simultaneously be an "impact" witness and an "NoC" witness..

The NoC evidence proves that there are no impact witnesses.

Only people who were deceived as intended during this military psychological operation or of course took part in it.

bc,

Can you tell us your stance on witnesses being 100% adamant and 100% in a position to tell that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo?

By the way, some of the suspect witnesses were interviewed before the north side was confirmed. Some were suspect witnesses because of other factors such as the high concentration of USA Today editors and reporters on the highway or McGraw's strange behavior, former DoJ position and "within 45 seconds" guardrail crossing that didn't happen until 10 minutes later. So asking them about the north/south side is irrelevant since they suspected to not even have been there when the event happened.

Agreed.

That's fine. I'm glad to hear you're open-minded.

The accuracy of the information on the table was what I was asking about. While it might not be complete, is what is included accurate? I'm not looking for CIT's endorsement either.

How?

How?

I agree.

After posting it, I regretted the title. It is inaccurate. I apologize.

Lagasse, among others, claims to be both.

Not so. NoC does not imply no impact. The evidence for or against either of them stands separately.

Yes. NoC isn't even a question anymore. Can you show me a SoC witness? However, witnesses who claim to see NoC and see impact exist. And they're 100% adamant about both.

We'll leave a lot of this untouched here. But just to touch on "within 45 seconds" from McGraw, and as an example of some of the misleading methods used in the interviews, if you review CIT's conversation with him, when they asked him how quickly he got out of the car, they asked it in a leading manner. That is neither fair nor honest.

bc

There, I fixed the title. :D

bc

Wrong. It is impossible for the light poles, impact damage inside the Pentagon, and Exit Hole (Punch Out Hole) to line up with a NOC or an over the Navy Annex flight path. There is no other evidence of an impact anywhere at the Pentagon. A 100 ton aircraft at 535 mph or even at a lesser speed would create a deep penetration along its impacting trajectory. Of course the damage pattern created at the Pentagon was accomplished with explosives and not an aircraft, but that only damage pattern through the Pentagon 1st floor does line up as planned with the official Flight 77 flight path and not a NOC flight path. Therefore a NOC aircraft could not have hit the Pentagon even though witnesses might think it did. All impact witnesses who were not lying and following a prepared script were fooled by the planned psyops mission.

In fact it seems an impact from NOC should penetrate deeper into the rings because the kinetic energy would be more directly applied to the wall at closer to a right angle. But there is no evidence whatsoever of an impact from NOC. The witnesses were deceived.

Penetration angles into Pentagon for comparison. (Click diagram for original from official DOD Pentagon 911 book)


Comparative size of alleged 757 to Pentagon facade at alleged impact point (Click image)

I am refusing your black and white classifications and clear intentions of getting us to define witnesses as "impact" or "NoC" witnesses.

It's a false dilemma that only serves to confuse the evidence and set up an easier situation to spin.

It's a false dilemma that only serves to confuse the evidence and set up an easier situation to spin.

I am refusing your black and white classifications and clear intentions of getting us to define witnesses as "impact" or "NoC" witnesses.

It's a false dilemma that only serves to confuse the evidence and set up an easier situation to spin.

So what?

They all believe in an impact or have at least stated as much.

To suggest that makes them "impact" witnesses only serves to spin the notion that the evidence proves they were deliberately deceived into believing an impact during a military psychological black operation.

Now I know you are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually handicapped.

Imply?

The north side evidence PROVES no impact.

No evidence in regards to this or ANY crime "stands separately".

That is the method used to marginalize and dismiss specific pieces of evidence when evidence should always be considered within the scope of the entire investigation in regards to the specific suspect in question.

It's clear to me now that your intentions in posting here are not honest.

The claims are mutually exclusive.

You must choose one to believe because you can not believe both.

So which do you believe?

Ok you are now relegated to the debate forum where I will move this thread and you are on thin ice.

McGraw's "45 second" claim was previously published when we interviewed him.

It is not "leading" or "dishonest" or "unfair" to ask him to confirm or deny what he had already been quoted as saying.

You see the evidence uncovered by Pilots for 9/11 Truth alone proves a military deception.

Steve Chaconas and all the east of the river/DC flight path evidence proves a military deception.

The anomalous physical damage starting with the lack of foundation damage to the building proves a military deception.

The incredible amount of evidence implicating a cover-up all the way around the board proves a military deception.

The collapse of WTC7 proves a military deception!

There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that proves the official 9/11 conspiracy theory false on MANY levels.

THAT is the context of our investigation establishing a clear suspect and no evidence we present including NoC can be fairly removed from that context.

That explains why your table is deceptive.

You can't classify people like Chaconas or anyone who could not see the alleged impact or "NoC" as a negative in relation to this evidence.

N/A for non applicable would have been the only honest choice for them in this regard.

This is immature name-calling and labeling and serves no useful purpose. That's all I'll say.

Yes imply. It neither implies nor proves no impact. See below.

Maybe you misunderstand what I mean. When you have a multi-dimensional event, i.e. an event comprised of multiple other events simultaneous or otherwise, some events can occur without necessitating the occurrence of others. For example, in the case of SoC, NoC, impact, or no impact, you have four possibilities:

• SoC and impact
  
• SoC and no impact
  
• NoC and impact
  
• NoC and no impact
  

The plane could have flown SoC and impacted; or it could have flown SoC and flown over the building. Same with NoC. In this regard, if we prove one of the events, i.e. SoC/NoC, or impact/no impact, it does not prove a corresponding event. I guess I'll say it straight out: its physically and technically possible for the airplane to fly NoC and impact the building. Thus, to prove one, i.e. NoC, does not prove or disprove the other (impact or no impact).

Thanks for pointing this out SPreston. In fact, I would go further and say that there is no evidence of a plane impact at the Pentagon.

You want to debate? Ok.

True, it was previously published before you interviewed him. However, CIT quoted the 45 seconds in a leading manner. It would have been better if it had been phrased something like this: "There's a report that you got out of your car in about 45 seconds after the impact. Is that correct?" Or some other way of referencing and acknowledging the previous report.

Thus it was a leading question.

Furthermore, what CIT did with his answer was unfair to him. And the presentation in the video was not necessarily honest. For example, Faram's witnessing McGraw "in one fluid motion cross(ed) the guardrail" "in the first moments after the crash" does not indicate that McGraw had not previously crossed the guardrail and had crossed back over. Who knows how many times he crisscrossed the guardrail before Faram showed up. McGraw should have been given an opportunity to answer this claim before he was publicly accused of dishonesty.

bc

Good points, Craig. Thank you very much.

Here's the latest version:


Any other corrections or objections?

bc

What do you mean by the term, "military deception"?

What do you mean by, "military psychological black operation"?

And since when do you trust previously published accounts? It seems you could have verified it without the leading question.

Lame.

This is the main source of our disconnect.

I refuse to interject hypothetical scenarios to cloud this discussion.

I already went through this with Stinkey at the LCF here:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/431248/1/

It is impossible for a plane that flew NoC to cause the physical destruction as seen in all photographs, video, and reports.

Period.

It doesn't matter whether or not it is hypothetically possible to hit the building as this is irrelevant to what happened on 9/11.

This amounts to nothing but tiresome spin.

Sure don't.

Especially not with you since it's clear you will forsake logic, reason, and evidence in favor of spin and deception.

You are splitting hairs and are really starting to piss me off. Sorry we didn't use the perfect wording to make you happy but obviously Aldo was referring to his previously published account throughout the entire interview.

This was clear.

How would Aldo just guess 45 seconds? Obviously McGraw knew Aldo was referring to the previously published account and McGraw confirmed that very specific detail without hesitation.

You know this is true but you don't care because you saw what you thought was an opportunity to attack us.

I demand you retract your claims of us being "dishonest or leading" with a full apology or you can go attack us with these tiresome deceptive debate tactics elsewhere.


You can't change the north side evidence regardless of how bad you want to find dirt on CIT.

Ok that's it.

I'll give you one chance to retract and apologized or your gone.

We did not accuse McGraw of anything. We merely reported the evidence and pointed out contradictions and questionable details. There is nothing stopping him from speaking out. Have you tried contacting him to verify this "crisscrossing the guardrail" theory of yours?

Because McGraw did not say this and and there is no evidence for this whatsoever so as it stands it YOU are being deceptive by making things up.

We were merely confirming the already reported evidence and clearly you don't like the implications so you have decided to focus on us instead.

Look up each word and put their definitions together.

Look up each word and put their definitions together.

Ummm we were there for the very purpose of confirming that the previously published account accurately depicted what the witness claimed.

The witness confirmed this particular claim without hesitation.

I don't know what your problem is Stinkey but I find you to be disingenuous and confrontational.

You have said you believe the plane flew on the north side.

If so stop ignoring the implications and make yourself uselful by writing your congressman or something because antagonizing us isn't very productive.

Excuse me?

Dude challenged us and called us liars.

That has no place in our research forum.

You know better and stick to the debate forum voluntarily since you have no actual productive research to contribute but as you know I am fast growing impatient with you as well.

How is that leading McGraw? I was confirming what he had already said in his published account, he had that moment to clarify or correct that statement and he didn't. He confirmed it. He agreed. Faram saw him in one fluid motion with his bible and stole. This indicates it was when he first arrived on the scene, that is what the article is detailing. Read it.

Do you believe it is normal for a priest to be late for a funeral? Then to miss the funeral he is already late to in order to preside over the injured and dying at the Pentagon. There is a chapel at the Pentagon you know? Do you believe it is normal for a priest who is former DoJ attorney for 5 years to have his 9/11 story detail that he didn't know he was next to the Pentagon, yet he knew where the 14th street bridge was.

What evidence proves military involvement?

-3 light poles that are part of the Pentagon jurisdiction, being removed and staged.

-Incendiary devices and planted items INSIDE the Pentagon.

-A big ass jet flying by, not hitting the Pentagon, timed with an explosion.

Usually things like that would indicate military involvement.

But wouldn't you say it is also impossible for a plane that flew SoC to not cause damage to the foundation and not leave more debris, etc.? NoC (though it has been proven) does not by itself prove no impact.

Just because the north side plane could not have caused all the observed damage, that does not mean a north side plane did not impact the building. I'm not trying to argue that a plane flew NoC and impacted. I'm objecting to CIT's claim that NoC by itself proves no plane impacted.

The NoC witnesses prove the plane did not fly SoC as the OGCT says. The lack of foundation damage, lack of debris, (apparently) never-riveted debris, etc. is what strongly questions a 757 (or whatever) impact.

But the leading manner in which the question was posed was not necessary.

source

Also, you use this quote (or similar) in CIT's McGraw video:

source

Now here are some questions: Did CIT confirm that the quotes attributed to Mark Faram (and used in the video) where actually what Mark Faram said?

And perhaps more importantly: Did CIT confirm with Mark Faram that when Mark said, "He" (in the above quote), he was actually refering to Steven McGraw and not someone else?

Can you provide the quote where Biscuit Cough called you liars?

So you'll turn down a debate? Wow. Very interesting. :rolleyes:

Who's questioning or attempting to refute the north side evidence here?

But did you confirm all sources and make sure they were really "contradictions" and "questionable details," or was CIT basically attempting "to find dirt on" McGraw?

No, the plane was supposed to have flown SoC and slammed into the first floor, essentially skidding on it's belly, breaking apart as it alledly continues through to the C-Ring. NoC by itself does prove no impact. But there are of course other piece of supporting evidence that proves no impact.

Well perhaps you are forgetting that an NoC plane would be in a descent angle over the poles that weren't hit. That is a height of 40+ ft altitude over the highway. It would have HAD TO descended into the first floor. This would have compromised the spools in front of the impact. This could NOT explain the damage to the generator and fence. Not only that but the plane would essentially slam into the ground, as Lagasse deduced from the descent he saw, he believed the plane "hit the building where it met the ground". But Lagasse didn't see and you are forgetting the "pull up" Robert saw and describes. Again, this makes it unlikely to hit the first floor. Plus, how would you explain the gate cam surveillance video of a plane low and level?

Well we agree and disagree.

Right and then some.

It was not leading it was confirming or clarifying. He had already said it. I confirmed whether or not that was accurate.

And what if the witness had already made the statement to another reporter and that answer was reported as what the witness said he did? Would that be confirming/clarifying or leading?

Confirming/clarifying. Period.

We attempted to. He was unreachable. However, he saw McGraw cross the guardrail with his bible and stole and was there 10 minutes after.

No. He was referring to McGraw. In fact, McGraw asked us if we spoke with Mark Faram. So apparently the two know each other.

You see, Stinky. In a military deception of this magnitude there are going to be liars, assets, operatives. There will be suspects. We are like police detectives. We formulate a case and pinpoint suspects. Suspects mean they are suspect. Their claims are suspicious or dubious. In McGraw's case, he has ties to Opus Dei as we highlighted in the movie. He claims he saw the impact or "saw the plane enter the building". He seemingly tries to describe a SoC impact angle, but is not in an alleged position to see NoC or SoC. He describes a plane coming in for a landing. His initial 9/11 story in the Catholic Herald makes him out to be an innocent, lost priest that didn't even know he was next to the Pentagon, as he'd confirmed in our movie. However, when people read up on his background (not covered in his 9/11 piece) it was discovered that not only was he Opus Dei affiliated but he was a former DoJ attorney for 5 years and yet didn't realize he was next to the Pentagon. At that point, his story sounds more like a human interest laced propaganda piece rather than a genuine account, especially considering the NoC flight path. Plus his actions seem suspicious, if you were already late for a funeral as a priest, would you have not gone in order to preside over the hurt and dying? Especially considering the Pentagon has its own chapel and ANC burials still continued on that day.

Again, I did not lead him, I wanted this original detail confirmed. And you have to have suspects in a crime/investigation of this nature.

Aw come on Stinky. Didn't you read what he wrote? What is there to debate? We, mainly I, make the offers all the time for recorded phone discussions that involve them conceding, but no one is game. Typing on this board and others is very time consuming. Especially with dum dums like that. We don't have to debate. We won. There is nothing to debate. At this point, they need some witnesses on camera on location pointing to the south side. It won't happen.

See the above, Stink.

Is this your assumption? Or do you have a source?

Go ahead and call it an assumption that it would take those with access to the resources of the U.S. military to stage a complex attack within the Pentagon.

:rolleyes:

You called it a "military deception", yet your only evidence for military involvement is your own assumption that this attack would necessitate their involvement. That's an argument from personal belief, but it's not evidence.

Ok dude.

If you are willing to accept that explosives could have been planted throughout the building, that data from NTSB and 84 RADES could have been fabricated, security video altered, that dozens of operatives/assets deliberately lied, DNA evidence manipulated, and that a massive propaganda campaign was initiated all without involvement of anyone with control of the military feel free but these things are what the EVIDENCE we provide proves.

None of your evidence implicates the military. You said it yourself....military involvement was your assumption. All your evidence "proves" is that you believe that whatever happened was impossible without the involvement of the military...and your personal beliefs are not evidence.

Fine.

Whatever man.

I really don't care about your semantic circles.

It does not change the fact that the evidence we provide proves 9/11 was an inside job.

You can refuse to accept the notion that this implicates military involvement but we don't agree.

If you don't have direct evidence of military involvement, why do you claim that they were involved? (You're entitled to believe that, but your beliefs are not proof....nor are they evidence)

This is not semantics, it's simple logic. As you said, it doesn't change any of the other evidence you provide, it's just a matter of being intellectually honest.

What's your contention here, thechef?

Are you arguing that even if the poles were staged and the plane flew NOC timed perfectly with an explosives pre-planted inside the Pentagon this does not prove the involvement of criminal elements within the military (beyond a reasonable doubt)? That this could be successfully accomplished exclusively by individuals who are not part of the military?

CIT claims that this was a "military deception", yet the only "evidence" they present of military involvement is their assumption that the military must have been involved.

None of that proves military involvement...certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am not the one arguing that all of these things took place. Assuming that they did for the sake of argument, there's no evidence suggesting that it could only be accomplished by the US military.

Wow. This topic has gone WAYYYY off course. Anyway, here's the latest version of the table:


bc

We reject any and all classifications that you choose to fabricate.

Please do not speak for us.

You are not welcome in this forum because you pose as a supporter of NoC while refusing the implications by dedicating all of your posts to splitting hairs against CIT.

Goodbye.