|· Portal||Help Search Members Calendar|
|Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )||Resend Validation Email|
|Pages: (2)  2 ( Go to first unread post )|
Posted: May 29 2011, 01:49 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
I'm going to break this into separate posts so that each individual named on Adam Larson's "SOC" blog can be linked to whenever it's linked to "en bloque" as if it's in response to anything remotely resembling a "counterargument" to the NOC evidence. It's a favourite of Michael de Boer (aka SnowCrash) and Erik Larson (aka Loose Nuke at 911Blogger).
The individual witnesses named in Larson's blog are listed below for easier access (but I recommend reading this first post which outlines why Larson's blog is a "non-runner" before we even get to the witness testimony):
1. Albert Hemphill
2. Terry Morin
3. Madelyn Zakhem
4. Ed Paik
5. Keith Wheelhouse
6. Alan Wallace
8. Stephen McGraw
9. Penny Elgas
10. Maria de la Cerda
11. Steve Riskus
12. Wanda Ramey
13. Lloyd England
14. Levi Stephens
15. Roosevelt Roberts Jnr
16. NEIT 405
17. George Aman
First a general breakdown of the debunked and illogical garbage this guy has left festering on the net for both the ignorant/lazy and/or the deceitful to spam.
First off, the image which he claims represents the "SOC path", is his own invention, which he has "tweaked" to have the aircraft "nearer parallel with Columbia Pike and the edge of the Navy Annex". Why? To fudge witness statements in his "piece" with his interpretation of what they were describing.
Official FDR data/directional damage path
His assertion that the directional damage path "had to be nearly straight" is correct and indeed is acknowledged by all parties, even Warren Stutt and his alleged "extra 4 seconds" that detractors now cling to. He recently penned a paper with another Pentagon disinformationist, Frank Legge.
Even HE presented this image on said trajectory based on his data decode:
Duration of right bank data
Positive values seen depict a right roll in his own decode:
There are NO negative values in these last 7 seconds.
This path is not open to the 'margin of error' argument given ALL of these points.
1) No approach parallel to the Navy Annex or "straight down" Columbia Pike is to be found in ANY data (FDR or RADES). Nor is it witness compatible.
2) According to Warren Stutt's heading/course data, which both government loyalists and alleged truthers are 100% behind and promote, throughout this entire stretch from before the Sheraton to Route 27 there is between 0.3º to 1.4º change in course.
3) Warren Stutt's data regarding the roll angle shows the aircraft at point 151363
in a 5.6º RIGHT roll, increasing to 6.3º and steadily decreasing to 2.8º at Route 27. NO LEFT ROLL recorded.
More details to be found
The "slight left curve....left low, right high" is neither contained within any data, including Stutt's "bank data", nor is it witness compatible, many witnesses in fact describing a right bank after passing the Navy Annex.
He has dishonestly spliced the image where his "SOC path" where the aircraft allegedly crossed the first ringroad before reaching the poles and rotates the "pole path" image so that they "line up" (and he even failed at this). Look particularly at the section of Columbia Pike that runs under Route 27:
FDR/directional damage path vs Larson path:
He has the "SOC path" deceptively running as close to the Navy Annex as he can and his dishonest splice of the upper and lower parts of the image convey an almost straight line.
On the other hand, he has his own interpretation of the NOC path, making the bank angles as extreme as possible from Ed Paik's shop, ignoring Terry Morin and focusing on William Middleton's path.
These are the paths drawn by the witnesses themselves:
These paths were described and drawn by the witnesses themselves. Not CIT. Of course there was only one path but we are dealing with various witnesses at various points. They can hardly be used to derive specific math from.
On the other hand, the officially released FDR data from the NTSB under FOIA does raise specific problems for the "impact" scenario.
Even Warren Stutt's "data" didn't add up to "impact".
The "aerodynamically impossible" claim has been refuted by Pilotsfor911Truth.
NOC aerodynamically possible:
Detractor "counterarguments" addressed here:
Stifling hypocrisy, especially in a blog entitled "THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED" pushing what he called "SOC witnesses" which will soon be exposed as the "deliberately dishonest" piece that it is based on ambiguity and false information.
The "trivial details" that Larson offhandedly dismisses weren't so trivial to the ANC workers who thought the aircraft was coming straight for them and all describe the aircraft as banking partially over their carpark.
Northside Flyover Part 1
Or the three witnesses at the Citgo Gas station watching from different perspectives who corraborate eachother.
One of which William Lagasse couldn't have physically seen the official path from his POV.
More interviews here:
National Security Alert
In fact these trivial details" clearly had an effect on Adam larson in his desperation to dismiss these testimonies which still grow to this day by blatantly labelling them "liars" and a possible "COINTEL operation"!
No, they can't.
This is a weak argument that detractors such as Michel de Boer aka SnowCrash (Larson is his idol!) have begun to use.
That people claim to have witnessed an "impact" does not automatically delineate the flightpath in the final seconds as we will see.
Posted: May 29 2011, 02:41 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
Again with the totally fabricated approach as shown earlier in the post.
Larson was quoting an online e-mail of Hemphill's in 2001.
CIT has since contacted Albert Hemphill
Hemphill's confirmed location
KP50 opened an excellent thread on this here
Frank Legge aka "Gravity32" entered the fray and made some bizarre, illogical and contradictory statements (I wouldn't expect anything less of Frank).
Jeffrey Hill (aka Shure) and his actions (as well as that of members of his forum) speak volumes. He rang Albert Hemphill "coincidentally" not too long after Craig got in touch with him.
As he has been doing for some time now, poisoning the well against CIT's investigation, he lied, lead and sabotaged any further contact with this witness.
Hill told him him that Craig recorded it, and that he was also posting it "all over the internet" just to piss Hemphill off.
Hill publishing his interview at Pilotsfor911Truth
Check the dates and times.
Craig posts the interview 4 hours after Hill
And of course Hill recorded and published the second call even though Hemphill was pissed off he recorded and published the first one
To add insult to injury, this image was sent to Hemphill by Hill, at the request of another Pentagon disinformationist, Yougenedebs.
The reason I "sidetracked" there was because Hemphill was lead to "change" his story but still insists that the aircraft was over the Citgo Gas Station!
At what point exactly would the aircraft have "seemed" to have flown over the Gas Station given his line of sight???
You can even see that the guy is struggling and trying to overlap the NOC path with the "official path". And he can't.
He clearly places the aircraft NOC.
Posted: May 29 2011, 06:15 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
Start believing Adam...
Larson even tries to twist the online account quoted above.."he must mean"...and where does Morin's "essentially right over the top of me" description fit with the "flightpath" Larson invented?
Both descriptions were further reinforced during Craig Ranke's conversation with him in the video linked to above. More on that later.
Again he uses this manipulated image which doesn't line up with the directional damage.
This "parallel to the Navy Annex" flightpath that detractors have been insinuating for years and the necessary aerodynamic manouevre to line up with the directional damage through the lightpoles to "C Ring" is not an argument that detractors can wave away by claiming "margin of error" in the FDR data or decry the "reliability of witness testimony". It is an argument based purely on aerodynamics and physics as per the directional damage itself.
Rob Balsamo at Pilotsfor911Truth took on this much repeated assertion at his forum when confronted with by another detractor, Achimspok.
The aerodynamics and manouevres involved, which Achimspok agreed with, were two severe banks of between 50 and 72º (depending on speed - although the official speed was the upper 540-560mph). The images themselves tell the story:
The physics of the directional damage itself, although the latter image is self-explanatory, is detailed here (linked to earlier in the post but worth looking at again..
Again, his "path" is his own creation.
And how did his interpretation of Morin's online account stand against Morin's description, straight from the horse's mouth?
On Larson's assertion regarding what Morin "meant" by "trees to the NorthEast"
Air Force Memorial
Morin's testimony has always been twisted and his conversation with Craig has always been ignored. A conversation that cut through the ambiguity that the likes of Larson thrive on.
A good example of this can be seen here:
To examine the claim that Morin could not see the NOC flightpath from a position that detractors have placed him, just outside the Annex wings, you have to look at his entire testimony.
1. He refutes the FDR/official speed which would have taken the aircraft just over 2 seconds to reach the Pentagon facade. An observation backed up by his "friend" Albert Hemphill in his conversation with Craig Ranke.
2. In his conversation with Craig Ranke he expands on the speed.
He is obviously claiming that he came down or stepped out more towards Columbia Pike to watch the aircraft descend, which he would have had to given his stated POV.
Larson et al have no problem in believing his online account that the "flash" he described was a lightpole, that he witnessed an "impact" (he described seeing the fireball).
Jason Ingersoll, a navy photographer, claimed to take the following shot within minutes of the explosion from roughly the same POV/line of sight as Morin. He had no view from here.
Even the cars parked in the Navy Annex carpark (seen in the first image) would have blocked his view.
Poster "Mr BoJangles" posted a very relevant image regarding the "parallel to Navy Annex line of sight".
Detractors always place Morin just outside the wings of the Annex. From what position could he possibly have seen what he described in the final seconds before the fireball? The flash that he assumed was a lightpole being struck?
3. The "Northeast" comment regarding the trees that run along Columbia Pike in front of the Navy Annex:
4. Larson has the aircraft executing a subtly disguised left bank which math shows, needs to be in the 72º area. Again, nowhere to be found in any "data", totally contradicted by the new darling of detractors of all ilks, Warren Stutt, it isn't corroborated by anybody AND doesn't line up with the directional damage.
Not only that but the only manouvre Morin described was a "slight tilt to the right" after it had passed the trees.
No matter how Morin's testimony is "interpretted", he places the aircraft over the Navy Annex. Even the North of Columbia Pike description is fatal to the FDR data and even more so, the directional damage path. There were more than enough witnesses in a far better position to tell what path the aircraft took after it had passed over the Annex.
Morin can in no way be described as an "SOC witness" by any stretch.
Posted: May 30 2011, 04:44 AM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
1. The directional damage path aka "SOC path" is not what Larson or Zakhem describe as pointed out earlier.
2. The "official bank to the left" is a figment of Larson's imagination.
It's neither contained in the official NTSB FDR animation for "Flight 77" nor is it contained in the much touted highly dubious Warren Stutt "extra seconds data"
positive values represent "right bank", negative values "left bank" (Stutt's data)
3. The "path" before reaching Zakhem as pointed out by CIT due to corroborated witness reports that place the aircraft on a completely different trajectory.
He also ignores Ed Paik and more importantly Terry Morin.
4. He ignores the FDR course/heading data before the aircraft arrived in this area to decrease the bank angles necessary to push his "straight down Columbia Pike" trajectory.
5. Coincidentally (?) enough, he has partially used Stutt's original plotted "path" which does not pass through the directional damage, nor where any banks/manouevres are recorded to do so.
It is also witness incompatible.
Note: Stutt and Legge have since bastardized the data to "fit" the aircraft onto the directional damage path. Stutt's intellectual dishonesty and Frank Legge's methods have been fully exposed by Pilotsfor911Truth.
Look at Larson's path again, incorporating this "left bank" he keeps harping on about, when nobody described such a thing.
Do you see the mentality of this guy?
6. Larson's depiction of the aircraft's arrival which he claims is based on Madelyn Zakhem's testimony isn't even backed up by the witness herself!
Aldo Marquis asked her from which direction the aircraft appeared to come from. She claimed that it seemed to come from the I 395 direction (3)
7. Ms Zakhem refused to be recorded or to draw a flightpath and Russell Pickering interpretted her description of the aircraft as seeing the "right wing" above her POV.
In an e-mail exchange between Russell Pickering and Ms Zakhem:
8. Given all of the information on her testimony, how does Larson's path resemble in any way whatsoever what she described?
9. Here was her POV around 9/11 (note: it was not at the "white house" as some detractors claim)
In the fraction of a second that she would have allegedly seen the aircraft (for obvious reasons), notwithstanding the fact that Larson's "path" has nothing to do with what she described, does he know what the margin of error is between her stated POV and the Navy Annex complex?
170 ft...and an aircraft allegedly with a wingspan of 124ft.
That a plane with an alleged 124 ft wingspan was "in no way" over/going over the Annex, even though he insists that the plane was executing a left bank in her minimal view from here?
She is NOT a definitive SOC witness in any way shape or form. There is only one directional damage path.
10. Witness testimony can be prone to error (unless it's multicorroborated), but she claimed that it was at "rooftop" height when it was allegedly at an altitude closer to the height of the Sheraton Hotel (over 200ft) according to Stutt's "data", 3 times that according to the NTSB official FDR data.
The same media source even claimed that the aircraft did this "after barely missing the Sheraton Hotel".
11. Pentagon troll Achimspok entered the fray and was literally owned by Rob Balsamo as regards the math and aerodynamics (bank angles) involved for Ms Zakhem's labelling as an "SOC witness" to hold any water. He actually agreed that over 70º of bank was necessary to line up with the directional damage through the lightpoles:
12. Last but not least, the overwhelming witness testimony regarding the aircraft flying over the Navy Annex can't be ignored:
She (and Larson) are contradicted at every turn.
Posted: May 30 2011, 01:06 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
Larson knows that Ed Paik is NOC.
CIT interview here:
Here are the paths he drew.
Alfred Hitchcock eat yer heart out.
Paik made the assumption that the aircraft struck the antenna. Larson doesn't quote what was actually said by Pickering.
John Farmer aka BCR recently tried to push this debunked "theory" at JREF. Not even the minions backed his claims.
I don't like linking to the swamp but it's another good example of the lies and disinfo these people brazenly post.
Craig Ranke discussed the antenna issue with Larson at their forum (worth a read)
Now, the above was posted in March of 2008, the blog in August of the same year. So he knows that the "antenna issue" is pure bs.
From the above link:
Russell Pickering was hell bent (as was Larson) on proving an "SOC path" at whatever cost.:
Here's an image of the VDOT tower on 9/11 after the attack:
Back to the blog..
Again with the "left bank"..
No matter how many times he repeats his "straight down Columbia Pike path", it isn't backed up by data in any form whatsoever nor is it even slightly viable aerodynamically to line up with the directional damage, nor witness compatible.
Eric Larson, moderator/Pentagon disinformationist at 911Blogger went to Arlington to interview Paik, the whole outcome of which proved disastrous in that Paik reasserted his story and he was shown to be in cahootss with members of the JREF forum.
From the interview:
and answered by CIT here:
Rob Balsamo used 3D imaging, math and the actual official path that these people always dance around to totally debunk anything other than an "SOC path"
The "SOC aircraft" would have been in plain sight at a higher altitude:
Larson (Adam) and his depiction of Paik's supposed "left tilt" body language is ridiculous. Paik told Pickering and CIT that he could only see the right wing:
and repeated this to Craig Ranke.
Look at the still Larson captured at 03:14 in the above video and you'll see how he (and his JREF cohorts still to this day) twisted the image. He had actually been pointing to where he was and then described seeing "a big black wing". The right wing. Unreal.
JREF and 911Myths use the same dishonest tactics with another gif from the same video and claim that he's pointing down Columbia Pike:
At 03:25 in this video
At 03:45 he makes the same gesture, again talking about the aircraft almost hitting his roof and then in the very next sentence points without looking behind him.
At 03:52 the gif is captured. Both before and after he repeats that the aircraft almost hit his roof.
The gif used at jref and 911myths is a pure manipulation of footage that has NOTHING to do with the direction of the plane.
Are you getting an idea of how these guys operate?
Posted: May 31 2011, 07:30 AM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
A bit of background on CIT's interaction with Keith Wheelhouse can be found here:
Interview contained here:
There is no "CIT path". They are paths drawn and described by witnesses.
CIT had been trying to set up an interview with Keith Wheelhouse regarding his testimony. When CIT eventually caught up with him he drew the exact official paths not only for the attack plane but for the C130. "To a 'T'". That was the problem!
1. The problem with this image and his insistence that the C130 was "shadowing" it is that the C130 didn't arrive until almost 3 minutes after the attack plane.
2. That the witnesses in the immediate area, not too far from his alleged POV all describe the C130 as arriving from the NorthWest.
As did the pilot of the C130 himself
The ANC witnesses who were in the same vicinity (but with a much better view)
Wheelhouse, as with the official RADES data, has the C 130 banking away to where the ANC witnesses (among others) have it arriving!
RADES and Wheehouse vs witnesses and the C130 pilot
Kudos to the CIT team for this video I put together using this extensive forum:
3. The videos (and pilot) shows that the aircraft was at a much higher altitude (almost 3000ft) and would have been over Wheelhouse's head!
Even Adam Larson agrees with this!
although the source has qualified this placement of the C130 with waffle (pure Larson)
The C130 pilot is quoted as saying
Taken from an e-mail exchange with Rob Balsamo of Pilotsfor911Truth, O'Brien made the following statement:
4. The official (and publically available) paths as per RADES for both aircraft, are strikingly similar to the "paths" Wheelhouse drew but with one very important exception (Keith). The official "impact time" as per the NTSB was 09:37:46. Where was the C 130 according to this "data"?
Official proven fake C130 RADES data in blue (note the timeframes when the C130 was allegedly banking over wheelhouse at about 09:39:23AM):
5. He claims to have seen both aircraft for "about 60 seconds"..work it out.
6. Keith Wheelhouse was in no position to see the flightpath and tell whether it was NOC or SOC (if he could see it at all)
CIT filmed his POV according to his repeated assertion that he was "2/3rds up" the cemetery.
He sent CIT images:
Even the vantage point from where the guys in the above image are looking has no view of the "impact zone"
The rest of Larson's spin needs no answering. The facts are there. Wheelhouse's account is not corroborated by anyone (in fact he is contradicted at every turn) and he was in no position to physically see any flightpath apart from flightpaths he saw online. End of story.
His story has been used by Larson, John Farmer, Chris Sarns and entities such as "AlreadyPublished" and "Vert" at other forums to spout disinfo about a "second plane" which they've intermingled with the NOC witness testimony and which falls apart at the first hurdle. On the one hand they point to the Pentagon OCT and on the other mutter this "second plane" nonsense to muddy the waters. Never elaborating on the reasoning or purpose in such an op.
Whatever Wheelhouse's intentions, video, witness and physical evidence throw his testimony under the bus. Full stop.
William Lagasse got his original position off by 20ft and he was accused of being a "liar" by Larson, yet he points to this guy's testimony as proof of anything given all of the above?
Posted: May 31 2011, 01:44 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
The description of a large commercial aircraft is repeated throughout many testimonies is not in dispute. Whether it was "AA" is another matter. No records to date have been released identifying the aircraft as "Flight 77".
No serial number is "available" to identify the FDR as coming from "Flight 77".
Even the alleged recovery of the "FDR" is highly contradictory:
The validity of the data has been torn to shreds
Is Larson is going to use Alan Wallace's exact words on the approach he witnessed down to the exact degree, yet hypocritically dismiss an entire body of witnesses on a simple "left or right" question?
A witness who is on record as having seen the aircraft when it was allegedly "200 yards" away and immediately ran for cover?
Similarly with heading?
Yes. He is..(continuing Larson's blog)
What Larson ommitted from the luckily archived statement from Alan Wallace was this:
Jeffrey ("Shure") Hill phoned Alan Wallace when he first started phoning the Pentagon witnesses. He had tried in vain to find an "SOC witness" and actually, unintentionally revealed more NOC witnesses. Failing that, he asked purely about the alleged impact, lied to some, lead many and effectively poisoned the well against any further investigation by CIT by naming Craig Ranke in person and presenting himself as not "believing" the "conspiracy theorists" so as to frame the interview - this coming from a guy who lead a nasty little NPT campaign for years. In some cases totally making false claims about what they had said in labelling almost all of them "impact witnesses".
More here (take the time to read through the section on Jeff Hill if you really want to see what's going on):
On this occasion he actually asked about the trajectory of the aircraft.
Then we get a more reliable lineation when Wallace mentioned "landmarks".
"put the other e-- uh, and put part of the straight edge back, back to the southeast, southwest, or, or, west, and put it, just to the north of the overpass, that is the path of the airplane. "
Southwest is in the direction of the lightpoles, west is the direction of the Navy Annex (NOC).
There are two signs on Route 27 that could fit that description.
1. Larson's image shows the more extreme NOC path described by one witness. William Middleton, while completely ignoring other variables such as Turcios.
2. Larson again tries to funnel in his "Columbia Pike" SOC fantasy that will not add up to a path through the directional damage, by implying that Wallace's "45º" to the facade description would somehow mean in relation to magnetic north..
This is absurd.
When we see his POV from an aeriel perspective with the facade rotated, we can see that the directional damage path and NOC path are both off at an angle.
Wallace claimed to be to the left (facing us) of the burned out Titan firetruck in the following image:
An aeriel view (rotated) to give some perspective on the line of sight from the heliport.
NOTE: The Pentagon facade, and particularly Alan Wallace's POV face on to Arlington Cemetery. Not the Navy Annex.
The view from Route 27 directly in front of heliport
The angle of view for both the official and estimated entry point on to Route 27
The above isn't intended to prove anything one way or the other but to give an idea of the margin of discrepancy in the two entry points and how accurate a witness would be given that he caught a glimpse of the aircraft and immediately ran away for his life.
3. The "60º" path was described to him by the FBI. They were the ones who showed him the directional damage path during a "debriefing" that several witnesses went through for a number of days shortly after the event. This is crucial as to the independence of his testimony. Whatever he saw, his memory of events, brief as they were, would be open to suggestion when told the "official" story. Repeatedly.
The FBI also told him that the aircraft "struck" the back left tyre of the firetruck at the heliport. Which is impossible. And which Alan Wallace himself queried.
4. Sean Boger was to his immediate right in the helipad looking out from a raised perspective and for a relatively longer period of time. He claims to have seen the aircraft from it arrived over the Annex and places it to his right hand side for the entire duration.
5. Wallace states categorically that he saw the aircraft for "half a second" and that he and his workmate immediately ran and dove for cover.
6. Larson knows that corraboration is key. As with any other alleged "SOC witness" that he has presented in this blog (and anywhere else), he and others cling to ambiguous details which on closer inspection don't stand up to scrutiny. How can he put this guy, who seems to be a very affable, genuine person (listening to his conversation with Hill) who saw the aircraft for a split second be used to counter all of these people (and then some)?
Here's an idea of the alleged speed (580mph, according to Legge/Stutt) minus 80 over a distance of 750 ft. Pretty close to what Mr Wallace described in distance and the official speed.
Posted: Jun 1 2011, 06:28 AM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
I can't read through one sentence of Larson's work without having to correct him..
No they did not have a view of "most of the path from at least the Navy Annex and forward."
Here is her apartment in relation to Citgo and the Pentagon:
This is the "panoramic view" taken by CIT from their apartment.
Here is the view from the apartment window to the facade of the Pentagon.
The shadowed areas represent where the aircraft would have been completely out of their view:
Back to the blog..
Poster "Plan 271" (who was believed to have been the husband of Dawn Vignola) can be seen here:
Dawn Vignola's television interview can be heard here, with Timmerman in the background telling her what to say based on what he claims to have seen:
Remember the actual view from the apartment, then click on the "path" linked to above.
Again with the "left turn", which is nowhere to be found in the official data. This alone is fatal to the entire blog.
How could any path in relation to the ground have been drawn from their perspective when for example, the "I-395" motorway cannot even be seen? The Citgo gas station? The lightpoles? Route 27?
Which part of the
"path" should be disregarded? Why has the path been moved much further away from the Navy Annex than described in Timmerman's original testimony?
There were many more witnesses in a far better position to see he trajectory over the Navy Annex quoted near the end of this post:
It is impossible for them to see the aircraft "reappear" just by looking at the view they had of the Pentagon lawn.
Did they actually see the aircraft "reappear"? Or did they turn when they saw the fireball? How would they have known to watch that specific area at a much lower elevation having allegedly watched it a few hundred feet AGL? At the exact moment?
Remember the reality check for Adam Larson aka "Pentagonrealitycheck"..
Either way, they in no way can be labelled "SOC witnesses" when they couldn't see the path in question!
Loose Nuke aka Eric Larson made surreal accusations regarding Timmerman/Vignola and showed a slightly different angle from their apartment which made no difference whatsoever to the fact that they couldn't physically see the Pentagon basin.
He also dishonestly posted a zoomed in shot of the Pentagon facade from their apartment window.
CIT answered his longwinded waffle and baseless accusations here:
How could they be "SOC witnesses" when they couldn't see the aircraft in the crucial decisive moments?
Even Timmerman states this uncategorically:
That's an understatement
Timmerman claims to have been on the "16th floor" watching the aircraft around the Sheraton/Navy Annex area. The Pentagon basin slopes downward very sharply. At the official speed, the aircraft would have reached the facade in 2.5 seconds.
From he saw the aircraft until after it had disappeared, did they both shuffle along window and stare fixedly at the alleged "impact point" to catch it for the fraction of a second that it would have been in view to Timmerman (and Vignola)? Or did he see the fireball after the fact?
Either way, they couldn't see the path. At all.
The theme of this blog is blatant lies, glaring contradictions, waffle and using witnesses who had partial questionable views, usually from distance, or no view at all!
Posted: Jun 2 2011, 01:15 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
1. First off, nowhere, but nowhere, does McGraw describe the aircraft as "descending ahead of him".
Let's look at Larson's image of where he claims McGraw claimed to be. And where exactly McGraw gave the impression that the aircraft was "descending ahead of him".
He has McGraw in the lane closest to the Pentagon Lawn even though this is completely and repeatedly shown not to be the case.
During Aldo Marquis' interview he again repeated that he was in the "left lane" but also said that he was "in standstill traffic...right in front of the lawn there.."
Is McGraw referring to the patch of grass between the ringroads leading in and out of South Parking or the Pentagon Lawn as claimed by Larson in his image?
We'll find out later.
Back to the blog...
2. Larson gives the impression that McGraw was directly under the directional damage path while ignoring key parts of his testimony.
Larson's central theme, which he has built his spin around is that the "pole" which allegedly damaged Lloyd England's cab was the same one McGraw mentioned to Aldo Marquis and so places him "a few feet away from my car".
Is he talking about this pole?
If McGraw was "a few feet away" from Lloyd's cab, why didn't he describe this scenario?
The cab was allegedly sitting on the road for 8-9 minutes like this as per Lloyd's description of the second fireball going off as he and his "silent friend/stranger" removed it.
McGraw claimed to Aldo Marquis:
So no, he wasn't describing "Lloyd's pole". The top piece of "Lloyd's pole" was neatly aligned a few feet away from the large piece.
The "few feet away" description is taken out of context too when you look at the actual distance from Larson's placement of McGraw to the bizarre Lloyd scenario (400ft in fact).
Images and video show that McGraw was in and around the northern area of the lawn right up to one of the many evacuations from 10:15am on (10:25am in his case along with a group apparently helping the injured beyond the two trees in front of the lawn)
Don't forget the two lane barriers between northbound and the HOV lanes shown in the above image.
I only wish I knew which version of the "official story" Larson is sticking to.
Reeking hypocrisy from the same guy who claims that the NOC witnesses are "cointel"!
3. Given McGraw's description of the "top piece of the lightpole" that he claimed to see afterwards and his belief that only the "top piece" was "actually knocked off", how does Larson's placement of him on the road jive with the fact that 3 of the alleged 5 lightpoles on the directional damage path were in full view of him? Even if he was slightly further up, he would still have two of them in sight.
If the claim is that he may have "missed" them being "struck", how about when he got out of his car to "administer last rites" on the Pentagon Lawn? He could hardly have missed them could he?
Look at poles 3 and 4 in this composite (both to the immediate right of Larson's placement of McGraw):
Lightpole 5 seen in Larson's image (closest to lawn):
4. In his interview with Aldo Marquis, he repeatedly reinforces his alleged position on the road.
"I ended up right in front of the Pentagon"
"I was right in front of the lawn there...with the Pentagon on my right"
He does not mention crossing one or two lanes of traffic, THEN a traffic island THEN another (exit) lane. It's obvious from his testimony to any logical person.
He didn´t see lightpoles 3, 4 or 5 either being knocked down OR on the ground as he allegedly made his way onto the lawn? He HAD to be further up the road according to his description. No question.
No way is he describing the POV where Larson places him.
5. Why did Larson place him in the right hand lane?
We know that he was allegedly in the third of threes lanes of "heavy traffic" between his alleged POV and the Pentagon. He claimed not to see the approach and only allegedly knew of the plane as it went over his car.
Here's an idea of what Route 27 looked like that morning at least 10-15 minutes after the explosion (imagine the view from the driver seat):
I've yet to see Stephen McGraw describe the actual event of the aircraft allegedly penetrating the Pentagon facade. I mean, he repeatedly describes the flames "exploding out of the top windows" but (what would have been) the terrific, surreal sight of an aircraft smacking into a building? He even paused when asked by Aldo if he actually saw the alleged impact.
The alleged speed of the aircraft 540-580mph, or 1.2 - 1.3 seconds from lightpole 1 to the facade. Less than a second until the explosion, looking through two lanes of traffic, through his passenger window. He is on record as not seeing the approach at all and is describing an NOC POV "in front of the lawn". Stepping over the "guard-rail" (singular) on to THE lawn (seen running along the edge of the lawn in the following image).
Definitely not a "documented SOC witness" Larson.
By the way. 750ft @ 500mph - reality check (I'll keep linking to this until it sinks in)..
Larson has intentionally twisted McGraw's testimony. His placement is wrong. If anything McGraw is describing the NOC entry point onto Route 27.
Again, McGraw didn't see any poles being "struck". He is on record as saying that he didn't even see the approach at all, which alone should be enough to dismiss the validity of labelling him an "SOC witness"!
All we have is an account of somebody sitting in a car in heavy traffic (his own words), with two lanes between him and the lawn with an alleged less than one second window to witness a blur, an alleged 200ft diameter fireball and an explosion felt 3km away as per the official account.
Posted: Jun 3 2011, 07:28 AM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
Let's see Larson's interpretation of Ms Elgas' testimony in all of its glory:
Now let's see the path she was actually describing according to her own words.
1. "looked out my driver's side window"
How can she be looking out of her "driver side window", on a road that runs away from the aircraft's entry into that basin of land and see an aircraft on the directional damage path without being at full stretch looking back from Larson's alleged POV?
2. "coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.”
Larson completely ignored this description.
Columbia Pike does indeed run perpendicular (that link is for Larson, Hill and friends) to Route 27 and runs below the Route 27 overpass into South Parking, or through a ring road to bring you back onto it.
Hill's phonecall to Penny Elgas revealed just how close she claims to have seen the aircraft to the Citgo Station and reinforcing the Columbia Pike path that runs under the overpass:
At what point in her alleged line of sight from Larson's POV would the aircraft "appear" to be over Citgo and heading straight for her?
"SOC" is off to a bad start.
3. Again, he uses "another" SOC "path" that has been proven to require up to 72º of left bank (!) that is nowhere to be found on the "Flight 77" FDR or is compatible with what this witness describes. At all.
What is hypocritical is the staunch defense of the validity of the FDR and Warren Stutt's manipulated and unverified "extra data" yet detractors constantly ignore it (and aerodynamics) when discussing witness testimony. Here (again) is Larson's alleged "SOC path" manouevre required to line up with the directional damage through the lightpoles. Even if everybody somehow missed this, the aircraft would have missed the poles:
Back to the blog..
4. The majority of witnesses (not only those verified as NOC) described the aircraft as "levelling/straightening out", "powering up" or "wobbling", when it had passed the Citgo gas Station.
Larson exaggerates the "slightest turn in front of me" into an actual bank that somehow could have changed the direction of the aircraft within that short timeframe from the road to the Pentagon facade. This is nonsense.
Whatever apparent tilt of the wings the aircraft executed, it will not change course/direction. Especially at the alleged 540-580mph!
Again Elgas' description of what Larson calls a "bank" is disproved here:
5. And "passing low"?
Although in her online testimony:
Now I know witnesses can't be used to extrapolate exact distances, altitude, etc, but Penny Elgas certainly wasn't describing the aircraft as being as "low" as Larson is insinuating.
One thing I will say is that the aircraft, according to the alleged physical damage to the lightpoles had to be a maximum of 25-30ft AGL from lightpoles 1 and 2. At "4-5 cars in front" of her, that would appear to be nearly on top of her in the scheme of things.
Again with the "banking". She was describing a tilting motion in the wings. That's it.
How does he know that the aircraft wouldn't "lose parts" on the NOC trajectory? It was allegedly flying beyond a 757's limitations. We at least know that it wasn't on the trajectory through the lightpoles!
6. The "debris falling through the roof of her car" has been cleared up.
7. I've never seen explained just exactly how the "tail" of the aircraft could physically have been "ripped off" by a lightpole when there was a preceding 125ft wingspan...
And the debris? Apart from the fact that no "debris" has ever officially been identified as coming from "Flight 77".
A curious poster at the ATS forums allegedly sent an e-mail to the Smithsonian museum where this piece of debris is now kept to ascertain its identification.
This is the answer he allegedly received:
So it has never been identified as to which "plane part" it allegedly is, never mind coming from "Flight 77"
8. She was in a good position to witness at least one lightpole being "struck". She didn't.
She would have been in a very good position to see Lloyd from there, no? When the pole was allegedly protruding 30 ft through his window for 8-9 minutes?
She was in the HOV lane that runs closest to the lanes Lloyd was allegedly in.
Lloyd England's pole at least should have been clearly visible to Penny Elgas given the POV Larson has placed her and the fact that she claimed to have exited her car stuck in heavy traffic:
Particularly seeing as how she claimed to get out of her car and was there for a while after according to her account.
To sum up, was Larson actually serious given all of the above? The witness is driving on a road that faces away from the (official) path he is advocating.
Penny Elgas has always been on record as being an "impact witness" but he doesn't see the contradiction in the 540-580 mph official speed and the alleged full penetration through to C Ring in "0.8 seconds" and the detailed account Penny gave?
She is not an "SOC witness" no matter how it is twisted. Hill, Larson and whoever can spam the "she saw the impact with her own eyes" mantra, but her testimony regarding the trajectory and even the same "impact" testimony contradicts the
necessary flightpath through the lightpoles, generator and damage within the building right through to the C Ring "exit hole". She contradicts the gatecam and the alleged 0.8 second full "penetration".
These people believe that as long as the aircraft was allegedly seen to have "impacted", no matter which path it took, no matter how much the FDR/RADES data is torn apart, no matter how much the gatecam is contradicted nor how much the aircraft limitations and Hani Hanjur's "pilot skills" are off the radar, it doesn't matter. It's a "honey pot". Flies and shit seem more appropriate words.
Posted: Jun 3 2011, 03:00 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
Maria de la Cerda
The full NEIT interview can be read here:
Craig Ranke even acknowledged at the CIT forum that she was one of the "weaker witnesses" to the NOC flightpath.
The reason her account is "compelling" is because she thought the aircraft "struck on the other side" (later to also claim in a recorded interview that "it looked like it hit on top")
Of course it's very interesting given the "low, level impact scenario" and the view from her approximate location.
From the earlier link:
The phonecall to Maria de la Cerda starts at 24mins
in this video
Back to the blog..
Huh? "We can all agree to the south"? Why??
Any path that isn't on the directional damage path, especially north of citgo will not line up to impact!
Again, the paths were drawn by witnesses themselves and not one specific path that CIT are "promoting".
And the absurd claim that "tree cover" implied, no, make that asserts "lateral distance"? How?
Her whole testimony points towards the aircraft being closer to Arlington Cemetery. Her own words. What can in no way, shape or form be implied from her testimony is that she is an "SOC witness". More Larson spin and assertion based on nothing at all.
Again, why??? What logic was actually used here to ascertain where she saw the aircraft? More specifically on the "SOC path"? It makes sense only to Larson as he's keeping it to himself!
She obviously didn't know "where it hit" at the time because she goes on to say in her NEIT interview:
How could she know "where it hit" at that moment when she thought it "hit" the adjacent Pentagon facade to the south??
How could she have had "perspective error" in her "mind's eye"?
To sum up, what exactly makes her a "documented SOC witness"? Which part of her testimony points to the "SOC path" as per Larson's
image? Which part of the alleged official path is "closer to Arlington Cemetery"?
She may not be a strong NOC witness but she definitely takes nothing away from it with her Arlington Cemetery comments and asks questions of the alleged "low, level approach". It's a pity we can't gauge a reaction from her to the gatecam footage to see just how much cognitive dissonance had a hand in the "haziness" of her testimony in regards to whether she visually saw the aircraft or not as it "hit on top/the other side".
Posted: Jun 4 2011, 07:04 AM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
"Just not a numbers guy apparently, but definitely a south path witness."
I love Larson's "attention to detail" when he makes these soundbites up. The aircraft would actually have been at least 1300ft away on the "SOC path". Make that a 13 x factor "mis-estimation.
He and others claim the same sort of nonsense regarding every single confirmed and corraborated NOC witness. That an alleged 124ft wingspan aircraft was unanimously "mis-estimated" within a 5-600ft area between the NOC witnessed paths and the OCT "SOC path". That they "mis-estimated" when they pointed out which side of the gas station they all saw it on.
Of course witnesses aren't going to give exact distances, etc and corraboration is key but when Riskus says "100ft" we can tell that he's describing the aircraft as being relatively close to his POV, but 1300ft??
How does "mis-estimation" come into play regarding William Middleton when he couldn't have physically seen the "SOC path"?
Or Terry morin's description of the aircraft being directly over him, that he couldn't see "the stripes" of the aircraft when he should have had this view of the aircraft on the OCT path
Lagasse, who couldn't physically see the OCT "approach"?
They both "mis-estimated" in exactly the same way from different POVs?
Anyway, there have been further developments regarding Steve Riskus.
An Italian researcher (pentagonreports.blogspot.com) has contacted him and asked for more detail regarding what he allegedly saw that day.
In his communications with him asking where he was and where he saw the aircraft as it crossed Route 27.
The Italian researcher concluded:
Back to Larson..
Yes he repeated the clarification that he could not physically, nor did he witness lightpoles being "struck" to this Italian researcher.
It has to be noted that he couldn't physiclly see the poles on the ground as can be seen in the images he took.
He had to have seen them on television/on the internet after the event.
The Italian researcher further adds:
Riskus is definitely describing the NOC entry point on to Route 27. Full stop.
Posted: Jun 4 2011, 02:48 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
CIT phoned Wanda Ramey and said that she was the "best" witness to any lightpoles being "struck". (Lightpole singular but that she "isn't sure of anything any more")
1. This lady was around 900-1000ft away from the closest lightpole, lightpole 5 (the one on the Pentagon lawn itself)
Wanda Ramey was allegedly watching through the window ("out of the corner of my eye") in the checkpoint building partially seen behind the gatecam (marked "cam") in the following image:
A pretty good idea of the scale and official path/alleged gatecam footage (aeriel)
An idea of the distance and angle from her POV to lightpole 5:
2. In her original testimony, from within the security booth, through a window, she "turned to her left" and saw exactly what in the alleged 1.3 seconds from lightpole 1? Alleged 0.4 seconds from lightpole 5? All of the poles bar pole 3 were allegedly knocked to within a few feet (if that) from their alleged positions.
Here's the view at 900ft (from her stated POV to the closest lightpole, lightpole 5),
Note: The alleged POV is actually around a further 100ft further back.
and for example, from Citgo Gas Station to one of the overhead signs on Route 27 (just for an idea of the distance):
Or, for a more similar background to what Ms Ramey would have had:
The lightpole in question is within the area outlined (and it's not the one you can barely see. It's behind that)
...and at 80mph more than the alleged OCT speed?
Not a chance.
3. She also "explicitly says" that the aircraft appeared to "bounce up into the building".
Something's not right. Although this "bounce" is corroborated.
Sort of throws a spanner in the works for the OCT first floor penetration scenario.
She also "explicitly says" in her original testimony:
A "few seconds later"?
How does this correlate with the alleged 0.4 seconds to traverse the lawn according to the ASCE report and alleged 0.8 seconds to fully penetrate through to C Ring? And the 5 frames shown above? According to the OCT the event was a blur.
Immediate penetration and fireball.
Back to Larson
Pure Larson "logic". All of the witnesses that he has neatly placed in or around the official path, some a matter of feet away from the poles in question didn't see them or the 8-9minute "Lloyd spectacle", because of "closeness". Neither during and in most cases after getting out of their vehicles.
No, Larson, a "left tilt" doesn't "support the south path". It certainly isn't to be found in Warren Stutt's data, nor does it delineate where the approach came from. If he's referring to the left tilt as depicted by the ASCE report, this also raises serious problems for the OCT regarding lack of foundation damage.
How much does Larson actually believe that an aircraft will change course in direction within 2 seconds at the OCT speed??
4. The glaring hypocrisy is rank in Larson's insistence that Wanda Ramey could have physically seen a lightpole being "struck" given the distances shown earlier (a claim which she isn't sure about and possibly may have been deduced from the "tilt" she described - deduction being a trait that Larson himself acknowledged as a recurring theme as regards most alleged "lightpole witnesses" ), nor could she physically see the approach, yet offhandedly dismisses (and libels against) an entire pool of witnesses who corroborate eachother in far better POVs within relatively longer timeframes on the NOC flightpath they witnessed!
Posted: Jun 5 2011, 07:35 AM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
The problem with Larson's "take" on Lloyd England's story is that Lloyd himself completely denies that he was on the bridge in the first place and that he actually places himself more NOC than all of the NOC witnesses!
Look where Lloyd points to as being his position on the road when his cab was allegedly "speared":
Why? That's something detractors have never addressed.
Having said that, CIT went to interview Lloyd and it was they who pointed out to him the numerous images of his cab on the bridge, taken within minutes of the attack. He consistently denied this.
The interview really needs to be viewed in its entirity to appreciate the bizarreness of the whole situation but CIT were completely up front and honest with Lloyd. Repeatedly showing him images of his cab.
Even the latest phone call from Jeff Hill to Lloyd England raised the same problem that all detractors, including Larson, have come across with regards to this guy. He sticks to the same story. That he wasn't on the bridge.
Thing is, Hill actually thought he had a stick with which to beat CIT when in fact Lloyd was claiming to be NOC, that he didn't see the "impact" and that he thought a flyover was "possible"!
And the "distorted" pictures?
Hill refuses to respond to this obvious contradiction. I've repeatedly pushed him on this point every opportunity I get and he refuses to answer. Larson and others prefer to use the "senile old man" approach when Lloyd is anything but that. CIT were totally up front unlike their counterparts' insinuations and lies, never approaching the more logical conclusion that Lloyd became aware (or was informed) of the growing list of witnesses that put the aircraft nowhere near the required trajectory over the bridge, and like several other alleged witnesses, mingled the OCT with the NOC testimony. Lloyd had to completely deny not only the images but videos of his cab on the bridge.
He even snapped at his wife Shirley when she suggested that "they must have moved it there".
"No, they didn't."
Senile, my ass. Watch the video linked to above.
Back in 2005-6 Lloyd did an interview with NBC where he actually points to the bridge and describes what he claimed allegedly happened with his cab and the lightpole (@01:20mins)
Lloyd England on NBC
Cargado por Ashoka_lc. - Mira las noticias más recientes en video.
GoogleEarth image showing the same background where the bridge would have been clearly visible:
His cab was used in an official capacity at the Massaoui trial:
He claimed compensation from The Survivors Fund (link is now dead?)
Yet, when confronted with the knowledge that all the witnesses placed the aircraft NOC, it was Lloyd who began the denial and retractions, with the excuses for him ranging from senile to disinfo merchant "Vert" who went out of his way to announce that Lloyd was some sort of cryptic rogue "truther" and that every image and video had been "doctored".
Back to Larson...
It took me a while to take the bolded part in. And then some for the itallic writing.
Pure Larson. Pure NOC detractor "logic" in general.
Larson labelled Lloyd " the best light pole witness" yet...
1) He acknowledges the implausibility of the entire pole "spearing" his cab. A claim that Lloyd has stuck to from the beginning. Lloyd even drew a diagram.
Yes, this entire pole:
Lloyd described the pole as having entered his windscreen like this:
The physics of which I attempted to fathom here:
His hood is indeed untouched:
Nobody, but NOBODY saw this happen. In his original testimony, he claimed that a "silent stranger" helped him "remove the pole" and that they "dropped it" when a secondary explosion occurred (8-9 minutes after the initial explosion)..and nobody noticed this??
In the following (allegedly) live Pentagon news footage, it was announced that AP had released a newsflash regarding the evacuation of the White House at the beginning of this clip. AP released this flash at almost 09:44AM:
The fireball was captured at 01:17
According to the above the fireball occurred after 09:45AM
2) The "smaller piece" is not what he described.
The galling thing is that Larson has nitpicked and downright labelled certain witnesses "cointel" and "liars" because of their unambiguous placement of the aircraft (and the fact that some could not have physically seen what they described if the aircraft had been on the "SOC" flightpath!), yet claims that Lloyd's testimony should be accepted as is even though he consistently contradicts himself in the most blatant of fashion.
And the claim that because Larson rules out (rightly) that the long part of this pole had penetrated his windscreen, he makes the automatic assumption that it "must have been" the "smaller piece". Why does it have to be any piece of any "lightpole"?
If as Larson claims, Lloyd is basically exaggerating the event, why believe anything about a lightpole, whether the long or "short" piece? Why not assume that it was a piece of masonry from the Pentagon facade that was claimed to be littered over Route 27 from the explosion? Or any piece of debris? Or Lloyd himself?
If Larson claims that it was a smaller piece of pole, who logically did the alleged damage to the dash?
..or the passenger seat?
If Larson agrees that his account is false why believe any of it? Especially if he's prepared to go to extremes to uphold his unbelievable testimony, to the point where he damaged his own cab?
3) The actual physics of what is being suggested regarding the pole need to be looked at too.
Can anybody explain the physics of the damage to the pole in the above image??
Look at the bend compared to where it allegedly "snapped".
Now look at where it allegedly "snapped". It's an open "gash". Not a closed, "indentation" as would be expected after being allegedly struck by an object at 540mph.
It defies physics.
Apart from the fact that a massive pool of witnesses place the aircraft on a trajectory that makes the lightpole "damage" an impossibility, this was also the pole that allegedly "speared" Lloyd england's cab. Can anybody explain the "physics" in that scenario?
If lightpole 1 was struck by the right wing and was allegedly on a descent, how did it manage to "wing" it's way past its own fuselage, which would have been 50-60 feet over the road already before the wing "came into contact" with said pole?
The base of the aircraft would have been @25ft above the road according to the 35ft alleged "impact point" on the pole.
And how did the pole actually physically place itself in midair and perpendicularly fly through Lloyd's windscreen (as it had to without scratching the hood..or Lloyd)?
757dimensions (NB - on "runway" dimensions) :
The wingtips are 8ft above the base of the fuselage. ( M minus B )
Lloyd claimed that he was travelling at 40mph (then 50mph to Hill). Where was he when the pole allegedly speared his windscreen? His car is within feet of lightpole 1's original position.(image) Was there no "reaction time"? No panic? How long before he put his foot on the brake? How long before he stopped?
The argument that the aircraft was banking at this point doesn't stand according to the alleged "impact point" of lightpole 2 which apparently still has the bottom part of the truss arm (that holds the light), still connected. Based on this, it is just as long as, if not longer, than lightpole 1.
Lightpole 2 seen to the right of this image:
Oh and Lloyd insists he wasn't on that part of the road either.
Back to Larson..
What a load of old bull dressed up as "reason".
Lloyd is the one that brought the shitstorm to his own door.
From his impossible lightpole story and contradictions laid out above to insinuations from both himself and his wife Shirley about the FBI, that the FBI thought that Lloyd was "dead"...the list goes on.
To sum up. The lightpole scenario defies logic and physics.
Nobody witnessed this event.
The ever increasing number of NOC witnesses place the aircraft nowhere near the lightpoles.
Lloyd himself denies being anywhere near the bridge!
I myself lean towards the "coerced victim" or part of an operation, the scale of which he was unaware, but given that Lloyd is and has been used in an official capacity to uphold a flightpath that detractors have failed to find a single solid witness to, as seen in this mindnumbing blog, and that Lloyd is brazenly in denial solely on internet forums and out of the public eye (MSM), the guy's entire testimony must be viewed as being highly dubious if not a total fabrication.
Larson points to the alleged physical damage to Lloyd's car as "proof" of the OCT path, yet questions the "large piece" scenario. Lloyd denies being on the bridge. So what makes him an "SOC witness"???
Posted: Jun 5 2011, 12:42 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
It will become obvious why.
Watch this dance by Larson.
The "over the van" comment was a total fabrication by the MSM.
CIT contacted Levi Stephens and sent him an aeriel shot of the area. Discussed here.
I'll repeat this for Larson who is and was fully aware of this:
"The reporter sort of misquoted me I was actually driving away from the Pentagon directionally as I wasn't facing the building."
Now, here's the directional damage path with Levi Stephens' stated position:
At what point (and why exactly) did he have to "physically turn round to see it" if it was on the official path? And seeing as how he told CIT that he saw it come "over the Navy Annex"?
More shimmying from Larson..get this..
Desperate...even if this claim had any validity, the underside is curved and would reflect over a wide area underneath. Oh, and it was "closer to Arlington Cemetery", where there were also "dirt mounds" and where the grass ain't too "green" ..
|Pages: (2)  2|