South Approach Eyewitnesses?

Craig/Aldo,

I have viewed The Pentacon North approach eyewitnesses.

Two questions: -

1. Why did you not request sketches of the perceived flight path from some of the other eyewitnesses you have come into contact with?
   Stephen McGraw, Mike Walter, Joel Sucherman and Frank Probst come to mind.
   
   
2. Have you attempted to contact and obtain perceived flight path sketches from further eyewitnesses to the impact?
   Penny Elgas, Dave Marra, Mark Petit, Robert Leonard, Joe Harrington, Vin Narayanan and others.

I feel that a larger sample of the 100+ eyewitnesses on record who claim to have seen the airliner in the Pentagon vicinity would allow those researchers who are exclusively using this evidence to form a more balanced opinion of the true flight path.

As a side note, the accounts of Edward Paik and Terry Morin do not corroborate the North of Citgo flight path.

We interviewed McGraw on our first trip before we interviewed any of the north side approach witnesses so frankly we didn't even think about having him or anyone draw flight paths yet. Contrary to what people think, we did not initially go there trying to prove a north side approach.

It wasn't until we got a hold of Robert Turcios on the phone, found out about the north side, and scheduled a return trip to interview him, Brooks, and Lagasse that we thought about bringing an overhead for them to draw on.

Although we did talk to both Mike Walter and Frank Probst both refused to give us an interview.

I didn't think I would get the Sucherman interview at all so it was pretty much a surprise that it materialized just before I had to catch my plane back to LA on the 2nd trip. Honestly, I didn't have any more overhead images at the time! Frankly I regret that and really wish I was able to put him on the spot with a flight path because his account is much more reconcilable with a north side approach.

Either way he exposed himself with this false claim about a "2nd plane" flying away "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion:

They could not see the citgo but both have the plane north of Columbia Pike or directly over the Navy Annex which is just as fatal to the official story as NoC.

ONA = over the navy annex.

ONA = inside job.

Our phone interview with Vin Narayanan is in "The 2nd Plane Cover Story".

Yes we tried to reach Mark Petit with no luck.

Penny Elgas has confirmed a north side approach, more on that is forthcoming.

The complete list of who we have contacted is available here.

Bottom line, the witnesses who were in the best possible position to tell north or south of the gas station are unanimous.

You say you feel a "larger sample" of firsthand witness accounts is prudent....so is there a reason why you haven't tried contacting them?

Let's remind everyone also, that McGraw's claim is that he only saw the plane as it passed over him, to his right.

In other words, he couldn't have been able to tell North side or south side.

Precisely.

And the fact that can never be denied or ignored.....you can't refute the citgo witnesses with witnesses who weren't at the citgo.

Perspective error becomes introduced once you leave the property yet we have already shown how everyone else we've talked to in the closest areas to the gas station ALSO support a north side approach nevertheless.

So once you get to 395 or even route 27 perspective error certainly DOES become more of an issue.

That's why the north side was already proven with The PentaCon.

The only way to refute the north side would be to provide 4 first hand accounts of people who were on the gas station property and 100% emphatically support a south side approach as strongly and certainly as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios support a north side approach.

To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias in favor of the official story.

(oh and they should be required to be filmed on location too in order to guarantee no misinterpretation of their claims)

If the plane would have caught an edge of the wing in the ground...

A. We would see damage to the lawn. There is none.
B. This would have impeded a succesful penetration, as it would have changed the trajectory of the plane causing it to "cartwheel" into the building, as Dave Marra/the Time author suggests.

This clearly did not happen in the official story nor can it happen with the north of gas station approach.

Most importantly he does not indicate nor was he independently asked if the plane was on the north or south side of the gas station, which is hard to see from any 395 exit.

No Dave Marra born in 1978 in VA:
http://www.zabasearch.com/query1_zaba.php?...tyle=1&tm=&tmr=
One David G Marra in MD:
http://www.zabasearch.com/query1_zaba.php?...tyle=1&tm=&tmr=
One David L Marra in DC, no phone number:
http://www.zabasearch.com/maps/?sname1=DAV...hone=&int_var=3

Dave Marra is NOT a valid witness nor does he debunk a north side or represent a south side.

Sorry.

Thanks for the response Craig.

As McGraw and Sucherman were more willing than Walter or Probst, have you considered revisiting them? After all, I believe you held a second interview with Lloyd England when you wanted to disprove his story of the taxi cab damage caused by the light pole impact.

Note inserted: I notice that on the eyewitness list that you linked it says CIT had dinner with Walter. Are you saying that he sat down and ate with you but would not talk about the impact? Surely he knew in advance why you wanted to talk with him.

I disagree with your note about the Paik and Morin accounts. I'm sure you are aware that eyewitness testimony by its nature will produce a wide range of results. It is unfair to say that any which do not exactly match the official story then automatically favour a North of Citgo approach. There are two flight paths put forward - the official South approach and the CIT North of Citgo approach. If Paik and Morin's accounts had to be categorized into one of those depictions, they appear to fit far more closely with the former.

I will keep a lookout for the details from Elgas. Of the others that CIT have contacted/interviewed, there are included Wanda Ramey, Steve Gerard, Thomas Trapasso, Don Scott, Madelyn Zackem, Lt. Col O'Brien, Michael Tinyk, John O'Keefe, Kirk Milburn, Andrea Kaiser and Capt Steve McCoy. Did you attempt to obtain perceived flight path sketches from any of these eyewitnesses?

The reason that I have not attempted to contact eyewitnesses is that I personally believe there is already abundant information in the public domain to confirm an aircraft impact at the Pentagon (note "an" aircraft; certainly not Flight 77). There do though appear to be those who will base their beliefs exclusively upon the evidence that CIT provide and it is for those researchers that a larger sample may be beneficial.

True, but as McGraw claims to have witnessed both the aircraft and impact he could still have indicated the angle of approach, thus corroborating one way or another the final moments of the flight path before the Pentagon.

I agree on this point. Do you believe perspective error could affect any of those eyewitnesses not actually at the Citgo station who are cited as supporting a North approach?

I certainly wouldn't be against it but I doubt they would.

Of course it is impossible for them to refute the citgo witnesses since they were not on the gas station property and perspective error would be introduced as a significant issue.

Russell Pickering and Dylan Avery set up the meeting. It was meant to be informal but he agreed to be interviewed the next day for Loose Change Final Cut.

He backed out the next day with the excuse that someone advised him not to due to upcoming contract negotiations in his anchor position with USA Today.

Of course we talked to him about 9/11 and naturally he stuck to his impact claim but he also made a point to describe the "graceful bank" to us that he talked about before. This is totally irreconcilable with the official data, reports, and the physical damage yet corroborates the north side approach right bank as described by the ANC witnesses and Sean Boger.



He even told us that the FBI supposedly paid him a special visit at the TV station and grilled him about this "graceful bank" claim.

No matter how much you "disagree" (or whether or not you choose to believe them) it is a FACT that both of them place the plane on the north side of Columbia Pike/directly over the Navy Annex and that this is fatal to the official story.

Yes I do agree which is why we rely so heavily on the scientific validation method of corroboration to determine which details are accurate. In this case both Paik and Morin corroborate each other regarding the plane being north of Columbia Pike/directly over the Navy Annex which is fatal to the official story.

Agreed.

Of course I never said that.

That is illogical.

The plane has to be on the south side of Columbia Pike for the official story to be true.

The plane has to be on the north side of Columbia Pike for the CITGO witnesses to be accurate.

Paik and Morin both put the plane on the north side of Columbia Pike.

Obviously we were only in a position to get sketches from the witnesses we interviewed in person. Just because we "contacted" a witness does not mean we were able to reach them and even if we were able to reach them it doesn't mean they agreed to an interview. Even if we got an interview it may have been limited to the phone. Explanations for some of those witnesses are provided in our presentations. That is where you need to go first to view the evidence we present.

Please view ALL of our presentations and THEN I'll answer any questions you have about the evidence.

First watch National Security Alert and then go through all of the others listed here.

You have to view the information first if you want to be able to discuss it.

If you are already convinced of that I fail to see why you are here at all.

Similarly, we are convinced by the witnesses that the plane was on the north side. (and as you admit many others are as well while the list is fast growing)

You can't refute the citgo witnesses with witnesses who weren't at the citgo.

The only way to refute the north side would be to provide 4 first hand accounts of people who were on the gas station property and 100% emphatically support a south side approach as strongly and certainly as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios support a north side approach.

To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias in favor of the official story.

(oh and they should be required to be filmed on location too in order to guarantee no misinterpretation of their claims)

Hypothetically, of course. BUT highly unlikely given their excellent vantage points.

Plus the evidence proves that it was not a factor for them since they are corroborated by all known witnesses at the citgo station where perspective error could not even possibly be a factor.

The only reason McGraw would be approached again is to be asked about the very serious problems in his story. Like his 45 second exit from his car or the asking him about the alleged funeral he was supposed to attend that he left hanging. Sucherman describes plane left to right, nothing more, nothing less. His claim never included seeing the plane approach.

The fact remains, that all four witnesses you mentioned are considered suspect witnesses. We have weighed the other factors involved and these factors indicate we are dealing with a deception and deceptive witnesses.
-Walter has already demonstrated multiple locations, multiple descriptions/POV's, and his exhibited deceptive behavior in describing the event. Walter is part of the USA Today parade.
-Sucherman did not tell the truth about the C-130 approach and would not describe the plane. He was also part of the USA Today parade.
-McGraw exhibited suspicious behavior. He did not show for a funeral that he was scheduled preside over. He did not tell the truth about his exit from his car and crossing the guardrail. He gave a silly story about about not knowing he was next to the Pentagon. He has ties to Opus Dei and was a former DoJ attorney.
-Frank Probst has gone on the record describing the planes right engine hitting he fence/gen trailer. The problem is his account is so absurd, that he, an elderly man, dove out of the way of 535 mph 757 and was able to spin around and make this out. This would qualify as propaganda/disinfo. This right wing/gen trailer interaction directly conflicts with north of gas station approach. We know the explosives and staging of the trailer would have to have been done by Pen Ren workers. Frank Probst is a Pen Ren worker. We will have more on Frank Probst as well.

You have to realize, you are citing people who were either allegedly there for a short period of time(temporarily) or had just allegedly pulled up on a highway. These are people who can fake their location and can't prove they were there. Auto Mechanics, Police officers (one on surveillance video), gas station employees, ANC workers, all were in a place they were supposed to be or were more than likely to be.

Yes we held a second interview because we knew he as guilty of involvement based on the evidence we obtained. That is why we went back. There is nothing pressing to discuss with the other alleged witnesses you mentioned as far as we are concerned.

He sure did and let it be known we did not want to have dinner with him. This was the work of Russell Pickering who was more interested in us befriending Mike Walter, rather than scientifically analyzing his account. He did not want to be recorded or want to go on camera to be interviewed. He talked about the same stuff he had mentioned before. We will have a full presentation exposing him soon. Stay tuned.

Please stop it. Your jedi mind tricks do not work here. You are insane if you think you can tell us Paik and Morin fit with the south side approach. THE PLANE HAS TO BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COLUMBIA PIKE AT ALL TIMES-ESPECIALLY ACCORDING TO THE DATA. WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?

No, all those people were done by phone, and some, if not most were very uncooperative.

-Wanda Ramey, we recorded and analyzed her call to us. You can find that on our forum. She was uncooperative about meeting for an on camera interview/drawing.
-Steve Gerard was very uncooperative and claimed that his account of a small commuter plane is "out there on official record" and he didnt want to talk about it or do any interviews. Was very evasive and very uncooperative. His description of a small plane falls under the "promoting disinfo" category. He works for the DoJ.
-Thomas Trapasso was too far back to see anything except a plane flying over. He said he would meet us in Arlington for an interview at his old location. He never showed and never answered his phone again. Later, we found out he was lying when we spoke with Jamal El Kournayti who confirmed that the plane actually flew over the driving range(which is not over Thomas Trapasso's home)
-Don Scott was by phone, from his POV he could only see a plane approach for a second. He was useless as far as being north or south side witness due to his location in Crystal City near the Macy's.
-Madlene Zackhem:http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=412&hl=
-Lt Col O'Brien became non-responsive and uncooperative hen asked for drawings This was about the time the RADES data came out and was being used to debunk our work on O'Brien.
-Michael Tinyk was too far to see anything and only caught a brief glimpse of the plane through the buildings. He did not want to talk about his experience.
-John O'Keefe did not want to go on the record. But claimed he saw the plane for 45 seconds then slowly started to shave it down as he realized how impossible it was from his own location. John O'Keefe also became a suspect witness due to his involvement with USA Today and the parade and the AIPAC trials. Regardless, his alleged position only allowed him to see the plane for a split second through the overpass. He clearly was not telling the truth in this matter.
-Kirk Milburn died in a motorcycle accident by the time we attempted to speak with him.
-Andrea Kaiser and Steve McCoy both were at Glebe Rd and 395. Too far back to see anything and both did not want to become involved with an interview.

Well you seem to not believe the corroborated witnesses. I think you need to be worrying about contacting them with your accusations.

There is tons of "sample" you just gotta look around and apply some basic logic and homework.

True, but as McGraw claims to have witnessed both the aircraft and impact he could still have indicated the angle of approach, thus corroborating one way or another the final moments of the flight path before the Pentagon.

First of all he relied upon what other people he had said the plane did. This is not "witnessing" the alleged impact.

Second, he indicated an angle. Didn't you watch the interview?

Third, he is already in the suspect witness category.

I agree on this point. Do you believe perspective error could affect any of those eyewitnesses not actually at the Citgo station who are cited as supporting a North approach?

Sure, for those miles away. But those only feet or a half a mile away? No, not at all.

How about this? Do you believe perspective error could affect any of those eyewitnesses ACTUALLY AT the Citgo station who are cited as supporting a North approach?

To summarise the answers given to my first question regarding why flight path sketches were not taken from eyewitnesses that CIT interviewed: -

• McGraw: CIT had not yet discovered support for a North flight path at the time of interview and now do not believe that McGraw would oblige. Although you would not be against attempting to revisit McGraw to obtain his perceived flight path, this has not been done.
  
• Walter: CIT had dinner with Walter and discussed 9/11 including the Pentagon impact though he refused to provide a formal interview. You don’t say, but it is hard to imagine there was not opportunity whatsoever to request a sketch of the flight path.
  
• Sucherman: there were no overhead images available at the time of interview for Sucherman to indicate his perceived flight path. Although you would not be against attempting to revisit Sucherman to obtain his perceived flight path, this has not been done.
  
• Probst: Although contacted/confirmed by CIT, he refused to provide an interview or flight path sketch.

The first explanation given is most interesting – just out of curiosity, when and on what lead did CIT first decide to request eyewitness sketches of the flight path?

Anyhow, it seems that for at least three of the above an attempt could have been made to obtain accounts of the flight path but this was not done. There is a strong likelihood that one or more of these eyewitnesses would provide a description matching the South approach and that unfortunately researchers have been denied the balance this would bring to the evidence.

I’m not sure that any small group of eyewitness testimony can be “fatal” as we already agree this type of account can show much variation; being open to human fallibility. I do not disagree with the perceived flight path of Paik and Morin but more in how you interpret them. There are only two flight paths – the official South approach and the suggested CIT North approach. Each eyewitness account must be aligned to one of these and it is the former which Paik and Morin most closely describe.

The below is a poster for CIT’s research showing the North approach in green and the official approach in red. Overlaying and extending the path described by Paik (supported by Morin) provides the blue line: -



Closer to the official or CIT path - you decide.

We did not draw that and all flight paths have been hypothetical based on eyewitness descriptions.

If it has been shown they are willing to discuss the Pentagon event, would it not be possible to e-mail or post them an ‘eyewitness account pack’ including an overhead image? Again, the limited sampling you have currently obtained could possibly be providing researchers with an imbalance in the eyewitness evidence.

I have previously watched “National Security Alert” but it is not necessary to view hour upon hour of presentations to ask these questions. For instance, I have also watched “The Eye Of The Storm” and this presentation does not cover anything we are currently discussing. Please could you link only to directly relevant information.

Obviously because I believe that the eyewitness sampling CIT are promoting is misleading.

Hypothetically it seems that perspective error could play a very large part in the accounts of all those eyewitnesses not at the Citgo station. Then is it possible that those three remaining at the Citgo saw something else on the North approach and misconstrued it to be the flight that impacted? Well, we know there was a C-130 approaching the area.


I thought I would take a look at “The 2nd Plane Cover Story” before I posted the above just to make certain there is nothing preventing the C-130 from being what the Citgo eyewitnesses saw.  I found there is nothing irrevocable preventing this possibility.  But worse than that…




… at 12:05 in the presentation my eyes nearly popped out of my head! There was an eyewitness, Keith Wheelhouse, sitting right in front of an overhead image clearly indicating with his finger a South flight path! Sure enough his sketch matches the official South approach near flawlessly: -



So all this time that I have been hearing from CIT there are no eyewitnesses that dispute the North of Citgo approach… it isn’t true in the slightest AND you know it. Is this information contained in “National Security Alert”? I don’t recall seeing it there.

Wheelhouse admitted that he did not remember the citgo at all and if he was telling the truth about his location we know for a fact that he would not have been able to see the citgo at all so he was not in a position to refute the north side approach.

This is a fact.

Here is an image he provided showing how he would not have been able to see the alleged impact:



And here is a panned shot of the area from that locatoin showing how he would not have been able to see the citgo either:




It is unlikely he would have been able to see the plane on the official flight path at all from that location. He claimed he saw it for "60 seconds" which is ridiculous but his proven false account of the "shadowing" C-130 also completely discredits him.


So Wheelhouse is definitely NOT a south side witness simply due to his vantage point but he is not a valid witness at all due to his proven fraudulent account.

Bottom line the witnesses at the citgo station prove the deception and no witness who was NOT on the citgo station property is able to refute them due to perspective error.

The only way to refute the north side would be to provide 4 firsthand accounts of people who were on the gas station property and 100% emphatically support a south side approach as strongly and certainly as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios support a north side approach.

To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias in favor of the official story.

(oh and they should be required to be filmed on location too in order to guarantee no misinterpretation of their claims)

Plus your foolish image of a flight path that ignores the heading indicated by Paik and is illustrated in an area that is not visible to Paik OR Morin is extremely deceptive and false.




Witnesses are data points.

You can only rely on them for the general placement of the plane in relation to the ground they are standing.

You can't use a witness to extrapolate what you want regarding the placement of the plane in an area that they would not even be able to witness from their location! That is spin and is deceptive.

Paik and Morin both place the plane north of Columbia Pike which is fatal to the official story and where it would be as it headed north of the citgo as unanimously and independently reported by all known witnesses on the gas station's property.