|· Portal||Help Search Members Calendar|
|Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )||Resend Validation Email|
Posted: Jan 1 2010, 08:41 AM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
Detractors constantly link to two specific sites, namely
´Someguyyoudontknow´, (which is offline but has been copied) and http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls
as a counterargument to CIT´s documented and verified revelations on the
NOC approach of the plane in its final seconds before reaching the Pentagon.
I don´t know how the link given is meant to contradict the testimony
of the NOC witnesses.
First, there are no witnesses within that vicinity who counter their claims as to which path the plane followed between the Navy Annex and the Pentagon.
Second, the vast majority of ´testimony´ linked to are mainly unconfirmed media reports. Some of which, when looked at in more detail, actually coincide and reinforce the NOC witness testimony.
Some are taken completely out of context.
Some are media embellishments and not direct quotes.
MANY had no view at all or weren´t even within a 2 mile radius.
Some are totally anonymous initialled accounts.
Some are disinfo.
More importantly, NONE are SOC witnesses.
Some are even the NOC witnesses that the link is intended to counterargue!
The following witnesses are listed on these sites.
POSSIBLE NOC/ ACTUAL NOC WITNESSES:
Stars & Stripes September 12, 2001
Levi Stephens, 23, a courier for the Armed Forces Information Service, spoke of the crash:
CIT phoned and e-mailed this witness and revealed that the plane did NOT fly over his van and that he was ´misquoted´.
CIT sent him an image to depict exactly where he was and came to this conclusion:
The explosion occurred diectly behind him at @300m or more.
On being asked about the flightpath he confirmed that it flew over the Navy Annex, that he did NOT witness the lightpoles being ´struck´ and that he had ´put 2 and 2 together´ after watching the news.
He was adamant that the plane flew on the ¨Arlington Cemetery´ side of the Citgo Station - North Side.
NOC = No impact.
William Middleton Snr.
upper end of ANC buildings
Original CMH interview
Concurring with all the other ANC witnesses regarding how close the plane was to the parking lot.
In an e-mail to CIT:
The CIT interview with Sean Boger:
He said that he does not believe it was level or that low. He claims it was on a descent and that it was between the 2nd and 3rd floor (which is equal to his height in the heliport tower) rather than beneath his point of view on the first floor as depicted in the ASCE report and required by the physical damage.
Stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon.
Watching from floor 14 window of her hotel room in the Sheraton Hotel
This shot is from the roof of the Sheraton.
Analauf is a Navy Annex witness. What needs to be confirmed
is which point or at what angle the plane traversed this building.
All ANC witnesses (among many more) confirm that the plane flew over this point.
William Middleton was south of this Marine Corps building and claimed that it flew from this same direction. Over the Annex.
Standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window
Like Frank Probst, this witness puts herself ´in front of the helipad
at the Pentagon´.
Her story corraborates the entrance of the plane onto Route 27 at the same point other witnesses in the same vicinity do, at the point where Robert Turcios claims to have seen the plane ´lift´.
This is covered here.
This is her described position on the road.
Lightpole 1 is almost 180º behind her as is the straight official path behind it. The first roadsign is the one Turcios describes.
The one barely visible behind this one, looking through the car´s blindspot, is where lightpole 1 is.
She said she ´looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane´. Does this sound like she stretched her head right round behind her?
Tell me, can you even SEE the official path BEHIND lightpole 1?
Then she says ´The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing.´
How can this be true when her view of the plane as it allegedly crashed via the official path would have looked like this?
First of all, the ASCE report:
Another Navy Annex witness.
Frank Probst places himself BEYOND the official path´s entry onto the lawn. This is further cemented by his quote on the plane nearly striking him:
This narrows the ASCE´s report on his position to a specific point.
Yet the previous report claimed that he was ¨Walking north beside Route 27¨ on the lawn path that runs parallel to the road in front of the Pentagon and the ASCE report claims he was ´approaching the heliport´.
These two statements don´t add up. He cannot be in the official path AND walking North, close to the heliport. He SHOULD be 100-150m further on to hold these words true.
The ASCE has him as the main witness upholding the path (which has been shown NOT to be true) and of the official damage.If you read the above report again you will see that he is NOT directly quoted AFTER they claim that he observed the wing tip strike the generator trailer. The rest has been inserted to make it APPEAR that he witnessed this.
According to the ever-revised official reports on the damage analysis
the ENGINE is what was supposed to have done this damage. NOT the wing tip.
Frank Probst claimed that the right engine of the plane just missed him and he had to dive out of its way (which puts the plane another ´planeslength´ closer to the heliport)
His description of the fine debris falling around him is interesting as the total debris field is to the NORTH of the alleged impact point. Towards the heliport.
A Navy Annex witness whose original testimony places the plane´s entrance onto Route 27 WELL AWAY from the lightpoles.
Riskus´ own diagram of where the plane crossed in front of him:
This description accompanied the above photo:
Note: He claims the plane entered around the signpost Turcios talked of in his CIT interview:
View from his POV of the Turcios roadsign zoomed in:
He claims he was 100ft from the plane as it entered Route 27 which places it NOC. He says it looked like ¨it was landing with no gear down..¨. At this point the plane HAD TO BE on the low level approach
at the alleged 540+mph as shown in the 5 frames and touted by the ASCE report and damage.
How could he NOT notice the ´spearing´ of Lloyd England´s cab as it happened OR as he made his way up towards the point of the explosion as we can see in his progression of photos?
Because Lloyd was at least 200 metres further up the road beside the first lightpoles.
Possible (and probable) NOC witness.
Given his description, he places himself here.
´alongside the Pentagon´,´jet flying right at me´,¨over my head¨,
¨The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me¨
His next interview reinforces his positioning:
´that huge fireball exploded right toward me. I was on the road right next to where the American Airlines jet hit Pentagon wall. That wall is about 50 yards from the road.¨
This is the view from the roadsign beside which the first 2 lightpoles which were allegedly struck are.
It is taken from the Southbound lanes. he was allegedly two lanes over at a more acute angle to the ´impact zone´.
Does ANY of the above testimony correspond with this POV?
Is this ´50 yards (150 feet)´ from the explosion? Could the fireball go ´right toward´ him?
How could he NOT see the lightpoles being struck if he was here?
How could he see this overhead sign beside the poles being struck by the TAIL of the plane? How could he NOT see Lloyd England´s cab being speared by a lightpole??
IF Naranyan is continued to be labelled an ´impact witness´, his testimony describes the plane as coming from the NOC direction.
His testimony makes the damage according to the official path IMPOSSIBLE. AND the path he described is corraborated from various angles. Most notably, Robert Turcios and Sean Boger. Two concrete NOC witnesses who even describe the aforementioned signpost in their testimonies.
I have given Bouchoux the benefit of the doubt and placed him at the point shown but he may very well have been further back.
Needs confirmation but the ´200m´ distance ahead of him leans more towards NOC.
intelligence operations specialist with Civil Aviation
walking home from work at the FAA building, decided to walk the one mile home from her metro stop at the Pentagon
As Elizabeth Smiley was walking home from her metro stop at the Pentagon, she..
That´s it. One line. She saw the plane ´200ft over´ her head.
Another media report containing the same vague direct quote but embellished by the reporter:
This woman was on her way home given what had happened in Manhattan just that morning? SHE WORKS IN TERRORIST INTELLIGENCE FOR THE FAA.
´But hey hon, take the morning off...´
There is a footpath which crosses Route 27 that passes under the underpass on top of which were lightpoles 1 and 2.
It leads in front of the Citgo Gas Station running past the ANC Parking Lot. Up to the Navy Annex. Northside.
The question is, at which point on this footpath did she see the plane at 200ft agl?
The plane was allegedly 30+ ft agl when it reached lightpole 1.
If she was on the path at this point emerging from underneath the underpass she would have stated the that altitude was much lower (more descriptive and more dramatic).
As the path approaches the North path, which is almost immediately on crossing the more Northern looproad, she still does not mention the lightpoles or the ´impact´.
Her testimony needs further investigation to ascertain how far she had travelled this path to the NOC (to have the plane 200ft ´above her head, she HAD to be closer to the ANC buildings)
OR was she further up Columbia Pike before the plane traversed the Navy Annex. In which case she had no view at all of the Pentagon.
Either way it has to be accepted that she either witnessed nothing of the lightpoles/the explosion itself OR she places herself towards the ANC workers´ POV or AT LEAST in front of Citgo.
Witnesses on thiese lists who describe a ´right-bank´:
William Middleton Snr and Sean Boger who are on this list describe
As do another group on this list. Corresponding with the ANC workers
who describe this manouevre.
William Middleton CMH interview 2001:
Who else describes this bank on this list?
Mike Walter (again)
Robert A. Leonard
Bruce Elliott Colonel
driving eastward past the Pentagon on his way to Walter Reed Army Medical Center; just passed the Pentagon and was near the Macy's store in Crystal City
Here we see exactly which area of the Pentagon he believes the plane was en route for until it hit ´lightpoles´. But when we see this route, the plane is nowhere near the abovementioned poles.
He is definitely describing a right hand banking manouevre until the plane was ´diverted´ by what he believed to have been an object on the motorway.
He is also describing this manouevre as being at a much higher altitude than the streetlights if he believed that the plane was going to crash into the Centre court of the building.
There can be no other translation of this statement.
Other witnesses have publically retracted aspects of their testimony either through secondary interviews by CIT, through disinfo/manipulation and/or that person´s indignation at the media:
McGraw´s original testimony on witnessing lightpoles being struck and the cab story were shown for what they were in a CIT interview with him. A falsehood/manipulation on words.
On how she came across the Smithsonian debris
His only testimony is in this live video clip
The guy who translated for the interviewer changed the context and content of what he said and saw.
When asked what he saw Campos said the plane came in over him low, so low it moved the trees..
He repeats the fact that it was low twice. The translator, on the other hand, changed that to say it came in “very fast down it moved then go straight to the building”. He didn’t even mention it was low, which is what Campos emphasized. Campos didn’t say anything about the speed of the plane, and DID NOT say it “moved straight to the building”. The translator made that up.
Also related to the color of the plane, Gordon Peterson (the interviewer) mentioned American Airlines (nothing leading there) and Rajish passed that on in his question to Omar. Campos ignored them and responded that it was like one of the planes here from United ("algo asi como los de la United"), which was translated as "a United States Plane" by the translator. Omar was clearly talking about United Airlines, not "United States Plane". Omar wasn’t mixing English and Spanish like the “translator”. Had he meant a “United States Plane” he would have used “de los estados unidos” or “estado unidinese”. In effect Omar was confirming Sgt Brooke’s perception of the plane as being one from United Airlines.
So where in this picture is a building ´to the side of the Pentagon´ and trees? It certainly ISN¨T on the south path.
So he isn´t an impact witness or an ´AA´ witness according to this testimony.
But hey, the totally off translation suited so...
Cissell James R.
´Saw wheel go past car. Saw faces in plane.´
This witness was quoted as saying this on the page I was linked to..after YEARS of his public denial of saying any such thing.
He goes on to say in the same interview clarifying what he saw:
Totally contradicting SOC.
Arlington County Fire Department Fire Truck 101
Here is what Captain Steve McCoy in the same firetruck (101) had said:
Fire engine 101 has been repeatedly quoted as having seen an ´impact´ or disguising the words to make it appear so.
Hope this finally clears this up.
Pentagon spokesman (not even a witness)
This is false according to Lt. Col Steve O´Brien:
in his office at the Navy Annex
´a split second before it struck´ is added in by the reporter for ´Aviation Week´ and are not his actual words.
So all we have is him stating that he saw the plane.
Stars & Stripes September 12, 2001
CIT phoned and e-mailed this witness and revealed that the plane did NOT fly over his van and that he was ´misquoted´.
Ticknor Henry (minister)
but later he told the real version:
FIVE miles away. Tells of media LYING about what he said.
Not a witness. He saw ´smoke´ yet his quote was misconstrued to
be the ´white plume´ seen in the ´5 frames´. Unreal that this guy´s name still appears on these pathetic links to counterargue what NOC witnesses saw.
Did not see ´impact´
Okay, another dumbass, debunked testimony in the sense that his words have been taken WAY out of context, knowingly and repeatedly served up as the truth and STILL linked to.
Turns into this:
Which turns into this:
Posted: Jan 1 2010, 08:58 AM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
Then there is witness embellishment/deduction translated into fact:
NOC witness along with Lagasse. Exactly corraborated eachothers flightpath and placement of the plane on North of Citgo.
During his CIT interview he ADMITTED that he did NOT see the lightpoles being struck.
There ARE other ´witnesses´ that continue to be used in other ´impact witness´ lists. Lee Evey, who wasn´t even there, Tom Hovis who was EIGHT MILES away in his office and Mickey Bell who had been quoted as describing the entire Official Path, lightpoles and all. It was eventually settled upon that he had no idea what happened.
Then we have witnesses who even admit they did not see any ´impact´ , were not in a position to view one or who just saw/heard a ´plane´/explosion:
Some of which are incredibly ambiguous, media one-liners.
Mind explaining how these statements contribute either way to defining the final seconds of the plane´s appearance in this particular Arlington basin of land?
Didn´t and couldn´t see.
A constant theme in these links. Even the mention of the word ´impact´ makes these people witnesses. Coincidentally the rest of his quote is as follows
This places him at one of the South Parking entrances which has no view of the western facade. He describes the plane´s approach as ´coming down head first´ but totally omits the plane´s arrival on Route 27 and the crossing of the lawn.
He obviously FELT the explosion, but lost sight of the plane in its final seconds.
Obviously didn´t actually SEE it. Deduction.
in the Pentagon courtyard
No view. HEARD the explosion.
Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
That´s it. His only description. No mention of any ´impact´ or of its path.
Scott P. Cook
His testimony contradicts what exactly?
This guy is meant to contradict NOC too? seems more like an incredulous account of a plane actually striking the building.
looking out of the window of an office in the Navy Annex
Saw ´the shadow of a plane´..
DiPaula was INSIDE a trailer and HEARD the explosion. In another media report
he is described as witnessing the plane approach. This is a lie.
That is all he says. No description. He did not witness any ´impact´
according to this testimony.
This is a reporter´s account telling us that Steve Eiden did not see any ´impact´.
Bruce Elliott Colonel
Not an impact witness.
Oval Room restaurant at Lafayette Square
Another ´witness´ after the fact who described anything but a planecrash.
The reporter claims that he saw the plane ´strike´ the building.
His position is unconfirmed.
Unconfirmed report on the morning of 9/11 in USAToday.
Describes a ´big boom´. That´s it.
in office at home in Arlington less than one mile from the Pentagon
Interviewed a year later (2002)
Linda Plaisted lives @ two kilometers BEHIND the Navy Annex.
She HEARD and felt an explosion. That´s it.
This guy had no idea what had happened. He didn´t even see the plane and thought it was a ´missile´.
Alfred S. Regnery
right wing publishing mogul Alfred Regnery from Regnery publishers
Could not and admitted that he did not see ´impact´.
Vague media one-liner.
He doesn´t state where he was. Just that he was ´driving´.
He makes no description whatsoever of what the plane actually did after it flew over the ´treetops´ apart from the ambiguous line ´a big aircraft just on its course´??
Just who or what is this alleged witness meant to contradict?
Did NOT witness ´impact´.
Non ´impact´ witness. Admitted.
Quaker Lane in Arlington
CNN congressional correspondent
Anybody counting the witnesses who contradict NOC?
Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff
´inside the Pentagon´
He was INSIDE the Pentagon. NOT an ´impact´ witness.
Thomas J. Trapasso
1km behind Navy Annex
That´s it. He saw the plane.
This contradicts NOC witnesses? No.
on a bench outside the VDOT Smart Traffic Center
There were witnesses quoted who had no possible view:
platform high above Reagan waiting for a Metro
She could not physically see an ´impact´.Impossible.
on a Metro train just pulling into the National Airport Station
Tell me how he saw anything.
A second hand journalist account.
She allegedly saw ´telephone poles´ being struck from Route 110.
Here is the view from the overpass that runs over Route 110 from a raised vantage point.
She saw ´telephone poles´ being struck from here???
There is no view of the west face of the Pentagon. The journalist then goes on to say that she HEARD the plane ´power up´.
She did not and could not witness any ´impact´.
Second hand testimony, especially from a the media which has constantly been shown to be unreliable is as bad as being anonymous. Unacceptable to any honest debate on this subject.
driving on Route 50
Route 50 is miles away from the Pentagon running behind the Navy Annex.
Michael James (and wife Isabella James)
´In a car´
He nor his wife were in a position to see the Pentagon from their stated position.
Isabella James was asked by a reporter that morning if she saw what type of plane it was:
There is only one way to reach the Pentagon travelling down Columbia Pike given their description.
They had no view.
This is the only Khavkin that lives on the top floor of an 8 story building in Arlington within range of the Pentagon:
From the ROOF of this apartment to the immediate right of the Sheraton the top floor the top right hand corner of the Pentagon can be seen.
There is NO view of the lightpoles OR the ´impact zone´ and DEFINITELY no view of the lawn.
These people were allegedly interviewed 2 days after the attack when
details were widely known.
Whatever the reason, there is no view of anything mentioned in the account.
Hoffman-Boston Elementary School
Here is the school:
Hoffman-Boston Elementary School
It is a two story building:
Here is the view from the I-395 in the direction of the Pentagon/Navy Annex, of the school (the POV is VERY limited):
This is the view looking towrds the Navy Annex from this limited view:
Remember that the streetview cam is one metre above the car.
There is NO view of the Pentagon.
Robert A. Leonard
´driving northbound in the HOV lanes on I-395´
The top floor of the Pentagon can be seen. Remember to subtract one metre off height to have true perspective.
Remember also that he is on the HOV lanes.
We do not know which of the three lanes he was driving on.
He states that the plane ´banked skillfully to the right´, as Gary Bauer described from the same motorway.
When the plane reached Route 27 it would have been completely out of his view for the final seconds.
That can be the only explanation for his statement ´The plane vanished, absorbed by the building´. He could not physically see the first floors of the building. There could not have been ´a slight pause. Then a huge fireball´
The plane went out of his view, then he saw the fireball.
´about to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into D.C.´
Possible POV from here to here.
She could not see the west face of the Pentagon. Nor even the South.
She would barely have seen the plane as it went over the Annex.
She would have had to look through the passenger window AND as she was driving AWAY from the scene.
Streetview of above picture.
VDOT Tower and Annex on the same route.
This was where the plane is OFFICIALLY closest to the I-395. So how was he ´right underneath´ it in this lane??
Even FURTHER down this lane we see the SOUTH face of the Pentagon and the West face corner starting to come into view:
West/South corner further down this lane:
Remembering that 1 metre AT LEAST must be deducted from the height of this view, please tell me where the lightpoles are..This is a ZOOMED in shot btw.
Last possible shot of the very corner of the West face:
Just how high was this ´debris´ that has been translated to be ´lightpoles´ flung in the air?? Weren´t the poles found within a metre or two of their original position?
Here is a view from the perspective of where lightpole 1 and 2 are looking towards the I-395. Remember that the first 2 lanes closest are heading AWAY from the Pentagon.
POV from lightpoles 1 and 2 towards HOV lanes Northbound.
Mr.Kilburn was in the NEXT lane further in. Absolutely no view of the lightpoles OR the ´impact point´. NONE.
He could not have physically seen EITHER. The plane at no point crossed the I-395, even according to the official data.
CIT attempted to contact Mr. Kilburn but he has since passed away.
Another Navy Annex witness.
Munsey was on the I-395 Southbound lanes. He says that it ´hurtled by´ placing him beyond the Pentagon building. So he had to look back over his right shoulder, through the car´s natural blindspots behind the passenger seat.
He described ´a ground-shaking whomp as it APPEARED to hit...´.
The plane flew by him as he was driving his car in the opposite direction. His description is of the explosion BEHIND him ´within moments´ of the plane going by.
If there were a few ´moments´ between the plane flying by him and the explosion he HAD to be beyond the roadways (Route 27) where the plane crossed before entering the lawn area of the Pentagon.
View from Southbound lane of Route 27.
MINIMUM, if we take ´moments´ to be literally taken.
Remember to take a meter´s height off the streetview cam.
The alleged final leg of the plane and the ´impact area´ are blocked by trees.
Follow this road from this point as far as you can still see the Navy Annex ahead. The view gets even more obscured as you go on.
He deducted an ´impact´.
He did NOT witness an ´impact´ according to this testimony.
He even admits this.
Which later became:
He is also listed as a ´LIGHTPOLE WITNESS´ in the WTC7liespentwitnesses link..!
He describes seeing a portion of the fireball ´through the highway overpass´.
Let´s just cut the crap here. He saw an ´impact´ from here?
Alleged O´Keefe POV
I have placed his POV in the best possible position given his description although he may very well have been much further back.
He says that he saw the plane ´swooping in´.
Secondly he specifically says that he saw the ´burst of orange flame THROUGH THE HIGHWAY OVERPASS´. So he is narrowing his POV down to BEFORE he reaches it at the point shown above, although he would have had to have been in the lane to the left because the lane we can see leads to South Parking. His view of ANYTHING in regards to the ´impact point´ and lawn are further obscured by trees and roadsigns.
Not to mention the traffic snarl ahead of him.
I know it´s getting tired now, but always remember to subtract one metre from
the height of the POV in all streetview pics.
He is NOT an ´impact witness´ from this position.
On a metro trian just pulling into the National Airport Station
Here is the view from the metro station:
Physically impossible to see Pentagon or the approach of the plane.
Could not and did not see ´impact´.
First of all, we have to see the centre courtyard from the inside to
have an idea of his perspective.
In the following video at 00:53 , 01:24, 02:05 and 03:01 in the following video gives us an idea:
The walls are over 70 feet tall.
There are trees all over this court as we can see from this aerial shot taken less than a week before the event:
...further obstructing any possible view.
He said that he caught the sight of the plane´s tail seconds before it ´exploded into the building´.
The only POSSIBLE chance he may have had to see it was when it was flying over the Navy Annex.
But even this would have been quite an achievement as we can see from the view of the Pentagon from the Sheraton Hotel at roughly the same height that many witnesses claim it flew over:
Even given the extra height of the tail it would still be impossible.
From the edge of the Navy Annex we can see the view of the centre court is non-existent.
Even if another 100ft were added to altitude the top floor or two MAY come into view.
In fact the altitude necessary to catch a glimpse of the tail would be a couple of hundred feet lower than this image:
He could NOT physically see the tail of the plane from the Navy Annex onwards. The only way he could have seen it is if he saw it as it passed over the Pentagon. Not speculation. Just stating a fact.
He was inside the centre court. HOW can he be called an ´impact witness´?
on Route 27 getting off the Columbia Pike
There are 3 points which join Columbia Pike to Route 27. One of which is too far from the alleged POV ´beside Wedge 1´.
Of the two points ´x´ and ´y´ on the following satellite pic, ´x´ is a southbound road which leads FROM Route 27 to Columbia Pike in contrast to this unconfirmed witness. So if it this media quote is to be believed, that puts him at point ´y´.
What does NOT correlate with the description given is his assertion
that ¨I followed it down with my eyes´ and the fact that he places himself directly in the path of the official route of the plane.
The plane would actually be heading straight for him, passing directly over his car and continuing on behind him.
It is the only way this line can be applied to the situation. He had to have seen the plane off to one side.
He completely omits a dramatic image of a jet bearing down on his car head on? He is in a position to see the the lightpoles? Lloyd´s cab being ´speared´?
He describes NOTHING of the sort.
He had a ´gut feeling it was going to hit´??
When it was allegedly 30ft agl heading for him? When?
Only one possibility exists. If his unconfirmed but only POV according to this media quote is to be believed, the plane did not pass through the official path. It didn´t plough through the lightpoles. It COULD NOT have hit the trailer. It did NOT ´impact´.
Definitely a witness that needs to be interviewed to point out exactly where he saw the plane from his alleged POV.
The following ´witnesses´ have some explaining to do.
systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor
´stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon´
Why this constant theme of the plane ´hitting the lawn´ and ´bouncing into it´?
It definitely did NOT hit the lawn. And a ´bounce´ is totally contradictory to the low level approach and subsequent damage supposedly caused.
This higher altitude at between 2nd and 3rd level is repeated by almost all alleged witnesses in the immediate vicinity.
Lincoln Liebner (who also described a ´helicopter´ being struck) repeats this discrepancy in altitude.
Noel Sepulveda (who also claims that the plane ´stuck out of the building´ before exploding a moment later..). Although we now know 100% from medical reports that the blast knocked him unconscious.
Wanda Ramey who claims that the plane ´skipped up´ from the middle of the lawn before ´impact´ and that there was a slight ´pause´ before the explosion.
Tim Timmerman who claims that
Sean Boger, in an interview with CIT was actually arguing vehemently that the plane was at the height of his POV in the helipad crossing the lawn!
Stephen McGraw in an interview with CIT said other witnesses´ description of the plane ´bouncing´ on the lawn ´rekindled´ memories of this happening.
Mary Ann Owens in her original interview
On deeper inspection as has been mentioned regarding these witnesses, many DEDUCED an ´impact´ given their POVs and the circumstances.
NONE describe the SOC final low level approach.
IMHO, the description of the lawn being struck first was the detonation of the explosives in the split second before reaching the facade.
The plane ´skipping up´ was the initial manouevre of the flyover from between the second and third level of the Pentagon.
The Pentagon has four floors. This manouevre would have been VERY possible.
The five second full expansion of the fireball would have supplied MORE than enough time and distraction to pull this off.
This is opinion based on not only the NOC testimony which is fatal to the official story, but closer examination of ALL testimony whether they believed they saw an ´impact´ or not.
I WAS going to omit the following group of witnesses on this list but
the anonymous accounts are an insult to this debate and are used
just to ´make up the numbers´
Anonymous AND did not see ´impact´
´near the Lincoln Memorial´
Second hand testimony from an anonymous ´witness´ quoting another anonymous ´witness´!
Allegedly HEARD an explosion. Also heard the secondary explosion that is never
discussed by the media.
´in some hotel´
Incredible that these ´people´ are used both by detractors and so-called truthers as counterevidence...
´across the Potomac´
Unbelievably the following person is on this list INCLUDING the quote:
So, are there ´100+ impact witnesses´?
Do ANY of them contradict NOC?
Do ANY describe SOC?
Does any of this ´testimony´ compare to CIT´s in-depth interviews?
Were any in a better position than the NOC witnesses to actually pinpoint the path they saw and which they ALL agree unilaterally on?
Sorry for the length of this post.
I will add a debunk of the remaining ´window witnesses´ (2-3km away)
Edit - grammar
This post has been edited by 22205 on Jul 7 2010, 10:34 AM
Posted: Jan 7 2010, 05:14 AM
Member No.: 1,042
Joined: 11-July 09
Why is nobody responding to his post please explain?
Just curious thats all.
Posted: Jan 7 2010, 06:55 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
Just supplying a list (personal opinion) of witnesses for help in arguing with debunkers and for a quick reference to quotes and alleged POVs.
And I´m trying to get a panoramic idea of what people in all areas saw through the streetview and basically analyzing every piece of their (unconfirmed) testimony.
The thread is there for people to add to and more importantly pick at for mistakes so we can put them right.
CIT´s are the only ones in town as far as I´m concerned. These are just an examination of how much witnesses from other areas fail to contradict and even reinforce the NOC testimony.
Posted: Jan 7 2010, 08:34 PM
Member No.: 9
Joined: 11-December 07
Friggin' long post but from what I've scanned through, its looks pretty well done. This could be very useful. Thanks very much.
I imagine that there are so few posts because if someone like Craig (who is terribly dedicated) was going to post on this, he would cover everything to make sure he's not going to say something he would regret!
I learned that one the hard way.
|Craig Ranke CIT||
Posted: Jan 7 2010, 10:07 PM
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07
oneslice has done an amazing job here so please don't let our lack of responses suggest anything else.
However I haven't had the chance to go over all of it in detail because we have several involved projects of our own going at the moment.
From what I have read oneslice is absolutely on the mark.
|Domenick DiMaggio CIT||
Posted: Jan 7 2010, 10:16 PM
Member No.: 3
Joined: 1-September 07
Posted: Jul 19 2011, 06:14 AM
Member No.: 1,177
Joined: 19-August 10
OSS, your article (consisting of 2 postings) is so impressive (and surprisingly entertaining for such a long list ) that I am sponsoring it by a $1200 translation into German for 911-archiv.net.
Given the frequent incongruities of English and German notions, the translation of these quotes is not easy, but since I have 11 years professional experience in translation I am confident that I can defend my work - I nearly finished it already.
Now I wonder whether it really covers all of the 194 witnesses listed in the Excel file, and also whether there is similar information available in other threads about witnesses which might not be included in this list, for example at Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses.
This is particularly important for the title "NOBODY contradicts NOC" which seems to be somewhat bold once you see that it refers only to the above Excel list.
I am pondering about a more precise title, but without sacrificing its snatchiness..
If there are more witnesses to cover, could you add them in a 3rd posting? I promise I will translate that one, too.
Another question is: What is the current number of NoC witnesses? You showed that many of the alleged SoC witnesses actually turned out to be NoC witnesses; so they might be fake, but at least they should be counted, although separately from the proven ones.
Posted: Jul 19 2011, 12:56 PM
Member No.: 1,023
Joined: 29-April 09
Wow Harry that's incredile news! Thank you so much.
There is a lot of information in this post borrowed from excellent posts made by CIT researchers in the other thread you mention.
I agree, the title is a little strong, but it's how I personally feel having waded through all of the confirmed and alleged testimony available. I wasn't claiming that everyone (that wasn't independently interviewed) are definitive NOC witnesses but they certainly don't contradict it, you know? I made sure to distinguish the difference, naieve as I was at the time.
If I've learned anything from watching these guys work is that you can take nothing for granted until a witness is interviewed independently and specific questions are asked.
Even those desperate to find an alleged "SOC witness" further cemented the path! That's why I made a separate, more indepth thread for the proposed "SOC witnesses" instead of updating this one. There have been so many developments since this was posted.
If you want, you can use the title and add whatever you want to take the "boldness" out of it. How does that sound?
If there are witnesses that aren't included (I'm sure there are a few), you can send me the details and I can dust off some of my old files or see what I can find.
Again, much appreciated.