9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

a reply to: RubyGray

Thus answers why you go on about a light pole and ignore the pentagon

CIT's Deceptive Flight Path Argument: "North" or "South"? What about "Hit the Pentagon"?

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

A Simple question for CIT and their supporters:

When a witness says the plane hit the Pentagon, is that part of the "flight path" or is it not? How could the question of whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon not be relevant to the flight path?

The CIT flyover (what I correctly rename to the "mass hallucination theory") largely depends on dismissing hundreds of witness accounts, and deceptively insinuating that the widespread and unanimous reports of the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as evidence evidence of the "flight path".

This should be blatantly obvious, but apparently it is not to CIT and their supporters: When witnesses describe the plane striking the Pentagon, that is in fact part of the "flight path". There is a name for this logical fallacy and it is called "Special Pleading".

"The plane hit the Pentagon" is in fact the most important and significant claim regarding the "flight path", although CIT and their supporters would have you believe that it is not relevant, even when many of the various witnesses that CIT cite as evidence themselves claim the plane hit the Pentagon while completely hand waving away the fact that there are no credible reports of a flyover:
“We have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.”
In other words, according to CIT and those who support their work, the Pentagon attack was a "mass hallucination" event in which any witness who claims that the plane hit the Pentagon was either deceived by an illusion or a government operative.

I have a difficult time explaining why this claim is taken seriously at all.

a reply to: neutronflux

Those were good days back then, educational and entertaining at the same time. Many hours of informed reading for the curious although I don't miss the CIT and P4T comedy antics - sometimes it was like they actually believed the stuff they were peddling and unwary netizens are still stumbling onto their old stuff.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You posted that I claimed the north flight path witnesses were lying. Now quote where I posted such a thing.

So you believe all the northside witnesses were telling the truth then?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

Just for you Ruby do you don’t post in absolutes....

911speakout.org...

Critique of CIT’s Fundamentally Flawed Methodology
By David Chandler

Why the CIT Analysis of the Pentagon Event on 9/11 Should Be Rejected Outright ...

Much of the time your grammar is so bad that it is impossible to know what you are saying.

I have told you before.
I have zero respect for the opinions of David Chandler, Warren Stutt, John Wyndham, Frank Legge, Victoria Ashley, Wayne Coste, Chris Sarns, Jonathan Cole, Ken Jenkins, Jim Hoffman, etc.

They are the crowd who look at a high definition photo of some electrical flex lying on the ground, and pronounce that it is a lightpole support arm.

They are the ones who tell us that we ought to give as much respect to the Pentagon eyewitnesses as we do to the WTC witnesses - then they list for example in their video "The Pentagon Plane Puzzle", a selection of people who actually state that they DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT!

e.g. Shinki Paik, Jamie McIntyre, "Janet" 2 miles away, "Barbara" on the exit to Memorial Bridge, Alan Wallace, Ed Hudson, unidentified construction worker from the opposite side of the river, Detective Don Fortunato 2 miles away, Mike Walter a proven LYING witness, Aziz ElHallou who gives very confused details, Isabel James who claimed to see the impact but actually could not see it for trees, Mark Skipper, Sean Lansdowne in his bedroom at home, 4 minutes drive away, Don Chauncey, 6 miles away in his office, Tim Timmerman, 3/4 mile away, said the plane hit the ground but not the Pentagon, Dawn Vignola ditto, Mark Easton, west of the VDOT buildings with no view, Unnamed woman, Capt Steve McCoy, another unnamed construction worker, Steven Gerard,

Then they list eyewitnesses whose testimony they reject, such as :

Edward Paik who is a NORTHSIDE witness,
Father Stephen McGraw who is a NORTHSIDE witness who said he actually SAW the pole in Lloyde England's cab near the cemetery wall,
Don Wright who was south of the Pentagon when he saw the plane making a sharp turn from the NORTH of the Pentagon, before seeing the explosion, which makes him a FLYOVER WITNESS,
Michael Kelly who was at the 14th St Bridge on the opposite side of the Pentagon when a plane flew very low over h i s car, which he THEN said caused the explosion at the Pentagon, making him a FLYOVER WITNESS.

They claim that LLOYDE ENGLAND and his cab are crucial witnesses, yet they absolutely reject Lloyde's testimony that he was beside the cemetery wall when the pole hit his cab, calling him "CONFUSED".

They are the ones unable to discern how devious and two-faced Jeff Hill was in his interviews, how he deliberately misled witnesses, and avoided asking them any specific questions that would give valid information about their location and what they saw.

They are the ones who have no respect, no integrity and no credibility.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: neutronflux

Those were good days back then, educational and entertaining at the same time. Many hours of informed reading for the curious although I don't miss the CIT and P4T comedy antics - sometimes it was like they actually believed the stuff they were peddling and unwary netizens are still stumbling onto their old stuff.

Mockery is so unbecoming and adds nothing to the discussion. I wonder at your unqualified criticism here of CIT and P4T.

Of course they believed everything they said, as shown by their websites and youtube channels, which have been maintained with no retractions of any of their work.
Except for a minor correction of a mathematical calculation by P4T.

They did the most valuable investigations into Pentagon evidence that we have. CIT with their huge bank of first-person eyewitness testimony, and P4T with their analyses of the FDR data released by FAA, NTSB etc, proving the official story impossible.

However, they both did make serious judgement calls where Lloyde England was concerned, and this also affected their conclusions about several other witnesses such as McGraw, Sucherman, Narayanan, Owens etc. They were deceived here by the contrived photos of Lloyde's cab on the bridge, even though they knew that these had been staged. They fell short of discovering just how this was done.

I am trying to influence them to revisit their work on these witnesses in light of new evidence, in which case they would discover that they have even more North-of-Citgo witnesses than they thought.

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You posted that I claimed the north flight path witnesses were lying. Now quote where I posted such a thing.

So you believe all the northside witnesses were telling the truth then?

How about you quote what I posted.

And what did the north side witnesses see hit the pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

Here's a related thread I made in 2008 before P4T imploded and I had all the data at hand. It has a some info worth a look if you haven't seen it already.

I didn't come into this with any pre-conceived notions about 9/11 other than it happened, stumbling into ATS in the early 2000's while looking for UFO related info and unaware of any conspiracy arguments surrounding the 2001 events in DC & NYC at that time. So hopefully I've reached my own conclusions impartially by studying the actual data, not by influence from youtube conspiracy videos and the various groups peddling that stuff.

I've found that opposing conspiracy theories doesn't go over very well in a conspiracy forum so I mostly stay out of it these days, just keeping an eye out for any new verifiable data that might surface.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

So. For the fly over fantasy. You take the north flight path witnesses, ignore the majority saw a jet hit the pentagon, and ignore that you cannot quote a single person that a large passenger jet missed the pentagon to fly over the pentagon. With the maneuver required to miss the pentagon would be physical impossible for the actual jet?

Drivel.
There ARE witnesses who support the flyover.

There is NOBODY who saw the plane fly across the bridge.

Especially all the witnesses who were on the bridge at the time.

Except for Mike Walter, the serial lying witness.

There was no "MANOUEVRE" required to fly over the pentagon.

All the plane had to do was continue flying at the altitude that so many witnesses claimed it to be when it crossed Route 27, and it couldn't help but fly above the roof.

It is the straw man manoeuvre invented by Frank Legge etc which would have made it impossible for the plane that everyone witnessed flying on the Northside path, to have HIT the Pentagon.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: RubyGray

Here's a related thread I made in 2008 before P4T imploded and I had all the data at hand. It has a some info worth a look if you haven't seen it already.
...
I've found that opposing conspiracy theories doesn't go over very well in a conspiracy forum so I mostly stay out of it these days, just keeping an eye out for any new verifiable data that might surface.

Thanks for the background! Yes, it is OK to be sceptical on these forums, as long as you are only sceptical about the same stuff as everybody else. When you swim against the tide, the mob mentality attacks you personally, no matter how sound your logic and evidence. I call these forums the piranha pool.

I am interested to read your thread.

Whereabouts are you? N, S, E, NW, etc?

originally posted by: RubyGray

Whereabouts are you? N, S, E, NW, etc?

D'entrecasteaux Channel area

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: RubyGray

Whereabouts are you? N, S, E, NW, etc?

D'entrecasteaux Channel area

That sounds idyllic!

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: RubyGray

Here's a related thread I made in 2008 before P4T imploded and I had all the data at hand. It has a some info worth a look if you haven't seen it already.

Thanks, I read this just now. It contains a lot of good material on all sides. There's a contribution from Rob Balsamo, and some excellent points from Griff who is still sometimes active on Letsrollforums, plus considerable input from SPreston. Back in 2008, all this research was new and people would debate it properly. It's a shame that the situation has deteriorated into such a vitriolic slanging match.

I always appreciate Griff's considered and graciously stated opinions. And I find SPreston to have been an excellent exponent of the North-of-Citgo flightpath, with well reasoned posts such as this quote from your 2008 thread :

"Many of those 'hundreds' of witnesses have already been proven to be no witnesses at all to the Flight 77 757 aircraft; although Arabesque refuses to correct his terribly flawed website. People located in such places as their office 10 miles away or the passenger station at Reagan with the hi-rise buildings of Crystal City blocking their view should not be included as witnesses; 2nd and 3rd hand accounts are not bonafide witnesses. How can persons without a last name be considered as eyewitnesses? Shouldn't all witnesses to a crime be verifiable? If someone is arrested for this crime, shouldn't they be able to face their accusers? Shouldn't their lawyers be allowed to know who accuses them of this crime and question them during 'voir dire'? Shouldn't we all be able to verify these alleged 'hundreds' of witnesses to judge whether they were quoted properly or if the MSM reporters even bothered to question them? The supporters of the official flight path are frightened to attempt to track down witnesses, because instinctively they know that it would be a fruitless effort."

That comment is just as appropriate to this thread as it was to yours.

Nobody has ever yet been able to produce valid first-person testimony from any verifiable eyewitness who saw the plane fly across the bridge and knock down lightpoles, even after the eleven years since SPreston made this comment.

There are many witnesses who were near Lloyde England and / or saw the plane fly very close to them, who specifically state that they DID NOT see the pkane hit lightpoles.

These include :

Sgt William Lagasse
Sgt Chadwick Brooks
ATC Sean Boger
Father Stephen McGraw
Joel Sucherman
Vin Narayanan
Penny Elgas
Darius Prather
William Middleton

There is still not one single eyewitness who has testified to having seen the plane actually HIT ANY POLES.

People testify to having "seen a flash", and then merely PRESUMED that this was the plane hitting poles. Such as Albert Hemphill and Terry Morin, who both testified that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex, making them northside witnesses.

Other accounts merely MENTION the poles having been downed, which is proof of nothing other than poles laying on the ground. There are third-person and hearsay accounts, and unnamed "witnesses", and people who when later questioned, denied having seen the poles being hit, but NOBODY really saw this happen.

If there were so many valid testimonies, we would be seeing binge-posting of their verbatim testimonies, which simply never happens.

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby, what did Penny and the North Flight Path Witness see hit the pentagon?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby, what did Penny and the North Flight Path Witness see hit the pentagon?

If you had ever bothered to read her fanciful description of "what hit the Pentagon", then you would kniw as well as I that she sounds more as though she saw a plane breaking through the sound barrier, than hitting a monolithic wall.

Penny Elgas claims to have seen the tail glide into the building, whereas others claim it fell off outside. There is no evidence for either of these options.

She(like other close witnesses) said she heard no sound, while many claimed it was incredibly loud..

She gives a very long description of something that would have occurred in one fifth of a second. Other people also claimed to have seen this occur "in slow motion", which of course is nonsense. This simply cannot happen.

So what Penny Elgas THOUGHT she saw, and what she actually observed, are totally different things.

Many other witnesses reported a DELAY between the plane "disappearing" or "melting into the building", and the explosion.

I take this as a significant CLUE to what really happened, which also explains the anomalous "slow motion" delusions.

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. What did Penny and the north flight path witnesses see hit the pentagon. Either the witnesses are credible are not? Are you saying the north side witness and Penny are not credible. Or only credible when it’s convenient for you?

And since the flight path damage, the pentagon damage, and the wreckage, crew remains, and passenger remains of 77 ended up at the pentagon backs Penny’s claims. Penny has an account with context.

Quote one witness who said a passenger jet fly away from the pentagon.

The north flight path witnesses have no context, no physical evidence to support what they attest to. With it being physically impossible for a jet to maneuver from its witnessed dive, and there is no witnesses of a jet missing and fly away from the pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

You

She(like other close witnesses) said she heard no sound, while many claimed it was incredibly loud..

She gives a very long description of something that would have occurred in one fifth of a second. Other people also claimed to have seen this occur "in slow motion", which of course is nonsense. This simply cannot happen.

Quote were these witnesses claim that literally happened? They are conveying the emotions effects and horror of seeing a larger passenger jet ramming the pentagon. But they agree a large jet hit the pentagon, and nothing flew away.

originally posted by: RubyGray
She(like other close witnesses) said she heard no sound, while many claimed it was incredibly loud..

She gives a very long description of something that would have occurred in one fifth of a second. Other people also claimed to have seen this occur "in slow motion", which of course is nonsense. This simply cannot happen.

So what Penny Elgas THOUGHT she saw, and what she actually observed, are totally different things.

Have to disagree there from personal experience.
Shock and adrenaline cause this effect but you need to be in a major event - like in my case a very serious car accident back in the 60's. The brain processes visual information much faster than normal for a brief time at the expense of other senses like hearing and perception of pain. It's a basic last ditch survival instinct thing and everyone's trigger threshold is different.
Yes things 'floated' in slow motion for me too for a matter of seconds in real time but felt like much longer (like 2 or 3 times longer)

Little factoids like that in Penny's account make it even more compelling and truthful.

a reply to: Pilgrum

If the sight of a plane hitting the Pentagon appeared to last 3 times longer for Penny Elgas, then her perception of the plane hitting the wall and disappearing inside would still have lasted only 3 fifths of a second.

The convolutions she described during this phenomenon are absurd. There is simply no way for human eyes and brain to process that amount of information in a fraction of a second. Impossible.

Try watching the Gatecam video #1 again. Just one time. How fast those frames flick by! Can you describe the event from memory without rewatching it? No! Not even when we only watch two or three frames.

I am not saying these witnesses saw nothing, but that their descriptions of what they saw, in so many cases, are incompatible with a 90 ton object hitting a monolith at 780 feet per second. Their descriptions are surreal and diaphanous, not the irresistible-force-hits-immoveable-object crash bang that we would expect.

I know the witnesses saw a plane, but it was on a path incompatible with the damage trail.

I know the witnesses saw an explosion, but it is not only planes which cause explosions, just as it is not only planes which contain jet fuel.

There are numerous witnesses convinced that they saw the plane hit ... But AT THE THIRD FLOOR LEVEL.

ATC Sean Boger, Mary Ann Owens, Major Lincoln Liebner were all within about 100 yards of impact when they "SAW" the plane hit much higher than the ground floor hole.

There are many other witnesses who claim that the plane hit the ground then b . "BOUNCED UP INTO THE PENTAGON". Clearly, a plane already in contact with the ground, CANNOT "BOUNCE UP" to hit the building at ground level.

These witnesses all saw something incompatible with the Official Story, but their minds processed this visual information in accordance with what they had already heard about two planes hitting buildings in New York, and with media saturation after the fact.

a reply to: RubyGray

PENNY ELGAS TESTIMONY

"In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.

"In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds.

"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke."

Nope. Not buying this as proof that she saw AA77 hit the Pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

Remember the definition of cherry picking?

You're dismissing the bits of a testimony you don't like and accepting only the bits you can modify to fit your own version of events. Is that an honest way to go about an investigation?

How can you explain her statement that she first saw the plane coming 'straight' from the west at her car which was stationary and then propose that it crossed the highway at a right angle much further ahead than her estimate of 4-5 car lengths? Then go on to suggest the plane missed the building contrary to all who state they witnessed that event?

Seems an awful lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the simplest solution to the overall physical evidence and statements from those who actually witnessed it or parts of it in person.

How much are you willing to change and what's the reason for doing that?

That's exactly what CIT etc did way back then