*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

My attention was attracted by the quite precise reporting by Penny Elgas of what she saw and where she was at the Pentagon on 9/11 when she saw the plane.
Her full report can be and should be read here :
americanhistory.si.edu...

Penny's drive from home to the point of impact and back home again :



Before, I had always believed that Penny was driving at a totally different location, when she saw the plane.
But after reading this above piece of American history, I realized that she is a definitive North of Citgo witness, and that fact has slipped under the radar by all of us up till now.

I only found out when I tried different Google Earth maps from different countries than the USA, that I found out that Columbia Pike in fact extends, better said begins at the Pentagon South parking lot, then runs to the ANC and makes a sharp round turn in front of the North side of the Citgo station, and then turns back all the way under the 8th Wing of the Navy Annex, makes a sharp turn to the right and runs then uphill along the south east side of the Navy Annex.

For me that first track from the South parking lot to the ANC was a totally unknown fact.
All the maps I had seen in the last seven years stopped naming that road just under the Navy Annex and changed it to Oakwood Drive.
The fact that the first part which runs perpendicular to Washington Boulevard (27) is also named Columbia Pike turns out to be very important, since Penny reported to be here :

I headed north on 1-395 to DC from my home in Springfield, Virginia and I entered the highway a little after 9am so that I could take the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) express lane. As usual, traffic was very heavy and after I exited I-95, I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon.

This is the German Google Map from the Pentagon area, you can use the zoom function to zoom in or out on any feature of the terrain, with street names filled in; sharper and more names, when you zoom in more and more :
maps.google.de...,-77.056022&z=15&t=h&hl=en
You can also use your own screenshotted zooms to attack or defend my following thesis about Penny being a definite North of Citgo witness.

For the ones with slow dial-up connections, I have made screen captures from these maps and included the route Penny took that morning of 9/11 (shown in thin red lines), and the point where she was forced to stop because of the trafic which was jammed in the HOV lane (between the north and south going standard lanes).

She left her home in Springfield on 9/11, and followed I-395 to the Pentagon junction, where she took the lane to the HOV lane, on which she came to a standstill "" almost in front of the Pentagon "" :

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane 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.

Possible track on which Penny stood still, the purple line. The two yellow circles are the two trees and the faint "H" on the former heli pad, this picture is taken during the clean-up phase :


To decide at what spot plus or minus some yards/meters Penny stood still in her car and looked to her left to see the plane coming in low, we have to concentrate on her use of the terms "" looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on "" and to be followed up next by her words :
"" to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station ""

Realize yourself again, that her words were recorded by a Media paid journalist, who's texts will be checked and edited before it goes in print. One thing to notice is the peculiar absence of an indication on which side of the Citgo that plane flew, according to her. At least we can conclude from her Media-recorded words, that it did not fly over the Citgo, but to one of its sides.
All these years, the official reports defenders plus the Media have tried to convince us, that Penny was talking about a plane coming to her over that part of the Pike, running downhill in front of the south side of the Navy Annex, thus fitting in the official flight path trajectory.

So, have a very good look at my following screenshot, named "Penny-Elgas-possible-spots-and-views",



and realize that if we had to believe that officially pushed view of Penny describing the plane coming to her (the longest blue-line arrow west wards), she never ever could have described that view as "" the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on "". That view is under a sharp angle to the back of her and definitely not perpendicular to route 27, also known as Washington Boulevard, the road in front of the Pentagon.

In the first possible spot that could fit all her recorded statements, she would be on top of the bridge in the center of that big clover leaf of roads. The lowest drawn blue spot, by me.
In that case, most parts of the Official flight path would have occurred BEHIND her, and not as she said, "" it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport "". Her words "" in the slightest turn "" definitely does not indicate a SHARP turn away from her, towards the heliport. Such a sharp turn must have occurred, if we believe that she was describing the officially pushed flight path, and it then must have occurred totally behind her car, in which case she would not have been able to describe much at all, because she did not tell us she had to fully turn around to keep following the plane.
That means that she was NOT standing on top of that bridge, where Columbia Pike is running under towards the South parking lot, but she was standing in her car much further North. Probably, but quite sure, close to Christine Peterson's car, which stood right in front of the heli pad, in between those two big trees to the right side of 27.

Read her next excerpt for those official flightpath condemning, important words :

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.

And thus, when she stood much closer to Christine Peterson's car, and the heli pad, (my second higher placed blue dot on 27) she is describing a plane coming at her over the part of Columbia Pike which runs in front of the ANC buildings, and North of Citgo (the view drawn by me using that horizontal blue arrow).
Now if you read her description of that slightest turn in front of her, we can only conclude that she tells us that on that moment the plane was banking very slightly to the left, since the wing furthest away from her was nearest to the ground and she saw the underside of it.
In fact she is strongly corroborating Christine Peterson's account of a plane flying nearly over the heli pad, a bit south of it.
Penny describes a plane crossing Washington Boulevard (27) about 30 to 40 yards/meters in front of her, and Christine told us the plane flew nearly straight over her car, and she stood in between those two trees along 27, right in front of the heli pad. So Penny stood probably just 30 to 40 meters behind her, but in the HOV lane.
It could even be possible that the two women talked to each other, when you read the rest of Penny's account.

Thus, if a fly-over occurred instead of a blow-up of the plane just in front of the west wall of the Pentagon, it indicates that the plane took a northern fly-away path, probably following the Potomac river Reagan Airport official departure route.

Btw, Penny's account must of course be coupled to all the other North of Citgo accounts of witnesses interviewed by CIT, and then you see that she must have been in that second blue spot, and describing a plane coming in over the center of wing 8 of the Navy Annex, passing north of Citgo and over the last part of Columbia Pike and then crossing Washington Boulevard (27) in front of the Pentagon just south of the helipad.
See Edward Paik's to Terry Morin's to Lagasse's to Christine Peterson's drawn flight path by me :




So, we now have another NoC witness, corroborating Christine Peterson's account.

This is the route Penny took home again towards Route 66 after the impact, and after she talked to the other woman.
See her text describing what she did when she drove away when the traffic started to move again, in the first above link, this is a screenshot of that north part of the Pentagon area :

There are a few trip-wires build in inadvertently by the Media reporters and editors who definitely had the order to clean-up her raw story.

The slight left bank in front of her car does not fit at all the "downed lamp posts", which were all "clipped" at the same height, on both sides of the "plane's wings". That does nor cope with her description of a left wing dipping to the ground.

There are more, let's wait if the official story believers will stumble over them.

Btw, her description of what she saw when the plane hit the wall fits exactly a blow-up of the plane from nose, back to tail.
And yes, this can be done and executed within a few thousands of a second.
This scenario I have posted a few times already at this forum, but nobody ever dared to touch it, let it be to discuss it.

You will have to, since that scenario is collecting strength the more witnesses statements you scrutinize after confessing to a North of Citgo flight path, and when you understand the importance of Christine's and Penny's precise event explanations, from the very first day.

They really aimed at the Naval Offices, and ONA.
If it was done with internal explosives or with a few supersonic bunker busters (unable to be registered by the human eye at more than Mach 3) is still a question not decisively answered, in my opinion.

reply to post by LaBTop


I wonder if it's possible for Penny to be traced and interviewed? Perhaps if she was able to return to the exact spot her car was, she could describe the flight path on video camera?

It's a big ask and I don't expect too many witnesses to come forward or be so willing, especially this long after the event.

Again, nice work, LaBTop.

reply to post by LaBTop


NoC that hit the Pentagon?

You get a star.

reply to post by cogburn

Haha! I was waiting to see when you would detect that NOC-impact theory, cogburn!!! You didn't take long at all, very impressive.

It would be interesting to hear Penny answer more questions about the 'explosion'. She might be able to turn more people to your theory? Who knows!!!

Edit: How credible do you think that she may be as a NOC witness?

[edit on 22-1-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


You could test it a few ways. The more times she is verified as consistent with her own observations, the more reliable one may conclude her recollections.

What would be required is clarification of her placement along I-395 as closely as she could recall. One may then take just that information and recreate her possible FOV at the time of the event. Her detailed description of the impact could then be placed in proper perspective. Some follow-up questions will probably arise.

It's important to remember that these are people. Normal people who witnessed a world-famous, well publicized event, and one would be asking them to make personal recollections nearly 8 years after the fact. One must be very careful when analyzing this kind of observation.

It's a tricky business.

If we ever ask them any new questions, agreed, you'd have to be very careful and precise, but the advantage of both ladies their linked interviews is, that they were made the same day and one day after 911.
So their recollection of events was as fresh as can be.
From Penny exists also a radio interview, where she called in to a local station on 911 to tell her story.
Would be nice to get a hold on that audio.


This is a photo from the 911 Digital Archive, of the Pentagon immediately after Flight 77 hit the building. This photo was made by Steve Riskus, he was on Route 27 when the plane crossed and hit the Pentagon.
Perhaps we see here, between those two trees, in front of the heli pad, the car of one of the ladies, Christine or Penny. All cars are empty, the drivers are somewhere else. Talking together perhaps?
I would have a keen interest in interviewing all drivers of all cars stopped in front of the Pentagon that day, if I were an official prosecutor in a future recap of 911 events.
Photo's like this one can be very handy in that case.

Date Entered: 2002-08-23. Photo is 2048px × 1536px.
You can scale this photo down to your screen width by clicking on it :
911digitalarchive.org...

This is a forum-width scaled down one :



The link to the Repository of that photo is this one :
911digitalarchive.org...

When you click the "view contributor link" of that photograph, you get the next text: :
911digitalarchive.org...

Name: Sarah Lagasse
Location: Inside the Pentagon, Arlington, VA
Age: 28
Gender: female
Race: White
Occupation: police officer

That's interesting, family of the other Pentagon police officer with the same name, and interviewed by CIT at the Citgo gas station near the Pentagon much later, had already contributed this picture by Steve Riskus to the 911 Digital Archive, somewhere before the 2002-08-23 date, when this photo was added to the collection.
But we knew already that William Lagasse had a very early online interest in the Pentagon events, so this other fact is not outright peculiar. But I like to find as many facts possible, stitching them together later with other facts is always very interesting.

This is the 911 Digital Archive advanced search function, do use it to your advantage :
911digitalarchive.org...

Let's have a more detailed look at my earlier screenshot, named "Penny-Elgas-possible-spots-and-views" :



The earlier linked to, Google Maps Deutschland view of the Pentagon area gives us many more possibilities perhaps not known to the bulk of our readers. That's why I'll offer you all some screenshots of what can be done with it, f.ex. screenshots from actual, nowadays street views.

This is a screenshot of Penny Elgas view to the right, in the direction of the South parking lot and Pentagon, when she would have sit in her car on top of the bridge-crossing of 27 and Columbia Pike, its last stretch, which is leading to the Pentagon's South parking lot. This is the view nearly exactly under the officially proposed flight 77 flight path. But she was not sitting at that spot, and I'll explain why.


Penny-Elgas-at-Crossing-27-Pike, looking right.

As you can see in this above, and the next shot, which would have been her left view, towards the Navy Annex and the nowadays erected huge concrete triple arched pins of the National Air force Monument, which Terry Morin described as the point where the plane would have crossed over the roof of Wing 8 of the Navy Annex on 911, Penny could have never ever described the plane's "nose coming straight at her", from over the road (Columbia Pike) perpendicular to the one she was on, 27, a.k.a. Washington Boulevard. In fact she would have described a plane coming from far back behind her, crossing diagonally just in front or exactly over her car, under an angle of about 60°.
And that plane wouldn't have passed "over the road(Columbia Pike) perpendicular to the one she was on, 27.
You can see that perpendicular stretch crossing underneath the 27 bridge.


Penny-Elgas-at-Crossing-27-Pike-left-view


These are Penny's exact words from the linked article :

"" looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on "" and to be followed up next by her words :
"" to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station ""

If you carefully analyze firstly what precisely she is expressing there : "" coming straight at us from over the road "", the words "straight" and "from over" stand out. These mean in my opinion not that the plane followed that road, thus flying along it, since in that case she would have omitted the word "from".
"From over" means that the plane came over that curled part of Columbia Pike just north of the Citgo gas station.

Secondly, if the plane's nose would have indeed come "straight" at Penny's car (if it were on that bridge, which it was not)) along that perpendicular to 27 stretch of Columbia Pike, then the whole official flight path would be a laughing stock. The plane would then have missed the Pentagon, and flown over the South parking lot or crashed there.

Thirdly, her next words indicate another position, different from the official flight path :
"" 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. ""
Those 4 to 5 car lengths means about 30 to 40 meters away, see the positions of the cars in the above posted Steve Riskus photo. All cars keep a distance from eachother, they are not stuck together.
That does at first glance fit the official flight path; according to that, the plane's right wing tip just struck the camera mast beside the huge road sign spanning all of the Washington Boulevard, so it crossed 27 just in front of it, diagonally.

However, a few things don't line up at all with Penny's words then.
See the next screenshot of the proposed official flight path which is 941px by 558px,
called Penny-Elgas-impossible-car-position-on-bridge :
www.alsx.info...

This is a forum width scaled down one, to 680x403 pixels :



If we look at Penny's words again :

"" looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on "" and to be followed up next by her words :
"" to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station ""

again that word "straight" does not fit that bridge crossing position, and the most compelling contradiction is her perfect position in that case, to see ALL the light poles being clipped by that huge plane's wings.
But she doesn't mention one word about such an event.

So we move on to another position, which would fit all her words, see this full screenshot of 915x567 pixels :
www.alsx.info...

This is a forum scaled down one of 680x421 pixels, called Penny-Christine-view-at-plane :



The first thing we remember then, is this sentence of her :
"" to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station ""
and then I realized, that she also in my opinion, is describing a view, as if seen from a online photograph like the above one.
She literally means "above" the Citgo gas station, in fact "not much" North of it.
If the plane she saw would have flown South of the Citgo, she would have used the word "under" in that case.

Originally posted by LaBTop
The first thing we remember then, is this sentence of her :
"" to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station ""
and then I realized, that she also in my opinion, is describing a view, as if seen from a online photograph like the above one.
She literally means "above" the Citgo gas station, in fact "not much" North of it.
If the plane she saw would have flown South of the Citgo, she would have used the word "under" in that case.

I think you've got some really valid analysis, however I have a problem with the quoted paragraph.

When taken in context her statements obviously refer to altitude and not lateral position.

It is notable that, as you mentioned, given the vivid imagery of her account that the light poles were not mentioned.

Part of me can't help but wonder if portions of her story were embellished slightly which is what is creating the discrepancies.

I'm wondering if it's possible that the plane didn't fly in front of her... but behind and that is the portion that is embellished.

Change that one portion of her story and suddenly the plane is flying south of Citgo and explains why she didn't mention the light pole damage... she was facing the wrong way. Altering that one statement doesn't contradict any of her statements afterwards, either.

The more I think about it the more I think that's what really happened. Her story is infinitely more dramatic with her accounts of the plane being in front of her car in her line of sight.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


Definitely an option to consider, but given the number of other witnesses who place the NOC flightpath, the likelihood is that she too is describing this flightpath.

reply to post by almighty bob


I don't agree that the 13 witnesses we've been presented unanimously state a north side flight path. Entire threads could be, and have been, dedicated to that alone so let's skip that for now.

There's no mention of black-bag men carrying light poles around on their shoulders while there is mention of people aimlessly wandering around outside their cars.

It's notable that she mentions she was only made aware of people outside the Pentagon congregating on the sidewalk when she was yelled at by someone in uniform to get in her car. Not once does she mention looking over at the southbound lane to see what was going on there. Her focus was completely dedicated to the foreground action around her until she was yelled at.

Was this a black-bag man getting people out of sight of the light poles being placed in the road? Was that why they were told to stay in their cars?

Not likely given people were already congregating when she noticed them. People were wandering around outside their cars. There were witnesses everywhere. It's more likely this uniformed man was another traveler on the road that morning and simply took charge of the situation after surveying the mayhem. It is 9am on the road outside the Pentagon, after all.

LaBTop proved her position cannot be reconciled with her description of the flight of the plane. However if one assumes that portion of her story is the point in error, not her position, suddenly her account is 100% in keeping with the SoC flight path.

She got her description of the plane wrong because she made it up. Why did she make it up? Because the plane actually flew behind her and all she saw was aftermath, not nearly as dramatic.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


Good points, yes, it does seem that a her story does seem to include a not insignificant amount of embellishment.

Originally posted by cogburn

I don't agree that the 13 witnesses we've been presented unanimously state a north side flight path. Entire threads could be, and have been, dedicated to that alone so let's skip that for now.

No let's not skip that for now.

You have demonstrated how you will flip your argument just to be adversarial without regard for the evidence or your previous claims.

Do you or do you not accept the north side evidence as valid?

If not why do you still link to a thread that YOU created suggesting that I lost the debate where YOU were arguing for a north side impact?

Obviously that requires you to accept the north side evidence as valid.

So which is it?

Either you do or you don't but you keep flip-flopping so you can take whatever position is most adversarial at the moment.

That is not an intellectually honest approach to this discussion.

So if you do not believe that the 13 witnesses cited support either an ONA or NoC approach state the witness and make your case now or in a new thread.

Otherwise we can only go by what you have argued for in the past which is that the plane DID fly NoC.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

I used NoC to prove P4T/CIT arguments incomplete and to illustrate how the definitiveness of those arguments are wanting.

I am here to test the accuracy of the claims made for nothing more than exercising my critical thinking capacities. My agenda is no more inclusive than that.

If I am able to use P4T/CIT information and create an alternative series of events the problem isn't my motivation, it's in the assumptions made by P4T/CIT.

It's telling that for all the information posted on page 14 of this thread, one chose to dispute that single quote in my post and not the volumes of information posted by LaBTop (showing NoC and an impact) or my assumptions about Elgas's statements.

No comments about Elgas's statements or was she simply "in on it," too?

[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn

I am here to test the accuracy of the claims made for nothing more than exercising my critical thinking capacities. My agenda is no more inclusive than that.

Ahhhh! Just as I thought. Very telling.

That is a convenient excuse for you to be able to assert and argue whatever you want merely for the sake of argument even if you don't believe it.

That is dishonest communication and your propensity to jump from premise to premise without any commitment to a position or concessions regarding the evidence is not conducive to productive discussion.

This is not the debate forum.

This forum is meant for honest civil discussion regarding evidence implicating a conspiracy on 9/11.

This is real life, real evidence, and real people are dying every day in a real war based on this lie.

You have just admitted to not having the slightest interest in contributing here to find the truth behind 9/11 or the slightest interest to engage in honest healthy skepticism regarding the event.

I say go exercise your debate skills in the debate forum because most of us are here because we are concerned with truth, justice, and the future of a world controlled by deception, fear, and mass murder.

If you are willing to argue for or against evidence or information from a position that you don't even believe simply for the sake of argument then discussion with you will always be futile and I will refuse to facilitate your hollow motive and hope that others will ignore you as well.



[edit on 23-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

I think you have you threads confused. It's hard to have a discussion on a topic, much less a debate, when each time a contrary point is made the response from the proponent of the theory is unsubstantive vitriol.

Do you have any comment on LaBTop's analysis or are you just using this as an opportunity to question my motivations for posting on ATS?

The only one not contributing to the discussion is you.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


This thread is not about Penny Elgas.

Her account hasn't been confirmed first-hand.

But if she is an honest witness we know that she saw the plane on the north side because this is where ALL of the witnesses whose accounts have been confirmed first-hand place the plane.

YOU are the one who interjected the comment suggesting this wasn't the case so I am calling you out.

The fact that your own arguments contradict each other and your stated reason for posting here exposes your intellectual dishonesty isn't my fault.

So.....do you or do you not believe the north side evidence is valid?

If not which of the 13 witnesses cited are you arguing do not support ONA or NoC and why?

Stop flip-flopping take a stance on something for once in your life.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But if she is an honest witness we know that she saw the plane on the north side because this is where ALL of the witnesses whose accounts have been confirmed first-hand place the plane.

likewise: if she is an honest witness we know she saw the plane hit the pentagon...because this is where ALL of the witnesses whose accounts have been confirmed first-hand place the plane

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You dont have evidence bud.
You have WITNESS STATEMENTS.
The fact that you either DONT KNOW the difference or refuse to accept the difference is very telling as to your intentions.
You claim youself to be an, "indepedent journalist" yet you dont even know this basic fact?
WITNESS STATEMENTS DO NOT EQUAL EVIDENCE.
Please get a clue.

reply to post by adam_zapple


Yes we already understand how you are willing to dismiss scientifically validated evidence based on a logical fallacy (circular logic).

The north side approach proves the plane did not hit and this hard evidence is completely falsifiable.

All you have to do is provide 14 first-hand south side accounts from people in an equal to or better vantage point than the 13 north side witnesses presented.

To accept anything less exposes your confirmation bias.

So far you have zero.