Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by Lillydale

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by mmiichael

 

LOL. Most of what you said is bunk and anyone reading any of these threads can see that but my favorite has to be - how could they ever get someone to confess that was not guilty

Apparently you have been living under a rock because getting people to confess to things they did not do is what torture (rendition) is all about.

I think she makes a good point there Michael. It's been made known that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to things that it's known he couldn't have been responsible for. There's a reason that a lot of the evidence gathered through torture has been thrown out; surely you are aware that this has been done by actual US courts, instead of the jury rigged military courts set up to by George W. Bush?

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to Pilgrum's post #2455, Part 2

 

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There was one witness who couldn't see the fireball but -did- see a plane fly over the pentagon at that point in time.

That would be Roosevelt Roberts I think. His account is even more at odds with the other witnesses in so many ways than those I was told earlier were 'conflicting' and must be dismissed. I think he's just somewhat confused in the chaos of what was going on.

Furthermore, I believe I heard that one witness mention that the landing gear was already out as it approached the pentagon.

That one is Noel Sepulveda and he's the only one who thought the gear was being lowered while every other witness mentioning it specifically states the landing gear was up, aviators among them. He's also a light pole and building impact witness:

He saw the plane fly above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane’s right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle, he said. The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle. "You could hear the engines being revved up even higher," Sepulveda said. The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. "The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low," Sepulveda said. "For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it." An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole. When he regained his balance, he started running to the crash site.

I'm not clear on whether he actually said the gear was lowered or that it was just added in by a reporter interviewing him.

EDIT - fixed quotes & more typos


[edit on 12/12/2009 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by JPhish

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
So Lloyde’s testimony is the reason why you believe his cab was impaled by a light pole. You also believe the psychical evidence corroborates his story.

That's more or less correct,

So

Why would Lloyde’s testimony lead you to believe that his cab was impaled by one of those light poles when he himself says that he was not anywhere near the poles when the event took place?

A very good point. I've heard it argued that he was just confused, but I find it interesting that he only -became- "confused" when he realized how many witnesses placed the plane on the north of citgo flight path.

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by JPhish

 

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
So Lloyde’s testimony is the reason why you believe his cab was impaled by a light pole. You also believe the psychical evidence corroborates his story.

That's more or less correct,

So

Why would Lloyde’s testimony lead you to believe that his cab was impaled by one of those light poles when he himself says that he was not anywhere near the poles when the event took place?

A very good point. I've heard it argued that he was just confused, but I find it interesting that he only -became- "confused" when he realized how many witnesses placed the plane on the north of citgo flight path.

We all know perfectly well where Lloyde was on 9/11; there are photos.

Yes, he was confused about his location when CIT got to him years later but, lets face it, CIT were not there to help the old guy out.

Sgt Lagasse was also confused as to where he was filling his car at the Citgo gas station but CIT hang on to his testimony, well the bit they want anyway. Why the double standard ?

This will go over the heads of Truthers out there, but I'll put it out for those who are self aware.

A number of studies have been done on people's statements on events and how they change over periods of time. The classic study is witnesses to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in the Ford Theater by John Wilkes Booth. People in the audience were interviewed by the press right after the event. Years later sometimes as much as 40 years after, the same people were reinterviewed by magazines, historians, etc.

There was an ineivtable trend for people to position themselves closer to the core event as they were asked the same questions later. Exemplifying this was a man in a wheelchair who initially saw little only remembering hearing the shot and seeing a blur as the assassin ran down an aisle. 40 years later his story had evolved and he was recounting how he actually grappled with the assassin Booth trying to stop him from escaping.

Psychologists have found this phenomenon of enhancing stories to dramatize and personalize is typical. How does this relate to the CIT witnesses? First off, any court would realize their testimonies are hopelessly tainted. All the witnesses had not only read and discussed extensively the events at the Pentagon and their participation, but also had access to the CIT viewpoint.

Add how they were being prompted to provide responses that satisfied their interviewers. Add they were not under oath. There was no consequence for embellishing. They may not have been totally truthful in their initial accounts, taking advantage of the opportunity to have their names on the record. In some cases they likely had to reconcile a versions of events they had told others.

And again we must question CIT’s integrity level. There is a strong editing component to present a certain picture very obviously. There are no full transcripts or outtakes. We don’t know what was said surrounding the snippets on videos or how many takes there were.

A problem of reliability is obvious with Lloyde England who is decidedly confused and indicates loss of faculties that come with advanced age. He also appears to be toying with his interviewers enjoying the attention and inferred celebrity status as a key witness.

CIT’s manipulation for self serving purposes cannot be underestimated either. They scrupulously avoid thousands of other more reliable witnesses who would demolish their pet theories.

For those of us who see what’s going on the conclusion is obvious. A handful of witness statements which further a certain scenario are presented as representative of an historical event. But they are not truly representative and in fact are misleading.

Given a broader context which includes a much larger sampling, forensic evidence, analysis of damage to the Pentagon, tracking data, etc – they are aberrant samplings. Any judge, any historian, any reporter, would disregard out. But CIT specializes in going through the wastebasket of the historical record. Assembling mistakes, confusion, unduly prompted testimony, is how they operate.

In the odd sub-culture where people are convinced there was some sort of government cover-up with 9/11, and Muslim terrorists did not really hijack passenger planes and fly them into buildings, CIT finds an audience.

They are willing, in fact eager to accept hopelessly tainted witness testimony. They willfully ignore the massive data and documentation dismissing it as a governmental “Official Story” which they refuse to accept in principle. So extremely shaky and agenda driven alternative versions of events are immediately embraced as factual.

This is the what all this is really about.


[edit on 12-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to Pilgrum's post #2458, Part 1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by scott3x

 

I have that Lloyd video you're quoting from here somewhere and I have watched it.

I'm not quoting it from here, I'm quoting it from a page on a web page of mine; essentially I transcribed some portions of CIT's video, Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm. Incidentally, I just found and watched a followup wherein Craig Ranke of CIT elaborates on why Lloyd England's testimony has to be false:

Craig Ranke on Lloyde England at the Granada Forum

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x
As to Lloyd himself, I personally think that he's suffering from a crisis of conscious, and there's a part of him that desperately wants to "come clean"

He doesn't appear to be in crisis at all

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
but does appear to enjoy getting out of the house for a while, chauffeur driven too.

I personally think he had an idea that this would go much further then a chauffeur driven ride. And I think he even demonstrated that he knew this when he stated the line I've mentioned before:

Lloyd: One thing about it you gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it, you- eventually it's going to come to me. And when it comes to me it's going to be so big I can't do nothing about it. So it has to be stopped in the beginning when it's small.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x
I've gone over that black smudge on the pole in a truther forum; basically, it's not the type of mark that a plane would leave.

It's more than a smudge. Have you considered that maybe the galvanising has been removed there exposing the darker steel base metal underneath? Not to mention the fact that the footpeg has been torn completely off.

I don't have the expertise to argue the point; I'd have to ferret out the thread where some truthers explained how it couldn't have been done by the plane. Honesty though, I consider it a minor detail, considering all the evidence that the plane flew on a north of citgo approach to the pentagon.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What I was getting at with Penny Elgas is the banking she describes
in her own words:

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. My first thought was “Oh My God, this must be World War III!”

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.

That banking fits in with the pic I posted of physical damage. Her estimation of height in that 'nano-second' may not be accurate considering the 'The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station' statement.

She seems to be corroborating the north of citgo approach. Even if the side she was referring to was the south side, the south of citgo official story approach is pretty far off from the Citgo gas station; which suggests that her account doesn't in any way support the idea that the plane could have caused the physical damage of the light poles and the pentagon. She doesn't seem to be helping out the official story out any.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
She also said

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.

Not really a description of a flyover there.

There was a huge fireball, which I think would easily make it appear as if the plane 'melted' into the building. The thing that I think you should focus on is the fact that there are so many witnesses that place the plane in a path that would have avoided hitting any of the light poles and would have been inconsistent with the pentagon damage. Not only that, but every other plane crash that I've seen, with the exception of Flight 93, which is also quite suspicious, leaves a heck of a lot more debris.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
So Lloyde’s testimony is the reason why you believe his cab was impaled by a light pole. You also believe the psychical evidence corroborates his story.

That's more or less correct,

So

Why would Lloyde’s testimony lead you to believe that his cab was impaled by one of those light poles when he himself says that he was not anywhere near the poles when the event took place?

Photographic evidence places Lloyde and his cab on the Route 27/Columbia Pike(?) overpass in the path of the physical damage leading up to the Pentagon, along with various other persons placing the cab in the immediate vicinity.

The damage to Lloyde's cab also appears to be consistent with a light pole shaped object violently occupying the front passenger's side of the vehicle.

There is also zero credible evidence supporting an alternative sequence events that adequately explains how Lloyde's car ended up in the state it was as shown in the photographic evidence.

Lloyde's testimony is an example of the fallable nature of human memory over time, and especially at Lloyde's age. Just like William Lagasse he couldn't remember precisely where he was when being interviewed on camera about an event that occurred 6 years in the past. To me, that's not entirely surprising. I was in a car accident in 2002 with two other people in the vehicle and one of them swears to this day that the accident occurred on a different nearby roundabout - but we all agree that the accident occurred.

Now, that said, I'm prepared to throw all of that out the window if you can present credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events. If you can adequately explain, with supporting evidence, how Lloyde's cab ended up in the state it was shown in photographs, I'm prepared to believe you.

Deal?

Originally posted by discombobulator
Lloyde's testimony is an example of the fallable nature of human memory over time, and especially at Lloyde's age. Just like William Lagasse he couldn't remember precisely where he was when being interviewed on camera about an event that occurred 6 years in the past. To me, that's not entirely surprising. I was in a car accident in 2002 with two other people in the vehicle and one of them swears to this day that the accident occurred on a different nearby roundabout - but we all agree that the accident occurred.

Now, that said, I'm prepared to throw all of that out the window if you can present credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events.

This will again elude most Truthers.

Lloyde England is in an uncomfortable situation providing testimony on his accident. He applied ofr and successfully obtained government source moneys for the financing of an investment home as a victim survivor of the 9/11 attack. No doubt he felt compelled to enhance and dramatize his experience in making the request.

So he is in an awkward bind of having to make sure whatever he says years later conforms to whatever he blurted out way back in 2001.

Poor guy. Were he smarter and less susceptible to secondary celebrity status, he would have just refused to talk to the CIT clowns.

He's been demonized and libeled by them in public forums. A good lawyer would sue their asses for a fortune. But they probably don't have insurance or the funds to make it worth a pricey lawyer's time.


M

Originally posted by mmiichael
And again we must question CIT’s integrity level. There is a strong editing component to present a certain picture very obviously. There are no full transcripts or outtakes. We don’t know what was said surrounding the snippets on videos or how many takes there were.

One of the best examples of what you are talking about is the Joel Sucherman video.

During that video CIT assert that they had Joel confirm his location on 9/11, however subsequent admission from Craig as well as clarification from Joel himself reveal that they did not.

What they did instead was use a piece of video where Joel is describing the events leading up to the impact, and cut the video at the point Joel mentions driving out from under I395. They then use that location as Joel's "confirmed" location (in order to "prove" that he could not have seen what he claimed to) and then proceed to make several other mistakes such as:

1) demonstrating that CIT have absolutely no idea how clock directions are interpreted (see my signature)

2) failing to correctly identify ALL FIVE light poles when demonstrating what Joel's view of the incoming airliner would have been

The mistaken "facts" were then used as the basis to "discredit" the rest of Joel's story ("well if he's lying about A he must be lying about B!"), as per the usual character assassination process that CIT usually undertakes.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Sgt Lagasse was also confused as to where he was filling his car at the Citgo gas station but CIT hang on to his testimony, well the bit they want anyway. Why the double standard ?

Haven't you heard Craig's standard reponse to this? There is zero room for error for witnesses that "support the official story", but the NoC witnesses "are not computers, man, and cannot remember everything accurately, nor should they be expected to."

[edit on 12-12-2009 by discombobulator]

It's too bad there aren't more cases of people who provide information to Truther pseudo-documentaries and sites suing for false representation or libel.

Usually they well-meaning people don't want to incur costs and legal hassles. They'd spend years trying to collect from rather pathetic clowns who would never have the wherewithal to pay up whatever the courts assessed as damages and penalties.

Reminder, CIT is actually ""Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California" which is said to be a front for or directly affiliated with Melissa Data Corporation, 22382 Avenida Empresa,
Rancho Santa Margarita, California - who apparently employ Ranke and maybe Marquis as well. Sordid details here:

coljennysparks.blogspot.com...

The question of responsibility for CIT spokesman Craig Ranke may have been answered. It appears the public corporation Melissa Data Inc is aware of and supportive of Ranke's online CIT activities.

An anonymous article dated Aug 30 was published on New-n-Views, an online journal based in Rancho Santa Margarita, CA.

This article praises and plugs CIT, of course never mentioning their calls for people to virtual stalk their "enemies" in their Face-to-Name thread or their attempts to whitewash the actual circumstances. To read this article you'd never think CIT or Ranke were recording witnesses without permission or republishing some of Killtown's internet stalking material.

Encouragingly, at least one manipulating Truther video producer is being sued by the member of the public who provided them with personal source video which was then altered for commercial exploitation.

An ATS thread on this with details of the lawsuit.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

911 Mysteries Creator - Sofia Shafquat sued for doctoring copyright video!

Looks like Ms. Shafquat [911 Mysteries video producer] got caught and is getting sued for it. Richard Siegel, the man who videotaped the collapses of the WTC has filed suit against Sofia and her company Avatar, LLC

Con artists often operate as Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) in the event of having their asses sued. They can declare insolvency and the owners can escape the penalties - sometimes.


M

[edit on 12-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by scott3x

I'd have to ferret out the thread where some truthers explained how it couldn't have been done by the plane. Honesty though, I consider it a minor detail, considering all the evidence that the plane flew on a north of citgo approach to the pentagon.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3fac05567931.jpg[/atsimg]

Not a minor point at all as that damage locates the right wingtip to within an inch or two IE more precisely than any other evidence on the scene. Any comment on the missing footpeg coinciding with the mark? I've also seen mention of the VDOT needing to repair or re-align that camera after the event but don't have a link to that just now. If solid evidence could be produced that confirms that the footpeg was missing and the mark was on the pole prior to 0937 EDT 11/9/01 I'll accept it as it certainly wasn't 'staged' after the event.

Beware of relying on 'truther' interpretations though. What you need to do is look at all the evidence from an unbiassed perspective and derive your own interpretation of it all.

considering all the evidence that the plane flew on a north of citgo approach to the pentagon.

That's the whole problem with the CIT theory, there's NO physical evidence supporting it at all and it completely relies on a biassed 'interpretation' of selected witness statements while attempting to discredit ALL the physical evidence and witness accounts that totally contradict any flight path other the 'official' one.

Penny Elgas and Noel Sepulveda are just two of many witnesses who totally oppose the CIT theory (not only in relation to the impact) as they both describe the plane clearly banking to its left as it crossed Washington Boulevarde while CIT's conjectured NOC route requires banking to the right in order to cross over the impact point on the building. That pole damage corroborates the left banking as well.

Penny Elgas facing north on Washington Blvd:

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.

Noel Sepulveda:

"The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low"

[edit on 12/12/2009 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
So Lloyde’s testimony is the reason why you believe his cab was impaled by a light pole. You also believe the psychical evidence corroborates his story.

That's more or less correct,

So

Why would Lloyde’s testimony lead you to believe that his cab was impaled by one of those light poles when he himself says that he was not anywhere near the poles when the event took place?

Photographic evidence places Lloyde and his cab on the Route 27/Columbia Pike(?) overpass in the path of the physical damage leading up to the Pentagon, along with various other persons placing the cab in the immediate vicinity.

Lloyde never said that his cab wasn’t there, he said that HE wasn’t there when it happened.

The damage to Lloyde's cab also appears to be consistent with a light pole shaped object violently occupying the front passenger's side of the vehicle.

Lloyde England said that he was not anywhere near the light poles when it happened.

There is also zero credible evidence supporting an alternative sequence events that adequately explains how Lloyde's car ended up in the state it was as shown in the photographic evidence.

Except of course, Lloyde saying he was no where near the light poles when it happened.

Lloyde's testimony is an example of the fallable nature of human memory over time, and especially at Lloyde's age. Just like William Lagasse he couldn't remember precisely where he was when being interviewed on camera about an event that occurred 6 years in the past. To me, that's not entirely surprising. I was in a car accident in 2002 with two other people in the vehicle and one of them swears to this day that the accident occurred on a different nearby roundabout - but we all agree that the accident occurred.

That’s pure conjecture. Lloyde England says that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

Now, that said, I'm prepared to throw all of that out the window if you can present credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events. If you can adequately explain, with supporting evidence, how Lloyde's cab ended up in the state it was shown in photographs, I'm prepared to believe you.

Deal?

His windshield was shattered, his dashboard and passenger side chair were smashed/broken and the back seat was slightly ripped. That’s how his car came to be in the state it was.

[edit on 12/13/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
Lloyde never said that his cab wasn’t there, he said that HE wasn’t there when it happened.

...

Lloyde England said that he was not anywhere near the light poles when it happened.

...

Except of course, Lloyde saying he was no where near the light poles when it happened.

...

Lloyde England says that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

You are being misleading - Lloyde didn't believe that he was "no where near the light-poles", he thought that he wasn't on a "bridge" as it was first described by Craig. He thought that his accident occurred at a different location, with different light poles.

The photographic evidence, however, shows us exactly where he and his cab were. In the path of the damage. I don't think that Craig Ranke even argues the point of where the photographic evidence shows Lloyde to be.

You are creating an argument based completely on the infallability of human memory. Memory erodes over time, and people make mistakes. People are also so confident in their ability to memorise that they don't accept that they could be mistaken, which in my opinion is what appears to be happening with Lloyde.

Just show me the credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events placing Lloyde's taxi and the light post on Route 27 in the state illustrated in the photographic evidence, and if compelling enough I'll have no choice but to believe you, which is exactly what I am prepared to do.

Come on JP, show us what really happened to Lloyde's taxi and the light pole.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by discombobulator
You are being misleading - Lloyde didn't believe that he was "no where near the light-poles", he thought that he wasn't on a "bridge" as it was first described by Craig. He thought that his accident occurred at a different location, with different light poles.

He clearly says in the video that he was not there, many times. Even when he takes them in the car and drives them to the spot, it is not the bridge.

There’s nothing misleading about it. That’s what happened

The photographic evidence, however, shows us exactly where he and his cab were.

The photographic evidence shows us exactly where he and his cab were when the pictures were taken.

In the path of the damage.

What damage? We’re discussing Llyodes testimony. Stop diverting attention from what we are discussing.

I don't think that Craig Ranke even argues the point of where the photographic evidence shows Lloyde to be.

Exactly, you’re arguing my case for me, you’re doing wonderfully.

You are creating an argument based completely on the infallability of human memory.

That would be you actually.

Lloyde's testimony is an example of the fallable nature of human memory over time, and especially at Lloyde's age. Just like William Lagasse he couldn't remember precisely where he was when being interviewed on camera about an event that occurred 6 years in the past.Memory erodes over time, and people make mistakes. People are also so confident in their ability to memorise that they don't accept that they could be mistaken, which in my opinion is what appears to be happening with Lloyde.

Conjectural verbosity isn't needed. Just answer the question at the bottom of this post.

Just show me the credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events placing Lloyde's taxi and the light post on Route 27 in the state illustrated in the photographic evidence, and if compelling enough I'll have no choice but to believe you, which is exactly what I am prepared to do.

You base your belief that the light pole impaled the cab, on Lloydes testimony and the evidence that you believe corroborates his story. We are currently talking about Lloydes testimony right now. We will discuss the conflicting evidence later.

Come on JP, show us what really happened to Lloyde's taxi and the light pole.

Stop diverting attention away from the subject at hand. We are discussing Lloydes testimony.
I’ll ask you again . . .

Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

[edit on 12/13/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish

I'm not going to waste any further time giving you attention that you're obviously not getting from elsewhere.

reply to post by JPhish

Wow JPhish, you're a holocaust denier.

Tells me everything I need to know about you right there.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by discombobulator]

reply to post by discombobulator


nice genetic fallacy.

If you think you know anything at all about me, it speaks worlds of your epistemological abilities.

Are you incapable of answering this simple question?

Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

[edit on 12/13/2009 by JPhish]

reply to Pilgrum's post #2458, Part 2 (last part)

Originally posted by Pilgrum
As for plane vs pole collisions you need to remember that other incidents involved the pilot desperately trying not hit anything and moving at a fraction of the speed of the Pentagon aircraft.

I'm not sure that's accurate for the incident I mention; if a pilot is incapacitated, they certainly wouldn't be desperately trying to avoid anything. I don't know the particular circumstances of the event I'm referring to though, other than that it seemed to be an accident, so I'll let this one go.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The type of pole is also a factor IE a hardwood power pole would be far stronger than a tubular steel light pole and the physics of destructive impacts seems to be very misunderstood round here. All those light poles were severed at the point of impact which should be providing the clue that most people are missing, they didn't just fail at the frangible bases.

Are you suggesting that the pentagon poles weren't severed at the base? I've seen pictures of the pentagon poles showing that they were all severed at their bases, with marks that suggest that they were severed with a blow torch like device.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
As for landing at Reagan - not possible for reasons I stated earlier.

If so, I can't remember the reasons you stated now, or even if I countered them; perhaps you could point me to where this has been addressed :-p?

reply to Pilgrum's post #2462

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x
There was one witness who couldn't see the fireball but -did- see a plane fly over the pentagon at that point in time.

That would be Roosevelt Roberts I think.

Yes, that's the one, thanks. A transcript of his conversation with CIT can be found in the OP of this ATS thread:

Roosevelt Roberts

Originally posted by Pilgrum
His account is even more at odds with the other witnesses in so many ways than those I was told earlier were 'conflicting' and must be dismissed. I think he's just somewhat confused in the chaos of what was going on.

If he did indeed see an airplane at the time of the pentagon explosion, then he's the only witness I know of to have seen this actually happen. For this reason, I would like to hear in great detail why you think that his testimony should be dismissed. You say his account is at odds with "the other witnesses in so many ways"? Let's see the evidence. You say "he's just somewhat confused"? Again, let's see the evidence.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x
Furthermore, I believe I heard that one witness mention that the landing gear was already out as it approached the pentagon.

That one is Noel Sepulveda and he's the only one who thought the gear was being lowered while every other witness mentioning it specifically states the landing gear was up, aviators among them.

Alright, well I'm not so confident concerning this detail. However, I haven't seen any evidence that the landing gear couldn't have been brought down on time after the plane began the flyover.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
He's also a light pole and building impact witness:

He saw the plane fly above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane’s right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle, he said. The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle. "You could hear the engines being revved up even higher," Sepulveda said. The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. "The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low," Sepulveda said. "For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it." An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole. When he regained his balance, he started running to the crash site.

All I can say concerning this is that CIT has mentioned they should focus on him, but as of yet, they haven't spoken to him it seems.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm not clear on whether he actually said the gear was lowered or that it was just added in by a reporter interviewing him.

Good point.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by scott3x]