Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ANOK

The view was blocked from most areas, not just some. The pentagon impact point is not easy to see from the road when you are sitting down low in a car. They would only have to block areas with direct views, as anyone not directly under the path of the plane would not have noticed anything until they heard the blast, and then it's too late to see the impact. All the views we see are from a higher point, and makes it look like the impact point is visible when it really isn't.

DING DING DING BS ARTIST ALERT!!!

Here's a photo of what the field of view is from the highway only minutes after the attack. A highway I might add is flipping right next to the impact area-

No Dave, that's a raised perspective and not taken from within a vehicle. Here's a more realistic perspective although the driver/passenger is at times hanging out of his window to record the aftermath.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Still, nobody offers forward an "SOC witness". Why do you think that is?

Becuase everyone who was in the vicinity of the Pentagon specifically saw it was plane that hit the building and scores of examples have already been provided here, so arguing over frivolous details such as whether the plane was 100 yards vs 110 yards away from a given witness is grasping at straws in extreme desperation on your part.

Same old. same old..exaggeration and blustering.

The margin between the directional damage path and the path described over and over is much more than "10 feet". And you know it.

The closest path drawn is by Turcios. Almost 500ft difference. The rest are up to 800ft. Three of them were at the Citgo Station and saw the damn thing "10 feet" away comparatively speaking, on the opposite side of the station, well away from the directional damage path. End of story.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Hey did you notice something in that video? Look at all those cars!!!! I mean LOOK!

You mean to tell me that at any point right before impact you wouldnt have at least 20-30 cars traveling north or southbound on that stretch and which would have had a frontside seat to see the plane plunge into the Pentagon? The 757 would have thundered just ahead of that traffic sign and dont tell me people would have missed it.

Let us see the path taken by that family video:

Coming up VA 27 North Bound from underpass.

After watching the video, here is roughly maybe 50-60 ft ahead of their video taping position:

50-60ft ahead of videotaping position

Looking back at location of video position

They were just behind that lane merger and next to the guardrail. So they would have seen the plane coming in and depending on where they were, could have seen the impact. LOL! You pick the one video that has them next to the ONE spot that is slightly obscured by trees, and push that as the case for the entire length. But what about the people that were driving along here:

Ringside Seats

What would they have seen? I guess the best approximation is this:



Are you suggesting the plane did a fly over? If so, please provide eyewitnesses on the OPPOSITE side of the Pentagon that saw a 757 doing a power climb up and over the Pentagon and flying away. Remember to include all those on the other side.

Remember, this is what the dolts at CIT want to sucker you into believing happened:



Show me ONE witness that would have been anywhere along the routes I posted off of Google Maps that saw something exactly like the above.


Quite a few people saw a 757 crash!
Look at their accounts;
911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

No Dave, that's a raised perspective and not taken from within a vehicle. Here's a more realistic perspective although the driver/passenger is at times hanging out of his window to record the aftermath.

Dude, are you trying to tell me you've never been in a car on a highway? You've never seen what a Jersey Barrier looks like or what a highway barrier looks like? Those things only come up as far as the bottom of the window on a typical vehicle and they do not impede visibility with what's on the opposite side of the barrier in any way, especially when it's an object as large as a building. You are really getting desperate at this point.

I have to ask...it's obvious you're not thinking things through on your own here and are simply grasping at straws to avoid having to admit you're wrong. What I'd like to know is, which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites did you originally get this whole "noone saw what hit the Pentagon" nonsense from? *Something* had to have instilled this blind unquestioning zealotry in you, as this simply can't be natural.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Same old. same old..exaggeration and blustering.

The margin between the directional damage path and the path described over and over is much more than "10 feet". And you know it.

You need to know that I am immune to strawman arguments. The provided photos clearly show how close the highway was to the point of impact and the number of cars whose motorists stopped to gawk at what was going on shows how many people were in the vicinity when it happened. The person who took these photos specifically saw the plane strike the building along with other witnesses in the vicinity. Not one ever saw any fly over. There is no way, shape or form that you can sweep this under the rug simply because it's inconvenient to what you yourself want to believe. The CIT claim has irrefutably been bunked. Incorporate the fact into your remaining conspiracy claims as you see fit.

There are times I swear you truthers are joking and that you're intentionally posting these inane claims entirely for flame bait.

So were officers Lagasse and Brooks lying they saw the plane fly NoC? Hard to believe Lagasse was "mistaken" when he was on the north side under a canopy in which he could only see a NoC flightpath.

reply to post by GenRadek


First off, that lane you linked to leads into South Parking. So traffic would have in the inner lanes. View obstructed by traffic.
And yes, the view is very restricted until beyond those traffic signs. (That's where Mike Walter said he was btw)

Secondly, I'm glad you noticed that the traffic was bumper to bumper. View obstructed. As can be seen in the video linked to.
Why not try your own experiment when caught in heavy traffic? See just how "clear" the view is.

Thirdly, the driver seat is to the left hand side of the car. View possibly obstructed by the blindspots in the car itself.

Fourthly, the OCT aircraft was travelling 540mph. It allegedly impacted 1.3 seconds after the lightpoles and the explosion and fireball of 200ft in diameter were immediate according to government agencies.

Fifthly, the majority of drivers on that stretch of road wouldn't have seen the aircraft until it was right on top of them.

This speed (+40-80mph)



This much smaller version of the fireball (@01:46)



The I -395 view you showed was on the westbound lane towards the SouthEast corner of the Pentagon. Those lanes were virtually empty. Vehicles were travelling at highway speeds. (@04:15)



Those lanes weren't trafficbound. And only certain lanes have a view of the Pentagon (not to mention the fact that half of them are running away from the building)

Interestingly, can you name a single witness interviewed who was in that area? Just one?

You're talking coulda, woulda, shoulda while I'm providing corroborated witness testimony as to where the aircraft flew.

People in the area were caught up in an event that was over in seconds. They weren't staring at that particular spot. They didn't have the clarity, time and advantage of a Googlecam placed one metre above the "Google car". And they definitely weren't a bunch of John Waynes sitting staring fixedly at an explosion!



I'm in no way suggesting that every single person had no view. I'm just saying that all of the points listed above should be taken into consideration. A reality check. The "hundreds and thousands of possible witnesses" is an unfounded exaggeration.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Where, in that copy and paste answer of yours was an answer to the portion of the post I made to your claim that the difference between the paths that the NOC witnesses drew and the directional damage path is "10 feet", when in reality it's between 500 and 800 ft?

The margin between the directional damage path and the path described over and over is much more than "10 feet". And you know it.

Do you guys ever answer questions or admit when you're wrong? Even on obvious points? Hmm?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Reading difficulties, Dave? Where did I once mention a "barrier"?

The photograph is from a raised perspective outside of his car. He took it from "15, 16 and 17" in the following image.




Did you know that the same photographer has just become the latest NOC witness by the way?

z3.invisionfree.com...

Steve returns to confirm my reconstruction validating the triangulation of data supplied by it. It's clear that we are facing a trend (that) is completely in line with the North Path described by many other witnesses on the scene. The great proximity to the passage of the plane, which is the key to the analysis, was also described in some of his previous statements:" ...I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... "Here, even Steve claims to have spotted the plane only 100 feet or 30 meters, providing evidence that leaves no doubt on the proximity of the witness with respect to the plane. Let us remember then that Steve refers to the trees to the right that do nothing but give further credibility to his testimony about the location of sighting. In fact the only line of trees right on that stretch of road is exactly the one that surrounds the Arlington National Cemetery. Below is a comparison with the Official Flight Path which has a distance and an angle of approach than Steve is completely different:"

1.bp.blogspot.com...

This is the best part...

RISKUS: Honestly, the photo [3] with the superimposed plane on it looks almost exactly what I saw that day. I dont feel the need to draw anything with that already presented.

The aircraft crossed the road much further up the road according to the OCT.

Leaving aside the obvious shills like Mick Walker and his associates, here's an explanation why some people maintain that they saw an impact happening at the pentagon:


".......
Finally, an example of the way a human being, to whose physical body an undeveloped spirit is bound, can through autosuggestion believe he or she has “seen” every detail of an event, even though it was perceived only in fragments:

Someone witnesses, for example, an accident that is due to several “coincidences”. The shock of being present at the maiming or sudden death of one or more fellow beings causes an involuntary closure of the witness's eyes - perhaps for only a few seconds.. The image that through the sight and through the physical brain is registered in the astral and the psychic brains is then quite incomplete, since these can receive an image only of what the witness has “seen”.
Later, recalling what took place and what he or she experienced, the witness tries by thought to piece together the recorded fragments. As an “eye witness”, the witness should of course know what had happened, but not recalling* closing the eyes** - perhaps at the decisive moment -the witness’s thought sets about reconstructing a plausible general impression: it happened in such and such a way. . . But with the constant repetition of such thoughts, new images assume—through the thought-channel, the cord—definite form in the astral brain. These images appear with every repetition of what the eyewitness has experienced, and, supported by the thought, they become steadily clearer until the individual becomes convinced of having seen the accident in every detail; and although he very well knows that his thoughts have dwelt at length on the same subject, still he is deceived by the train of images that his thought has composed. As a rule it is useless that another eyewitness unfolds the event for him as it has really taken place, for he will, in most cases, stoutly maintain that his is the correct version.

Such uncritical thinking serves no other purpose than to push back the original exact but fragmented image received by the astral and the psychic brains and to produce a train of self-composed images having nothing to do with reality.

If a more advanced or a high spirit is bound to the physical body,such self-suggestion will not be able to take place as the spiritual self will quickly survey the situation and understand that it has received only fragmentary
impressions of the event.

*) The shock can delete this memory.
**) A sudden arising fear can for a moment paralyze a human being's consciousness, so that the physical and astral brain cells are incapable of vibration. What is seen is therefore not recorded so long as the paralysis persists. Voids can also arise in this way and disturb the total impression, even though the eyes were not closed.
......."

(Bolding by the poster)

Dear fellow truthers, please save the above quote and use it again and again, when confronted by the debunkers and their inane and infantile "witnesses-to-impact" arguments!


Cheers

reply to post by djeminy


This is a variation of the "duck and cover" claim that CIT finds necessary to perpetuate their inane theory. What you are saying is that nobody could bear to look at the impact because those undeveloped souls just couldn't take it.
How many of those witnesses expected that the plane would hit?
How many have seen such an event before?
Do you think that they would be surprised enough watch the plane all the way without expecting a crash?
Did anyone have enough time to even think of what might happen?

No flyaway means no flyover. No flyover means CIT's theory is cooked and the plane hit the Pentagon. This means that the course guesstimates are irrelevant because there was only one place that the plane hit and no amount of souls, developed or otherwise, can change that.

My bet is that the other truthers will not quote the para on souls because they have enough to live down, already.

reply to post by pteridine


For somebody who believes that the NOC witnesses are simply "wrong" you sure do hang about this thread man.

If you actually believe that a normal human being wouldn't wince as a massive explosion and fireball occurred within a few hundred feet of them, you must never have left the house.

Pity you don't actually like talking specifics, Like the William Middleton point I've raised several times and you choose to ignore. That question brings a physical aspect into the argument. Why don't you answer?

I know why

Here it is again..



His CMH interview from 2001

William Middleton: As I made a turn to come back I heard this whistling noise as if it was coming behind me. So when I turned to look, I seen this big large airplane beside me.

CMH officer: Where were you at?

Middleton: Uh Patton Drive. ...And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon…."

His POV. The ANC carpark is to the left of the bus behind the tree:



How was this guy "confused" when he had no view of the "SOC path" and had a perfect view in the field of vision shown in the image to determine that the aircraft was NOC?

He is corroborated over and over. Do you see the pattern?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by pteridine

 

For somebody who believes that the NOC witnesses are simply "wrong" you sure do hang about this thread man.

If you actually believe that a normal human being wouldn't wince as a massive explosion and fireball occurred within a few hundred feet of them, you must never have left the house.

Pity you don't actually like talking specifics, Like the William Middleton point I've raised several times and you choose to ignore. That question brings a physical aspect into the argument. Why don't you answer?

How was this guy "confused" when he had no view of the "SOC path" and had a perfect view in the field of vision shown in the image to determine that the aircraft was NOC?

He is corroborated over and over. Do you see the pattern?

Of course people will startle at loud noises. They just won't duck and close their eyes before the noise happens. This nonsense has been pushed as a reason no one noticed any fly over, not even people far enough from the scene to remain unaffected by the bang. An observer a mile away would not even hear the explosion for five seconds; enough time for an aircraft travelling at 350kts to move more than a half a mile. Are you claiming that nobody noticed a flyover because they were ducking in anticipation of a distant boom that no one expected? No one saw Flt 77 fly away. Witnesses did see it hit the building. The "duck and cover" concept is pure desperation on the part of CIT because without a flyover, none of their theory holds up.
There was no fly away so there must have been an impact on the Pentagon. There was only one hole in the Pentagon so that is where the plane must have hit. Downed light poles and a damaged tree led to the hole. The hole was surrounded with airplane parts. Airplane parts were inside the building. Passengers' remains were found inside the building. Fires from burning jet fuel had to be extinguished.
Nothing would be gained by deceiving people about the flight path if there was an impact. The entire NOC argument was devised as part of the CIT flyover conspiracy and for no other reason, which is why CIT is selective about witness statements and manipulates them as much as possible. What CIT couldn't handwave away was the flyaway problem. They said that the smoke and noise covered the plane escaping and that is why impact witnesses were fooled. Cit cannot account for people some distance away who would have seen the aircraft flying away.
With no flyover, William Middleton and the rest of the NOC witnesses don't matter. If CIT wants to, they can spend the rest of their lives trying to figure out how it hit where it did, why the light poles tracked the path, why all the witnesses to impact must be lying, how Penny Elgas had a piece of wingtip in her possession, and how the plane turned to hit where it did.

reply to post by LaBTop


In addition to my above indicated post on page 23, this is the view angle of Roosevelt Roberts, standing in South Parking space, at the rim of the eastern loading dock area belonging to the South Loading :



Slide the picture to the right, to see his position and the rest of my picture.
Wide enough angle of view to eventually see either a SoC or a NoC flight path, which are only about 100 to 50 meters spaced apart, so it is very difficult to describe as a North- or a South- of CITGO gas station flight path by Mr Roberts.

As you see, RR reported that he saw the AAL77 airplane (a 757-200) coming from the southwest, and flying just above the light poles above Lane One in the South Parking area (here partly covered by that small photo of the VDOT camera mast). After he lost sight of the plane, disappearing behind the south wall, he saw dust falling from the ceiling of his facility, and heard people starting to scream in panic.

As you also can see, the whole NoC and SoC flight path subject revolves around the question if the plane flew just beside the "Full traffic board" (SoC).
Or beside or just in front of the "1/2 Traffic board" (NoC).
And if NoC, thus over Christine Peterson her car roof. Like she said. And she also said that she "stood in front of the Helipad". And she said that on the day of 9/11 to newspaper reporters.

Do you want more solid extra evidence of the NoC flight path flown in reality, and not the SoC path?

Steve Riskus perhaps, who saw the plane cross Route 27 definitely perpendicular, under an angle of nearly 90° in front of his southbound car, which was at that moment about at level with the Mall Entrance northern wall of the Pentagon.
He was driving southwards, about 60 meters north of that second, northernly full traffic board, beside the Arlington National Cemetery eastern trees boundary. You can see it in the top, northern part of Route 27 in this above map-photo.



That's definitely not the description of a SoC incoming plane, which crossed Route 27, as you can see in this photo, at a definite 60° angle (the impacted west wall is build nearly pointing north).

reply to post by LaBTop


You have a critical issue though:

How did they manage to angle the airliner's debris inside the Pentagon to correspond with the SoC flight path as viewed by majority of witnesses? You are proposing a perpendicular impact to the Pentagon but the debris does not go straight in line with the impact. You can post hundreds of posts of minute details that allegedly prove a "NoC" flightpath, but on impact, your story falls apart. How did they angle the impact damage and debris and have the airliner debris end up at the "exit" hole?

Originally posted by ATH911
So were officers Lagasse and Brooks lying they saw the plane fly NoC? Hard to believe Lagasse was "mistaken" when he was on the north side under a canopy in which he could only see a NoC flightpath.

bump

bump

reply to post by ATH911


It's a good question. I watched the interviews, and the officers seemed extremely candid. My only concern was the things that they had forgotten, and whether they were remembering things correctly. It was a good point that the plane wouldn't have been visible through the gas station for the one officer, and I've wondered if maybe he was on the opposite side of the station, but it's not a solid enough explanation for me to use as evidence.

Needs more research.

reply to post by Varemia


Lagasse isn't the only person whose position gives a physical dimension to the witness testimony in that he couldn't have seen the aircraft on the official flight path. Did you read my post (1 or 2 up) regarding William Middleton?

Or how about Terry Morin who was in between the wings of the Navy Annex and could only see the aircraft's belly as it flew over his head? We know exactly where he was. Now if that isn't a narrowing down of his field of vision to simply "up" instead of the "complicated left or right" scenario as certain people here suggest, I don't know what is.

Check it out.



i659.photobucket.com...

As for Brooks, Lagasse's fellow officer, for him to have "misremembered" so badly from his POV, it's beyond the pale.

i659.photobucket.com...

The aircraft flew that path.

For the last poster to claim that they are somehow "irrelevant" instead of debating the points raised is a weak, dishonest approach.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by ATH911
So were officers Lagasse and Brooks lying they saw the plane fly NoC? Hard to believe Lagasse was "mistaken" when he was on the north side under a canopy in which he could only see a NoC flightpath.

Was Balsamo lying when he said it would take 11.2 gs to pull out at the Pentagon? Was Roosevelt Roberts lying when he said he saw this "flyover" airplane over lane 1 of South Parking heading southwest? Was Lagasse lying when he pointed at the wrong gas pump he was parked at? Was Sean Boger lying when he said ...*he said*...he saw "the plane enter the building"? Was April Gallop lying when she said that "nothing should have been able to come within miles of that building." when planes fly directly over the building, many times daily, enroute to Reagan National? Were Craig and his large friend lying when they were asked by the Pentagon Police at the Citco about unauthorized filming around the Pentagon when they put a blank tape in their camera and said "No"?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


I agree that they are certainly not irrelevant, and I'm still not quite sure how to explain it. Still, there is yet to be proof of a flyover. In fact, one of the officers that I remember was talking about the impact specifically, how the plane had yawed just before impact. I figured this was explainable because of the engine hitting the generator.

The flight path, however, has yet to be resolved as a result of the witnesses. I'm still scratching my head over it.