Flyover Witnesses

[DarkMagician]

I can admit that it would not be impossible for one of them to be so drastically mistaken about such a simple claim. Although it would certainly implausible.

But for 4 of them to independently ALL be so drastically mistaken in the exact same way is a statistical impossibility.

With each corroborated account the chances that they are inaccurate about this detail decreases exponentially.

One thing I've noticed about the three of your witnesses that drew their paths is that the path they drew was more head-on than the original.

That's one problem with memory reconstruction. If people forget a detail, they will assume that the detail is more perfect than they remembered.

That's one of the major problems with your armchair statistics. You assume that because those three agree, then they must be right and not ditching that detail in the years between the Pentagon attack and your interview.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte,

Think about this:

The whole 911 conspiracy is based upon visual testimony.

Everything 'truthers' claim about 911 comes from either their own interpretation of the visual record of that day, or the recollections of various eyewitnesses.

But all of the 'truthers' claims, whether it be the collapse of the wtc towers or the crash site in shanksville can be dismissed by knowledge, expertise and science. Every 'truther' claim has a logical alternative.

There's not one single claim which has been made, founded in the personal beliefs/interpretation/incredulity of the claimant which has not been shown to be false.

And yet you use exactly the same method for arriving at your belief with regard to the pentagon.

This accusation is false.

Our claims are based purely on evidence.

Independently corroborated and confirmed first hand testimony.

There is no "visual interpretation" required to understand the 100% FACT that the official story reports and the physical damage REQUIRES the plane to be on the complete opposite side of the station from where all the witnesses saw it.

Dismissing all the witnesses who were there is not scientific.

You're not a structural engineer or an architect or even a builder, and yet you believe you can comment on the damage at the pentagon based solely on the available photographs and your own.... what? Common sense?

Light poles.

A professional isn't required to understand the plane could not have been on the north side and still hit the light poles.

It is a physical FACT that none of you have bothered to refute so I am surprised you are even going there.

As soon as those witnesses all pointed north history was made.

You're not a trained or experienced crash investigator and yet you feel capable enough to comment on the crash of a plane. With common sense?

I do not refute the official reports of the damage. I merely state the fact that a plane on the north side could not have down the poles and ended with this hole:

You're not a trained or experienced researcher or journalist and yet you expect to be able to get people to talk to you about their experiences, when you have no accreditation with a reputable news agency or university and offer the people you wish to interview no recourse for action if you are found to be misrepresenting them. You're an amateur with a cause and a camera and yet you seem to believe that your material should be given equal weight as that which is produced by people who do this work for a living.

Appeal to authority.

Unless you are suggesting that you believe the witnesses I spoke with will actually all place the plane on the south side if a professional journalist interviews them your point is irrelevant and a quite desperate logical fallacy.

You do no use an unbiased, impartial method for your investigations.You set out to prove what you already believe rather than attempt to falsify those beliefs.

Our flyover hypothesis did not exist until we had this evidence so you have no basis to make this claim.

Of course we were suspicious and doubtful of the official story. Investigations always begin with suspicions.

You have so many things to overcome if you are to be taken seriously. And the fact that no one does take you seriously means you have a long way to go.

We are taken quiet seriously and attention will only continue to grow as this data will never go away and we keep getting more and more information as our investigation continues.

Just an admission that the pentagon attack could have happened the way the official account describes it would be a big step in the right direction.

I have admitted that many times in the past before we had this definitive evidence.

But now that I have proven it did NOT happen the way the official account describes there will be no more of that.

For you to suggest we should dismiss that data to hypothetically agree with you would be like asking the prosecutor in the Scott Peterson trial to consider him as innocent.

 

[DarkMagician]

Independently corroborated and confirmed first hand testimony.

Taken years after the original event.

Dismissing all the witnesses who were there is not scientific.

But of course, saying a large number were plants, paid off, or told to believe the official story is perfectly okay.

 

[Lyte Trip]

One thing I've noticed about the three of your witnesses that drew their paths is that the path they drew was more head-on than the original.

That's one problem with memory reconstruction. If people forget a detail, they will assume that the detail is more perfect than they remembered.

Lagasse couldn't have seen the plane at all on the south side and all of them would have had the exact opposite experience. It doesn't make sense that they could all make the same drastic mistake the same way.

That's one of the major problems with your armchair statistics. You assume that because those three agree, then they must be right and not ditching that detail in the years between the Pentagon attack and your interview.

Robert Turcios' manager confirmed this was his story since 9/11.

Would he lie to his own manager on the day of the event with no motive?

Lagasse has publicly made the north side claim back in 2003.

The fact that Brooks and Paik CONFIRM these accounts proves they are all remembering this detail accurately.

To suggest they are all drastically wrong the same way is absurd.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Taken years after the original event.

Incorrect.

Robert Turcios' manager confirmed this was his story since 9/11.

Would he lie to his own manager on the day of the event with no motive?

Lagasse has publicly made the north side claim back in 2003.

The fact that Brooks and Paik CONFIRM these accounts proves they are all remembering this detail accurately.

To suggest they are all drastically wrong the same way is absurd.

But of course, saying a large number were plants, paid off, or told to believe the official story is perfectly okay.

How many we do not know but since the plane was on the north side it certainly does implicate some as being plants.

 

[uk_dave]

What are you talking about? They are interviewed on location.

The second each of them pointed in the exact same direction history was made.

It's comments like that which mean you will never be taken seriously.

I can admit that it would not be impossible for one of them to be so drastically mistaken about such a simple claim. Although it would certainly implausible.

But for 4 of them to independently ALL be so drastically mistaken in the exact same way is a statistical impossibility.

If one can be wrong, all four can be wrong for the very same reasons.
It's all about perception. The ability to accurately place on plan something which you only see in elevation. It's not an easy task.
Try going to a wide open space and pick a landmark and try to guess the distance you are from it. Then try measuring it. We're not good at judging precise distances, especially with objects we do not know the precise size of. A passenger jet screaming past in a matter of seconds is not something people are going to be able to accurately describe relative to themselves or buildings.

If one witness can be mistaken, all of your witnesses can be mistaken. Probability is not a factor if there is a viable reason for those witnesses to be mistaken.

What? I am not following you here. If the plane wasn't exactly lined up with the light poles FAR on the south side the official story is proven a farce. There is zero room for error in this regard.

No. The perception of the witness could result in them placing the plane further to the north or further to the south than it actually was.

If you say so but we have proven that it wasn't the plane.

No you definately have not proven it. No one here believes you and very few 'truthers' believe you. And it has not been tested in a court of law. You have proven nothing, you have merely presented a biased presentation of what YOU think happened.

A lot fewer than you realize had the potential to see this 3 second event but yes if someone called the police about it that is as far as it would go because they would be told they saw another plane and pointed to the the 2nd plane cover story.

A lot more than you realise did have the potential to see this event which would have lasted for considerably longer than 3 seconds had the plane flown over the pentagon.

 

[Lyte Trip]

GENUINE WITNESSES on Rt 27 or in the surrounding area on (or on the side of) the impact side saw it fly over.

They then stopped their car used their cell phone , or walked from the window to the phone and called 911.

And reported the crash ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PENTAGON!!!!

As he and Rescue Engine 335 responded toward the Pentagon, there was confusion from the control tower in an alert of a "missing 757." Initially, it was thought to be another crash, possibly at the end of the runway or on nearby George Washington Parkway.

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categor.../NFPA%20Journal

"Then we heard over the radio that there was a report of an aircraft down and it was near 14th Street Bridge. Al Wallace came over the radio and said they had an airliner hit the Pentagon," Flick said.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6...ws/11746-1.html

And before you say "Well Al Wallace came over the radio and said it hit the Pentagon"...think again...

So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT.

We only saw it approach for an instant. I would estimate not longer than half a second. Others didn’t understand why we didn’t hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1½-2 seconds after we saw it. What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it, we heard the noise; the engines, I’m sure. I described that as a terrible noise – loud, scary, and horrible. At the time we saw the plane I said, “LET’S GO!” and Mark and I ran away from the area. I turned and ran to my right, going north. (I do not remember which way Mark went, since I did not see him until I crawled out from under the Ford Van.)

He only deduced it hit and drew the other fireman over there...not to where the 911 callers were sending them.

You know, the 911 callers who saw it fly over and thought it crashed on the OTHER SIDE of the Pentagon.

Wallace goes on to give his opinion: Unknown to me, before my radio message, Arlington Dispatch was receiving numerous 911 calls from all around the county. Reports were varied: helicopter crash into east side of the Pentagon, tractor trailer on fire on Washington Blvd., possible airplane crash on or near the 14th Street Bridge. Many of the 911 callers could see smoke, but could not determine its source. Some likely saw a low flying aircraft or heard the impact of the crash. Arlington Dispatch advised all listening stations about some of these reports, but of course, didn’t confirm exact location, etc. In fact, it is quite possible that one of these callers recalling the flight #90 crash into the Potomac River many years ago, was instrumental in causing National Airport to dispatch the first big crash truck. According to the fire fighters from the classroom at Fort Myer, immediately after the communication from Arlington, they heard my radio message. Therefore, apparently my message was
successful in informing my fellow fire fighters of the exact location

http://web.telia.com/~u43109230/flight77/texts/Wallace.txt

Woody Box:

Thanks for opening up this important thread, Merc. Great work. The flyover issue shouldn't be neglected, as difficult as it is.

I'd like to add this piece from CBS Morning News, OCt.2 2001. It contains a radio excerpt between two fire trucks (found thru LexisNexis, courtesy of John Doe II from team8plus.org)

Copyright 2001 CBS Worldwide Inc.
All Rights Reserved
CBS News Transcripts


*SHOW:* CBS Morning News (6:30 AM ET) - CBS


October 2, 2001 Tuesday


*TYPE:* Newscast

*LENGTH:* 130 words

*HEADLINE:* Government releases fire dispatch tapes of chaos after
attack on *Pentagon*

*ANCHORS:* JULIE CHEN

*BODY:*
JULIE CHEN, anchor:

The government has released dramatic fire dispatch tapes of the chaos
following the attack on the *Pentagon.*

(Excerpt from tape)

Unidentified Dispatcher: (From tape) Yes, we're aware of the explosion.
We heard that it was a *plane* down. Can you confirm?

Unidentified Man #1 (From Rescue Engine 335): We're not positive, but
we
are responding from--supposedly the area of the *14th Street Bridge.*

Unidentified Man #2 (From Engine 101): Engine 101 to Arlington, we saw
it go down.

Unidentified Man #3 (From Truck 105): Truck 105 is on the scene. I have
a *plane* down. The heliport. the *Pentagon.* Heavy black smoke
showing.

(End of excerpt)

CHEN: Including those on the *plane,* 189 people have--are believed to
have died at the *Pentagon.*

*LOAD-DATE:* January 31, 2002

Here my remarks:

Engine 101 was a firetruck (with Steven McCoy and Andrea Kaiser who have been interviewed by newspapers several times). It was on I-395, direction DC, passing south of the Pentagon.

Engine 335 was a firetruck, too, and was dealing with a bizarre car accident at the parking lot of Reagan Airport (do you know of this accident, Merc? might fit your theory).

Now look at the message of Engine 335:

We're not positive, but we are responding from--supposedly the area of the *14th Street Bridge.*

Note that someone has ommitted something between "from" and "supposedly". If you read the line the first time, you get the impression that Engine 335 is responding from the 14th street bridge. But this is not the case. First, Engine 335 was definitely at Reagan Airport (there are several sources); second, Engine 335 wouldn't qualify his own position as "supposedly". He surely knows where he is.

This means that Engine 335's mentioning of the 14th street bridge doesn't refer to his own location, but to the location of the reported plane crash. The information came probably from the tower of Reagan Airport, the source which is also confirmed by a helicopter pilot of the Parkway police (don't know if Merc quoted him anywhere). The tower has surely the best view over the area, and it is incomprehensible that a tower controller would report a crash at the west side of the Pentagon as "near the 14th street bridge". It's his job to spot and report locations as exactly as possible, after all.

Now Engine 101 responds: Engine 101 to Arlington, we saw it go down.

Engine 101 indirectly confirms the location "near the 14th street bridge" because he doesn't correct the message of Engine 335. Engine 101 was on I-395 south of the Pentagon, as I said already. Steve McCoy, who was on the truck, reported later a crash "in the vicinity of the 14th street bridge". From his position, the bridge is in an entirely different direction than the Pentagon impact site.

So we have two independent first-hand sources for a plane crash near the 14th street bridge. Furthermore, these sources are professionals in determining the location of an accident as exactly as possible.

I know, I know, my "lagoon" hypothesis is daring and seems to be far fetched, but as long as it is not disproven - I stay to it. One big point are the many vigorous comments I got in the Democratic Underground thread.

Please keep up your great work, Merc. It's a brilliant idea to check the position and view of all eyewitnesses - thereby checking their credibility.

Woody Box

http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/Fire...fter_report.pdf

At about 0938 on September 11, an ACFD engine company traveling down a road adjacent to the Pentagon witnessed American Airlines Flight 77 enter into a steep descent and disappear over the horizon. The engine company immediately radioed the county’s Emergency Communications Center (ECC) to request a full response for a plane crash in the vicinity of the 14th Street Bridge.
http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf

We know these firefighters already. Merc has quoted them somewhere. We know two of them by name: Steve McCoy and Andrea Kaiser.

Let's try to determine the exact location of the fire truck. The "road adjacent to the Pentagon" was Highway 395:

In Arlington County, Captain Steve McCoy and the crew of Engine 101 were en route to a training session in Crystal City, traveling north on Interstate 395. Their conversation about the World Trade Center attack was interrupted by the sight of a commercial airliner in steep descent, banking sharply to its right before disappearing beyond the horizon.
http://www.floridadisaster.org/publications/Arl_Co_AAR.pdf

Note the ominous "beyond the horizon" again. So now we know they were on I-395, direction DC. But at which point exactly? The first source says they were "adjacent to the Pentagon", i.e right where I-395 runs parallel to the Pentagon. This is confirmed by this account here:

Fire Truck 101 from the Arlington County Fire Department was one of the first on the scene Tuesday morning. The truck was coming back from a training exercise, and one firefighter on board noticed a plane flying too low as they drove past the Pentagon.
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/010911wtc_pent.html

Taking all these accounts together, I have two little questions:

1) How were the firefighters of Engine 101 able to observe the plane's descent? It was right in their back.

2) (Even more important) How can someone being on I-395 right south of the Pentagon describe the crash site as "in the vicinity of the 14th street bridge"???
The crash site was in their back, the 14th street bridge right in front of them.

Makes no sense.

The flyover IS real.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

"We have shown why there have been so many questions about the admittedly by the government "counter-intuitive" physical evidence."

Yes, and almost all of them are explained. We have been explaining it over and over and over and ... (lim n.. .etc. etc..). However, being counterintutitive does not mean being wrong.

 

[DarkMagician]

Lagasse couldn't have seen the plane at all on the south side and all of them would have had the exact opposite experience. It doesn't make sense that they could all make the same drastic mistake the same way.

What is this, argument from repetition?

Robert Turcios' manager confirmed this was his story since 9/11.

Would he lie to his own manager on the day of the event with no motive?

Appeal to Emotion, bordering on false dichotomy.

Okay, so you've got FOUR people making the same error. So?

Lagasse has publicly made the north side claim back in 2003.

The fact that Brooks and Paik CONFIRM these accounts proves they are all remembering this detail accurately.

To suggest they are all drastically wrong the same way is absurd.

Wow, did you just not read a word of my post at all? Seriously, I'm on the verge of calling Formosa's Law and putting you on ignore so I can be reminded not to respond.

 

[DarkMagician]

Incorrect.

Robert Turcios' manager confirmed this was his story since 9/11.

Would he lie to his own manager on the day of the event with no motive?

It's up to you to show me that the manager isn't falling into the same traps. Hell, the manager has even more traps to fall in. He may be swayed by Turcios's certainty.

<grammarnazi>
and singular possessive nouns always end in "apostrophe-s", even if they end in "s". Plurals that end in s are the only ones that end with just an apostrophe.
</grammarnazi>

How many we do not know but since the plane was on the north side it certainly does implicate some as being plants.

And the witnesses that you present: how are you sure they aren't plants put to waste your time on a wild goose chase while they hide an even deeper plot.

Seriously, you've risen confirmation bias to an art form.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The plane was on the north side yet the damage is not consistent with this in any way.

However you choose to reconcile the north side claim it disproves the official story.

Once again, you don't have conclusive proof the plane was on the north side. You have proof that 3 witnesses think it does. And has been pointed out as many times as you continue to prretend it's conclusive, it's the weakest form of evidence and does not even come close to proving the physical evidence wrong.

IN FACT, the physical evidence proves those witnesses were incorrect.


We can keep repeating this over and over as you post the same pictures over and over. The choice is yours. but if you expect the people here to dispose of scientific process as you have done, it;s not gonna happen. Nor are any credible media outlets or officials. Hence no one outside of the 9/11 cult groups ever hearing of your conspiracy video.

 

[boloboffin]

Lagasse could most certainly have seen the plane cross to the south.

 

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by A W Smith
Using Paiks flight path and you already admit he couldn't see the annex I produce this flight path. yes Lyte you have seen this twice before and folded. Shall I bring up your posts?

Folded?

You have got to be kidding me!

Your absurd flight path STILL completely contradicts the physical damage, route 27 witnesses, FDR, AND the security video!

So even IF you simply dismiss the citgo witnesses and suggest the plane made an S like that AFTER the navy annex then you are STILL proving all the other official evidence incorrect.

Thanks.

Check that flight path I posted again Lyte. it lines up exactly with the light poles and damage

 

[Hyperviolet]

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/187a.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/citgowitnesses.jpg[/qimg]

Okay, im prepared to be corrected here.... but im just juggling ideas. Lets say that yes, you are correct and the plane was on the northside.

Wasn't the plane banking round at something like 270 degrees? Maybe im missing something, but couldn't this plane have been turning so it wasnt just a perfect straight line as your witnesses sketch?

Basically the plane was banking round the citgo, and then realigned left to smack into the pentagon?

This might be completely wrong, but it sure sounds more probable than the idea of an ultra dangerous (understatement) sleight of hand manouver that was so perfect that it fooled every single witness timed with bombs in the pentagon and faked lightpoles.

I mean, why would anyone want to fake a flight path anyway?
Its not like he government would say "Hey, the other hijacked plane crashed into the pentagon" only to be met with "Yeah sure, you mean to tell me the plane flew all over the country without hitting at least 1 lightpole!? HA!"

 

[sts60]

Hi, PW and Spitfire, and anybody else of the BAUT/apollohoax crowd I've missed. I finally gave in and joined here.

Lyte Trip, I'm very impressed with all the effort you've put into your claims; I'm afraid I really don't have the time to go read all your posts, charts, etc. I just have one simple question:

How many 9/11 eyewitness accounts have you seen or heard of an airliner flowing low over the ground, at the Pentagon as if to hit it, then pull up and fly over it?

All I'm interested in is a nonnegative integer. Thanks.

 

[twinstead]

Hi, PW and Spitfire, and anybody else of the BAUT/apollohoax crowd I've missed. I finally gave in and joined here.

Lyte Trip, I'm very impressed with all the effort you've put into your claims; I'm afraid I really don't have the time to go read all your posts, charts, etc. I just have one simple question:

How many 9/11 eyewitness accounts have you seen or heard of an airliner flowing low over the ground, at the Pentagon as if to hit it, then pull up and fly over it?

All I'm interested in is a nonnegative integer. Thanks.

If only it were that simple. Lyte has that rare gift (like many Apollo CTs) that allows him to argue an untenable position for an infinite period of time.

The facts will always remain that 1) his witnesses are a huge minority 2) none of them actually saw what he is claiming happened and 3) the physical evidence totally contradicts his conclusion.

Indeed, the ability to argue his point AND keep a condescending attitude as if his evidence is so compelling that we all must be idiots for not marching in the streets demanding justice is extraordinary.

 

[Calcas]

As soon as those witnesses all pointed north history was made.

Eureka! Lyte finally explains his motive.

"History was made."

So it looks like Lyte and Merc see themselves as a modern day Woodward and Bernstein. THEY have actually uncovered the smoking gun that will go down in history and make them famous.

So it really IS all about fame, isn't it? Victims be damned...

 

[Calcas]

BTW, I noticed we have some new posters aboard. Welcome.

For those of you who may not have followed this theory of Lytes in as much detail as some of us, let me share with you a couple of statements LaGasse has made that contradict Lytes conclusions of his account. Remember, this is his "star" witness who he uses to "prove" the A/C was north of the Citgo.

The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William, , PFPA"
To: "'apfn@apfn.org '"


Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that
day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating
that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris
is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you
people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general
aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen
photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts
of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake
aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence
to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a
diffrent sort of thinker.

To: Sgt. WIlliam Lagasse
From: Dick Eastman

Dear Sgt. Lagasse,

Ken Varden considers you letter important enough to forward to several people interested in what REALLY happened.

Your statement indicates that you are a very good witnesses who knows planes and knows who what to look for.

Before passing on your letter to others who can't make up their minds what to believe, could you describe further all that you witnessed.

Is Barraks K in Fort Meyer, west of the crash, or is it attached to the Pentagon itself?

Where did the plane come in, in relation to the Naval Annex and the Columbia Pike?

Were you able to see what part of the Boeing hit the lamp posts and at what height the posts were "clipped"? (Or did you notice the downed poles afterwards?)

Where were you standing in relation to the crash point, the helipad, the trailor that was hit?
How far from the crash? I'd like to locate you on the map.

Several people saw the shades pulled down -- were you looking at the port (left) or starboard side?

Did you notice the plane tilt its wings or bank in its final flight?

Did you see the trailer being struck or is this based on your later observation of the damage?

How did the plane descend as it approached the Pentagon at the bottom of the hill?

You saw the debis everywhere in the building. Were you in the building or did you look in through the hole made in the crash before the wall collapsed?

Or did you go inside and look around at a later day?

What specific parts of the Boeing (passenger chairs, fuselage, aluminum frame etc.) did you see?

What debris did you see that you recognized as coming from a commercial airliner?

You saw the Boeing go by. Did you see the actual explosion? If so, can you describe how the plane went in.

I will pass on the letter you have already sent to places where this topic is being heatedly argued and where the majority of people have not yet made up their minds.

I must admit that I am heavily influenced by pictures of the hole and the video camera evidence -- but I cannot say I am 100 percent certain what happened.

I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt that I will not dismiss your observations out of hand. If I am mistaken, please believe it is an honest mistake and remember, I have never heard your story.

Sincerely,

Dick Eastman
Yakima


From: Lagasse, William, , PFPA
To: Dick Eastman

Mr. Eastman The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the
attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon. The aircraft
struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed
almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC and Columbia pike. and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building
were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a
heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building
with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same
time the wing was involved with the trailer, Because of the Doppler effect
no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already
in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle
would have been difficult if not impossible...it was not over Arlington
National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove
of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft
until it was literally on top of them...again not much time to make the
assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw
it and radioed that it had struck the building. I was on the Starboard side
of the aircraft. There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall,
which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or
flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low
forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be
extended. How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27
blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however
see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in
flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half. you can see in a
few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point
that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were
there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this
entire process and are luck to be alive. There was almost no debris to the
right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon
fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were
collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the
engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the
inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured
that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that
morning. no photos clearly show the size of the original breech...it was at
least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't
there claim. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your
search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by
lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It
has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt
that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just
curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in
quelling misconceptions.

(bolding mine.)

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.98.html

 

[nicepants]

But for 4 of them to independently ALL be so drastically mistaken in the exact same way is a statistical impossibility.

Statistics do not prove their statements to be correct.

Since you claim the plane could not have impacted as it did if it went north of Citgo, you have 3 possibilities:

1 - Your claim about the damage being impossible based on the flight being north of citgo is incorrect
2 - The witnesses who claim they saw the plane go north of citgo are incorrect
3 - The witnesses who claim they saw AA 77 crash into the pentagon are incorrect

Our claims are based purely on evidence.
Independently corroborated and confirmed first hand testimony.

Who was the independent corroborator and confirm-er of this first-hand testimony?

the plane could not have been on the north side and still hit the light poles.

So either:
1 - 3 Witnesses @ citgo are incorrect
2 - All other witnesses, physical evidence at the pentagon, light poles, and news media are incorrect.

GENUINE WITNESSES on Rt 27 or in the surrounding area on (or on the side of) the impact side saw it fly over.

What makes them genuine?
Who are they? Let's see the quotes!

 

[lapman]

Nice hotlink to rense.com!

Ummmm that is a diffuser case.

Not an engine.

The diffuser case is part of the engine. Duh! Who said that the engine would be intact?