no coaching??? I saw Turcois first say the plane was just the other side(south) of the canopy, then at Craig's suggestion that it was over the canopy Turcois aquiesces which Craig then characterises as the starboard wing over the canopy and eventualy has the plane over the tree to the north of the canopy. That is basically Craig's testimony rather than Turcois', except for Tucois' first characterization of the plane being to the south of his position. Craig led him on, pure and simple.
No twisting??? Turcois states that he could no longer see the plane because it was "still obstructed". By what? Craig does not bother to ask and only later characterises this as meaning that Turcois could not see the plane because it was behind the fireball. This des[ite the fact that Tucois states that the plane hit the Pentagon. If he could not see the plane and believes it hit the Pentagon then how does he arrive at that conclusion? Because the plane went below his line of sight past the highway and never emerged again.
In order for Craig to be correct then the fireball would have to occur between Turcois and the plane and, obviously, some distance in front of the Pentagon. There isn't mush real estate there for that senario neither is there any evidence of a huge fireball occuring on the lawn or roads.
Smell that coffee boys. 13 witness accounts disconnected from each other
all draw a similar path.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77
In the picture above I see several paths that are counter to several other of your eyewitnesses accounts.
Turcois path (or rather the path that Craig told Turcois ) is identifiable as the closest one to the Citgo. It would make Morin's statement incorrect as he would not have been able to see the plane if the Turcois path is correct. There are several others that would make Morin in no position to have ever seen the plane and at least one that would do the same for Paik.
At least one of the paths on that diagram could only be performed by a helecopter, the one that makes the 45+ degree turn over the Annex.
Boger's description does not even seem to be included in that diagram as he said IIRC, it was over the Citgo. Although it is by no means certain that Boger could even see the station from where he was. (we know that no one at the Citgo could see the ATC building)
The FDR data does not conflict with the path described by the downed lamp posts. If PfT believes that to be true then a consise technical paper should be submitted to ICAO, the pilot's unions, the NTSB, the FAA and all and sundry publications concerned with flight safety.
There is not a single solitary witness that states that the aircraft they saw flew over the Pentagon (unless you count the twist-till-it-breaks spin that Craig et al put on one or two statements) and every single solitary witness who was in a position to make a determination about the path of the aircraft proximate to the Pentagon puts it as having impacted that structure.
If it paddles in water, quacks and has wings and feathers. Its not a platypus!
