IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Barbara Honegger's Theories, Why the "acceptable" disinfo?

onesliceshort
post Sep 20 2013, 11:59 AM
Post #41



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The "white plane" Part One

QUOTE
If the plane that a dozen or so witnesses saw approach....north of the citgo gas station [and] north of the Navy Annex....if that plane flew over, which many 9/11 researchers believe, falsely believe, it cannot be the right plane...

It didn't fly over the building, it was destroyed.....it would have to be a different second plane, or the white plane could have come around twice....the plane they saw coming in on whats called the north path...it would have had to have approached simultaneously with the white plane.........basically two planes coming in from two directions at the same time.

And the plane that CIT claims went through the fireball of the white plane being destroyed near the heliport

......Or the plane that the NOC witnesses saw could have been the official plane that the official story claims came in at 09:37

Barbara Honegger


First off, CIT investigated the claims that a white plane was seen approaching the Pentagon seconds before the explosion and summarized their findings here:

The White Plane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b22FtxlnzEA

There were indeed witnesses at varying points, seconds before they described hearing, feeling or seeing an explosion.

Actually, included among those witnesses who described the aircraft as being white, are two NOC witnesses.

One was William Middleton, who was at Arlington Cemetery, beside the Navy Annex and who couldn't physically see the "south of the Navy Annex flightpath"

Discussed here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=365

Short video clip showing what he would have seen of the "south of the Navy Annex" flightpath:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giX1a1qnL_w

In his CIT interview he says:


QUOTE
Q: Wait, let me ask you for that. You said you saw it circling. Like, where was it circling?

A: Right about here. Right over...

Q: Like halfway up?

A: Right here. It wasn't that high up.

Q: Ok.

A: And it was going around.

Q: Going around.

A: Right. Like it was coming around through the pattering, to go over to National Airport.

Q: How long, how long did you see it circling for? Like, estimate.

A: Um, 'bout five minutes. It took about five minutes for it to go around.


Q: Oh, so it was a few minutes. You saw it--- Oh, ok.

[...]

A: He kicked the throttle. When I looked, went straight into the building.

[...]

A: On the north side of the Navy Annex. It was coming straight down the middle of the street. I don't know what was goin' on. And as it come past me, it was dropping. And you could...

[...]

A: That's--- It came right over the parking lot.


1. He claimed that he saw the aircraft circling (in the video interview he points to the airspace southeast of the Pentagon) for "about 5 minutes".

2. He claimed to see the aircraft "north" of the Navy Annex and right over the ANC parking lot which was corroborated by most of the other NOC witnesses interviewed. Including four witnesses in the parking lot area and three at the Citgo Gas Station.

3. He described an alleged impact just after having seen it ("10 seconds" after it had passed him) fly NOC.

In the same interview he says:

QUOTE
Middleton

Q: Now, how sure are you that the plane you saw circling around was the same plane.

A: I'm quite--- Well, it had to be him coming around 'cause the plane I seen was white.

Q: It was white.


A: Yes.

Q: The plane was white. Ok.

A: And when it came past me, it was white.

Q: It was white. Right, so... Ok. They were the same color....


Got that?

White plane. "Circling". Explosion "10 seconds after seeing it. NOC.


Sean Boger, whose line of view runs along the ANC carpark and who is virtually opposite William Middleton's POV, also corroborates him.

The ANC buildings are to the extreme right of the following image (trees):



The two red lines to the right depict Boger's placement of the aircraft from the heliport and Middleton's placement from his POV in the cemetery. The red line to the left depicts the directional damage path:




The second witness who described the aircraft as being white is also contained within CIT's "The White Plane".

Chadwick Brooks who was in one of the most crucial positions to determine the flightpath. Behind the Citgo Gas Station. Below the Navy Annex.

His interview, and that of fellow DPS officer William Lagasse, can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE

He places the aircraft NOC.



As does William Lagasse who was at the gas station




In "The White Plane", he describes the aircraft as being "champagne white" and points to a shack nearby as being similar in colour:

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7030/bz29.jpg

And claims that the colour of a plane shown to him in a photograph by Craig Ranke is similar to what he saw:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/765/bfsl.jpg


1. He places what he described as the "white plane" north of Citgo.

2. William Lagasse drew the exact same flightpath as Chadwick Brooks





3. William Lagasse described it as being "American Airlines".


Donald Carter was with Darrell Stafford in the same parking lot that William Middleton described the "white" aircraft "banking" over:

QUOTE
Q: Would you say it was more on, on the north side of the gas station of the gas station over here? Or the south side on the far other end?

A: It was more, more on this side.

Q: On the north side.

A: Right on this side.

.....

Q: So--- I mean--- Some people say that it was far on the other side of the Citgo.

A: No

Q: What do you have to say about that?

A: Well, they must didn't see it.

.....

A: We started runnin'. And then, at that time, you know, when we was runnin', I looked... I sorta kinda looked back, you know, seen the explosion. As it exploded, you know, felt the heat. Felt the heat of the explosion.


He was asked about the colour of the aircraft he saw in the same interview:

QUOTE
Q: What color did the plane look to you?

A: Looked sorta greyish lookin'. Silverish-greyish, greyish.

Q: Greyish silver? Did you notice any other colors?

A: No, I didn't really actually pay that any mind cause I was gettin' out of there.



Robert Turcios was also at the gas station and described the NOC flightpath



He was also asked about the colour of the aircraft he saw:

QUOTE
Turcios: Well, as I say, what I saw was the grey plane..well..I couldn't tell exactly what it was, you know? I couldn't see the markings on the side of it..

Craig: Did you see any markings at all?

Turcios: No, I don't remember seeing any markings..it was..

Craig: Was it a bright grey or a dull grey?

Turcios: It was kinda bright..it was kind of a silver grey..but it was so quick, maybe two seconds when I saw..it just stooped down here and then I tried to follow it. Then I saw it lift up a little bit (makes lifting motion) to get over..uh..to the side of the bridge here.


He also described seeing the fireball "seconds" after seeing it.


The NOC witnesses corroborate this flightpath:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pics/CIT_Imag...llGroupsMap.jpg


The colour description ranges from "white/champagne white" to "grey/silver".

Note that Brooks and Middleton's "white" plane travel the same path over the ANC carpark as described by the majority of other witnesses.


All describe a subsequent explosion seconds afterwards. All describe one aircraft. As does every single witness quoted who was actually in a position to see the aircraft.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 20 2013, 02:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 20 2013, 09:56 PM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The "white plane" Part Two

QUOTE
If the plane that a dozen or so witnesses saw approach....north of the citgo gas station [and] north of the Navy Annex....if that plane flew over, which many 9/11 researchers believe, falsely believe, it cannot be the right plane...

It didn't fly over the building, it was destroyed.....it would have to be a different second plane, or the white plane could have come around twice....the plane they saw coming in on whats called the north path...it would have had to have approached simultaneously with the white plane.........basically two planes coming in from two directions at the same time.

And the plane that CIT claims went through the fireball of the white plane being destroyed near the heliport

......Or the plane that the NOC witnesses saw could have been the official plane that the official story claims came in at 09:37

Barbara Honegger



Ms Honegger uses the backward logic that all eyewitnesses who contradict her dual claims about a "south of the Navy Annex flightpath" and a "white plane" being destroyed on the helipad, must have seen "another plane". Whether it be "two simultaneous planes", a plane that arrived on the scene after this "white plane" or the incredible scenario where there actually was an initial flyover prior to her "unquestionable" theory.

Just how strong is her "white plane" theory?

She incorrectly quoted witness Penny Elgas as being "very certain" that the aircraft she saw was "white". That a piece of this white aircraft fell in to her car through her sunroof. And that she was a "south of the Navy Annex" witness.

Wrong on all three counts. Two of them are non-debatable.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809491

Her only description of the aircraft is the following:

QUOTE
recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes

Penny Elgas

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/...rting.asp?ID=30


She also cites firefighters Alan Wallace and Mark Skipper as almost being killed by "the white plane". And as being "south of the Navy Annex flightpath witnesses", again manipulating the recorded testimony of Alan Wallace:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809489

In fact, while Alan Wallace did describe the aircraft as being "white with blue and orange stripes", just as two NOC witnesses did, in the "1.5-2 seconds" before the explosion as he ran for cover, Mark Skipper does not:

QUOTE
The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Airbus 320 white with blue and orange stripes. Mark later recalled the plane was silver and even identified that it was American Airlines.

Alan Wallace

http://web.archive.org/web/20050407192421/...xts/Wallace.txt



Another alleged witness cited is the unconfirmed media snippet allegedly quoting a Jim Sutherland

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809492


QUOTE
Jim Sutherland, a mortgage broker, was on his way to the Pentagon when he saw ... a white 737 twin-engine plane with multicolored trim fly 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon..
http://www.cincypost.com/2001/sep/11/wash091101.html
www.thedailycamera.com...


Not only is this a second hand account but the Cincinnati Post where this snippet appeared, were exposed as lying about another alleged witness account of a James Cissell who had this to say:

QUOTE
"The reporter (Edit: Kimball Perry, Cincinnati Post) took extreme creative license not only with the title but also with the story as a whole. Why he felt the need to sensationalize anything that happened on September 11 is beyond me."

James Cissell



How about the alleged "helipad witnesses"?

Bar the fact that the alleged witness testimony that Ms Honegger partially quoted and which I had to dig out for myself, is extremely weak and contradictory....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809615

...not one of them describe the aircraft as being "white".

That witnesses described the aircraft as being white is not the issue. It's that Ms Honegger dishonestly implies that each witness she cites consistently describes this white plane.

Ms Honegger makes the inference that there were multiple aircraft, but that "the white plane" was the cause of the "violent event". That any "other" aircraft , particularly the aircraft seen by the NOC witnesses, was "another plane". An anomaly. Even though William Middleton and Chadwick Brooks, two NOC witnesses described the aircraft as being white!

Fnally, the claim that what the NOC witnesses may have seen is the "official 09:37" aircraft is beyond a joke. She's claiming that her "09:32am violent event", that is, an aircraft being destroyed on the helipad wasn't noticed by the NOC witnesses and that another "violent event" occurred 5 minutes later!!

She has made a far from convincing, highly selective, contradictory and manipulative case for her "theory", dressed it up as "fact" for those who are basically ignorant and/or biased toward Pentagon research, and expects people to weigh this patchwork quilt assemblage of non corroborative, unverified tidbits of media controlled information and proven disinformation against hard evidence, in the form of the NOC witnesses.

I defy any of her supporters or herself to come here and debate this with a straight face.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 27 2013, 05:48 PM
Post #43



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Dwain Deets and the directional damage

During Ms Honegger's presentation, she produced an image that she claims was provided by Dwain Deets showing the "impossibility" of the alleged path of the debris of a Boeing 757 judging by the lack of damage to columns along this path. This has been shown to be true:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807825

How then can Dwain Deets then go on to claim that an impact occurred from the NOC trajectory when there was even far less damage to columns along this path?

Particularly Column 13D which has been shown to have been subject to fire damage only:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807810

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/1007/k5xi.jpg

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/2500/13dlarge.png

Explanation please?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Oct 2 2013, 09:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2019 - 07:23 AM