Moved From Pentagon Section - No Witnesses Who Place The Plane On The South Side? Options

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Are there any further objections to this witness to the official flight path?

Yes, again he is not telling the truth about what he saw as proven by the ANC witnesses(+Erik Dihle):

Furthermore the direction he has the C-130 approaching from, and the location he has it turning away just before the Navy Annex, has been contradicted by every other witness we spoke with, specifically the Arlington Cemetery Employees who were right next to the area where Keith says he was located but in the maintenance yard with a clear view of the approach that is unobstructed by trees. They all independently said the C-130 approached from the northwest minutes after the plane went by, minutes after the explosion exactly as the Tribby video shows.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/keithvsanc1.jpg)

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/c-130approachgif1.gif)

The on-location interviews with the Arlington Cemetery employees where they describe their encounter with the C-130 in detail can be viewed in our supplemental presentation The North Side Flyover.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Aug 24 2009, 06:19 PM

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Again, Madlene stood there with her arms crossed and agreed with me that the plane traveled in a direction that took it towards the north of the Citgo even though the trees in front of the VDOT prohibited her from seeing anything really and the official data also proves she is not telling the truth. She refused to go on camera and give an interview unless PR approved, she refused to draw on an overhead what she saw the plane do, then when we got permission from PR she still refused to do an official interview and refused to draw the direction she saw the plane travel, instead opting to put a dot where she was allegedly standing.

That is not an honest south of the gas station/south side eyewitness.

This post is to focus attention on an alleged witness and VDOT employee named Madlene Zakhem.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/madlene.jpg)

On our first trip to Arlington with the very deceptive former alleged "truther" Russell Pickering we visited the VDOT in the attempt of interviewing her and others .

Her original previously published account is as follows:

The hijacked plane was coming up Columbia Pike, unbelievably low. It
exploded into the Pentagon seconds after nearly skimming the rooftop of
the Smart Traffic Center.

Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside
for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was
a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming
straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver.
It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the
ground.... I was crying and scared," Zakhem recalls.

"If I had been on top of our building, I would have been close enough to
reach up and catch it," Madelyn Zakhem, an executive secretary in the
Smart Traffic Center (STC) in Arlington, said two days after the terrorist
plane rocketed directly over her.

When we went there to interview her she said we had to get permission from the VDOT PR dept to be able to film her at the VDOT, so we walked outside onto the lawn area she claims she was standing at and conducted an impromptu off camera interview. She came off as very standoffish. She stood there with her arms crossed and was not very verbal in her description. It was like we had to pull details out of her. We stood out here on the VDOT lawn and interviewed her:

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon%20trip/Picture019.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon%20trip/Picture016.jpg)

She maintained her story about the plane coming over the VDOT/STC(Smart Traffic Center), only she described it as inches above the roof of the brick building with the right wing hanging over, at least that is how Russell Pickering decided to interpret it.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/currentviewfromvdot.jpg)

As we stood there, I knew the north of the Citgo flight path as cited by Lagasse was still a possibility so I asked her when it came up Columbia Pike was it 1). closer to the Sheraton, 2) closer to the white house next to the brick building, or 3)closer to (coming from) 395 in an attempt to determine the direction:

(IMG:http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1292/madlenedirectione.png)

When I did that she indicated a path more in line with the plane coming from the direction of 395 and heading toward north of the Citgo:

(IMG:http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9498/madlenedirection2.png)

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/233a.jpg)

So it seems that when pressed, Madlene knew the plane headed in that general direction and subtly abandoned her already vague and ambiguous SoC claim.

This became a point of contention when Russell Pickering started his very subversive attempt at establishing a SoC path. He boiled it down to memory and he said/she said. Yet, I remember standing there and pointing off in these 3 different directions to determine which direction Madlene claims the plane flew in. She agreed with the one that seemed to take it NoC. In retrospect, it seems as if she tried to blend her story with what actually happened...the plane flying over the Annex and toward NoC. Simply because she didn't know if we had determined this already and perhaps didn't want to seem completely dishonest.

Con't below...

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Con't from above...

Regardless, there are some serious problems with Madlene's account...


1. We have corroborated eyewitnesses statements that place the plane flying over Ed Paik's shop, over the Navy Annex, and north of the Citgo. The plane would essentially have been across the street from her and nowhere near over her.
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AllGroupsMap.jpg)

2. As you can see from the blue Official SoC flight path line in the graphic above, the plane didn't even fly over the Smart Traffic Center OR Madlene according to the official data from the FDR and the official story. So her story doesn't even match with the gov't's and the physical damage path.

The reality is that the offical flight path has the entire plane significantly south of the VDOT building and would therefore not be directly over her even if the official flight path was accurate.
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/smarttrafficclosesouth1.jpg)

3. She claims she saw the cockpit and a wing. But in reality she very clearly admitted that:

" I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared."

This would be an indicator that she wouldn't have and couldn't have seen what she claims she saw in the official story's split second flyover of the VDOT/STC @ 535 MPH.

4. More importantly, on 9/11 her view would have been obstructed by the low hanging trees that covered the front of the VDOT lawn, which weren't there the day we interviewed her...

No Trees in August 2006:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/a07c211b.jpg

NO TREES from Sheraton:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/treesgone.jpg)

Trees on lawn at Madlene's location on 9/11:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/9_11_01_vdottrees.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/lotsoftrees.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/madelenvsflyoverpath.jpg)
(IMG:http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/MadleneTrees.jpg)

It was a forest!

Then she went even further fibbing to Russell Pickering in an e-mail when he tried to "clarify" her account...

Read from the bottom because I formatted it as a forward so the top time/date would be there.

____________________________________________________________________


----- Original Message -----
From: Zakhem, Madlene R.
To: 'Russell Pickering'
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:40 AM
Subject: RE: Question on August visit


No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Russell Pickering
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:40 AM
To: Zakhem, Madlene R.
Subject: Re: Question on August visit



Madelyn,

Thank you and I apologize for my memory. We talked to so many people.

I remember you said it went over the buildings. The picture I took where you were on the bench was facing that way. I did not turn around and take one facing the other way.

After it went over your buildings did you say it went over the Annex?

This is the last time I will bother you.

Russell

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Zakhem, Madlene R.

To: 'Russell Pickering'

Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:28 AM

Subject: RE: Question on August visit

Hi:

I did say that I saw the plane go over VDOT Buildings and tilting to the left while landing avoid the tower.

Madlene Zakhem


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Russell Pickering
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:29 AM
To: Zakhem, Madlene R.
Subject: Question on August visit


Hi Madelyn,

We visited in August when I was there talking to Christopher about Flight 77.

You came outside and talked with me. I don't know if you remember.

I am finishing up my writing on this and since we didn't record your description I have one question for you of a detail I forgot.

Did you say that you saw the plane go over the Navy Annex? If you didn't see it did you think it did?

I hope things are well with you and thank you for your time.


Russell Pickering

__________________________________________________________________

(IMG:http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fo38.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fo39.jpg)

From the point forward, Russell used her to not only support an SoC flight path but to personally cast doubt on our credibility. He would go on to say that she claimed we were "creepy"...

We are all God's people, whoever and wherever. We should be tolerant of those who differ in belief and opinion.


I have been patient as the sensationalism of September 11th ran its course and the heightened emotionalism somewhat subsided. I have also tried to take into account that you may not be totally aware of all facets of this situation, as I myself am not.


You grieve about an unkind statement or innuendos surrounding this issue you complain of only one word. I cannot attest to any misrepresentation. I had no contact with anyone outside of the meeting I attended. You are in error and proceeding upon a false assumption. However, I have no desire to volunteer where no obligation exists.


I decline your request and I assume that you will not pursue this frivolous claim any further. Any further writing would constitute an unfair burden on me. My desire is to "put these things to rest."

Madlene Zakhem






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: cit@thepentacon.com [mailto:cit@thepentacon.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:57 PM
To: Zakhem, Madlene R.
Subject: Perhaps you can clear this up Madlene (WE SPOKE WITH YOU IN AUG '06)



Hello Madlene,

I hope you remember us. We visited your office in August of 2006 with Russell Pickering and conducted an impromptu, unrecorded interview in front of the VDOT/STC where you claim you saw the plane fly over.

We returned after that debating and discussing the information we had obtained. Subsequently, we parted ways with Mr. Pickering.

Mr. Pickering is now publically stating that yourself and the late Mr. Christopher Landis said we were "creepy". This is clearly a problem if you did not say this, as it casts doubt on our integrity and credibility as researchers/filmakers.

Of course, Mr. Landis cannot speak for himself. But we feel it is appropriate that you shed some light on this matter as we feel that we treated both you and Mr. Landis fairly and with respect in the limited interactions that we had with you. In fact, we met with Mr. Landis for only a few minutes and said very little while waiting for the CD of photos he was burning for us.

Can you please explain what we did that was considered "creepy" or can you please clarify, for the record, what you told Russell Pickering that would cause him to arrive at this conclusion? Frankly, we believe he is making this up for his own reasons.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team

Clearly from her response she was somewhat standoffish and somewhat uncooperative/evasive again. But thankfully, she came clean about Russell's accusations. Perhaps Russell thought we wouldn't follow up on this claim.

When we returned in November '06. Craig went through the motions and scheduled a tour of the VDOT and even attempted to schedule an on camera interview with Madlene through the PR department. Videos here:

http://thepentacon.com/Topic4.htm

Madlene said she would give us an interview as long as we had the approval. Once we obtained that approval; she backed out. You can hear Ryan the PR rep giving the tour actually having to explain Madlene's alleged flight path. When Craig realized we weren't getting her on camera, he asked Ryan to get her to draw the flight path and where she was standing. Instead she simply noted where she was standing with a dot. Clearly she was again being evasive about documenting this flight path.

The question is why?

Is Madlene merely an opportunist who wanted attention for what she claimed was a traumatic event?

Was Madlene drastically mistaken? Unlikely.

Or is Madlene an operative or asset of some sort?

I have pointed out her Jewish sounding last name and possible Israeli accent and the fact that I noticed she was wearing a crucifix as a curious oddity. Is there a possibility she is Mossad? Perhaps.

But one thing is for sure. She certainly was not telling the truth about what she saw on 9/11.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Aug 24 2009, 07:29 PM

[Q24]

As I am sure you are aware, we already investigated this very thoroughly. The plane was actually on the north side of the gas station. There were no viable south of the gas station eyewitnesses and all witnesses we spoke with who work in the area and are in a position to tell, placed the plane on the north side of the gas station.

Actually I am not aware how thoroughly CIT have investigated because when I asked the straightforward question, "How many eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft on the official South flight path are CIT aware of?” you refuse to answer, prefering instead to delete my post and suspend me from your forum.

Please note as stated in my opening post, I am aware of the North of Citgo witnesses but so that we do not stray off-topic I will repeat, this thread is specifically to discuss the existing South of Citgo witnesses.

Your reservations about Keith Wheelhouse will be noted and included in a summary against his account before I move on to the next witness to the official flight path. I believe that continued excuses for these accounts will become untenable as witnesses to the official flight path build-up.

[DoYouEverWonder]

Actually I am not aware how thoroughly CIT have investigated because when I asked the straightforward question, "How many eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft on the official South flight path are CIT aware of?” you refuse to answer, prefering instead to delete my post and suspend me from your forum.

Please note as stated in my opening post, I am aware of the North of Citgo witnesses but so that we do not stray off-topic I will repeat, this thread is specifically to discuss the existing South of Citgo witnesses.

Your reservations about Keith Wheelhouse will be noted and included in a summary against his account before I move on to the next witness to the official flight path. I believe that continued excuses for these accounts will become untenable as witnesses to the official flight path build-up.

Doesn't a person have to be willing to go on record in order to be considered a 'witness'. Why don't you do an interview with Ms. Zakhem? I'd love to hear what she has to say. The press quoted a lot of people who supported the official myth, but most of them have turned out to be unreliable to say the least. Especially when you have reporters who have an agenda and are putting their spin on the story. If you've ever been interviewed, what you actually said or meant and what the reporter writes are often two different things.

[Killtown]

this thread is specifically to discuss the existing South of Citgo witnesses.

So how many are there?

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Actually I am not aware how thoroughly CIT have investigated because when I asked the straightforward question, "How many eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft on the official South flight path are CIT aware of?” you refuse to answer, prefering instead to delete my post and suspend me from your forum.

Actually, we answered your question several times and you chose to impetuously repeat it over and over expecting a different answer or expecting to frame us as trying to hide something. That is why you were banned.

You should research on our work a little more before passing judgment.

Please note as stated in my opening post, I am aware of the North of Citgo witnesses but so that we do not stray off-topic I will repeat, this thread is specifically to discuss the existing South of Citgo witnesses.

And I told you there are no south of the Citgo witnesses, because the plane was on the north side of the Citgo.

Your reservations about Keith Wheelhouse will be noted and included in a summary against his account before I move on to the next witness to the official flight path. I believe that continued excuses for these accounts will become untenable as witnesses to the official flight path build-up.

Kieth Wheelhouse is not a south side witness. He can't see the Citgo (and admitted this) or the official flight path. He also was not telling the truth about the C-130, so how exactly is he a genuine witness?

How did he draw the flight path past the south side of the Citgo, when he can't see the Citgo from his alleged location?
How did he draw the flight path over the bridge, when he can't see the bridge from his alleged location?(that one is key)
How did he see the plane slam into the Pentagon when he can't see the plane slam into the Pentagon from his alleged location?
How did he see a C-130 on top of or following an AA 757 when NO ONE else we interviewed did?
How did he see a C-130 from the S, on the south side of the Navy Annex, at virtually the same time as the alleded impact when all the ANC workers INDEPENDENTLY corroborate each other, placing the C-130 coming from the NW over ANC?
How did he see the C-130 arrive at the same time as and with the attack jet when video proves it did not arrive for nearly 3 minutes at a very high altitude, an altitude that previously prevented the C-130 crew from knowing "what and where" had been hit?!?!

Let's remove the suspect spook witness label for a minute. Can't you accept the possibility that Kieth lied to because he is an attention seeker? What is to have stopped him from merely googling the official flight path and drawing that based on what he learned before our interview? The seriously problems in his account prove his is not a reliable, genuine witness.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Aug 24 2009, 06:50 PM

[Q24]

Actually, we answered your question several times and you chose to impetuously repeat it over and over expecting a different answer or expecting to frame us as trying to hide something. That is why you were banned.

This isn’t the ideal place for it but I feel I must address your inaccuracies.

First, CIT did not and still have not answered my question. I will try to explain as you are having difficulty understanding this. Please follow the wording very closely paying special attention to the bolded text, “How many eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft on the official South flight path are CIT aware of?”

You see, whether you personally believe the witnesses were mistaken or lying does not come into it. Don’t worry, I know you won’t answer; you can’t – it would counteract the limited witnesses that you choose to present.

Second, I was suspended for repeating the still unanswered question. The ban came when I began to question CIT’s treatment of Lloyd England’s account. It is apparent that your forum does not welcome balanced opinion and cannot be taken seriously as a place for free speech and open debate to bring out the truth – nothing more than a propaganda exercise in my opinion.

Let's remove the suspect spook witness label for a minute. Can't you accept the possibility that Kieth lied to because he is an attention seeker? What is to have stopped him from merely googling the official flight path and drawing that based on what he learned before our interview? The seriously problems in his account prove his is not a reliable, genuine witness.

Your concerns will all be noted before I present the next South flight path witness. Stick with the thread Aldo, it will be most interesting to see how long the list of speculative excuses gets.

[rob balsamo]

I will try to explain as you are having difficulty understanding this. Please follow the wording very closely paying special attention to the bolded text,

.... nothing more than a propaganda exercise in my opinion.


Stick with the thread Aldo, it will be most interesting to see how long the list of speculative excuses gets.

Q, your ad homs are not welcome here. This is your third warning. Next one gets you 30 days.

[Q24]

Q, your ad homs are not welcome here. This is your third warning. Next one gets you 30 days.

I’m sorry you took that as ad hominem, it certainly wasn’t intended that way. The question I am asking is clearly being misunderstood, it is self-evident that the CIT forum is not a place for open debate and “the possibility that Kieth lied because he is an attention seeker” is a speculative excuse.

Rob, it doesn’t matter to me if it’s a life ban – it only further proves my point.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

This isn’t the ideal place for it but I feel I must address your inaccuracies.

First, CIT did not and still have not answered my question. I will try to explain as you are having difficulty understanding this.

Actually I am not having any problems understanding this, but thank you for your concern. Did you need any help understanding what we already told you?

Please follow the wording very closely paying special attention to the bolded text, “How many eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft on the official South flight path are CIT aware of?”

There are none. Again, you seem to be limited on comprehension skills. Let me explain it again, there are no witnesses who claim to have seen the south side flight path because there was no south side flight path nor are there any genuine witnesses who saw a south side flight path.

You see, whether you personally believe the witnesses were mistaken or lying does not come into it. Don’t worry, I know you won’t answer; you can’t – it would counteract the limited witnesses that you choose to present.

No, actually I answered you already. It is not a matter of personally believing them. The evidence has already been collected and witnesses analyzed. I am not sure what you are not getting.

Second, I was suspended for repeating the still unanswered question. The ban came when I began to question CIT’s treatment of Lloyd England’s account.

You became emotionally unglued after being suspended when you couldn't bite your tongue about Lloyd England.

He is guilty, I am sorry you can't accept that because it disturbs your remote guided 757 conspiracy theory.

It is apparent that your forum does not welcome balanced opinion and cannot be taken seriously as a place for free speech and open debate to bring out the truth – nothing more than a propaganda exercise in my opinion.

That is because it is a research forum, not a "british armchair conspiracy theorist "researcher" who thinks he can trump other's research which is and has been superior to his" forum. You seem to be bent on re-inventing the wheel. We've done all the work eyewitnesses, it is over. Your remoted guided 757 conspiracy theory is dead.

We don't accept nobody detractors on our forum ignoring what we have shown them in hopes of subverting our forum

Trust me, you will not matter in the long run. There have been many of you and you come and go. Same arguments, same dead ends as you paint yourselves into a corner.

Your concerns will all be noted before I present the next South flight path witness. Stick with the thread Aldo, it will be most interesting to see how long the list of speculative excuses gets.

Oh whatever, Q24. You fit the definition of delusional. You really think we haven't crossed our t's and dotted our i's? We have done way too much research and have found the golden goose egg piece of evidence to be rattled or intimidated by some johnny come lately.

You matter not.

I am sticking with the thread. You are just not listening. You are throwing poop at a wall and hoping people will look at you. U are trying to force south side flight path witnesses into existence no matter what.

I showed you Keith Wheelhouse lied. He lied. I know you don't like to admit you are wrong. But he lied. U can't change that. I merely gave you an out with a reason to why he was lying. You passed on the life raft.

I love how you didn't answer my questions. Again, how did Keith draw the flight path over the bridge, when he cannot see the bridge or the flight path over the bridge? How?

Just stop, Q. This can only end badly for you.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Aug 24 2009, 11:11 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Q24,

You are misrepresenting our position so let me clarify it for you for the record.

When considering the witnesses in a position to see the former Citgo, there are zero recorded firsthand accounts and zero quoted secondhand witness statements from people specifically placing the plane on the south side of the station.

Yet as you know there are a slew of them who specifically place the plane on the north side of the gas station.

Neither Wheelhouse nor Zackhem could see the citgo at all from their alleged locations so whether or not you accept that their accounts are dubious or not credible they are already eliminated from the most important witness pool to tell if the plane was north or south of the gas station: people who could see the citgo. You can't be a witness to something you can't see.

Now that we have that straight let's step back for a moment and consider the central question to this issue objectively and scientifically. The question is whether or not the plane was north or south of the former Citgo.

In order to answer that question the best possible evidence available to us is firsthand on location interviews with witnesses who were on or directly in front of the gas station's property when they saw the plane.

No witness at any other location could possibly be in as good of a position to tell because perspective error is an undeniable issue that increases significantly the further the witness is from the gas station.

Agreed?

Since CIT has interviewed all known witnesses who were on the gas station's property the accusations of "cherry picking" when considering this question are wholly unfounded.


To scientifically refute this evidence (and all evidence) it is necessary to provide evidence to the contrary of greater strength. This is a factual generalization that objective scientists can not deny.

Agreed?

So the only way to effectively refute the already existing evidence for a north side approach would be to provide four or more firsthand accounts from people who were on or directly in front of the gas station's property and 100% emphatically support a south side approach as strongly and certainly as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios support a north side approach.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/citgogif.gif)

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/witness%20flight%20paths/noccomposite.jpg)


To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias in favor of the official narrative. A clear confirmation bias exposes a non-scientific approach to this information.

There is no way that any amount of out of context secondhand media quotes from people who were not on the gas station's property (and who didn't mention the flight path in relation to the gas station at all) can be fairly considered strong enough evidence to refute the unanimous and independent credible witnesses at the gas station who have all provided detailed answers on camera when specifically asked about this simple detail.

This is why the Citgo gas station witnesses alone are "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of a north side approach, but as shown in National Security Alert everyone else in the closest areas to the gas station (i.e. Arlington Cemetery) STILL emphatically support the north side approach fully corroborating the witnesses who were on the station's property.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif.gif)

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/witness%20flight%20paths/ancpathcomposite.jpg)

If you appreciate science and objectivity, you must demand evidence of greater strength to refute a north side approach. This simply can not be done with witnesses who could not even see the gas station or with unconfirmed secondhand media quotes from people who weren't at the gas station even if they specifically placed the plane south of the Citgo (which none of them did).

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Aug 25 2009, 12:01 AM

[painter]

When considering the witnesses in a position to see the former Citgo, there are zero recorded firsthand accounts and zero quoted secondhand witness statements from people specifically placing the plane on the south side of the station.

. . .

If you appreciate science and objectivity, you must demand evidence of greater strength to refute a north side approach. This simply can not be done with witnesses who could not even see the gas station or with unconfirmed secondhand media quotes from people who weren't at the gas station even if they specifically placed the plane south of the Citgo (which none of them did).

Just in case anyone missed it.

[Q24]

Doesn't a person have to be willing to go on record in order to be considered a 'witness'. Why don't you do an interview with Ms. Zakhem? I'd love to hear what she has to say. The press quoted a lot of people who supported the official myth, but most of them have turned out to be unreliable to say the least. Especially when you have reporters who have an agenda and are putting their spin on the story. If you've ever been interviewed, what you actually said or meant and what the reporter writes are often two different things.

All of the witnesses I will present are on record, that’s how we know about them in the first place. CIT already did a good enough job of interviewing Ms. Zakhem as can be seen on the previous page. I quite agree that some outlets may have an agenda and apply spin to witness stories – this should be taken into account whatever the information outlet; it would be a mistake to confine this characteristic only to the mainstream media.

Actually I am not aware how thoroughly CIT have investigated because when I asked the straightforward question, "How many eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft on the official South flight path are CIT aware of?” you refuse to answer, prefering instead to delete my post and suspend me from your forum.

Actually, we answered your question several times and you chose to impetuously repeat it over and over expecting a different answer or expecting to frame us as trying to hide something. That is why you were banned.

First, CIT did not and still have not answered my question. I will try to explain as you are having difficulty understanding this. Please follow the wording very closely paying special attention to the bolded text, “How many eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft on the official South flight path are CIT aware of?”

You see, whether you personally believe the witnesses were mistaken or lying does not come into it. Don’t worry, I know you won’t answer; you can’t – it would counteract the limited witnesses that you choose to present.

There are none. Again, you seem to be limited on comprehension skills. Let me explain it again, there are no witnesses who claim to have seen the south side flight path because there was no south side flight path nor are there any genuine witnesses who saw a south side flight path.

Considering the last witness, Keith Wheelhouse, clearly claimed a South flight path which he even sketched for CIT… your argument is completely bizarre.

When considering the witnesses in a position to see the former Citgo, there are zero recorded firsthand accounts and zero quoted secondhand witness statements from people specifically placing the plane on the south side of the station.

Yet as you know there are a slew of them who specifically place the plane on the north side of the gas station.

Someplace, sometime I will go into detail of the deception of the Citgo reference point that CIT fall back on to ignore many witnesses. You see, it would be just as easy to use the Navy Annex as such a reference point to provide different results. For now, this is off-topic.

Before the thread is derailed any further, I will sum up what appear to be the complaints against Keith Wheelhouse: -

• Despite being able to see the Navy Annex and Pentagon from his vantage point, trees blocked the view of a reasonable section of Ketih’s described flight path and also the impact point.
• Keith could not see other features including the Citgo station and bridge.
• Keith inaccurately describes the C-130, ie too close to the alleged Flight 77 and taking an incorrect flight path.
• Keith may be an attention seeker.

These will eventually be added to the complaints against Madelyn Zakhem. I will now move on from Keith Wheelhouse.

[Q24]

Witness number three…

Albert Hemphill

His account: -

“As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to the Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.

The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5.”

I don’t think an image is necessary for this one, the bolded text makes the flight path described by Albert Hemphill’s account self-explanatory. Over his right shoulder as he faced the Pentagon from the Navy Annex, as though along Columbia Pike (the easiest parallel reference to describe heading), direct course for the Pentagon and he also witnessed the low impact. This can be closely reconciled with the official flight path but not with a North of Citgo approach.

The only excuse I have heard for this account is that he was inside the Navy Annex building so could not have witnessed any of this. My rebuttal, obvious as it may be, is that he was looking out of a window.

Are there any other grievances against the account of Albert Hemphill?

[KP50]

Q24,

Why don't you just post the names of all of these witnesses up here - save all of us some time. You're not actually adding anything to the accounts that have been rattling around the internet for years so what's the point of it all? CIT's research consisted of actually interviewing people and clarifying what they saw and more importantly what could have been seen from where they were positioned.

Or maybe find a single witness to corroborate Lloyd England's tale. Just one.

Cordially yours,

KP much too busy in Sydney.

[DoYouEverWonder]

Q24,

the link you posted doesn't even mentioned Albert Hemphill's name. Do you have an original source for this story? Or just this freeper pro-war site?

[tnemelckram]

Hi Q!


1.

The best that can be taken from the account of Madelyn Zakhem is that the aircraft passed within a vicinity close enough for it to be described as “overhead”. This places the aircraft in the reasonable proximity of the official flight path and, without assuming the illogical tight left-right bank maneuver, is opposed to a North of Citgo approach.

Well, the North of Citgo approach is also in the "reasonable proximity" of the *official flight path* so I think your "reasonable proximity" standard for evaluating her testimony is rather meaningless. At a minimum, her testimony also places the aircraft in the "reasonable proximity" of North of Citgo. Now, in Point 2 and 3, I will show how the word's "official flight path" should not longer be used as the shorthand label for any of the infinite number of possible flight paths other than North of Citgo.


2.

I quite see your point and I am not aware there has been such an express claim based on collected evidence from an official government agency.
. . . . .
We can refer to the “official story” (rather than “official government”) flight path if that would be more acceptable to you.

Thanks for conceding that there has been no express claim by an official government agency and that there is no "official government flight path". With those concessions in hand, I have to ask why I should find "official story" to be an acceptable shorthand concept that includes the South Path or Any Path. Whatever the "official story" is or whatever remains of it, your concessions rule out it including the South Path and Any Path.

3.

I understand what you are saying but again for the purposes of this discussion I think everyone knows the approach the aircraft is required to have taken for the official story to be upheld.

I don't understand or know, and I don't think anybody else can understand or know, the "approach the aircraft is required to have taken for the official story to be upheld" unless the government expressly claims, specifies and plots what that path is. Without the government doing that, the only logical conclusion is that the government concluded that it was unable to satisfactorily specify Any Path (or approach) in a way that would get chopped up just as this unclaimed path that has arisen out of the mists of the Internet has been chopped up. Thus it is not even part of the "official story" and ab initio not included in what is to be "upheld".

EDIT TO ADD: If I were the government, I'd be laughing till I p i s s e d my pants about how all of these fools are doing my work for me by claiming and defending something I was unable to and afraid to claim and defend myself, and wondering if next I can get those people to cut off their own faces, just like Hannibal Lecter did.

EDIT 2 (I JUST CAN'T STOP): These *are* the 'droids you are searching for.

EDIT 3 (OBSCURE AND ARTSY) I *am* in Paris. (Veruschka von Helldorf Blow Up 1966, said while smoking pot in London)]

EDIT 4 (GREAT LITERATURE) Please see my signature line below. Alice Through The Looking Glass indeed!

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Aug 25 2009, 12:39 PM

[painter]

Albert Hemphill

“... The aircraft, ... seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike ...”

<snip>
The only excuse I have heard for this account is that he was inside the Navy Annex building so could not have witnessed any of this. My rebuttal, obvious as it may be, is that he was looking out of a window.

Are there any other grievances against the account of Albert Hemphill?

If he was inside the Navy Annex looking out a window and the plane "seemed to come directly over the annex" as reported here, he is a NOCP (North of Columbia Pike) witness, if not a NOC witness, as the Annex is to the north of CP. I also note the exact quote is "as if it had been following Columbia Pike." He did not say that it WAS following CP as he, apparently, was not witness to this. I also note that in this rather detailed report of subtle flight maneuvers allegedly witnessed in 3 seconds prior to impact, there is no mention of collision with light poles. Did he miss that or did he just forget when giving his report? He also does not describe in any detail the rather astounding impact itself. Do we have an on-camera, on-site corroboration of this account, including where he was standing, what direction he was facing, where he places the plane in relation to the topography and precisely what he saw and didn't see? We know all the Citgo/Arlington witnesses presume impact; did Mr. Hemphill infact observe impact or does he only assume it based on his observations of approach followed by explosion?

Personally, if I had been an impact witness, I think the traumatic event plus the extraordinary details of the plane not grazing the lawn and completely entering the building in one fell swoop without leaving any large, visible pieces of debris, would have left an indelible impression in my mind. It certainly wouldn't be something I'd either forget or leave out of any re-telling of the story. Of course I'm speculating here and Mr. Hemphill and I may have very different personalities -- but just saying, I find it very odd that a witness who noted very fine details of craft movement would NOT mention the knocking over of light poles and the extraordinary fact that the plane completely disappeared into the Pentagon at precisely ground level. Yet, we see no mention of these extraordinary events but hear of minor flight adjustments which can neither be confirmed nor disproven as inaccurate.

But the most important point is that we do not have on-camera, on-site confirmation of this report with the witness AND, taken at face value "seemed to come directly over the navy annex" suggests a NOCP approach.

I don't see how this witness account comes anywhere close to contradicting the on-site, on-camera Citgo/Arlington witness accounts.

[DoYouEverWonder]

All of the witnesses I will present are on record, that’s how we know about them in the first place.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

You still haven't even provided an original source and the author of the Albert Hemphill story. Therefore, all you have is hearsay, so you don't have any evidence so far.

Have you contacted Mr. Hemphill?