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 3 2013, 05:57 PM
Post #21



Group Icon

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



A glaring omission from her latest presentation was the alleged interview with Lloyd England contained in "The Pentagon Papers" (2007)

QUOTE
I interviewed the famous “lone taxi driver” whose cab is the only car visible still parked on I-395 above the Pentagon lawn looking down at the west face after the other cars have left the freeway. This taxi can be seen in overhead photos taken on the morning of 9/11 and viewable on the Internet. The driver said his was the last car allowed onto that section of I-395 before police put up a barricade and that he decided not to immediately leave the scene like the others “because I realized this was history and I wanted to see for myself.” He stated that he saw no evidence of a plane having impacted the building nor any visible plane pieces on the lawn at the time he arrived, which was after the first violent event in the building, as black smoke was streaming up and to the right from inside-the-building fires. The taxi cab driver drew a diagram of what he saw that morning while overlooking the Pentagon’s west face from I-395.


It was actually Route 27 and not the I395.

It actually sounds like something Lloyd would say, “I realized this was history and I wanted to see for myself.” but she (or he, if this was for real) doesn’t mention the alleged 30ft section of lightpole that was supposed to have speared his windshield. She claims that he was basically simply observing, and saw no evidence of an aircraft having impacted the building. Just “black smoke [was] streaming up and to the right from inside-the-building fires”!

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/255/imagecyy.jpg

Hmmmm…..

Lloyde England was interviewed by CIT accompanied by what turned out to be another “flipflopper” who appeared on the scene, Russell Pickering.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2062895

Here's the interview with Lloyd England:

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

Explanation needed or will this slide too?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Sep 3 2013, 11:00 PM
Post #22





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Aug 27 2013, 04:38 PM) *
No, it doesn't logically follow that there had to be a "simultaneous approach" of "the white plane" as she hasn't even come close to proving her contradictory and baseless theory.

And what happened to the alleged "first" flyover that had the same plane circling around again to "hit"??

Is she really suggesting that people actually missed the "first flyover", without the loud explosion and pyrotechnic show?

That they not only couldn't distinguish between their lefts and rights in ascertaining where they saw the aircraft but completely missed this "white plane" on the "south of the Navy Annex path" which avoided all of the obstacles?

It's beyond absurd.

...

QUOTE
For the CIT interpretation to be true, there would have had to have been a second explosion, which was in fact reported by many witnesses at the Pentagon as it flew through a preexisting smoke cloud.



Again, CIT didn't "interpret" anything. They simply publicized what witnesses told them on camera.

There were multiple explosions reported after the "main event" but not one witness reported a "second explosion...as it flew through a preexisting smoke cloud."

What is "it" exactly? There was an alleged airshow going on!

Ms Honegger likes to play on words, generalize and confuse. And lie.


...

Ms Honegger claims that the image allegedly taken by Daryl Donley "may or may not be the 5 frames fireball"



This is the section of Ms Honegger's presentation where this is actually brought up as a "possibility"



laughing1.gif at that last part especially.

Wow.

QUOTE
"I think you're the only Pentagon researcher who is both honest and presents a coherent model."
Professor Niels Harrit


Fantastic sleuthing, OSS. My and your work this summer is rather complementary; I took on Ryan while you took on Honegger. cheers.gif cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Sep 4 2013, 04:33 AM
Post #23





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



In going through your research, I've noticed something, OSS. The following image was taken at 9:43-4 a.m.



One of the light poles appears to be perched right on top of the guardrail! It hasn't been planted on the grass yet!

It appears to be pole no. 5.



Pole no. 5 was the closest pole to the Pentagon.



Note the sidewalk in the background of the first image, presumably the same sidewalk where the head of the pole comes to rest during the photo op picture. You can see the sidewalk in the Google Earth image too.

I believe I'm correct that it's pole 5, but even if not... a 9:43-4 shot of ANY of the poles resting on the top of the guardrail appears to be a smoking gun showing staged damage for two reasons. First, for the pole to be in such a careful position thanks to an airplane hitting it is absurd to anyone. Second, all the poles except Lloyde's were filmed on the grass, proving the light pole was moved between 9:43-4 and when the photo op occurred.



I did a Google search using key words like "9/11 light pole guardrail" and limited the search to the Pilots and CIT sites to see if this has been brought up before. Doesn't appear to have.

Thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 4 2013, 08:18 AM
Post #24



Group Icon

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



I think it's an optical illusion that the lightpole is resting on the guardrail Adam.

However, poster "Avenger" at LCF made a very astute observation regarding the lightpoles (particularly "Lloyd's pole", pole 1.)

QUOTE
The wings of a 757 are sloped back at an angle like this:

(OSS: added my own image to his quote)



So any pole hit by the right wing should've been knocked to the right. Yet, according to the official story, light pole number 1 took a sharp turn to the left of the plane's flight path, and apparently flew like a spear into a cab driver's car.


The same logic should be applied to the left wing and lightpole 5.



This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 4 2013, 08:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Sep 4 2013, 12:06 PM
Post #25





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



OSS,

I think you may be right. We could be looking at the result of what happens when a piece of 3D reality gets captured onto a 2D template. Last night, I was trying to consider the illusion possibility but it strained my credulity; now, upon looking at the image again, I can see how the photo can be interpreted multiple ways.

Darn! Oh well, thought I had something there.

Would be interested to see what others at T/S have to say.

ETA: After seeing a much magnified version of the "guardrail" image from Balsamo, I would say it's definitely an optical illusion. Oh well. Not the smoking gun I thought it was when I initially saw it.



This post has been edited by A. Syed: Sep 4 2013, 05:00 PM
Attached File(s)
Attached File  guardrailcloseup.jpg ( 25.29K ) Number of downloads: 55
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Sep 5 2013, 05:49 AM
Post #26





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (A. Syed @ Sep 2 2013, 03:06 PM) *
OSS,

I think you may be right. We could be looking at the result of what happens when a piece of 3D reality gets captured onto a 2D template. Last night, I was trying to consider the illusion possibility but it strained my credulity; now, upon looking at the image again, I can see how the photo can be interpreted multiple ways.

Darn! Oh well, thought I had something there.

Would be interested to see what others at T/S have to say.

ETA: After seeing a much magnified version of the "guardrail" image from Balsamo, I would say it's definitely an optical illusion. Oh well. Not the smoking gun I thought it was when I initially saw it.



Stop it, Adam Syed!

Your "suffering" over making a tiny little mistake is quite palpable!

So here is a little tested and tried advise for you:

"The road to wisdom? - Well, it's plain
and simple to express:
Err
and err
and err again
but less
and less
and less."

Think that you're far along this road, so please relax buddy!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Sep 5 2013, 03:55 PM
Post #27





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Sep 5 2013, 04:49 AM) *
Stop it, Adam Syed!

Your "suffering" over making a tiny little mistake is quite palpable!

So here is a little tested and tried advise for you:

"The road to wisdom? - Well, it's plain
and simple to express:
Err
and err
and err again
but less
and less
and less."

Think that you're far along this road, so please relax buddy!

Cheers


To the contrary, my ego is not bruised at all. smile.gif

ETA: Okay, I give in, you got me. I was thinking I'd discovered the be all and end all smoking gun of 9/11, and would have streets named after me in 25 years for this discovery. Never before in my life has my ego taken such a huge beating, not even when I first got rejected by a girl! crybaby2.gif

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Sep 5 2013, 03:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 5 2013, 05:20 PM
Post #28



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (A. Syed @ Sep 5 2013, 08:55 PM) *
To the contrary, my ego is not bruised at all. smile.gif

ETA: Okay, I give in, you got me. I was thinking I'd discovered the be all and end all smoking gun of 9/11, and would have streets named after me in 25 years for this discovery. Never before in my life has my ego taken such a huge beating, not even when I first got rejected by a girl! crybaby2.gif


biggrin.gif

Takes a bigger pair of balls to set the record straight Adam! Good man.

Barbara Honegger and others let their mis/disinfo fester while the likes of you, I, Rob and the CIT guys stick to the truth as we know it. We have to dot our I's and cross our T's while others can spew contradictory twaddle without a second thought.

thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 7 2013, 06:57 PM
Post #29



Group Icon

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



I just noticed a half hearted "response" at Truth and Shadows from Ms Honegger. And it's just as tangled and ambiguous as her presentation. I have to answer her in sections.

QUOTE
First, one of the comments is based on a mistaken understanding. The slide with the Global Hawk in ‘Behind the Smoke Curtain’ is clearly labeled ‘Simulation’ and is only intended to show how horizontal stripes could easily be added to any drone to make it appear, especially while flying at high speed, to be a Boeing airliner; i.e. it’s not a claim that the white plane that approached the heliport at 9:32:30 and whose explosion there stopped the heliport clock at that time was a Global Hawk. Christopher Bollyn believes that it was — see http://therebel.org/index.php?option=com_c...h.4nFq4xGu.dpuf — but I make no claim as to what specific kind of craft it was, only that being white it could not have been an AA airliner/Flight 77, had at least one and probably two horizontal stripes to make it appear to be so, and was seen as quite large.

Barbara Honegger


Of course the images were simulations. Nobody implied that the images were genuine.

Secondly, I've always believed that a decoy jet, possibly souped up, was involved at the Pentagon.

The problem is that Ms Honegger at minimum implies through repeated imagery, that a painted Global Hawk specifically, was the likely culprit.

@41:50mins into the presentation, having repeated Alan Wallace's description of seeing "orange and blue stripes" on the aircraft, this image is displayed on the screen



@45mins into the presentation, Ms Honegger quotes Dennis Cimino as saying that the Penny Elgas piece of alleged debris came from "the wing or stabilizer of a fibreglass drone that was shaped and painted to simulate an American Airlines plane".

She then goes on to display this image on the screen




It's hard for there not to be a "mistaken understanding" as to what Ms Honegger is claiming as she keeps chopping and changing her "theories" and never retracting any of them.

From Ms Honegger's "The Pentagon Papers" (where her alleged interview with Lloyd England is discussed)

http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf

QUOTE
The Pentagon was attacked by bomb(s) at or around 9:32 am, possibly followed by an impact from an airborne object significantly smaller than Flight 77, a Boeing 757.


And

QUOTE
As remnants found in the Pentagon wreckage have been identified as the front−hub assembly of the front compressor of a JT8D turbojet engine used in the A−3 Sky Warrior jet fighter...


QUOTE
Recall that the A−3 Sky Warrior planes were retrofitted shortly before 9/11, not only enabling them to be remotely controlled but also fitted with missiles. The round− shaped exit hole in the inner wall of the "C" Ring is evidence that a missile or a piloted or pilot−less remote− controlled plane significantly smaller than Flight 77 also struck the building subsequent to bombs going off and penetrated the inside of the third ring, as bomb detonations would not have resulted in such a near−symmetrical round−shaped opening.


QUOTE
wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A−3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 7 2013, 06:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 7 2013, 09:56 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

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



Second part of Ms Honegger's post:


QUOTE
Second, the inclusion by CIT and its supporters of Sean Boger as an alleged witness to a flyover, rather than to a plane destruction at/near the heliport, is mind boggling,as he explicitly states that he saw it impact, i.e. if you were to choose one witness to support a non-flyover, it would be Boger.

Barbara Honegger


Not once have CIT nor myself nor any "supporters" labelled Sean Boger as a "flyover witness".

He's most definitely an NOC witness.

Unlike Ms Honegger, CIT contacted witnesses to iron out the ambiguity and clarify the second hand media snippets that she thrives on.

His CIT interview, warts and all, can be heard here:

http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm



He also questions the validity of the gatecam footage, saying that the aircraft was at a height "between the second and third floors"



Hardly an alleged witness to this "destruction at/near the heliport". Even more "mindboggling" is that she points to this witness as supporting her "south of the Navy Annex" aircraft when he completely contradicts this. And in her own words, that he "explicitly states that he saw it impact", when he was supposed to have (played chicken with and) watched it get destroyed on the helipad!

Ms Honneger forgets where the helipad is in relation to the heliport? Coming from her "south of the Navy Annex" path, it would have been headed straight for him but would have blown up before even reaching him!



Failure and falsehoods at multiple levels Ms Honegger.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 7 2013, 10:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Sep 8 2013, 08:51 PM
Post #31





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



'.....takes a tougher vagina to set the record straight, Ms Honegger!' wink.gif

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Sep 8 2013, 11:34 PM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Sep 8 2013, 08:51 PM) *
'.....takes a tougher vagina to set the record straight, Ms Honegger!' wink.gif

Cheers


She maybe a useless twit, but to paint her as a useless twat is doing your argument no good. It's not like we are discussing parallel parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Sep 9 2013, 06:31 AM
Post #33





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (JimMac @ Sep 7 2013, 02:34 AM) *
She maybe a useless twit, but to paint her as a useless twat is doing your argument no good. It's not like we are discussing parallel parking.


Have no idea what the hell you're talking about!

I don't think she's a useless twit, nor a useless twat,

so wonder where you got that crap from!!

Sounds like you're pretty ignorant about the 'gender battle'

going round at the moment: whether it's the balls or the

vagina which should represent that of "being tough and courageous"?

Most females would probably go for the latter as, according to some,

the vagina can take a greater pounding than the balls.

Hope you get it now?

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 9 2013, 06:01 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

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



The alleged "helipad witnesses"



QUOTE
Also, the multiple witnesses to a white plane hitting/scraping/dragging its left wing on the helipad just before bursting into a fireball make it clear that it was already at the ground near the firehouse, where Boger was in the control tower, and at that point could not have physically overflown. As the plane many CIT witnesses saw, they were very clear, was white, if it was the same white plane that almost killed heliport firefighters Wallace and Skipper next to the firehouse, it absolutely was destroyed into a fireball only seconds later and did not fly over the building.

Barbara Honegger



Let's look at these "multiple witnesses to a white plane hitting/scraping/dragging its left wing on the helipad"


True to form, I've had to search for these alleged "multiple witnesses" as she doesn't name them.


Steve Anderson


QUOTE
I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball.


1. He doesn't describe the aircraft as being white.

2. He doesn't mention the helipad.

3. There is no evidence of the left wing/engine being "drug..along the ground"

4. He allegedly viewed the event from the USAToday buildings in Roslyn, 2km away

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3769/gannetview.png

5. He was Director of Communications of USA TODAY yet his story didn't make it on to the news. Not even Gannett newspapers. Why?

The source of this quote was an email sent online a month after the event.

6. He was involved in a controversial event where he denied fire alarms were set off at his place of work just before the explosion at the Pentagon, even though the Arlington Fire Report contradicts him

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums...c/806333/1/#new

Steve Anderson, Director of Communications of USA TODAY, would have seen the alleged "09:32 violent event", yet no news was broadcast through the MSM of this until 09:42am.

8. We don't know his exact POV nor has he been independently interviewed.



Rodney Washington


QUOTE
stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it. It "landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon," Washington said. "There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded." Washington speculated that it could have been worse: "If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court."


1. He doesn't describe the aircraft as being white.

2. The reporter mentions the helipad. The reporter also mentions the lightpoles (which Ms Honegger claims is a physically impossible scenario and which no witnesses described as seeing). Washington does not.

3. We don't know his POV nor has he been interviewed independently.

4. He allegedly describes a "very, very brief delay" before the explosion.
How does this fit in with the (vague and evidence free) theory that a drone was completely destroyed between the helipad and the facade within a fraction of a second?

And which the complete lack of marks on the Wedge 2 facade, helipad or nearby vehicles and in which three individuals in close proximity survived, contradicts this scenario.

Outlined here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809497

5. This media snippet is also contradictory in that he both allegedly describes a higher altitude when he supposedly says that "if it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court" and the scenario whereby he claimed that the aircraft "landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon" a second later.

This is why media snippets like this need to be approached with caution. And why they need to be verified.


David Marra

QUOTE
David Marra, 23, an information-technology specialist, had turned his BMW off an I-395 exit to the highway just west of the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon:

"It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground."

There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.


1. According to yet another unverified media snippet, David Marra does not describe the aircraft as being "white".

2. The reporter mentions the helipad. The reporter makes the "cartwheel" statement.

3. We don't know his POV, bar the reporter giving a vague description, nor has Marra been interviewed independently.

4. He is ambiguous as to which wing he allegedly saw "caught...on the ground". As a matter of fact his last alleged description is of the aircraft "roll[ing]" to "the right".

5. He also describes the aircraft as being "50ft off the deck" before claiming that a wing hit the ground.


Mary Ann Owens


Like Steve Anderson, Mary Ann Owens is a Gannett employee. It's important to note the two testimonies she gave. One allegedly gave that day, and one a year later on the first anniversary of 9/11.

Her original statement:

First, the second hand reporting:

QUOTE
Gannett News Service employee Mary Ann Owens was stopped in traffic on the road that runs past the Pentagon, listening on the radio to the news of the World Trade Center attacks, when she heard a loud roar overhead and looked up as the plane barely cleared the highway.


Now her alleged direct quote from that same segment which contradicts the "barely cleared the highway" description just a sentemce before:

QUOTE
"Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed," Owens said. "The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up."


Now her alleged testimony on the anniversary of 9/11 a year later:

QUOTE
"...aviation noise is common along my commute to the silver office towers in Rosslyn where Gannett Co Inc. were housed last autumn....."

"......Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low....."

"Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact."


1. She does not describe the aircraft as being "white".

2. The common denominators in both pieces is that she "ducked" as the aircraft allegedly flew "over [her] head"

This reaction is repeated by multiple witnesses.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...&p=22008858

3. She places the aircraft at "50 - 75ft above the roof of [her] car"

4. Her second account is clearly embellished and influenced as she goes from allegedly seeing the "fuselage hit the ground" to allegedly seeing the "left wing scrape[d] the helicopter area" and not mentioning the fuselage at all. Neither of which there is physical evidence for.

5. We don't know her alleged POV on Route 27, other than if she had been on the "south of the Navy Annex path" — that all witnesses between the Navy Annex and Route 27 contradict — she would have been in the middle of the 5 downed lightpoles. And didn't see any being struck.

6. Last but not least the redacted sentence from many sites where her alleged testimony appears. The "someguyyoudontknow" witness compilation.

"The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon, perhaps at the third-floor level."




Michael and Isabella James

QUOTE
Michael James, 37, a Navy information technician watched in horror from his car Tuesday as an airplane careened off a helicopter pad and smashed into the side of the Pentagon, where he spends about half of his day....

"The plane came over the top of us and brushed the trees. Then it looked like it hit the helicopter pad and skipped up and went right into the first and second floors."

"we were driving down Columbia Pike and it just shrew right over us... I didn't see any markings...the trees...the treeline (blocked our view).


This couple were allegedly driving along Columbia Pike, just below the Navy Annex.






1. Neither describe the aircraft as being "white"

2. The reporter makes the definitive statement regarding the helipad.

3. They had no view of the aircraft after it had passed the trees that lined the road that they were allegedly driving on.



Summary

Usual form, as per the alleged "multiple witnesses to the south of Navy Annex path", Ms Honegger is partially quoting media snippets and even then, attributing descriptions to them nowhere to be found.

Quoting media snippets while ignoring independent interviews asking relevant questions.

Quoting media snippets void of detailed information such as the all important POVs

Quoting a media that embellishes, crosschecks with "officials", other hacks and their editors to make sure they don't rock the boat and which has been exposed as inventing storylines regarding the Pentagon on 9/11.


Ms Honegger, for example, quotes Penny Elgas as being "almost positive that it was a white plane", even though her only description of the aircraft AFAIK, was in her online testimony as "recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes"

Other obviously flawed and false claims are attributed to Penny Elgas.

The same unreliable, tunnel visioned internet "research" methods towards the Pentagon eyewitness testimony is used by Ms Honegger as well when discussing the alleged "white plane hitting/scraping/dragging its left wing on the helipad" witnesses.

1. Not one of them describe the aircraft as being "white". That witnesses described a white plane 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!

Confused? That's the intention.


2. One alleged controversial witness claimed to have seen this wing "dragging" from over 2km away.

3. Three of them describe a scenario whereby the aircraft was at altitude as the aircraft reached Route 27.

Mary Ann Owens described it (twice) as being from "50-75ft" above her car, changes her story from allegedly seeing the fuselage blow up on the lawn to the left wing dragging, to a scenario whereby the aircraft allegedly struck the building at "third floor level"!

Another alleged witness, Rodney Washington, is alleged to have believed that the aircraft looked like it was on course to land in the Pentagon centre court (the Pentagon is 77ft tall), but that the "momentum took it into the Pentagon"? Apart from the fact that his POV needs to be ascertained, he also describes an alleged "brief delay" before the explosion.
This does not support Ms Honegger's theory.

David Marra allegedly describes the aircraft as being "50ft off the deck"

I'm not saying that witnesses can accurately pinpoint the altitude of this aircraft, but it is a recurring theme that belies the alleged low level necessary final manouevre, whether to strike the lightpoles or for the aircraft to actually be in a position to descend to hit the helipad.


4. Of the five alleged witnesses cited, three don't mention the helipad (two are second hand references made by the media). And one of those (Marra) doesn't mention which wing he allegedly saw "catch" the lawn

One mentions the helicopter area a year after the event while simultaneously making the "third floor level impact" comment.

One (actually a married couple in a car) could not, and admitted to not being physically able to see what transpired behind trees which blocked their view. But as with many witness testimonies gathered after the fact information gained by seeing the aftermath and word of mouth.
The reporter made the helipad claim as if it was factual.

5. As for the claim that the helipad references suggest that the aircraft was too low to pull up, barring the aforementioned breakdown which shows the contradictory "altitude and low level" scenarios and not so concrete media spins, other witnesses contradict this "too low to flyover" claim.

Penny Elgas (again) and others also describe the same high altitude at Route 27 ("80ft" as it crossed the road "4 cars in front [of her]" in her original online testimony, to "50ft" in an interview with Jeff Hill, obviously to compensate for the fact that the lightpoles were 40ft tall)

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

QUOTE
In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.


QUOTE
Jeff Hill: How high up would you say..?

Penny Elgas:..maybe 40 or 50 feet, something like that.



Sean Boger in the heliport actually questions the gatecam footage and claims to have seen the aircraft at second to third floor level http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm. That is, at the height of the heliport itself.



Robert Turcios at the Citgo Gas Station claims to have seen the aircraft "lift up" on Route 27

QUOTE
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.




This is a close simulation of what people should have seen on Route 27:





Conclusion

Ms Honegger likes to generalize. She likes to make broad sweeping statements and make a crude patchwork of unfounded theories from the reams of contradictory media snippets that had polluted television, computer screens and newspapers.

She still clings to outdated, contradictory, unconfirmed second hand media reports, void of necessary detail to ascertain their alleged POVs and the validity of their alleged claims.

She sees no problem in using the demonstrably flawed route of using the mouthpiece of the US government as a "source". Of using an at best, punch drunk media industry trying to balance a "scoop" with not stepping on anybody's toes, at worst a media under the hierarchy of complicit 9/11 conspirators and dogs bodies.

The same media that Ms Honegger alleges sat on the "explosive event at 09:32am" that morning and in the weeks, months and years that followed.

Even in her closing line of the last paragraph she says, referring to the NOC witnesses, that "if it was the same white plane that almost killed heliport firefighters Wallace and Skipper next to the firehouse, it absolutely was destroyed into a fireball only seconds later and did not fly over the building"

The only independent interviews available, asking the relevant questions, and she casts aspersions on the validity of this corroborative witness testimony.

The following statement quoted in a very tame, bended knee approach by Ms Honegger as, unbelievably, the sole "representative" of Pentagon research at the Toronto Hearings should clear up exactly what her agenda actually is

QUOTE
28mins onwards

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

The bottom line is, I’ve been able to show you that the official story at the Pentagon is false without even having to address the question of if there was a plane, what path the plane came in on….you don’t even need to address that controversy that still exists in the 9/11 truth movement.

Barbara Honegger


The more I dig into what Ms Honegger's theories are about, the more I see a PR driven monstrosity to absorb the multiple body blows that the NOC evidence has given to the official story.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 12 2013, 09:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Sep 9 2013, 11:28 PM
Post #35





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



The following excerpt is authored by the same 'intelligences' who are responsible for the text
shown in the OP which starts the "Life after Death!" thread:

"…….
Someone witnesses, for example, an accident that is due to several "coincidences". The shock of being present at the maiming or sudden death

of one or more fellow beings causes an involuntary closure of the witness's eyes—perhaps for only a few seconds. The image that through the

sight and through the physical brain is registered in the astral and the psychic brains is then quite incomplete, since these can receive an image

only of what the witness has "seen". Later, recalling what took place and what he or she experienced, the witness tries by thought to piece

together the recorded fragments. As an "eye witness", the witness should of course know what had happened, but not recalling20 closing the

eyes — perhaps at the decisive moment—the witness's thought sets about reconstructing a plausible general impression: it happened in such

and such a way. . . But with the constant repetition of such thoughts, new images assume—through the thought-channel, the cord—definite

form in the astral brain. These images appear with every repetition of what the eyewitness has experienced, and, supported by the thought,

they become steadily clearer until the individual becomes convinced of having seen the accident in every detail; and although he very well

knows that his thoughts have dwelt at length on the same subject, still he is deceived by the train of images that his thought has composed.

As a rule it is useless that another eyewitness unfolds the event for him as it has really taken place, for he will, in most cases, stoutly

maintain that his is the correct version.

Such uncritical thinking serves no other purpose than to push back the original exact but fragmented image received by the astral and the

psychic brains and to produce a train of self-composed images having nothing to do with reality.

If a more advanced or a high spirit is bound to the physical body, such self-suggestion will not be able to take place as the spiritual self

will quickly survey the situation and understand that it has received that which has happened only in fragments. And if the individual tries

to gather these fragments into a complete picture, he or she will likewise realize that it was their own thought which had filled in the gaps.
……."



Here's an account by a witness named "Scarlet":

"……
As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters. That's not strange. It's the Pentagon. Then I saw the plane.

There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low

descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building. It made

no sense. The pilot didn't seem to be planning to pull up anytime soon. It was there. A huge jet. Then it was gone.

A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. The noise was beyond description. … I called my boss.

I had no memory of how to work my cellphone. I hit redial and his number came up. "Something hit the Pentagon.

It must have been a helicopter." I knew that wasn't true, but I heard myself say it. I heard myself believe it, if only

for a minute. "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground.

It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?" That's the conversation I had

with myself on the way to work. It made sense this morning. I swear that it did. … There seems to be no footage of

the crash, only the site. The gash in the building looks so small on TV. The massiveness of the structure lost in the

tight shots of the fire. There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find

it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that isn't going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to

see footage of the crash. I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there's this gap in my memory, this gap

that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, but I don't

think that's going to happen.

- "skarlet"
……"


Please pay special attention to the last three lines!

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Sep 9 2013, 11:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 10 2013, 05:43 AM
Post #36





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Sep 10 2013, 12:58 PM) *
The following excerpt is authored by the same 'intelligences' who are responsible for the text
shown in the OP which starts the "Life after Death!" thread:

"…….
Someone witnesses, for example, an accident that is due to several "coincidences". The shock of being present at the maiming or sudden death

of one or more fellow beings causes an involuntary closure of the witness's eyes—perhaps for only a few seconds. The image that through the

sight and through the physical brain is registered in the astral and the psychic brains is then quite incomplete, since these can receive an image

only of what the witness has "seen". Later, recalling what took place and what he or she experienced, the witness tries by thought to piece

together the recorded fragments. As an "eye witness", the witness should of course know what had happened, but not recalling20 closing the

eyes — perhaps at the decisive moment—the witness's thought sets about reconstructing a plausible general impression: it happened in such

and such a way. . . But with the constant repetition of such thoughts, new images assume—through the thought-channel, the cord—definite

form in the astral brain. These images appear with every repetition of what the eyewitness has experienced, and, supported by the thought,

they become steadily clearer until the individual becomes convinced of having seen the accident in every detail; and although he very well

knows that his thoughts have dwelt at length on the same subject, still he is deceived by the train of images that his thought has composed.

As a rule it is useless that another eyewitness unfolds the event for him as it has really taken place, for he will, in most cases, stoutly

maintain that his is the correct version.

Such uncritical thinking serves no other purpose than to push back the original exact but fragmented image received by the astral and the

psychic brains and to produce a train of self-composed images having nothing to do with reality.

If a more advanced or a high spirit is bound to the physical body, such self-suggestion will not be able to take place as the spiritual self

will quickly survey the situation and understand that it has received that which has happened only in fragments. And if the individual tries

to gather these fragments into a complete picture, he or she will likewise realize that it was their own thought which had filled in the gaps.
……."



Here's an account by a witness named "Scarlet":

"……
As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters. That's not strange. It's the Pentagon. Then I saw the plane.

There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low

descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building. It made

no sense. The pilot didn't seem to be planning to pull up anytime soon. It was there. A huge jet. Then it was gone.

A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. The noise was beyond description. … I called my boss.

I had no memory of how to work my cellphone. I hit redial and his number came up. "Something hit the Pentagon.

It must have been a helicopter." I knew that wasn't true, but I heard myself say it. I heard myself believe it, if only

for a minute. "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground.

It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?" That's the conversation I had

with myself on the way to work. It made sense this morning. I swear that it did. … There seems to be no footage of

the crash, only the site. The gash in the building looks so small on TV. The massiveness of the structure lost in the

tight shots of the fire. There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find

it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that isn't going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to

see footage of the crash. I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there's this gap in my memory, this gap

that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, but I don't

think that's going to happen.

- "skarlet"
……"


Please pay special attention to the last three lines!

Cheers



Dear "Tamborine man"

Hope you don't mind, but left the whole of your post up for people to reconsider what you have concluded.

Robert S

ps that long since putting up a post, hope it has been signed off properly
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Sep 10 2013, 12:14 PM
Post #37





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (23investigator @ Sep 8 2013, 08:43 AM) *
Dear "Tamborine man"

Hope you don't mind, but left the whole of your post up for people to reconsider what you have concluded.

Robert S

ps that long since putting up a post, hope it has been signed off properly



Dear Robert S,

you probably won't agree with this, but i want you to know

that i at least think you would easily be "One in a million"!

Thank you -

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 12 2013, 03:12 PM
Post #38



Group Icon

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



Sean Boger Part Two

QUOTE
Finally, Boger’s testimonies — there were more than one — do, as the below quotes from his interviews and analysis shows, clearly support that he experienced two plane approaches approximately three minutes apart:

Statements by Pentagon heliport tower controller Sean Boger are sometimes cited as evidence that the white plane Pentagon heliport firefighters Wallace and Skipper ran to avoid just below and to the south/left of Boger’s heliport control tower hit the Pentagon wall, but Boger has given contradictory testimony on this point, which throws some doubt on both of the versions. In one version, he told the Center for Military History on Nov. 14, 2001, “This particular day [Sept. 11], we [Boger and second tower controller Jackie Kidd] heard something. We heard a rooooaaah [roar]. And so [Jackie] was like [she asked], ‘what was that?’ And we both looked out the [tower] window, but we didn’t see anything. And that was the airplane, and he [the pilot] had flown past us. But we didn’t see him, but we heard it,” [emphasis added]..X226 Then, as if with regret, he adds that he might have been able to do something – presumably prevent the plane from returning — if only he had seen it and been able to make a call to some authority in time. By contrast, in the same Nov. 2001 interview, Boger claimed that Kidd had left the control tower to go to the ladies room downstairs in the firehouse after which, then alone in the tower, he did see an incoming plane: “…I look out the [heliport control tower] window and I just hear a [roar] — I just see the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn’t veer. And then you just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building.”

Barbara Honegger


I've snipped a large portion of this rambling, incoherent, illogical and dishonest rant by Ms Honegger.

First off, there was only one CMH (Center for Military History) interview despite Ms Honegger's attempt to imply that there were a number of interviews.

The alleged discrepancies that Ms Honegger is referring to are contained within the one interview. And the sequence of two sections of the interview has been swapped around.

http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299

The alleged discrepancy begins on Page 10, where Sean Boger talks about co worker Jackie Kidd going to the bathroom for 5 minutes after having discussed the fears he had claimed to have had given the proximity of the airport to the Pentagon, that opened up the possibility of an accident occurring there.

He then goes on to describe the aircraft appearing on the scene and the alleged impact. He does not say that he heard a "roar" at this stage of the interview.

The quote ad verbatim is "I look out the window and I just hear a -- I just see like the nose and the wing just like coming right at us...And then you just hear the noise..."

Ms Honegger has inserted the word "roar" into the sentence where a gap or pause has been denoted.



He then discusses the aftermath, his wife etc and later on in the same interview on Page 22, the interviewer prods him for more details on his memories and he begins to discuss the aircraft again. He also discusses communications with Reagan International and the air traffic in the area.

At this stage he does mention both he and Jackie Kidd hearing the "roooah" and attributed it to the decoy jet.

The "more than one" testimonies Ms Honegger is referring to is the CIT interview conducted by Aldo Marquis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo1udtPUR1Q

5 minutes in...

QUOTE
"You know we (Sean Boger and Jacqueline Kidd) heard a 'vroom', just a loud noise you know, outside of the Pentagon.....I said, you know I'm still surprised nobody has ever flown into the Pentagon....she went downstairs and went into the restroom and umm I just happened to be looking out the window....I could see a plane...it was actually like three minutes later"



This is where it gets ridiculous. Ms Honegger then says..

QUOTE
The loud noise Boger heard just before he says it crashed was likely the wing of the plane seen by many witnesses to have hit the helipad before hit exploded into a fireball.


She is simply trying to make his testimony as ambiguous as possible.

The first noise he described was the "roooah" that both he and (allegedly) Jackie Kidd heard "5 minutes" before he saw the one and only aircraft he or any other witness on record describes seconds before the explosion.

The second unspecified "noise" he describes was just before the explosion. Though he never specifies just what that "noise" was, he did not say "roar" as Ms Honegger has dishonestly inserted into his testimony.

Some witnesses within the area described the aircraft as sounding like it was in "full throttle" or that it sped up as it approached the Pentagon.
It may have been the Doppler Effect on the sound of the engines as it approached the Pentagon basin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zu5SGllmwc

To further narrow down what this "noise" was, one only has to read the testimony of firefighter Alan Wallace who was just below the heliport.

QUOTE
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 1.5-2 seconds after we saw it. What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it, we heard the noise; the engines, I'm sure.

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


Sean Boger claimed to have the aircraft in view for over "8 seconds" (Terry Morin and William Middleton confirmed this estimated period of time).

Alan Wallace claimed to only hear it ("the engines") "1.5-2 seconds" before the explosion.


To actually claim that the "noise" Boger referred to was the wing striking the helipad??


Some very important points should be made here. Regardless of the, at best, ambiguous claims regarding the helipad allegedly being struck by the left wing, let's look at where the helipad is in relation to the official path/"south of the Navy Annex path"



At what point could the wing physically strike the helipad? Or even appear to do so?

And for those familiar with the wings of an aircraft, even the laymen among us (like myself), at what angle would this aircraft have to be for the wing to actually strike the helipad??

Edit added:

And where is the evidence of the helipad being struck? (Image pointed out to me by Rob Balsamo)

http://i658.photobucket.com/albums/uu310/M...20911/X8mYb.jpg

Remember that Ms Honegger's theory requires the immediate and complete desintegration of the aircraft within the 400ft length of the Pentagon lawn on the official path she ambiguously pushes.

Remember that her insistence on the left wing striking the helipad actually halves that distance.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2567/3n60.jpg

Remember that she rejects the lightpoles being damaged by any aircraft and that the aircraft would have to go over the undamaged poles to the north of the official path...(this should give a clue as to her ambiguity over the "south of the Navy Annex" path)

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa...#northsidepoles

...and go into an aerodynamically impossible dive, with the left wing striking the helipad, and according to one witness quoted by her, appear to bounce up in to the "third floor" level.


Look at this picture again where the heliport is marked:



At which point exactly did Sean Boger hear the "noise" of the left wing striking
the helipad before this chaotic, explosive event that would have been over in a fraction of a second?

As for Ms Honegger's attempts to muddy the waters over what Sean Boger described, there actually is corroboration from multiple sources of an aircraft circling from Washington in to Pentagon airspace.

There's ABC's Peter Jennings reported an aircraft "circling the White House" at 09:41am (before the E4B was officially airborne)

The Dulles ATCs that Sean Boger claimed (in his CIT interview) to have corroborated his testimony...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V106NvMdQY

Not a great source but based on Dulles ATC interviews regarding the radar data they saw, National Geographic came up with these paths






NOC witness William Middleton 34mins into this video (Middleton interview at 36min):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBT-f2Px1wA

And witness Steve Chaconas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5D2K19Y-aI


What's infuriatingly absurd and hypocritical is that when Ms Honegger goes off on a spin regarding what individual NOC witnesses "actually" experienced, whether it's the "two plane", "flyover then coming back round to impact" or the mysterious "south of the Navy Annex but not actually on the directional damage path" yarns, is that she will apply each yarn to individual witnesses. She never discusses the NOC testimony as a whole.

Irrespective of the fact that many of these witnesses were within the same area and corroborate seeing one aircraft, on the NOC flightpath, and an explosion seconds later, she will tag whatever yarn to whatever individual situation.

Even to the point where she will claim that some had "actually" seen the aircraft that "flew over" without the massive explosion and fireball, circled back round, flew along a path that nobody describes and blew up on the helipad.

And even though she has taken the directional damage out of the equation, even the alleged impact zone, she'll claim that "whatever plane" the NOC witnesses saw, it couldn't have flown over because they "heard" the explosion. But will hypocritically claim that the alleged "first flyover", without the massive explosion and fireball was missed??

Seriously? 12 years after the event, reams of research on witness testimony, and people are still entertaining these "theories" whose sole purpose are to act as a pressure valve on an OCT firmly wedged into a very tight corner?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 20 2013, 09:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 12 2013, 06:44 PM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Sep 12 2013, 03:12 PM) *
At what point could the wing physically strike the helipad? Or even appear to do so?

And for those familiar with the wings of an aircraft, even the laymen among us (like myself), at what angle would this aircraft have to be for the wing to actually strike the helipad??

[b]Remember that Ms Honegger's theory requires the immediate and complete desintegration of the aircraft within the 400ft length of the Pentagon lawn on the official path she ambiguously pushes.

Remember that her insistence on the left wing striking the helipad actually halves that distance.


Is Barbara aware that the Helipad is not elevated? That it is just a concrete slab on the ground? That there is nothing to "hit"..and if it did "hit".... it would have left a large scrape across the top of the helipad and a gouge in the grass?



I guess I do not understand her argument. But admittedly... I had my fill of Barbara when trying to teach her simple time correlation as offered by the NTSB.... so I certainly have no desire to try and decipher her current mess.

You have the patience of a Saint ..OSS! Much props!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 12 2013, 09:00 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

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



Great image to make the point Rob. Cheers thumbsup.gif
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: 19th October 2019 - 04:06 PM