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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Route 27 Povs, Witness analysis

onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:08 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



This thread will try to define the entry point on to Route 27 of the Pentagon aircraft, try to garner an idea of what witnesses described in this area, what they could physically see along certain sections of the road, and look at their testimonies as a whole.

I've labelled the positions along the road (A - J), and rotated the overhead image to give an idea of the perspective view the witnesses along the road would have had. The directional damage path is included.

A - J:

http://s29.postimg.org/u2ycsq9pj/image.jpg


I then used these same labels (C - J) and placed them on the alleged lightpole damage path using the facade damage and the necessary trajectory through the lightpoles.





Those witnesses who claim that the aircraft flew over their car and who claim to have seen the approach would have to have turned around 145° to see it on the directional damage path:



C - J:




I then used Google Streetview to record the view both towards the area where the aircraft entered the Pentagon basin, and another showing the view ahead on the road.

What has to be remembered is that Google Streetview captures images on a camera placed one meter above the roof of the car. And that the view from inside a car is completely different. There are blind spots:



There is a definite obstruction when looking back and to the left from the driver seat (please note that the camera angle would have the driver looking back over his/her left shoulder):

http://s27.postimg.org/m7e9ka0b7/image.jpg

http://postimg.org/image/t1ok9ysy7/full/

Here's an idea of how relative this is. Look at the blind spot on the driver side window of a Dodge Neon (2000). The car that witness Penny Elgas was driving that morning:

http://s27.postimg.org/9ijz0lu6r/image.jpg


Route 27 was jammed with traffic the morning of 9/11. An idea of the view, the traffic amd the chaos can be seen in this video (which incidentally is taken from area "B"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBJGNyItD8o


The aircraft was allegedly travelling at 540mph (40mph faster than the projectile in the following video) - it's a good representation of the alleged speed and distance between Route 27 and the Pentagon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6lrtS_LcJ8


Another example of why this is relevant is the position of lightpoles 1 and 2 in relation to the directional damage path. Here's an image of the bridge on which these two lightpoles are situated (lightpole 2 is at the other end of it):



Here's a graphic of the aircraft on the directional damage path just before reaching these lightpoles:



Here's an image of the same area the morning of 9/11 after the explosion:

http://s29.postimg.org/iydzl71d3/image.jpg

Here's another one which shows more accurately the angle from these poles to the alleged impact zone:

http://s29.postimg.org/eqj7cfzxh/image.jpg

Drivers within certain areas along this stretch of road not only have to turn 145° to watch the aircraft, but also have to deal with obstructions to their view:

http://s24.postimg.org/ru45atcud/image.jpg
http://s24.postimg.org/5gweo0bwl/image.jpg


Eyewitness testimony has been taken literally to try and extrapolate their positions on the road. What we do know is

1. The alleged trajectory of the official aircraft (61.5°)

2. The alleged speed of the official aircraft (540mph)

3. The alleged manouevre (bank/roll) of the official aircraft:

— a decreasing slight right bank (according to government loyalists) from the Navy Annex to lightpoles 1 and 2

— level flight through the lightpoles in accordance with the alleged damage to them

4. Alleged altitude of aircraft according to damage to lightpoles and specs of Boeing 757 (wingspan, wing sweep)

Next, the witnesses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:11 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



Joel Sucherman


CIT interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4PcqTrw3V4

QUOTE
There were no trees


That eliminates areas A and B

http://s27.postimg.org/y31d4tnfn/image.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/obzg13zkz/image.jpg

QUOTE
Out of the passenger window of the vehicle, I had a clear view of the Pentagon


That should put Sucherman between areas E - J

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

But this would place the official aircraft over or behind him on the motorway.

QUOTE
The Pentagon is at 2 o'clock from me in my car. So, I'm seeing it come across my windshield, and then I'm looking out the side passenger window and that's where I see the collision


How can the Pentagon be at "2 o'clock" given his further descriptions?

He should be in area "C" but this would have him on the bridge and his passenger side window would be overlooking South Parking (I've marked the information sign on Route 27 where Robert Turcios claimed to see the aircraft "lift" to get over):

http://s27.postimg.org/blv7o0rmr/image.jpg
http://s30.postimg.org/n2gw0czap/image.jpg


Sucherman's dual statements of being able to see the Pentagon through his "passenger side window" and the aircraft go across his windshied..







....and see the alleged impact through this same "passenger side window" (he was specific about it being the passenger door window) doesn't tally.


QUOTE
There was a huge fireball that went up straight into the air, not towards me.



This quote will become more relevant when we look at the next witness in context. Vin Naraynan.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:15 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



Vin Naraynan

See if you can place him on the road.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=870

QUOTE
Vin: Actually, that huge fireball exploded right toward me. I was on the road right next to where the American Airlines jet hit Pentagon wall. That wall is about 50 yards from the road........I will say that the heat from the explosion was immense.


And in a separate report

QUOTE
At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.


He's placing himself in front of the Pentagon. Somewhere between E and J

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

QUOTE
I looked up to the left and saw a plane flying at my car. At first, I thought it was heading toward National just to get out of the air. But the closer it got, the more it looked like it was going to hit my car.....

....if I had been standing on top of my car when that jet flew over, even with my limited vertical, I could have jumped up and touched it....


"Flying at my car....looked like it was going to hit my car" places him close to or under the official aircraft route.

Let's narrow it down to between E and H

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg


QUOTE
The tail of the jet clipped an overhanging exit sign above me on it's way down....


Wait. He now places himself below an "exit sign". That should narrow it down considerably.

That would place him in area B

http://s27.postimg.org/obzg13zkz/image.jpg


In fact, CIT interviewed Naraynan for more details

QUOTE
ALDO: So you were under an overhead sign. Correct?

NARANYAN: ..I was under an exit sign, basically..I was just before the exit sign..the exit sign was on the approach.



QUOTE
ALDO: And you say the tail actually hit the sign?

NARANYAN: It clipped it..

(...)

ALDO: So did you see it clip any lightpoles?

NARANYAN : No, it didn't clip any lightpoles or anything like that.. it didn't clip any lightpoles, just the exit sign.


In the same interview he claimed that there were no trees

In another interview with disinformationist Jeff Hill he repeats

QUOTE
There were no trees. I was right on the road where it happened...the plane flew right over my head.


There were most definitely trees blocking the view of the Pentagon at the information sign beside lightpoles 1 and 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6lrtS_LcJ8


Not in front of the Pentagon, not feeling the heat of the explosion, and definitely not being in a position to describe this?:

QUOTE
Vin: The easiest way for me to illustrate what happened that day is talk about the impact of the plane on the Pentagon wall. When the jet hit the wall, the wall did not give. It didn't budge one inch. The nose of the plane curled up on impact, almost like when a tin can gets crushed. After the nose of the jet curled up, the jet began to crumple. Midway through the crumple, the jet exploded into a giant fireball.



And what of the aircraft heading straight for him?

Here's the view from area B

http://s16.postimg.org/tvtin9sj9/image.jpg

And area A, closer to the exit sign on the bridge

http://s16.postimg.org/8pzpsohpx/image.jpg


Naraynan places himself beyond Sucherman, yet before an "exit sign". Even claiming that the aircraft "tail" clipped it, and insisted that no lightpoles were struck even though lightpole 1 is a matter of feet from the exit sign on the bridge

http://s29.postimg.org/iydzl71d3/image.jpg
http://s29.postimg.org/78023t8kn/image.jpg

Was he even talking about the sign on the bridge?

Finally, he had this to say to Aldo Marquis

QUOTE
Joel Sucherman was on the other side of the Pentagon


He made this statement years after he and Sucherman held a joint interview in 2002:

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20020909002/tscript.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:17 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



Mary Ann Owens (quoted from varying sources)

QUOTE
was driving along by the side of the Pentagon


QUOTE
Between the Pentagon's helicopter pad, which sits next to the road, and Reagan Washington National Airport a couple of miles south, aviation noise is common along my commute to the silver office towers in Rosslyn


Another witness who places themselves in front of the Pentagon. Actually referring to the "helicopter pad" but is vague in her exact position.

QUOTE
I looked left to see a large plane barely clear the I-395 overpass. 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.


QUOTE
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.


QUOTE
I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head.


She's claiming that she saw the approach. Her reference to "careering" and "wobbling" is corroborated, but this particular piece was written a year after the event. If she genuinely did see the aircraft approach, this raises problems for the official trajectory.

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


The aircraft was allegedly 20ft AGL as it crossed Route 27.

QUOTE
Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom.


If we take her statements literally, she places herself directly under the aircraft path, which would place her in area E - F

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

Which would mean that she wasn't in front of the Pentagon or helipad (this is why specifics are important).

As for the approach, she would have had to have been looking through her back left window at an obscured official trajectory (and of course through blindspots in the car itself) from area E (the car seen just below the Google Earth camera should give you an idea of the alleged view she would have had of the official trajectory - none)

http://s16.postimg.org/6k5ey6e9h/image.jpg

As for area F, she would have had to have been looking through her back window and those same blind spots:

http://s16.postimg.org/3wkk1kalx/image.jpg

http://s27.postimg.org/l6e0v5jbn/image.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/ayvhiqx3l/image.jpg


Based on her description of seeing the approach (even momentarily), the insinuation that she was in front of the Pentagon/helipad and placing the aircraft over her car, her POV doesn't tally with the official story.

She claimed that she looked left to see the aircraft as it started to cross the road. Coupled with her claims that it flew over her, she would have had to have looked behind her. 145° behind her.

Further details required.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:22 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



Stephen McGraw

http://www.thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_Ac...m#FromLawtoLord
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw8lYa-XgAU

QUOTE
right in front of the Pentagon


QUOTE
in standstill traffic...right in front of the lawn there..


QUOTE
I was looking to my right as the plane came over


QUOTE
I got out of my car and walked across the one or two lanes of traffic and went over the guard rail onto the lawn there.


This is the "guard rail" he's referring to (taken a few minutes after the explosion - minus McGraw:

http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010016.JPG
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010017.JPG

If the aircraft flew over his car he should be between areas F and H. Because he places himself "right in front of the lawn there", he would be between areas I and J

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

He further confirms his placement between areas I and J by the following statement:

QUOTE
I think I may have only recalled seeing the top of the pole so maybe that was the only part of the pole that got knocked off. And it may not have been the entire pole getting knocked down


He would have had three poles directly in his line of view and he would have walked by them if he was below the official path:

http://s27.postimg.org/rk6ypl27n/image.jpg

He also claimed that a "taxi driver" was injured "a few feet away" behind him (actually 400ft if he were below the official flightpath and much further if he was in front of the lawn). But he missed this pole too:

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/6724/lloydpole.jpg


Again, another witness on Route 27 that places himself in front of the Pentagon, yet claims that the aircraft flew over his car. There are many contradictions regarding his account — why did he say that Lloyd was "near him"? Why did a Navy photographer, Mark Faram, say that he saw McGraw arrive on the lawn "10 minutes" after the explosion when he claims he was there within a minute? And why no images or video of him on the lawn within minutes of the explosion? What "casualties" was he there to tend to "within a minute"?

There weren't. He wasn't on the lawn until at least 09:53am as Mark Faram said in an online piece where McGraw's original alleged testimony was published:

QUOTE
He literally had the stole in one hand and a prayer book in the other and in one fluid motion crossed the guardrail.....Within 45 seconds, McGraw was on the lawn of the Pentagon to provide spiritual comfort to the injured.


Faram went on to say this in an email exchange with Pentagon researcher Dick Eastman:

QUOTE
I hate to disappoint anyone, but here is the story behind the photograph…..I was at the Navy Annex, up the hill from the Pentagon when I heard the explosion. I always keep a digital camera in my backpack briefcase just as a matter of habit. When the explosion happened I ran down the hill to the site and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the explosion…..I also photographed a triage area where medical personnel were tending to a seriously burned man. A priest knelt in the middle of the area and started to pray. I took that image and left immediately…..I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20 minutes of the crash….My photos were on the wire by noon.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/frameup...ons/topics/1254


8 minutes into this video confirms this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8DQWPgyx50

So why did he continue with the "within a minute" line?

QUOTE
Aldo Marquis: Okay and immediately after the plane had crashed you got out of your car? 45 seconds later?

McGraw: Right, perhaps about 45 seconds later yes my my plane was my car was in the left hand lane and after that initial moment when I seemed to remember the kind of the gasp around me from the other cars no one was going anywhere in the traffic so it was in a sense it was easy enough to just um grab my prayer book for the sick and the dying, my holy oils for anointing the sick and the dying and my purple stole which priests wear when they're administering they're administering to the need- to the sick. And so I got out of the car, and just left it there and walked across the one or two lanes of traffic whatever it was I was in the left hand lane walked across the rest of the traffic umm and just went over the guardrail and just was on the lawn there in the first minute or so I guess.


Incidentally, the triage he attends is to the far north of the lawn beyond the two trees in front of the helipad

Either way, his vague description of the aircraft flying over his car (a couple of hundred feet away from the official path) — IMO he is purposely vague in his gesture as he has already pointed back to his left when discussing Lloyd:

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:25 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



Mike Walter (Jesus, where to start?)


In an interview with Russell Pickering, Walter placed himself at the following point:



The morning of 9/11 he said

QUOTE
GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball and...

GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke
and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away.


In later years....





In a third television interview he again pointed out the NOC flightpath, pointing to where he supposedly saw the aircraft from the bridge where lightpoles 1 and 2 were situated!

Broken down here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2257031

QUOTE
...I was surprised at how graceful and slow the banking of the jet appeared to be, and how quickly it accelerated after it had lined up the Pentagon.


Here are the areas again:

http://s29.postimg.org/u2ycsq9pj/image.jpg

Here's the view from his alleged position on the road (area A):

http://s27.postimg.org/y31d4tnfn/image.jpg

Here's the view towards the official path and the NOC path:

http://s16.postimg.org/8pzpsohpx/image.jpg


If we were to believe anything this guy says, which path is he describing? The one that is straight and allegedly consists of an aircraft whose bank varies by ? Or the multiple witnessed path where a sharp right bank followed by "straightening up" was described?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:29 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



Penny Elgas

Interview with Pentagon disinformationist Jeff Hill:

QUOTE
I thought it was actually going to hit the gas station...it just skimmed..the wing just came over the top of the roof of the gas station..


QUOTE
I saw it over the gas station, I saw it over the grass, I saw it right in front of me..


QUOTE
I saw the nose..and the windshield and it was right over the gas station...headed over the grass, still to my left...I saw the midsection...the wing straight at me...



QUOTE
The Citgo's on the left...the heliport is just up ahead and then the Pentagon, it's all lined up there.


Without a doubt, she is placing the aircraft over or just missing the Citgo gas station.

From her original online testimony:

QUOTE
I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon.


This would place her between areas C - G (actually the lane labelled "C1" is the HOV lane that she was driving on)

http://s29.postimg.org/u2ycsq9pj/image.jpg

QUOTE
I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. 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. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes.


Given that she claimed to see the aircraft "4-5 car lengths in front of" her, this rules out areas E, F and G (seen in the image above).

Again, another witness who claims that the aircraft was heading towards their car.

This time we have a rough distance to work with.

QUOTE
I looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.


And again, another witness claims to be looking to their "left", not behind, when they saw the aircraft. More specifically through the "driver's side window".

Let's see the general view from the only viable areas via her description of the event. Let's stick to the official path. She would have to be in area C1



Streetview doesn't show the view from the HOV lanes so we have to make do with area C:



Does this POV concur in any way whatsoever with what she described?

So we are clear on "perspective issues", the bottom line is that the aircraft, according to the official narrative, arrived from behind her POV

http://s9.postimg.org/wk52f3o6n/image.jpg

The following image was taken roughly along the directional damage path:

http://s29.postimg.org/iydzl71d3/image.jpg

Here's visual proof of the sort of POV people had along this stretch of road:

http://s9.postimg.org/eilxhau5r/image.jpg

Here's a Dodge Neon 2000 from virtually the same angle (note where the headrest is):

http://s9.postimg.org/ktr4xpve7/image.jpg


Remember that she was allegedly a few cars back from where the lightpoles were allegedly struck and didn't see this happen.

As for the argument that the event happened so quickly that it would be understandable, she also had this to say in her original "statement":

QUOTE
I wanted the traffic to turn around. I didn't know what else to do so I got out of my car and ran back toward the highway yelling "Go Back! They just hit the Pentagon!" But of course, no one could move in any direction because traffic was at a standstill. A young woman in her 20's from the car in front of me was standing in front of my car and was visibly distraught and said she didn't know what to do. I told her that she could come sit with me in my car for a while and then I went to my car and started throwing everything from the front seat into the back seat to make room for her.


She got out of her car, twice, while the traffic was at a standstill (so her POV hadn't changed), and she also missed the sight of a lightpole supposedly sticking out of a taxi for 6-7 minutes! She supposedly missed this scenario just feet away in the next lane:






For her testimony to square up she would have to have been between area D..

http://s16.postimg.org/58xnppinp/image.jpg

..and area E (please note that this is directly under the official path and shows the necessary trajectory through the lightpoles):

http://s16.postimg.org/6k5ey6e9h/image.jpg

Penny Elgas was opposite lightpole 2 according to her testimony.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:31 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



Robert Turcios (Elgas corroboration)

His flightpath:

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/2364/ro...turciospath.png

QUOTE
Turcios: That's correct...It was to my..uh..I saw it right over that tree there next to the corner of the canopy..

Craig: Next to the corner of the canopy, so it came in between those two trees?

Turcios: Yes. That's what I recollect.



QUOTE
I thought it was going to hit here, the wing here...it seemed to be just over the canopy here

Craig: And as far as how it came over this corner, was it more like the wing or the body?..

Turcios:....it was more like the right wing



QUOTE
Turcios. Well, uh...I would say..it seemed to be just over the canopy here (points to roof)..just over the corner of this canopy..

Craig: So, just over the corner of this canopy?

Turcios: yeah..as I said before, it seemed to me it was gonna crash..uh..into this tree here..but I saw it take off..lift a little bit. Headed towards the Pentagon.


Composite:

http://s29.postimg.org/6xjcszf6v/image.jpg

Remember what Penny Elgas said:

QUOTE
coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.


And also possible corroboration from another witness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-edQnJL9Koc


Turcios is a Route 27 witness because he specifies the entry point where he saw the aircraft cross the road.

QUOTE
Then I saw it lift up a little bit (makes lifting motion) to get over..uh..to the side of the bridge here.

Craig: The side of the bridge..

Turcios: Yes. Where you see the "Do Not Enter" sign. It seemed to go that way



QUOTE
Turcios: yeah..as I said before, it seemed to me it was gonna crash..uh..into this tree here..but I saw it take off..lift a little bit. Headed towards the Pentagon.


This "Do Not Enter" sign I've labelled the "Turcios sign":

http://s10.postimg.org/sr0k6gx7d/image.jpg

Russell Pickering sent a questionnaire to Robert Turcios and he reiterated what he told CIT:


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:33 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



Steve Riskus

Steve Riskus (responsible for the images taken just minutes after the explosion) was driving southbound on Route 27. He was interviewed by Italian 9/11 researchers (pentagonreports.blogspot.com) in an e-mail exchange.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2465399

QUOTE
RISKUS: OK I marked the pictures the best I could. Its tough to locate exactly where I was with the scale of those photos but I am pretty sure I marked the general area where I was.
http://postimg.org/image/5pkxrjant/full/



http://s12.postimg.org/6p6n9i0fx/image.jpg

QUOTE
RISKUS: Honestly, the photo with the superimposed plane on it looks almost exactly what I saw that day. I dont feel the need to draw anything with that already presented.




In earlier online quotes from Riskus he said

QUOTE
...I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down...


Which falls in line with what others described that day:

http://s12.postimg.org/499f9e7r1/image.jpg

Witnesses can't give exact measurements but there's quite a difference between claiming to see the aircraft "100ft" away and the actual distance between his POV and lightpoles 1 and 2, which is 1300ft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:34 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

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



Christine Peterson (alleged witness)

QUOTE
I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, "holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car" (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing.


Here's another (alleged) witness who describes the same circumstances. In front of the Pentagon, looking out her driver side window to see the aircraft flying over.

How?

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9001/el...perspective.jpg
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3115/imagengt.jpg
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4514/imageqmi.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:36 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



Sean Boger

I've included Sean Boger because he was directly facing on to Route 27, not too far away from Steve Riskus' alleged POV and where he remembered seeing the aircraft as it crossed the road:

http://s12.postimg.org/igz3y1kfv/image.jpg

The heliport:

http://imageshack.us/m/713/1102/pentwallaceheliport.jpg

Boger maintained that the aircraft was to his right. To the right of the Navy Annex. To the right of Citgo. And that he saw it for at least 8 seconds



Now look at the official scenario:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4514/imageqmi.jpg
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3115/imagengt.jpg


Sean Boger's entire testimony has him looking straight ahead from the heliport. He describes the aircraft as banking to the right, which is corroborated. He describes, like William Middleton and others, the "pilot" fighting to control the aircraft. He also describes the "over the Navy Annex" and NOC trajectory which is corroborated and which nobody contradicts.

So how can he be so far "off"? He'd actually have to be looking through windows situated to the left of the heliport to see the aircraft if the official story were true!

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:39 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

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



Daryl Donley


http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863

QUOTE
Hi, umm, before I show the images I’ll just briefly say, umm, as Carol has just mentioned, that I was in front of the Pentagon, stopped in the worse commuter traffic I’d ever experienced, before or since, and then heard a very loud plane, it got progressively louder, and it got so loud I ducked in my…(laughter)…is anyone out there? (laughs)... I, I ducked in my car it got so loud, and I turned to my right and the plane was next to me, umm, at an angle at just above ground level, and I later realized it had knocked down lampposts next to me, and saw it fly into the Pentagon
http://www.loc.gov/locvideo/911photo/


So, he ducked, looked to his right and saw the aircraft for (less than) the alleged 0.4 seconds it took to cross the lawn?

Ummm...no.

QUOTE
it took a couple of seconds to hit from the moment I saw it


In an interview with Jeff Hill (bar relevant details of course), he says

QUOTE
I looked out my passenger window and the plane was next to me and level about 100ft or so away and I followed it and saw it fly into the Pentagon.
I was right in front of the Pentagon. I was as close as you can get to the Pentagon without being on the grounds.


That's a lot to work on.

He was allegedly right beside the lawn. This would rule out areas C - G. Which leaves areas H - J

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

If we use the official path, I'm supposing that the aircraft came from behind (he's very ambiguous on this point - always has been) and appeared in his "passenger window", about "100ft or so away"

http://s29.postimg.org/u2ycsq9pj/image.jpg

If it was "100ft or so" from him, seen through his "driver side window" it means that the aircraft would be 0.2 seconds from the alleged impact but claims that he "followed it". That he saw it for a "couple of seconds". If you think I'm nitpicking, can anybody imagine what you could physically see (and take in) in 0.2 seconds? After having ducked? Then the fireball and explosion?

In other words, he ducked as it passed, had a fraction of a second to see the aircraft before the explosion and fireball. At which point he didn't duck?

The following statement is interesting.

06:45 mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Ow1nnJTws

QUOTE
I saw the plane from tip to tip..I remember seeing the back of both engines


Let's look at the official scenario here now that we know which area he claims to have been in. Specifically what he should have seen through his "passenger side window".

The following images show the official and necessary position of the aircraft as it crosses the lawn (minus the right wing tilt to correspond with the trailer damage):

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4514/imageqmi.jpg
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3115/imagengt.jpg
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3954/imageuyj.jpg

And what Donley should have seen according to his positioning on the road and the official path:



The "back of both engines" can't be seen from this angle.


Donley contradicts the trajectory of the official path. He would have had a fraction of a second to see the event after having "ducked".

And he doesn't contradict Robert Turcios' placement of the entry point on to Route 27.

http://s13.postimg.org/7nr6zfspj/image.jpg

Turcios said that he could see no markings on the side. That he could only see "the backside".

http://s29.postimg.org/6xjcszf6v/image.jpg

Non-conclusive as to the trajectory but the details given of an event that was allegedly over in a fraction of a second, after having ducked, that is, a blur, leads me to deduce exaggeration on his part.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 09:52 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



SUMMARY

Corroboration is key when assessing eyewitness testimony. Topography and obstacles are another to narrow any variances.

We have the official story supposedly plotting exactly how an aircraft entered the Pentagon basin. We have physical damage also which demands the aircraft follow a specific trajectory.


Alleged witnesses driving northbound on Route 27 (towards the Pentagon) before the point where the aircraft officially crossed the road

a) had no view of the alleged impact zone

http://s27.postimg.org/y31d4tnfn/image.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/obzg13zkz/image.jpg

b) would have seen the aircraft through their driver side window

c) the aircraft would have appeared to have flown almost parallel to their field of vision through the driver side window

d) the aircraft would have appeared closest to them than any other witness along the road

http://s16.postimg.org/8pzpsohpx/image.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/tvtin9sj9/image.jpg

e) as the aircraft reached Route 27, it would have been seen as crossing their field of vision at an angle, northeast, away from them.


No witnesses whatsoever driving south on this stretch of the road have described this, come forward or been found.


One (alleged) witness driving north on this section of the road, Mike Walter, has given a detailed description of the aircraft trajectory. Contradictions and lies have been his hallmark but not once has he described the official trajectory given his alleged POV shown above.

Another one, Vin Naraynan, gives completely contradictory scenarios. He cannot be both in front of the Pentagon and "on the approach" to the information sign beside lightpole 1 he claims to have seen being "clipped". Nor can he give a detailed description of the alleged impact.

http://s27.postimg.org/obzg13zkz/image.jpg

What are the choices?

1. He was just before the information sign on the bridge, didn't see the lightpole just beyond it (or any other) being "clipped" and the rest is made up. Which would raise serious doubts over the validity of anything else he claims.

2. He was in front of the Pentagon, well beyond the sign on the bridge, didn't see it being "clipped" and would have physically had to turn right round to see the aircraft head towards his car, but the aircraft would have passed overhead behind him.

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

3. He was beyond the sign on the bridge, didn't see it being "clipped" (but was directly facing lightpoles 1 and 2, and the Lloyd England "scenario", which he didn't see being struck), as it was above and behind his car, would still have to look behind to see the approach, but wouldn't be "right in front" of the Pentagon.

http://s16.postimg.org/kgdna2aid/image.jpg

4. He was in front of the Pentagon, he actually did see the aircraft to his left on a descent north of Citgo, and the sign that he believes he saw being "clipped" by the "tail" was actually the one Turcios pointed out from his POV (I say "believe" because it's a physical impossibility for the tail to clip anything with a 124ft wingspan preceding it):

http://s29.postimg.org/6xjcszf6v/image.jpg

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg


Vin Naraynan claimed in an interview with CIT that Joel Sucherman was "on the other side of the Pentagon". Early online media pieces placed Sucherman on Route 110 (which runs behind the Pentagon). Naraynan said this even though they had previously held a joint interview (ca 2002) on what they allegedly saw at the Pentagon. Even during this interview, Naraynan jumped in during a QA session to say that he "was on the side where the Pentagon was struck". And that the fireball came "straight towards" him (which places him at the Turcios sign), whereas Sucherman claims that it didn't come "straight towards" him but "straight up".

In fact, Naraynan places himself ahead of Sucherman given his description. Naraynan places it over his head while Sucherman claims to have seen the aircraft travelling "left to right" across his windshield.

Sucherman also denied there being trees obstructing his view. He also claimed that he had the aircraft in view through his windscreen. Which places him in a specific area - between C and D

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

http://s16.postimg.org/kgdna2aid/image.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/58xnppinp/image.jpg

But he was specific about seeing the alleged impact through his "side passenger window". Even if we take his "2 o'clock" position as being his POV (which rules out his "side passenger window" statement), he is describing an aircraft travelling straight across the road. His "left to right" and "side passenger window" statements reinforce this.

He's actually describing nothing of the official trajectory as the aircraft crossed Route 27.



"Left to right...passenger side window"






McGraw also (though somewhat more vaguely) corroborates this trajectory. He also claimed to see the aircraft through his driver side window, but claims that it went over his car (which was allegedly in the lane furthest from the lawn - what, no cars in that "heavy traffic" blocking his view?)



[Note: McGraw, like Donley, would have had a fraction of a second to witness the aircraft at the official speed. And even at a slower speed (whether travelling at 540mph or 350mph, the lawn is only 400ft in length)]


The choices for Sucherman are..

a) he was at "2 o'clock" from the Pentagon but didn't see the much repeated (by him), "left to right....passenger side window" route because he would have still been on the bridge overlooking South Parking watching the aircraft fly northeast away from him. Remember that, as per the official trajectory, he was allegedly on the bridge:

http://s29.postimg.org/eqj7cfzxh/image.jpg

And he also missed lightpoles 3, 4 and 5 being struck



And the "Lloyd England scenario" (a 30ft pole protruding from a cab windshield) was also missed (not his fault, nobody else saw it)




b) he actually was in a more advanced position, behind Naraynan, just before the Pentagon, just beyond the bridge.

c) he wasn't on that side of the Pentagon and made the whole thing up

Both Naraynan and Sucherman would have to mark their positions on an overhead map and reiterate their stories to clear this up.



Mary Ann Owens, if she isn't embellishing her account by claiming to see the aircraft as it started crossing the road, also corroborates this more "left to right/west to east" trajectory rather than southwest to northeast directional damage route. If it flew over her car as she said, she would have had to have turned right round 145°





I've placed her in area F (even though she insinuates that she was further up towards the heliport):



Like Donley amd McGraw, she would have had a fraction of a second to witness the aircraft (both she and Donley are on record as saying that they "ducked" as the plane flew over). They should have seen this?




The choices for Owens are..

a) she was under the official trajectory aircraft just beyond the bridge, had turned 145° to look through her back window to see it reach the highway, but didn't see the lightpoles on the bridge being struck, ducked, looked up again within that half a second to miss the three poles in front of her being struck. What she did notice was the left wing "scrape" the helipad, even though it was nowhere near it from her perspective

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

http://s30.postimg.org/tfhuohiap/image.jpg


b) she was in front of the Pentagon's helipad or the alleged impact zone, and actually did see the aircraft to her left through her driver side window before it flew over her car. And incidentally the left wing would have appeared closer to the helipad (note: she described the aircraft as being around 80ft above her on the road a second before)

http://s28.postimg.org/4r0fiiy7h/image.jpg


More details needed - did she see the alleged impact through her passenger side window? Was she in front of the helipad?


Stephen McGraw, according to the official trajectory and his testimony places himself under the aircraft, "a few feet away" from Lloyd England and in front of the lawn.

[Remember: Navy photographer Mark Faram claims that he saw McGraw step over the same rail he mentioned (that went along the perimeter of the lawn) when he arrived 10 minutes after the explosion while McGraw claims that he was on the lawn "within a minute". There is photographic evidence of this at @09:53am and there were no injured on the lawn for minutes after.]

McGraw's choices are...

a) he was just beyond the bridge, not in front of the lawn, the official trajectory aircraft flew above his car, he actually saw it through his windscreen (and not through his passenger side window), missed these lightpoles both being knocked down and being on the ground as he allegedly got out of his car and went on to the lawn:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...oute27lie25.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/o4atek3i3/image.jpg
http://s7.postimg.org/bo9i72ksb/image.jpg

b) he actually was beside the lawn, beyond lightpoles 3, 4 and 5. Between areas I and J facing the alleged impact zone and beside the Turcios sign:

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

http://s29.postimg.org/eqj7cfzxh/image.jpg

Note: So how did he see the aircraft from there?

He claimed to be unaware of its approach, of being in front of the Pentagon, of what was happening in New York. And claimed to CIT that he "sensed" the aircraft as it came from "behind" him and actually motions towards the back left of him in the CIT interview. That he "sensed" the noise of a lightpole being struck but not the "screaming" engines that Alan Wallace at the heliport (and other witnesses) described. Lloyd England's lightpole to be specific, 4-600ft away and not "a few feet" away. He claims to remember seeing the "top part of a pole" and that the whole pole may not have been knocked over.

Where did he see a "top part" amongst this lot?

http://s15.postimg.org/alvjwmc3f/image.jpg

During his interview with CIT, he described nothing of the sight of an aircraft striking the facade. Simply, like Donley, that it "disappeared". Everything but. And even the "details" he gave, and was forced to give by some shrewd questioning by Aldo Marquis (vis a vis the lightpoles) don't add up.

His original online testimony said

QUOTE
There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact.


That's it.




If you were to put the witnesses mentioned so far along Route 27 according to the official trajectory, coupled with their descriptions, you'd have a hard job doing so in a way where they corroborate eachother, the official story and the topography of the area.

Key to all of this is remembering that the official trajectory is a very acute angle across Route 27.

http://s29.postimg.org/eqj7cfzxh/image.jpg
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9001/el...perspective.jpg

Most describe a trajectory west to east or straight across the road. That they simply looked "left/through their passenger window" to see the approach.

That most claim to be very close to or beside the Pentagon/lawn/helipad.

Then look for corroboration of this west to east trajectory from people who weren't sitting in a car, had more spacial awareness and/or couldn't even physically see the aircraft from their positions, and had landmarks to judge where the aircraft flew. Simple "left, right and overhead" scenarios. And compare these testimonies to what people described sitting on Route 27

http://s28.postimg.org/46lefu4z1/image.jpg

The general consensus is this entry point on to Route 27 (even Robert Turcios pointed out a specific sign directly opposite the lawn)

http://s28.postimg.org/69vtni4rx/image.jpg

To further hammer this home, Sean Boger says that he remembers the aircraft "landing gear" striking an "information sign" on the highway. As did Noel Sepulveda. (Who had no view of the far side of Route 27 from his alleged POV).

Why the "landing gear"?

On the other hand, Naraynan claimed that the "tail" clipped an information sign (and that no lightpoles were touched).

[On a sidenote, Penny Elgas was "told" that the piece she allegedly picked up off the road (and which, as yet, nobody has been able to tie this piece to a Boeing 757, never mind "Flight 77") was a "piece of the tail".]

There is no visual evidence of damage to the Turcios sign but all three descriptions denote an abrupt event occurring to the aircraft along the fuselage/centerline as it crossed this section of Route 27.

Remember Robert Turcios described a "lift" at the information sign in front of the Pentagon.

Try it yourself. Go over all of the Route 27 (alleged) witness testimonies, use this trajectory (NOC) and entry point, and see if they make more sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 7 2014, 12:22 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 474
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



Damn sweet breakdown here Slice!

Do we have a detailed topo graph showing the relative height and location of the poles?

I'm trying to reconcile how the poles get struck and the light fixture on the end of the arm doesn't get whipped a long ways away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 02:47 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 7 2014, 05:22 PM) *
Damn sweet breakdown here Slice!

Do we have a detailed topo graph showing the relative height and location of the poles?

I'm trying to reconcile how the poles get struck and the light fixture on the end of the arm doesn't get whipped a long ways away.


IIRC, the overpass is 45ft ASL

This image is handy to visualize the necessary descent

http://postimg.org/image/7mtikmfh1/

And the alleged 124ft per second descent from the Navy Annex at 500mph rolleyes.gif two seconds before the bridge can be visualized through this structure (124ft tall)

http://postimg.org/image/un05wydat/

Hardly looks like a "landing", "gliding", "shallow angle", "lifting up" to me.

The five frames (Mike Wilson cartoon frames I used are a good example) are deceptive as they "show" a level flightpath when 0.1 seconds before the aircraft would have had to have been about 12ft AGL to cause damage to pole 5.

And just before pole 5, here's an idea of the difference in height from poles 3 and 4

http://postimg.org/image/woeg6p5zt/



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pablo
post Apr 7 2014, 04:06 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 26-March 11
Member No.: 5,760



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 7 2014, 06:52 AM) *
SUMMARY

Corroboration is key when assessing eyewitness testimony. Topography and obstacles are another to narrow any variances.

We have the official story supposedly plotting exactly how an aircraft entered the Pentagon basin. We have physical damage also which demands the aircraft follow a specific trajectory.


Alleged witnesses driving northbound on Route 27 (towards the Pentagon) before the point where the aircraft officially crossed the road

a) had no view of the alleged impact zone

http://s27.postimg.org/y31d4tnfn/image.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/obzg13zkz/image.jpg

b) would have seen the aircraft through their driver side window

c) the aircraft would have appeared to have flown almost parallel to their field of vision through the driver side window

d) the aircraft would have appeared closest to them than any other witness along the road

http://s16.postimg.org/8pzpsohpx/image.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/tvtin9sj9/image.jpg

e) as the aircraft reached Route 27, it would have been seen as crossing their field of vision at an angle, northeast, away from them.


No witnesses whatsoever driving south on this stretch of the road have described this, come forward or been found.


One (alleged) witness driving north on this section of the road, Mike Walter, has given a detailed description of the aircraft trajectory. Contradictions and lies have been his hallmark but not once has he described the official trajectory given his alleged POV shown above.

Another one, Vin Naraynan, gives completely contradictory scenarios. He cannot be both in front of the Pentagon and "on the approach" to the information sign beside lightpole 1 he claims to have seen being "clipped". Nor can he give a detailed description of the alleged impact.

http://s27.postimg.org/obzg13zkz/image.jpg

What are the choices?

1. He was just before the information sign on the bridge, didn't see the lightpole just beyond it (or any other) being "clipped" and the rest is made up. Which would raise serious doubts over the validity of anything else he claims.

2. He was in front of the Pentagon, well beyond the sign on the bridge, didn't see it being "clipped" and would have physically had to turn right round to see the aircraft head towards his car, but the aircraft would have passed overhead behind him.

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

3. He was beyond the sign on the bridge, didn't see it being "clipped" (but was directly facing lightpoles 1 and 2, and the Lloyd England "scenario", which he didn't see being struck), as it was above and behind his car, would still have to look behind to see the approach, but wouldn't be "right in front" of the Pentagon.

http://s16.postimg.org/kgdna2aid/image.jpg

4. He was in front of the Pentagon, he actually did see the aircraft to his left on a descent north of Citgo, and the sign that he believes he saw being "clipped" by the "tail" was actually the one Turcios pointed out from his POV (I say "believe" because it's a physical impossibility for the tail to clip anything with a 124ft wingspan preceding it):

http://s29.postimg.org/6xjcszf6v/image.jpg

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg


Vin Naraynan claimed in an interview with CIT that Joel Sucherman was "on the other side of the Pentagon". Early online media pieces placed Sucherman on Route 110 (which runs behind the Pentagon). Naraynan said this even though they had previously held a joint interview (ca 2002) on what they allegedly saw at the Pentagon. Even during this interview, Naraynan jumped in during a QA session to say that he "was on the side where the Pentagon was struck". And that the fireball came "straight towards" him (which places him at the Turcios sign), whereas Sucherman claims that it didn't come "straight towards" him but "straight up".

In fact, Naraynan places himself ahead of Sucherman given his description. Naraynan places it over his head while Sucherman claims to have seen the aircraft travelling "left to right" across his windshield.

Sucherman also denied there being trees obstructing his view. He also claimed that he had the aircraft in view through his windscreen. Which places him in a specific area - between C and D

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

http://s16.postimg.org/kgdna2aid/image.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/58xnppinp/image.jpg

But he was specific about seeing the alleged impact through his "side passenger window". Even if we take his "2 o'clock" position as being his POV (which rules out his "side passenger window" statement), he is describing an aircraft travelling straight across the road. His "left to right" and "side passenger window" statements reinforce this.

He's actually describing nothing of the official trajectory as the aircraft crossed Route 27.



"Left to right...passenger side window"






McGraw also (though somewhat more vaguely) corroborates this trajectory. He also claimed to see the aircraft through his driver side window, but claims that it went over his car (which was allegedly in the lane furthest from the lawn - what, no cars in that "heavy traffic" blocking his view?)



[Note: McGraw, like Donley, would have had a fraction of a second to witness the aircraft at the official speed. And even at a slower speed (whether travelling at 540mph or 350mph, the lawn is only 400ft in length)]


The choices for Sucherman are..

a) he was at "2 o'clock" from the Pentagon but didn't see the much repeated (by him), "left to right....passenger side window" route because he would have still been on the bridge overlooking South Parking watching the aircraft fly northeast away from him. Remember that, as per the official trajectory, he was allegedly on the bridge:

http://s29.postimg.org/eqj7cfzxh/image.jpg

And he also missed lightpoles 3, 4 and 5 being struck



And the "Lloyd England scenario" (a 30ft pole protruding from a cab windshield) was also missed (not his fault, nobody else saw it)




b) he actually was in a more advanced position, behind Naraynan, just before the Pentagon, just beyond the bridge.

c) he wasn't on that side of the Pentagon and made the whole thing up

Both Naraynan and Sucherman would have to mark their positions on an overhead map and reiterate their stories to clear this up.



Mary Ann Owens, if she isn't embellishing her account by claiming to see the aircraft as it started crossing the road, also corroborates this more "left to right/west to east" trajectory rather than southwest to northeast directional damage route. If it flew over her car as she said, she would have had to have turned right round 145°





I've placed her in area F (even though she insinuates that she was further up towards the heliport):



Like Donley amd McGraw, she would have had a fraction of a second to witness the aircraft (both she and Donley are on record as saying that they "ducked" as the plane flew over). They should have seen this?




The choices for Owens are..

a) she was under the official trajectory aircraft just beyond the bridge, had turned 145° to look through her back window to see it reach the highway, but didn't see the lightpoles on the bridge being struck, ducked, looked up again within that half a second to miss the three poles in front of her being struck. What she did notice was the left wing "scrape" the helipad, even though it was nowhere near it from her perspective

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

http://s30.postimg.org/tfhuohiap/image.jpg


b) she was in front of the Pentagon's helipad or the alleged impact zone, and actually did see the aircraft to her left through her driver side window before it flew over her car. And incidentally the left wing would have appeared closer to the helipad (note: she described the aircraft as being around 80ft above her on the road a second before)

http://s28.postimg.org/4r0fiiy7h/image.jpg


More details needed - did she see the alleged impact through her passenger side window? Was she in front of the helipad?


Stephen McGraw, according to the official trajectory and his testimony places himself under the aircraft, "a few feet away" from Lloyd England and in front of the lawn.

[Remember: Navy photographer Mark Faram claims that he saw McGraw step over the same rail he mentioned (that went along the perimeter of the lawn) when he arrived 10 minutes after the explosion while McGraw claims that he was on the lawn "within a minute". There is photographic evidence of this at @09:53am and there were no injured on the lawn for minutes after.]

McGraw's choices are...

a) he was just beyond the bridge, not in front of the lawn, the official trajectory aircraft flew above his car, he actually saw it through his windscreen (and not through his passenger side window), missed these lightpoles both being knocked down and being on the ground as he allegedly got out of his car and went on to the lawn:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...oute27lie25.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/o4atek3i3/image.jpg
http://s7.postimg.org/bo9i72ksb/image.jpg

b) he actually was beside the lawn, beyond lightpoles 3, 4 and 5. Between areas I and J facing the alleged impact zone and beside the Turcios sign:

http://s29.postimg.org/jeultvzqf/image.jpg

http://s29.postimg.org/eqj7cfzxh/image.jpg

Note: So how did he see the aircraft from there?

He claimed to be unaware of its approach, of being in front of the Pentagon, of what was happening in New York. And claimed to CIT that he "sensed" the aircraft as it came from "behind" him and actually motions towards the back left of him in the CIT interview. That he "sensed" the noise of a lightpole being struck but not the "screaming" engines that Alan Wallace at the heliport (and other witnesses) described. Lloyd England's lightpole to be specific, 4-600ft away and not "a few feet" away. He claims to remember seeing the "top part of a pole" and that the whole pole may not have been knocked over.

Where did he see a "top part" amongst this lot?

http://s15.postimg.org/alvjwmc3f/image.jpg

During his interview with CIT, he described nothing of the sight of an aircraft striking the facade. Simply, like Donley, that it "disappeared". Everything but. And even the "details" he gave, and was forced to give by some shrewd questioning by Aldo Marquis (vis a vis the lightpoles) don't add up.

His original online testimony said



That's it.




If you were to put the witnesses mentioned so far along Route 27 according to the official trajectory, coupled with their descriptions, you'd have a hard job doing so in a way where they corroborate eachother, the official story and the topography of the area.

Key to all of this is remembering that the official trajectory is a very acute angle across Route 27.

http://s29.postimg.org/eqj7cfzxh/image.jpg
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9001/el...perspective.jpg

Most describe a trajectory west to east or straight across the road. That they simply looked "left/through their passenger window" to see the approach.

That most claim to be very close to or beside the Pentagon/lawn/helipad.

Then look for corroboration of this west to east trajectory from people who weren't sitting in a car, had more spacial awareness and/or couldn't even physically see the aircraft from their positions, and had landmarks to judge where the aircraft flew. Simple "left, right and overhead" scenarios. And compare these testimonies to what people described sitting on Route 27

http://s28.postimg.org/46lefu4z1/image.jpg

The general consensus is this entry point on to Route 27 (even Robert Turcios pointed out a specific sign directly opposite the lawn)

http://s28.postimg.org/69vtni4rx/image.jpg

To further hammer this home, Sean Boger says that he remembers the aircraft "landing gear" striking an "information sign" on the highway. As did Noel Sepulveda. (Who had no view of the far side of Route 27 from his alleged POV).

Why the "landing gear"?

On the other hand, Naraynan claimed that the "tail" clipped an information sign (and that no lightpoles were touched).

[On a sidenote, Penny Elgas was "told" that the piece she allegedly picked up off the road (and which, as yet, nobody has been able to tie this piece to a Boeing 757, never mind "Flight 77") was a "piece of the tail".]

There is no visual evidence of damage to the Turcios sign but all three descriptions denote an abrupt event occurring to the aircraft along the fuselage/centerline as it crossed this section of Route 27.

Remember Robert Turcios described a "lift" at the information sign in front of the Pentagon.

Try it yourself. Go over all of the Route 27 (alleged) witness testimonies, use this trajectory (NOC) and entry point, and see if they make more sense.


Marvelous work, "Tenacious o(ss)"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 7 2014, 04:47 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Pablo @ Apr 7 2014, 09:06 PM) *
Marvelous work, "Tenacious o(ss)"


Thanks Pablo, appreciated thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 20th July 2019 - 05:50 AM