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

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 Aug 25 2013, 09:23 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



This is the first of several posts that take a closer look at Ms Barbara Honegger's research and theories regarding the Pentagon.

The gist of which are contained in this presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

It's claimed that the "violent event", that is, an aircraft entering the Pentagon basin and the resultant explosion, occurred at 09:32am based on timepieces that had allegedly stopped at this time the morning of 9/11.

A host of other contradictory and ambiguous claims are made.


1. "09:32am" Part One

2. "09:32am" Part Two

3. "The helicopter that destroyed the plane"

4. "Millions of pieces of aircraft debris"

5. "Alan Wallace — south of Navy Annex path"

6. Penny Elgas

7. Jim Sutherland

8. "Multiple south of Navy Annex witnesses"

9. "No gouges" on the lawn.

10. Wedge 2

11. The "violent event"

12. April Gallop

13. The NOC witnesses

14. The alleged "helipad witnesses"

15. Lloyd England

16. The Global Hawk

17. Sean Boger

18. Sean Boger Part Two

19. The "white plane" — Part One

20. The "white plane" — Part Two

21. Dwain Deets and the directional damage

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 27 2013, 04:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 25 2013, 09:24 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



"09:32am"

Part One



Ms Honegger claims that based on two clocks that had stopped just after 09:30am having fallen to the floor, and Pentagon survivor April Gallop's watch having stopped at 09:30am the morning of 9/11, that a "violent event" had caused these stoppages.


I have no explanation for these timepieces. Particularly April Gallop's watch.
I have looked for independent confirmation of the exact time of the explosion and have had no luck so far (although there are definite avenues of investigation). I refuse to recognize the authenticity of media reports or governmental sources of timelines without independent corroboration. The radar and the alleged (serial number void) FDR data have been also shown to be contradictory to witness statements, the C130 pilot description of events, and even some ATC personnel.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=116

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o


What I will say is that there were other alleged instances where timepieces were affected that morning.

There was another alleged clock that also read 09:36 reportedly found in room 3E452 "near the 'hinge' of collapsed floors" (the original needs to be sourced and exif data extracted - as do the other images of the clocks Ms Honegger references)

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8779/hw6d.jpg

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/5374/p456.jpg

And another that I haven't found the source for:

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/2733/crvq.jpg


Interestingly, there was an alleged witness who was also allegedly using his computer when the explosion occurred. And he described the following on or before Sep 15:

QUOTE
Over in his office at 1D-525 on the first floor of D Ring, Robert Snyder, an Army lieutenant colonel, had been surfing the Web to check on the World Trade Center horror. He heard a crack and boom, and then, instantly, he saw flame and felt engulfed. The lights went out and his digital watch stopped. It read 00:00:00. He hit the floor, having been taught in military training that staying low was the best way to avoid smoke. The only light came from a series of small fires burning around the room.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15


There were also various alleged witnesses to refer to the event occurring beyond 09:30am

Vin Naranyan
"09:35"

Donald Bouchoux
"09:40"

Frank Bryceland
"About 9:30 or so — I don't know the exact time, maybe quarter to 10"

Terry Terronez - "Around 9:40 a.m. I reached the heliport area (beside the Pentagon)."

Philip Thompson
"I was sitting in heavy traffic in the I-395 HOV lanes about 9:45 a.m"


The problem with defining the exact time of the explosion is finding corroboration and the mass censorship of 911 calls in the area that morning (complete with what must be mandatory timelines) and/or video footage of the incident complete with a verifiable, unambiguous timestamp.

And investigating what types of explosives affect (electronic) timepieces.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 25 2013, 09:30 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



"09:32am"

Part Two


I've never seen an independent definitive time set for the explosion. Even though I once tried to synchronize the timeline of events at the Pentagon that morning using all available imagery available that I knew of.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21156

There were four known incidents where photographs were taken on or around the scene allegedly "within a minute/minutes" of the event AFAIK. And one video.

The earliest I know of was allegedly taken by Captain Mike Defina:

QUOTE
http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa-article/

"I heard a dull roar. The noise didn't belong with the noise you were used to hearing within the airport," Captain Defina said. "I turned and saw a smoke plume arise."


Low resolution image allegedly taken by Defina from Reagan Airport (no exif data):

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9593/05m1.jpg



A set of photos were allegedly taken on Route 27 by Steve Riskus "within a minute" of the explosion (apparently the timer wasn't set):

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010011.JPG
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010013.JPG
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010015.JPG
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010016.JPG
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010017.JPG

One of which possibly contains an image of Pentagon firefighter Alan Wallace (who will be discussed later):

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7389/mcpq.jpg (Alan Wallace?)



A video was recorded from the lanes south of the Pentagon on I395 by Anthony Tribby allegedly "1 minute" after the explosion. The C130 comes in to view around 2 minutes later:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=287

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4jaijNqyo...feature=related




Another set of images were allegedly taken further up the road from Steve Riskus by Daryl Donley a few minutes later (only a fraction of the images were released in low resolution format - again no exif data):

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/4343/donleysouth.jpg
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/7681/rk90.jpg
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/9570/lval.jpg

Only from one of these three, the fireball, can a time be extrapolated as being between 09:43 and 09:44am.


CBS live footage 9/11:

http://archive.org/details/cbs200109110912-0954

09:12:51 EDT - 09:53:33 EDT

The fireball can be seen at 30:41 mins into the video.

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7852/00ob.jpg

09:43:32am


The high resolution original images and the exif data of these images could prove invaluable to Pentagon research. Why would the media sit on the images of the century?

QUOTE
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?arch...+9%3a28%3a09+PM [Dead]

“Donley began shooting and didn't stop until the military police began yelling at him to get in his car and get moving. ‘I was a distraction. They had no idea what had happened and here I was taking photographs. I completely understand why they were yelling,’ he said.”

“Back home, Donley called a friend at Gannett, a company that owns newspapers across the country. He told her his story and that he had taken photos. Gannett bought his photos and made them available to 100 papers across the country. ‘I never saw them in print, so I have no idea who used them,’ he said.”


[The images linked to plus another one or two (low res) are the only ones that I've seen.]



Another set of images were allegedly taken by Keith Wheelhouse at Arlington Cemetery. The timestamp is off by between 7 - 9 minutes.


http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/4859/kn9o.jpg
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/4841/cby7.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/320/dq0f.jpg
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/2720/illb.jpg


The "08:51am" (09:51am) shot (above last) is actually around 09:58am+ judging by the CBS live footage @ 3:41 mins into video (you can even see the cameraman who shot the following still in the bottom left of the Wheelhouse "08:51am" image):

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/1491/jqup.jpg

Source: http://archive.org/details/cbs200109110954-1036

09:54:32 EDT - 10:36:13 EDT (03:41 minutes)



From Columbia Pike Navy photographer Jason Ingersoll had begun taking photos allegedly "3 minutes" after the event having heard the explosion while inside the Navy Annex.

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=64


According to live footage shown later that morning, the timestamp on Ingersoll's images can be seen to be between 3 and 4 minutes ahead.

The real timeline was deduced from the following live footage:

http://archive.org/details/cbs200109110954-1036

09:54:32 EDT - 10:36:13 EDT (CBS live footage 9/11)

There are many near matches but the most approximate I found was this screencap of flames shooting from a second floor window at 05:04mins into the video:

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/558/y7rm.jpg

Ingersoll's 10:03am+ image

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7166/imagezctv.jpg

09:59:26am


From this we can extrapolate the following:

The earliest timestamp was "09:45am" taken within the Navy Annex complex:

"09:45" (actually 09:41-2am)

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...ce/DSC_0404.jpg

09:47 (actually 09:43-4am)

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9600/imageoovs.jpg

09:48 (actually 09:44-5am)

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8830/imagewti.jpg
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1240/imagewfq.jpg
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1205/imagejvg.jpg

09:49 (actually 09:45-6am)

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/3655/imagevhz.jpg


We can now use these images to source the timeline of certain events.

For example, the timeframe for the following Fire Journal statements can therefore be narrowed down:

QUOTE
Defina ordered the airport’s big green Foam 331 to the heliport. The rig "hit the fire with foam from its roof and bumper turrets,’’ according to Virginia Fire News. Firefighters from another airport unit, Rescue Engine 335, assisted the injured and tended to fires in diesel fuel and propane tanks at the crash site, the Fire News said.


QUOTE
National's Aircraft Rescue Firefighters (ARFF) crews "knocked down the bulk of the fire in the first seven minutes after their arrival".http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa-article/



QUOTE
Captain Defina drove onto the heliport and directed Foam Unit 331 to set up there, where Fort Myer Rescue Engine 161 had established a hydrant water supply. The only other firefighting apparatus he saw on the west side was Arlington County's Engine and Truck 105 on the far north end. Their crews went into the building to conduct search and rescue.

While Foam Unit 331 hit the fire with foam from its roof and bumper turrets, Rescue Engine 335's four-person crew used hand lines in an attempt to control the fires from several vehicles and adjacent diesel fuel and propane tanks.
http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa-article/




QUOTE
Defina ordered the airport’s big green Foam 331 to the heliport. The rig "hit the fire with foam from its roof and bumper turrets,’’ according to Virginia Fire News. Firefighters from another airport unit, Rescue Engine 335, assisted the injured and tended to fires in diesel fuel and propane tanks at the crash site, the Fire News said.
http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa-article/


QUOTE
National's Aircraft Rescue Firefighters (ARFF) crews "knocked down the bulk of the fire in the first seven minutes after their arrival".http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa-article/



These two consecutive Ingersoll images were taken at "09:57am" (actually 09:53/54am)

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/255/imagecyy.jpg
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/2315/imageebt.jpg

Fact:

The first time the facade fire was tackled was at 09:53/54am.

This continued on and off

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1252/imageyal.jpg
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4533/imagegoql.jpg
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7439/imagebvo.jpg
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/4655/imageyqp.jpg
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/993/imagevdrg.jpg
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8708/imagezwb.jpg
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/8656/imageghk.jpg
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/675/imagermg.jpg

Until "10:02am" (actually 09:58/9am)

The firefight was between 09:53/54am and 09:58/9am

There is also video corroboration for this timeframe (if required) but this thread is long enough as it is.



Furthermore, here's one of the images Ms Honegger uses in her presentation to push her theory of an aircraft being destroyed between the heliport and the facade:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...at_Pentagon.jpg

It was allegedly taken by Mark Faram who had this to say:

QUOTE
"When the explosion happened I ran down the hill to the site and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the explosion." "Because the situation was still fluid, I was able to get in close and make that image within fifteen minutes of the explosion because security had yet to shut off the area. I photographed it twice, with the newly arrived fire trucks pouring water into the building in the background."


And...

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.”


The exif data has the image taken at "10:53:49am" (obviously an hour ahead)

If you look at the image, Engine 331 has stopped spraying and Engine 61 has started which puts it at being after 09:58/9am.

Further narrowing down the timeframe, another image taken by Jason Ingersoll at "10:03am" (09:59/10:00am) shows the same distictive smoke gushing from the generator trailer having quickly reignited:

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7154/imagejku.jpg

And another at "10:04am" (10:00/1am) shows the group standing by the now extinguished firetruck beside the heliport:

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1871/imagepbg.jpg



Finally, the After Action Report:

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Fire...fter_report.pdf

QUOTE
ACFD Truck 105 reached the scene first, followed shortly by fire and medical units from several Arlington County stations.

ACFD’s Training Officer Captain Chuck Gibbs reached the incident site within the first 3 minutes, followed by Battalion Chief Bob Cornwell, who assumed initial Incident Command responsibilities. Those duties were quickly assumed by Assistant Fire Chief for Operations James Schwartz, who assigned Battalion Chief Cornwell, a 35-year veteran firefighter, to lead fire suppression efforts inside the building. Captain Gibbs commanded the River Division.


ACFD Captain Edward Blunt also arrived at the Pentagon within minutes of the crash and assumed EMS Control. He immediately contacted the ECC.....Captain Alan Dorn arrived shortly after Captain Blunt..

[....]

The first ACFD personnel had arrived at the Pentagon within 2 minutes of the attack. ACFD and mutual-aid medical personnel began aiding victims immediately. Within 4 minutes of the attack, the ACFD had established its command presence. MWAA fire and medical units were on the scene and the first contingent of the FBI’s NCRS had arrived within 5 minutes of impact.


The After Action Report, like any report where a major body is scrutinized, is always going to exaggerate, cover up any shortcomings by using ambiguous language, etc, but according to this report, multiple personnel from various divisions arrived on the scene "within minutes". Maybe in South Parking and at the north end of the lawn. But the evidence shows that the only person actively fighting the fire was Pentagon firefighter Alan Wallace by the heliport.

Wallace and others helped pull Pentagon victims from the Wedge 2 area but nothing was done to put out the main fire until Engine 331 arrived at around 09:53am.


There were engines arriving within minutes (this one at 09:44/5am)

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...ce/DSC_0411.jpg


And in the same report

QUOTE
By 9:50 a.m., six ACFD EMS units had already arrived at the incident site (M-102, M-104, M-105, M-106, M-109, and M-110). M-101, Engine 103, and an ACFD Reserve Medic Unit quickly joined them.


At "09:52" (09:48/9am) and "09:54" (09:50/51am) M-102 can be seen on Route 27

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3706/imageeah.jpg
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/621/imagealh.jpg


According to the 09:32am version of events, a full 21 minutes after the explosion, no firefighters were tackling the blaze. Nobody was even on the Pentagon lawn.


CONCLUSION:

There are more conclusive ways to find the exact time of the explosion. Such as the 911 and emergency transcripts complete with timeline
Or Daryl Donley's high resolution images that he sold off to Gannett who sat on them.

Remember, according to Ms Honegger, the "violent event" occurred at 09:32am.

It then follows that

1. The MSM delayed announcing the 09:32am "violent event" in the form of a large black smoke plume in an area that was allegedly crawling with media personnel and allegedly viewed from Gannett's Roslyn offices (where one alleged witness, quoted by Ms Honegger, Steve Anderson, claimed to see the wing "drag" the pristine lawn)

2. ABC's Peter Jennings had received reports of an aircraft "circling the White House" (undoubtedly from Washington) and announced this at 09:41am
but the same sources hadn't noticed or heard about the explosion and plume at the Pentagon 9 minutes earlier? How so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5jcFIrvM2c

3. From the same video above, the first reports released by the MSM of anything happening at the Pentagon was 10 minutes after the explosion at 09:42am.

4. Two Navy photographers stationed at the Navy Annex apparently exaggerated the speed of which they began recording the incident.

Jason Ingersoll had claimed that he had ran out and began taking photos within "3 minutes" of the explosion. His first image having been taken at 09:41/2am. This timeframe is corraborated. The "09:32am" timeframe would have him actually having started snapping 9 or 10 minutes after the event.

Mark Faram claimed to have been on the scene itself within "10 minutes" and that he began taking photos "5 minutes" after he arrived. He narrowed the timeframe further when he described the "just arrived" firefighters in the background of his photo which would make it post 09:53am minimum.

In fact he had taken two photos of a triage area before he snapped the alleged plane part:

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/pho...N-6157F-002.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/pho...N-6157F-003.jpg

...which actually has him arriving at the scene at 09:58am judging by the firefighting scene in the background and three consecutive Ingersoll shots taken at this time:

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/675/imagermg.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6411/imagedwi.jpg
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/5629/imagefjnd.jpg

According to the "09:32am" timeframe he "actually" arrived almost 25 minutes after the event.

5. Barring the allegedly earliest known images taken by Steve Riskus where he has apparently snapped the tail end of the initial smoke plume, (possibly) Pentagon firefighter Alan Wallace changing into his gear as per his testimony, the DPS automobile on the helipad, what happened during the alleged time period of ten minutes (09:32am - 09:41/2am) before Jason Ingersoll started taking photos?

Where is this gap in time to be seen?

Where were the reported multiple emergency personnel arriving "within minutes"? Firefighters at two separate locations allegedly saw the smoke plume, one photographing it. The "09:32 event" would have the Pentagon lawn being empty of personnel for over twenty minutes.

More importantly, how was a blanket blackout of the MSM maintained? Not only in video form but audio form? Absolutely nothing getting through?

It's an imaginary gap that Ms Honegger has no evidence for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 25 2013, 10:27 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



"The Helicopter that destroyed the plane"


Ms Honegger clims that a "helicopter took off 3 seconds before the explosion...at "09:32"... and was in effect the alleged source of the "violent event" mentioned earlier that destroyed the aircraft.

"The helicopter somehow destroyed that plane"

According to witnesses there was a helicopter in that area shortly before the explosion. Ms Honegger comes to the conclusion that this helicopter was the source of, or played a leading role in the destruction of this aircraft at some point on the Pentagon lawn, before it reached the facade.

The presence of the helicopter isn't in question. But the timing is. And the complete lack of media interest in interviewing the pilot of the helicopter in the twelve years since, even for a sensationalist perspective report on the Pentagon event is very suspicious to me and needs further investigation.

What rules it out as having lifted off from the helipad "seconds before...." the explosion occurred at the Pentagon (according to Ms Honegger) is the testimony of the very same witness who she quoted to push a southern path. Alan Wallace.

He has given detailed descriptions of what went on that morning. One such testimony can be found here:

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

Not only does he not mention this helicopter Ms Honegger alleges took off seconds before the explosion, not even 30ft from his POV (below the heliport) but he even goes on to say this:

QUOTE
Our first helicopter flight was around 10am but we were expecting President George W Bush to land in Marine 1 around 12 noon. Needless to say neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day..


If the radar data that Ms Honegger refers to regarding the helicopter is correct (the same radar data she claims to have been corrupted):



Where was Wallace during this alleged 4-5 minutes between 09:27am and 09:32am when the helicopter was "almost certainly on the helipad"?

From the testimony linked to:

QUOTE
About 09:20am Chief Charlie Campbell called the Pentagon Fire Station to inform us of the attacks on the WTC in New York. He actually talked to all three of us: first Dennis, then me, then Skip. He wanted to be sure that we were aware of the WTC disaster and that it was definitely a terrorist attack. He wanted to be sure that we were aware of everything going on around the fire station. He also said Washington DC could very well be a target...


Given both of those statements and the approximate time of the phonecall to three separate individuals, Wallace in all likelihood could have been inside the fire station when the helicopter allegedly arrived and departed (09:32:33am).

But then he and Mark Skipper then went to "mess around the firetruck" and chatted a while after their telephone conversation.

Any other witnesses in the area?

Sean Boger was above the fire station in the heliport as this phonecall was taking place and was watching the helipad. In all of his detailed interviews with both the Center for Military History and CIT, he never mentioned this alleged helicopter either.

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

5:30 min

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


During his CMH interview he mentions how helicopters would usually fly past on a normal working day, yet doesn't mention this alleged helicopter that landed on the heliport and stayed there for 4 minutes, and which allegedly took off "seconds before" the aircraft arrived on the scene!

http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/6162/nobf.jpg

He had also mentioned a loud noise ("a rooooah") that both he and Jacqueline Kidd had both heard and which he believed was "the airplane" flying into Washington airspace and circling back round.

He actually originally claimed that Jacqueline Kidd had been gone for "5 minutes" and that he continued "looking out the window and just watching the ground". Still no mention of this helicopter allegedly sitting on the helipad for four minutes.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8361/hl4z.jpg


Boger's claim that an aircraft had flew by the Pentagon "5 minutes" before the explosion is corroborated by witness William Middletom.

Recommended watching 34mins into this video (Middleton interview at 36min):

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

QUOTE
A: The plane right here circling. It was like how you would see when they go to the airport and they got too much traffic. How the planes have to just... circle. So what I know is that he was right up here like a circle. So I went on up here. And I looked and damned if I didn't see him right here, dropping. From right up here, he came from in between--- What's that, the Hilton? [Sheraton] and the Navy Annex. And he started dropping.

.....

A: I had just left my job site with my sweeper, and I was headin' out to where I was gonna start sweepin' at. And I was coming up one of the streets out here. It's called Patton Drive. And as I got to Patton Drive, I noticed a airplane was up in the air like it was circlin'. Like, um, planes go to airport, and there's too much traffic and they just have to keep circlin'. Time I got halfway up, I noticed again the air... the plane was comin' down.

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

A: Right about here. Right over...

Q: Like halfway up?

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

Q: Ok.

A: And it was going around.

Q: Going around.

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

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

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



Corraborated by another witness on the Potomac River, Steve Chaconas

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

Conclusion:

According to witnesses in the best position to tell, there was no helicopter on the Pentagon helipad for 4 minutes. It certainly didn't take off from there "seconds before" the "violent event".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 25 2013, 10:38 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



"Millions of pieces of aircraft debris"

Ms Honegger claims that "huge amounts of wreckage [were to be seen] around the heliport" and that there were "millions of pieces of debris...wreckage of this plane" and "....confetti" of aircraft parts.


All that can be seen is unidentified debris. Visibly unidentifiable. And documentarily unidentified.

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/14406

Much of the debris claimed to be "millions of pieces of aircraft" can be identified from close up shots such as these just beyond the heliport on the lawn

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4549/route27fromlawn.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/TWYq8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/T7dQh.jpg

This one allegedly taken on the 12th September giving a clearer view of the type of debris on the helipad (bits of tree, window blinds, masonry and unidentified scraps)

http://i.imgur.com/X8mYb.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qfunM.jpg

As above but closer to the facade:

http://i.imgur.com/5INS1.jpg
http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4418.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9315/gurneymarked.png
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9743/pentcars1.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...agon_rubble.jpg
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/9318/fe...utilityvaul.jpg
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9975/dsc0438l.jpg


This one taken on September 13th which give a closer look at the blackened debris:

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/pho...N-3235P-022.jpg

There are more images (yes, including the unidentified "lettered" scraps) but you get the point.


There are also statements from people who were on the scene within the first minutes of the explosion.

QUOTE
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...937lackofdebris

Brian Ladd

Brian Ladd of the Fort Myer Fire Department arrives at the scene a few minutes after the attack. Yet, “Expecting to see pieces of the wings or fuselage,” he instead reportedly sees “millions of tiny pieces” of debris spread “everywhere.”

Captain John Durrer of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Fire Department also arrives within minutes of the crash. He will later recall thinking: “Well where’s the airplane, you know, where’s the parts to it? You would think there’d be something.” Reportedly, “The near total disintegration of the plane had left only a multitude of bits scattered outside the building.” [GOLDBERG ET AL., 2007, PP. 70]


Sergeant Ronald Galey, a helicopter pilot with the US Park Police, arrives over the Pentagon in his helicopter within minutes of the attack (see Shortly After 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001). He will describe what he sees there: “[I]t was a relatively small hole in the side of the building. I’m going, ‘This couldn’t possibly have been a 757.’ There’s absolutely nothing that you could identify as an aircraft part anywhere around there. Nothing. Just couldn’t have been.” Galey will add, “I just can’t emphasize enough, the initial damage, looking at it, it just didn’t look like a 757 hit that building.” [US NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER, 11/20/2001]

Sergeant Keith Bohn, another Park Police helicopter pilot, lands his helicopter near the crash site shortly after the attack. He will recall: “When I landed on the scene, there was actually a particular slit into the side of the Pentagon, which is hard to believe that an aircraft made it, but it’s that small of a slit.… I could not see any aviation parts. I couldn’t see an engine or a wing. There was just rubble, pieces, small pieces.” [US NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER, 11/19/2001]

Steve DeChiaro, the president of a New Jersey technology firm, had just arrived at the Pentagon when it was hit and ran toward the crash site. He will recall: “But when I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building. No tail. No wings. No nothing.” [SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE, 8/1/2002]



QUOTE
"We could not see the plane. The only thing that we saw was a piece of the front skin with the “C” from American Airlines by the little heliport control tower. There was a fire truck there that was burnt on one side, and a car, and a tree, all burnt. But, still, you could not see the plane."
— Frank Bryceland
http://history.amedd.army.mil/memoirs/sold.../responding.pdf

"There was just nothing left. It was incinerated. We couldn't see a tail or a wing or anything,"
— Will Jarvis
http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/02winter/f02.htm#jarvis

“I was in awe that I saw no plane, nothing left from the plane."
— Reginald Powell



Conclusion:

There weren't "millions of pieces" of aircraft debris.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 25 2013, 10:53 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



"Alan Wallace - south of Navy Annex path witness"


Ms Honegger claims that "firefighters [at the heliport] described a white low flying plane....and exploding into a fireball" and that one of them, Alan Wallace said that "it came in from his left....south of navy annex path...coming right at him"

To his "left" does not automatically indicate a "south of the Navy Annex" path.

Look at this image showing Wallace's position and the estimated NOC path vs the OCT "south of the Navy Annex" path

http://imageshack.us/m/861/2920/heliportwallace.jpg

Both are to his "left".

Interestingly he says:

QUOTE
"I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees.”


In the heliport tower to his right there was another witness, Sean Boger, who Ms Honegger completely ignores (and the significance of the heliport itself is reduced by her referring to it as solely being a "fire station")

Sean Boger, along with all witnesses between the Navy Annex and Route 27 corroborate his description:



More details here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2465112

In fact, there are many more witnesses who describe the aircraft as flying over the Navy Annex

- Aman
- Carter
- Hemphill
- Middleton
- Morin
- Prather
- Paik
- Stafford
- Sepulveda
- Stephens

Details of more contradictions to this "south of the Navy Annex path":

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...&p=22008856


Secondly, Alan Wallace did not say that the aircraft was "coming right at him", implying this "south path"

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

I saw a large frame commercial airliner crossing Washington Boulevard, heading towards the Pentagon!
— Alan Wallace
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 26 2013, 05:30 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



"Penny Elgas"


Ms Honegger claims that Penny Elgas was "very certain that she saw a white south approaching plane" and that a "piece of plane fell through her car sunroof"


I'm pretty certain myself that Penny Elgas described anything but a "south approaching plane". And that she also admitted herself that the "sunroof" scenario was (yet another) a media fabrication.

Her testimony in gif form:

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Li...sonianCPike.jpg

How ridiculous the notion is given her POV that she saw a "south approaching plane". She described the aircraft as passing "four cars in front of" her on Route 27 and as having seen it through her "driver side window"



More details here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2465311
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 26 2013, 05:36 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



Jim Sutherland

Ms Honegger claims that alleged witness Jim Sutherland is an "SOC witness"

Ms Honegger is using an unverified, second hand media snippet where he isn't quoted once.

Ms Honegger has "faith" in unconfirmed, outdated media snippets while rejecting outright (as we will see) detailed, independent interviews.

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


Proven media sourced disinfo re the Pentagon discussed here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...&p=22008857
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 26 2013, 08:53 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



"Multiple south of Navy Annex witnesses"

Ms Honegger claims that "per multiple witnesses, a white low flying plane approached the Pentagon south of the Navy Annex and hit/dragged/scraped its left wing at/near the helipad just before bursting into a fireball"

Some witnesses did describe a "white plane" but Ms Honneger contradicts herself regarding the "left wing" statement as we will see later.

There are no "multiple witnesses" that describe a "south of the Navy Annex" approach.

Those who have been presented as such are at best ambiguous, unverified, sometimes anonymous newspaper "reports", at worst, outright manipulations. Some have even turned out to be describing an NOC approach when asked the specifics of what they saw!

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Aug 26 2013, 08:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 26 2013, 09:14 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

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



"No gouges" on the lawn.

Contradictorily, having quoted alleged witnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft "drag" its left wing on the Pentagon lawn/heliport area, she goes on to acknowledge that there were "no gouges" on the lawn.

Incidentally one of these alleged witnesses include Steve Anderson who claimed to see this from here:




Ms Honegger goes on to claim that the following "image [is] used to claim that no plane was destroyed at the Pentagon"

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3299/pentlawn.jpg

There is a distinct lack of a visible gouge on this portion of the lawn seen in the above image. This image shows a section of the OCT "south path" across the lawn where the aircraft allegedly "dragged" its left wing/engine.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 26 2013, 09:28 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



Wedge 2


Ms Honegger claims that the "lawn in front of Wedge 2 is anything but prestine". Insinuating that a "violent event" occurred at the helipad area before reaching the facade.

The majority of the area described as "Wedge 2" is actually within the Wedge 1 area

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...d4c039fb627.jpg

The doorway seen to the right of the firetruck in the following image actually demarks the line between Wedge 1 and Wedge 2

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9975/dsc0438l.jpg

The destruction seen in this area, including building debris and furniture outwardly pushed against the windows, (seen in the previous image) and acknowledged by Ms Honegger, shows evidence of internal explosives along the section of facade in the same area as the second floor slab that was pushed upwards in the following image:

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8788/y6in.jpg

Outlined in more detail here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807808

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 20 2013, 08:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 26 2013, 05:16 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

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



The "violent event"

QUOTE
"Non insider terrorists would not have targeted....the hardest to hit due to many physical obstacles: a hill, the VDOT atenna, lightpoles, a chain link fence and large cable spools."

Barbara Honegger


Ms Honegger forgot to mention the generator trailer which is also part and parcel of the official path. Or "south of the Navy Annex path" as she calls it:






She also rejects the notion that a 757 could knock over the 5 poles without the aircraft exploding due to the reserve fuel tanks in the wings.


She claims that the aircraft didn't actually hit the official impact point (where the fuselage center allegedly struck the facade on the official path) of the Pentagon facade at Column 14.

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/9192/of...hlightpoles.jpg

Column 14 is an integral part of the OCT "south path".


She also claims that the "plane couldn't have gotten through the wall". That the recently strengthened Wedge One would have been "impenetrable".


She also claims that the "aircraft [was] destroyed before hitting the wall because there's no evidence that it actually hit the wall"


Ms Honegger is referring to the Wedge 2 area of the Pentagon facade. In effect, she rejects all of the directional damage that makes up the official/"south of the Navy Annex path".


The official path/directional damage path is set in stone.

Multiple factors demand that the aircraft follow a specific trajectory and that it was in level flight before reaching Route 27. Outlined here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2404268


Ms Honneger has simultaneously rejected the directional damage which is inextricably woven into the official path.

So how does she presume that this alleged aircraft actually reached the helipad area from her "south of the Navy Annex path"?

According to Ms Honegger's theory and her rejection of the directional damage, did the aircraft fly even further south contradicting all witness testimony within the Pentagon basin?

It couldn't have flown through the area to the north of the the directional damage:

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

Is she suggesting that this aircraft flew over the poles? How acute a descent angle are we talking here? How did it level out to "drag" its left wing at the helipad area (which there is no physical evidence for) if it was in a virtual nosedive?

Those are questions Ms Honegger needs to answer.


Until she does, let's look at the alleged "crash site" itself. "Wedge 2".


At what point did the complete obliteration of this aircraft occur?

It couldn't have happened at any other point on the lawn other than as it reached the facade.

Remember she said that the "aircraft [was] destroyed before hitting the wall because there's no evidence that it actually hit the wall"


What could possibly stop the momentum of any aircraft and the resultant debris so abruptly and completely just as it reaches the facade? Especially the engines. I take it that this aircraft had engines?

Within an area just 400 ft in length (the distance between Route 27 and the Pentagon facade)?

Even more incredible, the claim that this complete destruction occurred at the heliport area, less than 200 ft from the facade.

How did Alan Wallace, Mark Skipper and Sean Boger who were in very close proximity, avoid injury?

How did the area of the facade in question avoid even minimal shrapnel damage?

http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4418.jpg

How did one of the cars parked just south of the heliport not even get scratched? Or crack a window?



http://img858.imageshack.us/img858/252/dsc0442.jpg


Where is the crater?


Where is there any evidence of what Ms Honegger is claiming happened in this area?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Aug 27 2013, 09:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 26 2013, 08:43 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



April Gallop


Ms Honegger alleges that "9/11 oficionados" (CIT and those who view the NOC testimony as perfectly valid?) claim that April Gallop was directly in the alleged impact zone. And that she walked through the alleged impact hole.

This is false.

In her interview with Aldo Marquis of CIT, this can be seen to be a falsehood.
She is asked the location of the office she was in the morning of 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgExsz5q74Y

QUOTE
Ms Gallop: "1E517 E Ring Corridor 5"


Here's a screenshot of the area in question from the same video:



Here's a DOD release of the alleged internal damage path - note how they have delineated this "path" along a straight line to the north - fuel, debris and damage didn't go beyond this line?? :

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/5583/qv2k.jpg

Corridor 5 separates Wedge 1 from Wedge 2

http://www.history.navy.mil/pics/9-11/pentagon_911-4.jpg

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...zps52362368.jpg

April Gallop was most definitely caught up in an internal explosion:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807808

Ms Honegger alleges that she was in Wedge 2. Fair enough. But CIT marked the area in their video (bordering an area between Wedge 1 and 2) around the same area Ms Gallop described.

Ms Honegger also alleges that the "Global Hawk"/"A3 Sky Warrior" had been destroyed before it reached the Wedge 2/heliport area (not the alleged impact area) where Ms Gallop would have had to have exited.

Ms Gallop was (understandably) hazy on her recollections of exactly how she escaped but she completely contradicts the scenario outlined by Ms Honegger.

She described seeing no wreckage, luggage and denied to having smelt jet fuel even though she walked through the area in question. The alleged site of the remarkable obliteration of the aircraft. Wedge 2.

Ms Honegger claims that "she got out through a window behind the firetruck".

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/5796/b0ha.jpg

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9642/uwh0.jpg


So what about the alleged "confetti"? The fuel? I'm assuming this "Global Hawk" had fuel too?

In her recent court case:

QUOTE
http://911sig.blogspot.com.es/2008/12/care...s-rumsfeld.html

The following paragraphs are from the complaint filed in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK by APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor:

33. At the Pentagon, the plaintiff was at her desk, with her baby, in her office on the first floor, when large explosions occurred, walls crumbled and the ceiling fell in. Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that an airliner crashed through. If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building, to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else. At the building, inside or outside of the wall the plane supposedly hit, there was no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially, no blazing quantities of burning jet fuel. The interior walls and ceilings and contents in that area were destroyed, but there was no sign of a crashed airplane. A number of those present inside the building and out have attested to this fact in published reports.

34. Instead, just when plaintiff turned on her computer — for an urgent document-clearing job she was directed by her supervisor to rush and begin, as soon as she arrived at work, without dropping her baby off at child care until she was finished — a huge explosion occurred, and at least one more that she heard and felt, and flames shot out of the computer. Walls crumbled, the ceiling fell in, and she was knocked unconscious. When she came to, terrified and in pain, she found the baby close by, picked him up, and, with other survivors caught in the area, made her way through rubble, smoke and dust towards daylight, which was showing through an open space that now gaped in the outside wall. When she reached the outside she collapsed on the grass; only to wake up in a hospital some time later.


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 20 2013, 08:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 27 2013, 04:38 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

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



The NOC witnesses

QUOTE
I believe the interpretation of what the NOC witnesses described is incorrect....as there is no evidence of any plane destruction other than the white plane that exploded near the heliport at 09:32


Can anybody decipher this statement?

1) The NOC witnesses described a flightpath trajectory from which the directional damage and alleged impact are impossible. End of story.

2) The aircraft, the only aircraft seen by the NOC witnesses (bar some who saw the C130 at a much higher altitude minutes after the event), and all other witnesses in the area for that matter, could not have caused the damage.

The only logical conclusion is that this aircraft flew over the building.

3) There is no evidence of an aircraft having "exploded near the heliport"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809488

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


4) the "09:32" timeframe for this "violent event" outside the building does not stand up to scrutiny.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809483

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809484


QUOTE
if the plane that a dozen or so witnesses saw approach to the north of the centre line to the north of the citgo gas station which is on that centre line and to the north of the Navy Annex which is on that centerline...if that plane flew over, which many 9/11 researchers believe, falsely believe, it cannot be the right plane, which was destroyed. It didn't fly over the building, it was destroyed...


More smoke and mirrors.

Here's the "center line" shown in her presentation:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2142/p34j.jpg

It's not a matter of "belief". It's based on solid evidence. Corroborative eye witness testimony that hasn't even been touched never mind debunked in the seven years of attacks on it.

What Ms Honegger needs to do is present the alleged witnesses who contradict them. Who place the aircraft on the other side of that center line.


The "dozen witnesses" has now increased to seventeen.

- Aman
- Boger
- Brooks
- Carter
- Elgas
- Hemphill
- Lagasse
- Leonard
- Middleton
- Morin
- Prather
- Paik
- Riskus
- Turcios
- Stafford
- Sepulveda
- Stephens


4 others are possible NOC witnesses

- Cissell
- Campo
- Liebner
- Ryan (James)


4 of which can only be describing NOC vantage points on Route 27

- Naranyan
- McGraw
- Peterson
- Sucherman


11 of which are confirmed over the Navy Annex witnesses

- Aman
- Boger
- Carter
- Hemphill
- Middleton
- Morin
- Prather
- Paik
- Stafford
- Sepulveda
- Stephens


Particularly Terry Morin:

http://www.vimeo.com/4082576

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2464913

And the alleged "discrepancy" between what he repeatedly described (blue line) versus what people like Ms Honneger claim he "actually" saw (red line)

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6966/navy...morin2paths.jpg


One of which described the aircraft "lifting up"




Two of which couldn't even physically see the official path from their stated POVs.

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




One of which claimed to see a "second aircraft" in South Parking after the explosion

- Roosevelt Roberts


One of which claimed to hear others say that "a plane flew on" after the explosion

- Eric Dihle


And none describing the official path. There are no "south of the Navy Annex" witnesses.


QUOTE
it would have to be a different second plane, or the white plane could have come around twice.


Wrong.

Ms Honegger is simply trying to confuse the issue with both wordplay and an insinuation that the aircraft that was seen flying North of Citgo actually flew back round. A flyover followed minutes later by a "south of the Navy Annex" flightpath that avoided the obstacles that constitute this path!

Seriously?

The "violent event" occurred seconds after the witnesses saw the plane. North of Citgo. Over the Navy Annex. Nowhere near the directional damage path.

A number of witnesses saw an aircraft circling over the Potomac River, into Washington before the "violent event"

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


QUOTE
As these north side witnesses however themselves didn't believe that the plane that they saw flew over. They believed it did hit because they heard this huge explosion...the plane they saw coming in on whats called the north path...it would have had to have approached simultaneously with the white plane.


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
....basically two planes coming in from two directions at the same time.And the plane that CIT claims went through the fireball of the white plane being destroyed near the heliport.


Talking of absurd...

No plane was seen on the official path. None.

And to claim that the NOC witnessed plane actually flew through the "white plane fireball"

That nobody happened to see this "second plane"?

It's dishonest and absurd that the "detractors" nitpick at the NOC witness testimony and claim that they were all simultaneously "wrong" in their placement of the aircraft as it flew over their heads. But to give any credence whatsoever to a theory whereby they missed seeing "another plane"?

Come on.


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


Wrong.

The "official plane" flew on the wrong path to cause the damage. Period.

The "official plane" allegedly caused the directional damage, including the lightpoles, generator, Column 14 and exit hole.

All of which Ms Honegger rejects (barring, confusingly the "official path" itself)

She is actually insinuating that 5 or 6 minutes after the "09:32am violent event", that is, an aircraft exploding at the helipad area, that another low flying aircraft flew by the NOC witnesses.

That the explosion they heard, felt and saw was actually 5 or 6 minutes before they saw the aircraft they described.


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.

One of these explosions happened at 09:43/4am and the resultant fireball was caught on camera. And film.

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"



Watch this video from 5 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5jcFIrvM2c

AP reported the evacuation of the White House at 09:44am. Whether that's accurate or not is irrelevant in this case. The same AP report was read from on that news segment live as the fireball was captured. Possibly 09:45am or just before.

No plane was captured on either camera or film. No witnesses described an aircraft flying "through it"

Ms Honegger knows this.

A second larger explosion, felt, heard and caught on audio (I've searched for video of the area during this explosion but have had no luck) occurred at 10:10am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Li2FNnnms



Through all of the smoke, mirrors and mental gymnastics needed to decipher just what Ms Honegger's multiple, unsubstantiated (to the point of pure invention) "theories" actually are, what stood out to me was her insistence that the aircraft involved in the "violent event" arrived from "south of the Navy Annex".

Why?

1) If her theory had any resemblance whatsoever to the truth of what happened at the Pentagon, in that an aircraft was blown up at the helipad and not even the debris of said aircraft damaged the surrounding area, why does it have to arrive from "south of the Navy Annex"? Why couldn't it arrive from any trajectory?

2) She even says that "non insider terrorists would not have targeted....the hardest to hit due to many physical obstacles: a hill, the VDOT atenna, lightpoles, a chain link fence and large cable spools" (and of course, the generator trailer). But strangely goes on to insist that the aircraft followed this very path.

3) She rejects every stage of the alleged directional damage from the lightpoles, through the facade, to the C Ring "punch out hole". But insists on an aircraft being part of this "violent event" that arrived from "south of the Navy Annex"

4) She inexplicably uses Penny Elgas as a witness to this "south of the Navy Annex path" when clearly she isn't

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

And quotes a media snippet as if it is "proof" when we know that even when the most dishonest and devious detractors of the NOC evidence, such as Jeff Hill, contacted some of them, they either reaffirmed or added to the ever growing list of confirmed NOC witnesses.

That and the fact that the media lies, distorts and censors. Surely she must know this.

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


5) The NOC witnesses don't give a definitive timeframe for experiencing the event. So why reject first hand corroborative testimony while pointing to a second hand media snippet and outdated, provenly embellished account?



She claims to "honour" the NOC witnesses by dismissing them as somehow describing a separate event which would entail either two planes simultaneously involved...

Or that the aircraft seen by the NOC witnesses actually did fly over the Pentagon but circled back round to be destroyed on the helipad. Even though all of the NOC witnesses described an explosive event seconds after having seen it.

Or tagging completely evidence free, ridiculous "alternatives" on to their testimony. Each falling flat on their face upon closer inspection.


Apparently anything goes for Ms Honegger as long as the NOC evidence is diminished. Absolutely anything.

Has she ever pinpointed a path through to the alleged point where this "violent event" occurred at the helipad? How far "south of the Navy Annex"?

What are the aerodynamics involved to go over the lightpoles, descend and level off from this "south of the Navy Annex" flightpath (that nobody described)?

Are there witnesses to this path?

What evidence is there of an explosion or debris damage from the alleged "Global Hawk" on the ground or on the facade in the helipad area? How did the people in the immediate vicinity not get torn to shreds or even injured?


The NOC testimony and the complete lack of witnesses to the aircraft being on the official directional damage path is proof that the entire Pentagon event was staged. End of story.

Ms Honegger's efforts are pure distraction. Why else would she try and diminish the importance of it when they don't affect her "theories" in any way whatsoever? What I mean by that is that she never let the issue of evidence get in the way before, so why dismiss these people?

To take the directional damage out of the equation, which is part and parcel of the alleged impact, is an insult not only to researchers, but to any audience seeking the truth.

It's no different to minimalizing the significance of the alleged position of Lee Harvey Oswald in the book depository.

"Kennedy died, that's all there is to it, move on"

And why the kid's glove approach and plaudits for what is pure disinfo?

Because her theory involves a "violent event" where no aircraft goes beyond the west facade? Even the ridiculous "theory" where one of two planes actually does fly over the building "through the smoke of the destroyed white plane"?

Seriously?

Watch their interviews again Ms Honegger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Aug 28 2013, 11:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pablo
post Aug 27 2013, 09:45 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 26-March 11
Member No.: 5,760



OSS,
You are absolutely tenacious.
Excellent, painstaking work,
Thanx,
Pablo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 27 2013, 10:36 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Pablo @ Aug 28 2013, 03:45 AM) *
OSS,
You are absolutely tenacious.
Excellent, painstaking work,
Thanx,
Pablo


Thanks Pablo thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 30 2013, 05:35 AM
Post #17



Group Icon

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



I hope that those who will be in contact with Ms Honegger this year, and those who endorsed her work, will share/read this link.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 3 2013, 06:43 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Nice work OSS.

Barbara came to me a while back asking some questions regarding the "official flight time" and how it was derived. It was perhaps the most frustrating experience I have had in attempting to teach such simple information.

I also read through some of the comments over at McKee's blog... You do a great job in conveying our work on the FDR. It is a pleasure to see someone have such a good grasp and thorough understanding of our work and position. Thanks again..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 3 2013, 04:34 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 3 2013, 12:43 PM) *
Nice work OSS.

Barbara came to me a while back asking some questions regarding the "official flight time" and how it was derived. It was perhaps the most frustrating experience I have had in attempting to teach such simple information.

I also read through some of the comments over at McKee's blog... You do a great job in conveying our work on the FDR. It is a pleasure to see someone have such a good grasp and thorough understanding of our work and position. Thanks again..


Appreciated Rob thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 3 2013, 04:47 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut – Barbara Honegger

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

QUOTE
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


This was recorded a few months before the "Behind the smoke curtain" presentation.

Ms Honegger was "selected" for the Toronto Hearings at the expense of people who actually interviewed witnesses and an organization of pilots whose members had actual flight time .in some of the alleged aircraft of 9/11. The "best evidence"?
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: 11th December 2017 - 12:06 PM