Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Barbara Honegger's Theories
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Debate
onesliceshort
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
onesliceshort
"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.
onesliceshort
"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.
onesliceshort
"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".
onesliceshort
"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.
onesliceshort
"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
onesliceshort
"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
onesliceshort
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
onesliceshort
"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
onesliceshort
"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.



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


Thanks Pablo thumbsup.gif
onesliceshort
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.
rob balsamo
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..
onesliceshort
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
onesliceshort
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"?
onesliceshort
A glaring omission from her latest presentation was the alleged interview with Lloyd England contained in "The Pentagon Papers" (2007)

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


It was actually Route 27 and not the I395.

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

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

Hmmmm…..

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

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

Here's the interview with Lloyd England:

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

Explanation needed or will this slide too?

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

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

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

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

It's beyond absurd.

...

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



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

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

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

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


...

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



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



laughing1.gif at that last part especially.

Wow.

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


Fantastic sleuthing, OSS. My and your work this summer is rather complementary; I took on Ryan while you took on Honegger. cheers.gif cheers.gif
A. Syed
In going through your research, I've noticed something, OSS. The following image was taken at 9:43-4 a.m.



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

It appears to be pole no. 5.



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



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

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



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

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

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

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

(OSS: added my own image to his quote)



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


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

A. Syed
OSS,

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

Darn! Oh well, thought I had something there.

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

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

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

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

Darn! Oh well, thought I had something there.

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

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



Stop it, Adam Syed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers


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

ETA: Okay, I give in, you got me. I was thinking I'd discovered the be all and end all smoking gun of 9/11, and would have streets named after me in 25 years for this discovery. Never before in my life has my ego taken such a huge beating, not even when I first got rejected by a girl! crybaby2.gif
onesliceshort
QUOTE (A. Syed @ Sep 5 2013, 08:55 PM) *
To the contrary, my ego is not bruised at all. smile.gif

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


biggrin.gif

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

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

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

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

Barbara Honegger


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

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

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

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



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

She then goes on to display this image on the screen




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

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

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

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


And

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


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


QUOTE
wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A−3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77
onesliceshort
Second part of Ms Honegger's post:


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

Barbara Honegger


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

He's most definitely an NOC witness.

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

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

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



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



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

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



Failure and falsehoods at multiple levels Ms Honegger.
Tamborine man
'.....takes a tougher vagina to set the record straight, Ms Honegger!' wink.gif

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

Cheers


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


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

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

so wonder where you got that crap from!!

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

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

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

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

the vagina can take a greater pounding than the balls.

Hope you get it now?

Cheers
onesliceshort
The alleged "helipad witnesses"



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

Barbara Honegger



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


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


Steve Anderson


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


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

2. He doesn't mention the helipad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Rodney Washington


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Outlined here:

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

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

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


David Marra

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Mary Ann Owens


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

Her original statement:

First, the second hand reporting:

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

This reaction is repeated by multiple witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Michael and Isabella James

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

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

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


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






1. Neither describe the aircraft as being "white"

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

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



Summary

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

Quoting media snippets while ignoring independent interviews asking relevant questions.

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

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


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

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

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

1. Not one of them describe the aircraft as being "white". That witnesses described a white plane is not the issue. It's that Ms Honegger dishonestly implies that each witness she cites consistently describes this white plane.

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

Confused? That's the intention.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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



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

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




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





Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE
28mins onwards

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

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

Barbara Honegger


The more I dig into what Ms Honegger's theories are about, the more I see a PR driven monstrosity to absorb the multiple body blows that the NOC evidence has given to the official story.
Tamborine man
The following excerpt is authored by the same 'intelligences' who are responsible for the text
shown in the OP which starts the "Life after Death!" thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maintain that his is the correct version.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

think that's going to happen.

- "skarlet"
……"


Please pay special attention to the last three lines!

Cheers
23investigator
QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Sep 10 2013, 12:58 PM) *
The following excerpt is authored by the same 'intelligences' who are responsible for the text
shown in the OP which starts the "Life after Death!" thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maintain that his is the correct version.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

think that's going to happen.

- "skarlet"
……"


Please pay special attention to the last three lines!

Cheers



Dear "Tamborine man"

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

Robert S

ps that long since putting up a post, hope it has been signed off properly
Tamborine man
QUOTE (23investigator @ Sep 8 2013, 08:43 AM) *
Dear "Tamborine man"

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

Robert S

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



Dear Robert S,

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

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

Thank you -

Cheers
onesliceshort
Sean Boger Part Two

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

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

Barbara Honegger


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

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

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

http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

5 minutes in...

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE
Others didn't understand why we didn't hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1.5-2 seconds after we saw it. What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it, we heard the noise; the engines, I'm sure.

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


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

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


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


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



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

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

Edit added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Look at this picture again where the heliport is marked:



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

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

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

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

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

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






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

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

And witness Steve Chaconas

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


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

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

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

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

Seriously? 12 years after the event, reams of research on witness testimony, and people are still entertaining these "theories" whose sole purpose are to act as a pressure valve on an OCT firmly wedged into a very tight corner?
rob balsamo
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Sep 12 2013, 03:12 PM) *
At what point could the wing physically strike the helipad? Or even appear to do so?

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

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

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


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



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

You have the patience of a Saint ..OSS! Much props!
onesliceshort
Great image to make the point Rob. Cheers thumbsup.gif
onesliceshort
The "white plane" — Part One

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

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

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

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

Barbara Honegger


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

The White Plane

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

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

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

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

Discussed here:

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

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

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

In his CIT interview he says:


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

A: Right about here. Right over...

Q: Like halfway up?

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

Q: Ok.

A: And it was going around.

Q: Going around.

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

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

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


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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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


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

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

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

In the same interview he says:

QUOTE
Middleton

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

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

Q: It was white.


A: Yes.

Q: The plane was white. Ok.

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

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


Got that?

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


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

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



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




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

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

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

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

He places the aircraft NOC.



As does William Lagasse who was at the gas station




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

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

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

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


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

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





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


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

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

A: It was more, more on this side.

Q: On the north side.

A: Right on this side.

.....

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

A: No

Q: What do you have to say about that?

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

.....

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


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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

Craig: Did you see any markings at all?

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

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

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


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


The NOC witnesses corroborate this flightpath:

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


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

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


All describe a subsequent explosion seconds afterwards. All describe one aircraft. As does every single witness quoted who was actually in a position to see the aircraft.
onesliceshort
The "white plane" — Part Two

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

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

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

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

Barbara Honegger



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

Just how strong is her "white plane" theory?

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

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

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

Her only description of the aircraft is the following:

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

Penny Elgas

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


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

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

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

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

Alan Wallace

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



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

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


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


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

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

James Cissell



How about the alleged "helipad witnesses"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I defy any of her supporters or herself to come here and debate this with a straight face.
onesliceshort
Dwain Deets and the directional damage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation please?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2022 Invision Power Services, Inc.