I am evaluating this witness and starting a new thread for discussion.

This witness appears to give a very convincing account of a south flight path with a photo to prove their vantage point.

They do appear to have mistaken north. This may be due to the fact that they were from out of town and staying at a hotel and not orientated to north in DC.



"She had just turned on the TV when she heard a loud rumbling noise and looked out the window of her hotel room on the 7th floor. She said that she could see the airliner at eye level as it dove in at about a 45 degree angle. The plane then went behind the trees and the office building to the north of us, then a huge fire ball emerged behind them."

You can see the fireball is behind the office buildings (Annex) and trees which means they perceived that as "north" in my opinion.

If a flyover had occurred this would be a good view to watch it fly away. The smoke didn't rise that fast did it?

Who drew that you or her?

She's a north side witness.

How do you figure out a dive angle on a fucking satellite shot?

How do you figure she's a south side witness when she clearly said north?

She didnt see the plane fly over and away even though she was looking at it.

Avenger,

Of course it was me who annotated the photo. It was to visually demonstrate what she said.

You do the math on the north. THEY WERE FROM OUT OF TOWN.

The fact she believes north was straight ahead is exemplified by the fact that she indicated the office buildings and the trees were north. THEN she said the smoke was behind the buildings (which it is) meaning she perceived that as north.

If she thought left was north she would have said the plane went north but the smoke appeared in the east.

Can you admit it is possible people from out of town had a mistaken sense of direction?

Would you rather redefine "DOVE IN"?

What she didn't say:

The plane entered from my right at eye level and flew over the office buildings across my view headed north and then did a wild banking maneuver to the right or east and vanished behind the office buildings - then swooped up at a steep incline and flew over the damn Pentagon. And for some reason even though it flew away there was a huge explosion.

That's not the discussion here RacerX.

I'd like to know who made that drawing because I suspect it is off from this witness's account. I don't believe it is her drawing.

Well, what trees did it go behind, Russell? Because I don't see any trees it could have gone behind near that red line you drew.

Can you admit that it's possible that maybe YOU are the one who is wrong?

You have trees in the foreground then the office building and the plane was behind that.

What part of that am I getting wrong?

Look at the red line Russell drew and tell me what trees it could have flown behind.

I appreciate you doing your usual thing but I'm gonna summarize it for you again anyway.

There are trees and an office building between her and the plane/impact area.

That places the plane behind stuff in some way, you figure it out.

if thats not being obtuse then I dont know what it is... :rolleyes:

There are no trees it could have flown behind near that red line.

It "could have flown..."

Yes, and fairies "could have flown" out of my ass.


Why are you so married to this flyover nonsense?

Is it because since once you "believed" in it, you refuse to look at reality?

Seriously.

No plane flew over. It crashed. People died.

Your delusion is sad.

BTW, look up "delusion" in the dictionary.

Then seek help.

Avenger,

DO YOU SEE TREES AND A OFFICE BUILDING?

If you have to deny ALL of reality to make it true - it ain't true.

Do you have ANY idea how you appear to normal people? Any idea at all?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure it did fly behind some trees. The question is which trees did it fly behind. Because I keep looking at that red line you drew and it doesn't intersect with any of those trees. Can you draw a circle around the trees you think it flew behind?

Are you a sock or do you take notes so you can recycle other people's pathetic insults at others?

Those look like they could be similar but I know eyewitness Edward Paik drew this one so who marked the image confirmed and how did you confirm it?

Did you send other options so they could pick the one that most accurately described what they saw or just this one Russ?

Russ?

Terrorcell,

Edward has NOTHING to do with the north side claim at all.

His first account when a group of us were there indicated he believed the plane was so far south that it had hit the VDOT antenna.

When just one film maker was there it took 3 TRIES to get a graphic out of him that suited the north side story.

I know they won't release the unedited footage to the public - but since you're friends ask them if you can watch the entirety of Edward's interview. I really want to know many things about that.

THE BOTTOM LINE is ......Edward could not see the Citgo. He had NO visual reference to it and cannot state which side of the Citgo it was on.

Also, notice in the edited version of his interview at least he is not even asked his opinion about the plane in reference to the Citgo.

If you are satisfied redefining the phrase "DOVE IN" to mean a lateral cut across the scene then so be it. Disagreeing with the several billion people who understand and use that phrase frequently doesn't seem to be the kind of little detail that upsets you.

Russell

I was asking who drew the flight path on the picture posted in the opening of this thread.
I pointed out a similarity to that of Edward's but wanted to know if the alleged South side witness drew it or if you did and if that's how you sent her the pic for confirmation.

There's about 15 or 16 posts in this thead and I think I asked you for clarification of this at least in 4 posts. Now I know you have a tendency to ignore some posts as I do as well, but this question seems rather important and definitely valid given the implications of the claim being made.

Avenger,

Are you really serious here or are you just screwing with me?

Since the red line I drew doesn't intersect with a specific tree you are able to discount this witness?

The trees AND the building are very obvious and were referred to as a singular unit. This witness is unique in that she has a photo to prove her vantage point.

BUT you are OK with Lagasse not remembering where he was standing while having "vivid" memories??

Double standards are one of the symptoms of trying to make reality something it is not.

What would you do if a plane hit the Pentagon. Could you handle the truth? Or would you believe the official story and join the PNAC?

Russell

I have had no contact with this witness. I took the photo somebody else posted and added the annotations myself to visually illustrate her words.

What's the point?

If she drew the line and said absolutely that is where the plane went - what would happen?

In a short time she would be a lying POS. Then she would be a planted operative who "just happened" to have a camera from a perfect vantage point. The reason it took so long for her account to surface is that the perps hedged their bets. They waited until they gave a film permit to 9/11 researchers to film their own uniformed employees on government property telling the whole truth. Just in case this happened they had this in store to counteract it even though all they had to do was decline the film permit in the first place.

Then they flew the plane the wrong way.

Russell

P.S. In terms of me avoiding anything please refer to the 7th post of this thread where I did answer your question.

You got me, I didn't read your reply to Avenger.



So for all we know the blue and green paths could be what she saw. It's pretty much just artistic interpetation.

What the hell?

Why did you draw a rainbow on russell's pic?

You notice the smoke in the pic?? That was taken that day. Thats exactly why you cant have silly flyovers.

That was your debunk?

And if we're going to be pedantic, which line looks the most 45deg to you?

The answer to that is a color name, dont avoid it.

Dom,

If you wish to write it off as "artistic interpretation" then that is your choice.

My preference is intellectual honesty.

But for argument sake let's say it is the blue or green line.

1) "Dove in" is NOT cut across.
2) If the plane was south of the Sheraton originally and did a RADICAL manuever to cut over the roof of the Navy Annex - why?
3) Then it abrubtly dipped down behind the north side of the Annex while changing direction - why?
4) Then apparently leveled off in violation of the laws of physics instantaneously because none of the Citgo witnesses mentioned it was in a STEEP bank/dive.
5) Further dipped down to the road sign as stated by Robert.
6) Wildly pulled up to miss the roof of the Pentagon.
7) Then flew away with nobody mentioning it including this witness who had an elevated view.

Now...........if the plane did this wild "S" manuever while descending and heavily banking around the Citgo and then radically pulling up......

1) Why didn't they brief the planted witnesses to describe it as such?
2) Why didn't the Citgo witnesses describe it as such?
3) If it was originally on the mechanical damage path and got "lost" - you mean they got lost 6 seconds from the building and whipped this manuver then corrected themselves most likely outside of the 757 performance envelope?
4) Why didn't they use the Flight Management System and remain on the original course from the south of the Sheraton fly over the mechanical damage and up, up and away?

Can you please digram what this manuever would look like and the banking involved?

Russell

You drew the line Russ. Call it "artistic interpetation" or call it "intellectual honesty" but I disagree with that. Perhaps had this witness drawn it there might be some validity to your claim.

Right now I don't wish to have a debate about your artistic rendering of someone else's alleged account.


And as I've learned from you personally you could find 4 eyewitnesses to state this and it wouldn't prove the plane approached on the South side.

And you know the majority of your questions require baseless speculation into the minds of maniacs which I cannot journey so why they didn't do this or why they did that is something I cannot answer.

Have you evaluated and interviewed this eyewitness? He claims he was on his way to work with his girlfriend when he drove past the Pentagon on 9-11 and he claims the plane passed over his car. He should support your official south of the Citgo flight path real well even though he is obviously a liar and likely a Mossad agent. He even got to keep a piece of aircraft crime scene evidence which fell near his car. His name is Aziz ElHallan and he was interviewed already on TV on Faux News, so you have a head start. He even smirks real well, so he should fit right in. :rolleyes:

Dom,

I would say she is more than an "alleged" witness since she took a photo from her vantage point.

You don't have to look into the mind of a maniac to do the math and the physics of the maneuver.

Can you demonstrate the turns, elevation changes and flight path as you are claiming it happened?

Also, include the performance capability of the 757 to see if these wild cuts, dips and radical pull ups are even possible.

Russell

ANY witness who calims the south path will of course be called an op, murderer, liar or totally fooled.

What's the point?

At what point does your 757 level off just feet above the ground Russ? Where at?

Like we see in the video with an "engine smoking from severe damage".

I've never calculated that.

I guess we would have to look at the elevation of the base of pole 5 and figure out the height that the wing would have struck it to determine where the bottom of the engine was, then measure the distance from there to the generator.

Then we can place the bottom of the engine there based on the fence damage there.

That would be interesting if somebody wanted to work on it.

But the engine didn't damage the generator. I think that thread about it pretty much proves it.

Regardless, I would love to see where you believe this massive 757 leveled out at with a severely damaged engine. :D

To say the engine didn't damage the generator is 100% unfounded.

What do you think caused the engine shaped damage to the fence?

What do you think ripped the entire front of the generator off?

What do you think pulled the 20 ton generator forward?

What do you think pushed it towards the Pentagon?

What do you think caused the fire there?

What do you think penetrated the 24" thick wall there?

The thread you refer to "proves" nothing - do you need me to break it down there again for the 5th time?

Russell

When I read this account I noticed that it was told 2nd hand. Have you spoken with the witness to the plane directly? However the person who wrote the 2nd hand story after the fact would have had plenty of time to figure out which direction north was before posting this detailed account online. It seems as though you forgot to post a link to the article: http://www.intermind.net/~speleo/pentagon/

:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:


THIS IS THE WITNESS? IT'S NOT EVEN THE WITNESS!!!!!!!!!

WE'RE FUCKING DEBATING ABOUT THIS?????

FOR REAL????

THIS IS AS BAD AS WHEN RUSSELL QUOTED THE GUY THAT WAS BEING USED AS A MISSILE WITNESS AT ANOTHER SITE WHO ACTUALLY POSTED HIS ACCOUNT ONLINE SAYING HE SAW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

AND YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ME AS A RESEARCHER MR. PICKERING?

What's the point? He isn't even on any list of official Pentagon witnesses. He apparently doesn't even exist which makes it likely he is just a mole called in to build up the 9-11 psy-ops campaign. Aziz ElHallan is much like those other Pentagon 'witnesses' without any last names. They don't exist. Their testimony is worthless. Another mole was Jerome Hauer on CBS with Dan Rather on the morning of 9-11 at the WTC. Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment :lol: :lol:

I must've missed the other 4 times. Because I don't think you started mentioning '20Tons' and 'ripped the entire front of the generator off' until I did the work to actually recreate the supposed scene of AA77 striking the Pentagon as you believe.

The many threads here which you simple claim as proving nothing and avoid, are much more then the the threads you spend the most time on.

The entire sequence of the events at the Pentagon are completely within question.
Despite your constant denial and question of those who continue to investigate and expose it. Are there not enough questions already about the 911 Cover Up? Don't forget ASCE report and Integrated Consultants illusion.

If you believe the generator and fence scene are accurate for the OCT, then take my work and prove it. The bullshit picture I've seen of some blown up 757 silhouette layered on top of another photo does not equate to actual dimensions. Much less consideration for the obvious conflicts that a 757 performed the pentagon strike. Much more less actually ID'ing it has AA77.

Do you need me to link the posts you avoided (or locked)?

Got to put that fence into the pic too! Gotta account for the damage done to the fence.

How close was the belly of the plane to the ground when that happened do you think?

This is the witness? The Boss's girlfriend? She doesn't even have a first or last name. She didn't take the pictures. Steven Ross took the pictures. She didn't draw the lines on the picture. You drew the lines on the picture. She didn't watch for a flyover. She quickly ran down the stairs. :D

Assuming she actually exists and is not just another psy-ops mole, she didn't see Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. It was supposed to be down at ground level modeling for the security videos, out of sight from her alleged vantage point. She was allegedly looking over the roof of the 5 story Navy Annex which stands on a hill which is 104 feet above the ground level of the Pentagon. She couldn't even see the roof of the Pentagon, if she really exists. :D

As you can see from this Topographic Map Arlington County, from the contour lines on the hill in Arlington Cemetary, there are 15 lines between the 50 foot contour and the 200 foot contour. Each contour line is 10 feet (NAD27). There are 8 contour lines (80') between the Navy Annex and the 50 foot contour and 2 contour lines between the Pentagon and the 50 foot contour line (20'). So the ground level elevation at the Navy Annex is 130 feet and the ground level elevation at the Pentagon is 30 feet. Since there is a number 26 next to the helipad, the Pentagon elevation is actually 26 feet above sea level. Thus the hill above the Pentagon is actually 104 feet tall above the Pentagon Helipad plus the trees and poles and buildings, with the 5-story Navy Annex standing on top of that hill.

Viewpoint looking East-Northeast across the roof of the 5-story Navy Annex towards the burning Pentagon
Alleged witness claims "The plane then went behind the trees and the office building to the north of us, then a huge fire ball emerged behind them."
To the north would be north of the Citgo Station. :D


Pentagon is way down in a hollow below the 5-story Navy Annex