[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #374

Q24, on 05 September 2009 - 11:04 PM, said:

I don’t know what to do with you, Scott.

How about responding to the many points I've made :-p?

Q24, on 05 September 2009 - 11:04 PM, said:

Let’s cut down to one point at a time.

Alright.

Q24, on 05 September 2009 - 11:04 PM, said:

Madelyn Zakhem.

In one breath CIT are discrediting her by claiming trees are blocking her view, she is being uncooperative and that she could be Mossad… then in the next they try to claim that she indicated the plane flew in a direction toward the North of Citgo in support of their argument.

I don’t see [how] you can argue this both ways – either she is a North of Citgo witness and therefore you must say she is correct (because that’s where the plane flew according to you), otherwise she is a South of Citgo witness and lying (again, according to you).

Alright, the facts as I understand them here are as Aldo explained. Most importantly, in my view, as delineated by Aldo in his post #23 of the "No Witnesses" thread:

Aldo Marquis CIT said:

there are some serious problems with Madlene's account...

1. We have corroborated eyewitnesses statements that place the plane flying over Ed Paik's shop, over the Navy Annex, and north of the Citgo. The plane would essentially have been across the street from her and nowhere near over her.

So it would seem that she would have to be lying simply because from her point of view she shouldn't have been able to see the plane at all.

However, I know that you don't trust those North of Citgo witnesses, so we'll overlook this for now. Continuing to Aldo's second point in his post #23:

Aldo Marquis CIT said:

2. As you can see from the blue Official SoC flight path line in the graphic above, the plane didn't even fly over the Smart Traffic Center OR Madlene according to the official data from the FDR and the official story. So her story doesn't even match with the gov't's and the physical damage path.

The reality is that the offical flight path has the entire plane significantly south of the VDOT building and would therefore not be directly over her even if the official flight path was accurate.

So there you have it. According to where the North of the Citgo gas station witnesses place the plane, she wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all. According to the official story damage, the plane shouldn't have flown over her as well. So what do you choose? I doubt you'll go for the north of citgo flight path at this point, and I also doubt that you're willing to admit that the official story damage was staged, so I think it's clear that you'll be tossing Madelyn as a credible witness.

But there's more.

Flipping back to Aldo's post#22, we discover the following:

Aldo Marquis CIT said:

As we stood there, I knew the north of the Citgo flight path as cited by Lagasse was still a possibility so I asked her when it came up Columbia Pike was it 1). closer to the Sheraton, 2) closer to the white house next to the brick building, or 3)closer to (coming from) 395 in an attempt to determine the direction:


When I did that she indicated a path more in line with the plane coming from the direction of 395 and heading toward north of the Citgo:

Now here's the punchline that solves the question you asked:

Aldo Marquis CIT said:

So it seems that when pressed, Madlene knew the plane headed in that general direction and subtly abandoned her already vague and ambiguous SoC claim.

This became a point of contention when Russell Pickering started his very subversive attempt at establishing a SoC path. He boiled it down to memory and he said/she said. Yet, I remember standing there and pointing off in these 3 different directions to determine which direction Madlene claims the plane flew in. She agreed with the one that seemed to take it NoC. In retrospect, it seems as if she tried to blend her story with what actually happened...the plane flying over the Annex and toward NoC.

Q24, on 05 September 2009 - 11:04 PM, said:

So the question, and this is all you need to answer in this post, in your opinion is she either: -

• A North of Citgo witness and telling the truth
  
• A South of Citgo witness and lying

To clarify, at the moment it appears you are claiming she is a North of Citgo witness and lying… which does not make sense to your theory.

She is a witness that different people have interpreted in different ways. Russell Pickering seems to have interpreted what she said as supporting a south of the citgo gas station approach. However, I have certainly never seen Russell Pickering do as detailed an analysis as CIT. CIT, ofcourse, claims that her relatively ambiguous direction would appear to favour a north side approach. What CIT thinks she is lying about is that the plane flew overhead; -here-, however, I am wondering if, perhaps, she may have simply been a bit off; after all, as Aldo points out in his post #23:

Aldo Marquis CIT said:

3. She claims she saw the cockpit and a wing. But in reality she very clearly admitted that:

" I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared."

This would be an indicator that she wouldn't have and couldn't have seen what she claims she saw in the official story's split second flyover of the VDOT/STC @ 535 MPH.

Personally, I wonder if this might be the truth of the matter; that people have 'helped' her remember various things, but in truth, she saw very little at all. I admittedly have always been rather uncomfortable with the notion that she was a Mossad agent; the only highly suspected Mossad agents I know of worked for a moving company, the name of which I forget; some of them "documented" the collapse of the twin towers, seeming to be quite happy with the results. They were briefly held, but then deported back to Israel.

I heard of some others, again working for this moving company (whose owner fled back to Israel as well), who were apparently going to blow up a bridge.. perhaps the Brooklyn Bridge. They were detained and the explosives in their van found before they could do it, but I don't remember much of a story coming out of this; in fact, I think I just heard of it recently in a forum (probably the loose change forum).

This post has been edited by Scott G: 06 September 2009 - 05:46 AM

[Q24]

We were just talking about the Israeli’s detained in New York on 9/11 over here.

Scott G, on 06 September 2009 - 06:45 AM, said:

She is a witness that different people have interpreted in different ways. Russell Pickering seems to have interpreted what she said as supporting a south of the citgo gas station approach. However, I have certainly never seen Russell Pickering do as detailed an analysis as CIT. CIT, ofcourse, claims that her relatively ambiguous direction would appear to favour a north side approach.

Ok, they are the views of Pickering and Marquis. I would like to establish between us what Zakhem’s account of the flight path actually is. Here are the vital descriptions she gives: -

• Over the VDOT STC building.
  
• “No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.”

The only way to depict that flight path as I see it (green dot Zakhem’s location): -



Can we agree between us that this is what Zakhem describes?

A South of Citgo flight path.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #348, Part 6 (really the last part this time ;-))

Q24, on 03 September 2009 - 08:22 PM, said:

The North of Citgo witnesses all show variation in the exact flight path they describe. Brooks and Lagasse contradict every witness who describes the aircraft coming over the Navy Annex. Turcios and Lagasse, two witnesses located at the Citgo, contradict one another as well - Turcios draws the flight path passing over the corner of the Citgo station but if this were true then Lagasse wouldn’t have even seen it as the Citgo canopy would be in the way. One of them is obviously lying! Further, Lagasse cannot even place the downed light poles correctly which can only be consistent with a glitch in his memory or else fabrication in his account. In fact both Lagasse and Brooks are government employees - the same government from which 9/11 was perpetrated - highly suspicious! And the men Lagasse is seen talking to in the van on security footage shortly before the alleged Flight 77 arrived, one must wonder what their role was in the operation. The North of Citgo eyewitnesses are clearly unreliable. If you think that I’m being silly then please consider that this is a reverse of precisely how you treat the greater number of eyewitnesses to the official South of Citgo flight path.

Avenger over at Loose Change was kind enough to respond to these, as I had been at a loss. Here's his response:

Avenger said:

Some people choose to focus on the differences as if it's reasonable to expect them all to draw the same flight path.

Q24 said:

Brooks and Lagasse contradict every witness who describes the aircraft coming over the Navy Annex.

Nope.

Q24 said:

Turcios and Lagasse, two witnesses located at the Citgo, contradict one another as well - Turcios draws the flight path passing over the corner of the Citgo station but if this were true then Lagasse wouldn’t have even seen it as the Citgo canopy would be in the way. One of them is obviously lying!

Or maybe one of them is just mistaken. Sometimes witnesses will be mistaken. Lagasse himself said it's possible he could be mistaken about certain details, but not about whether the plane flew north or south of the CITGO.

Q24 said:

Further, Lagasse cannot even place the downed light poles correctly which can only be consistent with a glitch in his memory or else fabrication in his account.

Why would he place them lined up south of the CITGO if he saw the plane north of the CITGO? He didn't see any light poles get hit. He was mistaken, but not about whether the plane flew north or south of the CITGO.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #377

Q24, on 06 September 2009 - 07:11 AM, said:

We were just talking about the Israeli’s detained in New York on 9/11 over here.

Yeah, that's what I'd been reading, laugh :-).

Q24, on 06 September 2009 - 07:11 AM, said:

Scott G, on 06 September 2009 - 06:45 AM, said:

She is a witness that different people have interpreted in different ways. Russell Pickering seems to have interpreted what she said as supporting a south of the citgo gas station approach. However, I have certainly never seen Russell Pickering do as detailed an analysis as CIT. CIT, ofcourse, claims that her relatively ambiguous direction would appear to favour a north side approach.

Ok, they are the views of Pickering and Marquis. I would like to establish between us what Zakhem’s account of the flight path actually is.

I admit that Madelyn's account gives me a headache. I -don't- think she saw the Citgo gas station, but I think she -may- have been able to see the direction in which the plane went. CIT clearly believes that while her somewhat ambiguous direction of the plane favoured the north side. At the same time, they certainly have stated that she has said statements that would favour a south side approach.

Q24, on 06 September 2009 - 07:11 AM, said:

Here are the vital descriptions she gives: -

• Over the VDOT STC building.
  
• “No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.”

The only way to depict that flight path as I see it (green dot Zakhem’s location): -



Can we agree between us that this is what Zakhem describes?

A South of Citgo flight path.

No, we don't agree. Clearly, CIT believes that her testimony is contradictory; I'll go with that. The only thing that I'm still not sure about is what she was able to see; could she have seen whether or not it did, in fact, not go over the Navy Annex and instead went straight to the pentagon? It's details like this that I'm not sure of. Nevertheless, she was much further away from the pentagon than those at the Citgo gas station, or a few more that were even closer, and all of -those- witnesses clearly favour the north side approach.

This post has been edited by Scott G: 06 September 2009 - 12:58 PM

[Q24]

Scott G, on 06 September 2009 - 01:52 PM, said:

Q24, on 06 September 2009 - 12:11 PM, said:

Ok, they are the views of Pickering and Marquis. I would like to establish between us what Zakhem’s account of the flight path actually is. Here are the vital descriptions she gives: -

• Over the VDOT STC building.
  
• “No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.”

The only way to depict that flight path as I see it (green dot Zakhem’s location): -



Can we agree between us that this is what Zakhem describes?

A South of Citgo flight path.

No, we don't agree.

In that case you are not mentally fit to be having this discussion and there is no value in continuing. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but it is true.

[Scott G]

Q24, on 06 September 2009 - 09:21 AM, said:

In that case you are not mentally fit to be having this discussion and there is no value in continuing. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but it is true.

You're free to believe whatever you wish Q. Anyway, I brought up our discussion concerning Madelyn over at the loose change forum, particularly regarding Pickering's claims of what Madelyn saw, and I got the following post from avenger:

Avenger said:

I see on page 25 of your thread that Russell Pickering claimed he received an e-mail from her stating the plane never flew over the Annex and flew straight to the Pentagon. I don't know. Russell Pickering also claimed that he received an e-mail from Lloyd, claiming that his car was actually hit by some little metal stick, instead of a light pole.

Regardless, I don't see how she could have known whether it flew straight or not. For one, she said she fell to the ground, crying. Number two, there were trees blocking her view.

To which I responded:

scott75 said:

That bit about Pickering and Lloyd claiming that he'd been hit by a little metal stick is a laugh ;-). It definitely makes one suspicious of Pickering's claims anyway :-p.

I agree about the crying bit, but perhaps she did that after she'd seen the plane? It was only in her field of view for a second or so anyway, right? As to the trees, I've definitely gone over that one with Q24; but in the brief time that she saw the plane, I suppose she could vaguely determine direction, which is all she's ever seemed to have done, Pickering's suspicious claims notwithstanding.

As I mentioned to Q24, Madelyn doesn't seem to have seen much and her point of view was clearly much further and much more obstructed than that of people at the citgo gas station itself, or beyond it. If all we have is Pickering's word, I think we may actually have better evidence that she was more of a north side witness than a south side, always taking into account that even Pickering didn't claim that she actually saw the citgo gas station.