Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses


Q24

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

*snip*

Where is the ****ing vid?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

if you believe that the so-called "Citizens Investigation Team" have any credibility then you really have to re-examine your own standards of evidence.

That is not a comment which adds anything helpful to this discussion.

Although I utterly deplore the way Lloyde England was treated by CIT, and also their shameful descent into forum fisticuffs, I can see that they did some of the most significant work on 9/11 by seeking out and personally interviewing Pentagon eyewitnesses, both those previously unquoted, and many whose earlier reports had been published. Their work cleared up many misconceptions caused by the vacuous, non-specific and even fraudulent reporting done by other sources at times.

Craig's best discussions incisively demonstrate the crucial differences between first-person testimony from identifiable witnesses at verifiable locations, versus second- or third-person accounts embroidered by sensationalist journalists, and even hearsay. Only one of those options constitutes valid prima facie evidence.

Tragically, the "official" record consists largely of the lesser options, with vague references that can be twisted to suit the inclination of the reader. These accounts would be thrown out in a court of law, whereas many of the interviews done by CIT are precise and accurate, verifiable legally valid eyewitness testimony.

Nobody has ever used the same methods of personally interviewing eyewitnesses, to corroborate the official South-of-Citgo flight path. It simply cannot be done.

The photo series done of Lloyde England's cab beside a huge downed light pole on the bridge, was contrived as the "proof" for the plane's trajectory into the Pentagon. This trajectory has now been set in stone by the 9/11 memorial on the lawn, with its diagonal rows of benches reinforcing that flight path to onlookers from earth and sky.

However, Lloyde England's eyewitness evidence proves this flight path a lie.

Lloyde was 400 yards north of the bridge at 9:37 a.m. when the plane suddenly appeared from behind the tree-topped bank directly in front of him, and a pole - which he never saw coming, he did not know where it came from - speared his windshield.

Many other eyewitnesses also testify that the plane flew across Route 27 at about the level of the Columbia Pike exit beside the cemetery, perpendicular to the wall of the Pentagon.

These include Steve Riskus (who unambiguously marked this flight path on overhead photos in an email interview with an Italian website), Lloyde England, Father Stephen McGraw, Vin Narayanan, Mary Ann Owens (whose photograph confirms her location opposite the helipad when the plane flew across her), and many CIT interviewees.

Conversely, eyewitnesses who are confirmed by video evidence or their own testimony as having been on the bridge, repudiate the theory of the plane having flown diagonally across it. These include "Camera Guy" who took a significant video beginning within a couple of minutes of impact, from the top of the bridge; APTN journalist Eugenio Hernandez, who commandeered the video camera from him; USA TODAY editor Joel Sucherman, Yvette Buzard, Penny Elgas, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss to explain how you - and the "CIT" - maintain this pretense. How do you explain:

  • That 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
  • 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
  • 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
  • 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
  • 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
  • 7 said it was a Boeing 757.
  • 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
  • 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
  • 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
  • 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
  • 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
  • 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
  • 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
  • 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
  • 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
  • 3 took photographs of the aftermath.
  • Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
  • 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
  • 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

It would be worth you time to have a good read of this page:

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

 

Edited by Obviousman
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RubyGray, can you please screenshot an image in Google Maps or something and post locations of the cab with time stamps to help to show what you’re proposing? 

And also a link to the ‘military photographer definitive photo series’, and to reference which specific photos you feel support what you’re saying?

Cheers. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I`m not a CT head but the official explanations of the Pentagon event never satisfied me because the only CCTV record available/published is a record, and a very bad one, from a car park CCTV unit. I mean, its the Pentagon and not a Burger Shop in North Alaska, so there must be dozens of CCTV cam records of the impact of whatever, but, there is only one lousy slide show.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, toast said:

I`m not a CT head but the official explanations of the Pentagon event never satisfied me because the only CCTV record available/published is a record, and a very bad one, from a car park CCTV unit. I mean, its the Pentagon and not a Burger Shop in North Alaska, so there must be dozens of CCTV cam records of the impact of whatever, but, there is only one lousy slide show.

They’re not necessarily going to release what they have.

Think of it akin to moon landing CT’s.

It would be basically impossible to pull off due to the scale of the event. 

There’s too much data, too many involved, too much logic to suggest the contrary, that’s it’s any more than what it was. 

It’s The Pentagon. Maybe they had other higher quality video classified to protect employees involved, physical building deficiencies etc. Any other valid reasons...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Timothy said:

@RubyGray, can you please screenshot an image in Google Maps or something and post locations of the cab with time stamps to help to show what you’re proposing? 

And also a link to the ‘military photographer definitive photo series’, and to reference which specific photos you feel support what you’re saying?

Cheers. 

Sure, I will be on it tomorrow.

 

11 hours ago, Obviousman said:

I'm at a loss to explain how you - and the "CIT" - maintain this pretense. How do you explain:

  • That 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
  • 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
  • 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
  • 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
  • 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
  • 7 said it was a Boeing 757.
  • 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
  • 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
  • 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
  • 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
  • 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
  • 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
  • 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
  • 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
  • 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
  • 3 took photographs of the aftermath.
  • Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
  • 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
  • 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

It would be worth you time to have a good read of this page:

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

 

Thanks for the list. It gives me something to work with in responding to you.

These are all topics which I have studied at length, for which there are sensible answers,

For instance, I have never disputed that a large commercial airliner flew towards the Pentagon on 9/11. As to whether it was a 757, or more specifically N644AA, I am unqualified to comment, but I respect the opinions of people who were there. However reports do vary considerably from witness to witness, for whatever reasons. I have never suggested a missile hit the Pentagon. But, there was a military helicopter flying in that area, according to multiple witnesses who were quite definite about that. Presumably many never mentioned this because it was like wallpaper, seeing a military helicopter flying near the Pentagon Helipad.

I will cover this list more thoroughly tomorrow. But for now, here are some quick comments.

The 2 witnesses on the Helipad, firefighters Alan Wallace and Mark Skipper, stated that they only saw the plane for a split second before running for their lives. Wallace got the colours and distance wrong. He also stated somewhere, that he saw the plane come from the Navy Annex area. He drew a diagram of the plane's approach some time later, which shows it almost on the official flight path. But he stated that this was after he had been shown others' sketches of the flight path. He stresses that neither he nor Skipper saw the impact. So his flight path drawing was not representative of what he saw. It was an assumption made after the fact.

ATC Sean Boger very specifically stated, in his phone interview with Aldo Marquis, that he witnessed the plane coming towards him from over the north end of the Navy Annex, and that it passed north of the Citgo gas station. He then was adamant that the plane hit the wall "BETWEEN THE 2nd and 3rd FLOORS". This was stressed, even though he had seen the Gatecam footages which purport to show a plane travelling barely above the lawn, into the first floor of the Pentagon.

Boger was not the only one to insist that the plane hit much higher than the impact hole on the first floor. Captain Lincoln Liebner stated the same thing. Yes, I accept that he was less than 100 yards from the impact hole, because he had the presence of mind to pace this distance out, after the event. However, Liebner also made other eyewitness statements which are at odds with the official story. He stated, on Australian TV news, that the plane hit a helicopter over the Helipad. I accept this statement as his best description of something he witnessed, even if he did not get the details exactly correct. He did see something involving a helicopter. What did he see? Was what he tried to explain, also seen by other witnesses, who also made apparently anomalous reports? I believe so. 

Liebner also indicated on an overhead map, on video, the flight path which he saw. This is perfectly perpendicular to the Pentagon, and it reaches the wall at the region between the Helipad and heliport, which of course is about 100 yards north of the impact hole. Liebner knew where the impact hole was, yet he still insisted on this flight path which contradicts the official flight path.

As for the 3 who had vehicles damaged by debris. Lloyde England is first on the list of course.

Then there is Steve Riskus, who was very close being Lloyde England, north of the heliport. His first photo was a seemingly accidental shot showing his arm against the side of his red sedan. But there is a white mark on it, which I believe was made by flying debris.

Third is the young lady in the green sedan, photographed by Courtney Platt, whose passenger side door and window were hit by a piece of actuator motor. She was considerably north of England and Riskus.

All these people were far north of the bridge on Route 27.

Other people mentioned seeing vehicles which had been hit by debris. Aziz ElHallou famously claimed that "evetybody" had their windshields broken by the noise of the plane. There is no evidence of this unlikely event. It is more likely that he saw Lloyde England's smashed windscreen, and exaggerated.

Another witness in a TV news interview talks about an unidentified driver telling him that his windshield had been hit, and says, "And that was on 395". Again, there is no evidence for this. It is more probable that he had been speaking with Lloyde England, and was describing what he had heard, transposing the highway designation, as so many Washingtonians routinely so.

Lastly, as far as I know, Tony Terronez gave a detailed account of the windshield of the car next to him having been hit by "something". He checked with other people on the highway before approaching this driver, who he stated was obviously in shock. Terronez stated that the windshield (which he claimed was the rear one; I suggest this was an error) had a four-inch hole low down where something had gone through it, and that the rest of it looked as though it had been hit by a baseball bat. This is as accurate a description of Lloyde England's actual windshield as could be given. I suggest that Terronez was describing both Lloyde and his cab. Of course, Terronez stated that he was located about 100 yards north of the heliport when the impact occurred- which perfectly tallies with Lloyde's own testimony of where he was when the pole hit his windscreen.

As for others who claimed to be "within 100 - 200 feet of impact," one of these would be Noel Sepulveda. This man's testimony is on the lunatic fringe. He has given many statements which are mutually exclusive, and quite frankly false. He claimed to be 150 feet from the impact. However, he also stated that he was in South Parking, which is much more than this distance away. The construction trailers and trees at that corner of the building obstructed vision from the parking lot, as can be seen on several videos taken that morning. Further, Sepulveda stated in interview that he was returning to his motorbike at the covered area off the south wall. There is absolutely zero view of the west face from there.

But he had claimed that the force of the explosion threw him 100 feet through the air, that he hit a light pole, and suffered internal injuries. He claimed to be a medic, and that he spent the next 7 days, or 14 days in another interview, "despite his injuries", manning triage stations (which were superfluous after the first couple of hours) and pulling out dead bodies. Sepulveda is the source of the infamous quote about finding dead plane passengers "still strapped in their airline seats". He claimed to have personally discovered a welter of identifiable dead passengers. This includes 2 dead beneath an "engine outside on the lawn at the entrance hole" after he (with his internal injuries) rolled this engine over. Aren't they 7 tons each? Photos show there was no engine on the ground in front of the entrance hole. But Sepulveda also found the pilot and co-pilot still in uniform, "wedged behind the cockpit seat", with 2 other occupants in the cockpit seats, who "you could tell" were the hijackers.

His next gargantuan lie was that Rumsfeld "rolled up his sleeves and got his hands dirty" when he "helped Sepulveda pulling victims out until 3 or 4 in the afternoon". This of course, is utter nonsense! There are several videos of Rumsfeld playing first responders on the lawn, ferrying a few unfortunate victims from the heliport over to ambulances opposite, but this lasted from 3 minutes post impact until about half an hour later, when a famous photo shows him, grin on face, returning into the north side of the Pentagon, where many witnesses testified that he at last began doing the job of the Secretary of Defense.

In other accounts, Sepulveda denied having been blown through the air or hitting a light pole. Let us not forget that of all the hundreds of witnesses, he is the only one who claims that the plane's landing gear was down, and  stated that it was the wheels which hit the lightpoles.

This man Sepulveda is clearly not of sound mind. Yet, he was awarded a medal for his heroic activities, angering other military people who actually did assist in the rescue effort.

The sometimes laughable, often refutable witness testimony continues like this. This is why it is so important to locate and interview witnesses with very specific questions, and to ascertain their locations - which is exactly what CIT, for all their other flaws, did. The testimonies they obtained, recorded on audio and video, constitute historical and legally acceptable documents of great importance. Whatever we think of CIT, this body of work has no parallel in the bank of Pentagon witness testimony.

In fact, I have had a good read of that Foreign Policy Journal page, to the effect that I have posted several replies on it, should you care to scroll down towards the end.

Edited by RubyGray
Somehow amalgamated 2 different replies, sorry!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This CIT-produced video runs through the Jason Ingersoll photo collection set to music.

It is supposed to be complete, but there are a few photos missing. Very interesting neverthless. CIT did some excellent work, and this is some of it. They have made this valuable historic resource accessible by the public.

Craig wrote,

" We were lucky enough to obtain the entire high resolution Ingersoll collection on our first trip to Arlington from Christopher (Kit) Landis at the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) who was the Operations Manager for Safety Service Patrol. He was in charge of road closures for road safety issues and potentially maintenance most notably of the light poles. "

Christopher Landis tragically suicided shortly after this. I am not the only one who suspects that the reason for that was interwoven with what CIT was finding in their interviews with eye witnesses, what was depicted on the Ingersoll collection, and what Landis personally witnessed and knew, by virtue of his profession.

 

Edited by RubyGray
alteration
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This CIT webpage posts all the Jason Ingersoll photos relevant to the Lloyde England story.

The page has been up for 10 years at least, so some of the info is out of date.

For instance, Craig asks anyone who knows the identity of the 3 "feds" guarding the Bridge scene, to contact him so they can interview these guys.

I have emailed them with the identities of the guy in the blue shirt, and the black guy, but there is no response, unfortunately.

It was pretty simple to identify both these guys, and their identities do indeed raise some ultimately incriminating issues for the Pentagon and law enforcement.

Craig  discusses the first appearance of the large Lightpole #1 on DSC_0415 at 9:52 a.m. in the photo series, and believes that there was some shenanigans about this time in staging the scene with Lloyde's cab. There is a deep excoriation in the blacktop ending at the sharp corner of the lightpole base in DSC_0420, suggesting that this pole had been dragged from the east side of the road where it had been laying temporarily, into its position beside the cab, and near its original footprint on the west side of the road.

But that is not how it all happened. All the cab relocation and stage setting had been completed by 9:45 a.m., 8 minutes post impact.

Lloyde was not present during this activity. He never knew what was happening. He had been banished from his taxi by the guy in the blue shirt, who first showed up at the cemetery site beside Lloyde's cab, then appeared again on the bridge (in the same silver sedan which was parked in the same relative position beside Lloyde's cab, across the concrete barrier, for the rest of the day). Lloyde was wandering south along Route 27 while the cab was being relocated, where he appears in several early Ingersoll photos, plus a video taken from back on the bridge, at about the level of the northbound offramp to the northeast cloverleaf.

Below is a detail from Jason Ingersoll's DSC_0408, taken at 9:47 a.m., 10 minutes post impact.

LOCATE LLOYDE 8

Lloyde was collected from this spot, where he had been detained for a few minutes by another black guy (also seen in photo above), possibly the one who "found a dollar bill and tore it in half" so they could both sign them and keep half each as a memento of the day. That guy's name is known but he has never been found, prompting people to claim that this is just a lie by Lloyde. But it is most probable that this guy was an operative with a made-up alias, assigned to divert Lloyde's attention until the bridge scene was set up, after which AUBREY DAVIS (black guy on bridge) collected Lloyde in the brown Jeep, and transported him to the bridge near his cab again, for a few minutes while the photos were taken. The Ingersoll photos showing Lloyde England and this guy intently head to head over something in the middle of the highway while the bridge scene set-up was going on, are strongly supportive of Lloyde's "dollar bill story", and of his innocence of the scam that was being pulled.

 

The next photo shows Lloyde's location at 9:37 a.m., when his cab was hit by a pole. He is here describing how from his car, he looked southward and to his left, to see the hole in the Pentagon. That frame is from about 09:30 on CIT's video "The First Known Accomplice?" on Craig Ranke's LYTETRIP channel, where Lloyde was telling his story of how it happened. His body language here is proof of his location north of the impact site when the pole hit.

He is next seen in his location on the bridge where he was photographed 18 minutes post impact at 9:55 a.m., the first image of him near his cab there. By this time, he had to look NORTH, and to his right, to see the fire at the Pentagon.

LLOYDE's 2 VIEWPOINTS

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first view we have of Lloyde England's cab on top of the bridge. This is a detail from Jason Ingersoll's DSC_0412, taken at 9:48 a.m., 11 minutes post impact.

LOCATE LLOYDE 5

Again, we can see Lloyde in the distance, far from his cab, next to other people.

There is a white Ford Econovan parked on the shoulder south of Lloyde's cab, where it has been for several minutes.(There are two identical white vans driving south across the bridge towards the stationary white van; all 3 leave the bridge together.) This white van's stationary presence on the bridge corroborates another element of Lloyde's story, in which he claimed that shortly after the pole hit his windscreen, he flagged down the driver of a passing white van, and that a silent stranger got out, helped him pull the pole from the windshield without saying a word, then got back in his van leaving Lloyde lying on his back where he fell beneath the pole, and drove on down the road.

That is exactly what is revealed on several independent videos taken prior to this time, where the same white van is seen driving south on Route 27 from north of the Columbia Pike exit sign; passing Lloyde's cab beside the cemetery wall; parked about 20 yards in front of Lloyde's cab for a minute or two; then departing from the cemetery site, and driving south down Route 27 towards the bridge, before it was captured in Ingersoll's DSC_0408. 0410, 0411 and 0412, taken from 9:47 a.m. through 9:48 a.m.

Have patience. Evidence from all these videos will be shown in time. This brief interlude in the day took considerable forethought, many operatives and a lot of rehearsal to pull it off smoothly. Fortunately, it was all captured from numerous video angles and by multiple military photographers. Piecing these few minutes together in sequence has taken many hundreds of hours, and cannot be "succinctly" revealed on one page.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same white van? Verified by registration number? 

They are very nondescript images. What am I missing? 

I’ll check the links in due time. But what you’ve posted thus far here is lacking. If they’re the best images you can gather and post...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nondescript images"! In what sense? These are (but a very few of) the Jason Ingersoll images, which were taken in high resolution with a telephoto lens from far away as he made his way down to the Pentagon from the Navy Annex. The originals, taken as a chronological series, constitute the framework into which all the other video and photo images fit and corroborate each other to form the narrative of how the Bridge - cab - pole scene was pulled off.

Alas, the many images still to come are not as well defined, mostly being taken from amateur videos poorly filmed, and from far distant CCTV or TV news footage. But they were all taken from different vantage points, and all covered the same first few minutes after impact. The FOX5NEWS footage is time-stamped to the second, and enough identifiable events occur to enable the other videos to also be timed to within a few seconds.

There are numerous individuals readily identified on these videos, that make them valuable historical records. For instance, there has always been a lot of controversy about certain witnesses' claims as to their location and what they witnessed, or whether they were even there.

Such as APTN reporter Eugenio Hernandez, whose very brief testimony states that he was on 395. But he was not. Like most Washingtonians, he played free and loose with naming the highways round the Pentagon. He is the man who is heard talking with "Camera Guy" the terrible amateur who, bless him, was waving his video camera round all over the place from his location about 6 car lengths south of the overhead sign on the bridge. Hernandez eventually took control of the camera and ran off down to the Pentagon with it, and a segment of his footage was circulated worldwide that afternoon.That night, the FBI visited his home and confiscated the video. So for some years, this was lost to public view, but was eventually released under the FOIA.

Had the FBI been on the ball enough to realise the incriminating evidence revealed on this and other confiscated videos, they would never have released them. It is the poor quality of the videos which disguises the treasures they contain.

Superficially, it seems that Hernandez' segment is the more valuable part of the video shot from the bridge, as it was taken close to the Pentagon fire. But closer inspection reveals a treasure trove of inadvertent jewels amongst Camera Guy's fumbling attempts.

There is extended footage of USA TODAY editor Joel Sucherman, another victim of CIT's hatchet jobs. Again, he used the wrong designation of the highway he was on. But this video proves that he was right there, just south of the overhead sign on the bridge, verifying his very lengthy and numerous testimonies. However it does also explain some anomalies in his account. He stated that no trees blocked his view of the Pentagon. It is true that he had a good view - but only of the south-west wall. There was a group of trees beside the bridge which definitely did obscure his view of the impact site. So his claim to have "witnessed the impact" must be tempered by this fact. Yes, he did see the plane "passing from left to right across his windshield" as he stated. Yes, he did see the subsequent fireball. But he could not have seen the actual impact, and nor could he have seen whether the plane flew over the Pentagon roof. He, like most of us, was also a terrible judge of distance, imagining he was much closer to the action than he was, as reference to a map shows.

But the fact that he did see the plane flying STRAIGHT ACROSS in front of him, categorically contradicts the Official Flightpath, which must necessarily be at a steep angle to Route 27 across the bridge. The plane should have come from BEHIND his left shoulder, flying away from to his right, if it was flying on the official flightpath. It could not have "crossed from left to right".

The Official Flightpath most definitely was NOT WAS SEEN BY ANY OF THESE WITNESSES ON TOP OF THE BRIDGE.

Camera Guy asked, obviously doubtful as to whether he, his wife and son had even seen a plane at all - "Was it a plane?" Hernandez simply states, "Yep, I saw it coming down". Camera guy responds tellingly, "I THOUGHT we seen it from back here!" But if a 757 had roared across the bridge, its right wing passing within tens of feet from them as it smashed through lightpoles, they both would have been telling dramatic stories. Sucherman denied witnessing the lightpoles being hit. Camera Guy was heard to comment, "There's two layin' down over here", but he did not suggest that a plane had sent two lightpoles flying, and nor did he think whatever was layin' down was worth filming.

Another witness who features prominently on this video, is a young lady who gets out of her car and walks about, speaking with other drivers. She is also seen on the Ingersoll collection. I have been unable to locate her for verification, but it is possible that she is Yvette Buzard, whose first-person testimony features only in the book "Then Came the Fire". She wrote that she was driving up the ramp, when suddenly she saw a fireball go into the sky from behind a row of trees which blocked the view of the Pentagon. She had no idea what had caused this, although she suspected that a helicopter had crashed. So she also definitely did NOT SEE A PLANE flying diagonally across the top of the bridge, but possibly did see a helicopter.

These people were all right there, northbound on Route 27, nearing the top of the bridge, approaching the overhead sign, but NONE of them saw a massive jet flying diagonally across the bridge. Their various testimonies are all verified by this artless video, even though they could not correctly identify which road they were on. The video proves they were all on Route 27, which is reason enough to re-evaluate all other testimonies in light of the locals' habitual mistaken identification. Many other motorists also did this, and frequently we find that although they mentioned being on 27, 395 or 110, they were actually somewhere else, which changes the interpretation of their testimonies altogether.

That is why CIT's technique of having witnesses on camera mark their locations on signed overhead maps, was so crucial. Those are legal documents. This is what ought to have been done with all witnesses. But it was not. Those interviewed by the Center for Military History and other official bodies, were pointedly not asked specific questions as to their own locations nor the exact path of the plane relative to them. Those interviews seem designed to obfuscate rather than clarify. But CIT boldly asked the hard questions, and got the rock solid answers.

No other interviewers or researchers ever did this! There are absolutely no interviews with any witnesses specifically identifying the across-the-bridge, south-of-Citgo flightpath.

Unfortunately, when CIT werecutting their investigative journalist teeth on Lloyde England and Father Stephen McGraw, their first 2 interviews, they did not use this technique of having witnesses draw their location on a map. They merely ASSUMED that because Lloyde's cab appeared on top of the bridge in Jason Ingersoll's photos from 11 minutes post impact, and because Lloyde appeared near the cab there another 7 minutes later, that Lloyde must have been there at impact. They only ASSUMED that the large light pole lying on the road on the driver's side of his cab, was the one which Lloyde stated had hit his cab. They therefore accused Lloyde of being a lying operative in the Pentagon plot, and proceeded to slander and libel this hapless victim of 9/11 in a prolonged campaign that has never been rescinded.

CIT next ASSUMED that, because Stephen McGraw stated that his car was only a few feet away from the taxi cab which was hit by a pole, that he must also have been on top of the bridge. And because McGraw stated that he got out of his car, walked across the lanes onto the Pentagon lawn within a minute or two, and waited there for the first victims to be brought out, that he also must have been lying, because the photos taken by Navy Times journalist Mark Faram of McGraw stepping over the guardrail, were taken about 20 minutes post impact. CIT therefore ASSUMED McGraw was a complicit operative who had been "bussed in" for effect.

But another amateur video, filmed from the lawn north of the heliport, reveals that here also, CIT got it badly wrong. Although this videographer is even less talented than Camera Guy, the video hides a wealth of information. Studying it frame by frame reveals important details never seen when watched at normal speed, as the camera was wildly waved about. At what can be confirmed as about 3 minutes 25 seconds post impact, there is a single frame showing Father Stephen McGraw exactly as he frequently testified, standing at the side of the lawn, watching and waiting for the first victims to be brought to triage. McGraw did indeed cross the lanes and onto the lawn immediately after the impact. He never said anything about being on the bridge, nor that he had to walk 350 yards to get to the triage site, because he was not on the bridge. When he mentioned a cab hit by a pole a few feet away from him, he was confirming Lloyde's own account of his location - NORTH OF THE HELIPORT. And when he described the pole that had hit the cab, McGraw was not lying. He said in interview with Aldo Marquis, that he DID SEE IT, but that it was NOT A WHOLE LIGHT POLE, rather, a PIECE of a pole.

CIT ridiculed McGraw's honest testimony. They claimed that if he was on the bridge, then he should have seen most, if not all 5 poles toppling. But McGraw was far north of those 5 lightpoles. He knew nothing about them. The only pole he knew about was the much smaller one which hit Lloyde's cab, when he was 400 yards north of the bridge.

McGraw stated that he believed only a small piece had been knocked off the top of a lightpole, but that the rest of the pole was still standing. This is also what Lloyde said. But they were both mistaken, influenced by what they had been told about the lightpoles. There is no image showing such a severed pole still standing, though numerous witnesses made reference to one or more such poles.

In fact, the pole which speared Lloyde's cab was no thicker than 4 inches diameter, and only about 12 feet long. This cannot have been any part of a lightpole, which is 10" diameter at the base, tapering to 6" at the top. Lloyde identified this pole by placing his finger right on it, on a photo shown him by Craig Ranke in "THE EYE OF THE STORM". It was lying on the opposite side of the cab on the bridge, behind the cab, opposite Lightpole #1 which was officially claimed to have been the one which hit Lloyde's cab, but which he strenuously denied.

Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I have cobbled together some fluffy conspiracy theory out of thin air here. I have spent vast amounts of time studying details in videos and photos, which together constitute solid evidence for everything I say, and which demand further investigation. If you think anything I write is unconvincing, this is only because I have done the hard yards that nobody else has ever bothered with until now, although a few have occasionally glimpsed part of the truth through the many inexplicable anomalies. Scott G., who was posting in the first few pages of this thread, is one such person. Shame he bowed out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't I already say that I don't deny many people saw the plane approach the Pentagon?

I also pointed out how some people gave testimony which for whatever reason was flat-out untrue (e.g. Noel Sepulveda), mistaken (as in distance from the impact), or was ambiguous, as in witnesses who "saw" something which did not happen such as the plane flying into the 2nd & 3rd floors (Captain Lincoln Liebner, Mary Ann Owens, ATC Sean Boger), or the plane colliding with a helicopter etc. Also, I showed that many witnesses got their locations mistaken by interchanging Route 27, 110 and I-395, leaving their testimony somewhat amorphous.

Those testimonies all needed to be properly investigated in the first instance, which was never done. CIT had the right idea, and they interviewed scores of witnesses, clearing up many misconceptions. But they could not contact every body, and they made some dreadful blunders too.

This thread began by looking at the testimonies individually, before it was derailed. Now I am trying to get it back on track by discussing specific witnesses, whose testimonies can actually be verified by photo and video evidence taken within a few minutes of the impact, and compared with their published testimonies.

For instance, MARY ANN OWENS from Gannett, claimed to be directly opposite the impact hole. CIT and others could never agree on exactly where she was or how she viewed the flightpath. But she took a photograph from her location, proving she was indeed right next to those 2 trees beside the helipad. So now her testimony can be correctly assessed relative to her true position. How does that change the perceived wisdom, if at all?

This is how I am approaching all other testimonies. I welcome anyone's likeminded attempts. Merely tossing numbers into the ring is not profitable. This thread is about specific evidence and named witnesses.

It just so happens that all the witnesses shown on photos and video to have been on top of the bridge, DID NOT see the plane fly across it, and nor did they see a plane hit any of those 5 light poles.

Lloyde England, the most famous of them all, said he was not on the bridge but 400 yards north of it when he saw the plane for a split second only, and a pole smashed into his cab.

He said he did not see the plane hit this pole, and he did not see where that pole came from.

When shown pictures of himself and his cab on the bridge, he vigorously denied that he had been there when the pole hit.

He denied that Lightpole #1 was the pole which hit the cab.

He physically demonstrated, three times on CIT videos, that "his" pole was no more than 12 feet long, and 4 inches diameter, as is proven by the 4 inch circular hole in his windshield and the two x 4 inch circular impressions which it made on his rear seat.

Lloyde positively identified the 4 inch diameter pole laying behind his car, as the one which he pulled out of his windshield.

Thinking cold, hard and analytically, what does Lloyde's evidence suggest?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if people got things a little mixed up - they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon.

No-one saw a missile.

No-one saw an aircraft fly away.

One of the many problems with the "CIT" is they discard any evidence that disputes their main belief (i.e. there was no aircraft).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruby, may I ask.. was that first example of disputed anecdotes, the very best example you have?

If not, would you please commit to JUST ONE example - the best one?  Because frankly, I think it is appropriate to consider your expertise...

As your first claim involves some photographic edvidence, I will be happy to throw in whatever I can with regard to analysis thereof, but if we are just debating a "he said/she said" situation that cannot be proved either way.... ?

Well, like I said, if that's the best you have brought... I have only a limited amount of time and I'm not wasting it on things that are unsolvable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

Doesn't matter if people got things a little mixed up - they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon.

No-one saw a missile.

No-one saw an aircraft fly away.

One of the many problems with the "CIT" is they discard any evidence that disputes their main belief (i.e. there was no aircraft).

I'm afraid you have been misled and haven't done your own due diligence about what CIT believe.

CIT always denied that a missile was involved, because as they stated, nobody ever saw a missile.

Concerning people not seeing an aircraft flying away - actually, CIT discovered several eyewitness accounts which do point to people having seen an aircraft flying away.

viz. Roosevelt Roberts, DeWitt Roseborough, Levi Stephens, Maria de la Cerda, Erik Dihle (who referenced several of his coworkers who stated that "there was an explosion at the Pentagon and a jet kept on going" in an official audio interview recorded very soon after 9/11). In fact, there are several more such eyewitness accounts which CIT missed. I would suggest these possible flyover witnesses :

David Ball, Kat Gaines, "Skarlet", Michael Kelly, Don Scott, Dennis Smith, the man in the forecourt on the Double Tree CCTV video, and Dr Goff. There was another poster on a forum now defunct who claimed to have seen a flyover.

ROBERT TURCIOS saw the plane "lft up a little bit to clear the Exit sign on Route 27", but he did NOT see it "dip down again" to hit the Pentagon low and level at the ground floor within the next fraction of a second that it took to cross the lawn. Turcios stated that he could not see the impact site because of the elevated highway between him and the Pentagon, and therefore although he saw the fireball rise into the sky, he is not technically an "impact witness".

DARIUS PRATHER is another witness who testified that he saw the plane "PIVOT UP OVER THE OVERHEAD SIGN" as it approached the Pentagon.

STEVE RISKUS testified that the image of a plane crossing Route 27 above the level of the overhead signs, provided by an Italian website, was "almost exactly what I saw that day". If the plane was high enough to clear the overhead signs at the edge of the Pentagon lawn, then it was not low enough to hit any lightpoles, and it certainly could not have been the object shown in just 1 frame from each of the Gatecams, flying at the level of the lawn into the Pentagon.

Numerous eyewitnesses including Aziz ElHallou, Penny Elgas etc, testified that the plane was aboput 50 to 80 feet above their cars as it crossed Route 27, which means that it could not possibly have hit any poles, nor could it have flown low and level across the lawn into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

Lloyde England's wife Shirley believed that the plane flew across the Pentagon. Lloyde stated that he did not see the plane hit the Pentagon, and he did not believe that the plane could have fit in the tiny hole he witnessed immediately after the impact, and left no wings, tail or engines on the lawn.

And as CIT so astutely pointed out, if there had been anybody publicly testifying to seeing a flyover, they would very quickly have been silenced, or if their testimony was taken in private, this would have been suppressed, and nobody would ever have known that they did see a flyover. Many eyewitness accounts were sequestered.Consider the case of Dave Ball, a truck driver who was driving on I-395 past the Pentagon, who did state that he saw a plane overflying the Pentagon. He was found murdered after being asked to tell his story on radio.

CIT certainly did not "discard any evidence which disputed their main belief". And as far as that belief goes, you have it completely backwards. CIT adamantly stated, because of the great body of first-person eyewitness testimony they personally gathered, that there absolutely was a large commercial jet involved.

All of CIT's research is still available on their websites, although neither Craig nor Aldo has been active on them for years. But you can read their research, and watch their videos on the LYTETRIP YouTube channel. Many of those videos are excellent, and although I absolutely disagree with their conclusions about the witnesses Lloyde England, Father Stephen McGraw, Joel SUcherman, Vin Narayanan and Mary Ann Owens, much valuable information can be gained from the responses these people gave to CIT's questions. It is the interpretations that CIT placed on those answers, which is the problem.

And that problem was caused in the first instance by the JASON INGERSOLL PHOTO COLLECTION, showing Lloyde England and his taxi cab posed on the Columbia Pike overpass bridge, beside a huge downed lightpole.

That staged scene was intended to reinforce in the public perception that "hijacked AA77 flew across the bridge, hit 5 lightpoles and crashed into the first floor of the Pentagon". This ruse has been astonishingly successful, so much so that it even sidelined CIT, who would have had so many more North-of-Citgo witnesses on their side, had they not discredited Lloyde England and anyone else claiming to have been anywhere near him at the time of impact

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Ruby, may I ask.. was that first example of disputed anecdotes, the very best example you have?

If not, would you please commit to JUST ONE example - the best one?  Because frankly, I think it is appropriate to consider your expertise...

As your first claim involves some photographic edvidence, I will be happy to throw in whatever I can with regard to analysis thereof, but if we are just debating a "he said/she said" situation that cannot be proved either way.... ?

Well, like I said, if that's the best you have brought... I have only a limited amount of time and I'm not wasting it on things that are unsolvable.

Obviously, I have mentioned lots of eyewitnesss so far, and as I am unsure of which one you read about first, perhaps you could name names?

I certainly don't believe this is a "he said / she said" situation.

I feel that all the witness testimonies are significant, not necessarily "better" than others.

Of course it is your choice whether or not to spend any time on this, but I will continue to post what I have anyway. I think it is helpful to have these testimonies posted together online, as so many webpages get deleted and links broken.

Cheers ChrLzs

Edited by RubyGray
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Didn't I already say that I don't deny many people saw the plane approach the Pentagon?

I also pointed out how some people gave testimony which for whatever reason was flat-out untrue (e.g. Noel Sepulveda), mistaken (as in distance from the impact), or was ambiguous, as in witnesses who "saw" something which did not happen such as the plane flying into the 2nd & 3rd floors (Captain Lincoln Liebner, Mary Ann Owens, ATC Sean Boger), or the plane colliding with a helicopter etc. Also, I showed that many witnesses got their locations mistaken by interchanging Route 27, 110 and I-395, leaving their testimony somewhat amorphous.

Those testimonies all needed to be properly investigated in the first instance, which was never done. CIT had the right idea, and they interviewed scores of witnesses, clearing up many misconceptions. But they could not contact every body, and they made some dreadful blunders too.

This thread began by looking at the testimonies individually, before it was derailed. Now I am trying to get it back on track by discussing specific witnesses, whose testimonies can actually be verified by photo and video evidence taken within a few minutes of the impact, and compared with their published testimonies.

For instance, MARY ANN OWENS from Gannett, claimed to be directly opposite the impact hole. CIT and others could never agree on exactly where she was or how she viewed the flightpath. But she took a photograph from her location, proving she was indeed right next to those 2 trees beside the helipad. So now her testimony can be correctly assessed relative to her true position. How does that change the perceived wisdom, if at all?

This is how I am approaching all other testimonies. I welcome anyone's likeminded attempts. Merely tossing numbers into the ring is not profitable. This thread is about specific evidence and named witnesses.

It just so happens that all the witnesses shown on photos and video to have been on top of the bridge, DID NOT see the plane fly across it, and nor did they see a plane hit any of those 5 light poles.

Lloyde England, the most famous of them all, said he was not on the bridge but 400 yards north of it when he saw the plane for a split second only, and a pole smashed into his cab.

He said he did not see the plane hit this pole, and he did not see where that pole came from.

When shown pictures of himself and his cab on the bridge, he vigorously denied that he had been there when the pole hit.

He denied that Lightpole #1 was the pole which hit the cab.

He physically demonstrated, three times on CIT videos, that "his" pole was no more than 12 feet long, and 4 inches diameter, as is proven by the 4 inch circular hole in his windshield and the two x 4 inch circular impressions which it made on his rear seat.

Lloyde positively identified the 4 inch diameter pole laying behind his car, as the one which he pulled out of his windshield.

Thinking cold, hard and analytically, what does Lloyde's evidence suggest?

Men are notorious for misrepresenting pole sizes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RubyGray said:

And as CIT so astutely pointed out, if there had been anybody publicly testifying to seeing a flyover, they would very quickly have been silenced, or if their testimony was taken in private, this would have been suppressed, and nobody would ever have known that they did see a flyover.

Frankly I find that to be fairly absurd; CIT is not 'pointing out' something, we usually reserve that phrase for things that are factual, what CIT is engaging in is massive conjecture (to put it politely).  Who is doing this silencing?  How many people do they have on staff?  The Pentagon is out in the open and where the Pentagon was hit by the plane is not hidden, there was the potential for hundreds of witnesses; how many 'agents' were on hand to immediately silence all these witnesses?  Furthermore by the time the plane hit the Pentagon we already knew we were under attack, which would just increase the potential number of witnesses.

If the plane flew over the Pentagon, then why are there just a few people who said they saw 'a plane' fly over the Pentagon?  Where are all the witnesses on the other side of the Pentagon and in Washington DC in general who would have logically seen, 30+ minutes after it had been made clear that the US was under attack, an extremely low-flying, extremely loud jet flying past it?  A jet of that size takes a while to climb, and with the speed it was travelling we should have a mile's worth, at least, of DC witnesses who saw a low jet flying overhead past the Pentagon.  Where are all these witnesses?  Sorry, that's just too many people to 'silence'.

If you are aware of the reliability, and most importantly the unreliability, of eyewitness testimony then the fact that there are different witnesses stating different specific things and making mistakes on what occurred is entirely unsurprising.  Human beings naturally have issues perception-wise with accurately judging the size, speed, and location with respect to the ground of flying objects.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, more 911 anecdotes, none of which are cited or supported/supportable.

I choose to depart.  Frankly, this sort of stuff is an utter waste of time.  I suspect some tinfoiler/s aren't getting enough attention hits to their website and thus the need to stir up the manure.  Anecdotes aren't worth the paper they are not written on...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So, more 911 anecdotes, none of which are cited or supported/supportable.

I choose to depart.  Frankly, this sort of stuff is an utter waste of time.

  Anecdotes aren't worth the paper they are not written on...

No specific issues to discuss? No counter argument? No citations of your own? 

I asked for the name of a particular witness I mentioned to whom you vaguely took exception, but you can't provide it?

All of my statements are  supportable with evidence proven by first-person quotes, photos and video.

How is the fact that Lloyde England, the "face" of the "AA77 flew across the bridge and hit 5 lightpoles" legend, was 400 yards away from the bridge when his cab was hit by a pole - a "worthless anecdote"?

It is rather the proof that the Official story is the unsupportable fantasy, and that the many eyewitness testimonies which contradict it, are in fact the truth.

Farewell.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a minor clarification and indication of how daft this is - I was there.  Prove I wasn't.

I saw the aircraft hit exactly as described.  Prove I didn't.

I also saw all that stuff about Lloyde England (what a great name!), and I perosnally know him - he's actually a made up unicorn with alzheimer's.  Which explains everything..  Prove me wrong.

 

Everything i typed above is of course absolutely 100% true, because it fits with my desired narrative.  And frankly there is lots more evidence to back up those claims, than there is to back up yours.

So, like I said - byebye, and that is why.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Frankly I find that to be fairly absurd; CIT is not 'pointing out' something, we usually reserve that phrase for things that are factual, what CIT is engaging in is massive conjecture (to put it politely). 

CIT of course has not been engaging in anything for about 10 years.

But in their heyday, they generally did not "engage in conjecture", either.

They sought out eyewitnesses who had never been quoted before, as well as contacting as many of the well-known witnesses as they were able. They asked these witnesses to tell their own stories to camera or on audio, and often, to mark their own locations on maps, along with the flight path they observed. They asked specific questions which clarified ambiguities in earlier reported testimonies. They posed either/or scenarios to further solidify this evidence. This is the only valid method of obtaining genuine testimony, and no other agency or individual approached the task like this. Journalist reports were often vague and fanciful, embellished heavily with emotive hype and supposition. When some of those witnesses were given the opportunity to speak for themselves, they contradicted the news reports and told quite different stories from those accounts which were circulated in the press, and which are still quoted today in support of the OCT.

How is that "conjecture" by CIT?

It is in fact the OCT which is not factual, according to first-person eyewitness testimony, corroborated by photos and video. That is an unpalatable fact to those who choose to believe the government line.

I certainly do agree that, when discussing certain eyewitnesses - notably 

LLOYDE ENGLAND

JOEL SUCHERMAN

VIN NARAYANAN

FATHER STEPHEN McGRAW 

- CIT did indeed indulge in wild conjecture. This was deplorable, but understandable, though unforgivable.

Lloyde England was the first person they ever interviewed in their zealous early days, and McGraw was the second. Craig and Aldo made huge errors in these interviews, because their perception was distorted by the glossy high-resolution Jason Ingersoll collection showing Lloyde and the cab on the bridge next to a downed light pole which obviously could never have been what caused the damage to the cab. Aldo and Craig knew there was something wrong with this scenario, but unfortunately they went down the wrong track in trying to find the truth. The obvious mistake they made, since they were in possession of the time-stamped photo series, was in not asking -

If Lloyde England and his cab were NOT on the bridge AT IMPACT, then WHERE WAS THE CAB during the 11 minutes between 9:37 and 9:48 a.m. when the cab was FIRST PHOTOGRAPHED ON THE BRIDGE?

WHERE WAS LLOYDE during the 18 minutes between 9:37 and 9:55 a.m. when he was FIRST PHOTOGRAPHED NEAR HIS CAB ON THE BRIDGE?

They did not ask any of those 4 witnesses to mark their locations and flight path observed on maps, alas. So much trouble could have been averted had they done this.

Lloyde England steadfastly repeated his story consistently from Day One, but he was constantly misrepresented by those whose comprehension was skewed by the obscuring lens of those bridge-cab-pole photos.

Lloyde protested that he was not on the bridge WHEN IT HAPPENED, and that the pole that hit the cab was NOT THAT GREAT LUNKER LIGHTPOLE, but CIT were so obtuse that they missed this crucial evidence from a prime Northside Witness. Lloyde England was in fact their very first North-of-Citgo eyewitness, but CIT blew it. They kept insisting that the photos showed him on the bridge, and that there were no images of the cab anywhere else, nor with the pole still stuck through the windshield.

CIT was dead wrong here. They just failed to look properly.

Father Stephen McGraw was their second North-of-Citgo witness, since he testified that his car was a few feet from the taxi which was beside the cemetery wall, and CIT tragically failed to make this connection as well. They falsely conjectured that McGraw was on the bridge, near Lloyde England, again because of the Ingersoll photos. But McGraw is seen on a video taken from the lawn north of the heliport, standing on the footpath at just 3 minutes post impact, 350 yards north of the bridge. CIT could have found this evidence confirming McGraw's testimony, had they looked for it.

Joel Sucherman was also a Northside Witness, as his location on the bridge and testimony of seeing the plane fly straight across his windshield, prove. But CIT conjectured that, due to Sucherman's mistaken ID of the highway he was on (he sometimes called it 110; other times he correctly said 27) and Vin Narayanan's statement that Sucherman was "on the opposite side of the Pentagon" to him, that Sucherman was lying, that he was on the east side of the  Pentagon (if anywhere at all), and that Vin Narayanan was on the bridge.

Then they doubted Narayanan's testimony, as he stated that there were NO lightpoles hit by the plane at all, but that the tail of the plane had hit the overhead sign in front of him (which physically cannot be true; any object would have to be hit by the wider wings, before the tail. But that was how Narayanan interpreted whatever it was that he witnessed).

This conjecture was all avoidable, as the video confirming Sucherman's position on top of the bridge, had already been released by the FBI, but CIT never thought to check it.

Then, Narayanan's statement about being "on the other side of the Pentagon from Sucherman" slots into place.

Sucherman was on the bridge, far to the SOUTH SIDE of the building; Narayanan was near an overhead sign at the NORTH of it. That absolutely places him just south of the Columbia Pike exit sign between the heliport and the cemetery retaining wall. This explains why he did not see the 5 downed lightpoles, and it also makes Narayanan yet another Northside Witness, as he saw the plane fly across Route 27 there, far north of the bridge.

ATC Sean Boger, observing from the heliport tower, also confirms Narayanan's testimony. In his phone interview with Aldo Marquis, Boger (another credible North-of-Citgo witness) also stated that "the plane clipped the overhead sign" in front of him. Something happened at that overhead sign, witnessed by both Boger and Narayanan, even if they mistook what that "something" was.

Sucherman also denied seeing the plane hit any lightpoles, in his face to face interview with Craig Ranke, although he was on the bridge, and theoretically in the perfect position to have witnessed this, had it happened.

The conclusion that must be reached from the interviews done by CIT with these 4 valuable, truthful Northside Flightpath eyewitnesses, corroborated by evidence found on multiple videos never considered by CIT, is that Craig and Aldo failed utterly here, THOUGH THEIR OTHER WORK WAS SOUND. The testimony given by these witnesses in those interviews is still valid, but CIT's tragic misrepresentation of that evidence is where the problem lies. Their hardheaded refusal to accept the honest, verifiable testimony of England, McGraw, Sucherman and Narayanan (and others such as Mary Ann Owens) is what ultimately hamstrung the progress of CIT's research.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.