Frustrating Fraud disinfo blog

Research and investigation regarding what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11

Frustrating Fraud disinfo blog

A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 29th, 2011, 9:49 pm #1

I'm going to break this into separate posts so that each individual named on Adam Larson's "SOC" blog can be linked to whenever it's linked to "en bloque" as if it's in response to anything remotely resembling a "counterargument" to the NOC evidence. It's a favourite of Michael de Boer (aka SnowCrash) and Erik Larson (aka Loose Nuke at 911Blogger).

The individual witnesses named in Larson's blog are listed below for easier access (but I recommend reading this first post which outlines why Larson's blog is a "non-runner" before we even get to the witness testimony):

1. Albert Hemphill
2. Terry Morin
3. Madelyn Zakhem
4. Ed Paik
5. Keith Wheelhouse
6. Alan Wallace
7. Timmerman/Vignola
8. Stephen McGraw
9. Penny Elgas
10. Maria de la Cerda
11. Steve Riskus
12. Wanda Ramey
13. Lloyd England
14. Levi Stephens
15. Roosevelt Roberts Jnr
16. NEIT 405
17. George Aman

First a general breakdown of the debunked and illogical garbage this guy has left festering on the net for both the ignorant/lazy and/or the deceitful to spam.

The Scene and the Spectators

The “official path” (violet in the graphics below) runs roughly along I-395 at its bend, but nearer parallel with Columbia Pike and the edge of the Navy Annex it flanks (the big harmonica building). The path had to be nearly straight but with a slight left curve and accompanying mild wing bank - left low, right high.

First off, the image which he claims represents the "SOC path", is his own invention, which he has "tweaked" to have the aircraft "nearer parallel with Columbia Pike and the edge of the Navy Annex". Why? To fudge witness statements in his "piece" with his interpretation of what they were describing.

Official FDR data/directional damage path

His assertion that the directional damage path "had to be nearly straight" is correct and indeed is acknowledged by all parties, even Warren Stutt and his alleged "extra 4 seconds" that detractors now cling to. He recently penned a paper with another Pentagon disinformationist, Frank Legge.

Even HE presented this image on said trajectory based on his data decode:

Duration of right bank data

Positive values seen depict a right roll in his own decode:

There are NO negative values in these last 7 seconds.

This path is not open to the 'margin of error' argument given ALL of these points.

1) No approach parallel to the Navy Annex or "straight down" Columbia Pike is to be found in ANY data (FDR or RADES). Nor is it witness compatible.

2) According to Warren Stutt's heading/course data, which both government loyalists and alleged truthers are 100% behind and promote, throughout this entire stretch from before the Sheraton to Route 27 there is between 0.3º to 1.4º change in course.

3) Warren Stutt's data regarding the roll angle shows the aircraft at point 151363

in a 5.6º RIGHT roll, increasing to 6.3º and steadily decreasing to 2.8º at Route 27. NO LEFT ROLL recorded.


"I agree that the TRACK ANGLE TRUE (Course) and the PRES POSN values from which I plotted my path indicate the aircraft travelled in a fairly straight line relative to the ground despite the roll angle. I still think this could possibly be due to changes in wind speed and direction encountered by the aircraft as it was flying.

Warren. "

More details to be found

The "slight left curve....left low, right high" is neither contained within any data, including Stutt's "bank data", nor is it witness compatible, many witnesses in fact describing a right bank after passing the Navy Annex.

He has dishonestly spliced the image where his "SOC path" where the aircraft allegedly crossed the first ringroad before reaching the poles and rotates the "pole path" image so that they "line up" (and he even failed at this). Look particularly at the section of Columbia Pike that runs under Route 27:

FDR/directional damage path vs Larson path:

He has the "SOC path" deceptively running as close to the Navy Annex as he can and his dishonest splice of the upper and lower parts of the image convey an almost straight line.
On the other hand, he has his own interpretation of the NOC path, making the bank angles as extreme as possible from Ed Paik's shop, ignoring Terry Morin and focusing on William Middleton's path.


After the Annex (entirely south), it passed south of the Citgo station (the smallish structure after), descending as it crossed Route 27, striking lamp poles, skimming the lawn, and entering the building low. The north path is also shown below for comparison, in yellow.

These are the paths drawn by the witnesses themselves:

This is CIT’s most-widely promoted possibility, never meant to be THE path, and shown to be aeronautically improbable (as have their others, to differing degrees). This angles across the Annex s-n, banking hard right along the way (left high), passing to the north of the Citgo almost at Arlington National Cemetery, descending a bit, then pulling up to fly over, yet somehow appearing to still impact low into the building.

These paths were described and drawn by the witnesses themselves. Not CIT. Of course there was only one path but we are dealing with various witnesses at various points. They can hardly be used to derive specific math from.

On the other hand, the officially released FDR data from the NTSB under FOIA does raise specific problems for the "impact" scenario.

Even Warren Stutt's "data" didn't add up to "impact".

The "aerodynamically impossible" claim has been refuted by Pilotsfor911Truth.

NOC aerodynamically possible:

Video presentation:

Detractor "counterarguments" addressed here:

The reason their case has some traction is the same reason that even 13 accounts can’t override the overwhelming case for the real event - eyewitnesses are the weakest type of evidence. Memory is notoriously prone to various errors and psychic distortions. Their memories are usually vague on trivial details like which side of a gas station the plane passed by, easy to be confused, misread, and maybe deliberately dishonest, especially when pushed on points like the above.

Stifling hypocrisy, especially in a blog entitled "THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED" pushing what he called "SOC witnesses" which will soon be exposed as the "deliberately dishonest" piece that it is based on ambiguity and false information.

The "trivial details" that Larson offhandedly dismisses weren't so trivial to the ANC workers who thought the aircraft was coming straight for them and all describe the aircraft as banking partially over their carpark.

Northside Flyover Part 1

Or the three witnesses at the Citgo Gas station watching from different perspectives who corraborate eachother.

The Pentacon

One of which William Lagasse couldn't have physically seen the official path from his POV.

More interviews here:

National Security Alert

In fact these trivial details" clearly had an effect on Adam larson in his desperation to dismiss these testimonies which still grow to this day by blatantly labelling them "liars" and a possible "COINTEL operation"!

There are however exceptions that freely and clearly delineate the “official path.” Now just as the whole point of NoC is that it means no impact, the unanimous impact reports could be taken as evidence the plane was on the path consistent with the damage caused.

No, they can't.

This is a weak argument that detractors such as Michel de Boer aka SnowCrash (Larson is his idol!) have begun to use.
That people claim to have witnessed an "impact" does not automatically delineate the flightpath in the final seconds as we will see.

I could also use altitude clues to rule out a pull-up above the light poles, ruling out all but the “official path.” Either would make my job entirely too easy, so here I will only cite specific South of the Citgo (SoC) clues as they sporadically pop up. This is a short list and there are plenty of others that offer decent clues pointing directly at a south path, but these here are 13 of the strongest that each confirm it in multiple ways.

"Altitude clues"? Like the "altitude clue" given in the FOIA released NTSB animation based on the "Flight 77" FDR data??

What a joke.

A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 29th, 2011, 10:41 pm #2

Albert Hemphill

Let's begin...

1) Albert Hemphill
At the Navy Annex, “peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon.... the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike.” He also gives the wing bank (remember, north path means left high) “He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight […] As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings […] as he impacted low on the Westside of the building.

Again with the totally fabricated approach as shown earlier in the post.

Larson was quoting an online e-mail of Hemphill's in 2001.
CIT has since contacted Albert Hemphill

Craig Ranke: ... you were at the Navy Annex, right, at the 8th wing, with a view of the Pentagon, right?

Albert Hemphill: Yeah it was err wing 8 of the Navy Annex which is now gone .......

Craig Ranke: and so you were inside umm you said you mentioned it was Gary Ramos' office?

Albert Hemphill: yeah, well Gary and I actually shared an office at the time .....

Craig Ranke: now was this office located um perhaps in the centre of the Navy Annex or more towards the north side, the Arlington cemetery side, or the south side, that would be the Columbia Pike side?

Albert Hemphill: umm more towards the cemetery side .... if you look at the Navy Annex now and you look at Wing 7 if you look at the top most floor ..... OK if you look at the top floor at the very end on the cemetery side - that is Pat O'Riley's office, that's the general who runs the place now and if you count 1,2,3,4,5 ... about 8 windows, 9 windows over that would be the 8.1

Craig Ranke: so towards the centre but more towards the north side of the building?

Albert Hemphill: yeah pretty much.

Ranke: are you saying he was off to the side of the Navy Annex, or ...

Hemphill: yeah, he would have been over my right shoulder

Ranke: but you saw the fuselage appear, was it directly over the top of the Navy Annex or ...

Hemphill: right over the top

Ranke: when you saw it pass the gas station, which side of the gas station was it on, was it on the Arlington Cemetery or north side or else perhaps the south side, the other side?

Hemphill: you know it's hard to say, it looked like it went right over the top .....

Ranke: would you say, if you had to say it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, did it look directly over the top or what do you think?

Hemphill: yeah, I'd say more towards the cemetery side.

HEMPHILL: I was just gonna say they-- anybody who was out and about in that area right then in that area would have had a great vantage point if they were at the gas station.

RANKE: Precisely. There's zero room for- for perspective error, because they're sitting right there on the property.  And they're just telling us hey, you know, what's-- where's this plane in relation to the gas station.  And they all said it was on the north side.  Obviously it was on-- if it was on the south side, um, it'd be pretty difficult for them to make that mistake, if not impossible, let alone all THREE of them to make that mistake.

HEMPHILL: Right.  Right.

Hemphill's confirmed location

KP50 opened an excellent thread on this here

Frank Legge aka "Gravity32" entered the fray and made some bizarre, illogical and contradictory statements (I wouldn't expect anything less of Frank).

Jeffrey Hill (aka Shure) and his actions (as well as that of members of his forum) speak volumes. He rang Albert Hemphill "coincidentally" not too long after Craig got in touch with him.

As he has been doing for some time now, poisoning the well against CIT's investigation, he lied, lead and sabotaged any further contact with this witness.

Hill told him him that Craig recorded it, and that he was also posting it "all over the internet" just to piss Hemphill off.

Hill wrote:"they'll say you changed your story. I heard you say it was on the north side because the call was recorded"

Hill publishing his interview at Pilotsfor911Truth

Check the dates and times.

Craig posts the interview 4 hours after Hill

And of course Hill recorded and published the second call even though Hemphill was pissed off he recorded and published the first one

To add insult to injury, this image was sent to Hemphill by Hill, at the request of another Pentagon disinformationist, Yougenedebs.

Discussed here.

The reason I "sidetracked" there was because Hemphill was lead to "change" his story but still insists that the aircraft was over the Citgo Gas Station!

Hemphill: Okay. I would put it uh slightly inb [word trails off] I, I would put it in between that uh more over the, the gas station uh I think the official flight, flight path looks pretty damn close to what I saw.

Jeff: So you would be more consistent with the uh official flight path (that Hill handed to him on a plate) rather than the so-called north of Citgo flight path that they’re uh trying to say?

Hemphill: Yeah. [unintelligible] That just. It didn’t. There’s just no way! It came, it looked like it went over the gas station!

Jeff: Yeah. Well. If you [unintelligible] From what I’m looking at the picture, if you’re looking at the gas station, that would be over to your left. And then if you look

Hemphill: No, the gas station would be to my right.

Jeff: It would be to your right?

Hemphill: Yep!

Jeff: Okay. Maybe just the way it looks in Google Earth, or something. (or maybe because it is?  :rolleyes: )

At what point exactly would the aircraft have "seemed" to have flown over the Gas Station given his line of sight???

You can even see that the guy is struggling and trying to overlap the NOC path with the "official path". And he can't.

He clearly places the aircraft NOC.

A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 30th, 2011, 2:15 am #3

Terry Morin

2) Terry Morin
Another witness at the Annex (“FOB” in account). From his stated vantage point, Morin could only see the plane for the length and detail he describes if it were on the south path. CIT and Pilots for Truth have cited problems with the line of sight blocking final moment and this is valid – and doubly so for a plane passing entirely north of that line. "Teri" Morin has changed his once-vilified story and this one has gotten very weird, to hear the dispatches from CIT-land. I don’t believe them. This is what we know Terry Morin said right after the event:

“I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling […] One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. […] The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). […] The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage […] Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. […] As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft.”

Start believing Adam...

Trees to the northeast of the building is the only thing that doesn’t fit – he must mean northeast of where the plane had passed the Annex. These run along the Pike as it bends, at the crest of the hill looking down over the Pentagon (at the "n" in "line of sight"). Seeing stripes is consistent with it being a tad south of him and banked left.

Larson even tries to twist the online account quoted above.."he must mean"...and where does Morin's "essentially right over the top of me" description fit with the "flightpath" Larson invented?
Both descriptions were further reinforced during Craig Ranke's conversation with him in the video linked to above. More on that later.

Again he uses this manipulated image which doesn't line up with the directional damage.

This "parallel to the Navy Annex" flightpath that detractors have been insinuating for years and the necessary aerodynamic manouevre to line up with the directional damage through the lightpoles to "C Ring" is not an argument that detractors can wave away by claiming "margin of error" in the FDR data or decry the "reliability of witness testimony". It is an argument based purely on aerodynamics and physics as per the directional damage itself.

Rob Balsamo at Pilotsfor911Truth took on this much repeated assertion at his forum when confronted with by another detractor, Achimspok.

The aerodynamics and manouevres involved, which Achimspok agreed with, were two severe banks of between 50 and 72º (depending on speed - although the official speed was the upper 540-560mph). The images themselves tell the story:

The physics of the directional damage itself, although the latter image is self-explanatory, is detailed here (linked to earlier in the post but worth looking at again..

Again, his "path" is his own creation.

And how did his interpretation of Morin's online account stand against Morin's description, straight from the horse's mouth?


MORIN: When the plane went right over the top of me I was within ten feet of the edge of the wing (of the Annex)

CRAIG : So you were kinda in between them? (the wings of the Annex)


MORIN: I was inside..flew over the top of me.

MORIN: He wasn't flying 500 knots...oh no, no, no..he was flying 350


MORIN: It took 13 - 18 seconds (between the Navy Annex and the explosion)

CRAIG: What are the chances the plane flew on the south side, south of columbia Pike?

MORIN: No frickin way, it flew over the top of me.


CRAIG: Were you outside the edge

MORIN: No, I was inside..flew over the top of me


MORIN: I ran to the outside and that's when I watched the airplane and
got into a position where I could see it.

On Larson's assertion regarding what Morin "meant" by "trees to the NorthEast"

Morin: It's right on the edge and I'm like here (between the wings), okay? I then, because I had already heard about..the twin towers..I ran to the outside.
That's when I watched the airplane and got into a position where I could see it.
There were some trees down may or may not know this.....I mean this was before wing 8 was destroyed

Craig: Okay..

Morin: I mean there used to be an eighth wing there..

Craig: Okay

Morin: Now there's the US Air Force Memorial. If the Air Force Memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it

Air Force Memorial

Morin's testimony has always been twisted and his conversation with Craig has always been ignored. A conversation that cut through the ambiguity that the likes of Larson thrive on.

A good example of this can be seen here:

To examine the claim that Morin could not see the NOC flightpath from a position that detractors have placed him, just outside the Annex wings, you have to look at his entire testimony.

1. He refutes the FDR/official speed which would have taken the aircraft just over 2 seconds to reach the Pentagon facade. An observation backed up by his "friend" Albert Hemphill in his conversation with Craig Ranke.

2. In his conversation with Craig Ranke he expands on the speed.

Craig: Well if you're judging 13 - 18 seconds, that means it was going a lot slower than reported for you to think anywhere near that..

Morin: Well..350 knots, do the time calculus, that's how long it was. If it's seven or eight seconds..


MORIN: I ran to the outside and that's when I watched the airplane and got into a position where I could see it.


Morin: No frickin´ way

Craig: That´s what the FDR said. (500 knots speed)

Morin: I had time for me to come down, start to see it descend and come it´s not..

He is obviously claiming that he came down or stepped out more towards Columbia Pike to watch the aircraft descend, which he would have had to given his stated POV.
Larson et al have no problem in believing his online account that the "flash" he described was a lightpole, that he witnessed an "impact" (he described seeing the fireball).
Jason Ingersoll, a navy photographer, claimed to take the following shot within minutes of the explosion from roughly the same POV/line of sight as Morin. He had no view from here.

Even the cars parked in the Navy Annex carpark (seen in the first image) would have blocked his view.
Poster "Mr BoJangles" posted a very relevant image regarding the "parallel to Navy Annex line of sight".

Detractors always place Morin just outside the wings of the Annex. From what position could he possibly have seen what he described in the final seconds before the fireball? The flash that he assumed was a lightpole being struck?

3. The "Northeast" comment regarding the trees that run along Columbia Pike in front of the Navy Annex:

4. Larson has the aircraft executing a subtly disguised left bank which math shows, needs to be in the 72º area. Again, nowhere to be found in any "data", totally contradicted by the new darling of detractors of all ilks, Warren Stutt, it isn't corroborated by anybody AND doesn't line up with the directional damage.
Not only that but the only manouvre Morin described was a "slight tilt to the right" after it had passed the trees.

Pure invention.

No matter how Morin's testimony is "interpretted", he places the aircraft over the Navy Annex. Even the North of Columbia Pike description is fatal to the FDR data and even more so, the directional damage path. There were more than enough witnesses in a far better position to tell what path the aircraft took after it had passed over the Annex.

Morin can in no way be described as an "SOC witness" by any stretch.

A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 30th, 2011, 12:44 pm #4

Madelyn Zakhem

3) Madelyn Zakhem
A VDOT employee previously published as a witness, Zakhem was verified by the LTW/CIT/Pickering entourage in August 2006. Aldo Marquis was not impressed and noted soon after participating “her account placed the plane "inches" from the roof of this small building [she was at]. With the left tilted down. Unfortunately, this would place it BELOW treetop level which we all know is impossible.” A figure of speech read too literally and debunked is a straw man tactic of course, and a convenient one, as the building that plane was (some number of) inches directly above, clearly puts it on the south path, and with the official bank to the left.

(SNIP irrelevant attack on Aldo Marquis)

1. The directional damage path aka "SOC path" is not what Larson or Zakhem describe as pointed out earlier.

2. The "official bank to the left" is a figment of Larson's imagination.

It's neither contained in the official NTSB FDR animation for "Flight 77" nor is it contained in the much touted highly dubious Warren Stutt "extra seconds data"


positive values represent "right bank", negative values "left bank" (Stutt's data)

3. The "path" before reaching Zakhem as pointed out by CIT due to corroborated witness reports that place the aircraft on a completely different trajectory.

He also ignores Ed Paik and more importantly Terry Morin.

4. He ignores the FDR course/heading data before the aircraft arrived in this area to decrease the bank angles necessary to push his "straight down Columbia Pike" trajectory.

5. Coincidentally (?) enough, he has partially used Stutt's original plotted "path" which does not pass through the directional damage, nor where any banks/manouevres are recorded to do so.

It is also witness incompatible.

Note: Stutt and Legge have since bastardized the data to "fit" the aircraft onto the directional damage path. Stutt's intellectual dishonesty and Frank Legge's methods have been fully exposed by Pilotsfor911Truth.

Look at Larson's path again, incorporating this "left bank" he keeps harping on about, when nobody described such a thing.

Do you see the mentality of this guy?

6. Larson's depiction of the aircraft's arrival which he claims is based on Madelyn Zakhem's testimony isn't even backed up by the witness herself!

Aldo Marquis asked her from which direction the aircraft appeared to come from. She claimed that it seemed to come from the I 395 direction (3)

7. Ms Zakhem refused to be recorded or to draw a flightpath and Russell Pickering interpretted her description of the aircraft as seeing the "right wing" above her POV.

In an e-mail exchange between Russell Pickering and Ms Zakhem:

From: Zakhem, Madlene R.

To: 'Russell Pickering'

Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:28 AM

Subject: RE: Question on August visit


I did say that I saw the plane go over VDOT Buildings and tilting to the left while landing (sic) avoid the tower.

Madlene Zakhem

8. Given all of the information on her testimony, how does Larson's path resemble in any way whatsoever what she described?

9. Here was her POV around 9/11 (note: it was not at the "white house" as some detractors claim)

In the fraction of a second that she would have allegedly seen the aircraft (for obvious reasons), notwithstanding the fact that Larson's "path" has nothing to do with what she described, does he know what the margin of error is between her stated POV and the Navy Annex complex?

170 ft...and an aircraft allegedly with a wingspan of 124ft.

That a plane with an alleged 124 ft wingspan was "in no way" over/going over the Annex, even though he insists that the plane was executing a left bank in her minimal view from here?

She is NOT a definitive SOC witness in any way shape or form. There is only one directional damage path.

10. Witness testimony can be prone to error (unless it's multicorroborated), but she claimed that it was at "rooftop" height when it was allegedly at an altitude closer to the height of the Sheraton Hotel (over 200ft) according to Stutt's "data", 3 times that according to the NTSB official FDR data.

"If I had been on top of our building, I would have been close enough to
reach up and catch it," Madelyn Zakhem, an executive secretary in the
Smart Traffic Center (STC) in Arlington, said two days after the terrorist
plane rocketed directly over her.

The rest of the media report makes interesting reading too as it is clearly based on Ms Zakhem's testimony:

Some VDOTers were sure the plane had shifted its direction slightly to
avoid a 100-foot-tall cellular tower adjacent to the STC building. As the
plane went over the STC, the hijacker banked the plane, lifting the right
wing up (OSS: a "left tilt"), in order to swoop down the hill into the target.


The same media source even claimed that the aircraft did this "after barely missing the Sheraton Hotel".

11. Pentagon troll Achimspok entered the fray and was literally owned by Rob Balsamo as regards the math and aerodynamics (bank angles) involved for Ms Zakhem's labelling as an "SOC witness" to hold any water. He actually agreed that over 70º of bank was necessary to line up with the directional damage through the lightpoles:

12. Last but not least, the overwhelming witness testimony regarding the aircraft flying over the Navy Annex can't be ignored:

Ranke: are you saying he was off to the side of the Navy Annex, or ...

Hemphill: yeah, he would have been over my right shoulder

Ranke: but you saw the fuselage appear, was it directly over the top of the Navy Annex or ...

Hemphill: right over the top

Albert Hemphill

I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex

Christopher Munsey

It was on top of the Navy Annex.

Darius Prather

I looked up, looking in this direction and I can see the plane over the corner of that building here, the Navy Annex. From what I seen it was at right of it. It was on this corner of it.

Darrel Stafford

Carter: We saw a plane over here, the Navy Annex, come from over.
Q: Would you say it was more on the North side of the station over here or the south side?

Carter: It was more on this side. Right on this side

Donald Carter

Then when I looked I seen he was kind of fighting with the plane. And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….

…when it came down past the Navy Annex it came right down the center of the road here.

William Middleton

It was coming from here, very low, it almost hit my head. I thought it might hit the Navy Annex building's roof. That’s why I was running and I looked at the Navy Annex building and it wasn’t touched. 

Ed Paik

As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him.

Frank Probst

James Mosley, 57, was four stories up on a scaffold, washing the windows of the Navy Annex building when the plane flew overhead.

James Mosley

I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy Annex at a slow angle.

Edited: Mike Dobbs

R. E. Rabogliatti was in his office at the Navy Annex. He peered out of his office window and saw the airliner looming over the building.

R.E. Rabogliatti

Boger: When I saw the plane he was practically in front of the Navy Annex.

Aldo: ..did it come over the Navy Annex to the right, to the middle or more to your left?

Boger : I would say more to the right also.

Sean Boger

I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex

Levi Stephens

I was looking and it came right over the top of Navy Annex.

George Aman


She (and Larson) are contradicted at every turn.

A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 30th, 2011, 9:06 pm #5

Ed Paik

4) Edward Paik
The guy who blows "Madlene"'s account "out of the water" is not really a strong case for a south path in that his testimony and flight path drawn for CIT in late 2006 directly contradicts it - three versions running across the Navy Annex and thus pointing either OTC (Over-the-Citgo) or slightly NoC. However, his account is jumbled and has south path clues mixed in.

Larson knows that Ed Paik is NOC.

CIT interview here:

Here are the paths he drew.

When he first talked to the CIT guys and Russell Pickering earlier, he had said he thought the plane clipped an antenna tower just south of Columbia Pike: the wing "knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna." It didn’t really do this, (or did it?) but for him to think so, it would have to be close to it, which it almost certainly was.

Alfred Hitchcock eat yer heart out.

Paik made the assumption that the aircraft struck the antenna. Larson doesn't quote what was actually said by Pickering.

Pickering: Did you actually SEE it hit the tower or you THOUGHT it hit the tower...Did you see the repair guys working on it?

Ed Paik: I didn't see it hit the tower, I saw the guys working at it the next morning.

John Farmer aka BCR recently tried to push this debunked "theory" at JREF. Not even the minions backed his claims.

I don't like linking to the swamp but it's another good example of the lies and disinfo these people brazenly post.

Craig Ranke discussed the antenna issue with Larson at their forum (worth a read)

Now, the above was posted in March of 2008, the blog in August of the same year. So he knows that the "antenna issue" is pure bs.

From the above link:

Caustic Logic wrote:I've seen Farmer again confirm with the VDOT - after trying not to - that there was no damage. And I re-located and read Pickering's assessment that the FBI was putting up the extra antenna for communications.

Russell Pickering was hell bent (as was Larson) on proving an "SOC path" at whatever cost.:

I went to the VDOT to confirm it hadn't been hit. It had not. Then in Edward's interview I asked him if he actually saw it hit the tower and he said no. Then I asked him if it hit the solid metal part of the tower and he said no. What he said was that it hit a smaller antenna of 2-3 meters in length on the top. He ended up telling us the reason he thought it had been hit was because he saw somebody up on the tower working the next day.

What had happened then is he incorporated a conclusion from something he saw later into his memory of the original account. The real story is that when the FBI took over the VDOT as a command post they added antennas to the tower for communication.

If we hadn't taken the time to follow this through and get to the bottom of it we might have another Pentagon myth on our hands.

John Farmer:

Lynn Spencer (author, "Touching History") joined me in a FOIA with the State of Virginia for any records of the activity on the tower in the 9/11/2001 time frame. The following is their 12/9/2001 response.

After thorough research by both VDOT and VSP personnel who were present that day, there was no damage to the antenna installation at Columbia Pike, September 11, 12, 2001. In addition, a request for information was directed to the VSP Radio Division, the owner of the antenna in question. They provided further confirmation that there was no damage to the antenna. There is no information that documents any activity on this structure/antenna.

Please let us know if we can help you in any other way.

Kim A. Kile-Davidson
Policy & Planning Specialist
Northern Virginia District

Just to reiterate, VDOT and VSP found no information that documents any activity or damage on this structure/antenna.

Kim A. Kile-Davidson
Policy & Planning Specialist
Northern Virginia District

Here's an image of the VDOT tower on 9/11 after the attack:

Back to the blog..

Also even as he draws a path entirely north of the Pike, his instinctive gestures belie ambiguity, pointing almost straight down the road, and indicating a left bank, which directly contradicts the massive right bank needed to go ONA and NoC. I believe he’s a south path witness and for whatever reason his account came out sort of supporting the north path (really it’s right between the two). How odd that the guy who proves suspicious crypto-Jew Zakhem a liar matches her account more than it differs!

Again with the "left bank"..

No matter how many times he repeats his "straight down Columbia Pike path", it isn't backed up by data in any form whatsoever nor is it even slightly viable aerodynamically to line up with the directional damage, nor witness compatible.

Eric Larson, moderator/Pentagon disinformationist at 911Blogger went to Arlington to interview Paik, the whole outcome of which proved disastrous in that Paik reasserted his story and he was shown to be in cahootss with members of the JREF forum.

From the interview:

Discussed here:

and answered by CIT here:

Rob Balsamo used 3D imaging, math and the actual official path that these people always dance around to totally debunk anything other than an "SOC path"

The "SOC aircraft" would have been in plain sight at a higher altitude:

Larson (Adam) and his depiction of Paik's supposed "left tilt" body language is ridiculous. Paik told Pickering and CIT that he could only see the right wing:

and repeated this to Craig Ranke.

Look at the still Larson captured at 03:14 in the above video and you'll see how he (and his JREF cohorts still to this day) twisted the image. He had actually been pointing to where he was and then described seeing "a big black wing". The right wing. Unreal.

JREF and 911Myths use the same dishonest tactics with another gif from the same video and claim that he's pointing down Columbia Pike:

At 03:25 in this video

Craig: How high was the plane when it was in front of you?

Ed Paik: uhhh..almost hit (points at roof)..I thought at that time the airplane hit...uhhh roof, MY ROOF.
My building roof (points the length of his roof)...Hit THIS ROOF.That much lower

At 03:45 he makes the same gesture, again talking about the aircraft almost hitting his roof and then in the very next sentence points without looking behind him.

At 03:52 the gif is captured. Both before and after he repeats that the aircraft almost hit his roof.

The gif used at jref and 911myths is a pure manipulation of footage that has NOTHING to do with the direction of the plane.

Are you getting an idea of how these guys operate?

A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 31st, 2011, 3:30 pm #6

Keith Wheelhouse

5) Keith Wheelhouse
Wheelhouse, the famous C-130 ‘shadowing’ witness, was actually ‘verified’ by CIT, and for their cameras DREW the south-of-Citgo path to a T.

Yes, Wheelhouse himself claimed that the C130 was "shadowing" the attack aircraft.

The graphic below is based on his drawing as shown by CIT, rotated correctly to north, CIT’s path added for reference, and his lines color-coded. Light blue is his 77 path, south of the Citgo, .

A bit of background on CIT's interaction with Keith Wheelhouse can be found here:

Interview contained here:

There is no "CIT path". They are paths drawn and described by witnesses.

CIT had been trying to set up an interview with Keith Wheelhouse regarding his testimony. When CIT eventually caught up with him he drew the exact official paths not only for the attack plane but for the C130. "To a 'T'". That was the problem!

1. The problem with this image and his insistence that the C130 was "shadowing" it is that the C130 didn't arrive until almost 3 minutes after the attack plane.

2. That the witnesses in the immediate area, not too far from his alleged POV all describe the C130 as arriving from the NorthWest.

As did the pilot of the C130 himself

The ANC witnesses who were in the same vicinity (but with a much better view)

Wheelhouse, as with the official RADES data, has the C 130 banking away to where the ANC witnesses (among others) have it arriving!

RADES and Wheehouse vs witnesses and the C130 pilot

Kudos to the CIT team for this video I put together using this extensive forum:

3. The videos (and pilot) shows that the aircraft was at a much higher altitude (almost 3000ft) and would have been over Wheelhouse's head!

Even Adam Larson agrees with this!

although the source has qualified this placement of the C130 with waffle (pure Larson)

The C130 pilot is quoted as saying

When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC.
-Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

Taken from an e-mail exchange with Rob Balsamo of Pilotsfor911Truth, O'Brien made the following statement:

4. The official (and publically available) paths as per RADES for both aircraft, are strikingly similar to the "paths" Wheelhouse drew but with one very important exception (Keith). The official "impact time" as per the NTSB was 09:37:46. Where was the C 130 according to this "data"?

Official proven fake C130 RADES data in blue (note the timeframes when the C130 was allegedly banking over wheelhouse at about 09:39:23AM):


5. He claims to have seen both aircraft for "about 60 seconds" it out.

6. Keith Wheelhouse was in no position to see the flightpath and tell whether it was NOC or SOC (if he could see it at all)
CIT filmed his POV according to his repeated assertion that he was "2/3rds up" the cemetery.

He sent CIT images:

Even the vantage point from where the guys in the above image are looking has no view of the "impact zone"

The rest of Larson's spin needs no answering. The facts are there. Wheelhouse's account is not corroborated by anyone (in fact he is contradicted at every turn) and he was in no position to physically see any flightpath apart from flightpaths he saw online. End of story.

His story has been used by Larson, John Farmer, Chris Sarns and entities such as "AlreadyPublished" and "Vert" at other forums to spout disinfo about a "second plane" which they've intermingled with the NOC witness testimony and which falls apart at the first hurdle. On the one hand they point to the Pentagon OCT and on the other mutter this "second plane" nonsense to muddy the waters. Never elaborating on the reasoning or purpose in such an op.

Whatever Wheelhouse's intentions, video, witness and physical evidence throw his testimony under the bus. Full stop.

William Lagasse got his original position off by 20ft and he was accused of being a "liar" by Larson, yet he points to this guy's testimony as proof of anything given all of the above?

Yeah, right.

A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 31st, 2011, 9:44 pm #7

Alan Wallace

6) Alan Wallace
One of three firefighters at the heliport for the President’s scheduled arrival later in the day. “The plane had two big engines, appeared to be in level flight, and was only approximately 25 feet off the ground and only about 200 YARDS from our location.” He was a bit off on the color, but felt it was close enough to match: “The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Air Bus 320- white with blue and orange stripes. Mark later recalled the plane was silver and even identified that it was American Airlines.” White/orange/blue – silver/red/blue - close enough.

The description of a large commercial aircraft is repeated throughout many testimonies is not in dispute. Whether it was "AA" is another matter. No records to date have been released identifying the aircraft as "Flight 77".

No serial number is "available" to identify the FDR as coming from "Flight 77".

Even the alleged recovery of the "FDR" is highly contradictory:

The validity of the data has been torn to shreds

Is Larson is going to use Alan Wallace's exact words on the approach he witnessed down to the exact degree, yet hypocritically dismiss an entire body of witnesses on a simple "left or right" question?
A witness who is on record as having seen the aircraft when it was allegedly "200 yards" away and immediately ran for cover?

Similarly with heading?

Yes. He is..(continuing Larson's blog)

I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees.” I’m presuming here he means relative to the building’s west wall, where 90 would be a perpendicular track. From this there are two 45 degree-angle paths (in orange below). His account shows no perceived discrepancy between the angle he thought he saw and the final official path he saw later, so we must look for the “45 degrees” closest to this. Which one is a fit for ANY proposed path?

What Larson ommitted from the luckily archived statement from Alan Wallace was this:

So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building.  We did NOT.  We only saw it approach for an instant.  I would estimate not longer than half a second. Others didn’t understand why we didn’t hear it sooner.  We did not hear it until right after we saw it.  I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1½-2 seconds after we saw it.  What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it, we heard the noise; the engines, I’m sure.  I described that as a terrible noise – loud, scary, and horrible. 
At the time we saw the plane I said, “LET’S GO!” and Mark and I ran away from the area.  I turned and ran to my right, going north.  (I do not remember which way Mark went, since I did not see him until I crawled out from under the Ford Van.)


Jeffrey ("Shure") Hill phoned Alan Wallace when he first started phoning the Pentagon witnesses. He had tried in vain to find an "SOC witness" and actually, unintentionally revealed more NOC witnesses. Failing that, he asked purely about the alleged impact, lied to some, lead many and effectively poisoned the well against any further investigation by CIT by naming Craig Ranke in person and presenting himself as not "believing" the "conspiracy theorists" so as to frame the interview - this coming from a guy who lead a nasty little NPT campaign for years. In some cases totally making false claims about what they had said in labelling almost all of them "impact witnesses".

More here (take the time to read through the section on Jeff Hill if you really want to see what's going on):

On this occasion he actually asked about the trajectory of the aircraft.

Hill: Did the plane come in to the right or the left of that gas station?

Wallace: I guess it would have come in right over the top of it..

Then we get a more reliable lineation when Wallace mentioned "landmarks".

And it would be to the north of the, of the br-- the over-- overpass, or underpass. And if you put one end of the straight edge just about, just about to the center of the, uh, length of the west wall of the Pentagon. And put the other e-- uh, and put part of the straight edge back, back to the southeast, southwest, or, or, west, and put it, just to the north of the overpass, that is the path of the airplane. Cause when we saw it-- when I, when I first saw it, it was right o-- it was right in front of those big, uh, freeway signs there that say Pentagon south parking.

"put the other e-- uh, and put part of the straight edge back, back to the southeast, southwest, or, or, west, and put it, just to the north of the overpass, that is the path of the airplane. "

Southwest is in the direction of the lightpoles, west is the direction of the Navy Annex (NOC).

There are two signs on Route 27 that could fit that description.

1. Larson's image shows the more extreme NOC path described by one witness. William Middleton, while completely ignoring other variables such as Turcios.

2. Larson again tries to funnel in his "Columbia Pike" SOC fantasy that will not add up to a path through the directional damage, by implying that Wallace's "45º" to the facade description would somehow mean in relation to magnetic north..
This is absurd.

When we see his POV from an aeriel perspective with the facade rotated, we can see that the directional damage path and NOC path are both off at an angle.

Wallace claimed to be to the left (facing us) of the burned out Titan firetruck in the following image:

An aeriel view (rotated) to give some perspective on the line of sight from the heliport.

NOTE: The Pentagon facade, and particularly Alan Wallace's POV face on to Arlington Cemetery. Not the Navy Annex.

The view from Route 27 directly in front of heliport

The angle of view for both the official and estimated entry point on to Route 27

The above isn't intended to prove anything one way or the other but to give an idea of the margin of discrepancy in the two entry points and how accurate a witness would be given that he caught a glimpse of the aircraft and immediately ran away for his life.

3. The "60º" path was described to him by the FBI. They were the ones who showed him the directional damage path during a "debriefing" that several witnesses went through for a number of days shortly after the event. This is crucial as to the independence of his testimony. Whatever he saw, his memory of events, brief as they were, would be open to suggestion when told the "official" story. Repeatedly.

The FBI also told him that the aircraft "struck" the back left tyre of the firetruck at the heliport. Which is impossible. And which Alan Wallace himself queried.

4. Sean Boger was to his immediate right in the helipad looking out from a raised perspective and for a relatively longer period of time. He claims to have seen the aircraft from it arrived over the Annex and places it to his right hand side for the entire duration.

5. Wallace states categorically that he saw the aircraft for "half a second" and that he and his workmate immediately ran and dove for cover.

6. Larson knows that corraboration is key. As with any other alleged "SOC witness" that he has presented in this blog (and anywhere else), he and others cling to ambiguous details which on closer inspection don't stand up to scrutiny. How can he put this guy, who seems to be a very affable, genuine person (listening to his conversation with Hill) who saw the aircraft for a split second be used to counter all of these people (and then some)?

Here's an idea of the alleged speed (580mph, according to Legge/Stutt) minus 80 over a distance of 750 ft. Pretty close to what Mr Wallace described in distance and the official speed.


A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

June 1st, 2011, 2:28 pm #8


7) Timmerman/Vignola
Witnesses Hugh “Tim” Timmerman and his then-girlfriend Dawn Vignola saw the plane from a upper-floor apartment south of impact. With a panoramic view, they were able to see most of the path from at least the Navy Annex and forward.

I can't read through one sentence of Larson's work without having to correct him..

No they did not have a view of "most of the path from at least the Navy Annex and forward."

Here is her apartment in relation to Citgo and the Pentagon:

This is the "panoramic view" taken by CIT from their apartment.

Here is the view from the apartment window to the facade of the Pentagon.

The shadowed areas represent where the aircraft would have been completely out of their view:

Back to the blog..

Timmerman had more plane knowledge and lodged a detailed report, while Dawn first spoke to the news on 9/11 and years later talked with another person going by the name Plan 271 online, who drew this path (in blue) based on her description.

Poster "Plan 271" (who was believed to have been the husband of Dawn Vignola) can be seen here:

Dawn Vignola's television interview can be heard here, with Timmerman in the background telling her what to say based on what he claims to have seen:

The apartment location wrong and the view blocked by another building (long red arrow) is set a bit wide, perhaps to fudge it in the interests of privacy (too late!) So the span where it passed the Citgo is deduced – did it suddenly swerve north there? No, because it had no time to correct from the left turn it was observed in (surely not as shown here, distorted by perspective, but the idea is the same), and a north path would mean the plane pulled-up and over, but to these witnesses it seemingly crashed into the ground just before the building.

Remember the actual view from the apartment, then click on the "path" linked to above.

Again with the "left turn", which is nowhere to be found in the official data. This alone is fatal to the entire blog.

How could any path in relation to the ground have been drawn from their perspective when for example, the "I-395" motorway cannot even be seen? The Citgo gas station? The lightpoles? Route 27?

Which part of the
"path" should be disregarded? Why has the path been moved much further away from the Navy Annex than described in Timmerman's original testimony?

..and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines.

There were many more witnesses in a far better position to see he trajectory over the Navy Annex quoted near the end of this post:

It is impossible for them to see the aircraft "reappear" just by looking at the view they had of the Pentagon lawn.
Did they actually see the aircraft "reappear"? Or did they turn when they saw the fireball? How would they have known to watch that specific area at a much lower elevation having allegedly watched it a few hundred feet AGL? At the exact moment?

Remember the reality check for Adam Larson aka "Pentagonrealitycheck"..

Either way, they in no way can be labelled "SOC witnesses" when they couldn't see the path in question!

Loose Nuke aka Eric Larson made surreal accusations regarding Timmerman/Vignola and showed a slightly different angle from their apartment which made no difference whatsoever to the fact that they couldn't physically see the Pentagon basin.
He also dishonestly posted a zoomed in shot of the Pentagon facade from their apartment window.

CIT answered his longwinded waffle and baseless accusations here:

How could they be "SOC witnesses" when they couldn't see the aircraft in the crucial decisive moments?

Even Timmerman states this uncategorically:

CNN Breaking news Sept 11 13.46

TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.

That's an understatement

FRANKEN: We were told that it was flying so low that it clipped off a couple of light poles as it was coming in.

TIMMERMAN: That might have happened behind the apartments that occluded my view.

And when it reappeared, it was right before impact, and like I said, it was right before impact, and I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames.

Timmerman claims to have been on the "16th floor" watching the aircraft around the Sheraton/Navy Annex area. The Pentagon basin slopes downward very sharply. At the official speed, the aircraft would have reached the facade in 2.5 seconds.
From he saw the aircraft until after it had disappeared, did they both shuffle along window and stare fixedly at the alleged "impact point" to catch it for the fraction of a second that it would have been in view to Timmerman (and Vignola)? Or did he see the fireball after the fact?

Either way, they couldn't see the path. At all.

The theme of this blog is blatant lies, glaring contradictions, waffle and using witnesses who had partial questionable views, usually from distance, or no view at all!


A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

June 2nd, 2011, 9:15 pm #9

Stephen McGraw

8) Father Stephen McGraw
*Alleged witness DoJ lawyer and spooky just-ordained Opus Dei Catholic-priest* Stephen McGraw has described the flight path as from directly over his car, about 20 feet up and descending ahead of him and to his right to the impact point where he clearly saw it impact.

1. First off, nowhere, but nowhere, does McGraw describe the aircraft as "descending ahead of him".

Let's look at Larson's image of where he claims McGraw claimed to be. And where exactly McGraw gave the impression that the aircraft was "descending ahead of him".

He has McGraw in the lane closest to the Pentagon Lawn even though this is completely and repeatedly shown not to be the case.

"The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church.
"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars."
McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon."

During Aldo Marquis' interview he again repeated that he was in the "left lane" but also said that he was "in standstill traffic...right in front of the lawn there.."

Is McGraw referring to the patch of grass between the ringroads leading in and out of South Parking or the Pentagon Lawn as claimed by Larson in his image?

We'll find out later.

Back to the blog...

He even told this to Aldo and Craig, and so all we need is his location to draw the path to the building, which CIT didn’t think to gather and hasn’t tried since. This line should also include, as McGraw deduced afterwards, the light pole that was clipped “just before it got to us” and the taxi damaged by it (see England, below) that was “just a few feet away from my car.”

2. Larson gives the impression that McGraw was directly under the directional damage path while ignoring key parts of his testimony.
Larson's central theme, which he has built his spin around is that the "pole" which allegedly damaged Lloyd England's cab was the same one McGraw mentioned to Aldo Marquis and so places him "a few feet away from my car".

Is he talking about this pole?

If McGraw was "a few feet away" from Lloyd's cab, why didn't he describe this scenario?

The cab was allegedly sitting on the road for 8-9 minutes like this as per Lloyd's description of the second fireball going off as he and his "silent friend/stranger" removed it.

McGraw claimed to Aldo Marquis:

I believe I later saw the evidence of the pole having been knocked over... I think it was just after the fact seeing a piece of the pole. I think I only recall seeing the top part of the lightpole, so anyway that was the only part that actually got knocked off. It might not have been the entire pole getting knocked down.

So no, he wasn't describing "Lloyd's pole". The top piece of "Lloyd's pole" was neatly aligned a few feet away from the large piece.
The "few feet away" description is taken out of context too when you look at the actual distance from Larson's placement of McGraw to the bizarre Lloyd scenario (400ft in fact).

Images and video show that McGraw was in and around the northern area of the lawn right up to one of the many evacuations from 10:15am on (10:25am in his case along with a group apparently helping the injured beyond the two trees in front of the lawn)

Don't forget the two lane barriers between northbound and the HOV lanes shown in the above image.

The plane passed from over the pole/cab area to over him and descended ahead all on a line he feels was “controlled and straight” into the building and CIT dismisses him as a “no-pather” witness and highly suspicious. CIT got no verification of his location, and they doubt he was at the scene at all, more likely fabricating for his Opus Dei NWO masters. He was placed in the correct spot (“a few feet” from England’s taxi and ahead of pole 1) in their graphics, “because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story,” which, in CIT land, is now a proven lie.

I only wish I knew which version of the "official story" Larson is sticking to.
Reeking hypocrisy from the same guy who claims that the NOC witnesses are "cointel"!

3. Given McGraw's description of the "top piece of the lightpole" that he claimed to see afterwards and his belief that only the "top piece" was "actually knocked off", how does Larson's placement of him on the road jive with the fact that 3 of the alleged 5 lightpoles on the directional damage path were in full view of him? Even if he was slightly further up, he would still have two of them in sight.

If the claim is that he may have "missed" them being "struck", how about when he got out of his car to "administer last rites" on the Pentagon Lawn? He could hardly have missed them could he?

Look at poles 3 and 4 in this composite (both to the immediate right of Larson's placement of McGraw):

Lightpole 5 seen in Larson's image (closest to lawn):

4. In his interview with Aldo Marquis, he repeatedly reinforces his alleged position on the road.

"I ended up right in front of the Pentagon"

"I was right in front of the lawn there...with the Pentagon on my right"

He does not mention crossing one or two lanes of traffic, THEN a traffic island THEN another (exit) lane. It's obvious from his testimony to any logical person.

I got out of my car and walked across the one or two lanes of traffic and went over the guard rail onto the lawn there.

He didn´t see lightpoles 3, 4 or 5 either being knocked down OR on the ground as he allegedly made his way onto the lawn? He HAD to be further up the road according to his description. No question.

No way is he describing the POV where Larson places him.

5. Why did Larson place him in the right hand lane?

We know that he was allegedly in the third of threes lanes of "heavy traffic" between his alleged POV and the Pentagon. He claimed not to see the approach and only allegedly knew of the plane as it went over his car.

I had no awareness of the incoming plane until it was above our cars..

Here's an idea of what Route 27 looked like that morning at least 10-15 minutes after the explosion (imagine the view from the driver seat):


His memories include a vague "bounce" on the lawn allegedly recounted on "hearing other witness testimonies", the aircraft "disappearing" and large flames exploding out of the top windows.

I've yet to see Stephen McGraw describe the actual event of the aircraft allegedly penetrating the Pentagon facade. I mean, he repeatedly describes the flames "exploding out of the top windows" but (what would have been) the terrific, surreal sight of an aircraft smacking into a building? He even paused when asked by Aldo if he actually saw the alleged impact.

The alleged speed of the aircraft 540-580mph, or 1.2 - 1.3 seconds from lightpole 1 to the facade. Less than a second until the explosion, looking through two lanes of traffic, through his passenger window. He is on record as not seeing the approach at all and is describing an NOC POV "in front of the lawn". Stepping over the "guard-rail" (singular) on to THE lawn (seen running along the edge of the lawn in the following image).

Definitely not a "documented SOC witness" Larson.

By the way. 750ft @ 500mph - reality check (I'll keep linking to this until it sinks in)..

Larson has intentionally twisted McGraw's testimony. His placement is wrong. If anything McGraw is describing the NOC entry point onto Route 27.

Again, McGraw didn't see any poles being "struck". He is on record as saying that he didn't even see the approach at all, which alone should be enough to dismiss the validity of labelling him an "SOC witness"!

All we have is an account of somebody sitting in a car in heavy traffic (his own words), with two lanes between him and the lawn with an alleged less than one second window to witness a blur, an alleged 200ft diameter fireball and an explosion felt 3km away as per the official account.


A Regular Jim Garrison
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

June 3rd, 2011, 3:28 pm #10

Penny Elgas

Headed north on Route 27 “almost in front of the Pentagon,” Penny Elgas reported “I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.” Finally a witness that mentions the Citgo, and a reason others don’t, and a side! It’s tempting to simply declare it was passing along Columbia, which puts it south, but she only placed it over the road. Below I offer NoC and SoC variants for comparison.

Let's see Larson's interpretation of Ms Elgas' testimony in all of its glory:

Uh huh.

Now let's see the path she was actually describing according to her own words.


1. "looked out my driver's side window"

How can she be looking out of her "driver side window", on a road that runs away from the aircraft's entry into that basin of land and see an aircraft on the directional damage path without being at full stretch looking back from Larson's alleged POV?

2. "coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.”

Larson completely ignored this description.

Columbia Pike does indeed run perpendicular (that link is for Larson, Hill and friends) to Route 27 and runs below the Route 27 overpass into South Parking, or through a ring road to bring you back onto it.

Hill's phonecall to Penny Elgas revealed just how close she claims to have seen the aircraft to the Citgo Station and reinforcing the Columbia Pike path that runs under the overpass:

...the next thing my mind picked up, it was ..already had moved enough to be over the grass, headed over the road the left..and the next thing it's right in front of me above the cars..


Well, it was very low, I thought it was gonna hit the gas station..the wing just skimmed the roof of the gas station ..across the street, I thought it was actually gonna hit it..

At what point in her alleged line of sight from Larson's POV would the aircraft "appear" to be over Citgo and heading straight for her?

"SOC" is off to a bad start.

3. Again, he uses "another" SOC "path" that has been proven to require up to 72º of left bank (!) that is nowhere to be found on the "Flight 77" FDR or is compatible with what this witness describes. At all.

What is hypocritical is the staunch defense of the validity of the FDR and Warren Stutt's manipulated and unverified "extra data" yet detractors constantly ignore it (and aerodynamics) when discussing witness testimony. Here (again) is Larson's alleged "SOC path" manouevre required to line up with the directional damage through the lightpoles. Even if everybody somehow missed this, the aircraft would have missed the poles:

Back to the blog..

She recalled it coming “toward my car” and passing low “about 4-5 car lengths in front of me.” Along the way, the plane was descending and “banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.” Left or right turn? Coming from NoC, it’d have to bank right, which means right wing low. South path could be level and straight or, some evidence shows, banking slightly left wing low. With the right wing closest to her, Elgas said “I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.”

4. The majority of witnesses (not only those verified as NOC) described the aircraft as "levelling/straightening out", "powering up" or "wobbling", when it had passed the Citgo gas Station.
Larson exaggerates the "slightest turn in front of me" into an actual bank that somehow could have changed the direction of the aircraft within that short timeframe from the road to the Pentagon facade. This is nonsense.

Whatever apparent tilt of the wings the aircraft executed, it will not change course/direction. Especially at the alleged 540-580mph!

Again Elgas' description of what Larson calls a "bank" is disproved here:

I saw one wing straight at me and the end of that wing I saw from under the plane because it wobbled, it tipped..

5. And "passing low"?

Hill: How high up would you say..?

PE:..maybe 40 or 50 feet, something like that.

Although in her online testimony:

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

Now I know witnesses can't be used to extrapolate exact distances, altitude, etc, but Penny Elgas certainly wasn't describing the aircraft as being as "low" as Larson is insinuating.

One thing I will say is that the aircraft, according to the alleged physical damage to the lightpoles had to be a maximum of 25-30ft AGL from lightpoles 1 and 2. At "4-5 cars in front" of her, that would appear to be nearly on top of her in the scheme of things.


Straight at her, banking left and passing ahead of, and then impacting, which she is quite clear on. She actually had a piece of the plane land in her car, confirming her location about under the plane as it started losing parts, which a NoC plane would not do. She is a south path witness, plain as day, and no hunt was necessary. Why does CIT still claim no published SoC witnesses even though this one is quite well-published? Oh she’s all kinds of suspicious, her account is too public, too detailed, the plane part thing is too weird, and she has government connections. Not a real DC witness and not worth talking to. “Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect," they say.

Again with the "banking". She was describing a tilting motion in the wings. That's it.
How does he know that the aircraft wouldn't "lose parts" on the NOC trajectory? It was allegedly flying beyond a 757's limitations. We at least know that it wasn't on the trajectory through the lightpoles!

6. The "debris falling through the roof of her car" has been cleared up.

Penny Elgas: ...there were things in my front seat, so I got out of my car (OSS: and missed a cab with a 30ft pole sticking out of it) and I started throwing things into the back seat and I was dropping things and picking up things and one of the things I picked up was from the ground and one of the pieces must have been from the plane..or a piece of it.

HILL: "And you said you saw saw it hit one of the lightpoles?

ELGAS:  No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a lightpole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane, is that it clipped the pole. The tail ---that was actually the tail that I turned into the Smithsonian. A piece of the tail.

HILL:  And that kinda..the..what I was fell into your car?

ELGAS: Well, that's what they said, but that's not what happened.

HILL: You just picked it up, or..?

ELGAS: I picked it up.

7. I've never seen explained just exactly how the "tail" of the aircraft could physically have been "ripped off" by a lightpole when there was a preceding 125ft wingspan...

And the debris? Apart from the fact that no "debris" has ever officially been identified as coming from "Flight 77".

A curious poster at the ATS forums allegedly sent an e-mail to the Smithsonian museum where this piece of debris is now kept to ascertain its identification.

This is the answer he allegedly received:

I am unaware of any research undertaken by the Smithsonian to determine from what area of the plane the museum's fragment of flight 77 originated. We don't suggest that it was from the tail section although I guess that is possible. The provenance of the artifact is quite strong so there seems little doubt about what it is. We have spoken to American Airlines about the fragment but they did not ask to have it returned (they retain the majority of the flight 77 debris.) We have not contacted Boeing and there is no reason for the NTSB to be involved. The FBI handled the majority of the investigation of the crime scene.

The collecting curator for the fragment was Bill Yeingst who can be reached by e-mail at I doubt he has more information to pass along. The artifact is held by the Division of Military and Diplomacy. You can contact the Division through Cedric Yeh ( or Jennifer Jones (

I am a bit mystified by the your query unless you are trying revive the conspiracy theory that the plane was not Flight 77. If so the Smithsonian is not interested interested in participating in such a line of inquiry. The reason the piece was collected by the Smithsonian was because of its altar like preservation by Penny Elgas. It is an interesting example of public reaction to the events of September 11 and provides insight into the construction of public memory and commemoration.

Thank you for your interest in the National Collections.

Peter Liebhold
Chair, Division of Work and Industry
National Museum of American History
Washington, DC

So it has never been identified as to which "plane part" it allegedly is, never mind coming from "Flight 77"

8. She was in a good position to witness at least one lightpole being "struck". She didn't.
She would have been in a very good position to see Lloyd from there, no? When the pole was allegedly protruding 30 ft through his window for 8-9 minutes?

She was in the HOV lane that runs closest to the lanes Lloyd was allegedly in.

Lloyd England's pole at least should have been clearly visible to Penny Elgas given the POV Larson has placed her and the fact that she claimed to have exited her car stuck in heavy traffic:

Particularly seeing as how she claimed to get out of her car and was there for a while after according to her account.

I wanted the traffic to turn around. I didn't know what else to do so I got out of my car and ran back toward the highway yelling "Go Back! They just hit the Pentagon!" But of course, no one could move in any direction because traffic was at a standstill. A young woman in her 20's from the car in front of me was standing in front of my car and was visibly distraught and said she didn't know what to do. I told her that she was could come sit with me in my car for awhile and then I went to my car and started throwing everything from the front seat into the back seat to make room for her. I remember momentarily thinking that something was odd about the stuff as I tossed it back, but I didn't focus on it. Just then, a rather large man (from the regular traffic lanes) in a light tan military uniform bellowed to everyone within earshot. "Get Back In Your Car!!" So we did.

Then I became aware of people streaming out of the back side of the Pentagon and congregating on the sidewalks. It appears it was only a minute or two after the impact because they weren't yet looking at the crash site and seemed perplexed as to why they were outside. Perhaps only a few minutes lapsed from the actual time of impact to the time when someone was yelling at the traffic to "Go! Go! Go!" But it seemed like an eternity.

To sum up, was Larson actually serious given all of the above? The witness is driving on a road that faces away from the (official) path he is advocating.

Penny Elgas has always been on record as being an "impact witness" but he doesn't see the contradiction in the 540-580 mph official speed and the alleged full penetration through to C Ring in "0.8 seconds" and the detailed account Penny gave?

She is not an "SOC witness" no matter how it is twisted. Hill, Larson and whoever can spam the "she saw the impact with her own eyes" mantra, but her testimony regarding the trajectory and even the same "impact" testimony contradicts the
necessary flightpath through the lightpoles, generator and damage within the building right through to the C Ring "exit hole". She contradicts the gatecam and the alleged 0.8 second full "penetration".

These people believe that as long as the aircraft was allegedly seen to have "impacted", no matter which path it took, no matter how much the FDR/RADES data is torn apart, no matter how much the gatecam is contradicted nor how much the aircraft limitations and Hani Hanjur's "pilot skills" are off the radar, it doesn't matter. It's a "honey pot". Flies and shit seem more appropriate words.