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
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.
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:
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.
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.