We've Narrowed It Down To 2 Possible Scenarios...


 Discuss all aspects of the Pentagon incident here.   Discuss all aspects of the Pentagon incident here.

We've Narrowed It Down To 2 Possible Scenarios...

Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Joined: Jun 23 2006, 08:33 PM

Sep 9 2006, 08:28 PM #1

It seems as though at least between Russell, Merc, JohnDoeX and myself that we can all agree that one of these two scenarios had to be what happened at the pentagon.

I would like to use this thread to compare the two side by side in order for people to determine which has more evidence to back it up.

I will break all of the evidence up into catagories and sub-catagories in order to try and determine which hypothesis is supported more by that evidence.

First let's reiterate how now we have 2 potential flight paths as hypothesized by Merc and Russell.



The yellow flight path represents Merc's interpretation of the fly-over and the Red flight path represents Russells interpretation of the impact.

So let's break it down by catagories of evidence:


1. Mechanical damage (light poles, trailers, spools, and any other visible physical damage)

a] If we accept there is no possiblity of it being staged we must accept the impact hypothesis and the discussion is over.

b] If we believe there is a possibility it was staged we must at least still consider the fly-over hypothesis.


2. Evidence that the mechanical damage was staged vs. evidence that it is real.

a] The damage lines up with itself and the size of a 757 so this is evidence it could be real.

b] The damage to the pentagon is visibly counterintuitive to what we would expect from a 757 so this is evidence that it was staged.

c] Lloyd had the only physical encounter with the light poles so his account is CRUCIAL in determining whether or not this was staged. Well his account has pretty much been proven to be at least in serious question or at most utterly ludicrous. The fact that his account is at least in serious questoin is significant evidence that the downed light poles were staged.

3. The confiscated video tape situation.

a] See relevant thread but bottom line this evidence can ONLY support the fly-over scenario as it goes against all logic to suggest they would have made such a concerted effort to conceal these video tapes if they had used a 757 with the color and markings of an AA commercial jet as the few pieces of mechanical debris indicate.

4. The FDR data.

a] There is no room for discussion. This catagorically supports the fly-over hypothesis.

5. The topography of the area.

This is a significant thing to consider since up until our trip all of us were merely analyzing the terrain based on linear maps. The topography is far from level and this ultimately imposes physical obstacles on the impact hypothesis that weren't considered before. There are other light poles, telephone poles, buildings, and a signficant decline that would have all added to the difficulty of the maneuver if the plane were to actually impact the pentagon in a precise perfectly level fashion just a few feet off the ground as shown in the released videos. Naturally none of this is a concern with the fly-over hypothesis so I submit this as further evidence in support of a fly-over.

6. The eyewitnesses.

This is the biggest grey area and what I think is the root of our disagreement because it is subject to interpretation but I think it's important to break each eyewitness account down to determine which of the above hypothesized flight paths are supported more.

The primary difference is.......accounts of the plane going over the navy annex straight up contradict the impact flight path.

So we need to determine if this claim is corroborated enough to be considered credible or if it should be written off as a mistake. I will work backward with the witnesses that we spoke to or made contact with as a result of our trip.

a] Citgo employee.

He witnessed the plane and his manager told us he had the plane placed on the side of the station that could only match up with the fly-over flight path. This has now been officially confirmed with this eyewitness directly via phone interview by Merc. This account is the most important because he was closer to the pentagon than any other witness before the witnesses on hwy 27 and his placement of the plane is more significant to the flight path than any other eyewitness. He catagorically identified the blue path below which irrefutable supports the fly-over hypthesis.


It's also notable that he would have had by far the best view of the 1st light pole being hit yet he claims he did not see this happen.

I took this shot from the citgo station so this would have been his approximate view of light pole number one which allegedly went into Lloyd's cab:


Yet he didn't see the light pole OR the pentagon get hit by a plane.

Clearly this account is only in support of the fly-over hypothesis.


b] Madelyn Zakem

She has the plane directly over the VDOT only inches above the building but tilting TOWARDS the navy annex. This could theoretically go either way since both Merc and Russell's potential flight paths pretty much converge at the VDOT but the fact that she has the plane leaning towards the navy annex has her account leaning towards the fly-over hypothesis in my opinion.

c] Edward Paik

He has the plane flying low, fast, and almost clipping the last building of the navy annex. His direct reference to the navy annex puts his account more in support of the fly-over hypothesis.

d] White plane girl

She saw the plane low and fast and her positioning could be supported by either hypothesis so this one is a draw.

e] Thomas Trappasso.

He was in a narrow courtyard between tall buildings and very tall trees. He claims the plane flew directly overhead low and fast and that he was underneath the plane. His account is more supported by the fly-over flight path as it would be questionable whether he could even see the plane at all when using the mechanical damage flight path.

f] Other witnesses that put the plane over the navy annex.

Merc's first post on this page of this thread:
here
lists many of the other witnesses that corrorborate the claim that the plane went over the navy annex.


Clearly there are too many accounts of this to write them all off as misperception. These eyewitnesses are all evidence in support the fly-over hypothesis.




As you can see when cosidering the ENTIRE BODY of evidence at this point it overwhelmingly supports the fly-over scenario as far as I can interpret it.

Let me know if there are any other catagories of evidence that I may have missed.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 10 2006, 03:58 AM #2

VERY well lined out and great potential for actual discussion. If everybody treats this thread with respect then it should be fruitful.

I will post my opposite interpretations and support the mechanical damage flight path for the comparison.. Understand that this is not any type of attack but is only an option to consider along with everything else.

One clarification. Did the Citgo employee put that line on the graphic himself? If not I can give you a clean version of the photos without my initial errors on it. I mistakenly implied the wrong camera location from a phone call. There are NO exterior cameras on the building. They are all under the canopy.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Joined: Jun 23 2006, 08:33 PM

Sep 10 2006, 05:01 AM #3

Russell Pickering @ Sep 10 2006, 03:58 AM wrote:VERY well lined out and great potential for actual discussion. If everybody treats this thread with respect then it should be fruitful.

I will post my opposite interpretations and support the mechanical damage flight path for the comparison.. Understand that this is not any type of attack but is only an option to consider along with everything else.

One clarification. Did the Citgo employee put that line on the graphic himself? If not I can give you a clean version of the photos without my initial errors on it. I mistakenly implied the wrong camera location from a phone call. There are NO exterior cameras on the building. They are all under the canopy.
Cool man I'm glad you will participate!

No as I'm sure you know he didn't put the line on the graphic himself I merely recycled that graphic to demonstrate the approximate two flight path options that we are discussing.

One lines up with the light poles and the other clearly doesn't.

FYI: I just got off the phone with Merc who just got off the phone with Dick Eastman who has recently interviewed Legasse on the phone.

Legasse stands by the claim that he was on the starboard side of the plane so that also corroborates the citgo employee.

Yeah yeah, I know, Merc called out Legasse, well as we all know it is not uncommon for witnesses to sensationalize and I don't doubt that plenty of that going on with Legasse but it's not like lying about what side of the plane you are on makes the account any more interesting.
Quote
Like
Share

Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Joined: Jun 23 2006, 08:33 PM

Sep 10 2006, 06:37 AM #4

Ok here is a clean shot of the citgo station so everyone can imagine where the flight paths would be.




The plane would have to be to the right of the station to hit the light poles but both the citgo employee and william lagasse have it to the left of the station.


The pic I took is up on the tan mound to the front right of the station so it was about 30 or 50 feet closer to the 1st light pole than the employee would have been.



Russell said he'd post a shot that he thinks is a more accurate representation of his view.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 10 2006, 07:12 AM #5

Here is a graphic to help visualize the flyover with some basic statistics. Things are intended to be very close but not perfect here. Correct me if I am wrong.

Technically this is a debate but I hope this stays in the main forum so it will get viewed and participated in.



This graphic is designed with roughly two miles to the sides of the Pentagon and 3 in front. The yellow dot is pretty much the center of the Pentagon. The red dot was on the Google map already. The flight path is a close representation of the flyover path. I terminated it there since the plane could have turned. I highlighted the main runways at Regan too.

The sound of the explosion is what may have alerted people to look up so I will post a couple of references for that.

1) Sound will travel one mile in 5 seconds approximately depending on various factors.
3) The plane would travel at its last recorded speed approximately 3900 feet in 5 seconds.
3) A mile is 5280 feet.

So if you heard the explosion and looked up the plane would be 1380 feet away from you assuming it was flying towards you. That is a little less than a quarter of a mile.

I hope this stays professional and informative. I am not upset about anything and welcome the truth about the Pentagon no matter what form it comes in.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 10 2006, 08:23 AM #6

DISCLAIMER: I will perhaps make statements about eyewitnesses (that I didn't meet) that are initially wrong because it is not my speciality. Merc will correct me and I will learn as we go.

Here are my beliefs about a flyover. If it was a flyover I believe it would to have been a bump and run. They would have had to shoot out of there directly and turn or pull up to avoid detection. Logic would indicate they would try and turn towards the least populated area or just pull up and out for the simplest undetected escape.

The traditional notion that it slipped into Regan is very unrealistic when all of the new data is considered. The flight animation terminated at 173 feet pressure altitude or 400 and some feet actual altitude (according to calculations) at 530 mph.

Read the original flyover thread here to see the analysis of a slip into Regan scenario and to get an overview of the topic: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Chang ... topic=6420

The first thing we have to acknowledge is that the NTSB flight animation does not reconcile with the eyewitnesses we encountered in the flight pathl. It has the aircraft way over to the north of the Annex and way too high for the accounts we heard. There is the possibility the graphic was misaligned to far left while they were correcting for the 21 minute longitudinal error which was approximately 18 miles.



What this means is that the eyewitness account and the flight animation agree only in that the plane was to the north of the Citgo. The witnesses put it on the south side of the Annex going over the southeast corner according to Merc and Lyte. When we analyze each witness I will post photos and graphics to demonstrate their various perspectives.

That means only two witnesses - Lagasse and the new Citgo employee can place it to the North of the Annex. None of the people up on the hill could see what side of the Citgo it would have been on. We also have Brooks who was in the parking lot across the street from the Citgo (and Lagasse and the employee) who puts the plane on his left or in the mechanical damage path to the south. He was the only one between the Annex and 27 that was not under a canopy and claims to have had a clear view.

Even if the animation path were scooted over, the eyewitnesses also disagree very strongly with the altitude of the aircraft in the animation if you are to take them at face value. So the eyewitness path and the animation path are effectively irreconcilable. The animation path and the mechanical damage path are 100% irreconcilable. I will show later why I believe the eyewitness path and the mechanical damage path are very compatible factoring in the tendencies we saw in the witnesses and their perspective and line of site.

The next post will illustrate the three paths with an interesting surprise.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 10 2006, 09:59 AM #7

When I did the following graphic I thought it was wrong at first. I very specifically found the center of Trepasso's courtyard and then used the line tool (which is straight) to draw a line to the north of the Citgo. Then I noticed the graphic at the very beginning of this thread has a bend to the line representing the proposed flyover flight path.



This would then technically make it a flyby scenario. So is the bend in the line justified by any of the "solid" data we are using from the animation or the FDR?



It would not be. The line is projected to be straight at the end. According to the released FDR data, Flight 77 flew a near constant heading with only a 0.4 degree variation for the last 10 seconds or 7426 ft or 1.4 statute miles. The flight animation is also in a very straight line with no turn at the end. The eyewitnesses were pretty consistent about the straight line of the path too even describing the aircraft as determined or locked in. Nobody reported a turn like this.



This was an illustration posted in the flight path analysis thread I started based on the mechanical damage path. I imposed a straight line on it to see the difference. In my graphic I initially had an error in the wingspan since I tried to scale it to a mistaken dimension for the helipad. When corrected I guess I may still be 72" off. That doesn't matter though if I correct it and align it to the mechanical damage path it all lines up with everything being hit as per the impact scenario. It does not require the bending of lines to a degree of approximately 500 feet as in the above example.

So we have to decide for the rest of this discussion - do we discard the straight line indicated by the FDR material? Do we discard Trepasso? Trepasso has already been substantiated as an accurate witness for the flyover. The FDR is from the NTSB.

If we rotate the animation path to the impact point it then should line up with the mechanical damage path and we would have to say the eyewitnesses agree with it once you factor in their perspectives and characteristics typical of eyewitnesses. If we just scoot it over to line up it will not be north of the Citgo and we have to discard the two witnesses under the canopy.

Another option is to go with a flyby scenario as that is what a straight line indicates. That presents a whole new set of problems. It would make every eyewitness VERY wrong that was anywhere on 27. The closeness they reported to the aircraft and the sounds would all change. Then we would have to wonder why all the people on the other end of 27 weren't the ones who reported being buzzed by a plane.

All of the distant witnesses would be very wrong too in their accounting of the plane's path.

To me the purpose of a flyover is to coordinate the explosion with the impression that it was caused by a plane. If the plane and the explosion were so far apart the success of this would be very limited from what I see.

A flyover scenario then also implies the clocks stopping at 9:32 would also be wrong. We have the FDR time of 9:37:44 as the final entry. If the explosion happened 5 minutes earlier and then a plane came buzzing by EVERBODY would have seen it because they would be standing outside watching things. Remember one of the clocks is from the heliport which is outside the confines of the Pentagon building. I imagine a lot of people would have grabbed cameras too and we would have a lot of photos of a plane. Keep in mind how many photos we have now after an explosion. There were no reports of a pre-explosion at the Pentagon and then a 757 whizzing by.

If it was staged pyrotechnics the timing of the poles and the front of the building would have to be coordinated with a plane passing over to make it work. So planted witnesses would be not there to convince people of a plane, they would only be there to say it hit the building because everybody else saw a plane and a coordinated explosion. If all the witnesses were controlled then a flyover and coordinated explosions would be unnecessary. They would just set off bombs and say a plane did it. But because it is such a huge un-contained area with many views and thousands of people they would have to have some sort of a show for the uncontrolled witnesses too. But now that we know there was a plane in the area we have limited it to two options.

So my current thinking is this. If the animation is the flyover path then the only thing that it agrees with is two witnesses who were under a canopy claiming the plane was to the north of the Citgo. It destroys ALL witnesses on the hill none of which reported the plane to the north of the Sheraton like in the animation. ALL of the audio witnesses become suspect since the plane is not right overhead. And Trepasso becomes a liar or delusional.

If we adjust the flyover path to a straight line as in the FDR data, then it has to be moved and we run into the same witness problems in a different way. It could also be moved over the mechanical damage path like would be logical to convince people of a fake impact. So then this whole discussion would become what we believe about the elevation of the aircraft and we have to also agree then the eyewitnesses confirm a path very similar to the mechanical damage path except for the final elevation.

It is a tough one unless somebody sees options I am missing.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 10 2006, 11:30 AM #8

Here is an experiment I would like to see other people try in one form or another for confirmation. I only know how to do it in Photoshop.

Take this image:

1) Make it a background

Then take this image:

2) Make it a layer. Transparency it until you can line roads up to your satisfaction.
3) Make it opaque again.
4) Extend the flight path line (the yellow one on the left) with a line tool on the BOTTOM layer.
5) Then remove the overlay.

The following is what you end up with. A line very close to the mechanical damage path. Very near to exact. This was my very first attempt and I had no idea what it would look like when I removed the top layer. Let us see your results too.



If you don't believe me then take a copy of the original flight path map released by the NTSB here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

Get your own Google Earth image and do it from scratch. The road alignment is a little tricky because of the fuzziness of the NTSB map. I stretched it from the sides and corners until it all lined up.

The questions are why didn't they give us the flight path on a clear quality image or map in the first place with today's technology? And why didn't they line up the animation with their own map? I presume this map they made must be from the magnetic heading information?

I guess now we have to try and get the FDR data for ourselves and try to see what the radar altimeter says.

Russell
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Joined: Jun 23 2006, 08:33 PM

Sep 10 2006, 09:22 PM #9

Ok then.

Very thorough and complicated.


I would like to bring up the obvious fact that the fly-over and FDR flight paths have more room for error than the mechanical flight path that actually has zero room for error.

I would also like to suggest, as I already have, that although the FDR path doesn't line up with the suggested flight path of the fly-over....the FDR supports a fly-over hypothesis in general much more than it does the mechanical damage since a fly-over is theoretically possible with ANY flight path INCLUDING if it was EXACTLY THE SAME as the mechanical damage flight path.

Sorry to say it but it's true.

Even if it was possible to rule out every other flight path but the mechanical damage one.....it could still have been a fly-over.

There are other catagories of evidence in my original post that support fly-over vs. impact. That of course being the confiscated videos, the topography, and the dubious crucial account of Lloyd.

You see.....I do understand that perception of the eyewitness accounts (as well as our interpretations of them) are subjective.

All we can really do is try our best to determine which hypothesis their account supports more and then weigh all of that with the ENTIRE BODY of evidence to see which theory has more evidence backing it up.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 10 2006, 09:46 PM #10

Since nobody has posted a confirmation on this, then I will assume that the flight path map provided by the NTSB presumably representing the magnetic heading more closely confirms the path of mechanical damage than the flyover or flyby path and the animation path.

So what we have to do now is see if the witness descriptions we received can be explained in light of it.

Lyte said about the white plane girl, "She saw the plane low and fast and her positioning could be supported by either hypothesis so this one is a draw". That is true and it is also true of the teacher from the school since she was approximately 2 blocks behind or to the south of the white plane girl. This would also be true for the nanny just east and north of the white plane girl. Their view could be accounted for by the flyover/flyby or the mechanical damage path either one.

The next one is the Japanese brothers (we'll do Trepasso last since he is the origin point). Edward is the one who actually saw the plane. About Edward Lyte says, "Edward said it barely cleared the last wing of the Navy Annex. He described it as a "big grey plane with black wings". The black wings he was referring to were underneath as his vantage point would indicate. The problem with that is if you look at the aerial view of the annex and the mechanical damage path they don't appear to line up.

DISCLAIMER: The following graphics are intended to be close enough to recreate the subjective view of the situation. They are not measured to the inch and are not intended to be scientific. They are from Google Earth and may have skewing problems etc. I am satisfied with the accuracy and I do not intentionally misrepresent things on purpose.



As you can see the aerial view creates an apparent minor discrepancy in the difference between the mechanical damage path and Edward's recollection. But what about Edward's view?



After close examination you can see Edward might have had experienced the plane as having "barely cleared the last wing of the Navy Annex".

This would be a good time to detail a lesson on eyewitnesses we learned. Edward and his brother both believed the plane hit the 100 foot radio antenna in the VDOT yard. This of course made me curious since I had never heard this. First of all, this means Edward believed from what he saw the plane could have been far enough south to have done this.

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.

Now for the description of a gray plane that was black underneath. The sun was exactly opposite the aircraft during that time of day. This is confirmed by Edward's brother who was inside the shop when he said all he noticed was the dark shadow. It was universal that the witnesses on the sun side of the aircraft saw it as something like a white blur perhaps because of the reflections. And the witnesses on the shade side described it as gray perhaps because of the shade.

I personally watched many planes take off and land out of Regan in both directions in all the light of the day. I personally saw planes that looked white turn into the right light and suddenly you could see the livery of the airlines. Some of them were American Airlines.



Here are 3 examples of the actual aircraft N644AA. These photos are untouched by me except to crop and re-size. You can verify that at the link below this paragraph. You can see the strong reflection causes it to wash out in the photo on the left. You can see the middle one looks black underneath even though the sun is coming from the photographers side and not the other side as Edward described it. And in the one on the right you can see the aircraft has the potential to be gray. You can go through the link below and search for other variations in lighting. Keep in mind there goal is to get a bright shiny photo so they don't publish a lot where it looks grey or washed out.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.s ... ersion=6.0

It is true that the AA on the tail and the red tend to be the dominant presentation. But the people we talked to mentioned that it was so fast and a just blur a couple of them didn't even recall making out engines. NO not a missile either. There was no discrepancy that it was perceived as a commercial aircraft by these people with very vivid details of the corresponding sound.

You can see what a plane would look like doing 480 mph here - add 50 mph to that and you would have the speed of the plane reported near the Pentagon.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article ... lyseen.htm

Put the plane a little higher as was the case with the witnesses on the hill and you can see that the colors and the AA would be harder to make out. Factor in being so startled that you duck and maybe you would describe it the way Edward did.

With all things considered I am satisfied that Edward's account is representative of the mechanical flight path.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Nevermore
Regular Member
Nevermore
Regular Member
Joined: Jul 5 2006, 04:22 PM

Sep 10 2006, 10:03 PM #11

Lyte Trip @ Sep 9 2006, 08:28 PM wrote: ... So let's break it down by catagories of evidence:

2. Evidence that the mechanical damage was staged vs. evidence that it is real.

a] The damage lines up with itself and the size of a 757 so this is evidence it could be real.

b] The damage to the pentagon is visibly counterintuitive to what we would expect from a 757 so this is evidence that it was staged ...

3. The confiscated video tape situation.

a] See relevant thread but bottom line this evidence can ONLY support the fly-over scenario as it goes against all logic to suggest they would have made such a concerted effort to conceal these video tapes if they had used a 757 with the color and markings of an AA commercial jet as the few pieces of mechanical debris indicate.
Two questions:

1. Where do the frames released by the Pentagon fit into discussion point number 2? This seems to be evidence that something moved across the lawn and struck the building. Under the "staged" hypothesis is it implied that this video is untrustworthy or is it evidence of how the damage occurred?

2. Why must the concealment of video "ONLY support" the flyover scenario? I can conceive of a few other reasons the FBI (or whomever) would be apprehensive to release video even if it did show a plane crashing into the Pentagon:

a. It made it easy to prove it wasn't Flight 77 (a similar but recognizably different aircraft)

b. It showed how impossible the maneuver would be for a human pilot, especially a terrorist who couldn't pilot a trainer

c. It showed the pre-placement of emergency personnel and equipment

d. It showed defensive countermeasures being fired before impact

Personally, I haven’t seen one bit of evidence I would want to put in front of a jury that would convince them that a flyover occurred.
Quote
Like
Share

Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Joined: Jun 23 2006, 08:33 PM

Sep 10 2006, 10:11 PM #12

Fair enough.

Edward's view does suggest it could go either way so we can consider him a draw as well.

The only real reason I suggest that Edward & Madelyn's accounts support the fly-over flight path more is because they CORROBORATE these accounts:
American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.

http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/fortress1.html
As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, 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 - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon.

-Albert Hemphill
He heard "an increasingly loud rumbling" One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. 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)...Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. 

-Terry Morin
...the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC and Columbia pike. and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex...I was on the Starboard side (right side)
of the aircraft.

-William Lagasse at Citgo Gas Station
American Airlines Flight 77 had flown directly over the Navy Annex at nearly 500 mph—so close, in fact, that those working in the building ducked as the aircraft flew over them.

-Dak Hardwick

http://www.indiana.edu/~speaweb/newslet ... ecure.html
Personnel working in the Navy Annex, over which the airliner flew, said they heard the distinct whine of jet engines as the airliner approached.

Levi Stephens, 23, a courier for the Armed Forces Information Service, spoke of the crash:

"I was driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot when I hear this huge rumble, the ground started shaking … I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere."

http://www.pstripes.com/01/sep01/ed091201i.html
Window washer James Mosley was four stories up on a scaffold outside the Navy Annex building abutting the Pentagon when the plane flew overhead.
Quote
Like
Share

Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Joined: Jun 23 2006, 08:33 PM

Sep 10 2006, 10:22 PM #13

Two questions:

1. Where do the frames released by the Pentagon fit into discussion point number 2? This seems to be evidence that something moved across the lawn and struck the building. Under the "staged" hypothesis is it implied that this video is untrustworthy or is it evidence of how the damage occurred?

Good point. Naturally if the overall evidence supports a flyover than the security video would be chalked up as fake just like the mechanical damage. The fact that the only video they chose to release out of many in possession doesn't even show an aircraft supports this notion.

2. Why must the concealment of video "ONLY support" the flyover scenario? I can conceive of a few other reasons the FBI (or whomever) would be apprehensive to release video even if it did show a plane crashing into the Pentagon:

a. It made it easy to prove it wasn't Flight 77 (a similar but recognizably different aircraft)

The impact hypothesis is based around the notion that it WAS a 757 since Russell is showing how the mechanical damage lines up with a craft of that size

b. It showed how impossible the maneuver would be for a human pilot, especially a terrorist who couldn't pilot a trainer.

That is a quandry of the official story no matter what. The most difficult point is that it could come in so low and and with such precision without hitting the lawn. The released videos and the damage itself already establishes that this is what happend. The official story does not attempt to hide the "difficulty" of the maneuver.

c. It showed the pre-placement of emergency personnel and equipment.

There is no evidence of this and I don't see why they would have that anyway.

d. It showed defensive countermeasures being fired before impact

There is no evidence of this and I don't see how it would hurt the official story anyway.
Quote
Like
Share

behind
Veteran
behind
Veteran
Joined: Apr 14 2006, 03:41 PM

Sep 11 2006, 12:03 AM #14

Just one word from me.

If "they" who was behind the conspiracy, did not use B757 at the Pentagon... how would they then prove it to the public ?

Yes, they would made up some mechanical damage to let it look like as it was realy a B757... that means they would use some clipped lamp poles... and generator and some more details etc. to show to the people.

And say: Hey, look there it went... it is obvious... B757... and so on.

And it is interesting to keep in mind that they said first after 9/11 that the planes nose went through the exit hole (but they had to change the story because it was so absurd)... that means that the exit hole was part of the mechanical B757 damage.

So, what I am trying to say is, that when someone just focus on some "damage"... then he is doing exactly what "they" who was behind the conspiracy want people to do.

Hope you understand me :)

(but it is just my opinion, and no hard feelings)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 11 2006, 12:09 AM #15

Lyte,

There were a lot of perceptions related to the Annex I agree. From the lower point of view it is the natural landmark to reference something as the Sheraton is not visible. From as close as the Citgo though the Annex is not even visible through the trees. I will post those photos when I get to Brooks' account. I am working on Madelyn's right now.



This graphic is the plane on the mechanical damage path but from this viewpoint it could look like it was "over" the Annex. This image also gives some sense of the perspective distortion to. The aircraft is 124 feet wide. The Annex face from wall to wall is roughly 429 feet. By this scale that could put the plane clear in line with the Sheraton. If this camera was further to the photographer's right it would look even more over the annex.

That is one thing that I noticed there is how hard it was to tell what the planes out of Regan were actually flying over. Even with the Pentagon less than a mile away I was trying to guess if the planes were behind it, over it or in front of it and I was fooled many times when I was able to locate the plane to an actual reference. If any of those witnesses were viewing it from the side of the Annex it would be very likely it could look like it was over it when actually it was between them and the annex.

I appreciate very much how this thread is developing and the fair questions and answers.

Russell
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 11 2006, 12:15 AM #16

behind,

We are not analyzing damage right now. I hope you read this whole thread in detail and understand the implications. Stay tuned for more information. There was a plane in the area and now we are trying to look at what happened to it.

No hard feelings. Jump in with observations. You make some good points.

Russell
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Avenger
Regular Member
Avenger
Regular Member
Joined: Apr 10 2006, 02:17 AM

Sep 11 2006, 02:35 AM #17

behind,

We are not analyzing damage right now. I hope you read this whole thread in detail and understand the implications. Stay tuned for more information. There was a plane in the area and now we are trying to look at what happened to it.
It seems as though at least between Russell, Merc, JohnDoeX and myself that we can all agree that one of these two scenarios had to be what happened at the pentagon.

I would like to use this thread to compare the two side by side in order for people to determine which has more evidence to back it up.

I will break all of the evidence up into catagories and sub-catagories in order to try and determine which hypothesis is supported more by that evidence.

First let's reiterate how now we have 2 potential flight paths as hypothesized by Merc and Russell.

user posted image

The yellow flight path represents Merc's interpretation of the fly-over and the Red flight path represents Russells interpretation of the impact.

So let's break it down by catagories of evidence:


1. Mechanical damage (light poles, trailers, spools, and any other visible physical damage)

a] If we accept there is no possiblity of it being staged we must accept the impact hypothesis and the discussion is over.

b] If we believe there is a possibility it was staged we must at least still consider the fly-over hypothesis.


2. Evidence that the mechanical damage was staged vs. evidence that it is real.

a] The damage lines up with itself and the size of a 757 so this is evidence it could be real.

b] The damage to the pentagon is visibly counterintuitive to what we would expect from a 757 so this is evidence that it was staged.

c] Lloyd had the only physical encounter with the light poles so his account is CRUCIAL in determining whether or not this was staged. Well his account has pretty much been proven to be at least in serious question or at most utterly ludicrous. The fact that his account is at least in serious questoin is significant evidence that the downed light poles were staged.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 11 2006, 07:14 AM #18

Yes Avenger we are going to get to all of that but up to the point of that post we are analyzing the flight path - that's what "right now" and "stay tuned for more information" meant!

I would prefer that instead of wasting all the space to try and point out an apparent contridiction that people would address the evidence.

That was our request at the beginning of the thread.

Thank you.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 11 2006, 07:30 AM #19

I had a couple of emails regarding the flight map path. I found a higher res version of it and did it again. These are the major alignment points and the results after you remove the overlay.

There is no way to get all the angles perfect. The bridges for instance can't all be lined up on the right without distorting everything else. This is because of the scale, difference in the thickness of the lines and the sloppy cartoonistic map the NTSB decided to grace us with.

I would be interested to see if anybody can find an NTSB map like this for another incident to see if they always use this crap or if it was a special case.



Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 11 2006, 09:04 AM #20

Now for Madelyn Zakhem. She is an employee at the VDOT building. Literally everybody I talked to in the building was an audio witness. They all talked about the horrendous noise and the subsequent explosion. That is another point to make. Everybody linked the plane to the explosion so if it was a flyover it was coordinated. Not just an explosion.

The biggest variation we found in reports of the explosion was some people said they felt it and some people said they didn't. Some of the people who felt it were further away than some who didn't.

My impression of Madelyn is that is she an emotional person. She has a lot of intensity and inflection and demonstration in her descriptions.

Here is what Lyte remembers, "Her account placed the plane "inches" from the roof of this small building. With the left tilted down. Unfortunately, this would place it BELOW treetop level which we all know is impossible. She said it was "grey", then said "silver". She said she could see the cockpit."

This is what Madelyn said two days after the event when things were fresh in her mind in the VDOT journal published in October. They had it on the wall there.



The one common theme is that she keeps relating the aircraft to the roof of her building. It is obvious here that she didn't mean literally inches if she could envision herself standing on the roof and even having to reach up to "catch it". But what does being on the roof to catch it and describing it context of the roof say about the mechanical damage flight path?

DISCLAIMER: The following graphics are intended to be close enough to recreate the subjective view of the situation. They are not measured to the inch and are not intended to be scientific. They are from Google Earth and may have skewing problems etc. I am satisfied with the accuracy and I do not intentionally misrepresent things on purpose.



Notice the proximity of this flight path to the roof of the building she was next to. The wings in this are scaled to have been a little past Madelyn towards the Pentagon.

Now look at the flyover/flyby flight path that is made with a straight line (not the curved one) from Trepasso to just north of the Citgo. It is not in context with the roof which was Madelyn's main reference point.



On the left you can see I started my line right in Trepasso's courtyard. On the right you can see that I ended it to account for the new Citgo employee witness and Lagasse.



But when it comes to Madelyn her account very strongly seems to support the mechanical damage path. If it had been the flyover/flyby path why would she have made reference to a roof behind her? Maybe she would have said if I was on the Annex roof I could have caught it but she didn't. So what was Madelyn's real world view?



This is a photo of the spot where Madelyn was sitting. You can see the picnic table in the bottom left. On 9/11 Madelyn said the picnic table was out in the yard and she was sitting at it facing the street and the Annex having a smoke. If the flyover/flyby path were true all she would have had to do was look up and the roof behind her would not have been a factor. The right wing would not have even been over her on this path.



This picture that Lyte took gives an even better idea of why she juxtaposed the plane to the roof. It was taken further forward of mine beyond the tree. He may have been further towards the street than her but it is representative of her view, especially if the wing went over her as the mechanical damage path indicates. The article above indicates the plane "rocketed directly over her".

In Lyte's recollection she said the plane was "grey" then "silver". The grey fits the phenomenon of being on the shaded side of the aircraft. The silver would be the accurate color of the aircraft.

She said she saw the cockpit. I don't know what to say about this since I have never been that close to anything doing 530 mph. It does fit the other phenomenon of the witness tendency to personalize the account or draw the plane closer to themselves.

Factoring in all aspects of this my conclusion is that Madelyn is a strong witness for the mechanical damage path. She does not support a plane being across the street from her over the Annex roof at all. She was very clear it was her roof.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Joined: Jun 23 2006, 08:33 PM

Sep 11 2006, 04:19 PM #21

Merc said he purposefully bent the suggested flyover flight path to account for ALL of the eyewitnesses.

The amount it was bent would not be able to be detected by any of the eyewitnesses on the ground and since we can not reconcile the FDR data with the eyewitnesses it doesn't make sense to use it as a source of proof that the flight path was perfectly straight.

So why should you insist that there is no possibility it was bent when you can't reconcile the eyewitness accounts with a perfectly straight lane.

And what about Mike Walter's "graceful bank"? Naturally that wasn't straight.

At this point, if you choose to suggest that Madelyn's account supports the mechanical damage flight path....and that it was perfectly straight.....there is no way to reconcile her account with the Citgo employee or Legasse so who do you believe more and why?

I agree that it is easy to take white plane girl, Edward Paik, and Madelyn's accounts and interpret them to fit with the mechanical flight path.

But not Treppasso (unless you bend that path too) and more importantly not the Citgo employee or Legasse regardless of if you bend it.

The accounts at the citgo station are clearly the most important since they are closest to the light poles.
Quote
Like
Share

Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Lyte Trip
Regular Member
Joined: Jun 23 2006, 08:33 PM

Sep 11 2006, 04:29 PM #22

PLUS you forgot to consider the fact that she specifically had the plane tilting towards the navy annex.

That suggests that it was moving in that direction which specifically takes it OFF the mechanical damage flight path and puts it in the path of the Citgo employee and Legasse.

This fact is what satisfies me that her account is more in alignment of the fly-over flight path.


And she said she could see the cockpit.

That would have been difficult if it was really the wing that was over her building as you suggest.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 11 2006, 04:45 PM #23

I don't know why you are doing this Russell.

You are completely wrong in your flight path.

I remember you even coming back telling us the light pole path doesn't match.

Now you want to make it match.

You have to stop this nonsense. This is not about Russell Pickering, your site, your hours of work, or your theory.

This is about getting to the truth. You are distorting the truth and I am disappointed.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 11 2006, 04:50 PM #24

Russell Pickering @ Sep 11 2006, 09:04 AM wrote: Now for Madelyn Zakhem. She is an employee at the VDOT building. Literally everybody I talked to in the building was an audio witness. They all talked about the horrendous noise and the subsequent explosion. That is another point to make. Everybody linked the plane to the explosion so if it was a flyover it was coordinated. Not just an explosion.

The biggest variation we found in reports of the explosion was some people said they felt it and some people said they didn't. Some of the people who felt it were further away than some who didn't.

My impression of Madelyn is that is she an emotional person. She has a lot of intensity and inflection and demonstration in her descriptions.

Here is what Lyte remembers, "Her account placed the plane "inches" from the roof of this small building. With the left tilted down. Unfortunately, this would place it BELOW treetop level which we all know is impossible. She said it was "grey", then said "silver". She said she could see the cockpit."

This is what Madelyn said two days after the event when things were fresh in her mind in the VDOT journal published in October. They had it on the wall there.



The one common theme is that she keeps relating the aircraft to the roof of her building. It is obvious here that she didn't mean literally inches if she could envision herself standing on the roof and even having to reach up to "catch it". But what does being on the roof to catch it and describing it context of the roof say about the mechanical damage flight path?

DISCLAIMER: The following graphics are intended to be close enough to recreate the subjective view of the situation. They are not measured to the inch and are not intended to be scientific. They are from Google Earth and may have skewing problems etc. I am satisfied with the accuracy and I do not intentionally misrepresent things on purpose.



Notice the proximity of this flight path to the roof of the building she was next to. The wings in this are scaled to have been a little past Madelyn towards the Pentagon.

Now look at the flyover/flyby flight path that is made with a straight line (not the curved one) from Trepasso to just north of the Citgo. It is not in context with the roof which was Madelyn's main reference point.



On the left you can see I started my line right in Trepasso's courtyard. On the right you can see that I ended it to account for the new Citgo employee witness and Lagasse.



But when it comes to Madelyn her account very strongly seems to support the mechanical damage path. If it had been the flyover/flyby path why would she have made reference to a roof behind her? Maybe she would have said if I was on the Annex roof I could have caught it but she didn't. So what was Madelyn's real world view?



This is a photo of the spot where Madelyn was sitting. You can see the picnic table in the bottom left. On 9/11 Madelyn said the picnic table was out in the yard and she was sitting at it facing the street and the Annex having a smoke. If the flyover/flyby path were true all she would have had to do was look up and the roof behind her would not have been a factor. The right wing would not have even been over her on this path.



This picture that Lyte took gives an even better idea of why she juxtaposed the plane to the roof. It was taken further forward of mine beyond the tree. He may have been further towards the street than her but it is representative of her view, especially if the wing went over her as the mechanical damage path indicates. The article above indicates the plane "rocketed directly over her".

In Lyte's recollection she said the plane was "grey" then "silver". The grey fits the phenomenon of being on the shaded side of the aircraft. The silver would be the accurate color of the aircraft.

She said she saw the cockpit. I don't know what to say about this since I have never been that close to anything doing 530 mph. It does fit the other phenomenon of the witness tendency to personalize the account or draw the plane closer to themselves.

Factoring in all aspects of this my conclusion is that Madelyn is a strong witness for the mechanical damage path. She does not support a plane being across the street from her over the Annex roof at all. She was very clear it was her roof.
Russell,

Madelyn had the plane headed toward the Navy Annex, remember she could see the cockpit? Now you have it so only the wing hangs over. Stop distorting man.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 11 2006, 04:58 PM #25

Russell Pickering @ Sep 10 2006, 07:12 AM wrote: Here is a graphic to help visualize the flyover with some basic statistics. Things are intended to be very close but not perfect here. Correct me if I am wrong.

Technically this is a debate but I hope this stays in the main forum so it will get viewed and participated in.



This graphic is designed with roughly two miles to the sides of the Pentagon and 3 in front. The yellow dot is pretty much the center of the Pentagon. The red dot was on the Google map already. The flight path is a close representation of the flyover path. I terminated it there since the plane could have turned. I highlighted the main runways at Regan too.

The sound of the explosion is what may have alerted people to look up so I will post a couple of references for that.

1) Sound will travel one mile in 5 seconds approximately depending on various factors.
3) The plane would travel at its last recorded speed approximately 3900 feet in 5 seconds.
3) A mile is 5280 feet.

So if you heard the explosion and looked up the plane would be 1380 feet away from you assuming it was flying towards you. That is a little less than a quarter of a mile.

I hope this stays professional and informative. I am not upset about anything and welcome the truth about the Pentagon no matter what form it comes in.
Forget about 530 mph.

If you can't accept the flight path of the animation or the .csv file. Then you can't accept 530 as the official speed.

Of course it had to bank in order to end up where it did over the left side of the gas station, then "pulling up" over the on ramp.

All the accounts of "gracefully banking" and "tilting it's wings side to side". It did bank.

And it did NOT hit the light poles.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 11 2006, 05:09 PM #26

Russell Pickering @ Sep 10 2006, 09:46 PM wrote: Since nobody has posted a confirmation on this, then I will assume that the flight path map provided by the NTSB presumably representing the magnetic heading more closely confirms the path of mechanical damage than the flyover or flyby path and the animation path.

So what we have to do now is see if the witness descriptions we received can be explained in light of it.

Lyte said about the white plane girl, "She saw the plane low and fast and her positioning could be supported by either hypothesis so this one is a draw". That is true and it is also true of the teacher from the school since she was approximately 2 blocks behind or to the south of the white plane girl. This would also be true for the nanny just east and north of the white plane girl. Their view could be accounted for by the flyover/flyby or the mechanical damage path either one.

The next one is the Japanese brothers (we'll do Trepasso last since he is the origin point). Edward is the one who actually saw the plane. About Edward Lyte says, "Edward said it barely cleared the last wing of the Navy Annex. He described it as a "big grey plane with black wings". The black wings he was referring to were underneath as his vantage point would indicate. The problem with that is if you look at the aerial view of the annex and the mechanical damage path they don't appear to line up.

DISCLAIMER: The following graphics are intended to be close enough to recreate the subjective view of the situation. They are not measured to the inch and are not intended to be scientific. They are from Google Earth and may have skewing problems etc. I am satisfied with the accuracy and I do not intentionally misrepresent things on purpose.



As you can see the aerial view creates an apparent minor discrepancy in the difference between the mechanical damage path and Edward's recollection. But what about Edward's view?



After close examination you can see Edward might have had experienced the plane as having "barely cleared the last wing of the Navy Annex".

This would be a good time to detail a lesson on eyewitnesses we learned. Edward and his brother both believed the plane hit the 100 foot radio antenna in the VDOT yard. This of course made me curious since I had never heard this. First of all, this means Edward believed from what he saw the plane could have been far enough south to have done this.

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.

Now for the description of a gray plane that was black underneath. The sun was exactly opposite the aircraft during that time of day. This is confirmed by Edward's brother who was inside the shop when he said all he noticed was the dark shadow. It was universal that the witnesses on the sun side of the aircraft saw it as something like a white blur perhaps because of the reflections. And the witnesses on the shade side described it as gray perhaps because of the shade.

I personally watched many planes take off and land out of Regan in both directions in all the light of the day. I personally saw planes that looked white turn into the right light and suddenly you could see the livery of the airlines. Some of them were American Airlines.



Here are 3 examples of the actual aircraft N644AA. These photos are untouched by me except to crop and re-size. You can verify that at the link below this paragraph. You can see the strong reflection causes it to wash out in the photo on the left. You can see the middle one looks black underneath even though the sun is coming from the photographers side and not the other side as Edward described it. And in the one on the right you can see the aircraft has the potential to be gray. You can go through the link below and search for other variations in lighting. Keep in mind there goal is to get a bright shiny photo so they don't publish a lot where it looks grey or washed out.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.s ... ersion=6.0

It is true that the AA on the tail and the red tend to be the dominant presentation. But the people we talked to mentioned that it was so fast and a just blur a couple of them didn't even recall making out engines. NO not a missile either. There was no discrepancy that it was perceived as a commercial aircraft by these people with very vivid details of the corresponding sound.

You can see what a plane would look like doing 480 mph here - add 50 mph to that and you would have the speed of the plane reported near the Pentagon.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article ... lyseen.htm

Put the plane a little higher as was the case with the witnesses on the hill and you can see that the colors and the AA would be harder to make out. Factor in being so startled that you duck and maybe you would describe it the way Edward did.

With all things considered I am satisfied that Edward's account is representative of the mechanical flight path.

Edward's flight path is NOT representative of the 'mechanical flight path'!!!

He has it crossing over columbia pike toward the navy annex, he referenced that way when he saw the plane. There are countless people placing it over the Navy Annex.

Heading towards the left side of the gas station.

As far as yoo watching planes take off and land.

Those people were a LOT closer than your view from the Sheraton to the DCA flight path.

The white plane girl was only like 3 blocks from columbia pike up on a hill. Even with that plane screaming by, it would have let off some colors, some definite silver color. It wouldn't be a total glowing white reflection.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 11 2006, 05:47 PM #27






Look at how your two pictures contradict each other.

One you have going straight-parallel to Columbia Pike, the other you have crossing Columbia Pike.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 11 2006, 05:52 PM #28



This picture is completely deceptive. We were standing there and she had it at an angle where she could see the cockpit.

Where are you getting this "wing" business from? That's not how she described or explained it. Why are you twisting this dude? I don't understand.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 11 2006, 06:32 PM #29

Account from Navy Annex

Having just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO Federal Office Building (FOB) #2. He heard "an increasingly loud rumbling" One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. 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). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude...Having just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO Federal Office Building (FOB) #2. He heard "an increasingly loud rumbling" One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. 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). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude...Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon

-Terry Morin
Michael Dobbs: "I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 11 2006, 07:19 PM #30

On the surface, the security issue sounds prudent. The MDA sits atop a hill overlooking the Pentagon in a facility historically known as the Navy Annex. My office overlooked the side of the Pentagon that was struck by the airliner flown by the Sept. 11 terrorists. That jet flew over the Navy Annex before crashing into the Pentagon. While moving the MDA outside the Washington metro area may make sense, widely dispersing its employees does not.

http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive0 ... 70505.html
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share