Vin Narayanan - Pentagon Eyewitness

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

July 23rd, 2010, 6:42 pm #1

Vin Narayanan
wrote:A reporter for USA TODAY was driving near the Pentagon when the plane hit.
"The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately. Within five minutes, police and emergency vehicles began arriving,"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... hscene.htm

"At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.

"The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away."

"The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... person.htm
Phone call from Vin Narayanan 07/23/10 (Mp3 download link)








Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 8:18 pm

July 24th, 2010, 1:15 am #2

excellent - another one added to the list. good work jeff.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

July 24th, 2010, 2:33 am #3

Yeah, I would say by applying the scientific method of corroboration there are enough witnesses to conclude that the plane hit the Pentagon!

;)
Quote
Like
Share

MAC
Joined: May 21st, 2009, 3:23 pm

August 3rd, 2010, 3:41 pm #4

"The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."

So, despite the "ferocious speed" of the "hijacked" jet, he managed to see the "nose of the plane curl upwards and crumple".. all in a micro second from whatever angle and distance he was from his car. Amazing detail and recall! Talk about embellishment and selling the OCT.. tosser. And "the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ" (yea, GO USA!). He didn't wonder WHY it held up so well i suppose and what the odds were that the plane would slam into that section rather conveniently for minimal damage? What a cringy article, another Mike Walters!

Still, all these people are saying they saw a large airliner 'hit' the Pentagon. I think it's unlikely that all these people are lying. I've not listened to all Jeff's calls to them yet, but the few i have.. well they sound genuine enough. Better to have real witnesses seeing what you want them to see.

There are two things here that would be just too risky.. 1. Relying on a bunch of false (lying) witnesses to keep the story together, and 2. Crossing your fingers and hoping a 'flyover' doesn't go tits up at the last second! Audacious card trick for sure.. but what a risk, surely? And somebody (on the other side of the Pentagon, at least) is gonna see that s*** (a big airliner escaping the scene). We only have the one Pentagon fella so far, but he didn't catch a plane 'flying over' the building, only flying away (if i remember correctly).. No more reason to doubt him than the other witnesses i guess... i dunno, what a mystery.


MAC
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

August 3rd, 2010, 6:31 pm #5

I guess anything is possible with an overactive imagination!
wrote:Evil NWO perp Pre-9/11:--"I say we don't crash a plane into the pentagon."

Fellow Perp: "huh?"

Evil NWO perp: --"Hear me out...this is genius, instead of flying a plane into this particular building, let's fly over it, everyone will be fooled."

Fellow perp: --"What?"

Evil NWO perp: "Yup, everyone will be fooled, and they will be fooled good too, because we will make sure everyone in the area looks at the pentagon as it flys over, because we will explode bombs at the same time, that way hundreds will look at the pentagon as the plane flys over, and they will be fooled."

Fellow perp: --"What?"

Evil NWO perp: "And the best thing is, no one will take pictures or record it because I feel lucky, I can just feel it"

Fellow Perp: "huh?"

Evil NWO perp: "And then we can plant parts, inside the building and outside too, giant engine parts, the works, no one will notice because they will be to busy being fooled by a jet airliner flying over the pentagon as a loud noise goes off gauranteeing they will not notice a huge airliner flying over the building as they turn to look at the building because of the noise."

Fellow perp: --"What?"

Evil NWO perp: "But that's not the best part"

Fellow Perp: "uh oh"

Evil NWO perp: "The best part is, we can also set a fake direction for the plane to come in, create a fake flight path with planted light poles"

Fellow perp: "Why?"

Evil NWO perp: "Just for fun, to see if anyone notices, they will be to busy being fooled into thinking they watched a passenger jet fly into the pentagon."

Fellow Perp: "Why create a fake flight path?"

Evil NWO perp: "Why not?"

Fellow Perp: "What about the radar, and the Air traffic controllers seeing the plane on radar."

Evil NWO perp: "Not a problem, they're all "in on it." So are most of the witnesses on the busy highways and roads in the area around the pentagon. The ones not "in on it" will be fooled, because they will be to busy looking at the pentagon to notice the huge arliner flying over it, no matter what side of the pentagon they are on."

Fellow Perp: "Why would you want to get all these people involved, that doesn't even make any sense."

Evil NWO perp: "Yup, that's the beauty of it."

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 8:18 pm

August 3rd, 2010, 8:51 pm #6

shure wrote:
wrote:Fellow Perp: "Why would you want to get all these people involved, that doesn't even make any sense."

Evil NWO perp: "Yup, that's the beauty of it."
LOL!


And MAC is right, there's no motive for a flyover.
Quote
Like
Share

MAC
Joined: May 21st, 2009, 3:23 pm

August 4th, 2010, 1:17 pm #7

I'm open to the possibility of a flyover.. it just seems such a massive risk (unless i'm being naive). And it's a bit short on witnesses. NOC can't be ignored of course, but no positive eyeball on a 'flyover' from there either :ermm:


MAC
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 26th, 2008, 4:39 pm

August 4th, 2010, 2:54 pm #8

MAC wrote:I'm open to the possibility of a flyover.. it just seems such a massive risk (unless i'm being naive). And it's a bit short on witnesses. NOC can't be ignored of course, but no positive eyeball on a 'flyover' from there either :ermm:


MAC
agreed mate

maybe 9/11 is a massive massive massive operation......with so many layers of lies that it is practically impossible to work out what really happened.....

Just my opinion here.....but what if every pentagon witness is lying!?...and there was no plane......definetly far fetched...but completely impossible.....personally...i dont think so

Might explain the north of citgo-south of citgo discrepancy.....plus the fact that they all say they saw it hit the building...

Dunno.....there is something goin on here that just does not figure
Quote
Like
Share

MAC
Joined: May 21st, 2009, 3:23 pm

August 5th, 2010, 1:34 pm #9

seatnineb wrote:
MAC wrote:I'm open to the possibility of a flyover.. it just seems such a massive risk (unless i'm being naive). And it's a bit short on witnesses. NOC can't be ignored of course, but no positive eyeball on a 'flyover' from there either :ermm:


MAC
agreed mate

maybe 9/11 is a massive massive massive operation......with so many layers of lies that it is practically impossible to work out what really happened.....

Just my opinion here.....but what if every pentagon witness is lying!?...and there was no plane......definetly far fetched...but completely impossible.....personally...i dont think so

Might explain the north of citgo-south of citgo discrepancy.....plus the fact that they all say they saw it hit the building...

Dunno.....there is something goin on here that just does not figure
Indeed.

For example, a hologram plane would;

1. Solve the NOC-SOC discrepancy (NOC approach vs angle of actual building damage)

2. Account for all witnesses seeing a big plane hit the P.

3. Eliminate the need for flyover scenarios, or any other complicated, risky distractions.

As for false witnesses, if you were a perp, would you want to include that into the plan? What would you do about the genuine ones (you can’t control them all)? You only need one false witness to grow a conscience and flap his gums.. or simply just ‘slip up’ and be outed as a liar. I don’t think it’s workable, just a big liability. One or two shills to help the story along is fine.. arseholes like Mike Walters and his retarded folded wings crap.

Back to my ‘holoplane’ speculation.. how would all the radar and flight data/tracking stuff fit in?

And why would a holoplane take the NOC attack angle? A F***-up perhaps? Or deliberate (create the ongoing confusion/infighting)?

Why would a holoplane do the 360 degree maneuver? There would be no need to... Except as another mind game perhaps, reinforcing ‘real’ plane thinking?

The reinforcing of the P wall? In prep for a real plane impact.. or again, to ‘reinforce’ real planes thinking? (“It musta been a real Boeing, that’s why the wall was strengthened to minimize real damage”.)

Then there’s the addition of having ‘plane-part-planting-perps’ (say that when you're drunk ;) ) scurrying around on the lawn. And what of human remains and DNA? Perps in forensics?

I still think the P damage is more consistent with bombs, than with a large plane impact.. that circular C-ring hole? RWBK surely? Many of the photos of engine parts are taken out of context (could be anywhere than the P).. and many of the photos of plane fuselage conveniently show AA lettering (unburnt).. what are the odds? Lettering only makes up a small percentage of AA fuselage. Makes a better photo/psy-op i guess? Or maybe i haven’t seen the photos of the more boring silver fuselage parts?

Who knows.. i don’t.


MAC
Quote
Like
Share

Confirmation of reply: