A co do tych silników. Tak. Aquila naciągnął, bo do tej pory nikt nie zna rzeczywistego numeru lotu, więc nie ma możliwości tego sprawdzić, a to z prostej przyczyny. Nawet jeśli założymy, że wirnik pasuje do boeinga to pozostaje problem:
NTSB: No Records Pertaining To Process Of Positive Identification Of 9/11 Aircraft Wreckage
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16762 Was Essential 9/11 Aircraft 'Blackbox' Identification Information Withheld From NTSB?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16089 Więc jakbyście chcieli się dowiedzieć, kto, w jaki sposób, na jakiej podstawie zidentyfikował wraki samolotów to niestety takiej informacji nie otrzymacie. Z bliżej nieokreślonych powodów nie ma do nich dostępu.
Jeśli silnik z tego zdjęcia jest dowodem na to że lot 77 wleciał w pentagon to dlaczego
NTSB tego nie potwierdza?
NTSB: No Records Pertaining To Process Of Positive Identification Of 9/11 Aircraft WreckageWithin a July 18, 2008 Freedom of Information Act response from the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB indicates that it possesses no records indicating how wreckage recovered from the 4 aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was positively identified as belonging to the 4 planes reportedly hijacked that day or even if such wreckage was positively identified at all.
Within a similar March 18, 2008 FOIA response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI states the following:
"The identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA"
http://www.infowars....com/?p=886&cp=1 However, NTSB factual reports pertaining to the Flight Data Recorders allegedly belonging to American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA), do not cite a "Flight Data Recorder Group", that would normally consist of Federal Aviation Administration and airline officials, in possession of records pertaining to a given aircraft and unique serial numbers pertaining to each FDR. The absence of published FDR part and serial numbers within each NTSB FDR report suggests that the NTSB were not provided access to such records that would allow them to confirm the identities of the FDRs studied by them.
Many FDRs possess unique memory configurations that are identified by serial numbers contained within a given aircraft's records. Such serial numbers are required to facilitate FDR data readouts. Presumably, if the recovered AA 77 and UA 93 FDR's did not possess the memory configurations indicated within FAA and airline aircraft records, a mismatch could become apparent to NTSB investigators.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16089 The FDRs in question were apparently recovered by NTSB personnel.
Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, referring to the NTSB:
"I ... assured FBI Director Mueller that we would assist in any way we could ... he called and said, "Could you send us some people to help find the black boxes and help identify aircraft parts."
http://www.ntsb.gov/...dy/cc020227.htm Marion Blakey, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, referring to the NTSB:
"Over 60 Safety Board employees worked around the clock in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and at our headquarters in Washington, D. C., assisting with aircraft parts identification"
http://www.ntsb.gov/...y/mcb020625.htm The text of the July 11, 2008 NTSB FOIA request:
"I respectfully request copies of records revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to: American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).
The afore mentioned aircraft are identified within numerous public NTSB records. Positive wreckage identification was presumably obtained through the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft's wreckage. Within U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 14, Part 45, it is indicated that all U.S. commercial civil aircraft are required to contain numerous components bearing unique serial number data "secured in such a manner that it will not likely be ... lost or destroyed in an accident"."
**********
F.B.I. Elaborates On Reportedly Absent 9/11 Aircraft Wreckage Recovery & Identification Records March 18, 2008
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Records/Information Dissemination Section, clarifies its reportedly negative search results for records confirming the positive recovery and identification of the wreckage created by the federally registered aircraft reportedly involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
(images below fold)
Dear Mr. Monaghan: This is in reference to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request Number and civil litigation referenced above, and a follow-up to our initial response letter dated September 24, 2007. Upon receipt of your initial FOIA request for “documentation pertaining to any formally and positively identified debris by the FBI, from all four civilian commercial aircraft used in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” we conducted a preliminary review for potentially responsive documents. At that time, RIDS understood that any potentially responsive records were located in a pending file of an ongoing investigation, and therefore determined that they would be withheld in their entirety. Therefore, you received my initial determination, in a letter dated September 24,2007, that the material you requested is located in an investigative file, which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552 (b)(7)(A). An explanation of this exemption was included in my correspondence. Exemption (b)(7)(A) protects from disclosure records and information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. You were also advised that you could appeal this denial by writing to the Office of Information and Privacy (OIP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 
You appealed to alP, and Associate Director Janice Galli McLeod, affirmed the FBI’s determination to withhold any potentially responsive records in their entirety, because they are protected from disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.c., Section 552 (b)(7)(A). We then received a copy of your complaint for injunctive relief, later amended, wherein you requested the FBI to “produce agency records, concerning documentation revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National Transportation Safety Board), as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably though the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft wreckage, that was collected by defendant and which defendant has improperly withheld from plaintiff.” The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) again conducted a search for potentially responsive records. After this extensive research, RIDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to your request. RIDS’ search efforts included verification by the responsible FBIHQ operational division that because the identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA (since other evidence collected after 9/11 has all corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93 were the aircraft that were hijacked), no records would have been generated responsive to your request for documents “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National Transportation Safety Board), as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably though the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft wreckage.” Sincerely yours, David M. Hardy
Section Chief, Record/lInformation Dissemination Section
Records Management Division***********
I teraz pytanie. Na jakiej podstawie Aquila ślepo wierzy w numer silnika, skoro nikt tego nie potwierdził? Przecież on zawsze rzeczowo sprawdza swoje informacje, więc jakim cudem ten, sceptyk, analityk, przeoczył tak istotny szczegół? Informacje są tak samo wiarygodne, jak to że święty mikołaj naprawdę lata swoimi saniami
Równie dobrze ja mogę w internecie umieścić inny numer silnika i dać to jako dowód i jakiś naiwniak to zwietrzy i weźmie jako prawdę.
CIEKAWOSTKI:Ciekawostka 1:Wyraźnie słyszane wybuchy bomb i szereg błysków na pietrach znacznie niższych, które mają charakter kontrolowanych detonacji.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx1E2B5oAEs"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Bx1E2B5oAEs[/url]
Ciekawostka 2:Dlaczego w parę minut po ataku dziwnym trafem znaleźli się świadkowie ,ktorzy mowili nam, co było przyczyną zawalenia się płonących budynków? Skąd Ci ludzie się wzięli?? Niewiarygodne.
http://www.brasschec...om/page/92.html <--- film.
Ciekawostka 3:Dlaczego rząd Busha zablokował inicjatywę powstania komisji śledczej żon i matek tych, co zginęli podczas 9/11 ??
Ciekawostka 4:Wytłumaczy mi ktoś co przebiło tę dziurkę?
Droga jaką przebyło to coś. 
Ciekawostka 5: Wytłumaczy mi ktoś, dlaczego wartość energii potrzebna do zawalenia się budynku była dziesięciokrotnie mniejsza przed jego zawaleniem?? I skąd wzięła się nagle ta energia hmm??
Ciekawostka 6: Boeing zanim uderzył w pentagon pościnał kilka rzeczy o strukturze stalowej, a ja kiedyś Mariushowi udowodniłem zdjęciami wraz z Radkiem (chyba to był Radek), że samolot (nie zdołał wystartować i przeleciał po koronach drzew) nie połamach skrzydłami drewnianych struktur tylko roztrzaskał się. Zdjęcia doskonale opisywały przebieg katastrofy. Nie pamiętam już dokładnie gdzie to na forum było. Samo to już zastanawia.
Ciekawostka 7:Czy ktoś odnalazł strażaków, którz mieli wystąpić w programie tv, jako świadkowie?? Póki co, to mi wiadomo że ten ich urlop trwa nadal. Martwi czy co??
Ciekawostka 8:WTC7 - porównanie dwóch pożarów. Pierwszy budynek (Hiszpania - słynny pożar), który palił się cały a szkielet został, natomiast jak wiemy - WTC7 miało żałosny pożar a jednak się zawalił. Porównajcie sami. Analiza komputerowa struktury budynku też pokazywała, że ten budynek nie miał prawa runąć od jakiegokolwiek pożaru, tylko że tam było małe ognisko w środku
Strażacy z WTC7 wiedzieli, że budynek runie, chociaż nie miał prawda. Kolejny problem.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=GEPjOi2dQSM[/url]
Prócz tego:
WTC5 zapalił się na identycznej zasadzie co WTC7
Jarał się widocznie a to co z niego zostało:
Tutaj ogień z WTC7
Wynik był widoczny.
Ciekawostka 9:Dlaczego symulacje najbardziej miarodajnego symulatora, pokazywane jakiś czas temu na forum, przeczą informacjom, że pilot byłby w stanie wprowadzić samolot w pentagon??
Ciekawostka 10:Widzicie tu samolot? Bo ja nie. Nawet na zbliżeniu, kiedy już coś w pentagonie wybucha, nie widzę samolotu.[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4O4R0LWCQ4"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=n4O4R0LWCQ4[/url]
Ciekawostka 11:Dlaczego wieża zaczęła opadać skoro środek ciężkości zmienił się, powstał przechył?
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Mhhvl7vWk"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=V9Mhhvl7vWk[/url]
Ciekawostka 12:
Skąd w gruzach WTC było jezioro ciekłego metalu jeszcze 6 miesięcy po zawaleniu ?
Ciekawostka 13:Odnośnie manewru na pentagon.
Samolot przy starcie, czy lądowaniu jest "pod kątem", dlatego może leciec wolno. Natomiast, jakby chciał i miał możliwośc lecieć 300-800km/h na wysokości 1 czy 2 czy 3 metrów(gdzie kąt natarcia skrzydła jest prawie zerowy) np: nad pasem lotniska o długości 50 km, to spadnie, bo przy gęstości powietrza nawet 1,2 kg/m*3 jest go za mało pod skrzydłami...
1.Główne siły działające na samolot w locie.[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTzEa4YuE7I"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=VTzEa4YuE7I[/url]
2.Siła aerodynamiczna na skrzydle[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvwTRDCqUaU"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=LvwTRDCqUaU[/url]
3.Mechanizm powstawania siły nośnej[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKbxBfuU6s8"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KKbxBfuU6s8[/url]
4.Wzór na siłę nośną. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZP0Bgz7X3w"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=yZP0Bgz7X3w[/url]
5.Jak działają klapy i sloty? [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZP0Bgz7X3w"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=yZP0Bgz7X3w[/url]
Poza tym, był ktoś kiedyś na Ursynowie na głównej ulicy koło Okęcia? Samoloty nad tą ulicą lecą na wysokości (w przybliżeniu) około 100 m, a i tak autem lekko zatrzęsie.Wytłumaczenie np. tego zdjęcia:
które ma niby dowodzić temu, że nie będzie podmuchu ani nic jest problematyczne z tego względu, że samolot lądując leci pod kątem. Silnki pracują na malutkich obrotach. A teraz niech ten samolot leci 300-800km/h przy PEŁNYM GAZIE jak było w przypadku oficjalnych orzeczeń - PENTAGONowych wojaczek. Ważne by pamiętać o tym, że siła nośna boeinga z pentagonu była mniejsza niż tego przy ladowaniu. dlatego bajka jest, że w pentagon uderzył samolot.
A teraz popatrzmy, co dzieje się w kabinie pilotów. Mimo, że samolot leci wolno widać jak trzęsie sie drążek steru. Przy "pikowaniu z prędkością 800km/h" ten drążek połamałby ręce amatorowi.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YIyyuv7jI0"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=8YIyyuv7jI0[/url]
Siła cieżkosci, zgodnie z zasada powszechnego ciążenia Newtona, działa na każde ciało w ziemskim polu grawitacyjnym i każdy doświadcza jej skutków niosąc np. siatki z zakupami. Dużo bardziej tajemnicza siła jest siła nośna. Do jej powstania potrzebny jest ruch powietrza wzgledem skrzydeł samolotu. Już w połowie XVIII w. Daniel Bernoulli, szwajcarski fizyk i matematyk,udowodnił, iż w przypadku wzrostu predkości powietrza (gazu lub cieczy) nastepuje spadek panujacego w nim cisnienia. O prawidłowości tego faktu przekonać nas może proste doswiadczenie. Jeżeli dmuchniemy pomiedzy dwie ustawione blisko siebie kartki papieru to złaczą się one pomimo tego, iż wydawałoby się, że powinny się od siebie oddalić. Dzieje się tak dlatego, że przepływajace przez szczelinę powietrze ma mniejsze ciśnienie niż nieruchome ją otaczajace. Ta różnica ciśnień dociska kartki do siebie. To samo zjawisko wywołuje, tak denerwujace,trzaskanie drzwi i okien przy przeciągu. W przypadku skrzydła samolotu powietrze, które opływa je od góry ma wiekszą prędkość od powietrza płynącego dolną jego stroną. Okazuje się, że powietrze zachowuje się podobnie jak ludzie przechodzacy przez waskie przejscie - przed przewężeniem, tłum porusza się z małą predkością, ludzie rozpędzaja się w momencie przechodzenia przez nie, a nastepnie zaraz po wyjsciu zwalniają oczekując na resztę rodziny lub znajomych. W przypadku skrzydła przeweżenie na górze jest wieksze od występującego na dolnej powierzchni, dzieje się tak dlatego, iż górna strona skrzydła ma wiekszą wypukłość niż dolna.
Stąd czasteczki powietrza płynace wokół górnej powierzchni muszą w tym samym czasie pokonać dłuższą droge niż płynące pod skrzydłem. Wywołuje to wiekszy spadek ciśnienia nad skrzydłem, a co za tym idzie podsysanie go do góry. Różnica ciśnień jaka panuje pomiedzy dolną a górną powierzchnią skrzydła odpowiada mniej wiecej podciśnieniu jakie musimy wytworzyć aby przez napić się napoju chłodzącego. Podciśnienie to jest tym wieksze im wieksza jest prędkość skrzydła wzgledem powietrza.
Wniosek z tego płynie taki...boening lecący z 800km/h na wysokości 1 metra pod skrzydłami miałby "próżnię" a w związku z tym spadłby na ziemię i nie doleciał do pentagonu. Mało tego, nie ściąłby latarni, bo też tam by nie doleciał.
Ciekawostka 14:
Odnośnie tego co jest w ciekawostce 13: zobaczcie co się dzieje z samochodem w kontakcie z Boeingiem NIACH NIACH NIACH
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ5ZGV3Vxo8"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cJ5ZGV3Vxo8[/url]
Screen:
A teraz proszę się palić ze wstydu, jako myśleć o tym, że samolot wykonał taki manewr nie pozostawiając dodatkowych szkod przed pentagonem
Widać że nie tylko w Irlandii zdarzają się cuda, nie tylko nad Wisłą. Także i przed pentagonem, przecież to było tylko 3 metry nad ziemią przy 800km/h. Naprawdę. Nic trudnego hihihi
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT): (to powinien każdy obejrzeć niezależnie od poglądów - bardzo ważny film)
Part1
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic11.htmPart2
http://www.thepentac...sideflyover.htmPart3
http://www.thepentac...esmokinggun.htm
Streszczenie filmu.
On September 11th, 2001, while thousands of eyewitnesses in Manhattan and millions of television viewers worldwide were attentively watching the north tower of the World Trade Center burn, one of the most incredible events in history occurred right in front of their eyes: a second low-flying plane appeared, slamming into the south tower and forcing the world to face the horrible reality that the burning north tower was not the result of an accident. The amazing and terrifying footage of this event was replayed so frequently that it is difficult to find a person in the United States, or the world for that matter, who has not viewed it.
In clear contrast, all video footage of the Pentagon attack was quickly confiscated and sequestered by the authorities. To say that there has not been full disclosure of the evidence surrounding the Pentagon attack is an understatement to be sure; the secrecy and cover-up is pervasive to the point of being arguably criminal (particularly when one considers the nature and implications of the crime and its use as a pretext for a permanent global "war on terror").
In light of these circumstances, and countless other dubious details surrounding this attack, the question of what exactly happened at the Pentagon has become one of the most hotly contested mysteries of 9/11.
The lack of disclosure and rampant secrecy on the part of the government has left researchers and citizen investigators with precious few avenues for obtaining evidence as a means to verify or refute the details of the "official" (government-endorsed) explanation. Because of this fact, eyewitness testimony leaps to the forefront as the primary, and virtually only, means to obtain independent verifiable evidence.
Those who are familiar with Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) know that we have made it our mission to shed light on this event by locating and interviewing eyewitnesses. We refuse to take the media reports at face value so we have made a point to contact dozens of the previously published witnesses, whose statements had been used to help sell the official story, in order to confirm their accounts first hand. In order to minimize any possible ambiguity in their accounts we have filmed our interviews with these individuals on site (that is, in the precise location where they witnessed the event that they are describing) whenever possible or recorded an interview over the phone if necessary. We sought to confirm their exact location on 9/11 and would physically go there to analyze their actual point of view in relation to the topography and landscape.
Confirming these accounts was only part of our job, however. We also canvassed the neighborhoods to seek out previously unknown witnesses who had not been talked to by the government or used as a part of the media campaign to support the official line. We consider this particular witness set to be the most important source of truly independent and verifiable evidence, so a number hours were spent knocking on doors and adding new information to the public record.
Our primary goal thus far has been to establish the true flight path of the Pentagon attack jet as reported by the eyewitnesses. We can then use this information to determine whether it corroborates or contradicts the “official” data provided by the government, most notably the data released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2006, which is allegedly from the flight data recorder (blackbox) of Flight 77, and the alleged radar data provided by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84 RADES). If it were to corroborate this data it would be helpful in putting alternative theories to rest.
However, what would it mean if the flight path reported by the eyewitnesses definitively contradicted this data?
One of the implications would be obvious: that the government had manipulated their data. However, there would be a second implication that is less obvious, and it answers the "why?" question that naturally arises as a result of the first. That implication is this:
If the plane did not fly where the government-supplied data says it did in the final seconds before the explosion at the Pentagon, it did not hit the building.
This is an extraordinary implication, but it would be absolutely undeniable. Why? It is because the flight path denoted by the government-supplied data is also the flight path implied by the physical damage. In other words, the plane had to have flown along this exact path in order to be the cause of the five downed light polls and the damage to the Pentagon as outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineer's (ASCE) "Pentagon Building Performance Report". If it had hit the building from any other trajectory the physical damage would have been completely different. Since it was not, an approach from any other trajectory is mutually exclusive with the notion that the plane hit the building.
Although we understand the general fallibility of eyewitness accounts, when scrutinized in detail and independently corroborated on a mass level, clear patterns emerge in contrast to all official data, reports, and physical damage. It is now apparent that the true flight path as reported by the eyewitnesses reveals numerous fatal contradictions that prove a complex well-orchestrated military deception.
For the official narrative regarding the events of 9/11 to be entertained as false, one must consider the fact that we are talking about a psychological deception like no other. Naturally the hysteria of the extreme tragedy of that day had the population in a very vulnerable position on a psychological level.
While reviewing the evidence we are about to present in this article, it's important to understand how the genuine witnesses were of course just as susceptible to psychological manipulation as the rest of the world and this greatly facilitated their vulnerability to deception.
All were aware of the tragedies in New York and therefore aware that the nation was under attack as they had the unfortunate experience of being surprised by a low flying aircraft dozens of feet away from them headed straight for the Pentagon timed perfectly with a massive explosion and fireball.
Taking the extreme trauma of such an experience into account and the general tendency for eyewitnesses to deduce, embellish, or misreport, CIT emphasizes the obvious importance of corroboration when trying to determine accurate information. The more a detail is independently corroborated the more likely it is true. Furthermore the more simple and general the corroborated detail is, the more likely it is to be true.
The core of the evidence CIT has uncovered proving a deliberate psychological deception on 9/11 is based on an extremely simple and highly corroborated detail that at this point is validated to the point of redundancy.
In February of 2006 we released the documentary,
The PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version) that included on site interviews we conducted with 4 witnesses who independently corroborate the simple claim that the plane flew past the north side of the former CITGO gas station right in front of the Pentagon seconds before the explosion and fireball.
Mechanic Edward Paik, gas station employee Robert Turcios, and Pentagon police officers Sgt.'s Chadwick Brooks and William Lagasse are all unanimous in their placement of the plane on the north side of the station.
All known researchers, aviation experts, and even detractors to CIT have been unanimous in their agreement that this claim is irreconcilable with all the physical damage, most obviously the downed light poles and curiously turned generator trailer. Furthermore the north side claim is mutually exclusive to the witnesses' belief that the plane hit the building.
As a result of this evidence exposing an undeniable and fatal contradiction to the official data, reports, and physical evidence, the next logical step was to seek out further validation or refutation of this claim.
Of course locating witnesses who were in a position to have an effective enough vantage point is not an easy accomplishment. This is particularly the case since nobody can have a better vantage point of north or south of the station than the witnesses who were on the station's property.
Enter the U.S. Government (official documentation).
The Center for Military History (CMH) reportedly conducted over a couple hundred interviews in the weeks and months immediately following the event.
None of these interviews have been openly published but in 2008 a few dozen were released via FOIA with the names redacted.
So in essence this data amounted to nothing but a bunch of anonymous transcripts that have been sequestered, vetted, and provided for solely by the very suspect we are investigating in this crime.
Unless of course we could figure out who the alleged witnesses were, get a hold of them, and confirm their accounts first hand. Only at that point would their witness accounts become independent verifiable evidence.
Enter CIT (independent confirmation).
Of the few dozen transcripts released, only a small handful even claim they witnessed the plane as most were simply part of the recovery efforts or involved with the event in some other way.
We focused on the alleged plane witnesses and paid special attention to those who may have had a vantage point allowing them to distinguish if the plane was north or south of the former CITGO gas station. Of course the interviews were conducted on a human interest rather than investigative level so finding specific details regarding the flight path proved difficult. We were however able to ascertain certain clues in this regard and many pointed to the notion that some witnesses did indeed further corroborate the unanimous north side claim from the witnesses at the gas station.
We quickly determined that the most important of these CMH accounts were from individuals who were at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) located directly north of the gas station right where the witnesses we already spoke with all placed the plane.
We were able to determine the identities of and obtain interviews from 5 of these CMH accounts as well as obtain additional interviews from another 6 witnesses. All but 2 of these 11 new confirmed accounts were able to support the previously established north side evidence giving us 9 more witnesses on top of the initial 4 at the gas station for a total of 13 who all definitively corroborate the north side claim.
One of these 11 new confirmed witnesses did not see the plane on the approach but saw the plane flying away from the building
after the explosion providing for us the ultimate validation that the north side evidence is accurate.
In the absence of any independent first hand confirmation of the official south of the gas station flight path the implications should be clear. With each level of corroboration of the north side claim the notion that all the witnesses were so drastically mistaken about such a simple detail,
yet in the exact same way, becomes exponentially more difficult for intellectually honest observers to suggest.
Only two out of the 11 new witness accounts denied us permission to publish their interviews. Video taped and phone recorded interviews with the ones who granted us permission to publish can all be reviewed in our latest video presentation:
The North Side Flyover
The rest of this article will be dedicated to describing the details surrounding all 11 of the new independently verified witness accounts in question.
1.
Darrell StaffordCMH interview:
NEIT 420
Darrell is the Internment Foreman for Arlington National Cemetery and was at work in front of the maintenance buildings when he saw the plane on 9/11. He was with employees Darius Prather and Donald Carter whose accounts will follow. Darrell's CMH account is from December 13th 2001 and in it he describes the plane as being directly over the Navy Annex and the parking lot in front of the maintenance buildings which is of course north of the gas station. The interviewer didn't press for specific details regarding the exact location of the plane but all indicators point to the notion that Darrell was describing a north side approach. This of course was independently confirmed in our June 2008 interview with Darrell on location so now it can not be denied that Darrell 100% supports the north side evidence. Here is the flight path he illustrated:
A key part of Darrell's account is the fact that he is able to describe the bank the plane made in detail because unlike the witnesses who were at the gas station he watched the plane as it approached.
[
This bank is 100% irreconcilable with all the physical damage and official data yet perfectly supports what CIT has been claiming the plane had to have done.
Darrell also saw a "2nd plane" come in about a minute later which was a C-130 piloted by Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien. But Darrell reports it as approaching from the northwest while the official alleged radar data released from 84 RADES in 2007 has the plane approaching from the southwest. Darrell's account of this 2nd plane matches what we had earlier interpreted the C-130 flight path to be based off statements from the pilot himself. This blatant contradiction strongly suggests that the 84 RADES data has been manipulated as cover for the flyover.
2.
Darius Prather
Darius was not interviewed by the CMH but he was with his boss Darrell Stafford at the time of the attack and corroborates his account perfectly. He describes the bank in detail and clearly remembers the plane as coming directly towards them at the maintenance buildings from right on top of the Navy Annex.
Darius poignantly notes how they were all running for their lives away from the plane and the Pentagon during the explosion and were more worried about being wiped out by the explosion or debris as opposed to whether or not the plane hit the building. He said,
"nobody was trying to look see if it was actually going to hit the building or not hit the building. So everybody was running in the opposite direction for their lives."Like Darrell Stafford, Darius also has the C-130 coming from the northwest as opposed to southwest as depicted in the 84 RADES data. This extremely important piece of evidence is strong corroboration that the C-130 story has been manipulated as cover for the flyover.
3.
Donald Carter
Donald was also at work with Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather on 9/11. He corroborates their accounts perfectly. Besides being very lucid and quite nonchalantly certain about the banking north side flight path, Donald was very descriptive in how the plane "glided" or coasted over the Navy Annex into the bank before gunning its engines to complete the maneuver.
Donald also supports the northwesterly approach of the C-130.
4.
William Middleton Sr.
William was interviewed for the CMH but it has not been released via FOIA as of yet and I would be surprised if it ever was.
William's account is significant in our presentation because he corroborates Darrell, Darius, and Donald from a completely different perspective from the cemetery at the northeast corner of the Navy Annex.
He didn't have as good of a view of the bank and he recollects it as a "wobble" which isn't surprising from his perspective. He deduced the plane as coming straight up the road on the north side of the Navy Annex (Southgate Rd) even though he did say he saw it coming "
between the Hilton (Sheraton) and the Navy Annex" which is quite accurate and further demonstrates how his perspective of the angle of approach could be easily skewed from that location. But what's notable is that he likely would not have seen the plane at all on the official flight path and speed of 535 mph. This is also irreconcilable with his description of a relatively slow approach taking "10 to 15" seconds to reach the Pentagon.
Even though he was right beside the Navy Annex he also describes it as gliding or coasting to the bank before wobbling or weaving and then gaining control and kicking it into gear corroborating Donald Carter's account of this.
Another extremely important point in this crushing account is the fact that William saw the plane as it made it's approach loop from the airport or east of the Potomac River. This simple detail corroborates the account of charter boat captain Steve Chaconas who saw the plane approach from east of the river from over DC skies and fatally contradicts the approach loop depicted in the NTSB data. (See the critical witness account of Steve Chaconas
here.)
Furthermore William describes the plane as white. Since of course this detail has been corroborated many times by independent previously unknown witnesses as shown in our previous presentation,
"Flight 77" The White Plane, and since of course American Airline (AA) jets are not white, this detail is rather notable.
Granted we have come across many conflicting reports regarding color of the plane but at this point most of the independent descriptions we have obtained do not match an AA jet and "white" seems to come up more than any other color.
Like all the ANC witnesses presented, William's point of view of the Pentagon was blocked by trees so when we add this to the fact that he describes how scared out of his senses he was it perfectly explains why he did not see the flyover.
What can't be denied is that everything William Middleton describes is 100% fatal to the official story and when considering the plane needed to be completely on the south side of Columbia Pike, which he could not see at all, the notion that he was simply "mistaken" is not a viable response to his account.
5.
George AmanCMH interview:
NEIT 419
George's account is an interesting one as he strongly corroborates all of the witnesses so far but from yet another perspective as he was inside his office in the maintenance building looking at the plane through his window.
In both the CMH interview and in our interview George is clearly describing the plane north of the gas station and right over the parking lot in front of the maintenance buildings where he was in his office.
In the CMH interview George describes seeing people in the plane. While deduction and embellishment is a typical eyewitness tendency the fact that he could even consider it remotely possible is a strong indicator that the plane was north of the gas station and certainly not on the extremely fast and straight official flight path much further from his view.
In fact you can see how on page 19 of his CMH interview he specifically describes the plane as "turning and gliding" which instantly supports the north of the gas station bank as described by all the other ANC workers.
George is now retired and I was able to get his phone number from a different employee on the lot after asking around for him.
Now that he has been asked the right questions on an investigative level there can be no denying that he corroborates all the other witnesses and fatally contradicts the official story.
6.
Sean BogerCMH interview:
NEIT 299
Sean Boger was the air traffic controller at the heliport tower right next to the alleged impact point.
He is a well known previously published witness who has always been used as a strong witness for the plane impact.
Sean does in fact state that he watched the plane enter the building which would seem to be hard to deny coming from someone who watches aircraft for a living and saw the plane approach but of course the CMH failed to ask him any specific questions as to
where he saw the plane.
Naturally when we spoke with Sean in order to get these details he corroborated all the other witnesses by specifically and definitively placing the plane banking on the north side of the gas station.
This means he could not have watched the plane enter as he stated. He has also claimed since day one that he hit the deck so the obvious conclusion here is that he reacted as anyone would and hit the deck as the plane approached headed right towards him and simply missed the pull up.
Sean also corroborates William Middleton Sr.'s account of the relatively slow north side bank as he estimated it took "8 to 15" seconds to reach the Pentagon.
Further evidence that Sean deduced the impact is the fact that he was literally arguing with us about the low and level approach as shown in the security video.
He said that he does not believe it was level or that low. He claims it was on a descent and that it was between the 2nd and 3rd floor (which is equal to his height in the heliport tower) rather than beneath his point of view on the first floor as depicted in the ASCE report and required by the physical damage.
At this point the fact that he corroborates all the other witnesses regarding the north side claim is a strong indicator that he was deceived and this categorically outweighs his belief in an impact when considering the entire body of evidence.
7.
Levi StephensLevi is a previously published witness and his initial interview can be read in this article in a military publication, Stars & Stripes from 9/12/2001:
http://www.stripes.c.../ed091201i.htmlLevi certainly believes the plane hit the building but when we got a hold of him and asked the investigative questions regarding the flight path he once again corroborated everyone else by placing the plane on the north side of the gas station.
What's also very important is that Levi was most definitely surprised that the plane was supposed to be an American Airline. He seemed genuinely concerned about this and even remembered questioning it when he got back to his office on 9/11 and heard the first reports that it was supposed to be an AA jet. Levi declined to allow us to publish his interview. It's clear he does not want to be involved so we will respect his wishes and not publish it but we still must report what he told us.
Here is his confirmed location:
He admits he did not see the plane hit any light poles despite the fact that they were right in front of him plus he does not describe the plane as being over the bridge that close either.
He claims he was on the phone with his sister with his back to the Pentagon at the time of the explosion which would explain why he missed the pull up and flyover.
But again, he confirmed the plane was on the north or Arlington Cemetery side of the gas station and he described the plane as not looking like an AA jet, specifically as being two tone and having a tan belly.
8.
Maria De La CerdaCMH interview:
NEIT 567Maria is a member of the Army band, Pershings Own. She was performing at a "full honor" ceremony for a funeral at Arlington Cemetery when she saw the plane and the big explosion.
Here is a view of the Pentagon from her approximate location.
Admittedly Maria is one of the weaker witnesses in support of the north side evidence because she could not see the gas station at the time of the attack and because of her hazy memory in regards to the plane in general.
But this is why her
officially documented CMH interview from February 6, 2002 is so important.
In it she says how she initially thought that it "
seemed like it hit the other side"!
She describes how she was perplexed by the damage as her unit provided support for the recovery efforts in the coming days.
She confirmed this to us in our interview but at this point her memory turned it into the fact that she initially thought the impact was "on top". She ended up reconciling this in her mind by the fact that this is "where the fireball was" so this is what likely caught her eye.
Her account is a prime example of how people who were initially confused about what they saw were able to simply reconcile the discrepancies in their mind in order to accept what they were told happened.
That is the power of illusion/deception in contrast to the vulnerability of the human mind.
But Maria does support the north side evidence because she believed without hesitation the plane was closer to the cemetery and also because she likely would not have seen it at all from her location if it was on the official flight path.
9.
Terry MorinTerry was at the Navy Annex at the time of the attack. He is a well known previously published witness and you can read his first hand written account here:
http://www.coping.or...or/pentagon.htmHe describes the plane as directly over him.
We knew that if he meant this literally it would support the north side flight path and fatally contradict the official flight path that requires the plane to be on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times.
So I went to Terry's house to see if I could get him to confirm or deny this detail. He confirmed it with flying colors. I interviewed him for an hour on his front porch but like Levi he was the only other witness who refused to grant me permission to publish his interview.
But I can report that he was absolutely certain the plane was entirely on the
north side of Columbia Pike as it passed over him while he was between the wings of the Navy Annex.
He said he only saw the belly of the plane and could not tell that it was (supposed to be) an AA jet.
This fact alone proves that he supports the north side path.
He says he then ran out from between the wings and saw the tail of the plane as it reached the Pentagon.
The obvious problem with this claim is that you can only see the very top of the Pentagon from the Navy Annex property.
Since the physical damage requires the plane to enter the building at the bottom floor this means the only way he could have seen the plane at that point is if it was flying over the building.
Terry Morin therefore is a definitive north side witness.
What also contradicts the official story is the fact that like William Middleton and Sean Boger, Terry believes the plane was going a lot slower than officially reported. He claims it was "12 to 15 seconds" from when he first heard it until the explosion and we know he saw the plane directly over him and the Navy Annex only "1 or 2 seconds" after he first heard it. William, Terry, and Sean provide an extremely compelling case for this slower speed since they all had very different perspectives. Not to mention the fact that Terry is a trained aviator and Sean is an air traffic controller so both could fairly be considered expert witnesses in this regard.
As a side note he told me he is this person in this famous image:
The false conjecture of the truth movement assuming that they were carrying away parts from some secret military craft in that "box" is rather ironic since Terry ended up proving the official story false in a much different way.
If you look closely you can see they are carrying an empty tent with no bottom.
10.
Russell RoyCMH interview:
NEIT 428
Russell is not a north side witness or a witness to the Pentagon attack jet at all. He was inside the bay at the time of the explosion and unlike the other bays the opening to this particular one faces the opposite direction of the plane approach. Russell didn't come out of the bay until after the explosion and only saw the "2nd plane" or the C-130 piloted by Lt. Col Steve O'Brien. It seemed low to him but this makes sense without having seen the Pentagon attack jet to compare it to which was much lower at the time.
But Russell's account of the C-130 is extremely important because the direction he saw the plane coming from corroborates all of the other ANC witnesses who saw the C-130 but also 100% contradicts the alleged radar data released by 84 RADES in 2007.
Furthermore since he was facing the opposite direction he would not have seen or been so alarmed by the C-130 banking around and turning away if it happened way up by the Navy Annex as shown in the data. Therefore Roy's placement of the bank further east is also contradictory to the data.
It's important to not overlook or minimize the significance of evidence surrounding the C-130 flight path. In essence it proves evidence tampering. All it would take is a simple subpoena of Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien to get him to testify as to his exact flight path and a military deception has been implicated by the tampering of the 2007 released alleged radar data. O'Brien's previously published statements about his flight path fully support the ANC employee's quadruple corroborated account of his approach and he has curiously stopped responding to us since the released of the 84 RADES data in 2007.
We are now publicly pleading to O'Brien to speak out further regarding exactly where he flew on 9/11 because at this point the evidence demonstrates foul play from the officials when considering this specific detail.
11.
Roosevelt Roberts Jr.Find Roosevelt Robert's name under this index at the Library of Congress website to download his officially documented interview:
http://memory.loc.go...ecordingI1.htmlOr download direct:
Real AudioMP3WAVDownload our independently confirmed interview with him here:
http://www.thepentacon.com/robertsRoosevelt is the critical first flyover witness. He did not see the Pentagon attack jet on the approach at all. He only saw it immediately
after the explosion as it banked away from the Pentagon.
He was at the east side of the loading dock when he saw the plane over the south parking lot of the Pentagon.
Roosevelt says that the plane was 50 to less than 100 feet above the light poles in the south parking lot and was banking around. His exact direction of the bank is a bit unclear from the interview but it sounds as though he has it banking around to the north since he says towards the "mall entrance side" which is on the north side of the Pentagon.
He says "southwest" but we think his directions were confused at that moment since it sounds like he is struggling to visualize and verbalize the proper cardinal direction which is to be expected from eyewitness recollection. He does clarify further when he says it was not banking towards the airport meaning it wasn't banking southwest after all.
As much as we would like to clarify his account further either Roosevelt got scared or somebody told him not to talk to us because it was clear he was avoiding us after promising follow up.
As discussed in the documentary we were able to eventually reach him again weeks later after trying maybe a dozen times.
Eventually we got a hold of him again and basically explained the implications of what he saw in a last ditch effort to get him to talk to us in more detail. After that discussion he agreed to an on camera interview for one week later on Sunday June 8th. Unfortunately when I called to confirm he backed out.
At this point it's clear that Roosevelt is nervous regarding the implications of what he saw and prefers to not put himself in a difficult position by implicating his boss and no doubt as far as he is concerned jeopardizing his livelihood.
This does not change the fact that he already officially reported this jet in 2001 and has independently confirmed this to us in 2008.
There is absolutely no possible explanation for what he saw other than the flyover.
The C-130 came in significantly later, was not nearly that low, and was not anywhere near the south parking lot and didn't even fly over the Pentagon. Plus Roosevelt is certain what he saw was a silver commercial aircraft/airliner with jet engines, and not a C-130 with propeller engines.
To dismiss all of these accounts as a fluke is illogical. The extreme level of validation of the north side flyover combined with the obviously questionable nature of the physical evidence not to mention the fatal contradictions in the officially released data leaves us no conclusion other than military deception on 9/11.
We are calling on all citizens to help us force a congressional inquiry into this extremely dire matter that has major implications on a global scale.
źródło:
ClickMyślę, że styknie. Mi po prostu w głowie widnieje za dużo wątpliwości
To raczej ostatni mój post, bo znam wynik odpowiedzi Aquili.
Pozdróweczka.
