It WAS Flight 77, Part 2: Eyewitness Testimony

[Bolo Boffin]

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. This is the consensus of eyewitness testimony.

Eyewitness testimony:

Please note - any testimony without a link can be found at the links given at the end of the post, either from the About.com link or the ratical.com link.

1. Joel Sucherman, USAToday Editor

USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.

- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001

2. Father Stephen McGraw

From here

"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'


3. John O'Keefe

Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'

- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001

4. Steve Anderson, USAToday Director of Communications

From here

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug its wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."


5. Steve Rickus

From here

" . . . I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first. . . It did not hit the roof first. . . It hit dead center on the edge. . . I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building. . . It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down. . . It knocked over a few light poles on its way. . . I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane. I clearly saw the "AA" logo with the eagle in the middle. . . I don't really remember the engine configuration, but it did have those turbine engines on the wing. . . and yes, it did impact the Pentagon. . . There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing. . . It was definitely an American Airlines jet. . . There is no doubt about that. . . When I got to work I checked it out."

6. Bouchoux, Donald R.

Donald R. Bouchoux, 53, a retired Naval officer, a Great Falls resident, a Vietnam veteran and former commanding officer of a Navy fighter squadron, was driving west from Tysons Corner to the Pentagon for a 10am meeting. He wrote: "At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car.

7. Deb & Jeff Anlauf

she heard a "loud roar . . . Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. . . . You felt like you could touch it; it was that close.

"Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."

8. Mickey Bell

The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building, narrowly missing the Singleton Electric trailer and the on-site foreman, Mickey Bell. . . .

Bell who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane's wings as it sped by him. . . .

The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn't realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell's work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened.

9. Penny Elgas

From here

"Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station . . .

 ". . . I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times . . .

". . . At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds.

"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building."

Need more? Check out:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.html

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=4476

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/witness.html

All in all, I'm looking at 100 different eyewitnesses that corroborate one thing alone: Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. A plane flew into the Pentagon.

I don't think any of the eye witnesses stated it was Flight 77. A minor point, of course, with so many people insisting it was just a small missile when, in fact, it was a plane acting as a missile.

Still begs the question as to who could fly such a cumbersome plane by hand better than most pilots in the world. So, despite all these reporets, they still fuels suspicion that it was flown by remote control.

http://brainbuttons.com

[TrogL]

2. Cumbersome? Better than most pilots in the world?

Really?

I've watched hundreds of landings by large jets. This one sounds no different. Cumbersome? Hardly.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. An large American Airlines jet flew into the Pentagon.

That's what all the above-quoted witnesses report.

And the manuvuers reported aren't so difficult as you may have been led to believe. The only reason that ATCs thought the plane was military on the radar was because of the speed. You don't fly large planes like that, because it's not safe to do so.

But then again, the pilot that crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon wasn't concerned about the safety of his passengers and crew, was he?

BTW: Nice Kerry buttons.

[Abe Linkman]

3. bolo: You ought to be embarassed

Posting nonsense like that and then claiming they corroborate that FL 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Now, people can be forgiven for doubting anything you say.

[TrogL]

4. If you don't believe eyewitness testimony

What do you believe? Besides phantoms in blurry photographs.

[Abe Linkman]

10. If you believe eyewitness accounts...

then you are one naive puppy. Eyewitness testimony is THE MOST unreliable testimony you'll ever hear in a courtroom.

[TrogL]

12. I've done eyewitness testimony in a courtroom

"I saw the car parked in front of the shed. The sign was clearly visible".

Nobody bothered to argue that the car was really a motorcycle or that the sign was written in Swahili or that the shed was really a secret entrance to a military base.

In various threads on this board people have claimed that a small jet flew into the pentagon. They posted pictures and diagrams to prove it.

Here's direct evidence to the contrary.

I just don't get it. What are you accomplishing by continuing this delusion?

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Can be unreliable

Not "is THE MOST unreliable".

Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. Every time a memory is invoked, the brain must rebuild it, and the savvy questioner can influence how that memory is rebuilt.

But we aren't talking about one single witness in an isolated environment. Here we have nine witnesses who saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon.

This didn't happen in secret; it happened over a traffic jam. These witnesses aren't the only ones - they're just the ones reprinted here. Lots of people saw this event occur. No one reports more than one plane. One of these people was the foreman of the crew that was working on the exterior of the Pentagon when the plane crashed. He was 100 feet from the impact.

This is quite enough evidence to conclude that a large American Airlines jet crashed into the Pentagon.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Explain please.

What particular parts of the above testimony do you see as "nonsense"?

What reasons do you have for such a belief?

The nine testimonies I posted go together very well. You'll find nothing about multiple planes or missiles. You have nine people who watched an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon.

That's not nonsense - that's the truth.

[Abe Linkman]

7. Here's some of the nonsense you're pedaling.

"nine people who watched an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon."

That isn't what ANY of them said, and you know it.

P.S. Have you ever done any scrpt-writing re: The First Golf War?

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Weak.

That isn't what ANY of them said, and you know it.

On the contrary, that is what every one of them said, and anyone who reads their testimony knows it.

And that's it? All you have is a complete and utter misstatement of what they said? Abe, that's just...pathetic.

P.S. Have you ever done any scrpt-writing re: The First Golf War?

Nope. Right now I'm working on a horror comedy about the oldest vampire in the world. I'm also kicking around an idea on Akhenaten. No plans on a script about the first Gulf War. Thanks for your concern.

[LARED]

15. Golf War?

Yes war is heck



:hi:

Just having some fun

[demodewd]

9. Let's differentiate here.

Eyewitness testimony only corroborates the apparent fact that a plane near the size and markings of an American Airlines 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon. As to specificity...that it was exactly Flight 77..there could not possibly be legitimate verification.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. You're right, demodewd

The only thing that this testimony establishes is that a large plane with American Airlines markings crashed into the Pentagon. To establish that this plane was Flight 77, we need further evidence.

Here's where I disagree with you, though: That evidence is available to us. But I'm tired. It's 2:30 in the morning here. I will be posting this evidence in a Part 3 thread. For now, I'm glad to see that you agree with me on what this eyewitness testimony establishes.

[Abe Linkman]

16. The only thing that your message establishes

is that someone allegedly collected statements from some people who claimed to have been near the Pentagon on 9-11. They don't in any way establish that a "large plane with American Airlines markings" crashed into the Pentagon.

Kindly publish that "further" evidence you claim to have available. You ducked out the last time. Do tell us what actual evidence you have. And bolo, kindly leave the Ambassador's daughter out of this.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

18. Still ducking, I see.

You sound like bush: "That's old news. I've already ducked and dodged THAT question."

Admit it, you don't have any more evidence than you did the last time I asked you to produce some.

Eyewitnesses who give conflicting, vague, even contradictory accounts that can't be confirmed by ANY evidence ... aren't worth anymore than your two years of spinning the Official 9-11 Conspiracy.

Here's a simple question for you:

1.) Name ONE person here at DU who you've convinced to believe in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

[DulceDecorum]

20. That one person

is Ahmed Chalabi.

Ooops! another falsehood from my keyboard.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

28. Are personal questions like that permitted here? If so...

I have a few for you regarding a few things in the past that you once mentioned but have resisted answering questions about.

DD can speak for DD. And, I'll be happy to answer your questions to me, as soon as you answer a few about yourself. Fairness and all that, you know.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

36. See #35

Not quite sure WHICH questions is being referred to, but I don't want to risk getting the Moderator upset. They've got the power.

[Lithos]

35. Definitive Answer

Personal questions like that are NOT allowed here.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Thank you, Lithos.

I stand corrected.

Back to discussing the eyewitness accounts.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. Question 1:

How fast was the plane flying at impact?

[Bolo Boffin]

31. I've heard 450 mph.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. That's pretty fast

I've seen bullet trains from a distance, zipping along at 120 mph. Even from a hundred yards away, they are still a blur as they pass. The windows are large, but it is still impossible to tell if people are inside. Multiply that speed by approximately 4, and there would be no way to make out any details whatsoever from close range.

This is why I have doubts about a lot of these "eyewitness accounts"

[gogu]

44. that boeing near surface cannot fly faster that 150mph

I saw a german documentary on german WDR channel
where even a german airplane and airplane-crash specialist and pilot who believes in the official version of the crash says clearly that that speed is impossible and that plane must not have flown faster than 200 KMH due to the air friction near surface.
He also addmits that only an extremly good pilot trained for
landing boeings ( the arab pilot could barely fly a cessna and did not practice landing and take-off with a boeing) could have maybe managed to do that... but not in that angle, he would have hit the pentagon higher.

Not to speak about the plane tip who went through more than 6 thick walls... impossible ! Planes are made to fly and are not military missiles to go through walls.

Their fuel also doesn't explode like a high-energy explosive.

In pentagon they were able to identify almost almost all passengers ( 63 out of 64 I guess) using DNA tests. Athough the plane burned completly. The bodies not.... hmmm... nor the passpowr of Mohamed Atta. IN WTC they could not identify almost 2000 victims
due to the damaged DNA due to fire. In pentagon they did ! Amazing work !

Is still someone here who believes that NO VIDEO CAM in Penatagon worked that day except for that one ? Even that camera only managed to
make only some frames of the explosion. The explosion colour shows
military explosion and not fuel explosion.


In WTC the fire burned for 3 months and melted big amounts of steel in a area poor with oxigen. Maybe undeneath WTC was the hell and the
devils kept the fire burning expecting the sinners who killed their
own people.
The fires have been even cooled down with water in this 3 months. Who heard of a fire burning for 3 months in a pile of debris and steel ?

WTC falls down with 10 seconds, like a free fall.
As would have been air and not steel underneath the falling floors.
Think about that.. the steel that held the building for 30 years DID NOT OPPOSED ANY RESISTANCE AT ALL !
Even if the building core would have been made out of cheese it would have been collapsing slower than having the core made out of hard steel.

I don't even need to know about explosive to imagine that this is impossible due to the physics laws.

There are too many impossible things in the 9/11 official story.
And too many smart guys trying to convince us of the impossible story.

To me was enough to see Bush's guilty face and his weird reactions on 9/11 on the TV to know is much more behind the official version.

Are we swallowing too many fluorides ? Maybe, but it cannot make us so dumb...

GG

[MercutioATC]

50. I think your figures may be in error.

The takeoff speed of a Boeing 757 is 160 mph. That's not maximum speed at low altitude, just the speed it needs to get off of the ground. It's capable of much faster speeds than 150 mph, even at low altitudes.

[Abe Linkman]

21. These accounts actually UNDERMINE the Official Conspiracy Theory

The eyewitness accounts "boloboffin" posted were meant to bolster the Official Conspiracy Theory, yet they actually do just the opposite.

None of the eyewitnesses report seeing more than one plane. They only talk about "the plane"; yet we know there was more than one aircraft flying in the vicinity of the Pentagon. The fact that not one eyewitness mentions having observed more than one aircraft tells us that either they're lying or else they really didn't notice/see but one "plane". If we accept their goodwill and assume that they are accurately reporting what they believe they saw, then it's clear that they didn't see the other aircraft that many have said were being used to deflect attention away from the actual crash into the Pentagon. These accounts bolster the theory that FL 77 flew over the killer "plane" and in the confusion, the eyewitnesses just thought the "plane" they saw crash was FL 77.

Eyewitness accounts are almost always problematic. In the case of the Pentagon attack, their accounts bolster the theory that it WASN'T FL 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. It's as though they were witnessing a magic act. And, maybe they were.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. ...in Abe Linkman Land only.

The only other plane in the vicinity was the C130. That plane was close enough to visually identify the American Airlines jet. That doesn't mean that the C130 was in the visual plane of the Pentagon eyewitnesses.

None of the eyewitnesses report seeing more than one plane.

Remarkable, isn't it? No one at all reported seeing more than one plane - over one hundred witnesses and none of them saw a single bit of this aerial ballet.

That's evidence, not of the aerial ballet, but of there being only one airplane to see at the Pentagon. The one that crashed into it. The large American Airlines jet.

...it's clear that they didn't see the other aircraft that many have said were being used to deflect attention away from the actual crash into the Pentagon.

If this is clear, then these witnesses, by your own hand, WEREN'T deflected away from the actual crash, since they "didn't see the other aircraft". Which means they saw the actual crash, and what airplane caused it: a large American Airlines jet.

Which is what they reported.

I would love your thoughts on whether black is black, Abe. I say it is, and the Bush Adminstration would probably say black is black, too. What say you?

[Abe Linkman]

23. You're making progress...one more plane now than before.

That's a little progress. Not one of those alleged eyewitnesses mentioned seeing the C130...or any other aircraft.

Maybe by tomorrow this time, you'll be admitting to at least one more.
Unfortunately, your "eyewitnesses" are stuck with their claims of having seen only "the plane". (not the C130 "plane", though)

Remarkable, isn't it?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Whatever.

I've never stated that the C130 wasn't there to see the plane. It's clear though, that the C130 wasn't seen by these people, though. It wasn't close enough to distract from the actual viewing.

These people saw a large American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. Nothing you've argued here has refuted this or their testimony at all.

[Abe Linkman]

27. Where was the C130, "boloboffin"?

Where would "these people" have to have been in order to see the C130?

Sounds like you're saying that all of the eyewitnesses say they only saw one plane: a B757 AA Fl 77. Is that what you're claiming? Not one eyewitness claims they saw any other aircraft except for that B757. That right?

[Bolo Boffin]

30. In the sky, Linkman.

Flying about, as aircraft are designed to do.

The witnesses I've quoted here all saw a single airplane in the area.

[Abe Linkman]

33. Directly above the Pentagon? In front of it?

As I said, the alleged eyewitnesses you quoted apparently didn't see any
other aircraft that was in the area. That's apparently why they all referred to the only aircraft they recall seeing as "the plane". That lends credence to the theory that they were distracted by what was going on and so they missed seeing that FL 77 wasn't the attack plane. The attack plane (as shown in the images from the parking lot security camera) was too small to have been FL 77.

Your eyewitnesses have unwittingly UNDERMINED the Official Conspiracy Theory being advanced by the Gov't and certain parties here on DU.

Got any other "proof" you care to present?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. From the testimony

The C130 was observed in the vicinity about 30 seconds after the crash. I recall the pilot saying he was about a mile or two away from the large American Airlines jet. He wasn't in a position to watch the actual crash, though, as the above nine witnesses were.

So the C130 was far enough away to not be a part of your aerial ballet scenario.

And contrary to your assertion, the large American Airlines jet is in the parking lot security camera. That belongs in a part 3 thread though, and that will be forthcoming.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Bump.

This bump is for Abe, who stated once again that there's been no evidence posted here that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[rman]

41. there's no *large* plane in the security cam footage

the top of the tailfin of a passenger jet would be as tall as the pentagon, the oly tailfin visible in the footage is a lot smaller then that.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. yes there is

the top of the tailfin of a passenger jet would be as tall as the pentagon

This is not true.

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

height of 767 from wheels to tail fin - 52 ft

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html

height of Pentagon - 77 ft

That's a difference of 25 feet. The tail fin is therefore expected to be two thirds the height of the Pentagon....

But wait. The landing gear wasn't deployed. That gives us at least five more feet to subtract from the height of the Pentagon. We should expect the tail fin to be short of the Pentagon roof by about 30 feet.

The tail fin of a 767 would be nowhere close as tall as the Pentagon.

[TrogL]

32. I was standing at the mall yesterday

...and just about got the shit scared out of me when an airplane passed directly overhead what seem like close enough to touch.

Even though I love aircraft, I normally don't pay much attention to them, especially if I'm trying to drive.

(on edit, to finish the thought)

Being near an airport there would often be plenty of planes in the sky. It would be normal for them to be there sometimes and not there other times. It would NOT be normal for one to be flying 20 feet off the ground near the Pentagon. THAT would get somebody's attention.

[rman]

40. How about those eyewitness reports..

that state the plane first hit the lawn in front of the wall (as supported by the security cam footage)... yet left the lawn undamaged, which was quickly covered with grit and sand.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

45. Eyewitness reports to the rape of a nation

"Some 90 percent of false convictions in the rape cases involved misidentification by witnesses"

Why do you continue posting selective eyewitness accounts?

[Bolo Boffin]

46. You neglected to post a link to your quote.

Are you seriously comparing incidents in which a SINGLE person is mistaken to an event that happened next to a major metropolitan traffic jam?

[Abe Linkman]

47. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable...esp. 9-11 eyewitnesses

First, here's the link you asked for.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/national/19DNA.html

An event which lasted mere seconds, being recalled by people next to a major metropolitan traffic jam...or in cars on a freeway, or trying to keep track of all those distracting planes flying around...are you kidding me, or is that your imitation of Muddy Waters?

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Eyewitness accounts speak for themselves...

...and when they accord so well with the available physical evidence, as in the case of the Pentagon crash, their value is raised inestimably.

And if it's an imitation of Muddy Waters you're looking for:

The gypsy woman told my mother
Before I was born
I got a boy child's comin'
He's gonna be a son of a gun
He gonna make pretty women's
Jump and shout
Then the world wanna know
What this all about
But you know I'm him
Everybody knows I'm him
Well you know I'm the hoochie coochie man
Everybody knows I'm him

I got a black cat bone
I got a mojo too
I got the Johnny Concheroo
I'm gonna mess with you
I'm gonna make you girls
Lead me by my hand
Then the world will know
The hoochie coochie man
But you know I'm him
Everybody knows I'm him
Oh you know I'm the hoochie coochie man
Everybody knows I'm him

On the seventh hours
On the seventh day
On the seventh month
The seven doctors say
He was born for good luck
And that you'll see
I got seven hundred dollars
Don't you mess with me
But you know I'm him
Everybody knows I'm him
Well you know I'm the hoochie coochie man
Everybody knows I'm him

Sweet.

[Abe Linkman]

54. Selected eyewitness accounts are totally worthless

And when their accounts conflict with all of the available evidence, the only conclusion one can draw is that their accounts are only helpful as propaganda for the "Wacky Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

[gogu]

49. Witness even saw people in a plane flying with 450 mhp !!!

Some of your witnesses bolobobo said they even saw the people in the plane! Ha ha...
Try to watch people in car drivin with 100 mhp and then
imagine the size of the plane's windows and the 450 mph speed !

This is impossible. As impossible is what the governenmt said that the Pentagon Boeing flew 450 mph near surface.
A plane that size cannot reach more then 150 mhp near surface anyway,
due to air friction, ask every pilot !

The hole in the wall is much to low for a Boing too... not to talk about the vaporisation of the plane.

Witnesses lie and are not reliable. Physics laws are !
They cannot be paid or manipulated.

Governement propaganda please in another forum bolobobo!

[MercutioATC]

51. Well, the takeoff speed of a 757 is 160 mph, so I think you're mistaken.

Your "air friction" claim notwithstanding, commercial airliners can and do operate above 150 mph at low altitudes:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0088.shtml

[demodewd]

52. Not so.

Correction! 100 eye witnesses that corroborate one thing alone...they saw a plane that RESEMBLED an American Airlines Boeing 757. To deduce from their observations that it ACTUALLY was Flight 77 is a gross error in intepretation.Your deduction is fallacious.

[Abe Linkman]

53. "Confederacy" of Non-Thinking Sheeple

FL 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, or anywhere else. This is the consensus of people who have studied what happened at the Pentagon on 9-11.

Using selected eyewitness accounts to support the Official Gov't version
is no more persuasive nor enlightening than asking executives at Halliburton if Commander Bunnypants did the "right" thing when he ordered an invasion of Iraq.

[demnan]

55. I live close to the Pentagon/Columbia Pike

The airplane made my building shake when it passed over. Although I was at work at the time of the crash I've talked to enough eye witnesses who saw the plane to convince me that a large aircraft did crash into the Pentagon.

The area is a very busy urban/commerical one. They used Columbia Pike as a guiding point. Eyewitnesses of the plane include vendors all along Columbia Pike in Arlington.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. To date, the only arguments against this wealth of testimony...

...is as follows:

1. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable, so all of these accounts aren't worth the pixels used to display them.

2. There's other eyewitness testimony to a small plane or a missile.

3. This only proves something that looked like a large American Airlines jet crashed into the Pentagon, not that Flight 77 did so.

Have I missed anything?

[demodewd]

57. correct answer..

And the correct answer is...number 3. Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. You're right, and I've admitted it.

Number three is something I recognize as true - the eyewitness testimony establishes that something resembling a large American Airlines passenger jet hit the Pentagon.

Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, especially when you're depending on one or two witnesses, but the sheer bulk of witnesses to this event negates the unreliability.

Other witnesses reported a small plane or a missile, but their low number in comparison to those who saw a large AA plane is also a factor in believing them to be mistaken, rather than the huge number (100+ on the Internet, in addition to the venders mentioned at the top of this branch). Those who thought the plane to be a missile were probably confused by the speed and the sound of the speeding airplane (the ATCs originally thought the passenger jet to be a military vehicle due to its speed). Those who thought it to be a small plane were probably further away and didn't have a chance to realize the true size of the plane.

Overwhelmingly, the eyewitnesses report a large AA jet hitting the Pentagon and exploding. Nothing further than that can be implied from the eyewitness evidence.

[Abe Linkman]

59. Your facts, reasoning, and conclusions are wrong.

The eyewitness accounts do NOT establish that "something resembling a large American Airlines passenger jet hit the Pentagon."

Taken as a whole, the eyewitness accounts are totally worthless in establishing what happened at the Pentagon. The issue of reliability of eyewitness accounts has been thoroughly debunked over and over almost since day one.

Overwhelmingly, NOT one OBJECTIVE student of what happened at the Pentagon on 9-11 agrees with the erroneous conclusions you state, as though it is a factual truth.

Why you keep bringing this up is a mystery...to newer DUers, maybe.

[TrogL]

60. What evidence would you accept?

Actually, we've covered this ground already, but I want to hear it again.

[Abe Linkman]

61. SHOW ME de MONET

What kind of actual direct or circumstantial evidence would you like to offer for my acceptance? But, don't waste my time with some jive-talking BS 'bout blind eyewitness accounts of "the plane", or Gov't reports that say "victims were recovered and their DNA matched that of passengers on planes" (except for those young Arab Patsies whose names aren't on the passenger list).

Ted Olson? Please. His claims have long-ago been shown to be as bogus as he needed to be. (that's a huuuuuuge part of the problem for folks trying to sell the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Theory. whenever the most crucial parts of the puzzle are shown to be counterfeit; the rest of the story has a burden that has so far been proven to be too heavy to sustain.)

The ONLY evidence I've seen so far are the five images from the parking lot video...which DISprove the claim that a B757 had anything to do with the damage to the Pentagon (OTHER than being a non-human Patsy).

Whatchu got, "TrogL Person"?

Show us de Monet!

[TrogL]

62. As usual, you didn't answer the question

What kind of actual direct or circumstantial evidence would you like to offer for my acceptance?

Answering a question with a question.

(long rant about blind witnesses, government reports and Ted Olsen)

Straw man.

The ONLY evidence I've seen so far are the five images from the parking lot video

...which show (fuzzily) a large aircraft hitting the Pentagon, throwing considerable debris over the top of the building.

So, the only evidence you are willing to accept is video. Been in a movie theater lately? Amazing what they can do with video.


Whatchu got, "TrogL Person"?

What, exactly are you trying to express by that? Just another of a long line of insults?

What will you accept? Answer the question.

[Abe Linkman]

63. The plain and simple truth is--- you do not have ANY evidence.

That's the bottom line, isn't it? If you did, you would offer it and then if it was rejected, you'd question why or argue with the reasoning given for rejecting it. But, you don't have any evidence. That isn't surprising. After all, I don't know what you are, but one thing you aren't, is a magician. And since you aren't a magician, REAL evidence is what you need if you want to be taken seriously, and not as just another sales rep for the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory.