| Viewing Single Post From: South Side/Light Pole eyewitnesses | |
|---|---|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Apr 2 2009, 10:42 AM |
|
Why is Sean Boger's graphic description of the impact marginal rather than good?[/quote] 1. Because he saw the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, this negates a belief in an impact. In other words, the plane cannot hit the building since it approached from the north side of the building. 2. His description is incompatible with the official story. He claims it hit between the 2nd and 3rd floor. The plane allegedly hits the 1st, tail hitting the 2nd floor. This would support the fact that he is deducing and embellishing. 3. He didn't agree with the surveillance video. 4. He admitted the plane was coming at him and right below him the firefighters we running away from the scene. Logic and common sense would tell you that he ducked before the plane reached the building. 5. He claimed the tail hit the overhead sign, this would be the overhead sign Robert Turcios saw it pull up over. The sign was not hit, but this would put it on the NoC path he saw it on.
1. Because he saw the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, this negates a belief in an impact. In other words, the plane cannot hit the building since it approached from the north side of the building. 2. He flinched out of fear after seeing the plane on the north side, then jumped into his car to look down and grab his radio. 3. He admitted that the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane actually did. On a sidenote, where did Sgt Lagasse say the impact is "non-negotiable"?
1. Because he did not and could not give an accurate account of how the plane hit. He had to remember what other people had told him to create his description. 2. Because he lied about crossing the guardrail with stole and bible in hand 45 seconds after the event happened when Mark Faram arrived 10 minutes after the event and saw him do it. 3. Because 13 witnesses saw the plane approach NoC, which means the plane cannot hit-and he couldn't see either SoC or NoC paths. 1 witness saw it pull up into an ascent over the highway. And 1 witness saw the plane flying away banking 50-100 ft over and around the south parking lot AFTER the explosion.
1. Because 13 witnesses saw the plane approach NoC, which means the plane cannot hit. 1 witness saw it pull up into an ascent over the highway. And 1 witness saw the plane flying away banking 50-100 ft over and around the south parking lot AFTER the explosion. 2. Her description much too detailed and is incompatible with the damage shown. She says, 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. The starboard side damage is incompatible with a wing entering the building. Columns are blown up and out and there is nowhere for the plane's wing to enter. This also applies to the tail of the plane. Her account is an attempt at being convincing but when scrutinized it is clear she is not telling the truth.
1. Because 13 witnesses saw the plane approach NoC, which means the plane cannot hit. 1 witness saw it pull up into an ascent over the highway. And 1 witness saw the plane flying away banking 50-100 ft over and around the south parking lot AFTER the explosion. 2. He claims it came over the Navy Annex, this is NoC. But he makes a point to say over his right shoulder and as if it was following Columbia Pike, so this makes it vague and ambiguous and can be usd to try and justify or fit with SoC. 3. Due to no 1 and the fact that his position in the military, he could be a suspect witness.
Definitive confirmed and corroborated SoC witnesses describing a corroborated impact
No they are not. Stop lying. Stop using deceptive terminology and phrasing. The witnesses are "corroborated".
No, it's a lie.
Where are you getting "non-negotiable" from? NoC approach negates an impact. THAT is "non-negotiable".
No, first he is dismissing it based on the FACT that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo meaning that pole WAS NOT struck. Second he is dismissing it on the severe improbability of 535 mph 757 hitting a pole into a windshield of a car traveling 50 mph that spins out sideways and NOT damaging the hood or "bonnet". Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Apr 2 2009, 12:16 PM.
|
 |
|
| South Side/Light Pole eyewitnesses · Skeptics | |
4:17 AM Nov 28
