The exchange below is taken from this thread on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum.
The most relevant posts have been kept in white, while the less relevant posts are
still there in gray for context.


 

Alan Wallace - Pentagon First Responder
 
shure
(Jeff Hill)
May 2 2010, 03:53 PM
I thought some people here might be interested in listening to this phone call with Alan Wallace.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3269928/
 


amazed May 2 2010, 04:19 PM
I didn't listen to the audio, but the story there reeks of OCT, another planted witness relating high drama. Sort of an earth bound Scott Beamer.... thumbdown.gif
 
 


paranoia May 2 2010, 05:55 PM
jeff, judging by the context of this and the defina interview, it seems your particular line of inquiry is about the "second explosion", yes? if so - i was wonering if you've had a peek at this thread?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17504

-wallace is wrong about it being caused by a plane. that "boom" ruptured from the ground up, not from the sky down. read that thread - i go into more detail about it there.
 


bobcat46 May 2 2010, 05:56 PM
Well, I listened to it and it is obvious that he did not see the plane hit the building because he was under a van. You're right, Amazed, another planted witness........well, he did work for the DoD.
 
 


shure
(Jeff Hill)
May 2 2010, 07:17 PM
Yes paranoid thats a very good thread. I copied it to my Mike Defina thread.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3240097/

I believe Alan, but you guys are right, technically he didn't see it hit the Pentagon.

Penny Elgas did though:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1757591/

So did this mean guy:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3269452/
 


Craig Ranke CIT May 2 2010, 09:36 PM
QUOTE (shure @ May 3 2010, 01:17 AM) *
 
I believe Alan, but you guys are right, technically he didn't see it hit the Pentagon.

Penny Elgas did though:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1757591/

So did this mean guy:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3269452/

Congratulations on obtaining the interview Jeff..

I don't think Alan is a liar either. He only saw the plane for a split second and ran for his life just like anyone would do.

It makes perfect sense that he would be deceived into believing the plane hit and it's also clear that he was influenced by the official flight path very early on in Jan/Feb 2002 when the FBI showed him the flight path animation at the Hoover building.

Deduction and embellishment are very typical eyewitness tendencies which is why corroboration is so important.

But let me ask you Jeff.....do you believe that enough witness evidence has been provided demonstrating that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station? Do you understand the implications of a north side approach?

I was glad to hear you ask Mr Wallace where he saw the plane in relation to the gas station however he made it clear in the beginning of your interview that he first saw the plane over the highway after it had passed that point so naturally he could not know the answer to that question with any degree of certainty.

On the other hand Penny Elgas has always described seeing the plane by the Citgo but unfortunately you failed to ask her the critical question of what side it flew. So whether or not she believes she saw the plane hit, it can not do this from the north side. So I'm really curious about your answers to these questions: Have you seen the north side eyewitness evidence? Are you convinced that enough evidence has been presented proving the plane flew on the north side? If not why? If so do you understand the implications of this?

Thanks for being honest and forthright and thanks for your effort to speak with witnesses directly.

 


paranoia May 2 2010, 11:26 PM
hey jeff, no offense, but i hadnt yet expressed any opinion about wallace's overall credibility, so please dont lump me in with "you guys". personally, i do believe wallace's account and find him to be credible, albeit somewhat influenced. by that i mean that after the event he seems to have tried to piece the specifics back together, and it seems the lightpoles (as positioned in the aftermath) played a significant role in his understanding of the event - even though he personally did not see the plane hit these poles. as result of relying too heavily on the location of and condition of the poles as an indicator of "true events", he has come to believe the plane impacted the building. since he was running for his life with his back turned i cant/wont fault him too much for having been fooled.

re: the "2nd" explosion - my guess is that wallace wasnt in a place where he felt or heard it enough to distinguish it from the other stuff going on around him. but it appears he has heard something (perhaps "controversial") about this 2nd explosion and has since attempted to rationalize an explanation for its source. but like with the light poles, he is relying on 2nd (or 3rd or 4th?) hand knowledge of the event and has tried to reverse-engineer how it happened based on various heresay tidbits, and unfortunately has thus come to a flawed conclusion. having experienced the "2nd" explosion first-hand, i can definitively say that the boom did not come from above, no way. but regardless of his and or my understanding/belief about this explosion, i find wallace to be sincere, and i do believe he was attempting to honestly convey to you his understanding of the events (flawed or faulty as they may be) during your interview.


note by the way that between the 18th and 19th minute of your clip he does put the plane directly over and basically north of the citgo. so his recollection of where the plane was matches up with all the other honest witnesses. speaking of which, im not sure i understand what you're contending by posting elgas' and liebner's accounts. are you asserting that the plan DID hit the building? please clarify.


but for the record, elgas ALSO put the plane over the gas station (as did wallace). i examined her account a long time ago so ima bit hazy, but IIRC she was moving away from scene (northbound on washington blvd), so the "impact" point's location, was actually behind her. this means that she was not in a great position to watch the alleged impact in detail. if you have watched the interviews that cit did, where various witnesses to the final path of the plane gave their recollections, and if you are familiar with the approach angle and path of the plane as witnessed and corroborated by said interviewed witnesses) then you understand that the plane started north of elgas, but then was behind her as it flew away, meaning that she assumed an impact had occurred, but her eyes did not get to see the actual impact. besides, as close as she was to where the giant explosion/fireball ignited, all she would have seen is a flash of white, red and orange, along with feeling a massive concussion of energy. so she would no have seen what really happened as a result of this stun-grenade to the 1000th power. in her original account she describes how overcome with adernaline she was and how everything was a blur for a good 20 minutes or so right after what she witnessed (as she drive around aimlessly as if in a dream), so its clear that the explosion must have really shaken her up.


elgas was a civilian, but liebner on the other hand, was and is a career military man. if he did in fact witness what really happened and wasnt fooled, he would be in both a percarious and advantageous position. he'd be doomed if he were to tell the truth, while on the other hand if he shilled on behalf of the official story, could only find gains for himself. but regardless of my suspicions about his would-be motives, liebner actually said the plane was going in between the 2nd and 3rd floors - check the 2nd page of the liebner quotes thread at LCF where i have compiled his statements - but his version of the plane's final height is completely irreconcilable with the inches-above-the-lawn official version of events. not only that, but in fact a plane that much higher up "between the 2nd and 3rd floors", is more indicative of a plane in a position to do a flyover (than not), which it did and is the undeniable implication of the given evidence.



***



one last note about wallace's account - his survival added to the description of the specific damage to the firetruck that he relayed way back in his original publised account (on a maryland firefighter's site), imo prove explosives were used inside the building. ive been meaning to update the pentagon damage analysis thread with it, but if you check that thread you will find that 3 different versions of column damage were released by the ASCE. one of them shows a column severed way over to the north of the building, a column isolated and away from all the other plane-damage-mimicking broken and busted columns inside the building, one much too far to have been damaged even by the imaginary wing's reach. the location of this specific lone column, is feet away (tho inside the building) from the back of wallace's firetruck. in his original account wallace attributes his life being saved to the firetruck - its rear specifically - of having taken the brunt of the explosion and having saved his life. in your interview when u ask if he was BEHIND the truck notice the laugh he gives you. thats because he has said himself in the past that if he was behind that truck, he would be a dead man today. so anyway, the ASCE revised their publicly released column-damage reports, and that one column which was severed behind the firetruck, was no longer marked as severed.

but the way his truck was damaged specifically at the rear instead of the side (it became undrivable thanks to a ruptured hydraulic or tranny line according to wallace), added to the existence of this lone severed column inside the building, is evidence that a massive explosion took place there, one that could not have been caused by "the airplane".
 


shure
(Jeff Hill)
May 3 2010, 09:32AM
Sorry paranoid, it wasn't my intention to include you in "you guys". Thanks for the info! Yes, at this point I do believe people saw a "plane" impact the Pentagon. By the sounds of it, do I understand you were there that day?
 
 


shure (Jeff Hill) May 3 2010, 09:33 AM

Craig,

I could call Penny back and ask her which side of the gas station. What else should I ask her?

 


Note: The screen shot at the beginning of the following post is from the forum on Jeff "shure" Hill's website.

oneslicesh-
ort
May 3 2010, 10:43AM PM


Hey Jeff, I wouldn't go patting myself on the back just yet mate.

I'd like to see Craig's points answered.

I've a lot of respect for what you've done man, but why are you so intent on "debunking" CIT's work when they have used the same methods as you? And have done so in a transparent way?
I mean, they show all their interviews on record with the NOC witnesses.
Impact is impossible from NOC. Fact. Or do you have a 'theory'?

There is a video interview with the 'mean' Liebner guy which actually shows him penning the route he saw the plane take. NOC.

Penny Elgas's description of the approach of the plane totally contradicts any "impact" theory.
Her intense 2 thousand(?) word description logically and physically defies the FDR data which points to the plane being in that basin of land for 3.5 seconds. 1.3 seconds from lightpole 1 to the Pentagon.
Allegedly 8/10ths of a second for the plane to 'penetrate' the full distance to the "punch-out" hole.

Whether you believe a flyover or not, the NOC evidence at LEAST provides a means by which a false flag op can be proven. Whether it be the lightpoles being planted and the subsequent damage being staged, or the FDR being faked, that the entire Official Narrative is bullshit on this evidence.

That you are intent on "proving" the existence of 'SOC' witnesses or "impact witnesses" confuses the crap out of me. If you DO cast enough doubt on this evidence that, unless fully researched by newcomers or people who are sitting on the fence on this subject and are influenced by the pathetic rumour and disinfo campaign initiated by the 'cred police' at various "Truther sites", it will prolong the debate but will NEVER 'win out' against this evidence. What next?

Should we just forget about the entire Pentagon 'saga'? Is that what you want? What is plan 'B'?
Have you done anything to positively identify what happened at the Pentagon or are you just going to fall into line with the other dinosaurs?

I remember you always said "check everything" or words to those effect. I've went over CIT's work with a fine tooth comb. I mean, waaay over the top digging into ALL witness accounts to the point where I believe I have tired OTHER people out (lol) with incessant questions.

NOBODY contradicts NOC.
NOC plus impact are impossible.
WHY was the damage staged if not to facilitate a flyover?
Why not concentrate on this aspect even if you don't believe there was a flyover (which there had to be)?
 

  
Ligon May 3 2010, 11:38 AM
 
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
 
Hey Jeff, I wouldn't go patting myself on the back just yet mate.

I'd like to see Craig's points answered.

Me too.  Here they were again, Jeff...
 

QUOTE (Craig Ranke)

But let me ask you Jeff.....do you believe that enough witness evidence has been provided demonstrating that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station? Do you understand the implications of a north side approach?

[...]

Have you seen the north side eyewitness evidence? Are you convinced that enough evidence has been presented proving the plane flew on the north side? If not why? If so do you understand the implications of this?
 


shure (Jeff Hill) May 3 2010, 12:54 PM
I was thanking debs for the compliment! Just because other people post stuff on my forum doesn't mean I believe it. I have seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything.
 


Ligon May 3 2010, 02:05 PM
 
QUOTE (shure @ May 3 2010, 01:54 PM) *

I was thanking debs for the compliment! Just because other people post stuff on my forum doesn't mean I believe it. I have seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything.

Really? Then why did you just say this?

"Yes, at this point I do believe people saw a "plane" impact the Pentagon"

Are you saying they may be wrong about the impact, or do you believe they really did see that happen?

When you say you've "seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything" does that mean you don't know if the plane has to be on the south side of the station to have caused the physical damage, starting with the light poles?

northpathmissespolescringholeredcol.jpg

Much more here:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._plane_hit.html

Here is a link to "NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS" by FAA Certified Pilot Rob Balsamo, who as you know runs this forum.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/North-Approac...t-Analysis.html

Here is the conclusion:

"It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station. The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.."

So you're saying that you "haven't made up your mind" as to whether or not that's true? Even though the veracity of his calculation, analysis, and conclusions are backed up by Captain Jeff Latas, who "spent over 20 years in the United States Air Force, and his exemplary military record includes nearly 5000 hours in fighter aircraft, the Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals", and Commander Ralph Colstad, "who has logged 23,000 of flight time, spent over 20 years in the US Navy flying fighters off of aircraft carriers, achieving TopGun twice, spent 13 years flying Boeing 757/767, mostly as an international captain for American Airlines, and has command time in tail number N644AA, the very plane dispatched as American 77"? Even though it's not contested even by hardcore CIT haters like Jim Hoffman, the anonymous, apparently-retired disinfo agent "Arabesque", Adam Larson aka Caustic Logic, etc?

The only person who has ever even tried to contest this was a member of your forum who was clearly not doing it in good faith or with any honesty but rather in an attention-seeking attempt to get "the glory [for himself], after all those nights lost to research" which blew up in his face when P4T swiftly debunked him with that paper, and whose "theory" was DOA anyways beacuse it totally, knowingly, and purposely ignored witnesses further back on the flight path.

But you "haven't made up your mind"? (Serious question)

Here's another question Jeff, since you claim to be undecided about literally everything even though you also just said that you "believe people saw a 'plane' impact the Pentagon":

You talked to Alan Wallace for 57 MINUTES. You talked to him about the light poles for a number of minutes during the course of that conversation. We ALL know there were light poles down. The relevant question is OBVIOUSLY whether or not he personally literally SAW the plane hit the light poles, or just saw them down later. In 57 minutes I don't believe you EVER asked him that. Why? (If you did please tell me when and I will retract this)

Why haven't you made up your mind about the north side approach? In saying that you " haven't made up [your] mind yet as to what I believe about anything" you are saying that as of right now you it's possible that Sgt. Lagasse, Sgt. Brooks, Roberts Turcios, William Middleton Sr., Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Terry Morin, Edward Paik, Maria De La Cerda, George Aman, Levi Stephens, and Sean Boger, etc. are all incorrect in the same way about which side of the gas station it flew on, which they independently confirm.

pointingnorth.gif
ancgif2.gif
noccomposite.jpg
ancpathcomposite.jpg
SeanBogersPOV.jpg

You are literally saying that you don't know if these people are correct about which side of the gas station the plane flew even though Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios were in the best locations out of the entire witness pool to answer the question - a location which makes it virtually impossible for ANY one of them to get it incorrect. The notion that all three are independently incorrect in the same way is absurd. Do you disagree?

Lagasse says he is "100 percent" sure it was on the north side and would "bet [his] life on it". Brooks literally laughs at the notion that the plane was on the south side. Turcios also says that he was 100% sure.

Furthermore, I will say the same thing to you that I said to Ronald Wieck: Out of all of the known witnesses, I contend that witnesses who were in or immediately outside of the ANC maintenance buildings and Sean Boger are the witnesses in the next best locations to be able to judge which side of the gas station the plane flew with accuracy. Do you disagree? If so, who was in a better position than them (besides the Citgo witnesses)? If not, then you are refusing to accept what is said by the witnesses who, out of the entire known witness pool, were in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eight best positions to judge where the plane flew in relation to the gas station with regard to the question of which side of the gas station the plane flew, despite the fact that you are positioning yourself as someone who is trying to get at the truth of what happened via the witnesses.

Even Penny Elgas who you personally interviewed told you the same thing. She has the plane has plane banking, places it 50-80 feet above ground over highway just before the alleged impact (too high to cause damage), and did not see plane hit light poles despite being just a short distance back on the highway

Do you understand that the plane can't be banking after the Citgo (where elgas picked it up) if it was on the required official souths side flight path?

Furthermore if you read her original account it's clear that she has been north side since day one. She picked up the plane "to the side of" the Citgo "coming straight at" her "from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road she was on)". That is total north side if you look at the part of Columbia Pike that she is referring to, which is the part from the Citgo on which "runs perpendicular" to Rt. 27, not the part before that.

ColumbiaPike.jpg
ElgasSmithsonianCPike.jpg

What more will it take for you to "make up your mind" Jeff?

Even your boy Lincoln Liebner, "an executive support officer at the Pentagon, the voice at the other end of the line when someone important - President Bush or National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice - needed to talk with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at 4 in the morning or overseas somewhere", has the plane coming perpendicular to the building, which is total north side and NOT consistent with his claims that it hit the building.

test3.gif

Hell even Mike Walter has it banking on the north side, nowhere near the light poles or where it had to be to hit the building.

walterbankgif.gif
walter-NoC.gif

Please don't give a one or two sentence response to this Jeff. This is deadly serious and demands a thorough, thoughtful response. It cannot be brushed off by you since you are positioning yourself as someone who is trying to get at the truth of what happened via the witnesses. Please answer my questions. ETA: And the questions others have asked/will ask.

 


Over 3 hours go by with shure looking at the thread yet not responding


onesliceshort May 3 2010, 05:20 PM
C'mon Shure at least acknowledge that you are going to answer one of the posts above.
It's the least you can do man.
 
 


Almost 24 hours more go by with no response from Jeff.

Then...


KP May 4 2010, 04:08 PM
Topic moved to Pentagon Section as too important to be allowed to be hidden in the Lobby.

KP
 


47 minutes later...

onesliceshort
May 4 2010, 04:55 PM
 
QUOTE (shure @ May 3 2010, 01:54 PM) *

I was thanking debs for the compliment! Just because other people post stuff on my forum doesn't mean I believe it. I have seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything.

How about phoning Alan Wallace back and asking him why the rest of people within that area witnessed a totally different flightpath? Specifically Sean Boger? He was in the heliport just metres away to the right of Alan Wallace's POV.



Here's an image of the other side of the Turcios "do not enter" sign north of the bridge. Note how it does say "Pentagon south parking" as noted by Alan Wallace:
 



Plus he said the plane was north of the overpass:
And it would be to the north of the, of the br-- the over-- overpass, or underpass. And if you put one end of the straight edge just about, just about to the center of the, uh, length of the west wall of the Pentagon. And put the other e-- uh, and put part of the straight edge back, back to the southeast, southwest, or, or, west, and put it, just to the north of the overpass, that is the path of the airplane. Cause when we saw it-- when I, when I first saw it, it was right o-- it was right in front of those big, uh, freeway signs there that say Pentagon south parking.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Mr. Wallace was "in on it", he sounds like a very affable guy, but he is on record as Ligon stated, as being shown the "official path" repeatedly by the FBI.
You of all people should know how these aholes work.

You released a video before of an interview with a guy who claimed to have seen a "wing wedged in a doorway" after the WTC impacts, while INSIDE the building. It was rightly claimed that this was a physical impossibility or that he was a plant.

Impact from NOC (I'm as tired of saying this as many are of reading it) is a physical impossibility too.
What's the difference between the two scenarios?

Liebner, who you presented as an "impact witness", IMO falls into the latter category or was at LEAST used willingly as a pawn.

HE even points to an NOC approach.

His story has changed numerous times as and when it suits.
Even Wallace denies Liebner's claim that he helped "push him through a window"!

I'm not trying to browbeat you into an answer man, but do you think it's right to leave everybody here with their thumb up their ass?

 


The rest of the night goes by, still no response from Jeff to Ligon or onesliceshort.  Then the next day...


shure (Jeff Hill) May 5 2010, 07:31 AM
onesliceshort, I'm still looking over the videos and other information before I respond to you.
 

 
onesliceshort May 5 2010, 09:21 AM
Appreciated.  Cheers.
 


Ligon May 5 2010, 06:41 PM
QUOTE (shure @ May 5 2010, 08:31 AM)

nesliceshort, I'm still looking over the videos and other information before I respond to you.

??

What about my post? (this one)

It's been over 48 hours since I posted that and you haven't even so much as acknowledged (like you just did with onesliceshort) let alone responded to it.

I have seen you looking at this thread multiple times though since I posted it, including shortly after I first posted it. I think oneslice saw it to at that time and that's why he said "C'mon Shure at least acknowledge that you are going to answer one of the posts above. It's the least you can do man."

That was on May 3rd and you didn't respond to any of us until today, May 5th (and again you obviously didn't respond to or even acknowledge my post).

Your excuse (to oneslice) that you are "still looking over the videos and other information before I respond" totally contradicts your assertion earlier in this thread that you have "seen all the evidence for all the issues"

Yes, at this point I do believe people saw a "plane" impact the Pentagon.
- shure, May 3

I have seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything.
- shure, May 3 (three hours later)

I'm still looking over the videos and other information before I respond to you.
- shure, May 5 (two days later)

Here again is my post that with a number of very fair and extremely important questions that I asked you nicely to please respond to over two days ago.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10785204

As I said: Please don't give a one or two sentence response to this Jeff. This is deadly serious and demands a thorough, thoughtful response. It cannot be brushed off by you since you are positioning yourself as someone who is trying to get at the truth of what happened via the witnesses. Please answer my questions.

I should add: Please just answer the questions directly and honestly right now as opposed to stalling for days and days since you claimed that you already "have seen all the evidence for all the issues".
 

 


Five days go by, no response from Jeff to onesliceshort or Ligon



Ligon May 10 2010, 11:27 PM
Just for the record it's been a week and counting now since I made my first post and 5 days since my last one.

I take this grave subject very seriously as do many others here. The fact that you were unable/unwilling to respond to my post speaks volumes Jeff.
 


Three more days go by, no response from Jeff.

Then..


shure (Jeff Hill) May 13 2010, 02:27 PM
I'm still undecided on some issues.

I do believe what looked to be a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, I haven't made up my mind on the trajecotory!

Here are two people that could possibly help your story if you twist it enough:


Afework Hagos - Pentagon (ear) Witness

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3315775/


Rev. Henry Ticknor - Pentagon witness

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3315804/
 


Ligon May 13 2010, 07:35 PM
You are disgusting Jeff. You have exposed yourself as the most blatantly disingenuous phony imaginable in this thread; a person who is actively working to obfuscate the truth about 9/11, not to uncover it. Anyone who reads this thread will see it very clearly.

I already broke down in detail how you have postured as being totally ignorant of the current state of Pentagon attack research and failed to ask the most obvious questions to witnesses you have called. I asked you a number of serious and extremely important questions about this that you refused to answer because you CAN'T answer them. Playing dumb would have been a transparent charade. It would have required you to claim total ignorance of the fact that the central questions of the Pentagon issue for the past few years have been which side of the gas station the plane flew on and whether or not it hit the light poles.

Not only does virtually everyone reading this (including you now-- you REALLY can't claim ignorance after this thread) know that these issues are the crux of the discussion concerning the Pentagon attack and have been for several years now, but it's very obvious that these questions have already been conclusively answered by the witnesses in the best possible locations to judge as I layed out in my post.

I challeneged you on this fact and you didn't respond because you could not respond without conceding or exposing yourself as a not being an honest truthseeker at all.

But not responding does that anyways, and you've now done that even further.

Instead of looking at the information that you first claimed to have seen ("I have seen all the evidence for all the issues") and then claimed not to have seen ("I'm still looking over the videos and other information before I respond to you") and writing a sincere response as ANY honest truthseeker would have done, you instead hid out for over a week and then made MORE agenda-driven calls to witnesses in which you continued your transparent "I'm just a big silly confused dummy" charade.

You published a thread on your forum (which you just linked to) entitled "Afework Hagos - Pentagon Witness" in which you link to an mp3 file of your "Phone call to Afework Hagos 05/13/10". You say "whats interesting is that his account is different than the media account", and in this thread you state that Afework is actually an "(ear) witness", which you are clearly basing on this call.

Let's see how that call begins:
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Hello?

JEFF HILL: Hi, can I speak to Mr. Hagos please?

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Hagos who?

JEFF HILL: Uh, Afework?

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Oh. He's not here right now. May I take a message?

JEFF HILL: Uh, yeah, my names, uh, Jeffrey Hill. And I was just calling him because, uh, I just had a few questions he could help me out with. I was hoping he could, uh, talk to me for a few minutes.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: (inaud) He's not here right now. What is the question about? Does he know, or?

JEFF HILL: No, well I-- I uh, I was just reading that he was at the Pentagon on 9/11? And I was just wondering if he could tell me what he saw. Like I-- I had read some stuff on the internet that he was there and that he saw the plane and stuff.

UNIDENTIFIE PERSON: (inaud)

JEFF HILL: Would you be able to give him my phone number, or?

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yeah, but-- but I don't think he was there. I mean, I don't know what you're talking about.

JEFF HILL: Oh no? Maybe I got the wrong number?

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Where did you get this information?

JEFF HILL: It was, uh, it was on some website and it, it linked-- it was talking about all the witnesses that were at the Pentagon on 9/11.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: And got the phone number from there? The internet?

JEFF HILL: Well no, I just looked up the phone number on the white pages, uh, search engine. And I just figured--

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Another person. There could be another person with the same name.

This person then eventually goes on to tell you that he personally heard the plane on 9/11 when he was SLEEPING at his home 2-3 MILES FROM THE PENTAGON.

He tells you that Afework Hagos is NOT home and that he doesn't know anything about Afework even being a Pentagon witness at all but you present this unidentified person as BEING AFEWORK HAGOS.

In your own thread you quote two passages from previously published accounts citing Hagos.

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0...50486%2C00.html

Asework Hagos, 26, of Arlington, was driving on Columbia Pike on his way to work as a consultant for Nextel. He saw a plane flying very low and close to nearby buildings. "I thought something was coming down on me. I know this plane is going to crash. I've never seen a plane like this so low." He said he looked at it and saw American Airline insignia and when it made impact with the Pentagon initially he saw smoke, then flames.
If you were a sincere person looking to finding out the truth at all you would have asked this person if Afework (who he told you wasn't home) was a "computer programmer" or a "consultant for Nextel" on 9/11 to see if you even had the right number.

Instead you present this unidentified person who says he is NOT Afework Hagos and tells a completely different story than the Afework Hagos quoted by the media -- who was said to have been "driving on Columbia Pike" and to have SEEN the plane -- as actually being Afework Hagos with absolutely no attempt at justifying it.

If you thought that telling you about his own experience hearing the plane from miles away was some kind of admission that he was Afework Hagos in disguise why didn't you then try to nail it down by asking him if he was ever interviewed by any media outlets on 9/11? The real Afework Hagos was interviewed by several as you know.

Why, if you were sincerely looking for the truth, would you fail to do that and yet go on to present this unidentnfied person who repeatedly explicitly indicated that he was not Afework as Afework Hagos? Especially since you are posing as a truth seeker, and if that really was Afework Hagos as you purport to believe even though he indicated that he wasn't, it would prove either extreme, coordinated media disinformation on 9/11 or that he lied to numerous major media outlets on 9/11? Answer: You wouldn't.

It's beyond obvious that you are NOT a truth seeker but a person putting on a charade here and a charade on the phone with the witnesses to try to obfuscate the issue.

You are now once again changing your purported opinion on the subject, saying that you "do believe what looked to be a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". This is of course what you first claimed on May 3 when you said "Yes, at this point I do believe people saw a "plane" impact the Pentagon", but contradicts what you said 3 hours later, namely: "I have seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything".

If you "do believe what looked to be a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon" as you just said then why did you give Liebner the opposite impression and fail to set the record straight when he asked you about it directly?
 
LIEBNER: Jeffrey, come on. Anyway. So, there you have it. Yes a plane really did hit the Pentagon. A plane piloted by hijackers that killed people aboard the plane really did hit the Pentagon.

HILL: Mmmhmm.

LIEBNER: It really happened.

HILL: Well, I've talked with some aeronautical engineers, and they said that, uh, you know...

LIEBNER: Jeffrey, I saw what I saw. I don't know HOW on Earth you can imagine that something else didn't happened.

HILL: Well, they, they just said like it's kind of-- it would be almost impossible for a plane to fly like that; that low to the ground, and hit the target the way it did.

LIEBNER: Would you like me to help you!? Or do you want to think what you want to think?

Why didn't you say "Oh, no no, I personally don't believe that something else happened. I believe the plane hit the Pentagon." ... ?

Instead of setting him straight on his clear impression that you don't think the plane hit, you meekly offer up some vague claim that "they, they just said like it's kind of-- it would be almost impossible for a plane to fly like that; that low to the ground, and hit the target the way it did"

This obviously is NOT even a remotely clear or accurate representation of the thrust of why aeronautical engineers, pilots, and the overwhelming majority of peopel who have closely studied the Pentagon attack say that the plane did not hit the Pentagon -- a view that you yourself do not even hold. I articulated these views in my post to you which you ignored but which you undoubtedly already were well aware of anyway.

You then go on to recite other things about the security videos and lack of debris at which point he angrily asks you what "you think" happened to the passengers, the pilots, and the plane itself. You, Jeff Hill, still fraudulently pretending that you don't believe the plane hit the building even thougjh you do, say "Well, that's a good question", in a "hmpf, I never thought of that!" tone. (The "what happened to them?" question is addressed as the #1 FAQ on CIT's site here)

How many people are going to hear that call to Liebner, not know that you are actually a fraud POSING as someone who doesn't believe the plane hit the building when in reality you do, and think that "conspiracy theorists" are uniformed, bumbling morons with no coherent argument that they can articulate and who don't even have their facts straight or know why they believe what they believe? How many people are going to say "wow, listen to how much (justifiable) contempt witnesses have for people like this idiot who believe that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon"?

Are we to believe this isn't by design Jeff? Even though it plays right into your clear agenda of casting doubt on the flyover?

Here's how you start your line of questioning to Liebner:

HILL: I was just wondering, like, did you actually see the plane hit the Pentagon?

LIEBNER: Yes, Jeffrey.

HILL: You did?

LIEBNER: Yes, Jeffrey.

HILL: Was it like, did you see it coming in? Was it like really low to the ground when you saw it?

LIEBNER: Yes, Jeffrey. What can I do for you?

What did you think Liebner, "an executive support officer at the Pentagon, the voice at the other end of the line when someone important - President Bush or National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice - needed to talk with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at 4 in the morning or overseas somewhere", was going to say to these idiotic questions that he is already on record answering?

Sorry, I don't believe you're that much of an idiot and I doubt anyone else here does either at this point.

Let's check out some more of your play-acting during your call to some unidentified person who you present as Afework Hagos without confirming this and despite the fact that he repeatedly told you he wasn't Afework Hagos and didn't even know that Afework was a witness to the Pentagon attack...

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON WHO REPEATEDLY INDICATES THAT HE IS NOT AFEWORK HAGOS: Where are you searching, looking for this information? If it is online then you can [get it?] online right?

JEFF HILL: Well, yea but there's like, a l-- l-- lot of controversy of, uh, you know, about 9/11. And people are saying well, there was no plane and all this stuff, and these witnesses are fictitious. And I was just like, I was [check?] like, okay, if people are saying this I'll just call and see if, uh, I can get ahold of the real person that said this. And, see if they actually DID see a plane.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON WHO REPEATEDLY INDICATES THAT HE IS NOT AFEWORK HAGOS: Where are you searching, looking for this information? If it is online then you can [get it?] online right?

JEFF HILL: Well, yea but there's like, a l-- l-- lot of controversy of, uh, you know, about 9/11. And people are saying well, there was no plane and all this stuff, and these witnesses are fictitious. And I was just like, I was [check?] like, okay, if people are saying this I'll just call and see if, uh, I can get ahold of the real person that said this. And, see if they actually DID see a plane.

What the hell is that Jeff? It's your transparent charade, that's what. You already say that you are convinced "what looked to be a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". Virtually NO ONE who has actually studied the Pentagon attack in detail and studied the many detailed witness interviews and analysis that CIT has released questions whether or not there was a big plane on the scene. Even YOU don't question this. It is a proven fact and you know it. That is NOT the real debate and there is no point of you representing it that way.

Also you are obviously well aware that it has already been repeatedly proven (especially by CIT) that MANY the witnesses were NOT fictitious people at all. In fact I don't think any witness thus far has been proven to be fictitious. There are a handful left that could hypothetically not be real witnesses, such as ones that simply published short e-mails online and have never been quoted even by a mainstream media outlet let alone independently confirmed, but virtually no one argues that all or most of the witnesses were "fictitious" except people who haven't reserached this even remotely seriously in the past few years and you know it.

(post continued below)
 


Ligon May 13 2010, 07:36 PM
Let's see what you said to Ticknor...
 
HILL: Yeah, because like, the reason why I was calling you is cause, like, there's a lot of controversy about the whole events about 9/11. Like, I'm sure you must have heard about all the conspiracy theories and stuff, right?

TICKNOR: Well. I mean, sure.

HILL: And then there's people that say, "okay, there was NO plane", there's people that say it was a MISSILE that hit the Pentaogn; there's people that say that the plane PRETENDED to hit the Pentagon (laughs) and flew OVER the Pentagon and no one actually seen it hit the Pentagon. And I was just looking through, like, looking through like, statements of witnesses...

TICKNOR: Mmhmm.

HILL: ...and I came across your name.

TICKNOR: Right.

HILL: And I was just like, I just thought I'd, you know, call-- call you and see what you actually saw with your own eyes.

Again, you KNOW that no remotely informed person believes that there was no plane at all, and you KNOW that the missile theory has been thoroughly debunked by CIT. But you throw them in there anyway simply to get his mind thinking about how supposedly dumb "conspriacy theorists" are to set up your mention of the flyover while laughing at it and totally misrepresenting it and faililng to explain it or the evidence proving it in any reasonable or honest way.

You KNOW that -- while we do claim that no one could have technically literally seen the plane hit since it is proven to have approached from the north of the Citgo and was seen flying away by multiple eyewitnesses -- CIT and everyone else who is cognizant of this reality fully acknowledge that quite a few people WERE in a position to see the alleged impact and were genuinely fooled by the deception.

Frequently Asked Questions >> What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._witnesses.html

Your call to Ticknor once again reveals you to be either totally unresearched and unconcerned with uncovering any information that would shed any real new light on this even or else just playing dumb again.

Ticknor is on record since 2005 as saying that he was miles from the Pentagon.

All you had to do to find that out was:

1. Go to the CIT forum and click on the search button
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?act=Search&f=6

2. Type in "Ticknor"

3. And click on the first hit.

Why wouldn't an honest truthseeker take 1 minute to do that before calling him?

If you did that you would have read the following post by Aldo Marquis on Apr 2 2009, 08:00 AM.

Henry Ticknor was driving down Rt 50, which is a good distance from the Pentagon. It is completely blocked large treelines and topography. Ticknor had this quote attributed to him:

QUOTE
"There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud."


Russell Pickering and others had to tried to use this account to support the white smoke plume that allegedly came from the right engine.





And of course, here are the quotes that Disinfo Operative Arabesque used:

QUOTE
124. “Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car.”[170]


And...

QUOTE
58. “[the plane flew] fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon.”[471]

[471] Henry Ticknor


The truth of the matter...

Ironically, the article is called "He Who Steals My Good Name"...

QUOTE
Henry Ticknor

"Recently I went on-line and did a search on my name. Not too many surprises, lots of sermons, a couple of newspaper items about my days with the Fairfax County Public Schools, a few references to my name in the Winchester Star. But the most interesting was a 9-11 conspiracy theory site that quoted me as an eyewitness to the attack on the Pentagon. Comments, attributed to me, but printed without my knowledge or permission were used to support the notion that it may not have been a plane that struck the Pentagon, but rather a missile. The web page says, "This is the only witness statement that seems to have caught the white smoke which would agree with a missile being fired. Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and truck the Pentagon. "There was a puff of white smoke and then a billowing black cloud."

Where did that come from? No idea, unless it was lifted from a UU World Magazine article for which I was interviewed at some length as an eyewitness. You see on the morning of September 11, I was driving down Rt. 50 on my way to work at the Arlington UU Church when I saw a plane dive below the tree line and an immediate explosion. I did tell the World Magazine about the smoke; I never said the plane came in fast and low over my car, as I was five miles from the point of impact. Where is my right to privacy?"

http://www.uushenandoah.org/sermons/050501.htm
 

Also, if you Google "Henry Ticknor" the second hit is Aldo on the ATS forum quoting the same Ticknor article on 7-6-2007.

If you Google "Henry Ticknor Pentagon" it is the first hit.

And yet you said to Ticknor...

HILL: So you were on like-- you were on that highway between the Pentagon and, like, that gas station?
You said this even though he gave you NO indication that this is where he was;

Even though he is on record since 2005 saying he was on Rt 50 as anyone who takes 1 minute to search Google or the CIT forum would know;

And even AFTER he already told YOU "I believe I was two miles from the Pentagon".
 
TICKNOR: Umm, I believe I was two miles from the Pentagon

(33 second later...)

HILL: So you were on like-- you were on that highway between the Pentagon and, like, that gas station?

TICKNOR: No, I was on Arlington Route 50.

HILL' So would you be able to see it coming by the Citgo gas station?

TICKNOR: I don't know what Citgo gas station you're talking about.

HILL: Oh, I guess-- well I guess it's a different name now. But, it used to be called the Citgo gas station

You don't even know the name of it the former Citgo gas station which was changed years ago? You don't even know that if he was on Route 50 several miles from the Pentagon he woudl have no view of the Citgo?

I'd chalk it up to you being horribly incompetent if it wasn't for the fact that by failing to address my post and instead doing what I've documented here you've already exposed yourself as being a disingenuous phony who can't get his phony alleged views on 9/11 straight and contradicts himself, does things like purposely avoiding asking obvious and key questions to witnesses, sometimes poses as a dimwitted, inarticulate, ignorant conspriacy theorist who doesn't believe the plane hit the Pentagon even though he does, etc., and who is ultimately just playing dumb while working against 9/11 truth.

Again, just to remind everyone, here was my post that Jeff refused to respond to before making his idiotic calls to Ticknor and "Afework":
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10785204

 


onesliceshort May 13 2010, 9:11 PM
Any chance of phoning George W. Bush, doesn't have to be THE Dubya, just anybody with that name and ask him if 9/11 was an inside job?

How about phoning my granny in Ireland and asking her if she could see the Citgo Gas Station?

Well worth the wait for the reply Shure.... bs_flag.gif
 


More of this thread will be added here later, but for now you can continue reading it at the original source (will jump to the last post included here).