The exchange below is taken from
this thread on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth
The most relevant posts have been kept in white, while the less relevant posts are
still there in gray for context.
May 2 2010, 03:53 PM
|I thought some
people here might be interested in listening to this phone call with
|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....
|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?
-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.
|May 2 2010, 07:17 PM|
Yes paranoid thats a very good thread. I copied it to my Mike Defina thread.
I believe Alan, but you guys are right, technically he didn't see it hit the Pentagon.
Penny Elgas did though:
So did this mean guy:
|Craig Ranke CIT||May 2 2010, 09:36 PM|
Congratulations on obtaining the interview Jeff..
|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".
|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|
|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|
Me too. Here they were
|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|
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?
Much more here:
Here is a link to "NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS" by FAA Certified Pilot Rob Balsamo, who as you know runs this forum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|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.
|KP||May 4 2010, 04:08 PM|
Topic moved to Pentagon Section as too important to be allowed to be hidden in the Lobby.
May 4 2010, 04:55 PM
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.
Plus he said the plane was north of the overpass:
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.
|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|
|Ligon||May 5 2010, 06:41 PM|
|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.
|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
Rev. Henry Ticknor - Pentagon witness
|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:
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
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?
Why didn't you say "Oh, no
no, I personally don't believe that something else happened.
I believe the plane hit the Pentagon." ... ?
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
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...
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.
Also, if you Google "Henry
Ticknor" the second hit is Aldo on the ATS forum quoting the
same Ticknor article on 7-6-2007.
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".
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?
|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....
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).