Witnesses refute CIT

Independent Video Interviews Attesting to Plane Impact at the Pentagon on 9/11

A recently updated spreadsheet analysing witness testimony can be found here and here.

CIT claims that their 13 witnesses, who describe the path of the plane approaching the Pentagon as being to the north of the former Citgo service station, provide irrefutable proof that the plane could not have hit and damaged the Pentagon in the manner described in official accounts and must therefore have flown over. They claim these witnesses are irrefutable on no other grounds than that they were recorded on video and corroborate one another. They gloss over the fact that all their witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon say they saw the plane hit[1] and they gloss over the fact that every witness to impact is a witness to a straight path south of the service station, and there are many of them.

It is worth noting that these witnesses interviewed by CIT who reported seeing the plane hit the Pentagon made the statement during the same interview where they said the plane was on the north path. Thus CIT knew right from the start that their flyover theory was contradicted by their own witnesses, yet they presented the north path flyover theory as though it was unchallenged. A proper journalistic investigation would have widened the scope of the inquiry to cover the testimony of those who witnessed the impact, so that the reader could compare and make a judgment about the probability of flyover versus impact.

CIT challenge us to provide video interviews of people who contradict the north path. It turns out that there are several convincing video interviews of impact and the south path approach.

The damaged light poles provide a strong indication of the direction of the approach. This direction is confirmed by the shape of the damage inside the Pentagon and supported by the new decoding of the FDR file, which shows a straight south path. The radar data from four separate installations show the approach path of the plane, which runs directly toward the impact site. The last radar position is the earliest point from which a deviation around the Citgo service station would have to commence. A deviation commencing there, by the laws of physics, would have to produce exceptionally steep left and right bank angles to turn and hit the Pentagon. No witness described more than a slight bank. Some said the plane was level. This requires that the plane flew virtually straight. As the plane flew virtually straight, it follows that any person who saw the impact is a witness to the south path. South path witnesses therefore outnumber north path witnesses by a factor of about 8 to 1. Why then would anyone consider giving any weight at all to the north path witnesses? Is it because the south path witnesses have not all been interviewed on video? Why should video be so much stronger than an email or a note taken by a reporter? If that is regarded as a problem, consider the 13 video interviews listed below which report impact and hence contradict CIT. Have I missed any?

There are also about 6 phone interview witnesses listed and there are more unlisted. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of witnesses to a south path; others have done that very well.[2] It is just a short list for the specific purpose of gathering together those who have been interviewed and recorded on video camera or by phone, where the recordings are available to the public. You can listen and watch in the comfort of your own home, free of distraction and free from urging to conform with some preconceived idea. See if you feel these people are describing an impact or a flyover. Ask yourself whether CIT is guilty of suppressing contrary evidence.

1. Mike Walter, CNN, 9/11, 17:14. “…on 27, traffic had ground to a standstill”. “I saw this American Airlines jet…”. “It slammed right into the Pentagon”. “I walked over and saw parts of the plane…the debris on the overpass [VA27 over Columbia Pike]”.

[He used the phrase “like a missile with wings”. People use this out of context to imply the object was not a plane. Listen to his words and see if there is any doubt that he was watching a plane. See if those who quote this phrase out of context should be held accountable for falsification of evidence.]


2. Unnamed, BBC, 9/11,17:05. [It has been pointed out to me that this person is probably Rick Renzi. As he has been charged with some offences it was implied that he was discredited as a witness. However he gives the appearance of relating his personal experience of a traumatic event, rather than constructing a deception, so I will leave him there. Discount his evidence, if you feel it appropriate. There is plenty left.]

“It was a plane. It came streaking down…it hit short…it didn’t go into the top of the Pentagon…everything sprayed up on the wall”


3. Michael Kelly CBS, 9/11, 9:58. “…in traffic on the 14th Street bridge…I heard this plane coming over my head and it was really low…tremendous explosion as it hit the Pentagon…pieces of the plane and pieces of the Pentagon were falling onto the … Stirling highway…This thing came right over my head and it ploughed … similar situation to what was happening in New York.”

[Note: There is plenty of debris visible on the ground at this early recording, something which is denied by many who wish to promote the notion that there was no debris and hence no plane at the Pentagon.]


4. Lt Col Steve O’Brien, National Guard, pilot of the C-130.  “…distinctive silver finish…”. “…that airplane has hit the west side of the Pentagon.” [In this interview Jim Fetzer makes an impassioned plea that O’Brien was lying on the grounds that the plane could not have performed the maneuver. He either has nor read any of the papers which show the maneuvre would not over-stress the plane or he is the one who is lying. I leave this link in place to show what the 9/11 Truth movement is up against. It is not up against science; it is up against deception.]


5. Don Wright. “…very low over the trees, it just dipped down…right into the Pentagon”


6. Isabel James, News4.“I saw a big plane, commercial liner type, going down full speed, inside, inside the side of the Pentagon. Obviously it was going into the Pentagon purposely. We were driving down Columbia Pike – right over us.”

Q: “You actually saw the plane impact the side of the building?”

“Yes I did.”

[Some argue that Isabel James could not have seen the impact as trees would have blocked her view. We do not know exactly where she was when she made the observation, however the roof of the Pentagon would have been visible to her for a long distance on Columbia Pike. She could logically deduce the plane hit the Pentagon if it did not reappear after descending below trees even if she did not see the actual impact. The same argument can be applied to others, like Morin, Turcios and Lagasse who might have had their view restricted by the landscape, but would have been able to see the roof of the Pentagon and make a correct inference.]


7. Joel Sucherman. CBS, 11:02, 9/11. “…an American Airlines jet…probably a 757…silver jet with markings along the windows”. “…hit the west side of the Pentagon.”


8. John O’Keefe. “All of a sudden out of the left side of my view came this giant American Airlines plane.” “There was no mistaking…” “It looked like a plane coming in for a landing except that it was going in the wrong direction…it was too low…it took a few moments to register where it was heading, right towards the Pentagon.” “It did not change direction.” “…everything consumed into the wall”


9. Aziz ElHallan, FOX, 9/11, 16:39. “A huge airplane, looks to me like American Airlines…we saw the airplane crashed into the Pentagon.” “The Pentagon sucked in the airplane.” [He showed a piece of debris which] “just landed by the car.”

[At 4:00 Sean Boger (control tower officer) walks past, with very clear images behind him of a substantial amount of small debris outside the Pentagon.]


10. Unnamed, (Sean Boger?) ABC, 12:04. “I was up in the air traffic control tower…I see a plane run right into the side of the Pentagon”. “The whole ceiling and everything just fell”. [Presumably this unnamed witness was Sean Boger. His words correspond closely with recorded testimony which Boger later gave. See below.]


CIT video interviews dissected by Broken Sticks

It is unfortunate that Broken Sticks (brokenstyx) believes the north path and thus has to believe the plane swerved sharply on its way to the Pentagon. This swerving would require a steep bank, which was not observed. However the analysis of witness testimonies he gives is excellent. They say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

11. Robert Turcios. [At 4:00, Turcios looks very surprised when Craig Ranke asks him if he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.] “Fly over the Pentagon? No. The only thing I saw was … direct line to go into the Pentagon.”

[This video is chopped off there. In other videos you hear Turcios say, after an interruption by Craig, “ …[it] collided.”  CIT claim him as a north path witness and hence assert the plane must have flown over, but clearly Turcios knows the plane hit the Pentagon.]

12. William Lagasse. [At 5:00, he describes a north path, but evidently he saw the plane hit. Largasse shows clearly with his hands how the plane hit the Pentagon at an angle.] “It didn’t hit it at a 90 degree angle…it hit it offset.” “When the plane hit it just kind of disappeared.”  “…there is only one thing that is irrefutable…the fact is American Airlines plane went from here into the building… you can pick apart everything else…”

[Again CIT claim Lagasse as a north path witness. Clearly he saw the plane hit the building. In another video when drawing the path of the plane on the map he says “the angle may be wrong”, so apparently we can “pick apart” the prior path, but not the impact. It is interesting how many of the witnesses use words which imply that the plane largely went inside the building.]


13. Keith Wheelhouse draws a straight path south of the Navy Annex, exactly where the official account places it, and is given no credibility by CIT.


Phone interviews – plane impact

1. Sean Boger, interview document, USA Center for Military History. [At 0:32 see his vantage point; the Pentagon control tower. Notice that the glass area extends round the side of the tower so he would have an unobstructed view of the impact point.]

“I am watching the plane go all the way into the building”. “Once the plane went into the building it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head. It was like glass shattering and ceiling tile was falling and…”

[CIT says “more than likely he ducked”, trying to suggest that he couldn’t have seen the plane hit. This is plainly deceptive.]


2. Roosevelt Roberts, phone interview. [He sees the plane over the light poles on its way into the Pentagon.  CIT confuses the viewer by saying the plane impact he saw on TV was the impact with the Pentagon, thus getting the time-line wrong. CIT claims him as a fly-over witness but he appears to be an impact witness. He says he sees the plane then there is dust and screaming, which is from the Pentagon impact. He cannot see the impact from his position in the south park loading dock but has a good view in the direction of the light poles.] “I thought we was being invaded.”  “You can see the plane as clear as day” “…just above the light poles…” [This appears to be blatant deception by CIT but some have argued that his statements cannot be deciphered and must be discarded, however none of the interpretations provide indication of flyover, as CIT claim.]


3. Dawn Vignola, CBS, 9/11, 9:48. “I saw…an American Airlines 757 and it came in…it hit the heliport next to the Pentagon…it just crashed right into it” . “…low and with throttles on.”. “It added power right by the Sheraton”.

[Many witnesses report power increase on approach. This is observed in the FDR file where we see full throttles applied for the last 30 seconds. Vignola’s report that power was added near the Sheraton can be accounted for by the fact that she was some distance away and sound takes time to travel.]


4. Mark Petitt, News 4. “I was sitting in traffic on route 110” “It was an American Airlines plane that came in and hit the Pentagon.”


5a. Albert Hemphill, by Jeff Hill. “…working in the Navy Annex, looking out the window there…saw the airplane hit.”

Jeff: “Saw it with your own eyes?”

“Yep…very large airplane, smack into the Pentagon by the heliport. It hit…It came over my right shoulder…8 to 10 windows from the [NE] corner…it cleared the bridge [that must be the overpass of VA27 over Columbia Pike.] …he was in a powered descent.” “I saw what I saw, the plane hit the Pentagon.”


5b. Albert Hemphill, by Craig Ranke. “Looking out the window thinking to myself, my God, what’s this world coming to…then I hear a roar and look out the window at the plane…over my right shoulder…over the gas station…clipped a street light …diving…right over the bridge…smacked right into the building.” [After Craig pressed him for more detail about the path of the plane he said:] “If you go from where the old heliport was and you draw a line straight back over the Navy Annex…”

[Craig, talking about the VDOT antenna, which is south of the Navy Annex, asked if it was to the south of that.]

“That would be a little bit far.” “I saw one plane and I saw it hit…it didn’t pull up, it didn’t turn right, it didn’t turn left, it went right into the Pentagon.” “I saw what I saw. That is where it stands.”

[Note that this interview is taking place long after the incident. Hemphill is not in his office when interviewed. The office was long ago demolished. He does say the plane passed over or a little north of the gas station but he contradicts this with his strong, repeated assertion that the plane flew straight from over his right shoulder to the Pentagon, thus south of the gas station. He has made the “over the right shoulder” statement in two videos and at least two published statements. CIT list him as a north path witness but he is very clearly a south path witness. This is blatant deception on the part of CIT and clearly illustrates the way in which they attempt to turn everything to their advantage, rather than collecting and presenting evidence in an unbiased, balanced way. This behavior does not deserve any kind of endorsement or approval.]


After the above interviews Hemphill was annoyed that he had been recorded. He sent an email for publication which said in part:

“…. let me state clearly and concisely – for the last time: I witnessed the aircraft impact the Pentagon building on 9/11. The flight path of the aircraft was terminated by its impact with the Pentagon building. I did not see any alteration or deviation to the flight path prior to the aircraft striking the building. The aircraft hit the building – this was what I reported to friends via email after 9/11; this is what I reported to the FBI and this is what I stated to you during our “interviews”.”

[It is important to note that Hemphill saw the impact from his office high up in the Navy Annex. He thus had an exceptionally good view of the path of the plane as it approached the Pentagon. Nothing obstructed his view of the plane, right to impact.]


6.  Peter Klopf.

Q: “Qid you see it hit with your own eyes?” A: “Yeah! …It’s like seeing an elephant in your bathroom…I can tell you without a sliver of doubt…We were watching it go into the Pentagon and my hearing went out for a little while….I was right there in front of it….It wasn’t hidden by vegetation or anything…. I saw what I saw, there was definitely an airplane!” Q: “And it definitely hit the Pentagon?” A: “Oh yeah!”

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole See Shure at 9:12pm.

Other south path witnesses

Ed Paik. Eric Lars0n analyses the testimony of Ed, who saw the plane pass by while he was inside his shop, looking south through the window.  The furthest north the plane could be would be Columbia Pike, and the furthest south a little south of the VDOT antenna. CIT deceives the public by hiding the fact that he was inside his shop when he saw the plane. They interview him outside the shop and he seems to go along with their idea that the plane was over the shop. They list him as a north path witness. He is clearly a witness to the plane passing south of his shop. He and his brother also speculated that the plane may have hit an antenna on the VDOT tower as they saw one was bent. They clearly believed that the plane passed close to the tower and therefore was not angling over the roof of the Annex, as CIT insists.


Terry Morin. Caustic Logic discusses his testimony here. He points out that Terry was able to see the plane descending until it partially disappeared behind some trees. Given that Terry was on the ground near the Navy Annex, only if the plane is on the south path, flying pretty well straight to the Pentagon, will this be in his line of sight.

“Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft.”

CIT claim him as a north path witness though he clearly must be a south path witness.



9/11 Debunked: 136 Eyewitnesses to Pentagon Attack


It is important to note that none of the witnesses describes the plane banking steeply as it approached the Pentagon. This is a vital clue to the direction of approach. We have the testimony of several witnesses that the plane was coming along Columbia Pike and passed by the Sheraton Hotel. Then Ed Paik says he saw the plane through the window of his shop, thus close to Columbia Pike. Madelyn Zakhem states the plane passed overhead when she was near the VDOT tower. Next Terry Morin says the plane flew over his head, close to Columbia Pike, so we know where the plane was travelling up to this point. Then Stafford and Prather both say they saw the plane flying wings level, and therefore flying straight, as it cleared the Naval Annex.

Let us now assume that the north path witnesses are correct and the plane flew a little north of the Citgo service station. CIT asserts that the plane must have missed the Pentagon and flown over the point where the damage was done and the smoke and dust rose up into the air. We thus have three points on the arc of a circle: Terry Morin’s position, north of Citgo, and impact point. With three points on a circle we can calculate the radius of the turn required. It is about 4200 feet. From this we can calculate the angle of bank the plane would need to make this turn. We initially calculated a bank of 77 degrees, but having taken into account the straightness of flight reported by Stafford and Prather, we now see that a bank of 84 degrees with a wing loading of 9.5 g would be required, far more than enough to rip the wings off. Did the wings fall off? Did anyone report a bank of 84 degrees? No. The steepest bank anyone mentioned was slight. Albert Hemphill, whose position was perfect for making this assessment, said the plane flew straght.

The CIT north path does not stand up to scrutiny.


FOX, 17:29. John Dyson. “I was working in an area …between the two rings where a large ten foot diameter hole burst through, and there was the nose gear on the deck.”[at the C-ring]


F4 experiment shows why all light parts that did not penetrate the building would be fragmented.



The only possible conclusion from these eyewitness testimonies is that CIT has consistently cherry-picked witnesses to present only those who supported a path north of the Citgo service station. Not only that, they have cherry-picked their words in order to avoid presentation of that part of their testimony that supports impact of the plane with the Pentagon.

Many people were watching the plane from the side and would not have been confused by the smoke. If the plane had been high enough to miss the Pentagon they would have followed it with their eyes as it passed over. None reported doing so.

All those in a position to see the plane arrive at the Pentagon, including Lagasse, Turcios and Brooks, reported that it hit.  One can safely conclude that the memory of these gentlemen of the impact will be more reliable than their memory of the path of the plane prior to impact, something which would not seem important enough to make a point of remembering at the time.

CIT totally ignores the scientifc fact that the turn required to pass north of Citgo would place impossible stress on the plane. They ignore the fact that if the plane managed to survive the turn it would be banking very steeply and thus astonish the observers. None reported a steep bank.

CIT falsely claim that their eyewitness testimony is irrefutable evidence that the plane did not hit the Pentagon and must have flown over. It is not irrefutable as many other witnesses refute it. They falsely claim to act as unbiased reporters. They are not unbiased as they cherry-pick and lead the witnesses.

Whether this constitutes disinformation and is therefore fraud or misinformation in a misguided attempt to strengthen the case against the US government by deception, I leave to the reader to decide. Whichever it is, it is time to abandon interest in this question and speak up about the deception practiced by CIT and draw attention to the strong evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon. I believe that to be the best path to unity of purpose and progress in the truth movement.


[2] Arabesque: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html

Eric Bart: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

12 Responses to Witnesses refute CIT

  1. anastasia says:

    Craig Ranke says that witnesses who say they saw an plane impact do not refute his witnesses, as these people saw a low flying plane and saw an explosion, and put two and two together in a presumptuous and non-exacting way, which is the deception the government was trying to create. He also says that the damage to the light poles also do not refute his witnesses as the downed light poles could have been taken down before this happened for the same reasons, i.e. trying to create a deception. If you wish to refute his witneses, you must call the above people and ask them where they were and where they saw they first saw the plane when they saw it.

    • Frank Legge says:

      I don’t have to call these people. Most of the witness reports include information about where they were and what they saw. Most saw the plane on approach to the Pentagon and before it hit. At that time there had not been an explosion so there was nothing to deceive them. Close on 100 witnesses saw the impact and of these over 50 saw the approach. Ranke is grasping at straws.

  2. upon_injustice says:

    hm. wouldn’t one simple way around this is to track our eyewitnesses down and subject them to a polygraph test? Wouldn’t the evidence then speak for itself?

    • Frank Legge says:

      No. The people who assert the plane passed north of the service station appear sincere. I do not think they are lying, just mistaken. The problem is that CIT has not performed an investigation of witnesses but has performed a selection of witnesses, only publishing those who were mistaken. On top of that they selected particular words of some south path witnesses to make them appear to be north path witnesses. This is cherry-picking at its finest.

  3. Eric says:

    Okay, let’s say it is a cut-and-dried truth that the official storyline is the right and accurate one, then why still withold the surveillance footage from the Virginia Transportation building, the Sheraton and the gas station? Any legit reason why the FBI still feels that the vids they confiscated need to be kept from the public?

  4. Frank Legge says:

    There is a virtually irrefutable case that the three towers that came down on 9/11 at the WTC were felled by controlled demolition. That is what we want to use to educate the public to see that 9/11 was an inside job. In contrast, until you study it carefully the evidence about what happened at the Pentagon is confusing and many activists have been convinced that there was no plane or no plane impact at the Pentagon. As a result, these activists are providing the perpetrators of 9/11 with a wonderful opportunity. If the proportion of the public that believes 9/11 was an inside job rises well above 50%, the demand for a new, real investigation would become unstoppable. The perpetrators would then unleash their trump card. They would provide proof that AA77 did hit the Pentagon. The public would say, if the activists got that wrong, they are probably wrong about the WTC and controlled demolition. The cause would be set back decades and would fade away, just as happened with the assassination of JFK. Whether the perpetrators thought this up as part of their original planning, or whether the evidence about the Pentagon was initially confusing just by chance, is not relevant to the argument. In the latter case the perpetrators would have quickly seen that confusion would work to their advantage and would have ensured that the information they revealed allowed confusion to continue. This has been very successful.

  5. I’m no longer positive where you are getting your info, but great topic. I must spend a while learning more or understanding more. Thanks for excellent info I used to be on the lookout for this info for my mission.

  6. Tiger Would says:

    Thanks for your post Tiger. I will insert my comments inside your post in bold

    It does not matter what people say happened outside the Pentagon. Video evidence inside the pentagon taken a few days later shows no sign of a 757 jetliner and no sign of a terrible fire from thousands of gallons of jet fuel that would have transformed a large part of the building into a charred, gooey mess.

    The evidence that a 757 arrived at the Pentagon is overwhelming. If it did not hit, where did it go? The FDR file data stops and even the sound of the plane stops! The videos you link to were taken several days after the impact, plenty of time to remove the plane components. Workers report moving plane parts as they searched for bodies. Most of the fuel was blown outside where it burned harmlessly as a fire ball


    On top of that, the initial damage to the outside wall is all wrong. It is about 15 feet wide and 20 feet high. It is way too narrow and starts at the ground while the nose of the plane is 15 feet from the ground. The security video shows something (most likely a missile) hitting the wall a few feet off the ground, which is impossible for a 757 with 9 foot tall engines under the wings. There is no sign of damage where the engines hit the wall, even though they are far heavier and denser than the cockpit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szJJpXBdfJU Here is a link to the first of three videos taken four days after the attack. It is a firefighter inspection video and begs the question, where the hell is the 757?

    This is a false argument. Study the work of Jim Hoffman who shows clearly that the hole in the wall is more than wide enough to allow all the heavy parts of the plane to enter.
    A video released more recently shows where the right wing tip hit the Pentagon. The damage is consistent in total width and shape with impact by a 757 banked about 5 degrees left and striking the heavily reinforced wall of the Pentagon.

    If you watch your average CSI-type TV show, you know that physical evidence is often far more reliable in solving crimes than witnesses.

    I agree. The physical evidence of damage to the wall certainly supports the testimony of about 60 witnesses to impact, the FDR data and the radar data, all of which point clearly to impact.

    A lot of us have been played for suckers in this one….the real question is why?

    Again I agree. Could it be that the suckers are those who accept the biased arguments of CIT? The reason that their arguments have not been debunked by the authorities is that the confusion works to their advantage. The credibility of the 9/11 truth movement is severely weakened when it supports CIT’s obviously false argument and it becomes difficult to be convincing about the far more important WTC demolitions. This has been pointed out a wearying number of times. You should carefully read the linked paper which provides a discussion of the Pentagon dispute based on the available evidence:

  7. A.Wright says:

    How anyone could take seriously the idea of a plane flying over the Pentagon ,and not crashing into it, is beyond me. It was a plane crash witnessed by more witnesses than maybe 99% of other plane crashes yet the amount of specious baloney that has been generated about it would fill a library. What is really risible is the CIT and especially Craig Ranke going around proclaiming their definitive verdict after their ‘historic’ investigation. It’s hard to listen to delusional people and their theories and bizarre to see how many apparently intelligent people lend credibility to them.

  8. Frank Legge says:

    Tiger Would,

    Thanks for your general support of view that 9/11 was an inside job. I have however deleted most of your long post on the grounds that your arguments against what you call the “official” story are mostly just against the bizarre claims that have been circulated, for example the plane “evaporated” or that the plane was “small” or that it was a “missile” or that the hole in the wall was “too small.” The point that you don’t seem to have accepted is that it suits the authorities to allow contradictory and ridiculous claims to stand unchallenged. It suits them because these claims make the 9/11 movement look stupid. When you repeat these claims you help obscure the truth. The simple fact is that a study of the evidence confirms that it is virtually irrefutable that a large plane hit and largely penetrated the Pentagon. Please read the paper I linked to above about “the search for consensus” and also read the peer reviewed papers linked within it, which provide the proof of its concepts.

  9. Aubrey Matthews says:


    I would like to add that my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck. As a pilot of 46 years, I knew that there was no way American 77 flew north of the gas station before striking the Pentagon because it would have been impossible. The path of destruction leading from the downed light poles to the C-Ring hole spells it out very clearly that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

    • A.Wright says:

      @Aubrey Matthews
      The bizarre thing about this is the way this absurd notion got any traction, so that 14 years later people are talking about it, and there are still people who believe it (see ‘Truthandshadows’ website). Only the 911 truth movement could turn the most obvious thing into some kind of controversy and make spurious accusations based on them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *