*Do NOT call these people and bother them this investigation is still not finished*



When we were in DC for this trip, we obviously stopped at the Citgo Gas station as you can see from other posts.

While there Russell had relayed to me from his earlier dealings with one of the mgrs there, that one of her employees had placed the plane to the left side of the gas station.

After our encounter with the pentagon police and being detained at the gas station parking lot :D , Russell felt that the contact he had at the gas station was now gone. I didn't feel the same way.

The employee was on vacation until labor day, I called on the following tuesday.

He was kind enough to speak with me in regards to the movie which again, is only trying to document this large airliners final flight path before the explosion at the Pentagon.

I was trying to confirm what the manager had told us about the plane allegedly flying on the left side (arlington cemetery side, or north side).

He confirmed this and other details.

I spoke with him twice and I have to stress that he is very kind person to speak with us. He has given me his e-mail and we will stay in contact that way so as to not have to bother him at work. Luckily I've caught him right when he got there usally so it wouldn't be a problem to get few minutes to answer questions for a movie that only wants to give us an accurate depiction of truth no matter where it leads us.

I guess I can give the flight path in the order of the questions. It was all broken up, I got more specific questions written down and wrote down what he told me.

Do not take in anyway that he believes the plane flew over. I am sure just from talking to him he was as fooled as everyone that day. He more than likely did not even see pics from the aftermath. He seems like he just saw a plane crash and wanted to forget about it. That is what I assume at this point. He might believe something else. But my aim in speaking with him was getting an accurate eyewitness account, with NO leading or mentioning of the official story flight path. I simply wanted to hear what he saw and where he saw the plane come in from.

Here are the questions and his answers. With my comments.

Did you see the plane coming toward you specifically over the navy annex?

-"No I didn't"

Where were you specifically?

-"Near pumps 10 & 11" (south side)

Were you in between the store and the pumps 10 and 11? Or on the other side of pumps 10 & 11, near the natural gas bio diesel pumps side?

-"I was under the canopy"

Near the store?

-"Yes"

Where did you see the plane come in over?

-"Over the canopy"

Did the plane come in over pumps 1-4? Or more over the store (pumps 5-8)? Or over 10 & 11?
( obviously he had to deduce based on the direction of the plane based on when it came into view from when it came over the canopy)

-"More over the (1-4) pumps", "not over 1 & 2 Bio diesel/natural gas".

The left side of the gas station?

-"Yes."

(Mind you it was already determined his view is with his back to the gas station and facing the Pentagon wall)

Did you see the plane hit the building?

-"No the bridge/mound was in the way" (bridge continuation raise) "It happened so fast, I see the plane, then fire and smoke".


What color was it?

-"Grey."

-Did you see any colors or markings?

-"No."

In speaking with him he *offered* that it flying straight and then he saw it "pull up a little". He offered the part about it pulling up. He mentioned that on his own freewill in describing the incident.

He said it was "above the light poles".

I asked him if he saw it hit any light poles.

He said "no".

He said it was "left of the bridge". I made sure to clarify this. He did. I asked him if it came over the bridge and he said "no to the left of the bridge".

On my second call I asked him when it pulled up. Before or after the highway?

He said "just above the on ramp to 395 north" (which is actually the loop on ramp to Rt 27 south, the employee's second language is English because he has an accent, so i would surmise like so many of the other accounts that people just don't know there highways there especially ones from other countries.)

I did not correct him because I had already determined where the plane was at and where it was heading.

The main meat of his account is that the plane was to his left. This is what the manager had motioned to while we were standing outside with her. She looked and referenced toward to the left side of the gas station (with your back to the gas station, facing Pentgon...the arlington cemetery side). Obviously the employee had relayed the same information to her, since she was able to reference that to us. Regardless he said it came over the canopy, so no matter what that is a key problem for the official story.

To make matters worse(for some, great for others). I spoke with Dick Eastman on friday night. I had relayed the news to him. He seems excited again.

I brought up William Lagasse, who was as you know was a Pentagon officer allegedly refueling his patrol car at the Citgo. He told me that not only did he have an e-mail exchange with Lagasse but also a phone call. He REITERATES the fact the he was on the starboard side, or the right side of the plane. Now the are issues with Lagasse's account and he could be an exaggerator or media hog, he could have deduced seeing an AA plane because that was being told and that was what he had to report or he is a liar one level and a telling the truth on the other side. He said he was knocked into his car by the wing vortices, but said the opposite in other accounts. So who knows. The employee doesn't remember a Pentagon officer but couldn't see the other side of the store. But it's interesting that Robert couldn't remember a cop calling it in or telling them to get in the store or being there to get them ready to evacuate in less that 3 minutes after the crash(which is when they made them evacuate and then taking the tape) But he did place himself at the gas station refueling and places himself on the right side of the plane, which would put it to the left. He not only wrote this in an e-mail, he reiterated this in his phone call with Dick Eastman.

I am waiting on a diagram from the empoyee, I e-mailed the photos to hi.

This is definitely looking like a problem for the official story. It makes it impossible to hit the light poles, the generator, and the building in that direction.

I believe the FDR animation is wrong in regards to part of the flight path but would have to surmise that it is correct in altitude. It does place it the left of the gas station, but it also places it to the left of the Navy Annex. Which it was actually to the right. Crossing over Coulmbia pike to the south side of the Navy Annex.

.

Great work Merc and the rest of the FDR crew.

Can you clarify these two statements?

Did you see the plane coming toward you specifically over the navy annex?

-"No I didn't"

__________________

Where did you see the plane come in over?

-"Over the canopy"

The first time he would have seen the plane was on the Pentagon side of the canopy right?

Excellent Merc,

I only hope someone from the "official story" doesn't get to him first.

Ug :unsure:

Good job Merc. [thumbsup]

A reminder to everyone watching the FDR animation. The NTSB isnt very good with graphics software obviously. The pentagon itself is a square in their animation. So i wouldnt be surprised they "shifted" the software designed "earth" a bit, and doesnt line up exactly with the flight path. However, the Altitude data is hard data, and represented properly on the instruments, along with 4 other sources that match.

We are still trying to get additional data decoded as a 5th source, but as you know, we are running into brick walls. Our research marches on...

Bump for Merc

I told you EXACTLY what he said, where he placed himself.

I asked him him if he saw it approaching because you wanted to know. He couldn't see it because he was at pumps 10 & 11 toward the back of the gas station, yes, the side closest to the Pentagon.

I asked where it came over, he said over the canopy of the gas station, the left side. Again with his back to the Gas Station, facing the pentagon.

Merc just talked to him again.

His account has been reconfirmed and this time he reiterated the fact that it was on the left, that it pulled up, and that it was dull grey with no markings.

He even said....."I know that it was supposed to be an AA jet and that they have stripes on them buuuut....."

Merc said he seemed skittish about contradicting the official story but he was being honest about what he saw.

Yes, it's over.

I spoke with him AGAIN, FOR A THIRD TIME, and GRILLED him about his position.

He was near pumps 10 and 11, facing the Pentagon. He saw the plane to his left.

I asked him AGAIN where the plane came over, specifically was it over pumps 1-4? Over pumps 5-8? Over the store?

He said "more on the outer edge of the canopy, more over pumps 1-4."

I asked him AGAIN, what color the plane was, he said it was "Grey".

I asked him AGAIN, if he saw any colors, markings, writing, he said no. But as Lyte had touched on, he VOLUNTEERED the following this time...

"I know it was supposed to be an American Airlines, I know they have the colored stripes running down the side, but I don't know what that was supposed to be"

He nervously kind of laughed as if he was talking about seeing a UFO or something he couldn't explain.

I left that alone for next time.

I asked AGAIN, about the pull up.

He said it "came in low, above the light poles, but like it was going to hit the bridge/mound/ ground, but then it pulled up to clear that."

I asked if it came over the bridge, he AGAIN reiterated it was to the left of the bridge.

I asked AGAIN if he saw it hit any light poles, he said "no".

I asked AGAIN where it pulled up to make sure, and I corrected him about the on ramp. He agreed that he meant the Rt 27 south on ramp.

The plane came up over the left side or North Side of the Gas Station:



He was standing near the back pump (10 & 11), under and at the edge of the canopy looking towards the direction of the Pentagon. See's the plane to the left:



Rought, but pretty much the flight path...

But did he say he saw the plane fly over or to the side of the Pentagon?

For new people reading this that may not understand the signficance of this account.....

Here is why he blows the case wide open:

His account makes it physically impossible for the plane to have hit the light poles and continue on to hit the pentagon.

It means that the plane that people witnessed was merely a decoy to fool people and it actually flew over the pentagon while all of the damage below was simulated with bombs, incendiaries, and other high tech weaponry.

The blue line is roughly the flight path the citgo employee witnessed and the red line is the official flight path.




Bottom line........the witness saw the plane to his left which is IMPOSSIBLE according to the official story. His positioning leaves no room for misinterpretation or foreshortening or anything of that nature.


No plane hit the pentagon.

No but more importantly he didn't see the plane hit the light poles!

I took this pic from up on the tan dirt mound you see just to the right of the citgo station.

Pole number 1 is circled.

Naturally he would have seen it hit if he saw the plane.

Is where the blue line meets the builing the point at which you feel it went over the building??

Was the center of the fuselage over the Citgo or to the left of it?

Is he still going to draw a diagram himself?

I know he didn't see the impact because of the mound. But did he see the fireball?

The blue line looks accurate as far as I can tell from reading Merc's account of the interview.

I think you should interview him too Russell.

You see you are the one that talked to the manager first and found out about this account Russell!

We ALL heard the manager say that the employee placed the plane north of the citgo.

We just didn't know whether or not to believe her.

Now we KNOW for a fact that she was right!

I think you know as well as I do that there would be no mistaking whether it was to the left or the right of the station.

I don't need to interview him. I can give Merc a set of questions and a flat graphic to draw the path on is all I would like.

Then either via email or in his own writing see the answers he provides. No middle man - me or Merc. Just questions and answers.

If this is the witness that is going to solve the Pentagon case then it should be documented properly. The only problem with that is having him get screwed in the process if he is uncomfortable with telling a story different from the official story especially since he works for the gov. I remember what it felt like to be in that very parking lot and feel intimidated.

I can say right now the way it is presented does not solve this definitively for me at all and I don't really think it does for others either.

If it is the total truth then it should all line out with everything in place and be demonstrable. That is the way truth works.

I am not saying he isn't truthful - I am talking about the whole scene related to what he has said. Now that I know who he is I actually spoke with him a few months ago. The female manager was on vacation. We only spoke about video and he never mentioned being a witness. He told me when the female manger would be back from vacation and I called back then and started the contact there.

He is a very kind person who sounds very sincere.

But to erase everything else we know about the Pentagon and all the information we have is not going to happen because somebody tells us it is solved. You nor Merc would accept those terms yourself.

EDIT: Let's say that day I was taken away by the police. And while in custody they said, "you want to see what happened instead of all your theories"? So they show me a clear video that I believe is real. But no copies and nobody else gets to see it. I come back and tell you it is solved. I am positive. I saw the video. The case is closed. What would you do?

Russell I think you hit the nail on the head right here:

This is clearly the case according to Merc. He has declined to go on camera.

His job is on the line. Which is probably why he didn't volunteer information to you the first time you talked with him.

He would just assume keep quiet because no doubt he DOES have his own questions that he knows better than to ask.

What this means is that he is not about to twist the story against the official account.

It makes him even MORE credible.

I doubt if he realizes that what he has said even does contradict the official account!

Your hypothetical question is completely irrelevant because it's not Merc that is making the claim.

It is an eyewitness.

I could post all of the things Merc said about my interviews and documentation but I won't.

He has done the same thing x10 when you consider he is telling everybody it is solved and everything regarding the Pentagon is over.

The longest he could have possibly seen the aircraft is two seconds. If you think 9/11 Truth is going to settle for an undocumented 2 seconds of testimony and throw everything else out, you're wrong.

The more appropriate thing then is to say this is what Merc believes based on private non-documented interviews that nobody else is privy to.

Somehow you guys have to step out of your own perspective and see this clearly before you just tell people "it's over".

Remember the key points here:
1) Did not see the approach flight path.
2) Did not see the overhead flight path (under canopy).
3) Saw plane for a maximum of 2 seconds on the other side of the canopy and retrospectively inferred what the flight path was. Then even the investigators will not provide a clear graphic of said flight path.
4) Believes the plane hit the building.
5) Even though everything else he said is being uncritically taken to prove Merc's pre-existing theory (documented very well in these forums) he was in a position to but did not report watching the plane fly over the building.
6) None of this is documented in his own words or graphics.

That is all some people need to settle this but when it conflicts with 99% of other witnesses from many vantage points who had better views for longer periods of time, FDR data, physical damage to the structure and a host of other factors then two seconds of indirect, undocumented testimony is supposed to satisfy us?

Somehow objectivity has to be restored.

I know this isn't going to be a popular post but I'm going to say it anyway:

How can the bridge/mound obstruct his view if it "pulled up" and flew over or to the North side of the building? If the plane is low enough to be obscured by the terrain how can it pull up quickly enough to clear the building?

I know you're going to say "... it doesn't matter, this proves the damage path is wrong and it couldn't have hit the light poles." Forget that for one second and tell me how his testimony PROVES that the plane flew over or around the Pentagon.

damn, you guys need to start your own "scholars" type orginization about the pentagon....you guys are awesome! [salute]

I could post all of the things Merc said about my interviews and documentation but I won't.

This is not the same. You were there. We ALL heard the manager say where the employee saw the plane. Now it is confirmed and you are invited to confirm it with him directly for yourself. There is no mistaking anything. If it was on the left it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have hit the light poles. The vantage point of his position is quite clear. This is a key witness because of WHERE HE WAS. Nobody else could have had a better view of where the plane was before it hit the light poles.

He has done the same thing x10 when you consider he is telling everybody it is solved and everything regarding the Pentagon is over.

This account IS more significant than any other. It was corroborated by the manager in front of all of us. The importance of this witness has not been overstated or misrepresented.

The longest he could have possibly seen the aircraft is two seconds. If you think 9/11 Truth is going to settle for an undocumented 2 seconds of testimony and throw everything else out, you're wrong.

Why are you minimizing it? That is about how long ANYBODY would have seen the plane but his VANTAGE POINT is more significant than anybody elses. 2 seconds is all that is necessary to know if it was on his left or right. We are not "throwing everything else out". The lack of coloring and markings is repeated by every other random witness we found. The confiscated video tapes and Lloyd's impossible account also are chinks in the mechanical damage armor no matter how much you want to spin it.

The more appropriate thing then is to say this is what Merc believes based on private non-documented interviews that nobody else is privy to.

Why do you keep minimizing this crucial eyewitness account? We are still working on getting diagrams and more information from him. You, me, and Dylan all heard the manager state the exact same thing. You should be working on helping solidify this account rather than brushing it off as private and non-documented and unimportant.

Somehow you guys have to step out of your own perspective and see this clearly before you just tell people "it's over".

Russell......let me ask you this then......if you were convinced that Merc's interpretation was correct and that the witness was truthful.....would you then agree that the plane couldn't have hit the poles? Are you suggesting that it is possible for the plane to be on his left and still hit the poles?

Remember the key points here:
1) Did not see the approach flight path.

How is this relevant to whether or not it was on the left or the right?

2) Did not see the overhead flight path (under canopy).

He was on the edge of the canopy facing the pentagon. Are you suggesting this would make a difference as to whether or not he could tell if the plane was on his right or left?


3) Saw plane for a maximum of 2 seconds on the other side of the canopy and retrospectively inferred what the flight path was. Then even the investigators will not provide a clear graphic of said flight path.

Right or left Russell. That's it. This is why his account is so important. No perception issues. His vantage point is crucial. If it came on his left it doesn't line up with the mechanical damage if it came on his right it does. Illustrating an entire flight path is unnecessary because again......ANY flight path could be a fly-over. The flight path debate is simply this.....if the mechanical damage flight path is ruled out.....it has to be a fly-over. No flight path can rule out a fly-over including mechanical damage path. I know you want a concrete set in stone fly-over flight path to rule out but it doesn't work that way. It only works that way with the mechanical damage path.


4) Believes the plane hit the building.

You don't know this for sure. You have already indicated that you understand why this would be sensitive for him working on DOD property serving government officials all day long. EVERYBODY "believes" the plane hit the building because this is what they were told. I can't even believe you bring this up as a point.

5) Even though everything else he said is being uncritically taken to prove Merc's pre-existing theory (documented very well in these forums) he was in a position to but did not report watching the plane fly over the building.

Same answer as above. Nice dig on Merc even though fly-over has ONLY been "his theory" since the trip. You are the one protecting YOUR theory with everything you can muster here Russell.

6) None of this is documented in his own words or graphics.

We are working on getting this. At this point we believe his testimony but you are simply refusing to even though you personally heard the manager tell us what he saw. Why are you acting like you have no reason whatsoever to believe Merc?

That is all some people need to settle this but when it conflicts with 99% of other witnesses from many vantage points who had better views for longer periods of time, FDR data, physical damage to the structure and a host of other factors then two seconds of indirect, undocumented testimony is supposed to satisfy us?

This is flatly incorrect. 99% of the witnesses Russell? Better vantage point? Man! You are truly spinning nonsense as hard and fast as possible. NOBODY would have had anywhere near a better vantage point of the flight path just before the mechanical damage. How can you possibly deny how crucial this is to confirming or refuting the mechancal damage flight path? Any other witness would have perception issues. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Somehow objectivity has to be restored.

I agree. You really need to be more objective about this Russell. Your life isn't over if a 757 didn't hit the pentagon.