You seem to not have payed very close attention to the video, and you CLEARLY have not studied the Pentagon attack very close and have not spent any significant amount of time on CIT's site. As someone who has done all of these things this post is extremely frustrating to me. So, even though your post probably took only a few minutes to write, I am going to take much more time here to write a thorough response, because your flawed Google search data dump post really illustrates why CIT's work was so necessary and why it is so valuable to the truth movement.
So they have 13 witnesses all of whom give a different flight path, some of whom give a different speed, and none of whom actually saw the plane hit.
Different flight path? From a variety of different, excellent vantage points all thirteen witnesses corroborate each other within a reasonable margin of error
. This is to be expected due to difference in vantage point and general witness fallibility. What is not up for debate is that the plane was on SOME path that took it over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo, which is where they all place it. Lagasse himself explains this around the 33:28 mark
, when he admits that it is possible that the plane was coming from an angle a bit closer to the station or farther away than he drew it, but that it is NOT possible for it to have been on the complete opposite side of the station. This is obviously the case when watching his interview and all of the others who corroborate him on this general detail which proves 9/11 to be an inside job.http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html
Also, contrary to what you are trying to imply below there are no independently confirmed first hand accounts like these ones placing the plane on the south side. I have seen CIT repeatedly challenge their detractors to provide such a firsthand account and they have come up empty for years now. CIT has repeatedly demonstrated why it is so important to talk to witnesses directly instead of going on out of context and often ambiguous media quotes. Ironically, one of the clearest examples of this can be seen in their debunk of one of your main sources, Arabesque, who in the same article that you quote from tries to claim that over 20 people saw the light poles get hit when it fact it turns out that NONE of these people saw it. Some were not even witnesses at all!
See here: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51
As you will see Craig from CIT links to a post by Arabesque on AboveTopSecret.com from 2007 promising to correct these errors but he has still to this day left them up there, obfuscating the truth, yet this is the person you are copy and pasting information from in order to somehow try to prove the official story true.
Yes, and if you were more familiar with the work of CIT you would know that they have exhaustively gone through this entire list. They have successfully contacted DOZENS of them and found that when their actual location and true vantage point was firsthand, it becomes apparent that most were not in a position to see the alleged impact at all, and simply saw or heard the plane approaching, then saw or heard an explosion a short while later and ASSUMED that the plane hit the building.
They actually address this directly in the FAQ section of their website.
FAQ: "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://citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-alleged_impact_witnesses.html
There is a link in there to a comprehensive breakdown of this witness quote list.
Again, it is not logical to use out of context unconfirmed second hand media quotes to argue against confirmed, corroborated, firsthand video recorded accounts proving the official story false.
Witnesses who confirm the south side approach
The pertinent question is whether or not the plane was north or south of the gas station
Even the "north side approach" comes from the south. In fact, it comes from even more "south" than the official flight path until it crosses it at a point not far from the Navy Annex.
The FAA actually depicted a north of the gas station approach in an animation they made so here it is compared with the NTSB reported south side approach:
See how they BOTH are coming from the "south", which is actually the southwest?
Actually the full body of witnesses reported by CIT have it coming from even further
south, directly over the Army Navy Country Club. The reality is a witness simply claiming the plane came from "the south" does not support the official flight path over a north of the gas station approach at all. In fact that description fits the north of the gas station approach BETTER than a the official approach.
Let's look closer at the witnesses you listed so that you can see why firsthand confirmation is so important and why the mere mention of 395 is not indicative of the exact location of the plane.
"As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the[n?] too low, and the next thing we saw was [it?] go-down below the side of the road… coming down towards the side of the—of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us”
All it takes is a quick look on a map so see that the Memorial Bridge is on the north side of the Pentagon, which is not really 395 at all but 110.
A member of CIT's discussion forum who is from the area has confirmed that locals often refer to Route 27 and 110 as "395".
The bottom line this witness wasn't anywhere near a position to see the gas station at all let alone tell if the plane was north or south of it.
"I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon." - Gary Bauer
First of all there is nothing in this quote that distinguishes north or south of the gas station, and if this person was really where he says he was on the highway he would not have been able to see the gas station at all.
Both the official and the north of the gas station path as reported by CIT have the plane coming from "the south" (southwest) NEAR 395 and NEITHER have it flying directly over it.
Also, do you even know who Gary Bauer is? He is a former Republican presidential candidate and not only former member of the neo-conservative thinktank The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), but a signer of their infamous document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which was published in 2000, a year before the attacks, and which explained that a "New Pearl Harbor" was needed in order to accomplish their goals in a timely manner.
The notion that you, a "truther", would quote a non-conclusive statement from a PNAC member as a means of supporting the official narrative and casting doubt on hard evidence proving it false is ridiculous, but again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't know better and just did a quick Google search and proudly dumped whatever data you could find here without any analysis or fact checking.
“The jet came in from the south”
- Mickey Bell
Again, both the official and the north of the gas station path as reported by CIT have the plane coming from "the south", but this isn't even a quote from Mickey Bell. It is a third-hand comment made by his boss Jack Singleton to the reporter. Jack admitted
that Mickey doesn't really remember much:
The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building, narrowly missing the Singleton Electric trailer and the on-site foreman, Mickey Bell. Bell had just left the trailer when he heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled was picking himself off the floor, where he had been thrown by the blast.
In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much.
It is not reasonable to imply that this third-hand ambiguous and generalized alleged statement from a guy who was in such shock that he didn't even "remember much" on that day somehow refutes thirteen very specific and definitive firsthand accounts proving that 9/11 was an inside job.
“I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel.”
- Tim Timmerman
CIT was able to get images from the same apartment from where Tim Timmerman allegedly witnessed the event with his roommate at the time (Dawn Vignola) and they posted them on their forum for all to see. Turns out you can't see 395 OR the citgo station at all from there let alone tell if the plane was north or south of it. There is another apartment building completely blocking the relevant view.
Of course Timmerman also claimed the plane crashed into the ground first which is doesn't even match the official story so his credibility was questionable to begin with even before CIT found out that he would barely have a view of this final moment of the flight path anyway from his location.
As explained in National Security Alert Reagan National Airport is about a mile from the Pentagon. The huge explosion would have distracted from and obsucred the extremely common site of a plane flying away afterward, which would have been quite small at that distance. This eyewitness with a poor vantage point from thousands of feet away does not refute thirteen witnesses in some of the best possible positions to see the plane only a few dozen feet away from them who all corroborate each other on the north side flight path.
“The plane took “a flight path straight up 395.”
- Michael Tinyk
Once again CIT got a picture from the same building where Michael Tinyk claims he was located in Crystal City. Guess what? You cannot see 395 from there.
“I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395. It was like the rear end of the fuselage was riding on 395. I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me.”
- Dave Winslow
Again, not even the official flight path has the plane directly over 395.
Also, this account does not distinguish north or south of the gas station at all.
If you look at his statement in context you'll realize that he is not a witness to an impact and there is plenty of room for preception error from someone on the other side of the freeway at the Riverhouse Apartments, especially compared to people who were actually ON the citgo station property!
“I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon.”
- Don Wright
He does NOT reference north or south of the citgo at all. Once again not even the official flight path has the plane directly over 395 so this is clearly perception error.
Witnesses who actually SAW the plane knock down the lightpoles and/or hit the pentagon
It "flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane's right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle", he said. The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle. "You could hear the engines being revved up even higher"
"The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low. For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it."
- Noel Sepulveda
Sepulveda never says that he literally SAW the plane hit the light poles. This is important because we know for a fact that all of the confirmed witnesses who mentioned the light poles in their earlier quotes have admitted that they did NOT see the plane hit them and only saw the poles on the ground after the fact. People like Penny Elgas.....
That interview was not conducted by CIT but they heard the same thing from Stephen McGraw, Chadwick Brooks, Joel Sucherman, and even Mike Walter.
Again, the entire "light pole witness" list is addressed here
"The first thing you smell is the burning. And then you can smell the aviation fuel. And then you can smell this sickly, rotten-meat smell"
- Mark Kirk
"Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs(!)"
Yes people reported smelling jet fuel but this is not evidence against the north of the gas station approach, nor is it evidence that a plane hit the building. Jet fuel is pretty much the same thing as Diesel fuel. As most people here probably know there was a Diesel generator that was spewing major amounts of smoke for hours.
In addition, this was right next to the heliport tower, and we have reports of "aviation fuel tanks" exploding:
"We ran to the end of our building, turned left and saw nothing but huge, billowing black smoke, and a brilliant, brilliant explosion of fire." (...) One of the Pentagon's two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was "totally engulfed in flames," Anderson says. Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one. source
Nothing you posted refutes a north of the gas station approach or supports the notion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Again, it's very clear that you have not studied the Pentagon attack or CIT's work very closely at all. I know most of this stuff because of them and give them credit for uncovering it. It's all available on their sites and forum. Please spend a lot more time there before making these kinds of Google search data dump posts, because all you are doing is propagating false and/or misleading information.