Aus 9/11 Wiki
Stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon.
"AND IT WAS LIKE RIGHT THERE OVER THE GAS STATION." (to the side of and not much above the CITGO gas station-original
Penny Elgas described the plane as flying ahead of her and her testimony places her ahead of the official path entry point on to Route 27:
Headed north on Route 27 "almost in front of the Pentagon," Penny Elgas reported:
"I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there."
Finally a witness that mentions the Citgo, and a reason others don't, and a side. It is tempting to simply declare it was passing along Columbia, which puts it south, but she only placed it over the road. Below are NoC and SoC variants for comparison.
Let's see Larson's interpretation of Ms Elgas' testimony in all of its glory:
Now let's see the path she was actually describing according to her own words.
"looked out my driver's side window"
How can she be looking out of her "driver side window", on a road that runs away from the aircraft's entry into that basin of land and see an aircraft on the directional damage path without being at full stretch looking back from Larson's alleged POV?
"coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there."
Larson completely ignored this description.
Columbia Pike does indeed run perpendicular to Route 27 and runs below the Route 27 overpass into South Parking, or through a ring road to bring you back onto it.
So she is clearly a NoC witness.
Hill's phonecall to Penny Elgas revealed just how close she claims to have seen the aircraft to the Citgo Station and reinforcing the Columbia Pike path that runs under the overpass:
...the next thing my mind picked up, it was ..already had moved enough to be over the grass, headed over the road that..to the left..and the next thing it's right in front of me above the cars.. (...) Well, it was very low, I thought it was gonna hit the gas station.. the wing just skimmed the roof of the gas station ..across the street, I thought it was actually gonna hit it..
At what point in her alleged line of sight from Larson's POV would the aircraft "appear" to be over Citgo and heading straight for her?
"SoC" is off to a bad start.
3. Again, he uses "another" SoC "path" that has been proven to require up to 72º of left bank (!) that is nowhere to be found on the "Flight 77" FDR or is compatible with what this witness describes. At all.
What is hypocritical is the staunch defense of the validity of the FDR and Warren Stutt's manipulated and unverified "extra data" yet detractors constantly ignore it (and aerodynamics) when discussing witness testimony. Here (again) is Larson's alleged "SoC path" manouevre required to line up with the directional damage through the lightpoles. Even if everybody somehow missed this, the aircraft would have missed the poles:
Back to the blog..
She recalled it coming "toward my car" and passing low "about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. "Along the way, the plane was descending" and "banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport."
Left or right turn? Coming from NoC, it'd have to bank right, which means right wing low. South path could be level and straight or, some evidence shows, banking slightly left wing low. With the right wing closest to her, Elgas said
"I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground."
4. The majority of witnesses (not only those verified as NOC) described the aircraft as "levelling/straightening out", "powering up" or "wobbling", when it had passed the Citgo gas Station. Larson exaggerates the "slightest turn in front of me" into an actual bank that somehow could have changed the direction of the aircraft within that short timeframe from the road to the Pentagon facade. This is nonsense.
Whatever apparent tilt of the wings the aircraft executed, it will not change course/direction. Especially at the alleged 540-580mph!
Again Elgas' description of what Larson calls a "bank" is disproved here:
"I saw one wing straight at me and the end of that wing I saw from under the plane because it wobbled, it tipped..
5. And "passing low"?
Hill: How high up would you say..? PE:..maybe 40 or 50 feet, something like that.
Although in her online testimony:
"In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.
Now I know witnesses can't be used to extrapolate exact distances, altitude, etc, but Penny Elgas certainly wasn't describing the aircraft as being as "low" as Larson is insinuating.
One thing I will say is that the aircraft, according to the alleged physical damage to the lightpoles had to be a maximum of 25-30ft AGL from lightpoles 1 and 2. At "4-5 cars in front" of her, that would appear to be nearly on top of her in the scheme of things.
straight at her, banking left and passing ahead of, and then impacting, which she is quite clear on. She actually had a piece of the plane land in her car, confirming her location about under the plane as it started losing parts, which a NoC plane would not do. She is a south path witness, plain as day, and no hunt was necessary. Why does CIT still claim no published SoC witnesses even though this one is quite well-published? Oh she's all kinds of suspicious, her account is too public, too detailed, the plane part thing is too weird, and she has government connections. Not a real DC witness and not worth talking to. "Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect," they say.
Again with the "banking". She was describing a tilting motion in the wings. That's it. How does he know that the aircraft wouldn't "lose parts" on the NOC trajectory? It was allegedly flying beyond a 757's limitations. We at least know that it wasn't on the trajectory through the lightpoles!
6. The "debris falling through the roof of her car" has been cleared up.
Penny Elgas: "...there were things in my front seat, so I got out of my car and I started throwing things into the back seat and I was dropping things and picking up things and one of the things I picked up was from the ground and one of the pieces must have been from the plane..or a piece of it. HILL: "And you said you saw it..you saw it hit one of the lightpoles? ELGAS: No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a lightpole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane, is that it clipped the pole. The tail ---that was actually the tail that I turned into the Smithsonian. A piece of the tail. ..... HILL: And that kinda..the..what I was reading..it fell into your car? ELGAS: Well, that's what they said, but that's not what happened. HILL: You just picked it up, or..? ELGAS: I picked it up.
7. I've never seen explained just exactly how the "tail" of the aircraft could physically have been "ripped off" by a lightpole when there was a preceding 125ft wingspan... And the debris? Apart from the fact that no "debris" has ever officially been identified as coming from "Flight 77"
A curious poster at the ATS forums allegedly sent an e-mail to the Smithsonian museum where this piece of debris is now kept to ascertain its identification.
This is the answer he allegedly received:
I am unaware of any research undertaken by the Smithsonian to determine from what area of the plane the museum's fragment of flight 77 originated. We don't suggest that it was from the tail section although I guess that is possible. The provenance of the artifact is quite strong so there seems little doubt about what it is. We have spoken to American Airlines about the fragment but they did not ask to have it returned (they retain the majority of the flight 77 debris.) We have not contacted Boeing and there is no reason for the NTSB to be involved. The FBI handled the majority of the investigation of the crime scene.
The collecting curator for the fragment was Bill Yeingst who can be reached by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. I doubt he has more information to pass along. The artifact is held by the Division of Military and Diplomacy. You can contact the Division through Cedric Yeh (email@example.com) or Jennifer Jones (firstname.lastname@example.org.)
I am a bit mystified by the your query unless you are trying revive the conspiracy theory that the plane was not Flight 77. If so the Smithsonian is not interested interested in participating in such a line of inquiry. The reason the piece was collected by the Smithsonian was because of its altar like preservation by Penny Elgas. It is an interesting example of public reaction to the events of September 11 and provides insight into the construction of public memory and commemoration. Thank you for your interest in the National Collections.
Peter Liebhold Chair, Division of Work and Industry National Museum of American History Washington, DC email@example.com
So it has never been identified as to which "plane part" it allegedly is, never mind coming from "Flight 77".
8. She was in a good position to witness at least one lightpole being "struck". She didn't. She would have been in a very good position to see Lloyd from there http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/ELGAS_colorcode.jpg
When the pole was allegedly protruding 30 ft through his window for 8-9 minutes?
She was in the HOV lane that runs closest to the lanes Lloyd was allegedly in.
Lloyd England's pole at least should have been clearly visible to Penny Elgas given the POV Larson has placed her and the fact that she claimed to have exited her car stuck in heavy traffic:
Particularly seeing as how she claimed to get out of her car and was there for a while after according to her account.
I wanted the traffic to turn around. I didn't know what else to do so I got out of my car and ran back toward the highway yelling "Go Back! They just hit the Pentagon!" But of course, no one could move in any direction because traffic was at a standstill. A young woman in her 20's from the car in front of me was standing in front of my car and was visibly distraught and said she didn't know what to do. I told her that she could come sit with me in my car for awhile and then I went to my car and started throwing everything from the front seat into the back seat to make room for her. I remember momentarily thinking that something was odd about the stuff as I tossed it back, but I didn't focus on it. Just then, a rather large man (from the regular traffic lanes) in a light tan military uniform bellowed to everyone within earshot. "Get Back In Your Car!!" So we did. ... Then I became aware of people streaming out of the back side of the Pentagon and congregating on the sidewalks. It appears it was only a minute or two after the impact because they weren't yet looking at the crash site and seemed perplexed as to why they were outside. Perhaps only a few minutes lapsed from the actual time of impact to the time when someone was yelling at the traffic "Go! Go! Go!" But it seemed like an eternity.
To sum up, was Larson actually serious given all of the above? The witness is driving on a road that faces away from the (official) path he is advocating.
Penny Elgas has always been on record as being an "impact witness" but he doesn't see the contradiction in the 540-580 mph official speed and the alleged full penetration through to C Ring in "0.8 seconds" and the detailed account Penny gave?
She is not a "SoC witness" no matter how it is twisted. Hill, Larson and whoever can spam the "she saw the impact with her own eyes" mantra, but her testimony regarding the trajectory and even the same "impact" testimony contradicts the necessary flightpath through the lightpoles, generator and damage within the building right through to the C Ring "exit hole". She contradicts the gatecam and the alleged 0.8 second full "penetration".
Source List: Bart