Another blow for the disinformationists promoting the official flight 77 story

Let's flashback for a moment: In the wake of CIT's National Security Alert receiving widespread endorsements, and the 2.5 hour debate between Ranke and Bursill in which Ranke won hands down (as conceded by Bursill), the flight-77-hit-the-pentagon crew went into overdrive mode to try and defend the idea that the north path witnesses (which of course are always referred to as "CIT's witnesses") were somehow refuted by "dozens more south path witnesses."

The pair of persons I refer to as Larson & Larson Inc. got busy with their blogs, Adam Larson composing the entry and Erik posting it to blogger, entitled "The South Path Impact: Documented."

It is very important to remind everyone that with the lone, isolated exception of Chris Sarns (who decided to hate CIT after having been convinced by their work), no other 757-impact theorist tries to argue for a North of Citgo flight path impacting the building.

Instead, the modus operandi from the "CIT debunkers" is to try and defend the idea that the NoC witnesses must be mistaken, and/or contradicted by "dozens of SoC" witnesses.  This is because it's obvious to anyone that the directional damage beginning with light pole no. 5 and continuing all the way to the C ring of the Pentagon delineates a very specific straight line.  Any deviation in the flight path and the plane couldn't have caused all the damage.

SO, movin on...

It's very interesting to note that in Larson & Larson Inc.'s Mark Roberts style attempt at debunking, the VERY FIRST "SOUTH OF CITGO" WITNESS they cite is a man named Albert Hemphill:

1) Albert Hemphill
At the Navy Annex, “peering out of the window looking at the
Pentagon.... the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my
window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the
Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be
either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it
had been following Columbia Pike.” He also gives the wing bank
(remember, north path means left high) “He was slightly left wing down
as he appeared in my line of sight […] As he crossed Route 110 he
appeared to level his wings […] as he impacted low on the Westside of
the building

So, the casual reader is supposed to read these words (printed, second hand words by the way) and be convinced that it's an account that contradicts the NoC witnesses.  The main words used to spin are "over my right shoulder." Larson deceptively conflates "right shoulder" and the the notion of "right [south] of gas station."

Two days ago, Craig Ranke successfully reached Albert Hemphill and recorded the conversation.  Guess what?  The dude actually confirms, unambiguously confirms the NoC path, thereby dealing a death blow to Larson & Larson Inc.'s pathetic attempt to undermine serious investigation into 9/11.

Even in the original printed quoted above, Hemphill clearly states "directly over the annex" which in and of itself contradicts the official path, that being south of Columbia Pike at all times.  The Annex is on the North side of the Pike.  But it still didn't stop Larson & Larson Inc. from grasping at the "over my right shoulder" thing.

Listen to Craig Ranke's conversation with Albert Hemphill, the "no. 1 south path witness," and listen to him confirm that when the plane passed the gas station it passed it "from the cemetery side" which would be the NoC path, thereby corroborating every other eyewitness interviewed in person who was in a good position to judge.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/Albert-Hemphill-5-24-2010.mp3

Of course, Hemphill still maintains the plane hit, but you can hear the cognitive dissonance kick in as Ranke explains the implications of NoC.  He sounds genuinely mystified and quite intrigued.  He actually sounds kind of enthusiastic over the idea of watching NSA when Craig mails him a hard copy.

Interestingly, when explained the implications of NoC vs SoC, he doesn't then change his story and say, "Oh well, if the physical damage was over there, I must obviously be wrong about the plane flying over here."  In other words, he doesn't defer to the physical damage path.  He maintains that he saw the plane fly where he says it did.

But anyway, what a blow for Larson & Larson Inc.!  Their very first "south of citgo" witness has unequivocally confirmed the "north of citgo" approach!