1810 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 12 December 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:

does anyone know how long after impact was a fireball visible? (I define the word impact as the point where the nose of the plane touches the building)  

Based on the bulk of the interviews, I'm pretty sure that the fireball immediately followed after the point when the entire plane fully penetrated the wall; i.e. just after the tail section disappeared.  Here is a link which appears to pretty much refute the CIT claims if you're interested.

Cheers quillius.  Hope things are going well with you.

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 12 December 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Based on the bulk of the interviews, I'm pretty sure that the fireball immediately followed after the point when the entire plane fully penetrated the wall; i.e. just after the tail section disappeared.  Here is a link which appears to pretty much refute the CIT claims if you're interested.

Cheers quillius.  Hope things are going well with you.

Hey Boon, many thanks buddy.

The reason I asked is that in the video Bee linked he says right at the end about how he remembers 'the tail of the plane disappearing into the FIREBALL', now if the fireball began once the plane was fully inside the building, this may raise a question mark on the detail of his memory not being exact. I would add though (for what its worth) no apparent signs of lying, I believe, he believes it happened as he says it did to an extent. It is easier for the brain to fill in gaps when you have a few reference points that are real throughout the course of an event. What I mean is that he saw the plane, heard chaos, then saw a fireball. Now we have the three points throughout the event, thus enabling the brain to fill in the gaps, happens to the best of us ...  

(I am well thanks mate, just busy, so mainly scanning over the threads)

edit to add: Bee made some very important points about his position and actions during the event.

Edited by quillius, 12 December 2011 - 04:12 PM.

[booNyzarC]

No problem quillius, but it was probably more of a simultaneous kind of thing.  What I mean by that is that the larger fireball probably came after, but it was likely beginning to form as the plane penetrated.  It all happened so fast that the two events are virtually simultaneous for all intents and purposes.

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 12 December 2011 - 04:31 PM, said:

No problem quillius, but it was probably more of a simultaneous kind of thing.  What I mean by that is that the larger fireball probably came after, but it was likely beginning to form as the plane penetrated.  It all happened so fast that the two events are virtually simultaneous for all intents and purposes.

cheers. I will carry on watching from the sidelines.  

Edited by quillius, 12 December 2011 - 04:37 PM.

[bee]

quillius, on 12 December 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

Hey Boon, many thanks buddy.

The reason I asked is that in the video Bee linked he says right at the end about how he remembers 'the tail of the plane disappearing into the FIREBALL', now if the fireball began once the plane was fully inside the building, this may raise a question mark on the detail of his memory not being exact. I would add though (for what its worth) no apparent signs of lying, I believe, he believes it happened as he says it did to an extent. It is easier for the brain to fill in gaps when you have a few reference points that are real throughout the course of an event. What I mean is that he saw the plane, heard chaos, then saw a fireball. Now we have the three points throughout the event, thus enabling the brain to fill in the gaps, happens to the best of us ...  

(I am well thanks mate, just busy, so mainly scanning over the threads)

edit to add: Bee made some very important points about his position and actions during the event.

cheers Q.....I thought that out for myself, but I was pleased that in the link Scott posted earlier the same

points were brought up.


underlined...I'm not sure. If you tap through 1:00 + 1:01...there is a strange little micro expression and movement

that he does. His mouth forms into a kind of grimace and he kind of lowers his neck...or raises his shoulders (or both)

Then closes his eyes...

Not sure what that signifies but take a look and see what you think.


Good point about the fireball and what Probst said about the tail of the plane disappearing into it.


Under the circumstances and in the fear-filled mayhem he apparently noticed an awful lot in one or two seconds...?

booNyzarC, on 12 December 2011 - 04:31 PM, said:

No problem quillius, but it was probably more of a simultaneous kind of thing.  What I mean by that is that the larger fireball probably came after, but it was likely beginning to form as the plane penetrated.  It all happened so fast that the two events are virtually simultaneous for all intents and purposes.

Probst must have repositioned his body and turned his head round in super-fast time, don't you think?

Edited by bee, 12 December 2011 - 05:11 PM.

[bee]

.


Probst witness testimony  doesn't seem to fit in with what was reported LIVE on the day.






report from the scene begins at around 5:40 but there were no reports of a plane. Although a military helicopter

was seen circling the building before the explosion. As related by a senior airforce person.






and then there's this live report...





quote..."no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon"



I am of the opinion that there probably wasn't a plane connected to the explosion at all

either flying into...or over...the Pentagon.


Maybe some kind of plane flew over within a certain time frame...but not actually when the explosion happened..?

[Scott G]

booNyzarC, on 12 December 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

Scott G, on 12 December 2011 - 04:56 AM, said:

Q24, on 10 December 2011 - 11:54 PM, said:

So Scott, or anyone else… why should Probst be discounted?

My quick answer would be, because of what CIT says here regarding Probst and Mason:
http://z3.invisionfr...p?showtopic=841

To be fair, I only skimmed what CIT said. If you find anything there that you think is flawed, let me know.

If I'm understanding onesliceshort's analysis and conclusions of the testimony correctly, his general idea seems to be "Probst's testimony pretty much matches with the official story, therefore it must be made up and he must be lying because I don't believe the official story."

Was there more to it than that?  Granted, I'm only part way through my first cup of coffee right now, so I may have missed part of his point...

Laugh :-). Yeah, you missed a tad. For starters, you missed Mason's testimony and how it contradicts Probst's. How about I just port his post over here so we can analyze it a bit more and even quote portions thereof. Here goes...

***************************************************************************************************
Probst and Mason, Uncollaborative testimony

ASCE Report

http://fire.nist.gov.../PDF/b03017.pdf

Page 13

Quote

Frank Probst, 58, is a West Point graduate,decorated Vietnam veteran, and retired army lieutenant colonel who has worked for the
Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1995. At approximately 9:30
A.M.  on September 11 he left the Wedge 1 construction site trailer, where he  had been watching live television coverage of the second
plane  strike into the World Trade Center towers. He began walking to the  Modular Office Compound, which is located beyond the extreme north end  of the Pentagon North Parking Lot, for a meeting at 10
A.M. As he  approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and  heading right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action  report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 9:38 a.m. The aircraft  pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and  leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass  through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to  Wedge 1.The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts  surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam  vault before the fuselage entered the
building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst
ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice.
Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him.The diesel fuel
for the portable generator ignited while he was running. He noted
only fire and smoke within the building at the point of impact.
Security personnel herded him and others to the south, and he did
not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building.

As usual the ASCE Report throws up the usual contradictions and   speculation. On this occasion nearly a full testimony is attributed to  Frank Probst in describing word for word the alleged PRECISE damage  caused by the supposed ´impact´ of the plane.
All seen within a  chaotic, violent event which Probst said had him diving for his life,  and the alleged second and a half that it took the plane to traverse the  Pentagon lawn. I assume Probst was facing away from the blast when it  occurred?
He didn´t cover his head?
The vortex or at least tremendous turbulence and noise didn´t disorientate or even budge him?
No he immediately turned while diving, not blinking while taking in all this detail.

Quote

¨He began walking to the Modular Office Compound, which is located  beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon North Parking Lot, for a  meeting at 10 A.M. As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane  flying low over the Annex and heading right for him.¨

The important section of this quote is ´as he approached the heliport he noticed...´
There is a pathway across the lawn which runs parallel to Route 27.
This narrows his POV down to this pathway facing the general area of the heliport.
He would have had ,give or take 20/30 metres the same line of view as Sean Boger who was in the heliport at the time.

Quote

¨he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him¨

Note, not to the side of the annex, or coming at an angle from I-395.

He says that the plane flew right by him.

http://urbanlegends....02/feature3.asp

Quote

American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that  Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right  engine.

Where does that leave the official flightpath as it enters the lawn area  of the Pentagon given that the plane passed him at the point on the  lawn path he describes?

At @ 200m to his left.

Back to the ASCE Report

Quote

As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst
ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice.
Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him.

The fireball lasted 5 seconds. So are they saying that in the time he  dived, took all this info in and got to his feet the fireball was still  in motion? Uh huh.

Fine pieces of ´wing debris´? So fine the lawn  was clean as a whistle  yet in numerous photos we can see debris  (concrete, etc) from the blast starting around the  heliport area.

The lawn on the ´official flight path´ route:





The heliport area:





Now enter the frame Don Mason.
This guy is RARELY used by detractors to try and support the official path and ´impact´. Why?
Because  he totally contradicts Probst while backing up his exact claims and a  few lightpoles are thrown in for good measure (AND an ariel)
This occurs in the very next paragraph of the same ASCE Report

Quote

Don Mason, 62, is a communications specialist who retired
from the United States Air Force after 25 years of service. He has
worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information
management and telecommunications since 1996. At the
time of the crash he was stopped in traffic west of the building.
The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly
clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and
struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his
colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane's path, and he witnessed
a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by
the right wing.The aircraft struck the building between the heliport
fire station and the generator, its left wing slightly lower
than its right wing.As the plane entered the building, he recalled
seeing the tail of the plane. The fireball that erupted upon the
plane's impact rose above the structure. Mason then noticed
flames coming from the windows to the left of the point of
impact and observed small pieces of the facade falling to the
ground. Law enforcement personnel moved Mason's vehicle and
other traffic on, and he did not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building.

This whole statement is contrived to corraborate Probst´s story while  adding a sense of continuance to the touted ´Official Flightpath´
None of it is directly quoted.

What is incredible is the total contradiction to Probst´s account as regards positioning:

Quote

The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly
clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and
struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his
colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane's path...

That is, Mason has been placed directly under the official flightpath.  ´Possibly´ clipping this mysterious antenna, and the 3 lightpoles.  Contrived.
He places Probst directly in its path



There exist two possibilities.

This story is so obviously put together it is unreal.
Probst  threw a major spanner in the works putting the plane way off SOC and  closer to NOC and the ASCE report tried to claw back some official  credulity with Mason´s story/help.

or

Mason later learned  of the ´lightpole damage´ and Probst, Mason and the ASCE worked together  to add the extra details into the testimony.
It must have happened  right? So Probst MUST have been directly in front of him for the plane  to have passed so close. How could he be way over at the heliport if the  plane was at least 200m to Probst´s left according to the damage.
If  Mason actually was there and he DID see Probst he had to be further up  the road towards the heliport. There is no way he could have physically  identified Probst from so far.
There was no way Mason saw Probst where he said he did because Probst himself said where he was.

This isn´t conjecture. It´s all there in black and white in the ASCE report.  
***************************************************************************************************

Source: http://z3.invisionfr...p?showtopic=841

Edited by Scott G, 12 December 2011 - 10:12 PM.

[quillius]

bee, on 12 December 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

cheers Q.....I thought that out for myself, but I was pleased that in the link Scott posted earlier the same

points were brought up.


underlined...I'm not sure. If you tap through 1:00 + 1:01...there is a strange little micro expression and movement

that he does. His mouth forms into a kind of grimace and he kind of lowers his neck...or raises his shoulders (or both)

Then closes his eyes...

Not sure what that signifies but take a look and see what you think.

Hey Bee, I have watched the programme again now, twice more and in peace....I think you are correct. At 0.56 it starts getting disjointed, his looks at buildings then mentions 'the area here'.

[ThisiswhatIthink]

Is this thread only for eyewitness accounts? Because passengers aboard flight 77 called loved ones to tell them their plane had been hijacked prior to the crash and the passengers bodies were recovered at the Pentagon crash site and later identified through DNA testing. That would pretty much make anyone else's POV or testimony irrelevant. Why is this even an arguement or am I missing something?

[booNyzarC]

Scott G, on 12 December 2011 - 10:05 PM, said:

Laugh :-). Yeah, you missed a tad. For starters, you missed Mason's testimony and how it contradicts Probst's. How about I just port his post over here so we can analyze it a bit more and even quote portions thereof. Here goes...

What contradiction?  I don't see any contradiction in their testimonies at all.  They both report being in the direct path of the plane.  They both report that the plane crashed into the Pentagon.  Probst got up and ran after the initial impact to try to avoid the fireball.  Where is the contradiction?

They are telling the same story...

"As he approached the heliport?"  This is the contradiction?  This statement positions him as the pink dot that oncesliceshort's picture says?  Why is that?  Are you trying to tell me that the red arrow indicated by Q24's image doesn't also represent an approach to the heliport?




There is no contradiction.  Besides, if the plane had approached from the direction you suggest, why aren't any of the light poles in that area knocked over?  7?  22?  23?  24?  21?

The witnesses agree that the plane impacted the building, there is no escaping that part of the testimony.  Isn't it more likely that any apparent contradiction that you and onesliceshort seem to find is just a misinterpretation on your parts?


Edit: Spelling.

Edited by booNyzarC, 13 December 2011 - 03:02 AM.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 12 December 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

--

Probst must have repositioned his body and turned his head round in super-fast time, don't you think?

What makes you think that?  If he hit the deck, straight down, as it was coming at him, all he need do is turn to look toward the building as the aircraft flew over him to see everything that he reported seeing.  You can do that with your hands held protectively around your head you know.  Would you close your eyes in a situation like that?  I sure wouldn't.

If you saw a fireball come out of the building at you after the impact, wouldn't you get your ass up and run?  I sure would...

I don't see any inconsistencies in his testimony and I don't see anything about what he described that doesn't match with common sense.

[booNyzarC]

ThisiswhatIthink, on 13 December 2011 - 02:36 AM, said:

Is this thread only for eyewitness accounts? Because passengers aboard flight 77 called loved ones to tell them their plane had been hijacked prior to the crash and the passengers bodies were recovered at the Pentagon crash site and later identified through DNA testing. That would pretty much make anyone else's POV or testimony irrelevant. Why is this even an arguement or am I missing something?

I agree with your sentiment.

[Scott G]

booNyzarC, on 13 December 2011 - 03:00 AM, said:

What contradiction?  I don't see any contradiction in their testimonies at all. They both report being in the direct path of the plane.

They are telling the same story...

Here's something that I don't think even oneslice noticed, but I certainly did. From ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report, near the top of page 13:
"As he  approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and  heading right for him."

Source: http://fire.nist.gov.../PDF/b03017.pdf

Now as far as I know, there's only one Annex it could have been "flying low" over. The same Annex that Ed Paik, Terry Morin and others all placed it over; the Navy Annex. There's only one problem with this from an official story point of view; it's incompatible with the official story's SoC flight path, as demonstrated by work from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

booNyzarC, on 13 December 2011 - 03:00 AM, said:

"As he approached the heliport?"  This is the contradiction?  This statement positions him as the pink dot that oncesliceshort's picture says?  Why is that?  Are you trying to tell me that the red arrow indicated by Q24's image doesn't also represent an approach to the heliport?




There is no contradiction.  Besides, if the plane had approached from the direction you suggest, why aren't any of the light poles in that area knocked over?  7?  22?  23?  24?  21?

Because the plane never crashed into the Pentagon or any light poles; it flew over it all.

booNyzarC, on 13 December 2011 - 03:00 AM, said:

The witnesses agree that the plane impacted the building, there is no escaping that part of the testimony.

Apparently not all of them, atleast initially. There was actually one story of a disagreement between people who felt that the plane had "kept on going" and someone else who insisted that it had crashed into the pentagon. It's a shame that we only know who reported this, instead of knowing who the individuals involved in this disagreement were. As to those who have always stated that the pentagon crashed into the pentagon, most if not all of them were interviewed well after the official story regarding what happened had taken shape. As one of my favourite movies states:
"Memory's unreliable....  Memory's not perfect, it's not even that good. Ask the police. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. The cops don't catch a killer by sitting around remembering stuff. They collect facts and draw conclusions. Facts, not memories. That's how you investigate. I know, it's what I used to do. Memory can change the shape of a room, it can change the colour of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're an interpretation, not a record. And they're irrelevant if you have the facts."

This is why CIT took the time to take the testimony of many witnesses and determined that the witnesses whose testimonies corroborated each other the most were the witnesses whose testimony was the most accurate. It's also easy to see how people could be fooled into thinking that a plane that headed towards the pentagon, followed by an explosion at the pentagon, could be interpreted as the plane could have hit the pentagon, especially considering that the pentagon's location is at the bottom of a hill, so that the plane could actually sink down a bit as it went and add to the effect that it hit the pentagon. But it's much harder to fool people as to what flight path the plane took in getting there. This is probably why the official story has wavered since its insertion as to what flight path the plane took, with the NTSB's video actually taking it on a more NoC type of approach. For people who don't pay attention to details, they may not have even noticed this, but the fact of the matter is that the official story can't have it both ways; assuming that the official story's revised version of the pentaplane's flight path is more accurate, either the SoC damage was faked and the plane that hit the pentagon left no indication of its true damage trajectory (or was somehow covered up), or the actual plane flew over the pentagon.

booNyzarC, on 13 December 2011 - 03:00 AM, said:

Isn't it more likely that any apparent contradiction that you and onesliceshort seem to find is just a misinterpretation on your parts?

Not by a long shot

Edited by Scott G, 13 December 2011 - 01:29 PM.

[Tesla II]

bee, on 11 December 2011 - 11:45 AM, said:

Thanks


It's difficult to assess what the hell happened at the Pentagon...but I don't think that it would have been left wide open

for attack from the air. Especially when there was so much warning.

I, too, think flights 77 and 93 were both shot down as a (necessary?) defensive measure.


edit...after seeing Ibstaks reply...maybe you should clarify if you think 77 + 93 were both shot down

or just 93?  

Shot down? That is a new one... I think these 100 or more people dont have a damn clue what they saw...See They dont even know what happened in Vietnam or Iraq...Or even worse most dont know what Al queda is... So my theory is that maybe abit bigger drone crashed in there or a small plane could do, but it wasn't bigtime jet airliner...

[bee]

quillius, on 12 December 2011 - 11:08 PM, said:

Hey Bee, I have watched the programme again now, twice more and in peace....I think you are correct. At 0.56 it starts getting disjointed, his looks at buildings then mentions 'the area here'.

booNyzarC, on 13 December 2011 - 03:17 AM, said:

What makes you think that?  If he hit the deck, straight down, as it was coming at him, all he need do is turn to look toward the building as the aircraft flew over him to see everything that he reported seeing.  You can do that with your hands held protectively around your head you know.  Would you close your eyes in a situation like that?  I sure wouldn't.

actually if there was an airliner going 6 foot over my head and a big explosion...I would keep my eyes shut,

for a few seconds at least, as I wouldn't want to risk my eyes being damaged...or being blinded.

Quote

If you saw a fireball come out of the building at you after the impact, wouldn't you get your ass up and run?  I sure would...

I wouldn't expect that I could out-run a fireball, so I would probably curl up, eyes shut, and hope for the best.

Quote

I don't see any inconsistencies in his testimony and I don't see anything about what he described that doesn't match with common sense.

on this, then, we must disagree.







there also seems to be some descrepency about the height of the airliner/that ariel on the car/and the pole damage 'evidence'




http://www.911-strik...ng-confetti.htm

Quote

  In the early report, the suggestion that the altitude of the plane was low enough to pass 6 feet away from Probst, and low enough to be trimming the antenna of an automobile on the road, is certainly wrong.  The light pole evidence seems to indicate an altitude closer to 30 feet.  An altitude of 30 feet might also explain why the automobiles were not tossed by wake turbulence, and why Probst was able to survive the jet blast.

*****************************************************************************


to anyone who might be vaguely interested....

I do not think that 9/11 was an inside job but I do think that there is a cover up about a lot of it.

My belief is that flights 77 was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and shot down. And that this

was done for defensive reasons. But because this would have been a devastating admission to make

( + the same for flight 93) for political reasons it was decided not to tell the public....or the watching world.

I am unsure what happened at the Pentagon...but I don't think that anything that

wasn't US military would have be allowed anywhere near it....?

The helicopter that was seen circling the Pentagon and going down to the helipad just before the explosion

might have shot a missile into the building?  At one time I was thinking that this might have been done

by the US military....and then crash debris placed at the scene. But now I'm thinking that maybe there

was a rouge helicopter pilot....perhaps a Militant Islamist under deep cover...and they did it?

And it was decided to place airliner debris at the scene....to save the embarassment of the missile attack

and at the same time account for flight 77....... just a thought.



And more on topic....the 'eye witnesses' to the flight 77 'crash'.....would probably already be under some

kind of secrecy oath.....and would know what really happened, (but would never spill the beans)....and would be willing

to make up their testimony.....as their patriotic duty ???


I know...it all gets a bit complicated...but not half as complicated as the insanely complicated Inside Job theory.
but I do think what I've said could explain the descrepancies that crop up with it all?



the reason that I don't think I'm doing any harm putting my ideas forward is because the whole 9/11 thing
has become so corrosive that if and I'm only saying IF I'm right...then it might help to lessen the
psychologically corrosive situation.


.