1810 replies to this topic

[Q24]

I am starting this thread purely to discuss eyewitnesses to Flight 77 at the Pentagon.

It is well understood within the psychology profession that eyewitness testimony can vary from one individual to the next even in viewing the same event (and with a large sample, most likely will vary).  The reasons for this include personal bias, perception and information received after the event, amongst others, which can affect memory.

We can read about psychological studies which demonstrate these type of issues, such as Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction by Elizabeth Loftus.  Indeed, human memory is fallible.

The above issues are apparent in studying eyewitness testimony regarding Flight 77.  Of the hundred plus eyewitnesses reported to have seen the aircraft, I estimate there are around forty who specifically describe seeing the plane impact or provide the necessary detail which can be used to place the aircraft in a specific location.  Further, of those approximately forty eyewitnesses, there is the aforementioned variance in accounts, specifically regarding flight path the aircraft took.

From there, it is my contention that an unfortunate situation has arisen…

This divergence of eyewitness accounts has been used to support a claim that Flight 77 took a path irreconcilable with damage leading up to, and inside, the Pentagon.  This extends to the claim, that as the aircraft cannot have caused the damage, a flyover was performed and the damage was, in actual fact, staged.

Whilst there are indeed eyewitnesses who recall the aircraft on a path irreconcilable with the damage and impact, there are a greater number of eyewitness claims which corroborate a path consistent with the damage and/or impact.

Rather than consider and accept the expected variation in the full body of eyewitness accounts, some have set out to promote the former group of eyewitnesses as credible whilst concealing and/or attempting to discredit the latter, i.e. a highly selective treatment of the eyewitness to support one claim (the flyover theory) over another (impact with the Pentagon).

The aim of this thread is to present the eyewitnesses records and assemble a full list of reasons they are/are not accepted amongst flyover theorists.  Scott G has agreed to help out with this.  To begin, it has been agreed that I will present one by one those eyewitnesses who corroborate the official damage path and/or impact for Scott G to respond…

[Q24]

Eyewitness one:  Frank Probst

This is not a direct quote but sourced from an interview conducted by the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Study team: -

“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.”

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

So here we have Probst confirming the generator damage caused specifically by the aircraft, located immediately in front of the Pentagon and on the official approach path.  There are further quotes online which confirm Probst saw the plane headed for the building followed by what he perceived as fine pieces of aircraft debris falling.

He does not report seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.

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

[Wandering]

Just to clarify you are arguing for the idea that a plane hit the pentagon?

I must say I used to believe it possible a missile hit the pentagon, however you convinced me otherwise in a thread...After all, what missile leaves wing marks in concrete?


Is it possible there was a plane nearby that has been confused as 'flying over' when in fact it was not the one that crashed?

[bee]

.


Here is Probst speaking about it...(around 0:40)





So...is he fibbing or not?


For the record...I don't believe 9/11 was an Inside Job, but I do think there is an Official Cover UP regarding

what happened to flight 77...and what happened at the Pentagon.

[Belial]

Bee i totally agree with your comments about flight 77 and it's cover up, i feel the government shot it down and then covered up any doings via a botched hijackers' clumsy attempt and the brave on board who tried to over power them.

[Q24]

Wandering, on 11 December 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:

Just to clarify you are arguing for the idea that a plane hit the pentagon?

I’m not going to make much effort to argue anything.  What I would like is details of how the flyover theory accounts for the complete body of eyewitnesses.  Once that is fully established and summarised, the credibility (or lack thereof) of a flyover theory will be self-evident.  That is - I believe the list of reasons given for discounting the majority of eyewitnesses will be so long, and in places so unreasonable, as to make the theory untenable.

Wandering, on 11 December 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:

I must say I used to believe it possible a missile hit the pentagon, however you convinced me otherwise in a thread...After all, what missile leaves wing marks in concrete?

Yes I’d say that in the case of conflicting theories, physical evidence trumps human memory.  It would however be interesting to make the case purely on eyewitness testimony, seeing as it appears to form half the basis for the flyover theory.

Wandering, on 11 December 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:

Is it possible there was a plane nearby that has been confused as 'flying over' when in fact it was not the one that crashed?

There was a C-130 that arrived on scene and flew over the Pentagon shortly after the impact aircraft.  This has been described by eyewitnesses which I’m sure we will get onto.  There was also an E-4B seen over Washington on the morning.  Though it must be said that not one of the eyewitnesses actually believe in their own minds that the alleged Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon.

bee, on 11 December 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Here is Probst speaking about it...(around 0:40)

Thanks for sharing that video, bee – I hadn’t seen it before.

Now we just need Scott or another flyover theorist to explain why Probst should be discounted as a witness…

[bee]

Belial, on 11 December 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

Bee i totally agree with your comments about flight 77 and it's cover up, i feel the government shot it down and then covered up any doings via a botched hijackers' clumsy attempt and the brave on board who tried to over power them.

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?  

Edited by bee, 11 December 2011 - 12:06 PM.

[libstaK]

Belial, on 11 December 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

Bee i totally agree with your comments about flight 77 and it's cover up, i feel the government shot it down and then covered up any doings via a botched hijackers' clumsy attempt and the brave on board who tried to over power them.

I think you are referring to United Airlines Flight 93 which crashed in Pensylvania - Flight 77 was crashed into the Pentagon by Hijackers at 937am.

[bee]

Q24, on 11 December 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

Thanks for sharing that video, bee – I hadn’t seen it before.

Now we just need Scott or another flyover theorist to explain why Probst should be discounted as a witness…

You're welcome


My first reaction was...if you are flinging yourself on the ground as a huge airliner is (allegedly) coming at you

six foot (the engines) above groundlevel...and fast....how much are you going to notice in the noise and mayhem?

I presume he went face down, you wouldn't lie on your back. So if he saw the plane coming at him he must have been

facing away from the Pentagon?


I would think a normal reaction would be to cover your head as loud noises/explosions were happening.


So is he believeable?


.

Edited by bee, 11 December 2011 - 12:16 PM.

[Q24]

bee, on 11 December 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

My first reaction was...if you are flinging yourself on the ground as a huge airliner is (allegedly) coming at you

six foot (the engines) above groundlevel...and fast....how much are you going to notice in the noise and mayhem?

I presume he went face down, you wouldn't lie on your back. So if he saw the plane coming at him he must have been

facing away from the Pentagon?


I would think a normal reaction would be to cover your head as loud noises/explosions were happening.


So is he believeable?

The PBS interview linked in post #2 states: -

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 (figure 3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him.

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

Another report online has Probst on the path running alongside Route 27.  Altogether this would appear to place him around and initially facing in direction of the red arrow: -



I’d say a prime vantage point.

But the argument would be, that as Probst saw the aircraft coming and dived to the ground… he did not actually see the aircraft skim above the ground as he said, he did not actually look up to see the wing hit the generator as he said and he did not see the tail disappear into the building as he said.

The claim must be that Probst fabricated witnessing all that – basically, a false memory.

Ok thank you, I’m sure Scott will say quite the same but I’ll wait on him to confirm.

Then it’ll be time for eyewitness number two…

[Q24]

In the interest of balance and understanding evidence that forms the flyover theory, please see the video below providing testimony specifically of those eyewitnesses who place the plane on a path other than the official approach.

Do keep in mind my opening post regarding eyewitness testimony when viewing: -




This should give a better idea of what the discussion is about.

[bee]

Q24, on 11 December 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

The PBS interview linked in post #2 states: -

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 (figure 3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him.

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

as it was clear that America was under attack after the second tower was hit. And logic says that the Pentagon

might be a prime target....would everyone around the area just carry on as normal? Like going to pre-arranged

meetings?




So much about the alleged Pentagon 'hit' (by flight 77) just doesn't add up...IMO

[Scott G]

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

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

Haven't been here all day.. just saw this. 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.

[booNyzarC]

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

Haven't been here all day.. just saw this. 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...

[quillius]

Q24, on 11 December 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

But the argument would be, that as Probst saw the aircraft coming and dived to the ground… he did not actually see the aircraft skim above the ground as he said, he did not actually look up to see the wing hit the generator as he said and he did not see the tail disappear into the building as he said.

The claim must be that Probst fabricated witnessing all that – basically, a false memory.

Ok thank you, I’m sure Scott will say quite the same but I’ll wait on him to confirm.

Then it’ll be time for eyewitness number two…

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)