That is worrying.
But ok, I’ll include this point against Probst.
That is worrying.
"As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him."
Not south of the Navy Annex; -over- the Navy Annex. Why is it that you ignored that point? Is it because it goes against your view that the pentaplane didn't fly over the Navy Annex?
If you actually want my argument: The Navy Annex is the biggest building on the approach path. There is a good possibility the building will be used as a general reference point by eyewitnesses who remember seeing a plane fly anywhere near it, which it did. We are not dealing with a precise science – had the plane flown 100m to the left or right, eyewitnesses would still say, “over the Navy Annex”.
- As he was diving to the floor, he did not witness the plane skim the ground, hit the generator and impact the Pentagon as he claimed.
- His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.
- The ASCE misrepresented what he actually saw so as to support an impact.
- He did not see the plane as he claimed because it conflicts with specifics of other eyewitness accounts.
- The ASCE encouraged him to support their false theory, and he did.
This is the best I can make of what you have said.
Effectively you have claimed two eyewitnesses to be fundamentally incorrect (in fact there’s no two ways about it considering the specifics of their accounts – you are calling them liars) based on a particular interpretation of their accounts and further implicated the ASCE as a part of the cover story. Ok…
Eyewitness #3: Rodney Washington
Reported September 12, in the Boston Globe: -
Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.
''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.
The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.
It ''landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,'' Washington said. ''There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded.''
Washington speculated that it could have been worse: ''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court.''
The fact he states, “momentum took it into the Pentagon” and, “''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher…” confirm first that he saw the impact and second that he did not see the plane fly over the building (a fact that we will see is consistent with all eyewitnesses).
So why should a third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, be discounted?