Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 3 votes

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses


  • Please log in to reply
1810 replies to this topic

#106    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,736 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:31 PM

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:

Fair enough. The red streak at 0:29 to 0:30 looked strange to me anyway; it was well removed from the explosion. Someone said that it couldn't have been firing at anything because the explosion had already occurred. Evidently, they didn't take into account that the explosion wasn't caused by anything crashing into it. This being said, even if the pentaplane was fired upon, it doesn't look like the shots connected. I say this because I'm fairly sure that there would have been a lot more debris if it had actually been blown up before hitting the pentagon.

underlined...thanks for that...exactly what I was thinking...and the movement from left to right is VERY subtle. And I mean VERY.



View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

Thank you – I’m sure that your interpretation has brought us all a step closer to the truth   :unsure2:  :lol:   :P

I live in hope.... :P

lovely lovely troof....if only the whole 9/11 thing wasn't such a quagmire of mind games and conflict....

but it keeps us all occupied, eh?.... :lol:


#107    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,736 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:36 PM

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 09:30 PM, said:

That's certainly my point of view. Although I agree with you that the grey thing she references after the red streak at 0:29-0:30 is a car, the red streak still makes me wonder. But even if the red streak didn't make me wonder, I would have welcomed her input. We're not publishing peer reviewed articles here; this is just a place to post what you think might have occurred. Once an idea is out there, it is ofcourse time to analyze it, but I think a certain gentleness should be used; ridiculing people's theories in a discussion tends to limit the debate as most people don't like being ridiculed.


cheers Scott..... :tu:


#108    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 26 December 2011 - 10:02 PM

View Postbee, on 26 December 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:

Fair  enough. The red streak at 0:29 to 0:30 looked strange to me anyway; it  was well removed from the explosion. Someone said that it couldn't have  been firing at anything because the explosion had already occurred.  Evidently, they didn't take into account that the explosion didn't have  to be caused by anything crashing into it. This being said, even if the  pentaplane was fired upon, it doesn't look like the shots connected. I  say this because I'm fairly sure that there would have been a lot more  debris if it had actually been blown up before hitting the pentagon.

underlined...thanks for that...exactly what I was thinking...and the movement from left to right is VERY subtle. And I mean VERY.

So subtle I can't see it apparently, laugh :-). Seriously, how do you know it's going from left to right? I think it is, but it's just a hunch. The other thing I'm thinking of is, what if it's not a shot being fired, but another explosion, but clearly a much smaller one, near the video camera?


View Postbee, on 26 December 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

I live in hope.... :P

lovely lovely troof....if only the whole 9/11 thing wasn't such a quagmire of mind games and conflict....

but it keeps us all occupied, eh?.... :lol:

Laugh :-). That it does.


#109    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 26 December 2011 - 10:03 PM

View Postbee, on 26 December 2011 - 09:36 PM, said:

cheers Scott..... :tu:

:blush:


#110    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,736 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 26 December 2011 - 11:24 PM

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

So subtle I can't see it apparently, laugh :-). Seriously, how do you know it's going from left to right? I think it is, but it's just a hunch. The other thing I'm thinking of is, what if it's not a shot being fired, but another explosion, but clearly a much smaller one, near the video camera?

bolded...lol...I have just had another good old look and it does appear to be just one frame.

but screen captures of the other one...clearly shows the what-ever-it is going from left to right.

at least in the first two screen captures....and that is a definite.... :)

the fact that the one-frame red streak is as near as damn it in the same position got me going.

still not 100% sure what it is as it seems weird that just ONE streak of flaming debris would be that

far out...just ONE ?  lol...9/11 is the head-banger of all head-bangers. Even the cctv release does your

nut in...and don't get me started on the other 2nd cctv peep po one...


:D


#111    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:04 AM

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 09:30 PM, said:

That's certainly my point of view. Although I agree with you that the grey thing she references after the red streak at 0:29-0:30 is a car, the red streak still makes me wonder. But even if the red streak didn't make me wonder, I would have welcomed her input. We're not publishing peer reviewed articles here; this is just a place to post what you think might have occurred. Once an idea is out there, it is ofcourse time to analyze it, but I think a certain gentleness should be used; ridiculing people's theories in a discussion tends to limit the debate as most people don't like being ridiculed.
Very well said Scott G.  I'm hopeful that the context of my most recent comment regarding the idea presented here is understood, but just in case I'd like to clarify...

I find the idea about the Pentagon firing defensive shots to be ridiculous, but I have the utmost respect for bee.  I meant no offense toward bee and if any was given I sincerely apologize.  I was merely addressing the idea on the table, not the person.

Cheers. :)


#112    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,736 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:23 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 27 December 2011 - 12:04 AM, said:

Very well said Scott G.  I'm hopeful that the context of my most recent comment regarding the idea presented here is understood, but just in case I'd like to clarify...

I find the idea about the Pentagon firing defensive shots to be ridiculous,


but....but.....why wouldn't they?

it's the military we're talking about here...not the Care Bears...



Quote

but I have the utmost respect for bee.  I meant no offense toward bee and if any was given I sincerely apologize.  I was merely addressing the idea on the table, not the person.

Cheers. :)


thankyou


:tu:


#113    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:36 AM

Response to Q24's Post #93, Part 1

View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

I think  your problem here is that you keep on assuming that any of the  eyewitnesses saw an impact at all. I notice that you didn't respond to  what I said following the above statement, namely my quote from a  previous post:
"Perhaps you're arguing that since they "saw" the  impact, that they  must  have therefore simply been "mistaken" as to the  location of  the  aircraft."

This is essentially your argument, isn't it? I assume that it is and proceed by saying:

Right now I am not intent on making any argument.

Not directly, no. But I think that what you include in Probst's witness "summary", which to me seems a clear case of cherry picking the points against him being an SoC witness, makes it rather clear.

View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

"What you don't seem to understand is that it's much  easier to be  misled concerning whether or not the pentaplane hit the pentagon,  due to the blinding flash at the time of the explosion there,  then it  is to  be misled as to whether the plane approached from the  North or  South  side of the Citgo gas station; especially if you were at  the gas  station  itself."

I admit I'm interested in knowing why you haven't responded to these points twice now.

I have not responded because: -

1)  It is moving away from what I would like to achieve here (see above). [above: "I am trying to compile a list of how you explain the eyewitnesses."]

How can you say that you're compiling a list of how I explain the eyewitnesses statements if you don't actually include my core points? Why not just say they're your cherry picked points from my statements and be done with it?

View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

2)  You are not going to convince me that the precise approach path was the predominant memory over the impact event itself.

Oh, I'm not saying it has to be within the meter of the actual approach path. But I think it'd be pretty obvious if a plane approached a gas station you were from one side of it or the other, don't you? And while you keep on saying that people have a memory of the "impact event itself", you've offered no hard evidence that such an event took place. Oh, I know that many witnesses -thought- that they saw the pentaplane impact the pentagon, but if you look at their statements, there's a lot of things that don't make sense. Here's one particular point that you might consider: this whole notion that the plane "bounced" off the ground before hitting the pentagon. I assume you agree that the plane would do no such thing; but have you considered that perhaps what happened is that the plane pulled up at the last moment? To those who couldn't see the bottom of the plane, it could certaily look like the plane had 'bounced' from the ground when in fact it had simply pulled up at the last moment.

View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

You are not going to convince me that eyewitnesses of your choosing can never mistake where the plane approached but that all without exception can be fooled into missing it fly away.

I'm not picking the witnesses here, you are. I never said that none of the witnesses could mistake where the plane approached; but some witnesses had much better vantage points then others; Lagasse, Brooks and Chadwick, all at the Citgo gas station, had an excellent vantage point to determine whether the pentaplane approached the pentagon North or South of the Citgo gas station, wouldn't you agree? As to being fooled into missing it flying away, if the pentagon erupted in explosions (if you look at the 5 frame video, you'll see that there were -2- large explosions, giving the pentaplane more time to make its exit without being noticed), blinding any onlookers with its bright flash, I think it's fairly reasonable that everyone, or nearly everyone, was fooled into thinking that the pentaplane did indeed crash into the pentagon. However, there are statements from various witnesses that suggest that it may not, in fact, have crashed into the pentagon. Probst says that the tail section "disappeared" into the explosion instead of the explosion being caused by the plane itself. Now I'm sure he'd agree that the plane did cause it but I think it's interesting that he'd put it that way. I remember the statement of a woman who said that one moment the plane was there and the next it had disappeared.. and how she couldn't explain it. It's almost as if she knew there was something fishy about the alleged crash but couldn't quite put her finger on what. And let's not forget Erik Dihle's statement in his interview for the Center for Military History, where he stated:
"We got up and ran outside, and the first few seconds, very confusing, we couldn't even tell, some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going and somebody else was yelling, no no no, a jet ran into the building"

Source:

Clearly it would be interesting to know who these people were, but even without knowing, it certainly suggests that some people -did- see the flyover. CIT actually mentions 3 other people, we'll get to that later I imagine.

View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

You are not going to convince me ever… so what's the point in arguing?

First of all, why are you so sure that you can't be convinced? Secondly, regardless of whether or not I convince you, this isn't a private conversation between you and me alone; there's an audience listening, and it's certainly possible that one or more of them could be persuaded one way or the other.


View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

I set out here only to summarise what, how and why you believe what you do of the eyewitnesses.

And I set out to tell you why I believe what I do of the eyewitnesses, though it seems I'm taking much to much time for your tastes :rolleyes:. To use the hare analogy once more, though in a somewhat different context, you seem to be like the rabbit in Alice in Wonderland; as my father would often paraphrase my mother (who always seemed to be rushing off somewhere), it seems that you feel that you're 'late late late for a very important date!' with the next witness. I, on the other hand, would rather sit back like the caterpillar and carefully analyze e information before proceeding to the next one.

View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

It fails to mention the points I mentioned earlier.

The summary is based on the points

So you say. What I don't understand is that if you're so interested in my points, you might consider letting me make them :lol:.

View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

it is not meant to detail each and every point, thus it is called a "summary".

I never went into detail. I even listed many of my points in point form to make it easy to add them to your list of my points. But apparently you'd rather have your "summary" which I find to be misleading and superficial.


#114    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:38 AM

Response to Q24's Post #93, Part 2

View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

So now I'm making dishonest complaints am I? Care to try to back up that assertion or are you just all talk?

I did, in my last post…

How do any of the points, "support [the] plane crash theory"?

The suggestion they do, is a dishonest complaint.

Q, Q, Q, whatever shall I do with you? Didn't you see the massive response I gave to that question of yours? Perhaps not. You support your theory by what you omit. Oh, I'm not saying that you omit things intentionally, but it can still be frustrating for those who are honestly trying to get things across to you. Here is my response to your question that, once again, you failed to respond to:

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

[Your points fail]  to mention the points I mentioned earlier. And by the way, as to your  point #3, I haven't said that I'm sure that ASCE adversely influenced  what Probst had to say, or misinterpreted some of what he did say, but I  strongly suspect that one or both of these things occurred. This being  said, I also found it highly interesting that it was ASCE who reported  that Probst described the pentaplane as going over the Navy Annex.

My  point regarding ASCE reporting that Probst stated that the pentaplane  went over the Navy Annex is, in my view, particularly important and yet  you think it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned. Here's my last  comments on that point, which you didn't respond to:

View PostScott G, on 26 December 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:

View PostQ24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

Scott G said:

I also think that the point of the Navy Annex a crucial one, one which your summation ignores entirely...

Personally I'd like to keep each summary as short as possible whilst incorporating everything you have said.  The Navy Annex point you raised for instance is not ignored but covered by the bolded text in this bullet: -

    •    His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.

Sorry Q, but I think that's pretty bad "coverage"; if the pentaplane flew over the Navy Annex, there's no need for interpretation; the plane couldn't possibly have lined up with the SoC damage trajectory. Now I know that you've stated your belief that he might have been mistaken in his belief that the plane flew over the Navy Annex. But this doesn't really help your viewpoint at all. The reason for this is that there are multiple people who have drawn the pentaplane's flight path over the Navy Annex, indicating an NoC flight path, but very few who have drawn an SoC flight path.


I've also noticed that you've skipped over many of my points regarding his testimony. I'll do a better job of summarizing my points, in the interests of being more concise. You can, ofcourse, opt to not add them to your list, but in that case, I think I'll make a list of my own regarding Probst as I would consider your list of Probst to only be superficial and unable to bear close scrutiny.


1- If the plane got to within 6 feet of his position as he claims, he should have  experienced a lot of turbulence; and yet, he makes no mention of any. This strongly suggests that the plane wasn't as close to him as he alleges. Given this fact, we must ask why he felt it was 6 feet from his position; could it be that he was told that this was the case?


2- He states that the  street lights were falling on both sides of where he  was but he doesn't  state that the plane had anything to do with it. Did he even see the light poles falling down, let alone the plane hitting them, or was he simply told that this is what happened and simply repeated what he was told?


3- He mentions that the 2 engines on the plane hit  short of the pentagon  "in this area out here".. and yet there are many  pictures clearly  demonstrating that the pentagon lawn was untouched. This brings to mind the point raised in the 5 minute video Pentagon Strike, which makes fun of the "amazing pentalawn" which allegedly repels massive Boeing engines without a scratch.


4- He mentions that immediately after the Boeing engines hit the Amazing Pentalawn ™, there was a "fireball right after" and his  remembering that the tail section dissapeared into the fireball. Now  here's the thing; he doesn't  actually say that he witnessed the plane  crashing into the pentagon,  only that he saw the tail dissapearing into  a fireball; but if the  explosion was timed to coincide with the  pentaplane's going over the  pentagon, this is what you would see.

I don't think that my points above are too detailed, but perhaps for people who can't spare the time to properly analyze the information, you may be correct. However, seeing as how I want to discuss this issue with people who -do- want to properly analyze the information, this doesn't faze me.

View PostQ24, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

Anything but actually address eyewitnesses like Rodney Washington…

My methods are somewhat different than Balsamo's, but on one thing we agree; if we're going to discuss the pentaplane eyewitnesses, I want to do it -right-, not superficially. I'm not going to let you off the hook just because you want to get on to the next witness.

Edited by Scott G, 27 December 2011 - 12:50 AM.


#115    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:46 AM

View Postbee, on 27 December 2011 - 12:23 AM, said:

but....but.....why wouldn't they?

it's the military we're talking about here...not the Care Bears...
Bee, there was nobody to shoot at.  The bad guys were dead as soon as the plane impacted the building.  And yes, the plane did impact the building.  The evidence for this is overwhelming.



View Postbee, on 27 December 2011 - 12:23 AM, said:

thankyou


:tu:
You're welcome. :)


#116    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:52 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 27 December 2011 - 12:46 AM, said:

View Postbee, on 27 December 2011 - 12:23 AM, said:

but....but.....why wouldn't they?

Bee, there was nobody to shoot at.  The bad guys were dead as soon as the plane impacted the building.  And yes, the plane did impact the building.  The evidence for this is overwhelming.

How about you list this alleged evidence over in the 9/11 planes and pentagon attack thread? I'd like to see it :-p.


#117    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,620 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:57 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 27 December 2011 - 12:46 AM, said:

Bee, there was nobody to shoot at.  The bad guys were dead as soon as the plane impacted the building.  And yes, the plane did impact the building.  The evidence for this is overwhelming.

There's also the distinct lack of evidence of any kind of defensive weapon installations on-site at the Pentagon that could shoot at anything, but hey, lets not let that get in the way of a good story... ;)




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#118    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,736 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:02 AM

View PostScott G, on 27 December 2011 - 12:36 AM, said:

So you say. What I don't understand is that if you're so interested in my points, you might consider letting me make them :lol:.


bingo !!!


:)


#119    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,736 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:06 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 27 December 2011 - 12:46 AM, said:

Bee, there was nobody to shoot at.  


are you saying that they allowed the plane to impact the building?


View PostCzero 101, on 27 December 2011 - 12:57 AM, said:

There's also the distinct lack of evidence of any kind of defensive weapon installations on-site at the Pentagon that could shoot at anything, but hey, lets not let that get in the way of a good story... ;)


no.....let's not

let's pretend that the Pentagon is wide open for attack....any time...any day...for anyone with a grievance


shall we

Edited by bee, 27 December 2011 - 01:08 AM.


#120    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:11 AM

View PostScott G, on 27 December 2011 - 12:52 AM, said:

How about you list this alleged evidence over in the 9/11 planes and pentagon attack thread? I'd like to see it :-p.
There are lists of this evidence all over the internet Scott.  You know it as well as I do.  You don't accept the evidence, and that's fine with me.  It is what it is, but I'm not going to be dragged into the tedium of arguing this point with you; Especially when you can't even acknowledge the very simple and indisputable facts that I've laid out in my blog and the other thread regarding the ACARS CONFIRMS mythology.  Do you honestly expect me to do so when you ignore those core points and engage me with your attempted rebuttals by myopically analyzing points from my blog that are clarified later in the blog?

Give me a break.

Seriously Scott, just accept the compliment I gave you a few posts ago and move on with your ill-placed arguments with Q24 here.  Eventually I hope that you'll actually start listing out your contentions with the other Pentagon witnesses who saw the plane impact the building so that I can exercise my neck with more head shaking.

I look like a combination between this -->  :no:  <-- and this -->  :lol:  <--  when I'm reading your excuses about these witnesses.

I'll tell you what though...  If you can acknowledge that the ACARS CONFIRMS mythology is a bunch of nonsense, I'll consider tracking down and posting the evidence that we're both already familiar with.

Cheers.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users