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

#136    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 27 December 2011 - 08:08 PM

View PostScott G, on 27 December 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

To hear is not necessarily to understand. Which is why I've been repeating certain things in various ways to try to get you to -understand- what I'm saying.
Unless I ask for clarification, you can take it as a given that I understand where you are coming from.  I have read all of your posts in this thread multiple times, there is nothing I’ve missed.  If I don’t respond to a particular point it is likely because I think your reasoning is irrelevant or flawed and I don’t want to spend a dozen posts arguing about it to get nowhere – that doesn’t get through the exercise I’m attempting here.

I’ll try more to indicate to you that I’ve understood and how I’ve accounted for each point in the summary.


View PostScott G, on 27 December 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

Is this what you meant all along? Words can certainly confuse, especially when enough aren't used for clarification; I had thought that you'd meant only the last one; our interpretation.
I guess I was referring to all interpretation including our own.  I’ll get onto that below…


View PostScott G, on 27 December 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

B.
This is an example of why we will never agree on the eyewitness testimony.

I would answer that a path could follow A, B or C and an eyewitness might describe it as “over the Navy Annex”.

In fact, we could place an arrow anywhere in the sky in that particular image and I would not be at all surprised for an eyewitness to describe it as “over the Navy Annex”.  It is the biggest building in the area; the obvious reference point.

Here are the three areas where Probst interprets the event: -

  • Probst might have observed the plane at ‘A’ but perceived it was headed across his view of the Navy Annex (if you extend that arrow it is moving from left to right across the image).  When he makes that split second observation, his obvious interpretation might be, “over the Navy Annex”.

  • Probst might have observed the plane at ‘A’ but, when he later recalls it, the memory is not precise (not many have photographic memories).   But he does know that the plane came from somewhere above and in direction of the Navy Annex.  Again the obvious interpretation he might provide is, “over the Navy Annex”.

  • Probst might have observed the plane at ‘A’ but, even if his memory were unusually perfect, he’s not likely to put it in words, “It came kinda over the Navy Annex but a bit more to the left over that non-descript building just the other side of Columbia Pike.”  Once more the obvious interpretation he gives might be simply, “over the Navy Annex”.

Then we read his comment, “over the Navy Annex” - how should we interpret it?

We could be inflexible about it, take it to the letter, fail to account for nuances of the human memory described above.  In which case, we would have to say Probst saw the plane at ‘B’ (that is the arrow literally “over the Navy Annex” which you picked out).

Of course then, we’d be wrong…

As noted, the plane came from ‘A’ in each example above (ok Scott, calm down, it‘s only theory to get the point across).  Probst’s observation, recollection and communication of the event, along with our own interpretation of his statement has led us away from this correct answer.

Do you see why I will never agree with you that the plane was at ‘B’ based on an eyewitness claim of “over the Navy Annex”?

This is just one of many fundamental differences we have in our treatment of the eyewitness testimony.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#137    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,732 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 27 December 2011 - 08:45 PM

View PostQ24, on 14 December 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

Eyewitness two: Don Mason

Again from the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Study team: -

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.

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



The alleged witnessing of the 'small explosion' as the portable generator was struck by 'the right wing'....


At the moment I'm working on the theory that a truck laden with explosives was driven fast into the building
and that the truck was fired on by some kind of Ground Defence.

I think that the Pentagon wasn't evacuated because there was confidence that nothing was going to get to it
from the air...that that was covered.

But that a truck...maybe connected with the renovation work was in the vacinity and primed for attack..

That when the truck drove at speed toward the building...it was fired upon.

I'm wondering if the portable generator was clipped by some kind of smallish missile as it was firing on the truck?
And that Mason was required to include the explosion/generator bit in his testimony to cover the fact that the
generator was obviously damaged?


I was looking at this link today and there are a couple of pictures that could flesh out this speculation



http://www.serendipi...n/spencer05.htm


Posted Image

Three distinct exit holes in C Ring


and


Posted Image


Possible flight paths of three missiles hitting the Pentagon


THREE exit holes is new to me and I am wondering if a truck was indeed fired upon and maybe hit?
But that the main damage done to the Pentagon was from the missiles, used in a defensive manner?

And as lots of people died and were injured in the Pentagon...this is a strong motive to cover up
what could be looked on as an excessive and botched? military maneuver....so it could have made sense
at the time..in the chaos of the day to, in essence, kill two birds with one stone and do a mock up
of a Boeing Airliner at the scene....which would also cover up Flight 77 being taken over the Atlantic
and shot down...


Oh...and with the pictures above....the one of the 3 missile paths...would one of those paths involve
the portable generator maybe being clipped?


.


#138    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 27 December 2011 - 09:18 PM

View Postbee, on 27 December 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

Oh...and with the pictures above....the one of the 3 missile paths...would one of those paths involve
the portable generator maybe being clipped?
Well gosh, I think you figured it out – missile path #1 passes the generator!    :w00t:

Then add this quote from eyewitness Mike Walter: -
"It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon"

There – you have a fully working theory!

Run along now…   :lol:

On a serious note, I’m not aware of three holes in the C-ring.  If the photograph you provided is genuine and shows additional holes, these may have been created during the site clean-up to assist access and removal of the wreckage.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#139    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,141 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 27 December 2011 - 09:45 PM

View Postbee, on 27 December 2011 - 08:06 PM, said:

And Command Centre
The bunkers buried deep underground at the Pentagon maybe.  I doubt there is much more than administrative offices above ground.  Of course there's also a bigger command center at Cheyenne Mountain.

View Postbee, on 27 December 2011 - 08:06 PM, said:

Again...I don't believe that the Pentagon would be undefended...especially as America was under attack.
It doesn't matter what you believe.  It matters what you can prove.

View Postbee, on 27 December 2011 - 08:06 PM, said:

What you say about 'thousands of people' flying over the Pentagon everyday...is this true?

I read somewhere that previous to 9/11 there was a small private aircraft flown into the side of the building
and that after that...ONLY military were allowed to fly over the building and in the Pentagon Airspace?
What part of in the landing path for a major international airport do you not understand?  I have heard nothing about only military being allowed to fly over it.  I've seen plenty of evidence otherwise.  There is no restricted or prohibited airspace over the Pentagon and the airport is still there and still busy.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#140    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,732 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:52 PM

View PostQ24, on 27 December 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

On a serious note, I’m not aware of three holes in the C-ring.  If the photograph you provided is genuine and shows additional holes, these may have been created during the site clean-up to assist access and removal of the wreckage.


underlined...clutching a straws there.... Q24... :)


This is what I've found out about the three exit holes, so far


http://www.frederick...?storyID=130443

Quote

According to a graphic provided by the Pentagon and published by The Washington Post shortly after 9/11, there were three very similar "exit" holes in the C Ring. These three holes can be seen in an aerial photograph of the C Ring available on the Internet.


what is most telling about the 'three exit holes' is how this part of the Pentagon puzzle has been quietly dropped

and emphasis is always put on there being that ONE exit hole.


These are the kind of clues we have to look for...like WHY it has been quietly dropped/ignored.


The Pentagon and Flight 77.....is as I said before the achilles heel of the Official Account and

and any Inside Job theory that supports the Official Account regarding this part of 9/11.


The great revealer..... ;)


.


#141    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,141 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 28 December 2011 - 10:28 PM

View Postbee, on 27 December 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

The alleged witnessing of the 'small explosion' as the portable generator was struck by 'the right wing'....


At the moment I'm working on the theory that a truck laden with explosives was driven fast into the building
and that the truck was fired on by some kind of Ground Defence.

I think that the Pentagon wasn't evacuated because there was confidence that nothing was going to get to it
from the air...that that was covered.

But that a truck...maybe connected with the renovation work was in the vacinity and primed for attack..

That when the truck drove at speed toward the building...it was fired upon.

I'm wondering if the portable generator was clipped by some kind of smallish missile as it was firing on the truck?
And that Mason was required to include the explosion/generator bit in his testimony to cover the fact that the
generator was obviously damaged?


I was looking at this link today and there are a couple of pictures that could flesh out this speculation



http://www.serendipi...n/spencer05.htm


Posted Image

Three distinct exit holes in C Ring


and


Posted Image


Possible flight paths of three missiles hitting the Pentagon


THREE exit holes is new to me and I am wondering if a truck was indeed fired upon and maybe hit?
But that the main damage done to the Pentagon was from the missiles, used in a defensive manner?

And as lots of people died and were injured in the Pentagon...this is a strong motive to cover up
what could be looked on as an excessive and botched? military maneuver....so it could have made sense
at the time..in the chaos of the day to, in essence, kill two birds with one stone and do a mock up
of a Boeing Airliner at the scene....which would also cover up Flight 77 being taken over the Atlantic
and shot down...


Oh...and with the pictures above....the one of the 3 missile paths...would one of those paths involve
the portable generator maybe being clipped?


.
From the aerial photo You can't tell whether they are holes, doors, or windows.  Is that the only "evidence" for three holes?

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#142    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:02 AM

View Postfrenat, on 28 December 2011 - 10:28 PM, said:

From the aerial photo You can't tell whether they are holes, doors, or windows.  Is that the only "evidence" for three holes?
These would also be consistant with the main body of the plane and the two external engines, which are extremely heavy.

View Postbee, on 23 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

smelt cordite at 1:54)....to cover up the embarassment and to explain what happened to flight 77...which (according to my theory)
This made me think of the TV Show Hell's Kitchen with Gordon Ramsey. The other day he had a taste test for the 6 chefs left in the competition. Of 4 totally normal foods, like pork, mashed potatos, salmon, carrots and mayonaise... only one chef got 4 for 4 and 2 of them got 0 for 4. My point? That someone smelling something is not good evidence the human mind plays too many tricks on itself. Especially in times of great fatigue or stress.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#143    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:06 AM

I have not been able to keep up with this whole discussion, but I did see that people are still saying the plane would have picked people and cars up and tossed them into the air.

I found this article that says otherwise.
http://www.prisonpla...506flight77.htm

The article has pics of jetliners landing and passing no more then 30 feet above the heads of vacationers on a beach, yet no one is tossed anywhere and the sand is not even disturbed.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#144    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,732 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 29 December 2011 - 10:51 AM

View Postfrenat, on 28 December 2011 - 10:28 PM, said:

From the aerial photo You can't tell whether they are holes, doors, or windows.  Is that the only "evidence" for three holes?

at the moment I don't know...but I would love to see the "graphic provided by the Pentagon and published by the
Washington Post shortly after 9/11"
....see my previous post #140.

which I can't find...but that doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that all the Inside Job supporters who
subscribe to the Missile Theory aren't all over the 'three exit holes'. You would have thought they would be.
But this is how clues are gathered. Part of my own theory about 9/11 is that the Inside Job Conspiracy theory is itself
conspiracy based....encouraged and lead by PSYOPS and catching genuine 'truthseekers' in it's net. To steer away from what
really might have happened. A smoke screen? And a VERY successful one at that. As you are no doubt aware, no-one has to
lose any sleep about what I am saying... :) ...a lone voice in the wilderness will not shake the scene that has been set...
IN CONCRETE with the supporters of the Official Account on one side and the Supporters of the Inside Job theory on the other.


.


#145    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,732 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:05 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 29 December 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

These would also be consistant with the main body of the plane and the two external engines, which are extremely heavy.


ok...at least you are considering that there could be three exit holes...but I don't think your idea really holds water
as there is that substantial dividing wall/block that probably wouldn't have allowed the left engine to penetrate in
such a neatly positioned manner? And wouldn't we have been given photos of engine parts in these positions? by the holes.


#146    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,732 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:40 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 29 December 2011 - 01:06 AM, said:

I have not been able to keep up with this whole discussion, but I did see that people are still saying the plane would have picked people and cars up and tossed them into the air.

I found this article that says otherwise.
http://www.prisonpla...506flight77.htm



actually it doesn't really...quote from your link


Quote

The scope of this short article is to raise questions, not debunk either side of the argument.


and I seriously do not know what to make of those pics of extremely low flying planes...but my gut reaction is BS.
(in regard to no wake turbulence.)

In fact this is a quote from the article that is bang on topic re the witness testimony of Mason  (and would also apply to Probst)


Quote

One eyewitness claims that the object that hit the Pentagon was just six feet off the ground as it clipped a generator and even a car antenna before impacting on the building. In this instance one would surely expect the wake turbulence to have some affect and photographs do show the damaged generator immediately in front of the building.


I am interested that the article comes from 'Prison Planet'....as I have my eye on Alex Jones as to whether he is
a media 'plant' or not. On balance I would go with my instincts and say he WAS...
I could never understand how he managed to slip into Bohemian Grove undetected and was able to be part of filming a ceremony... :unsure2:


this video has recently done the rounds of Jones having a dry cry breakdown.....

I, personally am not convinced that the 'breakdown' was genuine....relevant section begins at 2:50







and back to the question of wake turbulence.....a couple of links for anyone who's interested

http://www.pilotfrie...y/wake_turb.htm

https://docs.google....6lUM4YXAFmCaExA


also...on the piss poor cctv release of the airliner, supposedly heading for and impacting the Pentagon....
the main focus is the swirling white smoke? that presumably is illustrating turbulence...but there wasn't supposed
to be any/enough turbulence to affect Probst and Mason's fairly detailed testimony.
So the Official Account is kind of shooting itself in the foot with that.


.


#147    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 31 December 2011 - 06:08 AM

View Postbee, on 29 December 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

ok...at least you are considering that there could be three exit holes...but I don't think your idea really holds water
as there is that substantial dividing wall/block that probably wouldn't have allowed the left engine to penetrate in
such a neatly positioned manner? And wouldn't we have been given photos of engine parts in these positions? by the holes.
Wouldn't the same walls and posts prevent a missile from achieving the same penetration? Engines also are a lot more solid then a missile would be, thus they can bounce around somewhat.

I think engines making exit holes is much more likely then missiles.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#148    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 31 December 2011 - 06:33 AM

View Postbee, on 29 December 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

and I seriously do not know what to make of those pics of extremely low flying planes...but my gut reaction is BS.
(in regard to no wake turbulence.)
They seem real enough to me. A quick google search shows that these low landing planes are famous at St Martin.

Quote

http://forum.sbrforu...st-maarten.html

Some pics on that link show blowing sand, but I think that they show hurricane winds, and not airplane landing winds, but the site (A blog) is not really clear on that.


I've seen people sitting on the hoods or tailgates of their cars/trucks at the end of runways, where jetliners were landing 25 to 30 feet overhead, and they never get lifted and tossed anywhere. A plane very likely has to pass within ten feet to really get the turbulence to have an effect. Just like with a semi-truck. If you are within 5 feet of one going by at high speed there is significant turbulence, but if you are like 10 feet away, you feel barely any at all.

Another thing. I've known many paratroopers in the Army and they said basically if you got more then five feet out, you were good. That is why they jump rather then just falling out. True, they are flying a lot slower, but the aerodynamics of the sitations are the same. The turbulance does not reach out the further with increased speed, AFAIK.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#149    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 31 December 2011 - 09:01 AM

DieChecker, I admire your patience, but you are trying to present logic, rationality, critical thinking and facts to someone who is completely unfamiliar with such things.




Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 31 December 2011 - 09:07 AM.

"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

#150    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,732 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 31 December 2011 - 12:00 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 31 December 2011 - 06:08 AM, said:

Wouldn't the same walls and posts prevent a missile from achieving the same penetration? Engines also are a lot more solid then a missile would be, thus they can bounce around somewhat.

I think engines making exit holes is much more likely then missiles.


you are entitled to your opinion...but I would say that missiles are designed and equipped to penetrate

and that an airliner engine is not. (bouncing or otherwise)




View PostDieChecker, on 31 December 2011 - 06:33 AM, said:

They seem real enough to me. A quick google search shows that these low landing planes are famous at St Martin.

http://forum.sbrforu...st-maarten.html

Some pics on that link show blowing sand, but I think that they show hurricane winds, and not airplane landing winds, but the site (A blog) is not really clear on that.


There is one pic of the hurricane...which is VERY different from the ones of the sand being whipped up and people bracing themselves
and hanging on to fences.


And....from your link


Quote

People standing on the beach may also be blown into the water because of the jet blast from aircraft taking off from runway 10. The beach can also experience large waves which makes it popular with windsurfers and skimboarders. The local government warns that closely approaching and departing aircraft can “result in serious injury and/or death.” An additional fence has been added recently behind runway 10 to prevent irresponsible tourists from hanging on to the main fence surrounding the runway to be “blasted” by the aircraft engines’ flow.






View PostCzero 101, on 31 December 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

DieChecker, I admire your patience, but you are trying to present logic, rationality, critical thinking and facts to someone who is completely unfamiliar with such things.


gossiping about me again..... :rolleyes:


.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users