Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Q24

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

1,812 posts in this topic

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…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.”

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing that video, bee I hadnt 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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: -

4da4b.jpg

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…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=841

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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) :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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) :tu:

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)... :tu:

(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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :tu:

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)... :tu:

(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...?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

¨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.

SeanBogersPOV.jpg

¨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.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...02/feature3.asp

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

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:

pent_lawn_impeccable.jpg

pent04.jpg

The heliport area:

db_Confetti12.jpg

db_Confetti22.jpg

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

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:

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

probstandmason.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

4da4b.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.