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

--

Probst must have repositioned his body and turned his head round in super-fast time, don't you think?

What makes you think that? If he hit the deck, straight down, as it was coming at him, all he need do is turn to look toward the building as the aircraft flew over him to see everything that he reported seeing. You can do that with your hands held protectively around your head you know. Would you close your eyes in a situation like that? I sure wouldn't.

If you saw a fireball come out of the building at you after the impact, wouldn't you get your ass up and run? I sure would...

I don't see any inconsistencies in his testimony and I don't see anything about what he described that doesn't match with common sense.

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?

I agree with your sentiment.

full.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 are telling the same story...

Here's something that I don't think even oneslice noticed, but I certainly did. From ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report, near the top of page 13:

"As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him."

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

Now as far as I know, there's only one Annex it could have been "flying low" over. The same Annex that Ed Paik, Terry Morin and others all placed it over; the Navy Annex. There's only one problem with this from an official story point of view; it's incompatible with the official story's SoC flight path, as demonstrated by work from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

"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?

Because the plane never crashed into the Pentagon or any light poles; it flew over it all.

The witnesses agree that the plane impacted the building, there is no escaping that part of the testimony.

Apparently not all of them, atleast initially. There was actually one story of a disagreement between people who felt that the plane had "kept on going" and someone else who insisted that it had crashed into the pentagon. It's a shame that we only know who reported this, instead of knowing who the individuals involved in this disagreement were. As to those who have always stated that the pentagon crashed into the pentagon, most if not all of them were interviewed well after the official story regarding what happened had taken shape. As one of my favourite movies states:

"Memory's unreliable.... Memory's not perfect, it's not even that good. Ask the police. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. The cops don't catch a killer by sitting around remembering stuff. They collect facts and draw conclusions. Facts, not memories. That's how you investigate. I know, it's what I used to do. Memory can change the shape of a room, it can change the colour of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're an interpretation, not a record. And they're irrelevant if you have the facts."

This is why CIT took the time to take the testimony of many witnesses and determined that the witnesses whose testimonies corroborated each other the most were the witnesses whose testimony was the most accurate. It's also easy to see how people could be fooled into thinking that a plane that headed towards the pentagon, followed by an explosion at the pentagon, could be interpreted as the plane could have hit the pentagon, especially considering that the pentagon's location is at the bottom of a hill, so that the plane could actually sink down a bit as it went and add to the effect that it hit the pentagon. But it's much harder to fool people as to what flight path the plane took in getting there. This is probably why the official story has wavered since its insertion as to what flight path the plane took, with the NTSB's video actually taking it on a more NoC type of approach. For people who don't pay attention to details, they may not have even noticed this, but the fact of the matter is that the official story can't have it both ways; assuming that the official story's revised version of the pentaplane's flight path is more accurate, either the SoC damage was faked and the plane that hit the pentagon left no indication of its true damage trajectory (or was somehow covered up), or the actual plane flew over the pentagon.

Isn't it more likely that any apparent contradiction that you and onesliceshort seem to find is just a misinterpretation on your parts?

Not by a long shot B)

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :)

Shot down? That is a new one... I think these 100 or more people dont have a damn clue what they saw...

They dont even know what happened in Vietnam or Iraq...Or even worse most dont know what Al queda is... So my theory is that maybe abit bigger drone crashed in there or a small plane could do, but it wasn't bigtime jet airliner...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

:tu:

What makes you think that? If he hit the deck, straight down, as it was coming at him, all he need do is turn to look toward the building as the aircraft flew over him to see everything that he reported seeing. You can do that with your hands held protectively around your head you know. Would you close your eyes in a situation like that? I sure wouldn't.

actually if there was an airliner going 6 foot over my head and a big explosion...I would keep my eyes shut,

for a few seconds at least, as I wouldn't want to risk my eyes being damaged...or being blinded.

If you saw a fireball come out of the building at you after the impact, wouldn't you get your ass up and run? I sure would...

I wouldn't expect that I could out-run a fireball, so I would probably curl up, eyes shut, and hope for the best.

I don't see any inconsistencies in his testimony and I don't see anything about what he described that doesn't match with common sense.

on this, then, we must disagree.

there also seems to be some descrepency about the height of the airliner/that ariel on the car/and the pole damage 'evidence'

http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm

In the early report, the suggestion that the altitude of the plane was low enough to pass 6 feet away from Probst, and low enough to be trimming the antenna of an automobile on the road, is certainly wrong. The light pole evidence seems to indicate an altitude closer to 30 feet. An altitude of 30 feet might also explain why the automobiles were not tossed by wake turbulence, and why Probst was able to survive the jet blast.

*****************************************************************************

to anyone who might be vaguely interested.... :)

I do not think that 9/11 was an inside job but I do think that there is a cover up about a lot of it.

My belief is that flights 77 was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and shot down. And that this

was done for defensive reasons. But because this would have been a devastating admission to make

( + the same for flight 93) for political reasons it was decided not to tell the public....or the watching world.

I am unsure what happened at the Pentagon...but I don't think that anything that

wasn't US military would have be allowed anywhere near it....?

The helicopter that was seen circling the Pentagon and going down to the helipad just before the explosion

might have shot a missile into the building? At one time I was thinking that this might have been done

by the US military....and then crash debris placed at the scene. But now I'm thinking that maybe there

was a rouge helicopter pilot....perhaps a Militant Islamist under deep cover...and they did it?

And it was decided to place airliner debris at the scene....to save the embarassment of the missile attack

and at the same time account for flight 77....... just a thought.

And more on topic....the 'eye witnesses' to the flight 77 'crash'.....would probably already be under some

kind of secrecy oath.....and would know what really happened, (but would never spill the beans)....and would be willing

to make up their testimony.....as their patriotic duty ???

I know...it all gets a bit complicated...but not half as complicated as the insanely complicated Inside Job theory.

but I do think what I've said could explain the descrepancies that crop up with it all?

the reason that I don't think I'm doing any harm putting my ideas forward is because the whole 9/11 thing

has become so corrosive that if and I'm only saying IF I'm right...then it might help to lessen the

psychologically corrosive situation.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--

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..?

Um... bee? Did you listen to the whole commentary in that video? Or did you just quote that tiny little sentence there and ignore the rest of it? Do you realize that when he said that particular part he was explaining that he didn't see any evidence that the plane had impacted short of the building? Give it another watch, and pay attention to the whole thing. This video doesn't support your conclusion at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... bee? Did you listen to the whole commentary in that video? Or did you just quote that tiny little sentence there and ignore the rest of it? Do you realize that when he said that particular part he was explaining that he didn't see any evidence that the plane had impacted short of the building? Give it another watch, and pay attention to the whole thing. This video doesn't support your conclusion at all.

ok....I did listen to it all before posting...and I only shortened the quote for convenience.

I promise you I wasn't being crafty. I have listened to it a couple of more times...and I do take your point

about the way he used the word 'near'.....the sentence ' you know it might have appeared that way but from my close up

inspection - there's no evidence of a plane having crashed any where near the Pentagon"...could be taken two ways?

Although in context with the question he was asked , you are right.

I stand corrected on that. Thanks.

:)

Do you want to tackle the other video I posted sometime?

I was only going to post that one originally...as I have used it before, then saw the one we are

talking about, but didn't give it enough close attention before posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok....I did listen to it all before posting...and I only shortened the quote for convenience.

I promise you I wasn't being crafty. I have listened to it a couple of more times...and I do take your point

about the way he used the word 'near'.....the sentence ' you know it might have appeared that way but from my close up

inspection - there's no evidence of a plane having crashed any where near the Pentagon"...could be taken two ways?

Although in context with the question he was asked , you are right.

I stand corrected on that. Thanks.

:)

No problem. :)

Do you want to tackle the other video I posted sometime?

I was only going to post that one originally...as I have used it before, then saw the one we are

talking about, but didn't give it enough close attention before posting.

Yeah, I wanted to comment on that one too but I had to get out the door.

Notice that the reporter who is talking about interviewing evacuees isn't on the side of the building which was impacted, and is trying to make his way around the building to get a better view of the damage. It is reasonable to assume that the person he talked to who had been outside, was likewise not on the side of the building that was impacted. Considering how low the plane was, it isn't hard to surmise that his view of the plane would be obstructed by the building itself.

I don't have a comment about his mention of the helicopter at this point, but I'll look into that aspect later. One thing that does stand out markedly from this interview is that there is absolutely no mention of a plane flying over the Pentagon... I realize that you don't necessarily subscribe to the fly-over theory, but others in the thread do.

I wonder if those who do subscribe to this theory can explain why nobody on the other side of the Pentagon, including the chap referred to by this reporter, seem to mention an airplane flying over the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if those who do subscribe to [the flyover theory] can explain why nobody on the other side of the Pentagon, including the chap referred to by this reporter, seem to mention an airplane flying over the building.

Quoting what a board friend of mine in another forum said a long time ago on the subject. Not sure that "lots of people" would have seen it fly away, but I think that atleast some might have...

************************

Of course lots of people would have seen the plane fly away. But there were stories circulated in the press with none other than Keith Wheelhouse as the source claiming (in contradiction with eye witness testimony, the pilot's testimony, photographic AND video evidence and even refuted by the also-false official RADES data) that the C-130 flew directly over the attack jet but flew away before the plane hit.

Anybody who saw the plane flying away who did not see its approach (which would be the "hundreds" of witneses Brian referred to) would not naturally assume they had seen a conspiracy on their governments part but would write it off as that second plane. Most of those who did see the plane approach would be running away, ducking and covering, diving to the floor or under automobiles at the point it flew over and so would miss. Anyone who did see the whole thing (from Erik Dihle's testimony we can assume there were some) might convince themselves they had been watching the second plane (after all the attack jet was so low it even hit light poles - the plane they saw was much higher) and those not buying it would hardly speak out without any proof to back them up, not knowing what they now knew about their governmnet's willingness to murder.

The cover story of the second plane neutralised the flyover...

************************

Source: http://www.911oz.com...383&postcount=6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how many people reported witnessing the plane impact the building, the excuse you're quoting sounds pretty lame to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Scott G! If this are actual "crash" site photos than there is your smoking gun... No plane parts not even an engine ( which is made from stronger materials which can stay intact in high temperatures )... And above all this looks like an explosion site not a plane crash... amazing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay…

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.

As you ask… the whole thing is flawed. From the idea that someone diving to the ground cannot see anything, to the testimony of Probst supposedly contradicting Mason, to borderline allegations against the ASCE, and more. It’s all twaddle. But as I said, I’m not really out to argue the case. I would just like to catalogue the reasons for discounting such witnesses.

So the core reasons to discount Probst would be: -

  • 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.
  • The ASCE persuaded Probst this is what he saw.

This naturally leads to…

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.

Here we have the ASCE claim that Mason also saw the generator hit and tail of the plane disappear into the building.

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

The reasons for discounting Mason have already been provided in your previous link: -

  • He did not witness the plane hit the generator and impact the Pentagon as he claimed.
  • The ASCE persuaded Mason this is what he saw.

This is slightly different to Probst because there was no diving to the floor which may have caused Mason to miss the event.

So I must confirm – are we calling Mason a fantasist, liar, collaborator or… what?

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?

Ok where did you learned that? I think its false, and on the photos of scott G there is absolutely no plane parts. Those bodies were a fiction and that is a fact. You have a paradox here... IF bodies were found, how is that even remotly possible if there are no plane parts???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok where did you learned that? I think its false, and on the photos of scott G there is absolutely no plane parts. Those bodies were a fiction and that is a fact. You have a paradox here... IF bodies were found, how is that even remotly possible if there are no plane parts???

Please see for pictures of aircraft parts at Pentagon: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=180137&st=90&p=3380928&hl=wheel&fromsearch=1entry3380928

Please see for details of passenger DNA identification: -

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/223/1/7.full?vol=223&fp=7&view=full

Identity of the aircraft and custody chain of DNA samples are perhaps another issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Airliner was so low over Probst...wouldn't he have got whooshed up in the air with the turbulence?

Also...I just can't believe that...when America was under attack from a, then, unknown 'enemy'....that everything

would just be carrying on as normal at the Defence Headquarters, a potential prime target.

Probst claims he left the trailer where he was watching the two towers in New York burning away...to go off

to a meeting!

Now....all over the world...myself included..people were glued to the TV watching in disbelief as the events of

day unfolded...but Probst...at the US Defence Headquarters was off to a meeting. It doesn't make sense.

Something else I hadn't realised before was that traffic was at a standstill due to an 'accident'....mmmmmmmmmm

More likely was that the traffic in the whole immediate area was stopped....because they just didn't know what was

coming next. Car bombs? Lorries with bombs in?

So this would say that the Defence headquarters was on red alert....and if it wasn't then that beggars belief.

But no.....Probst had a meeting to go to and off he went.....then....whoops.... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see for pictures of aircraft parts at Pentagon: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=180137&st=90&p=3380928&hl=wheel&fromsearch=1entry3380928

Please see for details of passenger DNA identification: -

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/223/1/7.full?vol=223&fp=7&view=full

Identity of the aircraft and custody chain of DNA samples are perhaps another issue.

Not to mention the videos... one video in particular clearly shows an aircraft. (I'm confident that you're aware of this Q24, but others may not be.)

Google search this text to find the video from 911datasets.org:

11094135.AVI

The link is currently unavailable, but I downloaded this a while back and here is a direct link:

http://911datasets.org/index.php/SFile:AU3CFG5UCX6NOIA6VYOMJWMXLPMBPS2P

Hopefully it becomes available soon. The file isn't very big, though the whole bit torrent was pretty large.

I'll upload two screen shots from that video, one from right before the airplane enters the frame and one from when it does enter the frame. I haven't seen any good YouTube videos of this because the compression ruins what meager quality is there in the first place. But if you get the original and view it on your own computer it is quite clear.

post-105506-0-04278300-1323927395_thumb.

post-105506-0-45061300-1323927417_thumb.

Save these images to the same folder and use any picture viewer to switch between the two and see how obvious the aircraft is. Then compare it to actual images of AA77 available from airliners.net from before 911. In particular, I found these two to be good comparisons:

compare 1

compare 2

I'm honestly surprised that there is anyone left on the planet who still thinks that there is any chance at all that an aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon on 911.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see for pictures of aircraft parts at Pentagon: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=180137&st=90&p=3380928&hl=wheel&fromsearch=1entry3380928

Please see for details of passenger DNA identification: -

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/223/1/7.full?vol=223&fp=7&view=full

Identity of the aircraft and custody chain of DNA samples are perhaps another issue.

Sorry i don't believe it, looks pretty weird and why is every second photo different in perspective? Looks like old photos to me not from 10 years, And still the crash had imense temperatures how did they found "bodies"??? I mean i understand if they found teeths but still i am very sceptical about this..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/url]

I'm honestly surprised that there is anyone left on the planet who still thinks that there is any chance at all that an aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon on 911.

This is hilarious you are showing the people the only 2 ONLY 2 photos every released from FBI. So tell me there are loads of security cameras around the pentagon iteself and building around it, and not a single footage was EVER released... I once talked to a guy who was trying to get a footage from a gas station nearby...he had no luck what so ever. So what is military hiding? Ow and those photos and videos can be faked easily especially because this are only 2 "evidence" released to public.. i dont believe a single photo or video released by military or any other branch of same kind. And i watched TV and direct transmission on CNN, you know what, the news about pentagon crash was like " Wait a minute there is more, an explosion happened at pentagon" and camera shows a side of pentagon in flames, no AIRCRAFT PARTS, even reporter doubt it was a plane. Ow and i found this that will make you think before believing every offical word, more like a LIE. What about helicopter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is hilarious you are showing the people the only 2 ONLY 2 photos every released from FBI. So tell me there are loads of security cameras around the pentagon iteself and building around it, and not a single footage was EVER released... I once talked to a guy who was trying to get a footage from a gas station nearby...he had no luck what so ever. So what is military hiding? Ow and those photos and videos can be faked easily especially because this are only 2 "evidence" released to public.. i dont believe a single photo or video released by military or any other branch of same kind. And i watched TV and direct transmission on CNN, you know what, the news about pentagon crash was like " Wait a minute there is more, an explosion happened at pentagon" and camera shows a side of pentagon in flames, no AIRCRAFT PARTS, even reporter doubt it was a plane. Ow and i found this that will make you think before believing every offical word, more like a LIE. What about helicopter?

What is more hilarious, the fact that you seem to think that I've shown photos of the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon or the fact that I've actually shown stills from a video which shows the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon and that has been available for a number of years?

What is more hilarious, the fact that you continue to voice your jaded opinions about anything and everything that you perceive to be from the U.S. government or the fact that with every post you prove on an ever deepening level that you haven't got the slightest clue about virtually anything?

So tell me Duke, do you think that the stills I posted were faked? If so, what makes you think that they were?

Let's not stop there. What about the videos which show planes impacting the World Trade Center? Are those fake as well? Please do elucidate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is more hilarious, the fact that you seem to think that I've shown photos of the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon or the fact that I've actually shown stills from a video which shows the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon and that has been available for a number of years?

Not to be to pedantic, but the videos do not show a plane. It shows something hitting the pentagon, but what it is isn't that clear.

The questions which would end the conspiracy is the other 80 odd videos the FBI hold which have never been released. There is no reason for them to be held, if they don't show anything as in the plane hitting the building, then release them, they don't contain evidence but if they do show a plane hitting the building, then it would pretty much be a done deal for the offical story.

Unless releasing the FBI believe that by releasing the footage, it would embolden the terrorists. lol

I certainly hope not that is not a reason.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be to pedantic, but the videos do not show a plane. It shows something hitting the pentagon, but what it is isn't that clear.

The questions which would end the conspiracy is the other 80 odd videos the FBI hold which have never been released. There is no reason for them to be held, if they don't show anything as in the plane hitting the building, then release them, they don't contain evidence but if they do show a plane hitting the building, then it would pretty much be a done deal for the offical story.

Unless releasing the FBI believe that by releasing the footage, it would embolden the terrorists. lol

I certainly hope not that is not a reason.

Cheers

Stundie :)

There aren't "80 odd videos" being held by the FBI. I realize that this is a commonly held misconception, but the fact of the matter is that it is indeed a misconception. Take a look.

While you're there, also take a look at this, which I should have linked for Nuke_em a couple of days ago.

There doesn't appear to be anything sinister regarding the lack of clear video at the Pentagon. We'd need blind luck to have really good video of the event. How many good videos do we have of Flight 11 hitting the WTC? There is only one that I'm aware of off the top of my head; and it was captured by blind luck. How many of Flight 93? Sure, we have plenty of Flight 175, but the only reason we have several videos of Flight 175 is because so many people were recording the damage from Flight 11.

Regardless, an aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Was it Flight 77? In my opinion, yes. I haven't seen any plausible reason to doubt that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Boony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There doesn't appear to be anything sinister regarding the lack of clear video at the Pentagon. We'd need blind luck to have really good video of the event. How many good videos do we have of Flight 11 hitting the WTC? There is only one that I'm aware of off the top of my head; and it was captured by blind luck. How many of Flight 93? Sure, we have plenty of Flight 175, but the only reason we have several videos of Flight 175 is because so many people were recording the damage from Flight 11.

Although I’d like it to be, the above is really not a great argument…

Is it fair to compare crashes nearly a quarter of a mile above ground level (Flight 11) or in a sparsely populated area (Flight 93) with a crash in the densely populated and heavily surveyed area of the Pentagon (Flight 77)?

Take for example the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) cameras which monitor highways around the Pentagon...

http://www.trafficland.com/city/WAS/camera/740/

These should have captured the plane approach, perhaps even those light pole hits and final impact.

Edit: It was still dark in Washington at the time I posted the above link so I couldn’t make out exactly where the camera was pointed. Now it’s light we can see the camera is pointed precisely where the aircraft flew and the impact site.

Larry Nelson, president of TrafficLand, has said: -

“We had originally planned to launch on Monday 10 September, but had elected to delay a few days for final set-up and adjustments. When one of the hijacked planes hit the Pentagon on the morning of 11 September,
we could immediately see the smoke rising on one of our cameras
.

We subsequently found that we had the only Internet-visible
camera which could see the Pentagon from the right side
, and the State authorities asked us if we could press the Trafficland site into use straight away, in order to help deal with the traffic build-up. Within minutes we put the system on-line, and gave the site URL to the local radio station.

They then used our site map, which showed
64 cameras covering all of the main roads on the western side of Washington
, to help guide drivers away from the crisis zone.”

FOIA requests for the VDOT footage have been unresponsive (and not included in the FBI ‘85 videos’ list).

The counter-arguments would be: -

  1. The full article above explains how TrafficLand were preparing to go-live. Were the cameras actually switched on at time of the attack? I would suggest they were switched on during the testing period [“final set-up and adjustments”] before go-live of the website.
  2. Even if the cameras were switched on, were they actually recording? After all, the website is intended to provide live updates of the traffic. Again though I would suggest the cameras were recording as I’ve previously seen this type of highway footage played back.

Then there are the Pentagon rooftop cameras…

pent-cams-911.jpg

Again, where is the footage?

Why is it not included in the ‘85 videos’ list?

I think it legitimate that people question why no better footage is available.

Regardless, an aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

I completely agree the evidence of an aircraft impact is overwhelming…

Was it Flight 77? In my opinion, yes. I haven't seen any plausible reason to doubt that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

… but here you make a leap of faith leaving us open to a deception. There are many who are not content to take this risk, rightly so judging by history. The FBI or NTSB should have identified the aircraft by serial number - even just one part. If done in the right way that would have been enough for me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyhow, where’s Scott G disappeared to? He claimed to be unaware of a large group of eyewitnesses who support the official flight path and impact… I set out to present them… and he’s done a runner after the first one. I don’t think flyover theorists like these kind of eyewitnesses :unsure:

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is more hilarious, the fact that you seem to think that I've shown photos of the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon or the fact that I've actually shown stills from a video which shows the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon and that has been available for a number of years?

What is more hilarious, the fact that you continue to voice your jaded opinions about anything and everything that you perceive to be from the U.S. government or the fact that with every post you prove on an ever deepening level that you haven't got the slightest clue about virtually anything?

So tell me Duke, do you think that the stills I posted were faked? If so, what makes you think that they were?

Let's not stop there. What about the videos which show planes impacting the World Trade Center? Are those fake as well? Please do elucidate.

Ha for once it wasn't the goverment but military, goverments change, military stays so do their secrets. And get it into you head everyone else can obviously that Pentagon is diffrent there were no AIRLINERS HITTING IT. Can you even imagine the crash site of a passenger plane hitting a building ( not like wtc ). It would level couple of wings of pentagon, do loads of damage and it would leave many many parts... Those pictures you shown don't mean zero, nada, emptiness of all... 9/11 is real because there were so many eyes upon it.. Pentagon on otherhand had couple of witness and even they don't give a REAL description or they don't even know what they saw... Until you get it, i'll keep expressing my opinion because i know and saw more proofs of what happened at pentagon than your lousy 2 pictures, and for god sake man, isn't it obvious that those are only pictures from numerous cameras around, don't you see that military is hiding those vital videos and pictures of security camers which were confiscated right after the crash. With you it's like talking to a brick wall, you are who is like a broken recored, on and on and on, me Boon am right always even when i know am wrong i am right... jesss

If they aren't hiding something why not release all the info., videos, pictures ? Answer this please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Airliner was so low over Probst...wouldn't he have got whooshed up in the air with the turbulence?

Good point. The issue of air turbulence that low flying passenger planes make is addressed in the following video regarding the pentagon attack:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19ta5_pentagon-strike_shortfilms

The video makes a lot of other good points as well; the one point that most don't go for now is the missile theory though.

Also...I just can't believe that...when America was under attack from a, then, unknown 'enemy'....that everything would just be carrying on as normal at the Defence Headquarters, a potential prime target.

I think Q might agree with you there.

Probst claims he left the trailer where he was watching the two towers in New York burning away...to go off to a meeting!

Now....all over the world...myself included..people were glued to the TV watching in disbelief as the events of day unfolded...but Probst...at the US Defence Headquarters was off to a meeting. It doesn't make sense.

New York's a long way away from Washington D.C. But I would certainly like to know what the alleged meeting was about.

Something else I hadn't realised before was that traffic was at a standstill due to an 'accident'....mmmmmmmmmm

I think the alleged accident may have been to prepare for Lloyd England's taxi cab's being speared by a light pole. There was atleast one woman who was waved down by someone when she tried to go where Lloyd England's cab was soon to be 'found' by the media; instead of stopping, she got on the off ramp, which is quite possibly what the official wanted her to do anyway; clearly, if the plane didn't fly the official south flight path, no light pole would have been knocked down by a plan and there had to be no witnesses to the deception.

I've never heard of any crash during the time, but Lloyd England's story was in the news. Lloyde England's story is integral to the official 9/11 story; one of the lamp posts allegedly knocked down by Flight 77 allegedly speared his windshield. Not sure if you've seen CIT's video regarding Lloyd England; if not, I definitely recommend it:

Edited by Scott G

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.