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

Sorry for the delay…

Np.. I think mine was longer, laugh :-p.

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.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.

As you ask… the whole thing is flawed.

Pfft! =-)

From the idea that someone diving to the ground cannot see anything,

I didn't see oneslice make any such claim. This is what he said:

***********

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.

***********

Source: http://z3.invisionfr...p?showtopic=841

to the testimony of Probst supposedly contradicting Mason,

I've seen there's some debate here as to where Probst was located and that this would affect whether Mason's testimony would contradict his own. Fair enough. But the fact of the matter is that Probst's own testimony contradicts the official story's flight path:

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

Yes, you heard that right; over the Navy Annex. The official story's version posits that at no time did the pentaplane fly over the Navy Annex; on the other hand, this testimony lines up nicely with all of the NoC witnesses.

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.

I don't believe oneslice ever claimed that ASCE persuaded Probst of anything. However, you may note that they don't actually quote Probst. Why do you suppose that is? As to core pieces of evidence, I think his testimony that the plane was flying over the Navy Annex is devastating to the official story.

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?

An unknown more then anything. You notice that they didn't quote Mason either? Let's see what the ASCE report -did- say about what he saw:

"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..."

Based on the ton of research I've done regarding all of this, I'm certain that the idea that he could have seen the pentaplane strike any light pole at all is bunk. Not only that, but if Frank Probst was where they say he was, there's no way that the pentaplane could have been flying over the Navy Annex and then gotten to his position, as PFT has demonstrated in the past. Which makes the word, "possibly" in the above quote quite interesting. I can easily imagine that someone might have told him that these things occurred and then asked him if he saw them occur. If he were to then say "possibly", the above statement could have been made. There are certainly cases where witnesses said one thing and news reports said something quite different. This is why it's so important to interview the witnesses and record what they actually say instead of getting hearsay information from questionable sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)?

That is a valid point, but I still think it would have required blind luck to get any decent footage of the crash.

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.

It's pretty clear that the implementation wasn't done yet. What makes you think they'd be recording anything from the cameras before they had completed the job?

Pretty far fetched if you ask me.

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.

Do we know where the recording media was located? Not to be flippant, but an aircraft did apparently crash into that building on that particular side. Have you considered the possibility that the recording media was destroyed by the event?

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

I was under that impression already, but it's always good to clarify. :tu:

… 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.

I don't consider it a leap of faith at all; it is the established historical record. That isn't a leap, that is merely recognizing that what we can confirm about the event points to the established historical record as being true. To falsify such a record requires extraordinary evidence. So far, I haven't seen any. Therefore I have no reason to doubt the established historical record. Show me some actual evidence which can make a dent in that record and we can talk.

As to the identification by serial number, do you honestly think that would make a difference? Remains have been identified by DNA analysis and some people still don't accept this historical record. How much more definitive can you get than DNA evidence? Do you really think that a serial number on an aircraft part would make a dent in such mentality?

I don't think it would. The often touted chestnut of "it's fake evidence!" would be used to justify the continued infatuation with a conspiracy concept. Perhaps not for you Q24, but you know full well that this would be the exact reaction from many. Speaking of which... do you not accept the DNA evidence which identified passengers on the flight to confirm that it was indeed Flight 77?

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?

That is the first thing I thought of too.

People are aguing about fine details, and whether some guy's memory can be trusted as to if the tail entered the building before or after the fireball. When the whole point should be that the plane did hit the building and explode. The fine details can be pushed aside.

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

And then the plane landed somewhere, all the people taken off and killed, the plane disassembled and scorched and damaged. Then miraculously transported to the scene at the pentagon where the serial numbered parts were put in exactly the right positions and the bodys dispersed in a computer generated pattern. All so that we could blame some completely innocent muslim extremests and start a war.

1) Muslim extremists + Plane = Crash attack on Pentagon = Possible + witnessed + evidenced

2) Government conspiricy + massive planning + miraculous planting of physical evidence + no leaks = Fake Crash on Pentagon = Impossible organizational/transportation task + Everyone involved is Evil + goverment murder of citizens.

Which is more likely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is video of a reporter that was at the Pentagon just after the incident in question (I say incident because I do not believe a plane hit the pentagon) and this man says clearly that "....there is not evidence that a plane crashed into the pentagon and there is no plane wreckage or debris..." (not a direct quote but I can not transcribe verbatim right now). Watch for yourself. My link

Now why would this reporter say there is no plane debris? Why would he lie? Plus, the evidence also suggests that is is not possible for a 757 to fit into such a small area. The crash area was something like 16 feet in diameter. Even after the collapse area (which occurred long after the incident) is TOO SMALL for a 757 to have made. pentmorris.jpg*pre collapse photo of site*

Even if the hole was, as others suggest, 65 ft. wide the wings would have been left outside the building, they would not fold in and vanish from view. Does anyone take into consideration the wing span from tip to tip? Physics alone dispute a 757 hitting the pentagon. If someone wishes to dispute because they want to believe the 'official' report from Washington I only ask that you provide true evidence of the plane wreckage in either a photograph or video. I can not accept a written report or interview from some government 'expert'.

I have provided my evidence and reason(s) why I do not accept the Bush administrations fabricated story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is video of a reporter that was at the Pentagon just after the incident in question (I say incident because I do not believe a plane hit the pentagon) and this man says clearly that "....there is not evidence that a plane crashed into the pentagon and there is no plane wreckage or debris..." (not a direct quote but I can not transcribe verbatim right now). Watch for yourself. My link

Maybe if you listened to the full context of that report instead of relying on a version that someone obviously clipped (and clipped very poorly I might add) it would be a little more clear for you... Here, it was provided earlier in the thread.

Watch the two next to each other. Tell me... which one seems genuine? And what does the genuine one actually indicate?

Now why would this reporter say there is no plane debris? Why would he lie? Plus, the evidence also suggests that is is not possible for a 757 to fit into such a small area. The crash area was something like 16 feet in diameter. Even after the collapse area (which occurred long after the incident) is TOO SMALL for a 757 to have made. pentmorris.jpg*pre collapse photo of site*

Even if the hole was, as others suggest, 65 ft. wide the wings would have been left outside the building, they would not fold in and vanish from view. Does anyone take into consideration the wing span from tip to tip? Physics alone dispute a 757 hitting the pentagon.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess that you don't know much of anything about physics...

If someone wishes to dispute because they want to believe the 'official' report from Washington I only ask that you provide true evidence of the plane wreckage in either a photograph or video. I can not accept a written report or interview from some government 'expert'.

Plenty of evidence has been presented.

I have provided my evidence and reason(s) why I do not accept the Bush administrations fabricated story.

Your doctored evidence? Your exhibition of ignorance? And your biased conspiratorial stance?

You can count me among the unimpressed.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now why would this reporter say there is no plane debris? Why would he lie? Plus, the evidence also suggests that is is not possible for a 757 to fit into such a small area. The crash area was something like 16 feet in diameter. Even after the collapse area (which occurred long after the incident) is TOO SMALL for a 757 to have made.

Even if the hole was, as others suggest, 65 ft. wide the wings would have been left outside the building, they would not fold in and vanish from view. Does anyone take into consideration the wing span from tip to tip? Physics alone dispute a 757 hitting the pentagon. If someone wishes to dispute because they want to believe the 'official' report from Washington I only ask that you provide true evidence of the plane wreckage in either a photograph or video. I can not accept a written report or interview from some government 'expert'.

Weren't this...

f7_parts_ltr1_lo.jpg

And this...

hq_parts_2.jpg

Determined to be jet liner debris?

This pic here...

pentagon-fire-closeup.jpg

Would seem to show an area just to the left of the main entry hole. It appears as if there is a low area of the wall that is damaged, consistant with a wing, which appears about 20 feet plus across. Also an airplane wing would have buckled and bent, and might have been drawn into the building behind the plane, as it is full of structural members and cables that might have bent and held it on.

This does not even appear to be the main hole, just where something low and wide went through the wall. With the car in the way, we cannot see if there might even be large pieces of the wing right there on the ground under debris.

Doubtless the reporter was kept back by security personnel. Who would just let some civilian charge into the burning wreckage and possible wall collapse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear that the implementation wasn't done yet. What makes you think they'd be recording anything from the cameras before they had completed the job?

Pretty far fetched if you ask me.

The website had been delayed to make final adjustments but the cameras themselves were operational. I’m sure you know they don’t flick the ‘on’ switch for everything all at once on launch day; there is usually a test period where the system is up and running but not live. Perhaps it was not the case those cameras were recording, though the possibility is hardly farfetched. You know, no one is going to say, “Oh my gosh… CCTV cameras recording… well, I don’t believe that.”

Do we know where the recording media was located? Not to be flippant, but an aircraft did apparently crash into that building on that particular side. Have you considered the possibility that the recording media was destroyed by the event?

The security footage may have been destroyed by the crash.

Then again, have you watched the film Rules of Engagement?

It is not difficult to withhold or disappear a videotape.

I don't consider it a leap of faith at all; it is the established historical record. That isn't a leap, that is merely recognizing that what we can confirm about the event points to the established historical record as being true. To falsify such a record requires extraordinary evidence. So far, I haven't seen any. Therefore I have no reason to doubt the established historical record. Show me some actual evidence which can make a dent in that record and we can talk.

The historical record - a particular, or favoured, interpretation of events - this is nothing to the truth. I have seen enough examples of history distorted, twisted and revised (attempted and actual) to know it is meaningless without the evidence to back it up. Personally I feel a version of events should be properly evaluated and proven before it is accepted – to do otherwise is to hold a type of faith.

The dent (read: information black hole) in the established record is self-apparent - there is no conclusive evidence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon. Yet there could and should be. The lack of aircraft identification is unprecedented. I’m not even asking for extraordinary evidence – just the basics to reasonably proving the case.

There are connected peculiarities and coincidences that suggest the Pentagon attack was a staged event, though you would likely turn a blind eye and declare them irrelevant, and that’s not really what I intended this thread for anyhow.

As to the identification by serial number, do you honestly think that would make a difference? Remains have been identified by DNA analysis and some people still don't accept this historical record. How much more definitive can you get than DNA evidence? Do you really think that a serial number on an aircraft part would make a dent in such mentality?

You are probably right there – identification by serial number would not make a fundamental difference, not even to me – I don’t have anything pinned on a plane switch. It would though stop me pointing out the foundation of non-evidence that particular part of the historical record is based upon.

The problem with the DNA evidence is that it is all too simple to deceive. There were one hundred and twenty-five Pentagon staff who died in the attack – of course then, many samples were taken and sent for analysis. There is however no available record or audit trail of this process (once again FOIA request proved unresponsive). It would not be difficult to insert samples further along the chain of custody, i.e. there is no evidence they came from the Pentagon.

Also to point out the big difference between a DNA investigation and an aircraft investigation: the first could never reveal anything that should not be present at the scene, the second potentially could. Thus possible reason for one type of investigation and not the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe oneslice ever claimed that ASCE persuaded Probst of anything.

Then can you explain for me what this line means: -

“Probst, Mason and the ASCE worked together to add the extra details into the testimony.”

And what you meant by: -

“instead of getting hearsay information from questionable sources.”

The suggestion appears to be that the ASCE may have influenced the eyewitnesses and possibly falsified certain aspects of the accounts purposefully to support the impact theory.

Is my understanding correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now why would this reporter say there is no plane debris? Why would he lie? Plus, the evidence also suggests that is is not possible for a 757 to fit into such a small area. The crash area was something like 16 feet in diameter. Even after the collapse area (which occurred long after the incident) is TOO SMALL for a 757 to have made.

Why is it not possible for a 757 to have "fit" into such a small area? What exactly do you expect to see when and aircraft made mostly of aluminum and other light-weight materials (but still weighing in excess of 200,000 pounds) collides at over 500mph into a structurally reinforced concrete building? Are you expecting to see an aircraft-shaped cut-out in the wall like one would see in a cartoon...?

Even if the hole was, as others suggest, 65 ft. wide the wings would have been left outside the building, they would not fold in and vanish from view.

Why would the wings have "been left outside the building"?

Does anyone take into consideration the wing span from tip to tip?

I guess you've never seen the pictures like the one below that show damage to the wall where the wingtips struck it:

006-Pentagon.jpg

Physics alone dispute a 757 hitting the pentagon.

Does it really? Perhaps you can explain why, because your posts give the strong impression that you have little to no clue about the physics involved, and apparently no idea how aircraft are constructed.

Please, tell us, what kind of energies are involved when an object made mostly of lightweight materials, weighing over 200,000 pounds impacts a structurally reinforced concrete object at over 500 mile per hour, and then please explain to us why we should expect to see wings laying on the ground in front of the Pentagon, rather than the shredded remains of the aircraft we have seen.

ETA...

This video of crash test involving an F-4 traveling at 500mph crashing into a section of reinforced concrete wall shows us what physics says should happen.

Granted that circumstances leading up to the crash aren't identical, but the end result is pretty much the same.

If someone wishes to dispute because they want to believe the 'official' report from Washington I only ask that you provide true evidence of the plane wreckage in either a photograph or video. I can not accept a written report or interview from some government 'expert'.

See the images provided above

I have provided my evidence and reason(s) why I do not accept the Bush administrations fabricated story.

No, you have not posted evidence, you have posted your blatantly uneducated and biased opinion, and from the sounds of the things you've posted, your opinions come from watching that travesty "Loose Change" (or one of its many revisions) far too many times.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe oneslice ever claimed that ASCE persuaded Probst of anything.

Then can you explain for me what this line means: -

"Probst, Mason and the ASCE worked together to add the extra details into the testimony."

I hadn't seen that line. Perhaps ASCE did persuade them to add to his testimony. What I do know is that I haven't seen a single actual quote from Probst on the issue. Only what ASCE interpreted him to mean.

And what you meant by: -

"instead of getting hearsay information from questionable sources."

I mean that ASCE is a questionable source of information. Why are there no quotes of what Probst actually said? That being said, even without quotes, it appears that he favoured an NoC approach. I notice that you ignored my comment regarding ASCE's description of what Probst saw. Specifically:

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

Not south of the Navy Annex; -over- the Navy Annex. Why is it that you ignored that point? Is it because it goes against your view that the pentaplane didn't fly over the Navy Annex?

The suggestion appears to be that the ASCE may have influenced the eyewitnesses and possibly falsified certain aspects of the accounts purposefully to support the impact theory.

Is my understanding correct?

Yes, it is. That being said, it seems they retained enough information to make it clear that Probst's flight path couldn't have been the official SoC flight path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't seen that line. Perhaps ASCE did persuade them to add to his testimony.

You provided a link without seeing what was in it?

That is worrying.

But ok, I’ll include this point against Probst.

What I do know is that I haven't seen a single actual quote from Probst on the issue. Only what ASCE interpreted him to mean.

You didn’t take 30 seconds to watch the Probst video interview bee provided in post #4?

That is worrying.

I mean that ASCE is a questionable source of information.

Ok, I’ll include this point too.

I notice that you ignored my comment regarding ASCE's description of what Probst saw. Specifically:

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

Not south of the Navy Annex; -over- the Navy Annex. Why is it that you ignored that point? Is it because it goes against your view that the pentaplane didn't fly over the Navy Annex?

I’m not setting out to argue anything you say, only to understand and list your reasons against accepting eyewitnesses to an approach matching the damage path and impact. I will include this “over the Navy Annex” point against Probst’s witnessing of the impact also.

If you actually want my argument: The Navy Annex is the biggest building on the approach path. There is a good possibility the building will be used as a general reference point by eyewitnesses who remember seeing a plane fly anywhere near it, which it did. We are not dealing with a precise science – had the plane flown 100m to the left or right, eyewitnesses would still say, “over the Navy Annex”.

Yes, it is. That being said, it seems they retained enough information to make it clear that Probst's flight path couldn't have been the official SoC flight path.

So let me try to summarise reasons for not accepting these eyewitnesses again…

Probst: -

  • As he was diving to the floor, he did not witness the plane skim the ground, hit the generator and impact the Pentagon as he claimed.
  • His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.
  • The ASCE misrepresented what he actually saw so as to support an impact.

Mason: -

  • He did not see the plane as he claimed because it conflicts with specifics of other eyewitness accounts.
  • The ASCE encouraged him to support their false theory, and he did.

This is the best I can make of what you have said.

Effectively you have claimed two eyewitnesses to be fundamentally incorrect (in fact there’s no two ways about it considering the specifics of their accounts – you are calling them liars) based on a particular interpretation of their accounts and further implicated the ASCE as a part of the cover story. Ok…

Eyewitness #3: Rodney Washington

Reported September 12, in the Boston Globe: -

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

It ''landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,'' Washington said. ''There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded.''

Washington speculated that it could have been worse: ''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court.''

The fact he states, “momentum took it into the Pentagon” and, “''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher…” confirm first that he saw the impact and second that he did not see the plane fly over the building (a fact that we will see is consistent with all eyewitnesses).

So why should a third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, be discounted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

thanks for link.....you know..maybe the planes and the missile theories are all wrong and there were explosions

set off within the building? (from my theoretical standpoint...by Militant Islamists under cover...maybe a worker

or two who were working on the renovations???) Perhaps they knew they wouldn't have a chance of attacking the Pentagon from the

air, because of the security....? And when the bombs went off (there is a quote in your link about someone saying they

smelt cordite at 1:54)....to cover up the embarassment and to explain what happened to flight 77...which (according to my theory)

was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and disposed of for defensive reasons....

Ta for the Lloyd England vid...I expect we will come onto him and look at his witness testimony in detail at some point...

scott....

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:

underlined..Maybe...but I'm thinking more, that one of the first things they would do after the second tower was hit, would be

to stop the traffic around the Pentagon...to get control of the area. (which could include what you said about the light poles, though)

booN replying to Q24...

That is a valid point, but I still think it would have required blind luck to get any decent footage of the crash.

DOES the Headquarters of the US Department of Defense rely on 'blind luck' to monitor and protect itself??? :mellow:

Especially when America is under attack?

The lack of proper photographic evidence for flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is the achilles heel in the Official Account

and in any Inside Job theory that requires flight 77 to have hit the building...IMO.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyewitness #3: Rodney Washington

Reported September 12, in the Boston Globe: -

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

It ''landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,'' Washington said. ''There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded.''

Washington speculated that it could have been worse: ''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court.''

The fact he states, “momentum took it into the Pentagon” and, “''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher…” confirm first that he saw the impact and second that he did not see the plane fly over the building (a fact that we will see is consistent with all eyewitnesses).

So why should a third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, be discounted?

well....as you know... :) ..all the witnesses can be discounted in my 'theory'...and their motive for

fabricating their stories would be that they were under security oaths and doing their patriotic duty

to help cover up flight 77 being taken over the Atlantic and shot down...which would have been a devasting admission

to make under the circumstances of the fateful day. To avoid world headlines like.....'US shoots down own Airliner,

killing all aboard'...etc etc.

But I will take a closer look at witness #3 when I have more time....cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for link.....you know..maybe the planes and the missile theories are all wrong and there were explosions

set off within the building? (from my theoretical standpoint...by Militant Islamists under cover...maybe a worker

or two who were working on the renovations???) Perhaps they knew they wouldn't have a chance of attacking the Pentagon from the

air, because of the security....? And when the bombs went off (there is a quote in your link about someone saying they

smelt cordite at 1:54)....to cover up the embarassment and to explain what happened to flight 77...which (according to my theory)

was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and disposed of for defensive reasons....

Or maybe... it was Superman? :P

(I worked hard on that comic and got no response the first time... )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe... it was Superman? :P

(I worked hard on that comic and got no response the first time... )

Oh sorry......hahahahahahaha....didn't realise you had done the comic yourself.. :P

Personally, I'm ruling Superman out. Call me impulsive, rash, but..... B)^_^

Unless he nipped in front of flight 77 and destroyed most of it with a lump of kryptonite...hence the little hole?

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry....an edit went wrong..must have run out of time

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry......hahahahahahaha....didn't realise you had done the comic yourself.. :P

Personally, I'm ruling Superman out. Call me impulsive, rash, but..... B)^_^

Unless he nipped in front of flight 77 and destroyed most of it with a lump of kryptonite...hence the little hole?

:o

:D

I guess the Superman theory isn't very likely. Oh well... back to the drawing board... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

thanks for link.....

Np :blush:

you know..maybe the planes and the missile theories are all wrong and there were explosions set off within the building?

This is the conclusion of Citizen Investigation Team and Pilots for 9/11 Truth seems to believe the same as well (as do I).

(from my theoretical standpoint...by Militant Islamists under cover...maybe a worker or two who were working on the renovations???)

Perhaps they knew they wouldn't have a chance of attacking the Pentagon from the air, because of the security....?

There is evidence which suggests that Dick Cheney was in on it. Check this link out:

Do The Orders Still Stand?

And when the bombs went off (there is a quote in your link about someone saying they smelt cordite at 1:54)

Indeed :-)

....to cover up the embarassment and to explain what happened to flight 77...which (according to my theory) was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and disposed of for defensive reasons....

I definitely believe that one or more of the 9/11 planes were driven by remote control to their targets (or to be targeted for destruction as the case may be). However, I don't think that they were destroyed to cover up an embarassment. That being said, I don't think we should really go in this direction; first, I think we should all try to agree on what the planes did (in this case Flight 77, or the plane posing as such that approached the pentagon).

Ta for the Lloyd England vid...I expect we will come onto him and look at his witness testimony in detail at some point...

I hope so; I've studied his testimony more then any other witness. If you take a look at the video, let me know what you think.

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:

underlined..Maybe... but I'm thinking more, that one of the first things they would do after the second tower was hit, would be

to stop the traffic around the Pentagon...to get control of the area. (which could include what you said about the light poles, though)

Nods. CIT currently promotes its video National Security Alert as the video to see first regarding the pentagon attack. Have you seen it? If not, you may want to take a look:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=YJzQtz3RAmE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Q24's post #61, part 1

I hadn't seen that line. Perhaps ASCE did persuade them to add to his testimony.

You provided a link without seeing what was in it?

That is worrying.

I read a fair amount. Not all of it. There are only so many hours in a day and I do have other things to do.

But ok, I'll include this point against Probst.

Ok.

What I do know is that I haven't seen a single actual quote from Probst on the issue. Only what ASCE interpreted him to mean.

You didn't take 30 seconds to watch the Probst video interview bee provided in post #4?

That is worrying.

Again, There are only so many hours in the day; while I do create a thread tree for all the posts here, it doesn't mean I read every single post in the thread. In any case, he doesn't give a flight path in that 30 second interview; the ASCE report gives more detail of the flight path he observed, most importantly mentioning that he saw it fly over the Navy Annex, which concords with CIT's witnesses, not the official SoC flight path. This being said, I think it would be good to review his statements in said 30 second interview. He stated:

The engine was about 6 feet off the ground, coming right at me, and I laid out on the ground. I watched the plane come over top of me, the street lights were falling on both sides of where I was. 2 engines from the plane, which hang way down underneath the plane, both hit, short of the pentagon in this area out here… and then there was a fireball right after that… and I can remember the tail section.. disappearing into the fireball.

First of all, if the plane was so close to him, he should have experienced a lot of turbulence; and yet, he makes no mention of this, which strongly suggests that the plane wasn't as close to him as he alleges. As to his statement regarding the pentaplane's engines, could it be that he says that the engine was 6 feet off the ground at that point because he was -told- that this was the case? He states that the street lights were falling on both sides of where he was but he doesn't state that the plane had anything to do with it. Perhaps more importantly, he doesn't say that he himself observed this happening, suggesting that he may have heard of this from someone instead of witnessing it himself. He mentions that the 2 engines on the plane hit short of the pentagon "in this area out here".. and yet there are many pictures clearly demonstrating that the pentagon lawn was untouched. Have you seen the video pentagon strike? It makes a clear reference to this absurdity with its reference to "the amazing pentalawn" that can apparently be hit by massive passenger plane engines and yet remain unscathed. Finally there's his reference to a "fireball right after that" and his remembering that the tail section dissapeared into the fireball. Now here's the thing; he doesn't actually say that he witnessed the plane crashing into the pentagon, only that he saw the tail dissapearing into a fireball; but if the explosion was timed to coincide with the pentaplane's going over the pentagon, this is what you would see.

I mean that ASCE is a questionable source of information.

Ok, I'll include this point too.

Ok.

I notice that you ignored my comment regarding ASCE's description of what Probst saw. Specifically:

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

Not south of the Navy Annex; -over- the Navy Annex. Why is it that you ignored that point? Is it because it goes against your view that the pentaplane didn't fly over the Navy Annex?

I'm not setting out to argue anything you say, only to understand and list your reasons against accepting eyewitnesses to an approach matching the damage path and impact.

How can you list Probst as an eyewitness to an approach matching the damage path when it's clear that he's stating that it took a flight path that would make it impossible for the plane to match the damage path? Or are you someone who thinks that it could have flown over the Navy Annex and then switched over to an SoC flight path? If so, I could perhaps dig up the research done by PFT showing that this would have been impossible for a passenger plane.

I will include this "over the Navy Annex" point against Probst's witnessing of the impact also.

I think I should state that I believe it's possible that Probst witnessed the pentaplane approach the pentagon and appear to get swallowed by an explosion that he assumed was the same plane crashing into the pentagon.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Q24's post #61, part 2

If you actually want my argument: The Navy Annex is the biggest building on the approach path. There is a good possibility the building will be used as a general reference point by eyewitnesses who remember seeing a plane fly anywhere near it, which it did. We are not dealing with a precise science – had the plane flown 100m to the left or right, eyewitnesses would still say, "over the Navy Annex".

I've seen no evidence that they would say such a thing if it didn't fly over the Navy Annex. When you combine this with the fact that Ed Paik, who saw the plane approach the Navy Annex, and Terry Morin, who was -at- the Navy Annex and clearly said that it passed over it, along with atleast one other person (he was at the Pentagon heliport) who said they saw it go over the Navy Annex, it becomes clear that the pentaplane's passage over the Navy Annex is heavily corroborated.

So let me try to summarise reasons for not accepting these eyewitnesses again…

Probst: -

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.

That's far too simplistic. Aside from issues that PFT brings up, which make it clear that a passenger plane simply couldn't have hit the light poles and then gone over the pentagon lawn low and level before hitting the pentalawn without leaving a scratch on it and finally hitting the pentagon, there's also the fact that his placement of the plane over the Navy Annex adds another layer of impossibility to the notion that it would then transition into an SoC flight path. This being said, it's possible that he -thought- that he witnessed the pentaplane hitting the pentagon for the reasons I've outlined above.

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

There's simply no way he could have seen the plane on an SoC flight path because of the reasons I've outlined above. And he gives one clear indication that it wasn't on the SoC path; his reported assertion that it had flown over the Navy Annex.

The ASCE misrepresented what he actually saw so as to support an impact.

Indeed. However, I find it very interesting that even the ASCE report reported that he said it flew over the Navy Annex. By the way, in bee's video of Frost's interview, there was another eyewitness interviewed before him, Cheryl Ryefield, who -also- mentions the Navy Annex. Specifically, she says:

"About 9:38, I was almost in front of the helipad. I saw a plane come over the hill near the Navy Annex. I just stopped the car, opened the door, left the keys in, it was running, the radio was on, I ran forward and.. I couldn't believe it."

Mason: -

• He did not see the plane as he claimed because it conflicts with specifics of other eyewitness accounts.

• The ASCE encouraged him to support their false theory, and he did.

Sounds ok.

This is the best I can make of what you have said.

Effectively you have claimed two eyewitnesses to be fundamentally incorrect (in fact there's no two ways about it considering the specifics of their accounts – you are calling them liars)

No, I'm not calling them liars. I'm saying that Probst's testimony is internally contradictory to some extent (the pentaplane couldn't have been over the Navy Annex -and- been on an SoC path), and both of their stories have been disproven by PFT's calculations regarding the impossibility of the pentaplane hitting the light poles and pulling up from a steep dive to hit the pentalawn yet leave it untouched and finally hitting the pentagon low and level, somehow only leaving a tiny hole in the pentagon itself and "vaporizing" most of the plane. That being said, they may believe every word of what they've said. However, as I've pointed out, atleast in Probst' case, he's said things that contradict other things that he's said.

based on a particular interpretation of their accounts and further implicated the ASCE as a part of the cover story.

I do find ASCE's report to be questionable. Why do they make no mention of the anomaly that the pentalawn was untouched despite the fact that the engines were supposed to have hit it? Why do they not mention the impossibility of the pentaplane being flying in from the Navy Annex and yet somehow still managing to switch into the SoC flight path?

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the above extentions. I’ll leave that last word with you on the first two eyewitness. I’m content that the reasons for discounting their accounts have been summarised in basic terms based on your responses and I don’t see anymore to add (the broad summary I have given, simple as it is, does cover your latest posts). I will continue responding from the third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, to keep us moving forward.

Just a note: I understand that you think Balsamo has shown no flight path to the Pentagon impact point was possible due to the pull-up forces involved (that’s another topic). I realise you could therefore say any eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the impact are mistaken due to this alone. What I’m trying to understand here is how we would explain away each eyewitness who claims to have seen the damage flight path and/or impact. In the case of Probst and Mason you have shown how we must claim their statements were fabricated and memories distorted by the ASCE… that’s good; it’s what I’m looking for… possible explanations of why exactly they came out with what they did.

Apart from that, it’s disappointing that you don’t grasp the point about eyewitness testimony in regard to the reference point of the Navy Annex. If we were to take each individual statement and draw the flight path, you and I know full well there would be lines each side of and over the Navy Annex – it’s the way human memory works, it is rarely precise. It would be a big mistake to take each account completely literally or apply zero tolerance to certain variation.

I look forward to your response to Rodney Washington’s testimony.

Edit: -

I read a fair amount. Not all of it. There are only so many hours in a day and I do have other things to do.

This is no excuse. Notwithstanding the post was a five minute read if that, it is not good pactice to link something you haven’t even read. It leaves you unable to evaluate/discuss a point that you are promoting. It shows blind faith in the source and lack of independent thinking on your part.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyewitness #3: Rodney Washington

Reported September 12, in the Boston Globe: -

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

It ''landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,'' Washington said. ''There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded.''

Washington speculated that it could have been worse: ''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court.''

The fact he states, “momentum took it into the Pentagon” and, “''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher…” confirm first that he saw the impact and second that he did not see the plane fly over the building (a fact that we will see is consistent with all eyewitnesses).

So why should a third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, be discounted?

enlarged above....I think that he was required to say that the plane hit the ground before 'bouncing' into the Pentagon...

to explain why the bits of (clean) debris were on the ground in front of the building.

I actually think that the Boeing debris may have been brought over from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum that is quite

near to the Pentagon, over the river.

There is evidence which suggests that Dick Cheney was in on it. Check this link out:

Do The Orders Still Stand?

thanks...I did check it out and it does actually fit in nicely with my 'theory'.... :P

I think that 'do the orders still stand ?' was about...do the orders still stand to take flight 77 over the Atlantic

and shoot it down.

In the link it says that....

In fact, two fighters were launched but were sent out over the Atlantic searching for Russians.

and I put it to you that these are the very 'fighters' that shot flight 77 down...over the Atlantic!

'Searching for Russians'.....eerrrr...I don't think so. One of the first thing that would have happened on 9/11

would have been communications with the Russians to eliminate them from the suspect list.

I know that everyone is poo pooing my theory...or at least not taking it seriously...but I still stand by it.

In fact, as time goes on I am more sure that I'm on the right track.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks...I did check it out and it does actually fit in nicely with my 'theory'.... :P

I think that 'do the orders still stand ?' was about...do the orders still stand to take flight 77 over the Atlantic

and shoot it down.

The ‘orders still stand’ episode does not fit your theory considering the aide who provided Cheney radar updates of the plane approaching their location in Washington.

Sorry bee, your theory is completely nonsensical in far too many areas to mention but…

If they took control of the aircraft by remote in your theory then why take it out to sea rather than say err… land it? If they took control of the aircraft by remote in your theory and wanted to dispose of it for whatever reason then why the need for a shoot down rather than say um… nose dive it into the sea?

You could write a 9/11 fantasy book with your ideas, though being illogical and unsupported it may be quite offensive to those concerned with the subject. My suggestion would be to cease and desist with your current theory – it doesn’t work whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you would like me to go away and shut up...but why should I?

I am after the truth. In a simple Occam's Razor type way and not getting bogged down with all the headgames.

The orders still stand episode does not fit your theory considering the aide who provided Cheney radar updates of the plane approaching their location in Washington.

'approaching' does not mean it would be allowed to hit the Pentagon..

The US Defence Headquarters

Sorry bee, your theory is completely nonsensical in far too many areas to mention but…

If they took control of the aircraft by remote in your theory then why take it out to sea rather than say err… land it?

because in the chaos and panic on the day...quick decisions were made and I expect a lengthy Hostage situation

was not wanted with everything else going on...and not knowing what else was coming.

And a hostage situation could have ended up with everyone being killed anyway..in the full glare of the media?

If they took control of the aircraft by remote in your theory and wanted to dispose of it for whatever reason then why the need for a shoot down rather than say um… nose dive it into the sea?

because it was better to blast it to smithereens than have big chunks possibly turn up at some point?

You could write a 9/11 fantasy book with your ideas, though being illogical and unsupported it may be quite offensive to those concerned with the subject.

Offensive!!! What could be more offensive than your Inside Job theory?

My suggestion would be to cease and desist with your current theory it doesnt work whatsoever.

I beg to differ.... :)

edit to add my thread on the subject for anyone who might be interested

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=191892&st=0&p=3603431&fromsearch=1entry3603431

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you would like me to go away and shut up...but why should I?

Aw, not at all… I’d just like you to give your theory some credibility and foundation in the real world.

'approaching' does not mean it would be allowed to hit the Pentagon..

The whole point in the ‘orders still stand’ episode is that Cheney was in a position to ensure the aircraft reached the Pentagon.

And your idea still doesn’t make sense…

If the plane was approaching Washington as reported shortly prior the Pentagon crash time then it would have taken some twenty minutes to gain control and actually get it out to sea… by which time it is known that the fighters were no longer out at sea but over the Pentagon, prepared to intercept Flight 93 inland if need be.

because in the chaos and panic on the day...quick decisions were made and I expect a lengthy Hostage situation

was not wanted with everything else going on...and not knowing what else was coming.

And a hostage situation could have ended up with everyone being killed anyway..in the full glare of the media?

1) The idea that a decision was taken to commit everyone to death in your theory rather than even attempt a rescue is irrational.

- “Sir, we have control of the aircraft, where shall I bring it down?”

- “The FBI don’t know what’s coming next! Look, just take the aircraft out to sea and we’ll blow it to smithereens – problem solved.”

- “Sir, what about the passengers, what will we say?”

- “Never mind the passengers! Now I gotta get on the phone.. get me some explosives planted in the Pentagon.. ship some plane parts in from the local museum.. coerce some ‘eyewitnesses’.. a hundred or so should do it.. make sure the ASCE are onboard.. and light poles.. cut down the light poles and stick ‘em in the road.. make it look like a plane came that way.. oh and call in that taxi driver, agent England..”

- “Sir, are you sure you don’t just want me to land the plane?”

- “That’s an order damnit!”

bee, you don’t even believe this :wacko::lol:

I’m only responding because I’m bored.

2) The idea that the hijackers could kill everyone onboard the aircraft in your theory is also irrational. As soon as they attempted systematically stabbing everyone onboard they would be overwhelmed.

because it was better to blast it to smithereens than have big chunks possibly turn up at some point?

The idea that a missile would blast the aircraft to “smithereens” is mistaken – real life is not like where they blow-up the Death Star, an aircraft is not going to be blasted into its component parts or atoms.

Offensive!!! What could be more offensive than your Inside Job theory?

In my mind, one that is both irrational and unsupported. It is creating an alternative theory in defiance of all evidence and logic just for the sake of it and trivialises seriousness of the event and genuine investigation. The theories I provide are always fit in and around the real-world facts in attempt to divert any offence. The only saving grace of your theory is that it is so baseless and against sound judgement it can be ignored…

Which is what I’m going to do now.

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.