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

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

you mean the real world...like when the second plane had hit the tower...any other hi-jacked plane was NOT going

to be allowed to hit any other target....especially the defence headquarters?

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

only in your fantasy world, not the real world.

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.

errrrr it's a cover up remember...the exact times and details are not going to be freely available.

So you don't believe the fighters were still out at sea...you believe the government figures?

You think the government planned the whole thing but is telling the truth on selected parts...?

Parts that conveniently fit in with your own personel Inside Job theories.

one must keep a clear head and apply simple logic...not go off on a convoluted evidence rampage

and an acronym fest.

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.

well I'm so glad I could relieve your boredom for a few minutes... :rolleyes:

But I would say that you are responding because what I say broadly makes sense and that will never do.

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.

we can only guess what might have happened to the airliner had it landed...if the military were forced

to storm the plane many...possibly all would have died.

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.

bit of a strawman there....I think if you were being fair and rational you would admit that a plane

blown up by a missile (of some unknown kind)...would be in smaller parts than one that simply crashed

into the sea.

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.

I'm sorry I'm not 'serious' enough for you...and that people can actually understand what I say?

That I don't go off on insanely complicated 'evidence' tangents....

You can ignore me if you want to. But I must say, you are putting quite a bit of effort in for someone who

thinks that what I have is baseless and lacking in sound judgement.

Oh I forgot...you're just bored, aren't you.

Finally... your mask is slipping...I must have hit a nerve with my previous posts...was it the fighters over the Atlantic?

Or the idea that the debris parts could be popped over from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum?

:P

I'm only giving you as good as I got.....fair's fair.... ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think the government planned the whole thing but is telling the truth on selected parts...?

This is a misunderstanding - I don't think “the government” planned anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was those behind the scenes who did the planning--only parts of the government were used to execute the plan, and some of them were tricked.

With Vigilant Guardian going on, the whole day had military finger prints all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--

one must keep a clear head and apply simple logic...not go off on a convoluted evidence rampage

and an acronym fest.

--

That I don't go off on insanely complicated 'evidence' tangents....

--

Bee darling, IDK if this is WRT recent ACARS discussions, but FWIW IDD. IMHO ARINC has FTM acronyms... They even have acronyms nested within acronyms! ADNS, AVLC, & AOA to name a few FFS!! TMI for most PPL to take in? Depends on UR POV IRL I s'pose... :unsure2:

AFAIK ... OH... NVM :P

Anyhoo, TTYL! TTFN! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Q24's post #71, Part 1

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 disagree. This was your summary for Probst:

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.

This would be mine:

******

Frank Probst:

The ASCE report alleges that he stated that the pentaplane flew over the Navy Annex, which is in line with many other witnesses who also place it over the Navy Annex. All of these other witnesses have clearly drawn lines on maps provided by CIT and all were clearly denoting an NoC flight path. Based on this, it's highly likely that Probst was an NoC witness.

The ASCE report also appears to claim that Probst saw many things, but it doesn't quote him at all. The following is taken from an actual video interview of Probst:

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.

******

See how much more in depth my summation is? I also think that the point of the Navy Annex a crucial one, one which your summation ignores entirely, and also shows how some parts of his video statement don't make sense (turbulence) while making clear that others leave open various questions, such as his statement that light poles were falling down while not saying that the plane hit them, or even that he himself witnessed the light poles falling down himself.

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

Alright, I guess that's as far as you're willing to go with him.

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

Not always, as I make clear from the ASCE's report of him seeing the plane flying over the Navy Annex, but yes, generally I think so.

I will continue responding from the third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, to keep us moving forward.

Alright.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Q24's post #71, Part 2 (last part)

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).

Indeed it is.

I realise you could therefore say any eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the impact are mistaken due to this alone.

True.

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…

Perhaps their statements were distorted rather then outright fabricated. But like I said, I find it interesting that ASCE would state that he saw the plane flying over the Navy Annex, as that clearly is incongruent with the official SoC path.

that's good; it's what I'm looking for… possible explanations of why exactly they came out with what they did.

Ok.

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.

I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of eyewitness lines that have drawn the flight path over the Navy Annex. How many lines have been drawn of an SoC flight path? What CIT always said is that, due to the fact that some memories may get distorted over time, it's good to have different eyewitness testimony that corroborates each other. The NOC witnesses do this; the SoC witnesses don't. Furthermore, the witnesses who at the Citgo gas station itself are unanimous in stating that the plane frlew North of the Citgo gas station, with Lagasse being extremely confident that this is the way it flew.

It would be a big mistake to take each account completely literally or apply zero tolerance to certain variation.

To be sure; there is some slight variation in the drawn lines of the NoC witnesses. However, they are generally fairly consistent with each other.

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

Ok.

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.

Laugh :-). Ah Q, not everyone agrees with your notions of what is an excuse :-p.

Notwithstanding the post was a five minute read if that, it is not good pactice to link something you haven't even read.

I read a portion of it. Who knows, perhaps I even read that phrase. Ultimately, however, it's not just a matter of reading things, it's of absorbing things. Important points will tend to be addressed sooner or later, given enough time on a subject.

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.

If I miss a point, it can simply be brought to my attention later on. If I had blind faith, I would have simply been a cheer leader for some group or other that likes seeing things in black and white; Jim Hoffman et all on the one side (your path) or Balsamo et al on the other. Both demonize the other side and think it's the right thing to do. Not me, though. It's a hard path, but I walk it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee darling, IDK if this is WRT recent ACARS discussions, but FWIW IDD. IMHO ARINC has FTM acronyms... They even have acronyms nested within acronyms! ADNS, AVLC, & AOA to name a few FFS!! TMI for most PPL to take in? Depends on UR POV IRL I s'pose... :unsure2:

AFAIK ... OH... NVM :P

Anyhoo, TTYL! TTFN! :w00t:

:w00t::lol::-*

booN dearest.......HYAMLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:w00t::lol::-*

booN dearest.......HYAMLC

Heh :-). Here's one for you bee; and anyone who feels that being with those you love is the best christmas present...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See how much more in depth my summation is? I also think that the point of the Navy Annex a crucial one, one which your summation ignores entirely…

Yes I do.

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

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

I’d eventually like to put together one complete summary of the eyewitnesses. If each individual summary is too detailed then it will be unmanagable by the end and the core points will be lost in the volume of information. All I’m trying to record are those core points of how your theory accounts for each eyewitness.

It’s still helpful you give the detailed summary to ensure I don’t miss anything and understand where you are going with it. I’m just trying to explain that I’m not deliberately ignoring anything when I summarise your reasoning.

I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of eyewitness lines that have drawn the flight path over the Navy Annex. How many lines have been drawn of an SoC flight path?

Well let’s see…

- Wheelhouse drew his line South of the Annex.

- Paik drew his line over the Annex.

- Lagasse drew his line North of the Annex.

There are numerous other examples.

This type of variance is to be expected of eyewitness accounts.

I’ll keep saying, it is not an exact science – everyone records and interprets memories differently.

This is why I’m not at all surprised that CIT managed to isolate a handful of eyewitnesses who place the plane in a location incongruent with the necessary flight path leading to impact.

What this thread will eventually show is an even greater number of eyewitnesses who claim to have witnessed the damage path and/or impact.

Anyway, I’m off for now – Merry Xmas everyone! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Q24's Post #84, Part 1

See how much more in depth my summation is?

Yes I do.

Ok.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd eventually like to put together one complete summary of the eyewitnesses. If each individual summary is too detailed then it will be unmanagable by the end and the core points will be lost in the volume of information.

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

All I'm trying to record are those core points of how your theory accounts for each eyewitness.

The thing is, I don't think you're recording my core points; I think you're just doing lip service to my points. I've now listed what -I- consider to be my core points. If you don't include them, then all you can truly say is that you're recording points that you think are important and you're not that interested in what I myself consider to be important.

It's still helpful you give the detailed summary to ensure I don't miss anything and understand where you are going with it. I'm just trying to explain that I'm not deliberately ignoring anything when I summarise your reasoning.

Whether you're delibrately ignoring things I say or not isn't really relevant; the end result is that you're not summarizing my core points.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Q24's Post #84, Part 2

I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of eyewitness lines that have drawn the flight path over the Navy Annex. How many lines have been drawn of an SoC flight path?

Well let's see…

- Wheelhouse drew his line South of the Annex.

I think he's the only alleged witness to do so. Is this the case?

- Paik drew his line over the Annex.

As did Terry Morin and Sean Boger if memory serves.. and 1 atleast one more witness.

- Lagasse drew his line North of the Annex.

Did he? Perhaps he drew more then one line, but in the flight path lines that I've found of Lagasse, Chadwick and Brooks, all of whom were at the Citgo gas station at the time of the Pentagon attack, the Navy Annex isn't even in the picture. Here's the pictures of their lines that I've found:

http://imageshack.us...assebrooks.gif/

There are numerous other examples.

I'd like to see them before believing this.

This type of variance is to be expected of eyewitness accounts.

I don't know how you can say that after seeing CIT's work. Lagasse was adamant that the plane passed North of the Citgo gas station. He was adamant because he was -at- the Citgo gas station, so if it had passed south of the Citgo gas station, the difference would have been enormous. Brooks and Chadwick both back him up on the NoC approach.

I'll keep saying, it is not an exact science – everyone records and interprets memories differently.

I'm the first to admit that memories can be imperfect; but some events are much easier to remember then others; such as whether an unusual plane passed you on one side of a gas station or another. The fact that all 3 of the witnesses there all state that it passed on the North side is pretty strong evidence. And the NoC evidence certainly doesn't end there as I'm sure you're aware.

This is why I'm not at all surprised that CIT managed to isolate a handful of eyewitnesses who place the plane in a location incongruent with the necessary flight path leading to impact.

What this thread will eventually show is an even greater number of eyewitnesses who claim to have witnessed the damage path and/or impact.

I find it interesting how you make this an either/or proposition. If you can't find more SoC witnesses then NoC witnesses, just add witnesses who allegedly saw the impact; heck, you could then even include some of the NoC witnesses, and perhaps try to forget the fact that they are, in fact, NoC witnesses and thus incompatible with the SoC damage path. Perhaps you're argue that since they "saw" the impact, that they must have therefore simply been "mistaken" as to the location of the aircraft. What you don't seem to understand is that it's much easier to be misled concerning whether or not the pentaplane hit the pentagon, due to the blinding flash at the time of the explosion there, then it is to be misled as to whether the plane approached from the North or South side of the Citgo gas station; especially if you were at the gas station itself.

Anyway, I'm off for now – Merry Xmas everyone!

Yeah, you too. Sorry I get so worked up about this sometimes but I really feel like you're bypassing a lot of very important information sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how you make this an either/or proposition. If you can't find more SoC witnesses then NoC witnesses, just add witnesses who allegedly saw the impact; heck, you could then even include some of the NoC witnesses…

Scott, it’s like you’re in shock and horror that I would, “just add witnesses who allegedly saw the impact” :o

Oh dear, what a thing to do - how unreasonable am I?! :lol:

And rest assured I’m going to include all eyewitnesses to the impact, regardless of the nuance in flight path they described beforehand. It is bad enough that anyone would selectively present eyewitnesses. It reaches altogether new depths when certain parts of their accounts are further cherry-picked to support a theory whilst disregarding other parts. If you can highlight the flight path described and write-off the fact every one of them corroborate the impact, then I can sure play that game in reverse.

And please, look up the definition of “summary” - it is meant to be a condensed account.

Anyhow…

It has been 3 days since I requested your reasons for discounting Rodney Washington as an eyewitness. All you have done is spin yourself into the ground over areas we have already covered. You have given your views and I acknowledge them. Please could we move forward with this as there are a lot more eyewitnesses to cover.

Rodney Washington…

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how you make this an either/or proposition. If you can't find more SoC witnesses then NoC witnesses...

Scott, it's like you're in shock and horror that I would, "just add witnesses who allegedly saw the impact" :o

Disappointed, not shocked. The disappointment stems from what you said in the OP of this thread, namely this:

"Whilst there are indeed eyewitnesses who recall the aircraft on a path irreconcilable with the damage and impact, there are a greater number of eyewitness claims which corroborate a path consistent with the damage and/or impact."

What you just said seems to be throwing out your conclusion made in the OP without so much as bidding it farewell. I admit I like a bit of formality when a person abandons one of their claims, so I ask you now: have you abandoned your claim that there were more SoC witnesses then NoC witnesses? Or is that final bit in your claim the "and/or" part supposed to cover it all? This, in turn, leads me to another point that I made in the post you're responding to:

"Perhaps you're argue that since they "saw" the impact, that they must have therefore simply been "mistaken" as to the location of the aircraft. What you don't seem to understand is that it's much easier to be misled concerning whether or not the pentaplane hit the pentagon, due to the blinding flash at the time of the explosion there, then it is to be misled as to whether the plane approached from the North or South side of the Citgo gas station; especially if you were at the gas station itself."

And rest assured I'm going to include all eyewitnesses to the impact,

I think it would be more accurate to say that you will include all the -alleged- eyewitnesses to the impact. As I'm sure you're aware, PFT, CIT and others such as myself don't believe that the pentaplane impacted the pentagon, which would mean that we don't believe there's a single person who saw the plane hit the pentagon. That being said, PFT, CIT and others certainly believe that many people were fooled into -believing- that the pentagon was hit by the pentaplane.

It is bad enough that anyone would selectively present eyewitnesses. It reaches altogether new depths when certain parts of their accounts are further cherry-picked to support a theory whilst disregarding other parts.

I couldn't agree with you more. Which is why I don't like your "summarizing" of Probst's account. In my view, you're doing precisely what you claim to abhor; cherry-picking parts of his account to support your plane crash theory whilst disregarding other parts.

If you can highlight the flight path described and write-off the fact every one of them corroborate the impact, then I can sure play that game in reverse.

I certainly agree with that. However, I don't write off the fact that all the known witnesses believe that the pentaplane hit the pentagon. Instead, I've worked hard to explain -why- it is that they believe that this event occurred. Not only that, but I compare the likelihood of them being mistaken as to the pentaplane impacting the pentagon with the likelihood of them being mistaken as to the pentaplane's flight path.

And please, look up the definition of "summary" - it is meant to be a condensed account.

Oh, I know. I just think that you've crossed the line between simply condensing information and cherry picking from it.

Anyhow…

It has been 3 days since I requested your reasons for discounting Rodney Washington as an eyewitness. All you have done is spin yourself into the ground over areas we have already covered.

Just because you believe that's what I've done doesn't make it true. I've been thinking about our differing approaches to the pentagon witnesses for some time now. Your approach seems to be to quickly cover all of them while my approach is to cover each of them with much more detail then you're interested in. This reminds me of the fabled race between the tortoise and the hare. For those unfamiliar with the story, the classic version is that the tortoise and the hare compete in a race; as can be imagined, the hare is rather confident that he will win the race, so after zooming past the tortoise, he takes a nap. He sleeps so long, however, that by the time he wakes up, the tortoise has all but crossed the finish line and the hare can't catch up. As you may know, there is more then one version of this story, so I will here make my own. To me, you feel like the tortoise in a way; ever wishing to get on to the next witness. I, on the other hand, am reluctant to go to the next witness because I don't feel that you've properly digested the information I've provided regarding the first one. I think that this is much the same problem that members of PFT had with you when you started a thread for the same purpose over there. The difference being that I will not stop you from bringing up as many witnessses as you wish. However, I will only discuss them when I feel that I'm ready to move on to them. Heading back to the analogy of the tortoise and the hare, my story goes something like this; yes, I can take a very long time in going through material. I tend to focus on things that many people don't find to be that important, atleast initially; and this at times includes groups like PFT and CIT (they've never been too keen on my view that they're far too quick to judge the motivations of those who disagree with them). But as time goes by, I think that people begin to realize that my methodology, while slower, is also far deeper and more accurate in determining the truth.

You have given your views and I acknowledge them.

Acknowledgement is not the same as understanding. I'm afraid you may not have understood the implications of all the things that I've said, but just as you can't force me to move on to the next witness until I feel ready to, I can't force you to go over something that you feel you already understand, nor would I want to.

Please could we move forward with this as there are a lot more eyewitnesses to cover.

Indeed. You may be interested in knowing that onesliceshort has covered a plethora of eyewitnesses that those who disagree with the NoC approach and flyover theory have used in the past. If you'd like to see his work on this, it can be found here:

Debunk of detractor witness links, NOBODY contradicts NOC

I'm not saying that I agree with the title of the thread; Wheelhouse certainly doesn't seem to agree with the NoC flight path. That being said, I still think it's a good piece of work and one that I'll probably be using in regards to any further eyewitnesses.

Rodney Washington…

Perhaps in a little bit ;)

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or is that final bit in your claim the "and/or" part supposed to cover it all?

I dunno Scott… do you think “and/or impact” is supposed to cover eyewitnesses who saw the impact?

I think it might.

Of course, if there was an impact, the plane flew a direction corresponding with the damage path.

In my view, you're doing precisely what you claim to abhor; cherry-picking parts of his account to support your plane crash theory whilst disregarding other parts.

The summary included 1) that Probst didn’t see the whole thing 2) that he can be interpreted to place himself and the plane in locations incongruent to impact and 3) that his account was adversely influenced by the ASCE…

How is that “cherry-picking parts of his account to support [the] plane crash theory”?

Please quit with the dishonest complaints.

Apart from that, it appears you are prefering to spin on the spot some more and talk about a tortoise and hare than actually get on with addressing the eyewitness presented. Is it because CIT have never properly done your thinking for you on Rodney Washington that you are having trouble?

Come on, I already know what you’re going to say - the reference to “hitting the ground” just short of impact invalidates everything, doesn’t it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or is that final bit in your claim the "and/or" part supposed to cover it all?

I dunno Scott… do you think "and/or impact" is supposed to cover eyewitnesses who saw the impact?

I think your problem here is that you keep on assuming that any of the eyewitnesses saw an impact at all. I notice that you didn't respond to what I said following the above statement, namely my quote from a previous post:

"Perhaps you're arguing that since they "saw" the impact, that they must have therefore simply been "mistaken" as to the location of the aircraft."

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

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

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

Of course, if there was an impact, the plane flew a direction corresponding with the damage path.

On that, atleast, we agree.

In my view, you're doing precisely what you claim to abhor; cherry-picking parts of his account to support your plane crash theory whilst disregarding other parts.

The summary included

1) that Probst didn't see the whole thing

2) that he can be interpreted to place himself and the plane in locations incongruent to impact and

3) that his account was adversely influenced by the ASCE…

How is that "cherry-picking parts of his account to support [the] plane crash theory"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please quit with the dishonest complaints.

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

Apart from that, it appears you are prefering to spin on the spot some more and talk about a tortoise and hare than actually get on with addressing the eyewitness presented.

Call it spinning on the spot all you like; I stand by my story of the tortoise and the hare. I'm willing to spend more time on the witness statements because I want to give the most accurate portrayal of this evidence as possible. Speeding through a slew of witnesses and "summarizing" or, in my view, cherry picking, the arguments may look good superficially but will be taken apart by anyone who has truly analyzed the witness statements.

Is it because CIT have never properly done your thinking for you on Rodney Washington that you are having trouble?

If CIT did my thinking for me, I wouldn't be banned from their site. The reason I haven't yet analyzed Rodney Washington's statements is that I have had other things to do, one of which is to protest your summation of Frank Probst's account. Not only that, but I would like to take a look at what others have said here regarding Washington, as well as what oneslice has said about him before making my arguments regarding his account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

[snip]

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?

I'm going to say he was/is a collaborator....with the US Government to try and make people believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

To cover up that flight 77 was shot down for defensive purposes.

I discount Probst because of his lack of any acknowledgement of turbulence affecting him.

I discount Mason for the same reason...that if the plane was going over him so low that

it 'possibly' clipped the antenna of the vehicle behind him...that he and the vehicles would have

experienced disruptive turbulence.

This can't be acknowledged though, because it would call into question them being able to relate their 'so called' observations.

But they have to have the plane coming in so low..so that it fits in with the alleged impact point.

So they are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place with that.

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...correct me if I'm wrong...but the 'Official Flight Path' didn't go over the helicopter pad..?

so how could the plane 'bouce' off it and into the building?

so I am discounting him.

Now you could come back at me and say something like...if they are all collaborating with the Official Account,

why don't they all tell the same story?

But I think that confusing and conflicting testimony would be built into the whole debacle to befuddle the public

and also to reflect the stuff about the unreliabilty of eye witness testimony....just in case some genuine

eye-witnesses come along...and their testimony would then be buried in all the non-genuine ones..?

I looked at your link and this quote illustrates the unbelievable kind of thing we are meant to accept...

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/After_assault_on_Pentagon_orderly_response+.shtml

Asked at an early afternoon news conference whether the Pentagon has any defenses to prevent such aerial attacks, Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral Craig Quigley responded: ''Not that I'm aware of.''

duh......seriously...we are meant to believe this???

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your problem here is that you keep on assuming that any of the eyewitnesses saw an impact at all. I notice that you didn't respond to what I said following the above statement, namely my quote from a previous post:

"Perhaps you're arguing that since they "saw" the impact, that they must have therefore simply been "mistaken" as to the location of the aircraft."

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

Right now I am not intent on making any argument.

I am trying to compile a list of how you explain the eyewitnesses.

Did I not explain this?

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

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

I have not responded because: -

1) It is moving away from what I would like to achieve here (see above).

2) You are not going to convince me that the precise approach path was the predominant memory over the impact event itself. You are not going to convince me that eyewitnesses of your choosing can never mistake where the plane approached but that all without exception can be fooled into missing it fly away. You are not going to convince me ever… so what’s the point in arguing? We each know where we stand.

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

Didn’t I already indicate that?

It fails to mention the points I mentioned earlier.

The summary is based on the points – it is not meant to detail each and every point, thus it is called a “summary”.

What is so difficult to understand?

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

I did, in my last post…

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

The suggestion they do, is a dishonest complaint.

Call it spinning on the spot all you like; I stand by my story of the tortoise and the hare.

Anything but actually address eyewitnesses like Rodney Washington…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well...correct me if I'm wrong...but the 'Official Flight Path' didn't go over the helicopter pad..?

so how could the plane 'bouce' off it and into the building?

so I am discounting him.

Thank you bee - at least you are not afraid to defend your theory.

You are correct the aircraft did not fly exactly over the helicopter pad… though the impact was very close to it.

I’m expecting Scott to eventually come up with something similar.

Well, once he stops trawling over old ground and realises I’m not out to argue against him here.

So essentially what you’d say bee, is that any error in an eyewitness statement renders their whole account void?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

ok...I've got something new to bring to the table...that may fit in with why Don Mason included...

witnessing "a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing"

I have been taking another look at the infamous cctv footage and noticed something...

Here it is again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCTqU2FgEQ

Now...at 0:29/0:30.....there is a red streak coming in from the left...

911firstthingpentagon.png

some might dismiss this as a reflection of some kind?

but later on...coming in from the same position is another (but not red) streak

at 1:26

911beginningofsecondthing.png

911secondshotsecondthing.png

then it can be seen to the left of the bollard... 1:38

911thingpentagon.png

and then on it's 'journey' can be seen to the right of the bollard...1:40

911thingpentagon2.png

what I'm saying is...are we seeing defensive shots being fired by the Pentagon?

I have read in the last few hours that at first the Press Association said a 'booby trapped truck' caused

the damage at the Pentagon...but this was quickly denied...mmmmmmmmmmmm

You see where I'm going with this?

Are these shots being fired at a fast moving truck? And (speculation) might one of the shots have hit the

portable generator? So this had to be explained away? Hence the mention in Mason's testimony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee... are you being serious?

The "red streak" doesn't look like it is coming in from the left to me... It merely looks like a chunk of burning wreckage that was blown clear to the end of the wall.

The other, slightly higher quality, CCTV footage shows quite a bit of wreckage flying over after the impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee... are you being serious?

The "red streak" doesn't look like it is coming in from the left to me... It merely looks like a chunk of burning wreckage that was blown clear to the end of the wall.

The other, slightly higher quality, CCTV footage shows quite a bit of wreckage flying over after the impact.

I AM being serious.....

This saying just popped into my mind when I read your post...

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"..... :)

drink, baby, drink...... :D

to confirm again...I am being serious about the (speculative) 'defensive shots'....

edit to say...I'm not actually calling you a baby...I'm being colloquial... ^_^

further edit...I'm not calling you a horse either...lol

.

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I AM being serious.....

This saying just popped into my mind when I read your post...

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"..... :)

drink, baby, drink...... :D

to confirm again...I am being serious about the (speculative) 'defensive shots'....

I'm sorry, but I find your (speculative) 'defensive shots' nothing short of ridiculous...

Go here, scroll down to the Videos and watch Pentagon Security Camera #2. The area gets littered with debris after the impact.

The "red streak" which caught your attention in the Security Camera #1 footage is just burning debris from the impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee, if you look at the first two screen shots you posted, then check the time stamps, there is over a minute in difference between the two in which the 'projectile' hasn't moved?

Edit - ah, are you saying it's two separate shots...in which case, why fire the second way after impact?

Edited by The Sky Scanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what I'm saying is...are we seeing defensive shots being fired by the Pentagon?

bee… [deep breath]…

The first warning shot (0:29) is a piece of wreckage and the second (1:26) is a car.

:mellow:

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.