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

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

2,185 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

bee

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?

the timing on the video is all messed up...sometimes it goes very slow...sometimes a bit faster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

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.

bee… [deep breath]…

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

:mellow:

I have presented my evidence and my interpretation....you are both, as is everyone else...free to make of it what you will.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

I have presented my evidence and my interpretation....you are both, as is everyone else...free to make of it what you will.

:tu:

Fair enough. The red streak at 0:29 to 0:30 looked strange to me anyway; it was well removed from the explosion. Someone said that it couldn't have been firing at anything because the explosion had already occurred. Evidently, they didn't take into account that the explosion didn't have to be caused by anything crashing into it. This being said, even if the pentaplane was fired upon, it doesn't look like the shots connected. I say this because I'm fairly sure that there would have been a lot more debris if it had actually been blown up before hitting the pentagon.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I have presented my evidence and my interpretation....you are both, as is everyone else...free to make of it what you will.

:tu:

Thank you – I’m sure that your interpretation has brought us all a step closer to the truth :unsure2::lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

I have presented my evidence and my interpretation....you are both, as is everyone else...free to make of it what you will.

:tu:

Thank you – I'm sure that your interpretation has brought us all a step closer to the truth :unsure2::lol::P

That's certainly my point of view. Although I agree with you that the grey thing she references after the red streak at 0:29-0:30 is a car, the red streak still makes me wonder. But even if the red streak didn't make me wonder, I would have welcomed her input. We're not publishing peer reviewed articles here; this is just a place to post what you think might have occurred. Once an idea is out there, it is ofcourse time to analyze it, but I think a certain gentleness should be used; ridiculing people's theories in a discussion tends to limit the debate as most people don't like being ridiculed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Fair enough. The red streak at 0:29 to 0:30 looked strange to me anyway; it was well removed from the explosion. Someone said that it couldn't have been firing at anything because the explosion had already occurred. Evidently, they didn't take into account that the explosion wasn't caused by anything crashing into it. This being said, even if the pentaplane was fired upon, it doesn't look like the shots connected. I say this because I'm fairly sure that there would have been a lot more debris if it had actually been blown up before hitting the pentagon.

underlined...thanks for that...exactly what I was thinking...and the movement from left to right is VERY subtle. And I mean VERY.

Thank you – I’m sure that your interpretation has brought us all a step closer to the truth :unsure2::lol::P

I live in hope.... :P

lovely lovely troof....if only the whole 9/11 thing wasn't such a quagmire of mind games and conflict....

but it keeps us all occupied, eh?.... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

That's certainly my point of view. Although I agree with you that the grey thing she references after the red streak at 0:29-0:30 is a car, the red streak still makes me wonder. But even if the red streak didn't make me wonder, I would have welcomed her input. We're not publishing peer reviewed articles here; this is just a place to post what you think might have occurred. Once an idea is out there, it is ofcourse time to analyze it, but I think a certain gentleness should be used; ridiculing people's theories in a discussion tends to limit the debate as most people don't like being ridiculed.

cheers Scott..... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Fair enough. The red streak at 0:29 to 0:30 looked strange to me anyway; it was well removed from the explosion. Someone said that it couldn't have been firing at anything because the explosion had already occurred. Evidently, they didn't take into account that the explosion didn't have to be caused by anything crashing into it. This being said, even if the pentaplane was fired upon, it doesn't look like the shots connected. I say this because I'm fairly sure that there would have been a lot more debris if it had actually been blown up before hitting the pentagon.

underlined...thanks for that...exactly what I was thinking...and the movement from left to right is VERY subtle. And I mean VERY.

So subtle I can't see it apparently, laugh :-). Seriously, how do you know it's going from left to right? I think it is, but it's just a hunch. The other thing I'm thinking of is, what if it's not a shot being fired, but another explosion, but clearly a much smaller one, near the video camera?

I live in hope.... :P

lovely lovely troof....if only the whole 9/11 thing wasn't such a quagmire of mind games and conflict....

but it keeps us all occupied, eh?.... :lol:

Laugh :-). That it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

cheers Scott..... :tu:

:blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

So subtle I can't see it apparently, laugh :-). Seriously, how do you know it's going from left to right? I think it is, but it's just a hunch. The other thing I'm thinking of is, what if it's not a shot being fired, but another explosion, but clearly a much smaller one, near the video camera?

bolded...lol...I have just had another good old look and it does appear to be just one frame.

but screen captures of the other one...clearly shows the what-ever-it is going from left to right.

at least in the first two screen captures....and that is a definite.... :)

the fact that the one-frame red streak is as near as damn it in the same position got me going.

still not 100% sure what it is as it seems weird that just ONE streak of flaming debris would be that

far out...just ONE ? lol...9/11 is the head-banger of all head-bangers. Even the cctv release does your

nut in...and don't get me started on the other 2nd cctv peep po one...

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

That's certainly my point of view. Although I agree with you that the grey thing she references after the red streak at 0:29-0:30 is a car, the red streak still makes me wonder. But even if the red streak didn't make me wonder, I would have welcomed her input. We're not publishing peer reviewed articles here; this is just a place to post what you think might have occurred. Once an idea is out there, it is ofcourse time to analyze it, but I think a certain gentleness should be used; ridiculing people's theories in a discussion tends to limit the debate as most people don't like being ridiculed.

Very well said Scott G. I'm hopeful that the context of my most recent comment regarding the idea presented here is understood, but just in case I'd like to clarify...

I find the idea about the Pentagon firing defensive shots to be ridiculous, but I have the utmost respect for bee. I meant no offense toward bee and if any was given I sincerely apologize. I was merely addressing the idea on the table, not the person.

Cheers. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Very well said Scott G. I'm hopeful that the context of my most recent comment regarding the idea presented here is understood, but just in case I'd like to clarify...

I find the idea about the Pentagon firing defensive shots to be ridiculous,

but....but.....why wouldn't they?

it's the military we're talking about here...not the Care Bears...

but I have the utmost respect for bee. I meant no offense toward bee and if any was given I sincerely apologize. I was merely addressing the idea on the table, not the person.

Cheers. :)

thankyou

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Response to Q24's Post #93, Part 1

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.

Not directly, no. But I think that what you include in Probst's witness "summary", which to me seems a clear case of cherry picking the points against him being an SoC witness, makes it rather clear.

"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). [above: "I am trying to compile a list of how you explain the eyewitnesses."]

How can you say that you're compiling a list of how I explain the eyewitnesses statements if you don't actually include my core points? Why not just say they're your cherry picked points from my statements and be done with it?

2) You are not going to convince me that the precise approach path was the predominant memory over the impact event itself.

Oh, I'm not saying it has to be within the meter of the actual approach path. But I think it'd be pretty obvious if a plane approached a gas station you were from one side of it or the other, don't you? And while you keep on saying that people have a memory of the "impact event itself", you've offered no hard evidence that such an event took place. Oh, I know that many witnesses -thought- that they saw the pentaplane impact the pentagon, but if you look at their statements, there's a lot of things that don't make sense. Here's one particular point that you might consider: this whole notion that the plane "bounced" off the ground before hitting the pentagon. I assume you agree that the plane would do no such thing; but have you considered that perhaps what happened is that the plane pulled up at the last moment? To those who couldn't see the bottom of the plane, it could certaily look like the plane had 'bounced' from the ground when in fact it had simply pulled up at the last moment.

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.

I'm not picking the witnesses here, you are. I never said that none of the witnesses could mistake where the plane approached; but some witnesses had much better vantage points then others; Lagasse, Brooks and Chadwick, all at the Citgo gas station, had an excellent vantage point to determine whether the pentaplane approached the pentagon North or South of the Citgo gas station, wouldn't you agree? As to being fooled into missing it flying away, if the pentagon erupted in explosions (if you look at the 5 frame video, you'll see that there were -2- large explosions, giving the pentaplane more time to make its exit without being noticed), blinding any onlookers with its bright flash, I think it's fairly reasonable that everyone, or nearly everyone, was fooled into thinking that the pentaplane did indeed crash into the pentagon. However, there are statements from various witnesses that suggest that it may not, in fact, have crashed into the pentagon. Probst says that the tail section "disappeared" into the explosion instead of the explosion being caused by the plane itself. Now I'm sure he'd agree that the plane did cause it but I think it's interesting that he'd put it that way. I remember the statement of a woman who said that one moment the plane was there and the next it had disappeared.. and how she couldn't explain it. It's almost as if she knew there was something fishy about the alleged crash but couldn't quite put her finger on what. And let's not forget Erik Dihle's statement in his interview for the Center for Military History, where he stated:

"We got up and ran outside, and the first few seconds, very confusing, we couldn't even tell, some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going and somebody else was yelling, no no no, a jet ran into the building"

Source: http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

Clearly it would be interesting to know who these people were, but even without knowing, it certainly suggests that some people -did- see the flyover. CIT actually mentions 3 other people, we'll get to that later I imagine.

You are not going to convince me ever… so what's the point in arguing?

First of all, why are you so sure that you can't be convinced? Secondly, regardless of whether or not I convince you, this isn't a private conversation between you and me alone; there's an audience listening, and it's certainly possible that one or more of them could be persuaded one way or the other.

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

And I set out to tell you why I believe what I do of the eyewitnesses, though it seems I'm taking much to much time for your tastes :rolleyes:. To use the hare analogy once more, though in a somewhat different context, you seem to be like the rabbit in Alice in Wonderland; as my father would often paraphrase my mother (who always seemed to be rushing off somewhere), it seems that you feel that you're 'late late late for a very important date!' with the next witness. I, on the other hand, would rather sit back like the caterpillar and carefully analyze e information before proceeding to the next one.

It fails to mention the points I mentioned earlier.

The summary is based on the points

So you say. What I don't understand is that if you're so interested in my points, you might consider letting me make them :lol:.

it is not meant to detail each and every point, thus it is called a "summary".

I never went into detail. I even listed many of my points in point form to make it easy to add them to your list of my points. But apparently you'd rather have your "summary" which I find to be misleading and superficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Response to Q24's Post #93, Part 2

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.

Q, Q, Q, whatever shall I do with you? Didn't you see the massive response I gave to that question of yours? Perhaps not. You support your theory by what you omit. Oh, I'm not saying that you omit things intentionally, but it can still be frustrating for those who are honestly trying to get things across to you. Here is my response to your question that, once again, you failed to respond to:

[Your points fail] 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.

Anything but actually address eyewitnesses like Rodney Washington…

My methods are somewhat different than Balsamo's, but on one thing we agree; if we're going to discuss the pentaplane eyewitnesses, I want to do it -right-, not superficially. I'm not going to let you off the hook just because you want to get on to the next witness.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

but....but.....why wouldn't they?

it's the military we're talking about here...not the Care Bears...

Bee, there was nobody to shoot at. The bad guys were dead as soon as the plane impacted the building. And yes, the plane did impact the building. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

thankyou

:tu:

You're welcome. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

but....but.....why wouldn't they?

Bee, there was nobody to shoot at. The bad guys were dead as soon as the plane impacted the building. And yes, the plane did impact the building. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

How about you list this alleged evidence over in the 9/11 planes and pentagon attack thread? I'd like to see it :-p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Bee, there was nobody to shoot at. The bad guys were dead as soon as the plane impacted the building. And yes, the plane did impact the building. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

There's also the distinct lack of evidence of any kind of defensive weapon installations on-site at the Pentagon that could shoot at anything, but hey, lets not let that get in the way of a good story... ;)

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

So you say. What I don't understand is that if you're so interested in my points, you might consider letting me make them :lol:.

bingo !!!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Bee, there was nobody to shoot at.

are you saying that they allowed the plane to impact the building?

There's also the distinct lack of evidence of any kind of defensive weapon installations on-site at the Pentagon that could shoot at anything, but hey, lets not let that get in the way of a good story... ;)

no.....let's not

let's pretend that the Pentagon is wide open for attack....any time...any day...for anyone with a grievance

shall we

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

How about you list this alleged evidence over in the 9/11 planes and pentagon attack thread? I'd like to see it :-p.

There are lists of this evidence all over the internet Scott. You know it as well as I do. You don't accept the evidence, and that's fine with me. It is what it is, but I'm not going to be dragged into the tedium of arguing this point with you; Especially when you can't even acknowledge the very simple and indisputable facts that I've laid out in my blog and the other thread regarding the ACARS CONFIRMS mythology. Do you honestly expect me to do so when you ignore those core points and engage me with your attempted rebuttals by myopically analyzing points from my blog that are clarified later in the blog?

Give me a break.

Seriously Scott, just accept the compliment I gave you a few posts ago and move on with your ill-placed arguments with Q24 here. Eventually I hope that you'll actually start listing out your contentions with the other Pentagon witnesses who saw the plane impact the building so that I can exercise my neck with more head shaking.

I look like a combination between this --> :no: <-- and this --> :lol: <-- when I'm reading your excuses about these witnesses.

I'll tell you what though... If you can acknowledge that the ACARS CONFIRMS mythology is a bunch of nonsense, I'll consider tracking down and posting the evidence that we're both already familiar with.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

There's also the distinct lack of evidence of any kind of defensive weapon installations on-site at the Pentagon that could shoot at anything, but hey, lets not let that get in the way of a good story... ;)

Cz

No doubt. And a good story it is... It actually reminds me of the fables of a shoot out with aliens under Dulce from Phil Schneider. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

are you saying that they allowed the plane to impact the building?

Bee darling, they didn't have a defense for such an attack in place. What is so hard to understand about that?

Despite the fact that the possibility had been raised and warnings had been given based on intelligence, we can't assume that such possibilities were acted upon with defensive preparations. Should they have been? Certainly. Were they? Apparently not in light of what actually happened.

Would it be possible today? Most likely not; but then hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

no.....let's not

let's pretend that the Pentagon is wide open for attack....any time...any day...for anyone with a grievance

shall we

Let's not pretend anything. I have very little doubt that defense measures are in place today which would prevent a repeat of the events of 911. That doesn't mean that they were in place in September of 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Bee darling, they didn't have a defense for such an attack in place.

booN dearest darling....how very remiss of them....don't you think?

what a terrible waste of trillions of dollars.

:cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Let's not pretend anything. I have very little doubt that defense measures are in place today which would prevent a repeat of the events of 911. That doesn't mean that they were in place in September of 2001.

Here's an interesting paper from the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Volume 1, Issue 2 entitled "There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon" that ends with the following conclusion:

Conclusion:

In this paper I have shown the origin of the conspiracy theorists claims regarding anti-aircraft defenses at the Pentagon. I have shown how they were initially made without sources or substantiation, arguing that it was “something everyone knows”. I have also shown that their claims are not even internally consistent, and change from person to person, even to the point of claiming that anti-aircraft guns, which don’t even exist in the land forces of the US military, are emplaced there. Furthermore I have pointed out that there is a large amount of evidence showing that there were no air defenses at the Pentagon, including statements by knowledgeable government officials and reliable media sources. And lastly, I have shown that belated attempts to justify these claims are based largely on hearsay, and inconsistent, vague, and unsubstantiated claims.

Given the loose standard for sources and the immediate embracing of convenient rumors in the 9/11 conspiracy theory community, I hold no fantasies that this will be the end of these claims, but I hope that at least some people, upon reading this paper, will demand more from those making these claims in the future.

So, what we have here with this "red flash = something shooting at something" is yet another example of certain people taking rumor and hearsay, tossing it around with a healthy does of blatantly willful ignorance, adding a dash or two of the "If I Ran the Zoo" logical fallacy, and deciding its true based on no solid factual evidence and nothing more than a wonton desire for it to be so. "Speculation as fact" seems to be the modus operandi for certain people, people who's time would be better served researching the reality of things than devising new and more fanciful fantasies to try to peddle as reality.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

booN dearest darling....how very remiss of them....don't you think?

what a terrible waste of trillions of dollars.

:cat:

It is both remiss and tragic. With that I won't disagree. But it is also understandable.

The Pentagon is far from any border. Prior to the age of domestic terrorism and even within it, the largest defense concerns would be border assaults. Consider your own house as an analogy for a moment.

You lock your doors, right? I'm speaking of the exterior doors specifically. If you don't then you really should, but that is a separate point altogether. Let's assume that the nation's defenses considered the exterior doors locked from a border standpoint.

Do you also lock your bedroom door? I don't. Why should I? The external locked door should prevent attack or invasion. If I had allowed someone in the house that I was worried about, perhaps I would lock my bedroom door, but that is a different story.

Is it unreasonable to realize that defenses at the Pentagon may not have been as strong as you've been suggesting merely because it wasn't on the border? I don't think it's unreasonable.

There has never really been an invasion into the United States to speak of. 911 was the most devastating attack on American soil in the history of the United States (unless you count the atrocities against the native population during the era when the United States was forming, which I'm not trying to minimize at all). Is it not understandable that the defenses of a presumed safe internal location may have been somewhat lax as a result of this long safe historical tenure?

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.