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

2,189 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Q24

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?

For [expletive removed] sake…

I don’t want to summarise: “Probst placed himself and the plane in a location incongruent with an impact… because he was approaching the helipad which can be interpreted to mean he was right next to the helipad and because he did not describe turbulence so the plane did not pass over him and because he said the plane came over the Navy Annex and that doesn’t match the damage path either and because on and on.”

Just the bolded text is enough for my purposes.

Why?

Because that is a summary; the centre point; the end result.

The rest is specific detail of why you believe that bold text.

The bold text is the culmination of the detail; the summary.

The bold text is not ‘cherry-picking’, it is the overall point.

How many more ways can I say it?

It is brilliant that you provide the detail – I cannot summarise your reasoning without it, so thank you. It is just not necessary to whine when I condense it into a concise summary of your position. At the end it is simple for anyone who so wishes to do a search of your posts to find all of the detail presented. So there you go, it’s not going to be missed.

It is pointless the conversation going like this: -

  • Q24: What is your interpretation of Probst?
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: Thank you [summarises]
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: Ok, moving on…
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: What is your interpretation of Washington?
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: Please can we move on to Washington?
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: I’m not going to agree with you, please can we move on…
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]

We could carry on like that for the next hundred posts but it’d be pointless.

You think if you repeat it enough times I’ll say, “Ohhh yeahhh!”? :w00t:

We already know this thread will not end in agreement between us – our differences in how eyewitness testimony should be treated are irreconcilable at a fundamental level. The best we can hope for is a presentation of all the eyewitnesses you claimed in private not to be aware of and, with any luck, an understanding of how you would account for them.

Ah but what’s this…

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.

Is this your explanation of why we should not accept the account of Rodney Washington?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

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.

Oh here's a real nugget... Thank you for pointing it out Q24, I had totally missed this.

So the plane was perhaps on a collision course with the Pentagon and then "simply pulled up at the last moment?"

That's your explanation!?!? ROFL :rofl:

Forgive me a moment as I do one of these --> :no: <-- and one of these --> :lol: <--...

You should probably run this idea by your idol to get his take. Would the aircraft survive such a maneuver? I don't think it is likely and Rob would most definitely object. After all, the aircraft should have disintegrated into virtual nothingness according to his interpretation of the documented Boeing limits. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

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

Heck I cycle through ALL of the emoticons reading Scott’s posts :lol:

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.

Yes, Scott never did get back to that even after I tried to simplify the issue.

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

bee, hop on the train to MOD main building in London. That would be the UK’s closest equivalent to the Pentagon. Let us know how many surface-to-air missiles you see. Actually, list how many defences you see at all. I think you will find you can walk right up to the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

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

what a terrible waste of trillions of dollars.

:cat:

The Pentagon is directly in the landing path of a major airport. It is flown over by thousands of people everyday. None have ever seen any defenses. Even if they had some, should they fire on anything without a transponder? What if a plane has an electrical issue on final approach? No radio and no transponder then.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Pentagon_Missile_Batteries

One must remember that the Pentagon is essentially a glorified office building

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

So you say. [but] if you're so interested in my points, you might consider letting me make them :lol:.

bingo !!!

:)

:w00t:. Looks like Q has ignored this point and many others besides; he skipped over my post 114 entirely. I'm beginning to lose hope that he'll ever get certain points. :(

That being said, I've finally understood how one of his points "summarizes" one of mine that I felt was particularly important, so it looks like I may finally be ready to move on to Rodney...

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

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?

For [expletive removed] sake…

I don't want to summarise: "Probst placed himself and the plane in a location incongruent with an impact… because he was approaching the helipad which can be interpreted to mean he was right next to the helipad and because he did not describe turbulence so the plane did not pass over him and because he said the plane came over the Navy Annex and that doesn't match the damage path either and because on and on."

Just the bolded text is enough for my purposes.

Why?

Because that is a summary; the centre point; the end result.

The rest is specific detail of why you believe that bold text.

The bold text is the culmination of the detail; the summary.

The bold text is not 'cherry-picking', it is the overall point.

How many more ways can I say it?

It is brilliant that you provide the detail – I cannot summarise your reasoning without it, so thank you. It is just not necessary to whine when I condense it into a concise summary of your position. At the end it is simple for anyone who so wishes to do a search of your posts to find all of the detail presented. So there you go, it's not going to be missed.

This is the first post of yours where I can actually see the connection between your point and what I was saying concerning Probst's allegedly placing the plane over the Navy Annex. However, most people probably won't bother to search my posts for the detail. For this reason, what I think I'll do is create a more detailed list of points; they can look at your list if they want it really short and mine if they want a more detailed version.

It is pointless the conversation going like this: -

  • Q24: What is your interpretation of Probst?
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: Thank you [summarises]
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: Ok, moving on…
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: What is your interpretation of Washington?
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: Please can we move on to Washington?
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]
  • Q24: I'm not going to agree with you, please can we move on…
  • Scott: [Provides interpretation of Probst]

We could carry on like that for the next hundred posts but it'd be pointless.

You think if you repeat it enough times I'll say, "Ohhh yeahhh!"? :w00t:

There are points I've made that you seem to ignore. They're not interpretations of what Probst said, they're what Probst actually said. These points, if you understood them, you might well change your stance. But as bee said, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Anyway, you're not the only person who's listening, and like I said, I finally got the connection between your "incongruent location" bit and my point regarding the Navy Annex. So while I may still think your summary is too short, I can atleast now see the connection.

We already know this thread will not end in agreement between us

Life's a stage and I forgot my script -.- How is it that we already know this?

our differences in how eyewitness testimony should be treated are irreconcilable at a fundamental level.

Probably because you ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs :lol:.

The best we can hope for is a presentation of all the eyewitnesses you claimed in private not to be aware of and, with any luck, an understanding of how you would account for them.

I personally hope for more.

Ah but what's this…

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.

Is this your explanation of why we should not accept the account of Rodney Washington?

An initial foray perhaps; I believe he did say something about the plane bouncing? By the way, to say that I don't accept Washington's account is going too far; rather, I think that he may well have seen certain things, but simply misinterpreted what they meant.

Edited by Scott G
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

:w00t:. Looks like Q has ignored this point and many others besides; he skipped over my post 114 entirely. I'm beginning to lose hope that he'll ever get certain points. :(

Scott, I want to hear your points - just once in regard to each eyewitness would be all the better.

Your post #114 was more complaint that I haven’t included detail of your reasoning in my summary. I completely get where your reasoning comes from, I just don’t need to include the specific detail in my summary to reach an understanding. Please see my post #126 above which explains why I did not respond to your post #114. If you wish to compile a detailed summary yourself then go for it (ah, I just read in your next post you said you will do that) - it’ll be interesting to compare notes at the end.

This is the first post of yours where I can actually see the connection between your point and what I was saying concerning Probst's allegedly placing the plane over the Navy Annex.

So while I may still think your summary is too short, I can atleast now see the connection.

:w00t::tu::D

They're not interpretations of what Probst said, they're what Probst actually said. These points, if you understood them, you might well change your stance.

When Probst observed whatever he did… that was his interpretation.

When Probst later recalled the memory… that was his interpretation.

When Probst described it in his words… that was his interpretation.

When we read his words… that is our interpretation.

Each step above is an interpretation all of which contribute to the eyewitness testimony we are now viewing. It is the same concept as the ‘Chinese Whispers’ game where the initial fact can be inadvertently reinvented at any stage. What we get at the end is not necessarily the actual event that occurred.

The human mind is proven to be quite inept when it comes to observation, memory, description. That is a large part of why we take photographs, set reminders, keep written records, etc – to retain and preserve the information. If we tried to do all of this in our head the system would fall down… as evident by the discrepancies seen in eyewitness testimony.

Life's a stage and I forgot my script -.- How is it that we already know this?

Perhaps this deserves further explanation.

The answer I gave: “our differences in how eyewitness testimony should be treated are irreconcilable at a fundamental level.”

Let me show what I’m talking about…

60343.jpg

Hopefully you recognise the scene.

Which of the red arrows indicates a path that an eyewitness might describe as “over the Navy Annex”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

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.

Oh here's a real nugget... Thank you for pointing it out Q24, I had totally missed this.

So the plane was perhaps on a collision course with the Pentagon and then "simply pulled up at the last moment?"

That's your explanation!?!? ROFL :rofl:

Forgive me a moment as I do one of these --> :no: <-- and one of these --> :lol: <--...

You should probably run this idea by your idol to get his take. Would the aircraft survive such a maneuver? I don't think it is likely and Rob would most definitely object. After all, the aircraft should have disintegrated into virtual nothingness according to his interpretation of the documented Boeing limits. :rolleyes:

You're thinking of this:

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

But i'm not saying that the plane had to make an impossible pull up from a steep dive; clearly I don't believe in the official story's version of where the plane flew. I'm just saying that at the last moment it may well have pulled up slightly to avoid hitting the pentagon and some people who saw its final moments interpreted it as the plane "bouncing" from the ground since they may well have been in a position where they didn't actually see the ground and simply assumed that this is what it was doing. I think it's even possible that they think that it bounced because the explosion happened and it -then- rose; so they put in the bounce to explain why the explosion occured while the plane went upwards immediately afterwards.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

:w00t:. Looks like Q has ignored this point and many others besides; he skipped over my post 114 entirely. I'm beginning to lose hope that he'll ever get certain points. :(

Scott, I want to hear your points - just once in regard to each eyewitness would be all the better.

To hear is not necessarily to understand. Which is why I've been repeating certain things in various ways to try to get you to -understand- what I'm saying.

Your post #114 was more complaint that I haven't included detail of your reasoning in my summary. I completely get where your reasoning comes from, I just don't need to include the specific detail in my summary to reach an understanding. Please see my post #126 above which explains why I did not respond to your post #114.

Read and responded to, thanks.

If you wish to compile a detailed summary yourself then go for it (ah, I just read in your next post you said you will do that) - it'll be interesting to compare notes at the end.

:w00t::tu::D

Sounds good :tu:

They're not interpretations of what Probst said, they're what Probst actually said. These points, if you understood them, you might well change your stance.

When Probst observed whatever he did… that was his interpretation.

When Probst later recalled the memory… that was his interpretation.

When Probst described it in his words… that was his interpretation.

When we read his words… that is our interpretation.

Each step above is an interpretation all of which contribute to the eyewitness testimony we are now viewing. It is the same concept as the 'Chinese Whispers' game where the initial fact can be inadvertently reinvented at any stage. What we get at the end is not necessarily the actual event that occurred.

Is this what you meant all along? Words can certainly confuse, especially when enough aren't used for clarification; I had thought that you'd meant only the last one; our interpretation.

The human mind is proven to be quite inept when it comes to observation, memory, description. That is a large part of why we take photographs, set reminders, keep written records, etc – to retain and preserve the information. If we tried to do all of this in our head the system would fall down… as evident by the discrepancies seen in eyewitness testimony.

I agree that single eyewitness testimony isn't the most reliable unless something is quite obvious (such as what the 3 witnesses at the Citgo gas station witnessed). For this reason, corroboration is key. The NoC witnesses do this well; the alleged SoC witnesses don't.

Perhaps this deserves further explanation.

The answer I gave: "our differences in how eyewitness testimony should be treated are irreconcilable at a fundamental level."

Let me show what I'm talking about…

60343.jpg

Hopefully you recognise the scene.

Which of the red arrows indicates a path that an eyewitness might describe as "over the Navy Annex"?

B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

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:

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.

yeah yeah yeah.... :rolleyes:

been a while since you ripped into me like that.... :lol:

I must have touched a nerve

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?

I don't think for one minute that the Pentagon would JUST rely on air defence.

I'm sure that it would have ground defence as well.

The Pentagon is directly in the landing path of a major airport. It is flown over by thousands of people everyday. None have ever seen any defenses. Even if they had some, should they fire on anything without a transponder? What if a plane has an electrical issue on final approach? No radio and no transponder then.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Pentagon_Missile_Batteries

One must remember that the Pentagon is essentially a glorified office building

And Command Centre

Again...I don't believe that the Pentagon would be undefended...especially as America was under attack.

What you say about 'thousands of people' flying over the Pentagon everyday...is this true?

I read somewhere that previous to 9/11 there was a small private aircraft flown into the side of the building

and that after that...ONLY military were allowed to fly over the building and in the Pentagon Airspace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

To hear is not necessarily to understand. Which is why I've been repeating certain things in various ways to try to get you to -understand- what I'm saying.

Unless I ask for clarification, you can take it as a given that I understand where you are coming from. I have read all of your posts in this thread multiple times, there is nothing I’ve missed. If I don’t respond to a particular point it is likely because I think your reasoning is irrelevant or flawed and I don’t want to spend a dozen posts arguing about it to get nowhere – that doesn’t get through the exercise I’m attempting here.

I’ll try more to indicate to you that I’ve understood and how I’ve accounted for each point in the summary.

Is this what you meant all along? Words can certainly confuse, especially when enough aren't used for clarification; I had thought that you'd meant only the last one; our interpretation.

I guess I was referring to all interpretation including our own. I’ll get onto that below…

B.

This is an example of why we will never agree on the eyewitness testimony.

I would answer that a path could follow A, B or C and an eyewitness might describe it as “over the Navy Annex”.

In fact, we could place an arrow anywhere in the sky in that particular image and I would not be at all surprised for an eyewitness to describe it as “over the Navy Annex”. It is the biggest building in the area; the obvious reference point.

Here are the three areas where Probst interprets the event: -

  • Probst might have observed the plane at ‘A’ but perceived it was headed across his view of the Navy Annex (if you extend that arrow it is moving from left to right across the image). When he makes that split second observation, his obvious interpretation might be, “over the Navy Annex”.
  • Probst might have observed the plane at ‘A’ but, when he later recalls it, the memory is not precise (not many have photographic memories). But he does know that the plane came from somewhere above and in direction of the Navy Annex. Again the obvious interpretation he might provide is, “over the Navy Annex”.
  • Probst might have observed the plane at ‘A’ but, even if his memory were unusually perfect, he’s not likely to put it in words, “It came kinda over the Navy Annex but a bit more to the left over that non-descript building just the other side of Columbia Pike.” Once more the obvious interpretation he gives might be simply, “over the Navy Annex”.

Then we read his comment, “over the Navy Annex” - how should we interpret it?

We could be inflexible about it, take it to the letter, fail to account for nuances of the human memory described above. In which case, we would have to say Probst saw the plane at ‘B’ (that is the arrow literally “over the Navy Annex” which you picked out).

Of course then, we’d be wrong…

As noted, the plane came from ‘A’ in each example above (ok Scott, calm down, it‘s only theory to get the point across). Probst’s observation, recollection and communication of the event, along with our own interpretation of his statement has led us away from this correct answer.

Do you see why I will never agree with you that the plane was at ‘B’ based on an eyewitness claim of “over the Navy Annex”?

This is just one of many fundamental differences we have in our treatment of the eyewitness testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

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.

The alleged witnessing of the 'small explosion' as the portable generator was struck by 'the right wing'....

At the moment I'm working on the theory that a truck laden with explosives was driven fast into the building

and that the truck was fired on by some kind of Ground Defence.

I think that the Pentagon wasn't evacuated because there was confidence that nothing was going to get to it

from the air...that that was covered.

But that a truck...maybe connected with the renovation work was in the vacinity and primed for attack..

That when the truck drove at speed toward the building...it was fired upon.

I'm wondering if the portable generator was clipped by some kind of smallish missile as it was firing on the truck?

And that Mason was required to include the explosion/generator bit in his testimony to cover the fact that the

generator was obviously damaged?

I was looking at this link today and there are a couple of pictures that could flesh out this speculation

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

911pentagonexit_holes.jpg

Three distinct exit holes in C Ring

and

911pentagonmissilepaths.jpg

Possible flight paths of three missiles hitting the Pentagon

THREE exit holes is new to me and I am wondering if a truck was indeed fired upon and maybe hit?

But that the main damage done to the Pentagon was from the missiles, used in a defensive manner?

And as lots of people died and were injured in the Pentagon...this is a strong motive to cover up

what could be looked on as an excessive and botched? military maneuver....so it could have made sense

at the time..in the chaos of the day to, in essence, kill two birds with one stone and do a mock up

of a Boeing Airliner at the scene....which would also cover up Flight 77 being taken over the Atlantic

and shot down...

Oh...and with the pictures above....the one of the 3 missile paths...would one of those paths involve

the portable generator maybe being clipped?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Oh...and with the pictures above....the one of the 3 missile paths...would one of those paths involve

the portable generator maybe being clipped?

Well gosh, I think you figured it out – missile path #1 passes the generator! :w00t:

Then add this quote from eyewitness Mike Walter: -

"It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon"

There – you have a fully working theory!

Run along now… :lol:

On a serious note, I’m not aware of three holes in the C-ring. If the photograph you provided is genuine and shows additional holes, these may have been created during the site clean-up to assist access and removal of the wreckage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

And Command Centre

The bunkers buried deep underground at the Pentagon maybe. I doubt there is much more than administrative offices above ground. Of course there's also a bigger command center at Cheyenne Mountain.

Again...I don't believe that the Pentagon would be undefended...especially as America was under attack.

It doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what you can prove.

What you say about 'thousands of people' flying over the Pentagon everyday...is this true?

I read somewhere that previous to 9/11 there was a small private aircraft flown into the side of the building

and that after that...ONLY military were allowed to fly over the building and in the Pentagon Airspace?

What part of in the landing path for a major international airport do you not understand? I have heard nothing about only military being allowed to fly over it. I've seen plenty of evidence otherwise. There is no restricted or prohibited airspace over the Pentagon and the airport is still there and still busy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

On a serious note, I’m not aware of three holes in the C-ring. If the photograph you provided is genuine and shows additional holes, these may have been created during the site clean-up to assist access and removal of the wreckage.

underlined...clutching a straws there.... Q24... :)

This is what I've found out about the three exit holes, so far

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/archives/fnp_display.htm?storyID=130443

According to a graphic provided by the Pentagon and published by The Washington Post shortly after 9/11, there were three very similar "exit" holes in the C Ring. These three holes can be seen in an aerial photograph of the C Ring available on the Internet.

what is most telling about the 'three exit holes' is how this part of the Pentagon puzzle has been quietly dropped

and emphasis is always put on there being that ONE exit hole.

These are the kind of clues we have to look for...like WHY it has been quietly dropped/ignored.

The Pentagon and Flight 77.....is as I said before the achilles heel of the Official Account and

and any Inside Job theory that supports the Official Account regarding this part of 9/11.

The great revealer..... ;)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

The alleged witnessing of the 'small explosion' as the portable generator was struck by 'the right wing'....

At the moment I'm working on the theory that a truck laden with explosives was driven fast into the building

and that the truck was fired on by some kind of Ground Defence.

I think that the Pentagon wasn't evacuated because there was confidence that nothing was going to get to it

from the air...that that was covered.

But that a truck...maybe connected with the renovation work was in the vacinity and primed for attack..

That when the truck drove at speed toward the building...it was fired upon.

I'm wondering if the portable generator was clipped by some kind of smallish missile as it was firing on the truck?

And that Mason was required to include the explosion/generator bit in his testimony to cover the fact that the

generator was obviously damaged?

I was looking at this link today and there are a couple of pictures that could flesh out this speculation

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

911pentagonexit_holes.jpg

Three distinct exit holes in C Ring

and

911pentagonmissilepaths.jpg

Possible flight paths of three missiles hitting the Pentagon

THREE exit holes is new to me and I am wondering if a truck was indeed fired upon and maybe hit?

But that the main damage done to the Pentagon was from the missiles, used in a defensive manner?

And as lots of people died and were injured in the Pentagon...this is a strong motive to cover up

what could be looked on as an excessive and botched? military maneuver....so it could have made sense

at the time..in the chaos of the day to, in essence, kill two birds with one stone and do a mock up

of a Boeing Airliner at the scene....which would also cover up Flight 77 being taken over the Atlantic

and shot down...

Oh...and with the pictures above....the one of the 3 missile paths...would one of those paths involve

the portable generator maybe being clipped?

.

From the aerial photo You can't tell whether they are holes, doors, or windows. Is that the only "evidence" for three holes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

From the aerial photo You can't tell whether they are holes, doors, or windows. Is that the only "evidence" for three holes?

These would also be consistant with the main body of the plane and the two external engines, which are extremely heavy.

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

This made me think of the TV Show Hell's Kitchen with Gordon Ramsey. The other day he had a taste test for the 6 chefs left in the competition. Of 4 totally normal foods, like pork, mashed potatos, salmon, carrots and mayonaise... only one chef got 4 for 4 and 2 of them got 0 for 4. My point? That someone smelling something is not good evidence the human mind plays too many tricks on itself. Especially in times of great fatigue or stress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I have not been able to keep up with this whole discussion, but I did see that people are still saying the plane would have picked people and cars up and tossed them into the air.

I found this article that says otherwise.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506flight77.htm

The article has pics of jetliners landing and passing no more then 30 feet above the heads of vacationers on a beach, yet no one is tossed anywhere and the sand is not even disturbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

From the aerial photo You can't tell whether they are holes, doors, or windows. Is that the only "evidence" for three holes?

at the moment I don't know...but I would love to see the "graphic provided by the Pentagon and published by the

Washington Post shortly after 9/11"....see my previous post #140.

which I can't find...but that doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that all the Inside Job supporters who

subscribe to the Missile Theory aren't all over the 'three exit holes'. You would have thought they would be.

But this is how clues are gathered. Part of my own theory about 9/11 is that the Inside Job Conspiracy theory is itself

conspiracy based....encouraged and lead by PSYOPS and catching genuine 'truthseekers' in it's net. To steer away from what

really might have happened. A smoke screen? And a VERY successful one at that. As you are no doubt aware, no-one has to

lose any sleep about what I am saying... :) ...a lone voice in the wilderness will not shake the scene that has been set...

IN CONCRETE with the supporters of the Official Account on one side and the Supporters of the Inside Job theory on the other.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

These would also be consistant with the main body of the plane and the two external engines, which are extremely heavy.

ok...at least you are considering that there could be three exit holes...but I don't think your idea really holds water

as there is that substantial dividing wall/block that probably wouldn't have allowed the left engine to penetrate in

such a neatly positioned manner? And wouldn't we have been given photos of engine parts in these positions? by the holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

I have not been able to keep up with this whole discussion, but I did see that people are still saying the plane would have picked people and cars up and tossed them into the air.

I found this article that says otherwise.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506flight77.htm

actually it doesn't really...quote from your link

The scope of this short article is to raise questions, not debunk either side of the argument.

and I seriously do not know what to make of those pics of extremely low flying planes...but my gut reaction is BS.

(in regard to no wake turbulence.)

In fact this is a quote from the article that is bang on topic re the witness testimony of Mason (and would also apply to Probst)

One eyewitness claims that the object that hit the Pentagon was just six feet off the ground as it clipped a generator and even a car antenna before impacting on the building. In this instance one would surely expect the wake turbulence to have some affect and photographs do show the damaged generator immediately in front of the building.

I am interested that the article comes from 'Prison Planet'....as I have my eye on Alex Jones as to whether he is

a media 'plant' or not. On balance I would go with my instincts and say he WAS...

I could never understand how he managed to slip into Bohemian Grove undetected and was able to be part of filming a ceremony... :unsure2:

this video has recently done the rounds of Jones having a dry cry breakdown.....

I, personally am not convinced that the 'breakdown' was genuine....relevant section begins at 2:50

and back to the question of wake turbulence.....a couple of links for anyone who's interested

http://www.pilotfriend.com/safe/safety/wake_turb.htm

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3bSGmEeod5MJ:rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1472662a19f6603b86256c1600733da7/%24FILE/AC90-23f.pdf+turbulance+beneath+low+flying+airliners&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiUMh7h2ad6zL9hKTUw8_mYwpczyPnwIdpwqv0l6DVmJIBQDg4Y6gB98tSMertFuIqEC5Lxz8vdurWuIxLCz9R0Q9AD41IkUKm_Y5y4ll5uBo3DgiubvweTy6r5eqo2DYCrMm_x&sig=AHIEtbT2VSkkepVHGIf6lUM4YXAFmCaExA

also...on the p*** poor cctv release of the airliner, supposedly heading for and impacting the Pentagon....

the main focus is the swirling white smoke? that presumably is illustrating turbulence...but there wasn't supposed

to be any/enough turbulence to affect Probst and Mason's fairly detailed testimony.

So the Official Account is kind of shooting itself in the foot with that.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

ok...at least you are considering that there could be three exit holes...but I don't think your idea really holds water

as there is that substantial dividing wall/block that probably wouldn't have allowed the left engine to penetrate in

such a neatly positioned manner? And wouldn't we have been given photos of engine parts in these positions? by the holes.

Wouldn't the same walls and posts prevent a missile from achieving the same penetration? Engines also are a lot more solid then a missile would be, thus they can bounce around somewhat.

I think engines making exit holes is much more likely then missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

and I seriously do not know what to make of those pics of extremely low flying planes...but my gut reaction is BS.

(in regard to no wake turbulence.)

They seem real enough to me. A quick google search shows that these low landing planes are famous at St Martin.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/saloon/1047631-best-beach-world-maho-beach-st-maarten.html

Some pics on that link show blowing sand, but I think that they show hurricane winds, and not airplane landing winds, but the site (A blog) is not really clear on that.

I've seen people sitting on the hoods or tailgates of their cars/trucks at the end of runways, where jetliners were landing 25 to 30 feet overhead, and they never get lifted and tossed anywhere. A plane very likely has to pass within ten feet to really get the turbulence to have an effect. Just like with a semi-truck. If you are within 5 feet of one going by at high speed there is significant turbulence, but if you are like 10 feet away, you feel barely any at all.

Another thing. I've known many paratroopers in the Army and they said basically if you got more then five feet out, you were good. That is why they jump rather then just falling out. True, they are flying a lot slower, but the aerodynamics of the sitations are the same. The turbulance does not reach out the further with increased speed, AFAIK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

DieChecker, I admire your patience, but you are trying to present logic, rationality, critical thinking and facts to someone who is completely unfamiliar with such things.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Wouldn't the same walls and posts prevent a missile from achieving the same penetration? Engines also are a lot more solid then a missile would be, thus they can bounce around somewhat.

I think engines making exit holes is much more likely then missiles.

you are entitled to your opinion...but I would say that missiles are designed and equipped to penetrate

and that an airliner engine is not. (bouncing or otherwise)

They seem real enough to me. A quick google search shows that these low landing planes are famous at St Martin.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/saloon/1047631-best-beach-world-maho-beach-st-maarten.html

Some pics on that link show blowing sand, but I think that they show hurricane winds, and not airplane landing winds, but the site (A blog) is not really clear on that.

There is one pic of the hurricane...which is VERY different from the ones of the sand being whipped up and people bracing themselves

and hanging on to fences.

And....from your link

People standing on the beach may also be blown into the water because of the jet blast from aircraft taking off from runway 10. The beach can also experience large waves which makes it popular with windsurfers and skimboarders. The local government warns that closely approaching and departing aircraft can “result in serious injury and/or death.” An additional fence has been added recently behind runway 10 to prevent irresponsible tourists from hanging on to the main fence surrounding the runway to be “blasted” by the aircraft engines’ flow.

DieChecker, I admire your patience, but you are trying to present logic, rationality, critical thinking and facts to someone who is completely unfamiliar with such things.

gossiping about me again..... :rolleyes:

.

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.