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

Peter B
On 9/24/2019 at 10:15 AM, and then said:

Hello Ruby Gray, welcome to UM!

I'd say millions of Americans still care about what happened that day but very few buy into the CTs.  I've watched the videos and read the opinion pieces and the one aspect of the theory that I can never accept is the number of moving parts (conspirators) that would have been needed and the lack of an answer for what happened to the passengers who were "disappeared".  

The bottom line for me is that it has been 18 years and not a single person has come forward voluntarily or made a death bed confession. Not ONE.  In this world today it's nearly impossible for a couple of people to keep a secret long term, let alone hundreds of people.  Sometimes horrific things happen because evil people are willing to do them.  Don't misunderstand me.  I fully believe our government to be badly corrupted.  I just don't believe they are efficient and disciplined enough these days to pull something of that magnitude off and never be exposed.  

 

For me it's the amount of evidence pointing in the one direction - that the AA77 Boeing 757 hit the side of the Pentagon, pretty much along the flight path determined by the official accounts. Every other explanation raises more questions than it answers.

- The idea that the plane came in on a more northerly route (north of Citgo) doesn't make sense given the damage to the light poles and the facilities adjacent to the Pentagon building. For example, in one of your posts last Sunday you include the "911 First Two Handheld Camera" video. The first few minutes of that footage appears to have been recorded from exactly where the plane would have passed if it had taken that more northerly route, yet there's no evidence in the form of damaged light poles there at a time only a couple of minutes after the impact.

- The idea that the plane flew over the Pentagon and then landed at the nearby Reagan Airport doesn't sit well with me either, as the airport is less than a kilometre from the Pentagon. The yellow path traced in the map you posted on Sunday has a pretty sharp turn, and ends right at the end of the runway, meaning the pilots would have had literally no time to line up before landing. I'd like to see evidence from a flight simulator that such a path followed by a landing is possible.

- The idea that something other than a plane hit the Pentagon doesn't make sense either. After all, if it was a missile, you then have to explain how the plane debris ended up on the grass in front of the Pentagon (again shown in the "911 First Two Handheld Camera" video) so quickly, as well as having to explain what happened to the plane and its passengers. Rather than having a plane land at an airport and then disappear along with its passengers as well as a missile appear from nowhere, isn't a simpler explanation that the plane itself did the damage and the passengers died there?

Sure, there are things I'd like to know more about - the missing CCTV videos in particular. But as a general rule I'm satisfied with the official explanation.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
7 hours ago, Trelane said:

@RubyGray, what do make of accounts to the contrary?

That is what I am trying to work through. We all know how the various eyewitness testimonies have been represented. They are all claimed to support the "Official Story". However, that is not true.

Many of them do not say what we have been told they do, becaue they are not actual first person testimonies, or because the person is anonymous, or their location at the time of impact means that they were not actually eyewitnesses at all.

This is why I was impressed by the original premise of this thread, to discuss all these testimonies again, and to create a more accurate database as a historical record. I think that is a valuable idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
2 hours ago, RubyGray said:

That is what I am trying to work through. We all know how the various eyewitness testimonies have been represented. They are all claimed to support the "Official Story". However, that is not true.

Many of them do not say what we have been told they do, becaue they are not actual first person testimonies, or because the person is anonymous, or their location at the time of impact means that they were not actually eyewitnesses at all.

This is why I was impressed by the original premise of this thread, to discuss all these testimonies again, and to create a more accurate database as a historical record. I think that is a valuable idea.

What you’ve been presenting is speculation which is less logical and less supported by data than the official story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
3 hours ago, Peter B said:

For me it's the amount of evidence pointing in the one direction - that the AA77 Boeing 757 hit the side of the Pentagon, pretty much along the flight path determined by the official accounts. Every other explanation raises more questions than it answers.

- The idea that the plane came in on a more northerly route (north of Citgo) doesn't make sense given the damage to the light poles and the facilities adjacent to the Pentagon building. For example, in one of your posts last Sunday you include the "911 First Two Handheld Camera" video. The first few minutes of that footage appears to have been recorded from exactly where the plane would have passed if it had taken that more northerly route, yet there's no evidence in the form of damaged light poles there at a time only a couple of minutes after the impact.

I do not profess to know how everything was done.

I am certain that, if all those CCTV cameras showed evidence supporting the Official Story, they would have been shown on the TV news from 9/11/2001, and we would all be familiar with them. Isn't this what happened in New York?

The North-of-Citgo flightpath certainly makes sense to the witnesses who saw this.

What does not then make sense, is how the plane could have skewed around and hit the Pentagon wall from the opposing direction. None of those witnesses seems to have tried to make sense of this. They saw the plane flying over the Navy Annex, north of the Citgo station, across the Arlington National Cemetery car park, across the Columbia Pike exit road, towards the helipad area, and ... HOW did it then hit the Pentagon on that acute angle from the southwest? This conflict seems to have been partitioned off somehow in their comprehension, to allow for the version they were told to believe.

It is actually the 5 downed light poles which do not make sense, because despite the claim that scores of people saw them being hit and felled by the plane in real time, this is not true. Many witnesses referred to the downed poles as a fait accompli, but when specifically interviewed about this later, stated that they had either not said this at all but it had been invented by the journalist; they heard about the poles after the event, or had seen the poles on the ground later in person, or on TV. In fact, numerous testimonies do not refer to poles felled in their whole length. They state that a pole or poles was / were cut off part way up their length, with only the top part having been knocked off.

Joel Sucherman who was driving towards the overhead sign on the bridge, was in a prime position to see the plane knocking poles down ... IF that had occurred ... but in a face to face interview with Craig Ranke, he stated that he DID NOT see the poles hit.

Lloyde England is the prime witness supposedly, for the plane having hit those light poles. Both sides of the fence claim him as confirmation for their stories. The Official Story we all know. Plane hit Pole #1, Pole fell on Lloyde's cab as he was driving across the bridge, AA77 crashed into Pentagon, flown impeccably by superpilot Hani Hanjour.

The "Scientists for 9/11 Truth" camp demanding "consensus" among 9/11 sceptics, also uses Lloyde England and his cab as "physical witnesses" for the plane flying across the bridge and hitting 5 poles on its way into the Pentagon, but they doubt that Hani Hanjour was at the helm, which seems to be almost their only disagreement with the official story. They have also recently attempted to prove that it was a lamp support arm from Pole # 2 which speared the cab windscreen. They claim that Lloyde England's testimony has been disrespected, and it is certainly true that Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke made a proper pig's breakfast of their assumptions about the evidence that they obtained from Lloyde England in their interviews with him. But at least they did the video interviews, and they did inspect the cab, which has given us a bank of evidence we would not have otherwise.

All 3 of those approaches are wrong. None of them considers what Lloyde actually had to say. His constant claim to have been beside the cemetery, north of the heliport when the pole hit, is suppressed by the Official Camp (there are NO public testimonies from Lloyde in any of the various compilations!), patronisingly dismissed as the faulty memory of an old man by the False Truther Scientists, and flatly contradicted as lies told by a devious operative, by CIT.

The CIT video "Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm" has Lloyde England showing Craig Ranke his exact location when the cab came to a halt, on two drive-bys. These are seen from about 1:18:00 to 1:23:00.

Craig and Christopher Taylor continually argue with Lloyde, telling him that "all the pictures show you on the bridge".

Lloyde steadfastly counters, "I got no problem with that. I know where I was. I was never down Columbia Pike."

Craig says, "But how does that work, though?"

Lloyde's final words are,

"It's not my job to tell you all that. My job is to tell you the truth. You can draw your own conclusions any way you want."

18  THIS is where the pictures were taken

Lloyde pointed out the exact location at which the video

"911 First Two Handheld Camera Videos Of Pentagon After 9:38 am"

shows 7 seconds of footage including a black Capitol Cab with a pole through its windscreen, and a black towtruck waiting behind it, at 4 minutes post impact (7 minutes before the first photograph of Lloyde's cab on the bridge).

Sergeant William Lagasse was one of numerous eyewitnesses to confirm Lloyde's cab in that position.

LAGASSE  THIS is where the taxi cab was

 

LAGASSE  NOTHING happened over here

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
1 hour ago, Timothy said:

What you’ve been presenting is speculation which is less logical and less supported by data than the official story. 

Most assuredly untrue.

See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
7 hours ago, Peter B said:

The yellow path traced in the map you posted on Sunday has a pretty sharp turn, and ends right at the end of the runway, meaning the pilots would have had literally no time to line up before landing. I'd like to see evidence from a flight simulator that such a path followed by a landing is possible.

Yeahbut my yellow line is only a f'r'instance. I cannot say for sure what happened, nor what path a 757 could fly. Pilot Rob Balsamo seemed to find no technical problems with the concept of the plane overflying the Pentagon and landing at REagan Natiopnal. as has been pointed out, apart from the C-130 which appeared 3 minutes post impact, there is no mention of a plane high in the sky in that area right after impact.

I would like to hear a lot more from pilots about this topic too, but they don't seem to be saying much any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
22 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Most assuredly untrue.

See above.

It is probably true.

Nothing you have posted is more logical or can live up to sceptical scrutiny. 

The official story is probably the correct one. 

You’re grasping at straws with this stuff.

If it were true, it should make sense. 

It unequivocally does not, the things you’ve posted. 

So, give up, understand the reality of what happened. Or find the exceptional evidence you lack. 

Edited by Timothy
Typo.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
13 minutes ago, Timothy said:

It is probably true.

Nothing you have posted is more logical or can live up to sceptical scrutiny. 

The official story is probably the correct one. 

You’re grasping at straws with this stuff.

If it were true, it should make sense. 

It unequivocally does not, the things you’ve posted. 

So, give up, understand the reality of what happened. Or find the exceptional evidence you lack. 

You clearly have not had time to even read what I just posted, which makes perfect sense to Lloyde England, to whom it happened, and to Pentagon Police Officer Sergeant William Lagasse, who is one of many witnesses who saw what had happened to him.

What I have posted may be confronting for those who choose to believe that America's reaction to 9/11 of murdering over a million people minding their own business at home in the MIddle East, was justified. But there is indeed evidence for all that I write, whether or not that is unpalatable to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
On 9/24/2019 at 5:59 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

Can you provide the quote where she states this?  I missed it.  And why the vague word, 'impression' and not 'witnessed'?

Presumably this is just one more smart-alex trick post, but in case you genuinely missed, or simply could not be bothered to read, POST #1881 - 

"I want to see footage of the crash.

"I WANT to MAKE it MAKE SENSE. I want to know why THERE'S THIS GAP IN MY MEMORY, THIS GAP THAT MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH THE PLANE SIMPLY BECAME INVISIBLE AND BANKED UP AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE, but I don’t think that’s going to happen."

And the rest of her testimony confirms that she had the IMPRESSION that what the media told her she "WITNESSED" was not the whole truth.

Unfortunately, she has always remained anonymous, and nobody has ever been able to ask her any more questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Presumably this is just one more smart-alex trick post, but in case you genuinely missed, or simply could not be bothered to read, POST #1881 - 

How can I 'trick' you, especially if your case is so solid?  What have I asked you that is not a rational and logical question?  I did read your post, a few times looking for this 'impression' you have, and to me you've confirmed that your impression isn't based on anything very specific.

You characterized this 'testimony' as "She had the strong impression that the plane had flown over the Pentagon,", and just supported that 'impression' with "I WANT to MAKE it MAKE SENSE. I want to know why THERE'S THIS GAP IN MY MEMORY, THIS GAP THAT MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH THE PLANE SIMPLY BECAME INVISIBLE AND BANKED UP AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.".  She is definitely kind of all over the place in her testimony, she blends what she saw with how she feels about it throughout.  To your quote, if you have a gap in your memory then there is an empty space there; how can a lack of memory 'make it seem as' if it became invisible and banked up at the last minute?

Furthermore, why aren't you more focused on the more relevant part of her testimony: "As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters. That’s not strange. It’s the Pentagon. Then I saw the plane. There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building. "  Commercial jets travelling at speeds necessary to stay aloft can't just bank up instantaneously.  What we are missing is where she actually witnessed something that would give her the impression it banked up, I can't find that in what you've quoted, what she says she saw matches the idea that the plane hit the building.

And since no one knows who this person is and haven't been able to follow up with her, then why is this not just a 'copy and paste' job that you were just criticizing another person for doing and declared not very valuable on its own?

31 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

And the rest of her testimony confirms that she had the IMPRESSION that what the media told her she "WITNESSED" was not the whole truth.

'What she witnessed is not the whole truth' can mean a lot of things, some minor and some major, and is definitely very different than the specific, 'the plane had flown over the Pentagon'.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You characterized this 'testimony' as "She had the strong impression that the plane had flown over the Pentagon,", and just supported that 'impression' with "I WANT to MAKE it MAKE SENSE. I want to know why THERE'S THIS GAP IN MY MEMORY, THIS GAP THAT MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH THE PLANE SIMPLY BECAME INVISIBLE AND BANKED UP AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.".  She is definitely kind of all over the place in her testimony, she blends what she saw with how she feels about it throughout.  To your quote, if you have a gap in your memory then there is an empty space there; how can a lack of memory 'make it seem as' if it became invisible and banked up at the last minute?

Furthermore, why aren't you more focused on the more relevant part of her testimony: "As I came up along the Pentagon I saw HELICOPTERS. That’s not strange. It’s the Pentagon. Then I saw the plane. There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building.

Commercial jets travelling at speeds necessary to stay aloft can't just bank up instantaneously.  What we are missing is where she actually witnessed something that would give her the impression it banked up, I can't find that in what you've quoted, what she says she saw matches the idea that the plane hit the building.

And since no one knows who this person is and haven't been able to follow up with her, then why is this not just a 'copy and paste' job that you were just criticizing another person for doing and declared not very valuable on its own?

I quoted "SKARLET" in toto, as I said, because someone else had quoted a short excerpt from her testimony, and because I know from experience that her full account is hard to find. It may disappear altogether. So this is by way of being a permanent record and resource of the immediate IMPRESSIONS of a valid eyewitness who was close to the events at the Pentagon.

This is not the same as someone cutting & pasting a vast chunk of some site's witness compilation which is readily available and well known by evetybody, in which we find many contradictory, confusing, nonspecific and sometimes outright false testimonies, grouped together, with no attempt to differentiate between them or discuss their merits and shortcomings.

The spirit of this thread was originally to discuss each witness testimony individually. Shame you blokes are more closed-minded Ocker Knockers than genuine researchers fearlessly exploring "Unexplained Mysteries".

There are certainly things to discuss in Skarlett's testimony. She is one of the few who mention the presence and involvement of the HELICOPTER/s. That alone is a significant feature whose presence and ID has been successfully suppressed, but which holds the key to many anomalies noted about that morning at the Pentagon.

Skarlett's immediate IMPRESSION was that this HELICOPTER was what had hit the Pentagon. Other witnesses also gave curious accounts including this HELICOPTER, suggesting that it played some crucial but undetermined role. The blogger "SHOESTRING" is the only one I am aware of who has even dared to begin discussing this HELICOPTER, although thanks to the Official Pentagon misinformation and false identification of it, he remained wide of the mark.

Of course a 757, if at ground level, cannot "suddenly bank up" to avoid a building about 300 feet in front of it.

But the testimony of numerous witnesses is that the plane was already "about 80 feet above ground level" as it crossed Route 27.

Many witnesses testify that the plane crossed the highway next to the elevated, tree-topped cemetery bank. No trees were damaged there, and there are no photos of downed poles in that area, so the plane must have cleared these. That makes the plane already high enough to clear the 73 foot Pentagon roof.

And if a 757 cannot "suddenly bank up" 73 feet in that distance, then neither can it "suddenly dive down" the same 73 feet to sweep low and level across the lawn as allegedly shown in the Gatecam videos, and hit the ground floor (at an entirely different angle of approach) within the half a second of time remaining.

Both Darius Prather and Robert Turcios testified on video that they saw the plane "angle up" or "lift up a little bit" as it approached the highway. Penny Elgas testified that she could see beneath not only the starboard, but also the port wing of the plane which was several car lengths ahead of her, and that the plane was "no more than 80 feet" high as it crossed the highway. So the plane was certainly much more than the 6 feet above ground level claimed by Frank Probst and the CCTV footage.

All of these witnesses saw the explosion, and had the obvious IMPRESSION that the plane had impacted. But Lagasse, Sucherman, Brooks, Prather, Hernandez, Turcios and many other plane witnesses had NO line of sight view to the impact site, so they cannot be technically claimed as "impact witnesses". And all of them testified to the Northside flightpath, which is incompatible with the official flightpath and directional damage.

Many other witnesses claimed that the plane "skipped" or "bounced up", that its nose "curled up", and/or that it hit the wall several storeys higher than the impact point. Others stated that the plane "simply disappeared" or was "sucked inside by the building" and other such surreal expressions, but that there was a short delay before the explosion occurred. This is not how plane crashes happen. We have all seen video of the instantaneous fireball when a plane impacts a solid object.

The thing is that all witnesses on Route 27 had a view of the plane for only perhaps a maximum of 3 seconds, down to almost zero seconds. This makes their experience akin to watching a magic act, where the sleight of hand is so fast that the IMPRESSION of what was witnessed, is manipulated to support the conclusion predetermined by the prestidigitateur. The number of contradictory and anomalous testimonies should be a flashing light to anybody, inviting honest and concerted investigation.

Both Sgt Lagasse and Darius Prather testified, and drew on maps, that poles near the cemetery were downed, even though no photos show this area fully. But one of Steve Riskus' photos does show a lamp from a lightpole, lying on the grass in this area. Both Riskus and Lloyde England testified to seeing the plane cross the highway over the Columbia Pike exit road, which means it was high enough to clear the top of the cemetery. Maria de la Cerda, on top of the cemetery, believed that the plane had crossed the Pentagon roof and then "hit on the other side". Cemetery workers claimed that "there was an explosion at the Pentagon and a jet kept going".

There is a wealth of valid eyewitness testimony which brings the official story into dispute. Rather than tag-teaming and playing shoot the messenger, it would be more useful for posters to research and discuss this testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

By the way, welcome to UM, RubyGray!

1 hour ago, RubyGray said:

The spirit of this thread was originally to discuss each witness testimony individually. Shame you blokes are more closed-minded Ocker Knockers than genuine researchers fearlessly exploring "Unexplained Mysteries"

If you'd like a thread where you can write things with no disagreement then simply start a thread and state that.  The spirit of this thread was technically defined over 7 years ago, it was started by Q24 who honestly was one of the best and most reasonable 'something's up with 9-11' arguers I've encountered here, although I don't think he's still on the site.  If you haven't gone back and read the beginning of this thread I'd recommend it, I think you'd find it interesting, there is someone named Scott who is arguing some of the things you are.  I can tell you though that it is not a good sign that even Q24 doesn't seem to buy that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.  Here's a quote from him concerning the actual purpose of this thread he started, in response to someone arguing that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon: "As you ask… the whole thing is flawed. From the idea that someone diving to the ground cannot see anything, to the testimony of Probst supposedly contradicting Mason, to borderline allegations against the ASCE, and more. It’s all twaddle. But as I said, I’m not really out to argue the case. I would just like to catalogue the reasons for discounting such witnesses."  So shame on you for being so close-minded to criticism of your argument and evidence, and I might even call you an Ocker Knocker if I had any clue what that meant.;)

1 hour ago, RubyGray said:

And if a 757 cannot "suddenly bank up" 73 feet in that distance, then neither can it "suddenly dive down" the same 73 feet

Well, there is a little thing called gravity that is kinda relevant in that comparison.  Are we sure that the plane flew perfectly level over the highway and wasn't already descending?

1 hour ago, RubyGray said:

The thing is that all witnesses on Route 27 had a view of the plane for only perhaps a maximum of 3 seconds, down to almost zero seconds.

Okay, those also aren't the only, nor most proximate, witnesses available to whether the plane hit the Pentagon.

1 hour ago, RubyGray said:

Others stated that the plane "simply disappeared" or was "sucked inside by the building" and other such surreal expressions, but that there was a short delay before the explosion occurred. This is not how plane crashes happen. We have all seen video of the instantaneous fireball when a plane impacts a solid object.

I disagree with this, the Pentagon is not a solid object, it's multiple walls with space in between.  Actually I'm surprised to hear someone who is familiar with 9/11 say this, as to me the fireball and explosion at the South Tower impact clearly happens after the plane impacted the solid object:

Untitled.jpg.49aa2e8f98da850975ac0854abf7803d.jpg

The plane is fully inside the building and definitely beyond the point of 'impact' and there's no fireball visible to the witnesses.

1 hour ago, RubyGray said:

The number of contradictory and anomalous testimonies should be a flashing light to anybody, inviting honest and concerted investigation.

Definitely investigate, it can be fun, although I think your conclusions aren't nearly as well supported as you make them sound. Contradictory testimony is definitely not necessarily a flashing light if one understands the issues with eyewitness testimony.  I'm pretty sure I've said this already, but people are not good at determining accurately the size, speed, and location of flying objects, and this accuracy is required for a lot of your eyewitnesses of 'flight paths'.  People's perception and cognition can be very affected by emotional and stressful situations, and on 9/11 things were extremely confusing.  

Actually, since you leave pretty long posts yourself, I'm going to copy most of what Q24 who started the thread said in the OP eight years ago and who was again not a believer in the full 9/11 'official story', as I think he thoroughly addresses your concern, and seeming strategy, concerning anomalous testimonies:

Quote

I am starting this thread purely to discuss eyewitnesses to Flight 77 at the Pentagon.

It is well understood within the psychology profession that eyewitness testimony can vary from one individual to the next even in viewing the same event (and with a large sample, most likely will vary). The reasons for this include personal bias, perception and information received after the event, amongst others, which can affect memory.

We can read about psychological studies which demonstrate these type of issues, such as Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction by Elizabeth Loftus. Indeed, human memory is fallible.

The above issues are apparent in studying eyewitness testimony regarding Flight 77. Of the hundred plus eyewitnesses reported to have seen the aircraft, I estimate there are around forty who specifically describe seeing the plane impact or provide the necessary detail which can be used to place the aircraft in a specific location. Further, of those approximately forty eyewitnesses, there is the aforementioned variance in accounts, specifically regarding flight path the aircraft took.

From there, it is my contention that an unfortunate situation has arisen…

This divergence of eyewitness accounts has been used to support a claim that Flight 77 took a path irreconcilable with damage leading up to, and inside, the Pentagon. This extends to the claim, that as the aircraft cannot have caused the damage, a flyover was performed and the damage was, in actual fact, staged.

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.

Rather than consider and accept the expected variation in the full body of eyewitness accounts, some have set out to promote the former group of eyewitnesses as credible whilst concealing and/or attempting to discredit the latter, i.e. a highly selective treatment of the eyewitness to support one claim (the flyover theory) over another (impact with the Pentagon).

 

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

By the way, welcome to UM, RubyGray!

If you'd like a thread where you can write things with no disagreement then simply start a thread and state that.  The spirit of this thread was technically defined over 7 years ago, it was started by Q24 who honestly was one of the best and most reasonable 'something's up with 9-11' arguers I've encountered here, although I don't think he's still on the site.  If you haven't gone back and read the beginning of this thread I'd recommend it, I think you'd find it interesting, there is someone named Scott who is arguing some of the things you are. 

... shame on you for being so close-minded to criticism of your argument and evidence, and I might even call you an Ocker Knocker if I had any clue what that meant.;)

Okay, those also aren't the only, nor most proximate, witnesses available to whether the plane hit the Pentagon.

I disagree with this, the Pentagon is not a solid object, it's multiple walls with space in between.  Actually I'm surprised to hear someone who is familiar with 9/11 say this, as to me the fireball and explosion at the South Tower impact clearly happens after the plane impacted the solid object:

Untitled.jpg.49aa2e8f98da850975ac0854abf7803d.jpg

The plane is fully inside the building and definitely beyond the point of 'impact' and there's no fireball visible to the witnesses.

Definitely investigate, it can be fun, although I think your conclusions aren't nearly as well supported as you make them sound. Contradictory testimony is definitely not necessarily a flashing light if one understands the issues with eyewitness testimony.  I'm pretty sure I've said this already, but people are not good at determining accurately the size, speed, and location of flying objects, and this accuracy is required for a lot of your eyewitnesses of 'flight paths'.  People's perception and cognition can be very affected by emotional and stressful situations, and on 9/11 things were extremely confusing.  

Actually, since you leave pretty long posts yourself, I'm going to copy most of what Q24 who started the thread said in the OP eight years ago and who was again not a believer in the full 9/11 'official story', as I think he thoroughly addresses your concern, and seeming strategy, concerning anomalous testimonies:

Thanks for your post. The reason I am here is because of Q24 and Scott's interchange early on this thread. I have read about the first 10 pages. I was hoping that they and some others might return if I breathed some life into their discussion which was derailed by off-topic posts long ago. I think the concept was a good one, and should be continued. Sooner rather than later, as witnesses are probably dropping off the perch now.

In fact, I do have a thread where I can write as I like without argument, as LetRollForums is now closed to new memberships, like so many others, and the regulars seem to have run out of steam. But these issues have not been satisfactorily resolved, so I have to seek discussion elsewhere.

Perhaps you could find at least one witness who describes, in first person, apart from Frank Probst, how the plane flew diagonally across the bridge, knocked down 5 poles, smashed a cab windscreen, produced a swirling smoke or vapour trail, and flew low and level across the lawn, as seen in the CCTV footage? We can have a civilised discussion on that aspect.

I do not qualify for the "Ocker Knocker" epithet, and nor do you, you should be pleased to learn. Obviousman would go closest here from what I have seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
6 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Of course a 757, if at ground level, cannot "suddenly bank up" to avoid a building about 300 feet in front of it.

No but it can possibly pitch up, depending on the distance to the obstacle, the approach speed and the height above ground.

Edited by Obviousman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
8 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Perhaps you could find at least one witness who describes, in first person, apart from Frank Probst, how the plane flew diagonally across the bridge, knocked down 5 poles, smashed a cab windscreen, produced a swirling smoke or vapour trail, and flew low and level across the lawn, as seen in the CCTV footage? We can have a civilised discussion on that aspect

Sorry about my picture not uploading correctly, it looked okay when I posted it, but I think you get the point that in the South Tower impact the plane was fully inside the building before any fireball was visible, and thus your expectation that we should always 'instantaneously' see a fireball when colliding with a solid object is not well supported.

I don't know what the purpose of the above hypothetical witness would be, since your position already requires you to discount witnesses we already have. Definitely proceed and talk about whatever witness you'd like, but it'd be interesting to know what is wrong with Frank Probst's testimony of watching the plane hit the Pentagon and on what basis you, I assume, think he is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

The witnesses who mentioned a time delay between the plane "disappearing" and the fireball, seemed to remark on a more pronounced delay than seems possible, is my point. I will quote a few of them next time I'm near a real 'puter.

I am not casting any aspersions on Frank Probst, though others have done so. I would like to have had more detailed info from him on his location, but when CIT contacted him, he refused an interview unless it could be okayed by the Pentagon. Which it apparently wasn't. But he is almost the only witness I am aware of who is claimed to support the official flightpath.

My other point here is, let's discuss those other witnesses you require me to discount, not some hypothetical one.

Craig Ranke made the observation that of all the scores of people they interviewed and contacted, there was not a single one who supported the across - the - bridge trajectory, nor did a single witness on the "saw plane hit lightpoles" list, confirm that they had actually witnessed this in real time.

CIT have been pilloried for many things, but let's give credit where it is due. They did obtain many interviews which clarified some very woolly media reports that are all we would otherwise have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
8 hours ago, Obviousman said:

No but it can possibly pitch up, depending on the distance to the obstacle, the approach speed and the height above ground.

Sure. Am I to take it from this, that you are now supporting the flyover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

I mean sure it could "pitch up", given the parameters we are discussing, which are, about 700 feet/sec velocity, about 300 -400 feet from Route 27 to the wall, and various witnessses including Penny Elgas, Aziz elHallou, Lloyde England, Robert Turcios and Steve Riskus, telling us that the plane was already 50 - 80 feet above the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron2016

Eye witness testimony can be notoriously unreliable.  Almost everybody contradicts everybody.  Take the Lusitania sinking.  Some of the survivors saw 2 torpedoes speeding towards the ship, but the U-boat commander said he only fired one.  Take the Titanic sinking.  Half of the survivors said she broke in two, and the other half said she did not.  Pretty much every major event has multiple versions depending on who is telling the story, where they were standing at the time, and their perspective of it, and how much time they had to focus on it, and if they had any third-party influence to say what they did.  It all comes down to credibility.

 

giphy.gif

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Not quite. Doesn't it all come down to credibility AND EVIDENCE? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

Has anyone cared to take into consideration statements from DoD personnel that worked and acted as first responders at the pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
On 9/27/2019 at 12:35 AM, RubyGray said:

Sure. Am I to take it from this, that you are now supporting the flyover?

Absolutely not, no, never, nyet. The aircraft hit the Pentagon, period. Nothing more needs to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

But you did just say that it was possible for the plane to pitch up. Wondering how this admission gels with the ground-floor impact hole, the testimony of the plane being 50 to 80 feet above Route 27, and tthe low-and-level gatecam images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
4 hours ago, Trelane said:

Has anyone cared to take into consideration statements from DoD personnel that worked and acted as first responders at the pentagon?

I have read the Pentagon's record of this testimony, the book "Then Came the Fire". It contains many accounts from people never included on any of the well-known witness compilations. Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
1 hour ago, RubyGray said:

But you did just say that it was possible for the plane to pitch up. 

Not quite. I said:

"...it can possibly pitch up, depending on the distance to the obstacle, the approach speed and the height above ground."

There was insufficient distance, too high a velocity and it was too close to the ground to fly over the Pentagon.

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.