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

RubyGray

And the fact remains that there WAS a 12 foot pole that crashed through Lloyde England's windshield.

(Actually captured on 7 seconds of amateur video at 9:41 a.m., beside the cemetery wall.)

Lloyde said, 

"IT WAS DRIVEN DOWN, LIKE A JAVELIN."

It went through the toughened windscreen glass, through his dashboard, knocked the front seat backwards, and hit the rear seat back, where it made two distinct circular impressions, and dented the steel wall behind the seat. Apparently it bounced and was then impacted again due to the forward motion of the car.

So SOMETHING fired that metal pole through his cab with extraordinary accuracy and split-second timing. There was a plan in action here.

Was it a bird? Was it Superman? Because it was NOT AA77. Lloyde was nowhere near the bridge when this happened. He saw the plane for just a split second before the pole hit, he said. He was about 30 yards north of the Columbia Pike exit sign when it happened, and the plane flew across Route 27 just in front of him, from behind the cemetery bank, from his perspective.

Therefore it CANNOT have been any part of any of those 5 downed lightpoles that hit the taxi. This is axiomatic. They were 400 yards away to the south. 

The plane CANNOT have flown over the bridge, since it flew across the Columbia Pike exit road, much further north. This is attested by scores of eyewitnesses.

Therefore the plane CANNOT have been what downed the lightpoles. 

The facts that :

* there was an identical lookalike but undamaged black Capitol Cab parked across the lanes on top of the bridge ... with TWO occupants ... from the time of impact, until almost 9:44 a.m. when it sped off south (as captured on two independent amateur videos),

RUMSFELD was on the lawn with his Security Detail within 3 1/2 minutes of impact, (Their arrival was caught on amateur video, and subsequent activity was also recorded on this and TV news videos),

* there was a TOWTRUCK & LOW LOADER TRAILER ALREADY WAITING BEHIND LLOYDE'S TAXI AT THE CEMETERY WALL, at 4 minutes post impact,

* BOTH RUMSFELD and HIS BODYGUARD were keenly monitoring the progress of the TOWTRUCK and trailer transporting Lloyde England's cab down the highway to the bridge between 9:43:12 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. (as captured on 4 independent videos),  

and that as soon as the relocation was complete,

* RUMSFELD seconded HIS OWN BODYGUARD to retrieve Lloyde from wandering along the highway,

* to drive him up to the bridge, and

* to personally supervise Lloyde during the photo opp of him on the bridge with his damaged cab beside a huge downed lightpole which never hit the taxi ...

constitute inarguable,  real-time documented evidence of foreknowledge, pre-planning, painstaking rehearsal, collusion, corruption, CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD for the purpose of CREATING A PRETEXT & MANDATE FOR WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

And anyway, if non-military people could invent and build a weapon to fire wooden 2x4's through concrete ...

How hard would it be for the Pentagon to do something similar? Piece of cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
12 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Well, pick out your mostest favorite issue and post it here - handwaving counts for nothing.

And I would have to observe that if you do not trust anything the gov't says, maybe you should:

a - not be too over dramatic - just 'cause one report is 'wrong' in your (expert?) opinion, doesn't mean everything is - you know, baby and bathwater.. (what a stupid saying that is, but whatever..)

OR

b - give up all hope or move to a different country, because if there's *nothing* you can trust, surely you wouldn't want to live there?


Nothing wrong with standing critical towards government narratives, as opposed to readily believing thesame without due investigation.

Its much more rational, logical, 'healthy' to believe nothing until proven otherwise than believe everything, Im sure you'd agree. Some of the 'mostest favorite issues' are nicely summarized in the vdo South Alabam reacted to. Including but not limited to:

- collapse building 7;

- high number of wargames up until an hour after the 911 attack resulting in a defenseless nation;

- promotion of responsible military brass after this unprecedented failure to defend the nation;

- 911 commission report quagmire, every aspect pointing to Bush frustrating the process, it being set up to fail;

- United Airlines Flight 93 first plane which literally disappeared in a hole in the ground (Pennsylvania).


..Just a minor part of all the anomalies which were observable prior to, during, and after the event..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

Nothing wrong with standing critical towards government narratives, as opposed to readily believing thesame without due investigation.

Agreed, but of course the major events of 9/11 don't rely on a government report to tell us what occurred, there's more evidence than what was provided by the US govt.  You need to research a bit more if you think Flight 93 'literally disappeared' in a hole in the ground, which ignores the parts of the plane that were not in the hole in the ground. 

2 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Just a minor part of all the anomalies which were observable prior to, during, and after the event.

Anomalies are exactly what should be expected from one of the most anomalous events in US history, especially this one which occurred in multiple locations. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Agreed, but of course the major events of 9/11 don't rely on a government report to tell us what occurred, there's more evidence than what was provided by the US govt.  You need to research a bit more if you think Flight 93 'literally disappeared' in a hole in the ground, which ignores the parts of the plane that were not in the hole in the ground.

 

The government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania (9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 9) shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board seem to have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

This is of course a valid observation, but how do posts about Flight 93 supposedly nosediving neatly into a pre-existing plane-shaped mine cutting, contribute to the topic here?

Which is, THE FLIGHT 77 EYEWITNESSES?

Has nobody even noticed the evidence (still incomplete) presented on the previous page, of the damning foreknowledge proven by the deep involvement of the Secretary of Defense and his bodyguard, in the staged tableau involving eyewitness and victim Lloyde England, on the Columbia Pike overpass bridge!!f

This simple detail alone establishes the fact of the government's culpability for commission of ALL the crimes of 9/11. That the highest levels of government, law enforcement and military were actively involved in perpetrating the event at the Pentagon, as now revealed on candid camera footage taken within 15 - 20 minutes of impact, is surely of paramount significance! 

Nobody interested then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Well, pick out your mostest favorite issue and post it here - handwaving counts for nothing.

And I would have to observe that if you do not trust anything the gov't says, maybe you should:

a - not be too over dramatic - just 'cause one report is 'wrong' in your (expert?) opinion, doesn't mean everything is - you know, baby and bathwater.. (what a stupid saying that is, but whatever..)

OR

b - give up all hope or move to a different country, because if there's *nothing* you can trust, surely you wouldn't want to live there?

One report is wrong? The report was wrong because they weren't allowed to get it right ChrLzs.  And this isn't my expert opinion. These are the commissioners that WROTE the 9/11 report saying it was wrong.  And I trust those people more than the Bush/Cheney White house any day of the week.

 

  • The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

No wonder the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

 

 

 

https://washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/911-commissioners-didnt-believe-government.html

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

This simple detail alone establishes the fact of the government's culpability for commission of ALL the crimes of 9/11.

No it doesn't. Where have you disproven the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

The government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day.

Define 'produce'.  There are more pictures from flight 93 than what is in the 9/11 commission report, the famous photo I'm aware of shows a back hoe digging up a buried engine at the crash site, it's on Wikipedia if you want to check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron2016
Posted (edited)
On 10/2/2019 at 10:18 AM, RubyGray said:

Circumstantial.

VDOT Pole mark DSC_0416

 

 

 

When I Google Earthed the same sign, I notice the rust is still there.  Clearly it is just rust, and has gradually got worse over the years.

 

pentagonrust.png

 

The next sign has more rust.  Hard to believe anyone could mistake rust for a plane impact.

  

pentagon2.png

 

 

Edited by Aaron2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
5 hours ago, South Alabam said:
  • The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

No wonder the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

Notice though how vague all these statements are; what specifically do these people believe to be wrong?  I just looked into your quotes from Thomas Kean, Max Cleland, and concerning the NORAD tapes, and none of them mention doubts about what occurred on 9/11.  They instead seem to be referring more to not being investigate further what the government knew about the terrorists before the attacks and lying about how well, or not, the initial military and govt response to the attacks was handled.  Politicians first response to everything is CYA, it's not surprising that they'll do what they can to conceal information that shows they were inept or politically damaging.

You may be mentioning the above in a more general sense but more to the topic, do you have any statement from any of the commissioners above expressing doubt that a plane commanded by terrorists hit the Pentagon?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Define 'produce'.  There are more pictures from flight 93 than what is in the 9/11 commission report, the famous photo I'm aware of shows a back hoe digging up a buried engine at the crash site, it's on Wikipedia if you want to check it out.

If a backhoe could dig up a buried engine from a pre-existing mine excavation in a secluded area, then a backhoe could also have previously buried an engine, and/or anything else, in that same location. It's the Santa Claus & cookies syndrome to fail to consider this option.

Again, this has nothing to do with the Flight 77 Eyewitnesses, therefore is off-topic, except in the sense that DONALD RUMSFELD'S PROVEN, VIDEOTAPED COLLUSION AND ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT in the Pentagon phase of 9/11, is a clue to how the physical "evidence" at all sites was managed.

It is a fact that Lloyde England was elsewhere than the bridge site when hit by a pole (which was not a light pole), and that a decoy cab held his place on the bridge for the first 7 minutes, until his cab was moved to the bridge by a waiting TOWTRUCK and trailer, and Lloyde was separately relocated by DONALD RUMSFELD'S BODYGUARD, to be posed and photographed beside an improbable downed lightpole, for the purpose of endorsing the fairytale of Flight AA77 having flown across the bridge on its path into the Pentagon, a flightpath seen by no verified eyewitness whatsoever.

When we have FACTS such as every single detail in Lloyde England's extraordinary and much-maligned story, corroborated by REAL-TIME VIDEO & PHOTO EVIDENCE from not just a single camera and vantage point, but from many, then the time has come to re-evaluate the received wisdom in light of those PROVEN FACTS.

Share this post


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

No it doesn't. Where have you disproven the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

Well let's get this thread back on track, and do as in the original spirit of the opening post!

Let's discuss the Flight 77 eyewitness testimonies individually!

Pick one and start the ball rolling.

Share this post


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

Pick one and start the ball rolling.

How about the second post in this thread:

Quote

Eyewitness one: Frank Probst

This is not a direct quote but sourced from an interview conducted by the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Study team: -

“Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1. The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice. Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him.”

So here we have Probst confirming the generator damage caused specifically by the aircraft, located immediately in front of the Pentagon and on the official approach path. There are further quotes online which confirm Probst saw the plane headed for the building followed by what he perceived as fine pieces of aircraft debris falling.

He does not report seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.

So Scott, or anyone else… why should Probst be discounted?

 

And as an somewhat aside, what exactly is being proposed as the motive to fly the plane over the Pentagon?  Whoever is responsible for 9/11 had already clearly demonstrated their willingness to fly planes into buildings, so why on earth would 'they' then pretend to fly a plane into the building but actually use some other method of destruction?  It makes no sense, and potentially (depending on what your specific CT entails) is a plan that greatly increases the chance of getting caught.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

As to motive for having the plane fly over the building, that is not something I can speculate on. You would have to ask Donald Rumsfeld about that.

 

Frank Probst -

Reportedly one of the closest eyewitnesses to the impact, being on the footpath running on the west side of the lawn, opposite the west wall. Exactly where he was is not specified.

Considering his close proximity to the impact, it is curious that the record contains such scanty first person testimony from him. One would think that journalists would be falling over each other trying to get his testimony from such a vantage point. Look at the multiple voluminous testimonies we have from e.g. Joel Sucherman, Lincoln Liebner, Mary Ann Owens, Alan Wallace, etc etc.

But Frank Probst said almost nothing about what he witnessed, and even what he did say, is suspect when examined closely.

His testimony does not appear in the book "THEN CAME THE FIRE" produced by the U.S. Army Center of Military History.

In the ERIC BART COMPILATION, there are 2 entries, from which we can distil only these very brief first person quotes in pink. The rest is written in 3rd person, and cannot be called eyewitness testimony. There are some questionable and unverified statements in bold red, and a statement in bold blue which confirms that the plane flew on the North - of - Citgo Flightpath.

Probst, Frank

Frank Probst : a Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer, he was inspecting newly installed telecommunications wiring inside the five-story, 6.5-million-square-foot building. The tall, soft-spoken Probst had a 10 a.m. meeting.

About 9:25 a.m., he stopped by the renovation workers' trailer just south of the Pentagon heliport. Someone had a television turned on in the trailer's break room that showed smoke pouring out of the twin towers in New York. "The Pentagon would make a pretty good target," someone in the break room commented. The thought stuck with Probst as he picked up his notebook and walked to the North Parking Lot to attend his meeting.

Probst took a sidewalk alongside Route 27, which runs near the Pentagon's western face. Traffic was at a standstill because of a road accident.

Then, at about 9:35 a.m., he saw the airliner in the cloudless September sky. American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.

He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze. "I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, 'Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'"

He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away. The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart. He still can't remember the sound of the explosion. Sometimes the memory starts to come back when he hears a particularly low-flying airliner heading into nearby Reagan National Airport, or when military jets fly over a burial at Arlington National Cemetery. Most of the time, though, his memory is silent.

"It was pretty horrible," he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust, and bits of metal and concrete drifting down like confetti.

On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground.

An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.

http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/fortress1.html

 

Probst, Frank

"I was standing on the sidewalk (parallel to the site of impact) … and I saw this plane coming right at me at what seemed like 300 miles an hour. I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize," said Frank Probst, a member of the Pentagon renovations crew commented.

"It looked like a huge fireball, pieces were flying out everywhere."

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_55/local_news/10660-1.html

 

The only video I have seen with Frank Probst is this one, and I only discovered this at the beginning of this thread.

Discovery Super Structures - Pentagon Witnesses

This is the longest verbatim testimony we have from Frank Probst, and here is the transcription.

00:40
"The engine was about 6 feet off the ground, coming right at me. I lay down on the ground and watched the plane come over top of me. Streetlights were falling on both sides of where I was. The 2 engines from the plane which hang way down underneath the plane both hit short of the uh Pentagon in this area out here. And then there was a fireball right after that.
"And I can remember the tail section disappearing into the fireball."

Early poster Scott G. remarked on this. He wrote that Probst never actually said the plane flew into the building, but that he "remembered" it "disappearing into the fireball".

There has never been any confirmation of a Jeep Cherokee having had its antenna hit by the plane. Again, one would think that the driver of this vehicle would have contacted a journalist, and reported this terrifying event, and had photos taken. He should have been a public face of 9/11. But there is nothing. Questions have been raised as to whether Jeep Cherokees even had external aerials.

Probst's testimony in this video seems to be a rehearsed speech. He recites lines which have been written, rather than using normal verbal vernacular. There is a marked difference between the way we write sentences and the way we speak them.

Did the wing cut through the generator trailer "like butter"? Who else saw this? Wasn't it the starboard engine which was claimed to have hit the generator? But Probst says both engines "hit short in this area out here", implying that they both hit the ground.

He states that one of the engines "vapourised", which, as it is made of tungsten, is simply not possible.

He stated as though it were fact, yet NOT as claiming to have seen it, that "streetlights were falling" either side of him. He does NOT state that the lightpoles were hit by the plane. This could not have happened anyway, as all eyewitnesses, including Probst himself apparently, testified that the plane flew ACROSS THE NAVY ANNEX, making it impossible for it to have also hit the lightpoles.

Like other witnesses, Probst's account refers to poles having been cut in half, 12 - 15 feet above the ground. Yet we see the poles felled completely, not merely cut off halfway up.

 

A colleague of Probst, Don Mason, is used to confirm Probst's story. Their accounts are pretty similar, but there is no first person testimony from Mason. This account is third-person:

Mason, Don
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf  
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.

This sounds as though it was written by the same speech writer.

Yet Lincoln Liebner, whio was within 100 yards of the impact site, does not mention having seen either Probst or Mason. Liebner gave numerous testimonies about how he ran towards the building as soon as the explosion occurred, and began helping wiht the rescue effort. This is a fact as we know from videos and ophotos andf other eyewitness testimony of Liebner doing this. Ditto for Alan Wallace and Mark Skipper. All these men were burned by the fire and their rescue activities, yet they considered others before themselves.

So what did Probst and Mason do after the impact? Run away?

Citizen Investigation Team contacted Frank Probst and asked him to do an interview with them, but he refused.

This account is vague, unconfirmed and unconvincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
9 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

 

When I Google Earthed the same sign, I notice the rust is still there.  Clearly it is just rust, and has gradually got worse over the years.

pentagonrust.png

The next sign has more rust.  Hard to believe anyone could mistake rust for a plane impact.

It aeems you have misunderstood my point.

I am saying just what you have. Yes, there was rust ion thios poles in 2001, and it is juch worse now.

I am not insinuating that the plane hit the overhead sign, just saying that the mark on the VDOT pole could well be another rust mark, and that nobody imagines the overhead sign marks to be anything other than rust, so why would they think that VDOT mark was anything else? But it may also have been caused during construction. There are numerous ways that this mark and the missing rung could have happened, including deliberate sabotage.

Also, I have pointed out that according to the official flightpath, it would not have been possible for the plane wing to have impacted the VDT pole and the other poles, without hitting the corner of the overhead sign, and ripping a large chunk of its wing off.

plane wing should hit overhead sign.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

I have worked with people who were at the Pentagon that day. A plane hit the building plain and simple. I have no reason to believe they are liars or part of an over arching conspiracy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

As to motive for having the plane fly over the building, that is not something I can speculate on. You would have to ask Donald Rumsfeld about that.

That is a cop-out, I'm not currently having a discussion with Donald Rumsfeld.  Your own analysis of testimony is not literally proving much, it relies on your specific interpretation of things being true.  That interpretation of yours then has to make sense, and trying to head-fake people into thinking a plane hit the Pentagon in broad daylight, besides being an absurd thing to try and pull off for anyone trying to keep any of this secret, makes no sense given, again, that they have no aversion to flying planes into buildings.  Sorry, you need a motive, and evidence for it, and things like this that are counter-intuitive definitely require an explanation.

7 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Considering his close proximity to the impact, it is curious that the record contains such scanty first person testimony from him. One would think that journalists would be falling over each other trying to get his testimony from such a vantage point.

That's not curious, that's CT innuendo-like thinking. 

7 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Did the wing cut through the generator trailer "like butter"? Who else saw this?

Who cares, what is the evidence that he didn't see this?  There's a ton, literally, of evidence that he did.

7 hours ago, RubyGray said:

He states that one of the engines "vapourised", which, as it is made of tungsten, is simply not possible.

It's not a good sign that you would even mention this as if you think it was relevant.  Yes, people use words non-literally, welcome to the English language, I bet you do this too.

7 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Probst's testimony in this video seems to be a rehearsed speech. He recites lines which have been written, rather than using normal verbal vernacular. There is a marked difference between the way we write sentences and the way we speak them.

...

This sounds as though it was written by the same speech writer.

These comments are just kooky.  Probst doesn't look like he's reciting lines, he looks like he's telling a story that he's told many times before.  Arguments based on your psychological interpretation of people's behavior on youtube videos are just never going to be very strong.  It's amazing how your approach to witnesses changes so radically depending on whether they support your view or not; why does all this uber-skepticism vanish when you are discussing Lloyd?

At any point will you be laying out what actually happened and the evidence supporting it? When were the plane parts on the lawn dropped in?  Whose remains did they find in the Pentagon, were they the same people who boarded the flight?  How did they get there if the plane flew over?  If you don't believe, selectively of course, certain witnesses then you have a lot of other things to explain away.  Since you are shy about actually explaining what the other alternative is, what do you agree happened that corresponds with the official story?  Only that a jet flew extremely low over the highway and that there was an explosion at the Pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yes, people use words non-literally, welcome to the English language, I bet you do this too.

Exactly. Even today people say things like they could '...smell the cordite...' yet cordite hasn't been in production since the 1950s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sorry, you need a motive, and evidence for it, and things like this that are counter-intuitive definitely require an explanation.

Correct!

When the abundant eyewitness testimony that the plane was between 50 to 80 feet AGL (Aziz ElHallou said "50 - 75 YARDS AGL) as it crossed Route 27 on the North-of-Citgo flightpath, is corroborated by multiple video footage of the relocation of a taxi cab by 350 yards down the road to give the false impression that the plane flew on a South-of-Citgo trajectory, personally stage-managed by the bodyguard of the Secretary of Defense who was playing first responders on the lawn watching this performance when he was urgently needed at his post to run the military response, then Yes, there must have been a motive, and these facts ought to be sufficient to prompt questions about the official theory in anyone's mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

 

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Who cares, what is the evidence that he didn't see this?  There's a ton, literally, of evidence that he did.

Not strictly true, of course.

Evidence of something having impacted the generator trailer, is not actual evidence that Frank Probst witnessed AA77's right wing in the process of causing that damage.

Circumstantial, again.

Share this post


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

It's not a good sign that you would even mention this as if you think it was relevant.  Yes, people use words non-literally, welcome to the English language, I bet you do this too.

I would say rather, that it's not a good sign that PROBST mentioned this. As a former military man, he should have known better than to make such an absurd statement.

You chose to discuss eyewitness Frank Probst. So I collated all the first person testimony I have been able to find from him, which is very sparse, vague and contradicted by the other eyewitness testimony. 

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It's amazing how your approach to witnesses changes so radically depending on whether they support your view or not; why does all this uber-skepticism vanish when you are discussing Lloyd?

Lloyde England, unlike Probst, was interviewed many times by many individuals over about 10 years, and despite what CIT claimed, his testimony was always consistent. It is the photographs taken of Lloyde and his cab on the bridge beside a large downed lightpole, which have obscured the facts, and caused all the skepticism and misrepresentation of Lloyde England's own testimony.

His testimony was always video or audio recorded.

It is lengthy, detailed and comprehensive.

It is artless, candid, honest and freely given.

It is unrelentingly constant in the face of Craig Ranke's exasperation and ridicule, and the widespread hate campaign caused by their flawed conclusions and false accusations.

Lloyde drew a sketch of the pole inside his cab, which contradicts the official story about a 30-plus foot lightpole having caused the damage to his cab.

The physical damage to the preserved cab, inside and out, confirms the dimensions and position of the pole which Lloyde England sketched.

His claimed location far north of the bridge as the plane flew across him, is attested by written and videoed first-person eyewitness testimonies. Sergeant William Lagasse, Father Stephen McGraw and Tony Terronez are three eyewitnesses who gave detailed, specific first-person testimony to Lloyde England's cab having been hit by a pole while north of the heliport.

Detective Don Fortunato's testimony confirms that when he arrived at the scene, he saw Lloyde England's windscreen had been smashed by "pieces of pole", and video shows that his silver sedan was initially parked across the lane divider beside Lloyde England's cab next to the cemetery wall. It was soon, and for the rest of the day, parked in similar relationship to Lloyde's cab on the bridge.

There are many others who witnessed Lloyde England's cab beside the cemetery wall, but whose testimony has never been sought, merely because the photos of Lloyde and his cab on the bridge are unquestioningly accepted as proof of the Official Story. Eyewitness locations are interpreted in light of these photos, and therefore misrepresented, and their testimonies dismissed, because of those misleading photos taken from at least 11 minutes post impact.

Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke were scathing in their rejection of the testimonies of Father McGraw, Mary Ann Owens, Joel Sucherman, etc., due to the photos of Lloyde England's cab on the bridge. But England, Owens, McGraw, Lagasse, Sucherman, Narayanan etc were all perfectly honest witnesses whose accounts confirm the North-of-Citgo flightpath, when their claimed locations are plotted relative to it, rather than to the official flightpath.

Steve Riskus was driving on Lloyde England's tail at the time the plane flew over the highway. He began taking photos "within one minute" of impact, thus confirming his location. Riskus' second photo reveals shattered glass and black skid marks on the highway north of the Columbia Pike exit sign.

This exact spot was twice personally identified on site, on video, by Lloyde England to Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor, as being his location when the plane flew over his car, and the pole smashed his windscreen, causing him to skid to a halt. Steve Riskus confirmed to an Italian researcher that his view of the plane was of it "about 100 feet or so away" (admittedly an underestimate, but certainly much closer than the 1,300 feet from his verified location to the bridge) and that it was broadside on to him, as it crossed Route 27 opposite the heliport. This corroborates Lloyde England's testimony of his view of the plane flying over his car, as well as scores of other accounts.

4 independent videos taken within 8 minutes of the impact show the cab beside the cemetery wall,, with pole through the windscreen, then being relocated to the bridge.

The only testimony which I am aware of, claimed to support Frank Probst's account, is Don Mason's. Being written in third person, this is not admissible evidence. 

Captain Lincoln Liebner was less than 100 yards from the impact site, much closer than Probst or Mason. Liebner flatly contradicts Probst's version. He stated, on a video taken within weeks of 9/11, that he saw the plane hit "between the second and third floors". Other close eyewitnesses also had this impression of an elevated impact, including ATC Sean Boger and Mary Ann Owens. Clearly the impact hole is on the ground floor, but what they saw in that brief moment convinced these people that the plane was much higher. If the plane was so high, then clearly, it was not the plane's wing whit cut through the generator, and the two engines did not impact the ground as Probst claimed.

Liebner demonstrated on an overhead photo how he witnessed the plane flying perpendicular to the wall, at the level of the heliport tower. Again, far north of the generator trailer. These impressions, fresh in his memory, contradict both the official trajectory and Probst's account, but confirm the testimonies of Steve Riskus and Lloyde England, etc etc. Whatever Liebner saw, he described as best he could. He was there, and unlike Probst who testified that he ran away, Liebner ran towards the fire and was the first rescuer on the scene, who continued retrieving victims until he was sent off in an ambulance (seen on video). This validates Liebner's testimony, and casts doubt on that of Probst.

I did not approach this subject with a "personal view" to validate. I was impressed by the consistent testimony of Lloyde England on CIT's videos, calmly maintained in the face of incredulous ridicule and hostile accusations of complicity.

Unlike every other person, I chose to do as is supposed to be done in courts of law in enlightened Western countries, and assume Lloyde's innocence of CIT's charges until he was proven guilty. I sought out all video and photo evidence I could find, and spent hundreds of hours painstakingly scrutinising it, with no idea of where this would lead. I never expected to find the evidence of how Lloyde England's cab was moved, but there it was, filmed from 4 different angles. All the many details of Lloyde England's story, mocked by CIT, were also confirmed in these invaluable records. Identities of those involved in this scheme were revealed.

But still nobody wants to even consider that the Official Story may not be the truth!

Share this post


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

I have worked with people who were at the Pentagon that day. A plane hit the building plain and simple. I have no reason to believe they are liars or part of an over arching conspiracy.

I agree that those people are neither liars nor involved in a conspiracy.

But neither are all the many witnesses who saw the plane fly on a trajectory incompatible with the impact hole and damage path, liars or conspirators. They also believed they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, although the trajectory they saw and plotted on overhead photos, cannot be reconciled with the impact point.

There are also witnesses who claimed that they saw the plane hit somewhere other than the impact hole, and some who claimed they saw the plane fly over the building. There are many whose estimate of the plane's height AGL as it crossed the highway, is contradictory to the "low and level across the lawn" images from the gatecams, and therefore incompatible with impact at ground level, but compatible with a flyover

I also cannot accuse these people of being liars or operatives in a scam.

All were trying their best to make sense of what they witnessed in a few seconds, or even a fraction of a second. And this perception was moulded by media saturation with the Official Story.

It would be helpful to have the written or video / audio testimonies of your workmates. Have they been previously recorded? Is it possible to obtain their testimonies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
17 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

I agree that those people are neither liars nor involved in a conspiracy.

But neither are all the many witnesses who saw the plane fly on a trajectory incompatible with the impact hole and damage path, liars or conspirators. They also believed they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, although the trajectory they saw and plotted on overhead photos, cannot be reconciled with the impact point.

There are also witnesses who claimed that they saw the plane hit somewhere other than the impact hole, and some who claimed they saw the plane fly over the building. There are many whose estimate of the plane's height AGL as it crossed the highway, is contradictory to the "low and level across the lawn" images from the gatecams, and therefore incompatible with impact at ground level, but compatible with a flyover

I also cannot accuse these people of being liars or operatives in a scam.

All were trying their best to make sense of what they witnessed in a few seconds, or even a fraction of a second. And this perception was moulded by media saturation with the Official Story.

It would be helpful to have the written or video / audio testimonies of your workmates. Have they been previously recorded? Is it possible to obtain their testimonies?

No, that's not really a thing I would do. Most of them are retired now. I'm sure their testimonies were recorded during the investigation conducted. I wouldn't have access to those files if they existed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I would say rather, that it's not a good sign that PROBST mentioned this. As a former military man, he should have known better than to make such an absurd statement.

It's not absurd, he's just assuming that the people he's talking to understand English well enough to know that when he says an engine 'vaporizes' that he doesn't mean that literally.  Kind of like when you say the also apparently absurd, "personally stage-managed by the bodyguard of the Secretary of Defense".  What are you talking about, there's no stage anywhere, you do know what a stage is?  "As a researcher, you should know better...", etc.

17 hours ago, RubyGray said:

The only testimony which I am aware of, claimed to support Frank Probst's account, is Don Mason's. Being written in third person, this is not admissible evidence. 

Hahaha, ah, no, this is not your courtroom, you don't determine what's admissable.

17 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Captain Lincoln Liebner was less than 100 yards from the impact site, much closer than Probst or Mason. Liebner flatly contradicts Probst's version. He stated, on a video taken within weeks of 9/11, that he saw the plane hit "between the second and third floors". Other close eyewitnesses also had this impression of an elevated impact, including ATC Sean Boger and Mary Ann Owens. Clearly the impact hole is on the ground floor, but what they saw in that brief moment convinced these people that the plane was much higher.

That's quite the spin: 'flatly contradicts'.  You mean, "Liebner flatly contradicts Probst's version... well, except for the irrelevant fact that they both saw the plane hit the building."  You appear to be trying to treat all statements with equal expectation of accuracy, which is not logical.  If you and I watch a video of LeBron James dunking a basketball and you say that he jumped 30 inches off the ground and I say he jumped 35 inches off the ground, that inconsistency does not add doubt to the fact that the basketball was still dunked.  Likewise it's, obviously, much easier for people to determine whether a plane hits a building or not than it is for them to estimate the exact height of something flying fast, from a distance, within a short period of time, during an unbelievable and shocking occurrence.  Given that, what was your purpose of mentioning the above?  People differ on specifics, entirely expected, read the very first post in this thread again, or as you just said, "All were trying their best to make sense of what they witnessed in a few seconds, or even a fraction of a second.".  100% agreed with you on that, I just am not sure if you've fully incorporated that fact into your reasoning if you bothered to mention the above, which just buttresses the idea that the plane did not fly over.

Speaking of, what is the absolute best eyewitness account that shows that the plane flew over the Pentagon?  Why wouldn't we expect to have many people who would have seen a very low flying jet, especially after their attention has been pulled in that direction by a large explosion?  Your theory requires an explanation for all these missing accounts which we would logically expect to have, given this all occurring in broad daylight.

Share this post


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

I did not approach this subject with a "personal view" to validate.

I3EVvDkaQliHoYIIP1C8_bullshit_meter.jpeg

 

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.