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

RubyGray

1. Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo … It knocked over a few light poles in its way."

WHAT RISKUS ACTUALLY SAW :

Italian website :

Q: Steve, did you see the plane hitting light poles? Did you see light poles falling down?
RISKUS: I didnt see the plane hit the poles and I didnt see the light poles falling down. I saw them after they were already on the ground.

He drew the flightpath of the plane, perpendicular to the building, across the Heliport tower.

HE WAS A NORTHSIDE WITNESS.

He was about 1,300 feet north of the bridge, therefore could not have seen the 5 downed lightpoles from his location.

 

2. Mark Bright: "… at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."

WHAT THEY OMITTED :

"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low ...”

He is a NORTHSIDE WITNESS.

He saw the plane fly across the Navy Annex.

A plane on this trajectory CANNOT have hit the 5 downed lightpoles, nor made the directional damage inside the Pentagon

 

3. Mike Walter: "… it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there."

Mike Walter said this within minutes of the impact. The reporter said they had heard the pole hit a taxi.

Walter stammered and said he DID NOT SEE THAT.

He changed his story every time he told it for years. He proved himself an unreliable witness.

 

4. Rodney Washington: "… knocking over light poles"

By Robert Schlesinger and Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 9/12/2001

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest ... The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

NOT first-person eyewitness testimony.

At several hundred yards away, Washington COULD NOT SEE the lightpoles.

The plane DID NOT BOUNCE on the helipad.

 

5. Kirk Milburn:

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I GUESS it was hitting light poles."

GUESSING” is NOT EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY.

CIT contacted the deceased Milburn’s son to verify his location, and confirmed that HE HAD NO VIEW OF THE LIGHTPOLES.

 

6. Afework Hagos: "It hit some lampposts on the way in."

NOT EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY.

Was driving on Columbia Pike. Does not give his exact location, and does not state that he witnessed the impact, nor the poles being hit.

 

7. Kat Gaines: "saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles."

Her commute to the airport took her south on Route 110, in front of the parking lots of the Pentagon. As she approached the parking lots, she saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.

She then HEARD the plane power up and plunge into the Pentagon.”

NOT first-person eyewitness testimony.

She was on the opposite side of the Pentagon, so could not see the impact.

Yet she claimed to have seen the plane flying low, EAST of the Pentagon, BEFORE the impact (like several other witness on that side of the Pentagon).

NO TELEPHONE POLES were knocked down.

She was 2,800 feet to the east of the overpass bridge, therefore she CANNOT have seen the 5 downed lightpoles.

 

8. D.S. Khavkin: "First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles."

HOW would she know???
Aldo Marquis went to the trouble of looking up the address of this witness, who wrote that she HEARD what “APPEARED TO BE A SMALL AIRCRAFT” fly directly overhead of her apartment.

Her apartment was at 2001 Columbia Pike, Arlington, west of the Sheraton Hotel.

She DID NOT SEE the plane, but was reciting what she heard and saw in the media.

OVER 3 MILES from the Pentagon.
She is NOT a witness!

 

9. Wanda Ramey: "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”

Wanda Ramey (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT), cannot remember if she thought she actually saw the plane hit a pole or simply deduced it after seeing it on the ground like everyone else we spoke with.

 

10. Penny Elgas: A piece of American Airlines Flight 77 was torn from the plane as it clipped a light pole. It landed in her car. Now in the Smithsonian Institution's 9/11 collection.

ASSUMPTION!

Jeff Hill phone interview 2009:

HILL You saw it? You saw it hit one of the light poles?

ELGAS No I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane. Is that it clipped the pole. The tail. That was actually the tail that I turned in to the Smithsonian, a piece of the tail.

HILL What I was reading it fell into your car?

ELGAS Well that's what THEY said, but that's not what happened.

HILL Er you just picked it up or?

ELGAS I picked it up.

 

11. Lincoln Liebner: "It was probably about thirty feet off the ground, clipping the lampposts. I could clearly see through the windows of the plane. It was maybe going 500 miles an hour – when it just flew … into the Pentagon ... less than a hundred yards away."

Liebner does NOT SAY HE WITNESSED THE PLANE HITTING LIGHTPOLES.

Here are two other things he said, which contradict the Official Story:

"The aircraft went in between the second and third floors."

Captain Lincoln Leibner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad. (ABC)

Captain Liebner drew the flightpath of the plane which he witnessed.

He believed it flew perpendicular to the building, at the level of the Heliport Tower, and much further north and higher than the impact hole

This makes him a NORTHSIDE WITNESS.

This plane COULD NOT have hit the 5 lightpoles, nor made the directional damage inside the Pentagon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
bknight

"1. Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo … It knocked over a few light poles in its way."
WHAT RISKUS ACTUALLY SAW :
Italian website :
Q: Steve, did you see the plane hitting light poles? Did you see light poles falling down?
RISKUS: I didnt see the plane hit the poles and I didnt see the light poles falling down. I saw them after they were already on the ground.
He drew the flightpath of the plane, perpendicular to the building, across the Heliport tower.
HE WAS A NORTHSIDE WITNESS.
He was about 1,300 feet north of the bridge, therefore could not have seen the 5 downed lightpoles from his location."

This shows once again, that eye witness accounts are very fallible.  They change with time and circumstance(manner of questions asked).  They are secondary to hard evidence.

Why would you indicate that the second is what he saw? Rather than the first account? 

If as you believe the light poles were a ruse, then how were they knocked over?  Why did no one indicate "Wow this is strange there are light poles on the ground".

What are the exact height measurements of the cemetery wall?  How did the injured people on the lawn (in the correct path of the airline) come to be injured?  How did the generator in front of the building become damaged?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
On 11/6/2019 at 12:55 AM, bknight said:

"1. Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo … It knocked over a few light poles in its way."
WHAT RISKUS ACTUALLY SAW :
Italian website :
Q: Steve, did you see the plane hitting light poles? Did you see light poles falling down?
RISKUS: I didnt see the plane hit the poles and I didnt see the light poles falling down. I saw them after they were already on the ground.
He drew the flightpath of the plane, perpendicular to the building, across the Heliport tower.
HE WAS A NORTHSIDE WITNESS.
He was about 1,300 feet north of the bridge, therefore could not have seen the 5 downed lightpoles from his location."

This shows once again, that eye witness accounts are very fallible.  They change with time and circumstance(manner of questions asked).  They are secondary to hard evidence.

Why would you indicate that the second is what he saw? Rather than the first account? 

What makes you imagine that his "second account" is any different from his "first account"?

We absolutely know his location on southbound Route 27 was about 100 yards north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, depending on how long it took him to stop, because he took the earliest photos of the scene. 

His first photo shows a small white chip on his red car, probably from flying debris. His second photo shows the road north of the exit sign, with the Pentagon across the highway (and black skid marks on the road, exactly where Lloyde England said he was when the pole speared his windshield and he locked up his brakes).

On the same day, Riskus uploaded his photos to a website which he had (fortuitously) created the previous day!!! 

There he wrote,

"I took these pictures seconds after I saw an American airlines 757 crash into Pentagon. I was heading towards 395 on Route 27 when the plane crossed my path about 100ft ahead and crashed into the side of the pentagon.

"Steve Riskus

"AIM: youthenraged"

Note that he says :

*  it was an American airlines plane

*  It was a 757

*  it crossed his path

*  It was only about 100 feet away.

This is EXACTLY what he told the Italian researcher in 2011.

The plane was very close, surely more than 100 feet, but definitely not  >1,300 feet away, as it would have been had it flown across the bridge. In that case, neither would he have said that it "crossed my path".

It CROSSED the highway right in front of him. This implies, as he confirms in several maps which he later marked with his location and the flightpath he witnessed, that the plane was about perpendicular to the road and the wall.

He identified it on 9/11 as an AA 757. He could not have done this from 1,300 feet away, because the plane would not have been at 90 degrees to the road, but at >150 degrees, almost heading towards him, had it been flying across the bridge. He could not possibly have seen the logo on the tail.

The version which said "It knocked over a few light poles in its way" was from the Italian website email interview :

 

STEVE RISKUS  [Interview conducted by email by "Agent Fescado"]

riskus.jpg"... I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It did dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 ft or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on it's way... "

Riskus then goes on to clarify, when asked, that he DID NOT SEE THE POLES KNOCKED DOWN,  but saw them on the ground later. Even this must mean that he saw them on the news, as he did not drive down route 27, but exited via Columbia Pike, and the overpass was soon blocked to traffic for the rest of the day.

Therefore your statements,

"This shows once again, that eye witness accounts are very fallible.  They change with time and circumstance(manner of questions asked).  They are secondary to hard evidence."

fail completely. Riskus' photos constitute hard evidence of his location when the plane crossed his path, and his photos and comments posted on his website that very afternoon, constitute sound evidence of what he witnessed, which was identical with what he repeated 10 years later. His testimony did NOT change with time.

Therefore, STEVE RISKUS WAS A GENUINE NORTHSIDE EYEWITNESS, whose location is absolutely confirmed by numerous photographs.

And he DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT ANY LIGHTPOLES.

The only problem with Steve Riskus' evidence is that he did not tell the WHOLE truth. He left out the part where he was driving on Lloyde England's tail when the plane flew across the highway in front of him, suddenly appearing from behind the trees that topped the cemetery wall and obscured his view of its approach.

That is exactly what Lloyde England also experienced. Had he been driving towards the bridge, and IF the plane had been travelling on the official flightpath, then Lloyde would have had a perfect view of it flying towards him for about 7 - 10 seconds. But he testified that he only glimpsed the plane for a moment as it flew over him, because he too, like Riskus, was driving beside the ANC retaining wall and tree cover that obscured the approach of the plane from the west.

Steve Riskus deliberately concealed the fact that Lloyde England was driving right in front of him when a pole was fired through his windshield, and deliberately avoided that location in any of his photographs, giving the appearance of completely clear southbound lanes.

But we know from 4 independent videos that there was a white van, a black towtruck, a low loader trailer and a black CAPITOL CAB right there beside the wall, around which Riskus had to negotiate as he moved between taking photos #2 and #3.

This implicates Riskus as an operative in the 9/11 plot, whose premeditated purpose was to give the appearance of documenting the event, while actually obfuscating the fact of Lloyde England's true location.

There is detailed discussion of Steve Riskus illustrated with analysis of his photographs here on page 8 of my thread "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED" :

http://letsrollforums.com//showpost.php?p=277922&postcount=76

Edited by RubyGray
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Please make it stop.   You can't reason someone out of a position that they reached using no reasoning...

bknight, while I applaud your efforts, this is now just an opportunity for Ruby to post walls of text.  I'm sure *she* re-reads them with great relish and delight, but everyone else has now left.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
5 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Please make it stop.   You can't reason someone out of a position that they reached using no reasoning...

bknight, while I applaud your efforts, this is now just an opportunity for Ruby to post walls of text.  I'm sure *she* re-reads them with great relish and delight, but everyone else has now left.

Vacuous post as ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Yes, this thread sucks.  Counting down to closure....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

The thread is a great concept. There are many issues that were never properly resolved, because there never was a genuine investigation. 

But of course its success depends on people actually addressing the topic - the flight 77 (Pentagon) eyewitnesses, which so far you have never done.

As you only appear here to kick sand in people's faces, which surely gets old, why bother coming back at all?

This forum does deal with "Conspiracies" and "Unexplained Mysteries", which are surely in abundant supply here, so why do you feel it necessary for you to derail and lampoon anyone who posts on the thread topic, with your hollow taunts?

Why don't you actually discuss one or more of the witnesses? Since you seem unable to quit peeking at this thread.

Share this post


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

The thread is a great concept.

No, it isn't.  It is essentially argument about anecdotes and trivia and memory failures, and has no logical progression.

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

There are many issues that were never properly resolved, because there never was a genuine investigation.

There will ALWAYS be plenty of stuff that is never resolved, in every aspect of life, in every tragedy.  There is simply not enough information properly recorded.  People's perceptions,as you have proved uneloquently above are not proper recordings, they are perceptions, that even at the start are distorted, and then within seconds will change and morph according to the person's 'wiring'.  And of course some folks just make **** up for their fifteen minutes.

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

But of course its success depends on people actually addressing the topic - the flight 77 (Pentagon) eyewitnesses, which so far you have never done.

I addressed it at the start, and again above.  Anecdotal inconsistencies are worth roughly ZERO, often less.

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

As you only appear here to kick sand in people's faces, which surely gets old, why bother coming back at all?

Think of them as "My 2-cents worth" drive-throughs.  (They are like drive-by's, only not violent..)

 

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

This forum does deal with "Conspiracies" and "Unexplained Mysteries", which are surely in abundant supply here, so why do you feel it necessary for you to derail and lampoon anyone who posts on the thread topic, with your hollow taunts?

Yes, we rule out the rubbish and try to find genuine mysteries.  The fact that people make stuff up, and memories can't be relied upon..?  Well, we already knew that.  No mystery there.

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Why don't you actually discuss one or more of the witnesses? Since you seem unable to quit peeking at this thread.

Because it's worthless, anecdotal, waffle that afaics, leads nowhere.  See above.  See last 87 pages.

In fact, may we have a show of hands from the audience - anyone here newly convinced that Ruby's onto something?

If so, can you give me an executive summary as to what that 'something' is? and also point directly at the smoking gun bit - ie the absolutely irrefutable evidence and the logical outcome that follows from that?  No more walls of text, please.  Summarise.  Use brevity.  Start at the topmost, bestest, killer evidence bit.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Actually this would be easy to resolve. They just have to release the footage of the several surveillance tapes they confiscated from local businesses, and from the pentagon its self.

Yet they refuse. Hmm.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

No, it isn't.  It is essentially argument about anecdotes and trivia and memory failures, and has no logical progression.

There will ALWAYS be plenty of stuff that is never resolved, in every aspect of life, in every tragedy.  There is simply not enough information properly recorded.  People's perceptions,as you have proved uneloquently above are not proper recordings, they are perceptions, that even at the start are distorted, and then within seconds will change and morph according to the person's 'wiring'.  And of course some folks just make **** up for their fifteen minutes.

I addressed it at the start, and again above.  Anecdotal inconsistencies are worth roughly ZERO, often less.

Think of them as "My 2-cents worth" drive-throughs.  (They are like drive-by's, only not violent..)

 

Yes, we rule out the rubbish and try to find genuine mysteries.  The fact that people make stuff up, and memories can't be relied upon..?  Well, we already knew that.  No mystery there.

Because it's worthless, anecdotal, waffle that afaics, leads nowhere.  See above.  See last 87 pages.

In fact, may we have a show of hands from the audience - anyone here newly convinced that Ruby's onto something?

If so, can you give me an executive summary as to what that 'something' is? and also point directly at the smoking gun bit - ie the absolutely irrefutable evidence and the logical outcome that follows from that?  No more walls of text, please.  Summarise.  Use brevity.  Start at the topmost, bestest, killer evidence bit.

 

You are seriously trying to turn this conversation into why a thread shouldn't exist? In the conspiracy section no less? This is a total troll move man.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mello_

Time passed and I didnt read any good evidence to support 9/11 was false flag.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Time passed and I didnt read any good evidence to support 9/11 was false flag.

Hello Mello, there is plenty of evidence, tucked away amongst the barrage of hater spiel. Maybe you missed it?

Anyway, I don't think the original intention of the thread was to prove a false flag, but to be a resource cataloguing and comparing the available eyewitness testimony. Not everybody can see the discrepancies between them, nor the significance of them, nor the way that many have been twisted to defend a specious conclusion,  but I do.

Share this post


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

Hello Mello, there is plenty of evidence, tucked away amongst the barrage of hater spiel. Maybe you missed it?

Anyway, I don't think the original intention of the thread was to prove a false flag, but to be a resource cataloguing and comparing the available eyewitness testimony. Not everybody can see the discrepancies between them, nor the significance of them, nor the way that many have been twisted to defend a specious conclusion,  but I do.

Give 5 evidences that are good enough!

Share this post


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

Hello Mello, there is plenty of evidence, tucked away amongst the barrage of hater spiel. Maybe you missed it?

Anyway, I don't think the original intention of the thread was to prove a false flag, but to be a resource cataloguing and comparing the available eyewitness testimony. Not everybody can see the discrepancies between them, nor the significance of them, nor the way that many have been twisted to defend a specious conclusion,  but I do.

Ruby, thanks for letting us know that your conclusion is specious.

I still don't know what that conclusion is, other than that witness anecdotes aren't worth the paper they are not written on... but at least we now know that it is specious.  Not much more needs to be said.

 

:D

{driveby}

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.