| · Portal |
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
|
| Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
| onesliceshort |
Posted: Oct 11 2009, 01:38 PM
|
||||||||||||||
|
Citizen Investigator Group: Friends Posts: 951 Member No.: 1,023 Joined: 29-April 09 |
As usual the ASCE Report throws up the usual contradictions and speculation. On this occasion, the entire testimony is attributed to Frank Probst in describing word for word the alleged PRECISE damage caused by the supposed "impact" of the plane. All seen within a chaotic, violent event which Probst said had him diving for his life, and the alleged 0.4 seconds (ASCE) that it took the plane to traverse the Pentagon lawn. I assume Probst was facing away from the blast when it occurred? He didn't cover his head? The vortex or at least tremendous turbulence and noise didn't disorientate or even budge him? No he immediately turned to face the blast while diving, not blinking while taking in all of this detail.
The important section of this quote is "as he approached the heliport he noticed..." There is a pathway across the lawn which runs parallel to Route 27. This narrows his POV down to this pathway facing the general area of the heliport. He would have had, give or take 20/30 metres the same line of view as Sean Boger who was in the heliport at the time. ![]()
Note, not to the side of the annex, or coming at an angle from the I-395 direction. He says that the plane flew right by him.
Where does that leave the official flightpath as it enters the lawn area of the Pentagon given that the plane passed him at the point on the lawn path he describes? At @ 200m to his left. Back to the ASCE Report
The fireball lasted 5 seconds. So are they saying that in the time he dived, took all this info in and got to his feet the fireball was still in motion? Fine pieces of "wing debris"? So fine the lawn in front of and to the south of the alleged impact area was clean as a whistle , yet in numerous photos we can see debris (concrete, etc) from the blast starting around the heliport area to the North? The lawn around the "official flight path" route: ![]() ![]() The heliport area: ![]() ![]() Now enter the frame Don Mason. This guy is RARELY used by detractors to try and support the official path and "impact". Why? Because he totally contradicts Probst while backing up his exact claims and a few lightpoles are thrown in for good measure (AND an ariel) This occurs in the very next paragraph of the same ASCE Report
This whole statement is contrived to corraborate Probstīs story while adding a sense of continuance to the touted "Official Flightpath" None of it is directly quoted. What is incredible is the total contradiction to Probstīs account as regards positioning:
That is, Mason has been placed directly under the official flightpath. "Possibly" clipping this mysterious antenna, and the 3 lightpoles (again which he is never directly quoted as saying). Contrived. He places Probst directly in its path ![]() There exist two possibilities. This story is so obviously put together it is unreal. Their stories and descriptions are woven around the observed damage. Probst threw a major spanner in the works putting the plane off SOC and closer to NOC (at no point on the OCT flightpath would the aircraft appear to have come over the Annex from his stated POV) and the ASCE report tried to claw back some official credulity with Masonīs story/help. or Mason later learned of the "lightpole damage" and Probst, Mason and the ASCE worked together to add the extra details into the testimony. It must have happened right? So Probst MUST have been directly in front of him for the plane to have passed so close. How could he be way over at the heliport if the plane was at least 200m to Probstīs left according to the damage? If Mason actually was there and he DID see Probst he had to be further up the road towards the heliport. There is no way he could have physically identified Probst from so far. The "right engine" remark by Probst puts him specifically on the OCT path if the OCT is to be believed. There was no way Mason saw Probst where he said he did because Probst himself contradicts this. They both can't be right. This isn't conjecture. Itīs all there in black and white in the ASCE report. |
||||||||||||||
| onesliceshort |
Posted: Oct 12 2009, 10:59 AM
|
||
|
Citizen Investigator Group: Friends Posts: 951 Member No.: 1,023 Joined: 29-April 09 |
I wonder if witness Christine Peterson saw Probst. She certainly corraborates Probstīs placement of the plane as it entered the Pentagon lawn area. http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontkno...tm?20098?200912
|
||
| 22205 |
Posted: Oct 12 2009, 01:17 PM
|
|
Rise Against Group: Admin Posts: 764 Member No.: 225 Joined: 1-August 08 |
have a look at this oneslice, includes some links to other (probst) quotes:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:I1smj...clnk&cd=2&gl=us (link not working 2012) link added: http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm (control f probst) |
| onesliceshort |
Posted: Oct 12 2009, 01:57 PM
|
|
Citizen Investigator Group: Friends Posts: 951 Member No.: 1,023 Joined: 29-April 09 |
Cheers mate
Just shows that if you dig into these testimonies with an open mind and honest logic no matter what you believe happened that day, there can only be one outcome. The plane was nowhere near the lightpoles. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |