It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
He bets his life, just as Sergeant Brooks, on the fact that they both saw a huge plane flying NORTH of the northern canopy of that CITGO station.
They are talking of placing downed light poles on, and near, busy roadways in broad daylight hoping that no one would notice.
You're making a HUGE mistake there, and it's clearly intentional.
Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident
Qualitative Examples of Aviation Accident Eyewitness Validity and
Dr. Percy Walker, director of Britain’s Ministry of Aviation accident inspector branch in the early 1960’s, was said by The Sunday Times to have researched more crashes than anybody else in the world (Air Correspondent, 1962). In the same article he was quoted as saying that eyewitnesses to aviation accidents are “almost always wrong” (p. 8). Contemporary accident investigation textbooks employ more measured language (Strauch, 2002; Wood & Sweginnis, 2006) but they do note that inconsistences are often found among eyewitness accounts. In the 50 years since Dr. Walker’s statement, research into eyewitness testimony has advanced considerably; however there remains a paucity of published empirical studies regarding the validity and reliability of aviation crash witness statements. We have long known eyewitness testimony to be less than completely reliable (Loftus 1996; Toglia, Reed, Ross & Lindsay, 2006).
There are many aircraft accident reports where eyewitnesses are generally in agreement with each other and the final accident probable cause; for example the takeoff of a DC-9 seen by 100 external observers where “none of the witnesses described smoke or flames coming from any part of the airplane otherthan the right engine” (National Transportation Safety Board, 1987). Sometimes asingle eyewitness can supply otherwise ephemeral evidence, as for example the farmhand who reported that something fell off an accident aircraft: “Whizzed pastme [h]ead it did, and when I dug it out of ground a large chuck of ice it were”(Brown, 1962, p. 38). The probable cause of the crash was determined to be inflight icing based largely on the farmhand’s account. However there are alsomany well-recorded cases that support the late Dr. Walker’s contention, caseswhere aviation accident eyewitnesses report seeing things that did not happen or substantially confuse the order of events.At an airshow in 1952, a supersonic fighter disintegrated in the air causing the death of both crew and 29 spectators (Staff, 1952).
Over 100,000 people witnessed the accident. A public appeal was put out for witness accounts and photographs to help solve the mystery, resulting in several thousand letters being collected. Rivas and Bullen (2008) found “many of the accounts are touchingly detailed and well intentioned, but the whole of the vast mail was of little use” (p.186). The vital clue that led to determination of probable cause was supplied by a cine film. The in-flight breakup happened in less than a second, and almost all the eyewitnesses, including experienced pilots, gave grossly inaccurate accountswhen compared to the film record.
the physical evidence doesn't support such a curving maneuver
Nor does it support a 757 crashing into the building. Again show us the video of a plane, they have not done that because there is none..
American Airlines, B-757-223, N644AA, (American 77)
Reserved N-Number "Mode S Code" - 52072030
was reserved on 9/15/2006
by Greenway, Jonathan James
PO Box 714
Serial Number 24602
Mfgr - BOEING
Year Manufactured 1991
Reason for Cancellation - Destroyed
Type Registration - Corporation
Certificate Issue Date 05/08/91
Mode S Code 52072030
Cancel Date 01/14/2002
Aircraft registration prior to Deregistration
Wilmington Trust Company Trustee
Rodney Sq North Attn Corp TRT ADM.
Engine Manufacturer ROLLS-ROYC
Engine Model RB.211 Series
A/W Date 05/08/1991