It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eye Witness To Flight 77

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

HM.. I thought if a plane going 500 mph and somewhat hits the ground it would look something like this.

And to let you know the 2 images of the lawn in this thread are "Minutes" after the crash.




Again, this is the perfect example of misunderstanding I was speaking of. As I said, people keep thinking that the term skid means that it skidded for hundreds of yards before hitting the building. Hence your use of pictures that show plane crashes that skidded HUNDREDS of yards. Yet that was not the case in the Pentagon. It simply hit a few feet before the building. Hdence the damaged lawn and generators, etc just before the wall.

And the timing of the pictures is irrelevant once you overlook the assumption that 'skid' means skidding hundreds of feet.




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
What does that mean "right after"? A second? Or a time that it takes to leave car, find a good place and start taking pictures?


This is what this "witness" stated:
Steve Riskus, steveriskus@aol.com wrote:
I took these pictures less than 1 minute after I watched the american airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on september 11 2001. I left shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks.


How did this guy know that it was an attack and not an accident?

Kinda like what those five Israelis. who were found celebrating, told the police that they came to put the "attacks" on film as a documentary.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya
How did this guy know that it was an attack and not an accident?

Maybe because he thought it is unusual for the jet liner to accidentally crash into a building at low flight at top speed?
And as your very quote shows, it was "less than 1 minute" - enough time for the drivers of other cars to get off, walk (or due to situation maybe even run) a bit away...
Oh, and btw once it is bad there was noone to take pics of the incoming plane, then it is bad there was someone who took pictures ASAP and was bright enough to realise it most likely wasn't an accident?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
How did this guy know that it was an attack and not an accident?

Are you kidding me? Do you think that just because the guy was in a car he hadnt heard about the WTC? Or maybe you think that its NORMAL for three airliners to crash into three separate buildings?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Whether he knew it was an attack or not, unless he had his camera ready and was ready to jump right out of the car and take pictures I don't see how he could have been taking them "less than 1 minute" after impact. And if he had his camera ready, why? And more importantly, if he had his camera ready, where are the preimpact pics?

[edit on 7/19/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I want to thank aelphaeis_mangarae for starting this thread. I wouldn't have run across that report otherwise, and I'm fascinated by the witness' word picture of "humback whale" when describing an aircraft that virtually no one has ever seen.

Strider



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
So what makes some eyewitnesses credible and others not? I've always wondered about that.

Witness 1 sees a humpback plane and is credible.
Witness 2 sees a small bizjet and is credible.
Witness 3 see an AA 757 and is blown off as not credible.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join