The Pentagon Eyewitnesses – Not to be Trusted?

This is a simulation of how an AA 757-200 might appear when it flies past at 460 knots (530 mph). One at about 500’ and one at about 250’.

Video link:

There is only a brief moment where one might identify the airline and the type of aircraft.

Just west of the Pentagon on September 11,

- Is it reasonable that some witnesses would identify an American Airlines jet?
- Is it reasonable that some witnesses would identify a commercial jet, but miss the livery?
- Is it reasonable that some witnesses would recognize flaps retracted and gear up?
- Is it reasonable that some witnesses would fail to recognize the livery and/or aircraft type?

Of course, it depends on many things, for example:

- how far away is the witness
- how good is there eyesight
- how is their memory affected afterward
- does their background influence how they observe

If believe the outcome (given the event) is completely reasonable: most witnesses see an AA commercial aircraft. A minority of witnesses observe details such as flight configuration, and windows; another minority misidentifies the aircraft type and livery.


[edit on 6-6-2006 by vor75]

Okay, I watched it ... once. I figure that's all the time anyone's really allowed, given the circumstances.

My conclusions? Twin engine heavy commercial passenger jet, carrying AA livery, gear up, no idea on flaps, not enough time to identify aircraft type (ie 737, 757, Airbus, etc). Also, no impression of aircraft windows.

That's all I'd honestly be able to say. Would I add to that later? I doubt it, unless I was deliberately led in some direction.

Background: Airport Planewatcher from way back but not so much the newer ones, I'm hooked on Jumbos.

Edited to add:

I've just watched it again to gauge the amount of time you'd have to process the visual data. My conclusion is you'd have approximately 1 second or even less. Some of it, however, is out of that range - you can still see the engine configuration after more than 1 second.

[edit on 6/6/06 by Aotearoa]
Edited again to fix spelling ... Grrr

[edit on 6/6/06 by Aotearoa]
... and grammar ... I need to go to bed

[edit on 6/6/06 by Aotearoa]

En route to school, when using bus, the highway leads just below the landing descent corridor of Ruzyne international airfield and in kinda gully so just a small portion of skies is visible - my guess is the time to look at the aircrafts passing overhead is similar (would have to check next time) - able to distinguish paintwork, number of engines, gear down, windows, not flaps. Able to recognize BAE -146 (or what designation that small four-engined jet has) and ATR-72 (due to propellers and different sound), other than that majoprity of aircrafts is either B 737 or A 310.

Btw the video went a bit slower for me (slow computer and all that) - was able to pick up kind of aircraft (two-engined jet liner), paintjob, no gears.

- Is it reasonable that some witnesses would identify an American Airlines jet?

Yes it is. A proportianate amount of witnesses were able to identify what the percieved as American airlines marking, or markings very similar.

- Is it reasonable that some witnesses would identify a commercial jet, but miss the livery?

Very likely. In fact, the most likely choice here. People might not have time to notice the colors, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind what youre seeing is a large commercial jet. Even in the video, I was able to identify a large jet that had red and blue colors, tho I did not make out the livery.

- Is it reasonable that some witnesses would recognize flaps retracted and gear up?

Yes. depending on where exactly the witness was when the plane was flying. If they were directly under its flight path, the gears would have been alot easier to see, as well as from certain unobstructed angles.

- Is it reasonable that some witnesses would fail to recognize the livery and/or aircraft type?

it is. Not everyone is familiar with every plane type. So while, lets say, a secretary would not know the difference between a 757 and a A300, she would at least be able to identify it as " a big jet".

Of course, it depends on many things, for example:

- how far away is the witness
- how good is there eyesight
- how is their memory affected afterward
- does their background influence how they observe

Exactly. Perspective and experience go a long way here. The majority of witnesses will tell you they saw something BIG hit the pentagon. As you filter through the eyewitness accounts, it gets proportiantely more specific, depending on location, what the witness was doing at the time, how caught off guard they were, their knowldge of airplanes, the nature and direction of the view.

If believe the outcome (given the event) is completely reasonable: most witnesses see an AA commercial aircraft. A minority of witnesses observe details such as flight configuration, and windows; another minority misidentifies the aircraft type and livery.

This is true. Alot of people could mistake a 757 for a 737 or 707.

But all are in agreement that they saw a large silver thing hit the pentagon, and the vast majority of those people identify the object as being a commerical airplane.

It is true, perspective is decisive in distinguishing the aircraft features, say in my example from the highway I'm able to see colours and gear, but not flaps. From other station, from the train (where there is a wider field of view and I am usually able to see the aircraft from below and from the back) I can usually see flaps and gear, but not the colors (of course I can say whether it is white, silver or whatever, but not say company logo on the tail)...

[edit on 6-6-2006 by tuccy]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
This is true. Alot of people could mistake a 757 for a 737 or 707.

Good point. I'd have picked it for a 737 personally. Hmmm ... except 737's aren't quite that long and they're sort of fatter. So I'd have to honestly say I didn't know what type exactly the aircraft was. My other comments (made in the first post) stand, though.

Originally posted by Aotearoa


Good point. I'd have picked it for a 737 personally. Hmmm ... except 737's aren't quite that long and they're sort of fatter. So I'd have to honestly say I didn't know what type exactly the aircraft was. My other comments (made in the first post) stand, though.

Thats fine. I wouldn't have guessed the exact aircraft model either. other than it was Boeing.

But both of us have basically covered the most important detail: both of us saw an airplane of some sort. I did not, nor did you, think it was anything other than an aircraft.

I've just watched it again because I like it ... but ...

The only unfortunate thing about that video is that you're given vital information before it even starts. You're told it's AA, you're told it's a 757-200, you're even told the approximate speed. If that could be changed, you'd have a more controllable experiment.

While it's a good experiment, it needs honing.

Originally posted by Aotearoa
I've just watched it again because I like it ... but ...

The only unfortunate thing about that video is that you're given vital information before it even starts. You're told it's AA, you're told it's a 757-200, you're even told the approximate speed. If that could be changed, you'd have a more controllable experiment.

While it's a good experiment, it needs honing.

I agree it doesn't work as an experiment (to test the viewer's ability to identify the object). However, I didn't make it for that purpose - it's just to depict what a 757 looks like going that speed.

Thank you for watching.

What witnesses, the ones in these so-real photographs........?

www.911studies.com...

Originally posted by ed 209
What witnesses, the ones in these so-real photographs........?

Can you tell me what exactly that has to do with the video shown in the opening post? It's totally out of place in this thread.

Well I'd have thought that being treated at the scene of the Pentagonal mishap would mean that you'd in some way count as a witness to what in fact took place there. I'd certainly want to question those people if I were an investigator of 9-11. Or maybe they were just having a picnic on the pentalawn2000 and were so engrossed in their salad days that they failed to notice the place blowing up in the background.

By the way, you have a small problem with chapter 26 of the photos posted on the website. AA77 wasn't using Pratt & Whitney engines, it was fitted with Rolls-Royce engines. There is no way a P&W engine part is going to equate to a RR engine part. Sorry.

Source

PS: I never claimed to be a witness. I live on the other side of the world. I was commenting on the video vor75 put up for comparison purposes.

[edit on 10/6/06 by Aotearoa]

Which page is 'chapter 26' on?

How did you manage to view all those pictures so fast, I put in '26' for the pages and it's only up to Chapter 7. Unless you meant the video link thread starter?

Sorry, possibly wrong chapter, try:

Source

Note: I checked the engines with the FAA records for each jet
UA93 (Tail Number N591UA) - Pratt & Whitney
AA11 (Tail Number N334AA) - General Electric
UA175 (Tail Number N612UA) - Pratt & Whitney
AA77 (Tail Number N644AA) - Rolls-Royce

You may now understand why I view some of the photos with distrust. AA77 was the only jet carrying Rolls-Royce engines. As far as I'm aware, the only place in the world they're manufactured is the UK. Also, as far as I'm aware, only US sources were asked to ID them. Now, who's actually going to know? The US? or the UK?

How did I view them so fast? It's 2:40am here, I'll have another look when I'm not so tired. There is another photo I'm doubtful on but I'm not going back to find it tonight.

How do you suppose anyone was able to have a camera pointed in the right direction to take the footage?

I used to run 30 MPH crash tests for a major car manufacturer and even at that slow speed things happen mighty fast.

This airliner wouldn't have been at landing speeds - so time was mighty short.

bc
.\

re: "How did I view them so fast? It's 2:40am here"

?! how does the time come into play, I just meant how long it took you to go through that link from page 3 (that I linked) all the way thru to page - as it turns out, 72!

In a few minutes tops?!

I'm not really sure what you are getting at with the tail numbers and suchlike anyway, the site is about official photos that do not add up, so if you found something that doesn't make sense then that is what the website is all about! I haven't gotten anywhere near page 72 yet.

Actually all that site shows is that the author is completely insane, or intentionnaly misleading people.

www.911studies.com...

Here he claims that all the pictures were fake because theres no guard rail next to the path.

To prove this he shows a picture with a fence, taken after that day. Here is the source.



No where will you find a picture taken on 9-11 that shows this fence, because it wasn'yt put there until afterwards.

So, like I said, he is either intentionally misleading people, or completely insane.

My money is on completely insane.

www.911studies.com...

[edit on 10-6-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by ed 209
re: "How did I view them so fast? It's 2:40am here"

You posted the original link at approximately midnight here, it took me an hour - two hours to look through the photos.

LeftBehind
That's the impression I'm getting - misleading. No times on the pics, no way of knowing who took the pics and no way of knowing who (if anyone) photoshopped them. The photoshopping could be the author himself. He's also mis-identifying things.