As for the ones I have seen? No, they are not at all consistent with the crash of AA77.
You claim to have read
CatHerder's
analysis, which contains several eyewitness accounts that are completely consistent with an American Airlines 757. You are simply ignoring them for some reason.
Further, you have previously posted the following:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Yes, I'm still saying a jet hit the building. I have not seen any witness reports that actually SAW something else hit it. "Felt like", "sounded like", etc, is not "saw".
There were reports of people who witnessed something else hit the Pentagon...
However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft...D. S. Khavkin, Arlington, VA, USA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1540586.stm
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said.
He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.
The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.
[url]http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html[/urk]
"The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National." - Ken Ford
"..it was a mid size plane". - Meseidy Rodriguez
(cached from removed articles - no link to original sources)
...it looked like a commuter plane, two engined ... - Don Stanley
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...home-headlines
(audio link)
The last two comments do not specifically state the type of aircraft, so without other details they are not definite accounts to the contrary.
|
You clearly cherry-picked these few eyewitness reports from among many others that
are consistent with a 757. So please explain again how the only reports you've seen "are not at all consistent with the crash of AA77." Willful blindness on your part?
As a side note, "sounded like...a fighter jet" proves nothing, as the aircraft was flying far in excess of the FAA's low-altitude speed limit, which would undoubtedly have caused it to sound different from an ordinary low-flying airliner. Also, a 757 could certainly be considered "mid-size" in comparison to a Cessna 172 (or even a small commuter plane) and a 747 or C-5, so how is this even remotely suspicious?
Nothing I've seen indicates accounts consistent with a 757, let alone specifically AA Flt.77. The reports are inconsistent and even contradictory at times.
Why do you continue to assume that some contradictions in eyewitness testimony are not to be expected? As has been pointed out to you many times, if there are enough eyewitnesses to a given event, some contradictory testimony is inevitable. Also, why do you find it suspicious that a few witnesses might mistake the size of the aircraft, but not its general shape?
Even the black boxes, which were said to have been recovered, have either not had the information released (FDR), or were said to be damaged, with the salvaged contents being "nothing useful" (CVR), so again were not released.
What is your point? Merely spreading more FUD?