• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pentagon Attack Witnesses - dissecting their testimony and credibility

Mince said:
In your video, none of your four witnesses:

*snip*

2) Made any statement about planted light poles or plane parts

*snip*
Click to expand...

Lagasse did make a statement about the light poles (though not that they were planted in any way). He indicated that they were in a different position than they were found, so that the physical evidence would support his story.
 
Anyone who has been in an air traffic terminal control tower knows what aircraft look like when they are close to the ground. They look closer than they really are. Her statement that "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close" rings very true. There is little to judge distance by. On the ground we see familiar objects between us and the object of our attention or beyond it, and the brain silently calculates distances for us.

Another example of this reference distortion is to look at the full Moon as it rises. It looks so much larger near the horizen than it does an hour later when it is high in the sky. However if you simply extend your hand and choose a thumb or fingertip that just masks the Moon when your arm is straight out you will find that the same applies boith when the Moon is on the horizen and when it is high up illustrating that the Moon is the same size and it is your perception that changes.

Her statement that "It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon)." is merely her way of expressing the drama of the situation though I am sure that Lyte will pounce on it as illustrating that the fireball occured prior to the 'alleged' impact.

She seems to have had a good view of the roof of the Pentagon and clearly did not see any aircraft rising out and away from the Pentagon.

Her account fits the accepted account as well as any other.

I call bona fide.
 
Witness #2's testimony is consistent with the footage we have from the DoubleTree hotel, and matches the physical evidence.

I would also like to know if the witness ever stated- or could state- what side of the hotel she was on, but a lack of this information does not mean that the witness statement should be excluded. I would say it's CREDIBLE.

So, that's 2/2.
 
Gravy said:
Sigh.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mark. I knew this thread would bother you in such a way, but for me it serves the purpose of ACTIVELY educating myself on the matter, it allows me to do so in an interactive way, and it enables the forum to display both sides of the arguement, and who is being more reasonable, more logical.

I realize that for you, this is probably the 100th time this type of thread on this topic has been done.,,but give us a little slack...lol

TAM:)
 
bump for Lyte, or others who wish to discuss further witness #2...
 
Do you wish to discuss witness #2 Lyte? If not, we will assume you concede her as witness #2, with no problems.

TAM:)
 
I have created a thread to discuss the veracity of witness claims and to challenge the accuracy of Gravy's reporting. This is a duplicate thread with different wording and should be merged.

I will not participate in this thread that was designed to take attention away from Gravy's deceptive and incorrect blog.
 
No, your initial thread was created to examine how many of Gravy's list of witnesses actually spoke of seeing the plane hit the pentagon. You constructed it to "call him out" on it, so that if the list that had this exact wording in it, did not reach 105 you could claim victory. That thread became moderated due to deviation from the topic, by addressing such issues as the type I have provided for you in this thread.

This thread is to argue the merits and credibility of the witnesses themselves, not look at the minutia of their testimonials.

The topic is related, but not a duplicate.

Do as you see fit...we know why you will not post here.

TAM:)
 
I specifically asked him (or anyone) to list the witnesses one by one in order to back up his claim.

There is no reason to do the exact same thing in this thread in order divert attention from Gravy's deceptive reporting.

I am happy to discuss details in the other thread and am simply refusing to do the exact same thing here because your tactic is transparent.
 
read my previous post. Your first post was not designed to discuss who they were, why they might not have seen things, what their "angle" was. You wanted them listed one by one, with their exact "statements" so that you could nitpick the wording of their comments to see if the actually said the words "I saw the plane hit the pentagon" as this is an EXCLUSION CRITERIA for your "valid" witness list.

That is not the purpose of this thread. This thread was made so you, I, and others could go over the witnesses in terms of where they were, who they were with, what they do for a living, and other areas that make YOU suspicious of them and their testimonies, so that we might be able to debate the merits of your claims, or lack of merit...

TAM:)
 
Lyte Trip said:
I specifically asked him (or anyone) to list the witnesses one by one in order to back up his claim.

There is no reason to do the exact same thing in this thread in order divert attention from Gravy's deceptive reporting.

I am happy to discuss details in the other thread and am simply refusing to do the exact same thing here because your tactic is transparent.
Click to expand...

That thread has been abandoned as explained by the moderators.

There is no reason you cannot address the issues as they are presented here.

In fact- it can only serve to benefit you. Avoiding this only makes you look like you want to jump into a thread where the discussion has obviously gone too far off course to even address the specifics.

If you have no comments on the validity of Witness #2, I propose that we move on.
 
Totovader said:
That thread has been abandoned as explained by the moderators.

There is no reason you cannot address the issues as they are presented here.

In fact- it can only serve to benefit you. Avoiding this only makes you look like you want to jump into a thread where the discussion has obviously gone too far off course to even address the specifics.

If you have no comments on the validity of Witness #2, I propose that we move on.
Click to expand...

The moderators did not "abandon" the thread.

The only reason it went off topic is because the members here were so upset that Gravy's deception had been exposed that they resorted to constant attacks against me personally so the thread would be moderated and/or disposed of.

As it stands the thread still exists and if Gravy or the members here refuse to discuss the witnesses one by one and back up his assertion it is clearly a concession that Gravy's claim is incorrect.

If he has a shred of integrity he will modify his blog to reflect this.
 
T.A.M. said:
read my previous post. Your first post was not designed to discuss who they were, why they might not have seen things, what their "angle" was. You wanted them listed one by one, with their exact "statements" so that you could nitpick the wording of their comments to see if the actually said the words "I saw the plane hit the pentagon" as this is an EXCLUSION CRITERIA for your "valid" witness list.

That is not the purpose of this thread. This thread was made so you, I, and others could go over the witnesses in terms of where they were, who they were with, what they do for a living, and other areas that make YOU suspicious of them and their testimonies, so that we might be able to debate the merits of your claims, or lack of merit...

TAM:)
Click to expand...

There are no exclusion criteria.

All witnesses can be discussed in the other thread.

I have no reason to exclude witnesses that could not or did not see the alleged impact because obviously they support the flyover theory as much as they do the official story.
 
Lyte Trip said:
The moderators did not "abandon" the thread.

The only reason it went off topic is because the members here were so upset that Gravy's deception had been exposed that they resorted to constant attacks against me personally so the thread would be moderated and/or disposed of.

As it stands the thread still exists and if Gravy or the members here refuse to discuss the witnesses one by one and back up his assertion it is clearly a concession that Gravy's claim is incorrect.

If he has a shred of integrity he will modify his blog to reflect this.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If you had a shred of integrity (and you don't), you'd take your fabrications and outright falsehoods to a real reporter. Let's see what happens.
 
For the love of god, Lyte, I am done. I purposely made this thread so we could look at your perspective wrt the witnesses.

If for nothing else, use this thread, as it does address a different group of issues than your original theads intent, and this thread is also not moderated, and will not take 10 years to post 105 witnesses, or however many we can get to.

TAM:)
 
TAM since Lyte isn't questioning witness #2 , then that means he concedes and witness #2 is credible. Let's move on to witness #3.

So we now have 2 witnesses that are credible and nothing in their statements are questionable.


Witness #3?
 
I wish, but Lyte has chosen to take the "I am not gonna answer it here" tactic, so this thread will likely not move on, at least not with his input...ok, for the sake of the others we will keep Deb Alnauf as ours, having no rebuttal against her.

TAM:)
 
Witness #3: David Battle

Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."
Click to expand...

Ok:

1. Article is no longer available on line so, we are limited already.
2. He does not state he actually saw the plane hit, he says WHEN it hit, the cars and everything were shaking.

I find no reason to question his statement, but we are limited, in that we do not have the full article testimony to see the context of the statement. So far we know he saw it coming down toward the pentagon, head first. Everything else is speculation or inference.

This witness, seems credible, but we do not have definite proof at this time that he VISUALIZED the crash itself.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom