• 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

T.A.M. said:
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:)
Click to expand...

Well, the thread can be served useful in the sense that anyone who believes Lyte's claims, can come here to see how he has ignored witnesses claims. We will put their claims through the scrutiny afforded by the casual observer.

If lyte wants to address any specific witness, he can play catch up. However, his answer is indicative of why people who believe his claims should actually think twice.

The thread will be useful, IMHO. To help those who run into Lyt'es claims on other forums, as a means for debunkers to actually challenge his claims about witness testimonies


I think also, that it would be best to include in the OP of the thread, the studies about Eyewitness testimony that have been used here to challenge lyte's claims as well.
 
T.A.M. said:
Witness #3: David Battle



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:)
Click to expand...

What's the urL? you could check ARchive.org to see if the cached it.
 
T.A.M. said:
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:)
Click to expand...

The fact that you are unwilling to use the other thread proves my assertion.

The only relevant witnesses to this debate are ones who allegedly "saw" the impact as all other witnesses support the flyover theory just as well.
 
Lyte Trip said:
The fact that you are unwilling to use the other thread proves my assertion.

The only relevant witnesses to this debate are ones who allegedly "saw" the impact as all other witnesses support the flyover theory just as well.
Click to expand...


that is not the point of this thread, Lyte, as has been explained to you, numerous times. We are taking each of the witnesses statements as they are presented and recorded by various media sources.

So do you have any refutation to Witness #2 - give your reasons

If you're unable to give reason backed by proof that wintess #2's statements are flawed or wrong, then you have conceded that the statement is true. Stop attacking the merit of this thread, but address the questions put forth.
 
Thanks Arus, so from that above Cached article, the full quote is...

"Usually, there are a lot of people walking around with a smile on their face," said David Battle, surveying an almost empty Pennsylvania Avenue, just a couple blocks from the White House. "Today, it seems like everyone is in a state of shock."

Earlier Tuesday, 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...

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
No Lyte, I wanted to restart here, without all the ad hom, without all the irrelavent posts, in an UNMODERATED THREAD, and have us (you, I, others who wish) to FOCUS on the witnesses, and see what comes of it.

But think what you like...you always do.

TAM:)

Edit: here is the link for Battle's Testimony

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/091201_news_dcscene.shtml
Click to expand...

Since Gravy refuses to produce evidence to back up his inaccurate claim and since there has been a clear effort to hijack and trash the thread I created I will participate here under protest.

It would have been impossible for Steve Anderson to see the alleged impact from the the old USA Today building in Rosslyn. He was simply too far away.
270b.jpg


Same with Deb Anlauf.

We also stayed on the 14th floor of the Sheraton with the same view.

911-3.jpg


While it is possible to see the Pentagon it would not be physically possible to definitively see the plane enter the building at the first two floors.

It is also simply too far away to definitively see with detail and would be too low for her line of sight.

Both of these witnesses would have been easily fooled by the flyover/2nd plane cover story.

The fact that they didn't report seeing a flyover does not matter because it would have been obscured by the fireball and they didn't report seeing the 2nd plane either.

David Battle does not report his exact location OR that he saw the plane enter the building.

So far you have listed zero credible witnesses to the alleged impact and have eliminated 3.
 
Last edited:
Lyte Trip said:
While it is possible to see the Pentagon it would not be physically possible to definitively see the plane enter the building at the first two floors.

It is also simply too far away to definitively see with detail and would be too low for her line of site.

Both of these witnesses would have been easily fooled by the flyover/2nd plane cover story.

The fact that they didn't report seeing a flyover does not matter because it would have been obscured by the fireball and they didn't report seeing the 2nd plane either.

David Battle does not report his exact location OR that he saw the plane enter the building.

So far you have listed zero credible witnesses to the alleged impact and have eliminated 3.
Click to expand...

Lyte, because they could not have "Definitively" seen the impact, does not mean the did not see the plane hit the pentagon. They may not have been able to make out details, but from the pics you have shown, they could have seen the plane come to the pentagon, close enough that a pull up would have been impossible. Also, unless your theoretical "flyover" involved the plane GOING THROUGH the fireball, I think they would have seen it. Likewise, even if the jet in your theoretical "Flyover" did travel through the fireball, they would have seen it emerge on the other side...which they did not testify to.

I see these witnesses as credible, you do not, let the readers/fence sitters decide.

TAM:)
 
As you go through witnesses you will find many who could not even see the Pentagon at all but who claim they "saw the plane hit the building" because they put 2 and 2 together.

This is what leads to so much confusion and what allows for so many of these witness accounts to be skewed or incorrectly reported as having seen the "impact".

So in order to qualify as a witness who "saw the impact" they not only have to claim that they did but it has to be demonstrated that it is possible from their location.

This is the only way to accurately research these accounts.

With this criteria.......people like Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcios WOULD qualify as witnesses who "saw the impact".

So in essence I will give you those three but it's clear that their placement of the plane on the north side is what proves how they and so many others were fooled in this regard by the military sleight of hand deception.

Flyover.gif
 
Lyte Trip said:
The moderators did not "abandon" the thread.
Click to expand...

Nor did I say that they did, Mr. Strawman. Again, I said "That thread has been abandoned as explained by the moderators."

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.
Click to expand...

Nice try- but the real reason it went off topic is because you make statements you're never willing to support- disappear for months at a time only to come back and dodge more questions.

So, every time you reappear, there's a barrage of questions that you avoided from your last visit and the list just keeps growing and growing and folks don't really feel like letting you get away with that kind of nonsense, so they pester you to answer. You use this to your advantage to avoid all questions, and encourage topics to get off-track. Were you an honest, well-respected, critically thinking researcher- this would not happen.

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.
Click to expand...

Considering what thread you're posting in- your claim is absolutely absurd. You're dodging that very issue RIGHT HERE.

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

You're in no position to comment on Gravy's integrity- especially since you are trying to use that personal attack to avoid the issue before you now.
 
This is not about giving or taking witnesses. It is about examining their accounts, locations, predispositions, and based on your arguments, and mine and others, allowing the audience to decide...that is what a debate is about. You are not going to convince the "other side" nor are we going to convince you.

TAM:)
 
Totovader said:
Nor did I say that they did, Mr. Strawman. Again, I said "That thread has been abandoned as explained by the moderators."



Nice try- but the real reason it went off topic is because you make statements you're never willing to support- disappear for months at a time only to come back and dodge more questions.

So, every time you reappear, there's a barrage of questions that you avoided from your last visit and the list just keeps growing and growing and folks don't really feel like letting you get away with that kind of nonsense, so they pester you to answer. You use this to your advantage to avoid all questions, and encourage topics to get off-track. Were you an honest, well-respected, critically thinking researcher- this would not happen.



Considering what thread you're posting in- your claim is absolutely absurd. You're dodging that very issue RIGHT HERE.



You're in no position to comment on Gravy's integrity- especially since you are trying to use that personal attack to avoid the issue before you now.
Click to expand...


Toto:

While I appreciate your arguments, lets try to keep this type of OP unrelated discussion to a minimum, in this thread, which was initiated to avoid such, and to avoid another "moderation".

Thanks man.

TAM:)
 
It's pretty clear that Lyte is going to dodge the issues entirely by just posting his same nonsense over and over.

As he has no rebuttal to witness #3, I suggest we move on to #4.

This is exactly the type of thought process that Lyte has to avoid- because it very clearly debunks his ridiculous claims (again) and he can't handle it. He has no rebuttal to the witnesses, so he has to attack them, us, and scientific inquiry altogether.

This will be one of many threads linked to showing the absurdity of Lyte's claims and his inability to address the facts.

I suggest we continue.
 
Lyte, thank you for that photo that shows it would have been no problem to have seen the plane impact the building.

Another reminder that you're making a claim based on 100% conjecture.
 
T.A.M. said:
Lyte, because they could not have "Definitively" seen the impact, does not mean the did not see the plane hit the pentagon. They may not have been able to make out details, but from the pics you have shown, they could have seen the plane come to the pentagon, close enough that a pull up would have been impossible. Also, unless your theoretical "flyover" involved the plane GOING THROUGH the fireball, I think they would have seen it. Likewise, even if the jet in your theoretical "Flyover" did travel through the fireball, they would have seen it emerge on the other side...which they did not testify to.

I see these witnesses as credible, you do not, let the readers/fence sitters decide.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Then you are unclear as to how sleight of hand illusion works.

The fireball would not only conceal the plane as it flew away but it would completely divert attention from it.

Quite effectively too as the fireball was reported to be over 10 stories above the building.

If the witness was not in a position close enough to physically witness the plane enter the building they support our hypothesis as much as they support the official hypothesis.

The fact that they did not report a 2nd plane either further demonstrates that that they were not in a good position to see this or else that there was no 2nd plane and the multiple reports of this were fabricated.

We are discussing these witnesses within the context of whether or not they are DEFINITIVE alleged impact witnesses.

Robert Turcios was MUCH closer to the building with an infinitely better view than Deb Anlauf and he could not see the "impact" and DID see the plane pull up.
liftupbq3.jpg
 
Did Robert Turcios see a plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon?

Regardless, for every 1 witness that you think supports your version, we could find 10 who don't.
 
There are more details from Steve Anderson's account that show he most definitely could have seen the impact of the plane.

The first is here:

I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11.
Click to expand...

This is a flat out statement, Lyte. You are calling Steve Anderson a liar. He specifically says that he saw this event happen.

The second and third are here:

At this point, our lives have returned as close to normal as they will get. It's difficult for me to sit at my desk and look at the gaping hole in the Pentagon, as I relive the tragedy over and over in my head each time I see the building.

...Every day when I come to my office and look out my window I see the charred, gaping hole in the Pentagon and relive the tragedy over and over in my head. It's an image that will be burned into my memory for the rest or my life. Growing up in the Washington, D.C., area I think of all the people I have known who worked in the Pentagon, and the number of times I have been in the building. (And I think of the number of times I have been in the World Trade Center over the years.)
Click to expand...

He can see the hole from his office. This account was written less than a month after 9/11. If he could see the hole from his window every day when he looks out, then he could see the actual attack. And consulting your Google Earth image, Steve was in a prime spot to see any flyover.

Your rejection of his account is specious and insulting.

Steve Anderson is our first witness.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but Deb Anlauf was about a mile away and Steve Anderson was about 2 miles away. Neither of them are credible impact witnesses.

They simply deduced it because it would be physically impossible for them to see it without superhuman eyesight.
 
Lyte Trip said:
I'm sorry but Deb Anlauf was about a mile away and Steve Anderson was about 2 miles away. Neither of them are credible impact witnesses.

They simply deduced it because it would be physically impossible for them to see it without superhuman eyesight.
Click to expand...

Steve Anderson could see the impact hole every day from his office. He used it as a touchstone to reorient his life. Your denial of this is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom