Pentagon Attack Witnesses - dissecting their testimony and credibility

[T.A.M.]

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

No I know how slight of hand works. I also know that lots of people can see through slight of hand, and I also know that your suggested theory does not guarantee them being fooled, or even come close.

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

it would conceal the plane for a moment only, and given their distance from the Pentagon, as you have stated, their "wide angle" view of the Pentagon area, and the area around it would be much greater than someone up close, so they would be much less likely to not notice the jet flying out on the other side. Also, you are speculating that ALL the witnesses would be fooled. The probability is low that all of them would be fooled.

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

How high it is, is irrelavent, what is more important, with regards to fooling people, is how thick it was, ie. how long would it conceal your flyover plane.

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.

No, not equally, as they did not testify to seeing the jet pull up and flyover the pentagon, which is what you are contending. Nor did any of them testify to seeing the plane exit on the other side of the fireball.

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.

No, more than likely it simply means that they did not notice it, but were focused on other things, or blinked, or any other number of options.

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

No, we are discussing/debating the details and merit or lack their of, of their testimonies based on what they said, where they were, and who they were.

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.
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/liftupbq3.jpg[/qimg]

[/quote]

We will get to him, lets focus on the witnesses so far, or are we done with these three?

TAM

 

[twinstead]

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.

Why does it seem like the only credible witnesses are the few out of many who you think support your theory? Are you saying that NO other witnesses' accounts that support the official story are credible?

Can you name one single eye witness out of all of them who contradicts your theory whom you can't wave away as not credible?

 

[Totovader]

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.

This response is insufficient. Claiming that they "deduced it" without showing why it would be physically impossible for them to see it shows your bias- and it's wholly insufficient.

Seeing a plane crash into a building a mile away does not require superhuman eyesight.

As such, your criteria for exclusion of these witnesses needs to be stronger than your personal incredulity.

 

[Drudgewire]

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.

Holy crap just tell me you're just trolling.

Because if you can't grasp the difference between how far away you can see when you're several stories in the air and when you're standing on the ground then for the love of pete don't breed.

 

[T.A.M.]

This response is insufficient. Claiming that they "deduced it" without showing why it would be physically impossible for them to see it shows your bias- and it's wholly insufficient.

Seeing a plane crash into a building a mile away does not require superhuman eyesight.

As such, your criteria for exclusion of these witnesses needs to be stronger than your personal incredulity.

Agreed on all accounts. What do you have to say Lyte?

TAM

 

[twinstead]

As such, your criteria for exclusion of these witnesses needs to be stronger than your personal incredulity.

He has more than personal incredulity. He also has the fact their reports are contrary to his theory.

Combine the two, and you've got a slam dunk.

 

[Mince]

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.

How am I able to see the moon at night? Are you suggesting the moon is less than a mile away?


ETA: All quiet on the Lyte Trip front. I think even he realized that his implication that no human being can see a mile away (given line-of-sight) is utterly absurd.


As an aside, when I spell checked this post, the suggestion for "Anlauf" was "Anal". (hehe)

 

[Arus808]

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.

And you spoke to these witnesses in person to verify where they exactly were? How can you place them at any distance without verification?

suffice to say however, anyone who put above ground in a tall building can see up to 1 - 2 miles away. And this proves you dont know what you are talking about


I lived on a mountain in Honolulu; Perfect view of Honolulu Harbor. The harbor is 4 miles away from my home. I should know, because I would walk to it on Sunday Mornings then walk back as part of my weekend exercise. My intermediate school is only 1 mile away from my home, and I can see it from my home, which is at most at an elevation of 1000 feet.

You know what i could see at this harbor? I could see the Norwegian Cruise Line Ship (smaller than a 757). I can see the remnants of the Dole Cannery Pineapple Water Tower; smaller than a 757. I could see the Chevron Gas Refinery station (definitely smaller than a 757). I could see the Waste Treatement Plant at Sand Island (which is the boundary of Honolulu Harbor). Smaller than a 757. I could watch the Coast Guard cutter ships come into the Harbor ever Wednesday after bouy tendering. I could see Sealand and Matson ships make their way into the harbor every Tuesday and Friday delivering their goods; so much so that at certain times when the docks at Young Bros weren't filled, you could actually make out them offloading Automobiles shipped from the mainland.




All of these landmarks were distinctive and easily identifiable, and distances farther than what you claim these witnesses to be at.

So, no your contention that they wouldn't see a plane 2 miles away, at an elevation higher than ground level (higher than the pentagon), is flat out wrong.

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

that is a conclusion based on your ignorance.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Steve Anderson is our first witness.

The collapsed part of the Pentagon was massive.

Just because Anderson could see that most certainly does not prove he could see the alleged impact.

 

[bje]

What's the point?

I think it's time to stop this thread. Lyte Trip has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no interest in dealing with all the eyewitness accounts and physical evidence of AA 77 actually hitting the Pentagon.

It is really irrelevant to limit the discussion to a subset of the evidence - as Lyte Trip demands. He knows full well that he cannot possibly deal with the evidence of the wreckage, and the hundreds involved in its recovery, as his repeated evasions demonstrate.

Lyte Trip has no argument.

 

[pomeroo]

I am reproducing my posts from the thread Lyte Trip started. He continues to ignore them.
*******************************

I posted the following yesterday and Lyte, for obvious reasons, ignored it:

To cross all the t's and dot all the i's, you contend that a person who watched the plane hurtle toward the Pentagon, missed the moment of impact (he or she was standing where the crash was obscured by the building), but saw the fireball, did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.

Strictly speaking, we will all agree that this person did not "see" the plane hit. The inference, however, that the plane crashed into the building, producing the observed fireball, would have a probability of, oh, 99.999...% of being accurate.

Your position has been stated fairly, right?

 

[T.A.M.]

I think the point, Lyte is making, is they may not have been at a distance or angle to "definitively" (to use his words) see the plane, with any detail, hit the building.

My contention is (A) detail is not needed, and (B) seeing the actual plane strike the concrete, is not needed, if we can logically deduce that from their position, they could have seen the aircraft moving toward the building at such an altitude and trajectory, long enough, to make a pull up over the building impossible.

TAM

 

[Mince]

The collapsed part of the Pentagon was massive.

Just because Anderson could see that most certainly does not prove he could see the alleged impact.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/overview.jpg

The collapsed part of the Pentagon looks no bigger than a 757. In fact, isn't that one of your mainstay mantras, that the hole is too small to accomodate a 757? So if the hole is massive (according to you) and it was smaller than the aircraft, why would you have trouble believing he could have seen the aircraft from the same distance?


**emphasis added

 

[Lyte Trip]

Agreed on all accounts. What do you have to say Lyte?

TAM

The accounts have to be able to physically see the the plane enter the building.

People can not physically see the plane entering the building from a mile away.

They saw the plane, they saw the explosion.

The witnesses you listed were too far away to see the plane literally enter the building.

 

[T.A.M.]

We will moev on to witness #4, so as to keep the natives from getting restless.

Gary Bauer:

This gentlemen, has the following account:

Gary Bauer, a former Presidential candidate, happened to be driving into Washington, D.C. that morning, to a press conference on Capitol Hill."I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn't moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes. ... I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine.""I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

Likewise, the link to this article no longer seems to work, so if someone can find a cached version, it would be great.

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/dec 2001/1201bauer.htm

TAM

 

[Mince]

The accounts have to be able to physically see the the plane enter the building.

People can not physically see the plane entering the building from a mile away.

So, that plane I saw in the sky earlier today was less than a mile in the air? Why do you presume to know what people can see?


ETA: For reference, a mile is 5,280 feet.

 

[pomeroo]

I think the point, Lyte is making, is they may not have been at a distance or angle to "definitively" (to use his words) see the plane, with any detail, hit the building.

My contention is (A) detail is not needed, and (B) seeing the actual plane strike the concrete, is not needed, if we can logically deduce that from their position, they could have seen the aircraft moving toward the building at such an altitude and trajectory, long enough, to make a pull up over the building impossible.

TAM

TAM, we are, as usual, in complete agreement.

 

[T.A.M.]

The accounts have to be able to physically see the the plane enter the building.

People can not physically see the plane entering the building from a mile away.

They saw the plane, they saw the explosion.

The witnesses you listed were too far away to see the plane literally enter the building.

These are your criteria, and yours alone...not ours. In my opinion, they are too rigid, not reasonable. It is logical to assume that if witness X sees the plane approach the pentagon at such a low altitude, and sees it for long enough, that the plane has gotten to close, and too low, to make a pull up and fly over possible, than it is logical to infer that the plane crashed into the pentagon from their account.

Now if you want to say that your criteria of credible is different from mine, fine, let the audience decide who's criteria is more reasonable.

TAM

 

[Totovader]

The accounts have to be able to physically see the the plane enter the building.

People can not physically see the plane entering the building from a mile away.

False.

They saw the plane, they saw the explosion.

The witnesses you listed were too far away to see the plane literally enter the building.

There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate this argument. You're simply stating it ipse dixit and then asserting your own "real" witnesses behind the scenes.

If you have no legitimate reason to exclude these witnesses, we will move on.

 

[Arus808]

And to call on false of Lyte's contention that no one can see up to a mile away, here is an example of being at elevation and seeing very clearly details of buildings up to 4 miles away. Click on image for full size.




If I can identify a tree in front of the sports arena at 3 miles from the location that this picture was taken at, someone would definitely be able to identify and SEE a huge honking 757 barreling towards it.

This proves that Lyte doesn't know what he is talking about. Dismissing witnesses statements because in his belief "they are too far" is nothing more than a false analysis on his part, and thereby should be ignored. You can see up miles away given the correct elevation.