Pentagon Attack Witnesses - dissecting their testimony and credibility

[T.A.M.]

Our nextw witness, as posted up a little in the thread is Gary Bauer. Now I know Lyte has issue with his PNAC ties. Should we discuss this? Is it relavent to his credibility as a whole, or merely if you subscribe to the NEOCON INSIDE JOB Theorem?

Any other issues with Mr. Bauer or his testimony?

TAM

 

[Arus808]

Our nextw witness, as posted up a little in the thread is Gary Bauer. Now I know Lyte has issue with his PNAC ties. Should we discuss this? Is it relavent to his credibility as a whole, or merely if you subscribe to the NEOCON INSIDE JOB Theorem?

Any other issues with Mr. Bauer or his testimony?

TAM

who he is, and who is employed by has no bearing on his statements. It isn't relevant to his credibility at all.

 

[T.A.M.]

who he is, and who is employed by has no bearing on his statements. It isn't relevant to his credibility at all.

I agree. It is only if you approach him, as a witness, with the preconcieved notion that the PNAC group conspired to carry out 9/11 that his background becomes relavent.

TAM

 

[firecoins]

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.

I am a magician. Now your speaking nonsense. I understand exactly how misdirection works. The eye follows the moving object. A jetliner moving that low to the ground is a rather large moving object to be missed once the explosion stopped within seconds.

 

[Rahne Everson]

I think the only thing that's ever going to satisfy Lyte and Merc is if somebody builds a time machine and we take them back in time to September 11th at various places around the Pentagon so they can see the plane hit the building several times over.

The sad thing is that I've used this exact same scenario when arguing with creationists on the existence of evolution, or Holocaust deniers on the confirmation that millions of people died in Nazi concentration camps. Obviously they need solid proof of it actually happening either by seeing it themselves or somebody talking about it in exact detail. The concept of logical deduction is lost on them.

 

[Mince]

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.

I think Lyte just recognized the foolishness of that assertion and has run away accordingly. He's probably doing google searches trying to find one website, somewhere, that claims no human on earth can see past 1/2 mile...or something. At this point it appears he is willing to make foolish unsubstantiated assertions merely to countermand dissenting claims (from his perspective).

 

[T.A.M.]

I gave up trying to convince Lyte, and others like him about 10 months ago. This has nothing to do with convincing Lyte...but your comments are still likely true.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

RE: Gary Bauer

Besides his PNAC Qualifications, this part of his testimony is likely what Lyte will question, so let us look at it:

...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...

Now does anyone have any idea of where in relation to the pentagon his testimony puts him. Is his view of the Pentagon clear or covered?

TAM

 

[Mince]

I gave up trying to convince Lyte, and others like him about 10 months ago.

Oh, I've given up also. But I still will highlight his flaws in logic. I can't help it. It's almost pavlovian.

 

[Rahne Everson]

I gave up trying to convince Lyte, and others like him about 10 months ago. This has nothing to do with convincing Lyte...but your comments are still likely true.

TAM

I understand, I didn't mean to misconstrue anything, but it istrue that it's the only way Lyte's gonna even take pondering the other side seriously. Otherwise he's still in his own world.

At any rate, I don't have any particular problems so far with any of your witnesses. In particular, Gary Bauer, I'd guess, relation to the Pentagon, he's on the far left, as that's where exit for the building is according to the maps, and the highway is essentially straight behind him. Aside from a random tree or something, I can't think of what could obstruct his view of the event. (Actually I think it's a really good view.)

 

[Lyte Trip]

RE: Gary Bauer

Besides his PNAC Qualifications, this part of his testimony is likely what Lyte will question, so let us look at it:



Now does anyone have any idea of where in relation to the pentagon his testimony puts him. Is his view of the Pentagon clear or covered?

Here is the "the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395", as he is "heading to Washington DC"...

(Red line is "AA77" trajectory...Red Circle is the exit...Green Arrow is the exit lane...Yellow arrow is "just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395")

-So he had no view of the impact.
-He did not debunk the North side flight path.
-He said the plane 'banked right', which DOES support the North side flight path.
-THERE IS NO PROOF HE WAS ON EVEN ON THE HIGHWAY.
-He is one of the PNAC signers. That would make him a suspect "witness".

You just lost another one.

 

[Arus808]

Here is the "the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395", as he is "heading to Washington DC"...


You just lost another one.

actually, no we didn't. your bias is showing.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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.

If merely deducing the impact is acceptable to you then you are simply dismissing the entire basis of our hypothesis.

We are claiming that most people were fooled by a sleight of hand illusion and the rest were handled with a 2nd plane cover story.

Unless you are willing to accept that as the alternate hypothesis that we are considering here to the official hypothesis then you are discussing the information of context.

In other words you are not citing evidence that disproves our hypothesis.

 

[Mince]

You can see up miles away given the correct elevation.

The Who even wrote a song about it.

I can see for miles and miles

Lyte, are you calling Pete Townshend a liar?

 

[T.A.M.]

1. How did we lose him. Clearly from where you marked him as probably located he could have seen the plane hit the pentagon.

Now that red line, is that the south of citgo trajectory, or your north of citgo one?

2. He could be the reincarnation of Hitler, it is irrelavent to his testimony on this event, from the unbias perspective.

TAM

Edit, As I have said before, you can keep your own count based on your own Criteria, but we are not talking about winning or losing witnesses, this is a discussion of the facts, and we will let the audience decide. I am not going to get into a win/lose argument with you Lyte.

 

[T.A.M.]

If merely deducing the impact is acceptable to you then you are simply dismissing the entire basis of our hypothesis.

We are claiming that most people were fooled by a sleight of hand illusion and the rest were handled with a 2nd plane cover story.

Unless you are willing to accept that as the alternate hypothesis that we are considering here to the official hypothesis then you are discussing the information of context.

In other words you are not citing evidence that disproves our hypothesis.

Who said I was commenting on your hypothesis in this thread. Not once have I mentioned "North of Citgo" except when asking you which trajectory you had labeled in your diagram.

This is about the integrity/credibility/legimitacy of the witnesses and their accounts.

TAM

 

[Lyte Trip]

1. How did we lose him. Clearly from where you marked him as probably located he could have seen the plane hit the pentagon.

Now that red line, is that the south of citgo trajectory, or your north of citgo one?

2. He could be the reincarnation of Hitler, it is irrelavent to his testimony on this event, from the unbias perspective.

TAM

Edit, As I have said before, you can keep your own count based on your own Criteria, but we are not talking about winning or losing witnesses, this is a discussion of the facts, and we will let the audience decide. I am not going to get into a win/lose argument with you Lyte.

You can not see the alleged impact point from the highway.

He could have seen the plane approach.

He could have seen the fireball and smoke plume.

He might have seen either THE plane or the alleged 2nd plane fly over the building but that's it.

Go there and drive on that highway and you will see this for yourself.

Your criteria is that they were able to "deduce" the impact and I'm sorry but that is not sufficient evidence against our hypothesis.

 

[twinstead]

We are claiming that most people were fooled by a sleight of hand illusion and the rest were handled with a 2nd plane cover story.

You are more than welcome to claim anything you want. You can claim that a Vulcan mind warp blinded every witness but yours for a split second while the plane pulled up and over the Pentagon if you want.

If you use your sleight of hand angle to summarily blow off any witness who contradicts your theory we are going to call you on it.

 

[Arus808]

You can not see the alleged impact point from the highway.

Proof?
You have pictures of the signs on the road. notice that you didn't provide pictures of the view of the pentagon while on that road.

He could have seen the plane approach.

which he said he did.

He could have seen the fireball and smoke plume.

which he said he did.

He might have seen either THE plane or the alleged 2nd plane fly over the building but that's it.

NO, that is WHAT YOU allege. He saw the plane. He saw the resulting crash. He is quite clear on what he saw. He didn't say he saw a second plane. You are putting words into his mouth

 

[Mince]

In other words you are not citing evidence that disproves our hypothesis.

Because your hypothesis does not prove anything, in practice and by definition. You may think that someone can't see a mile away or you may think that Mrs. Anlauf didn't see the plane hit The Pentagon, but you don't know that Mrs. Anlauf didn't see the plane hit The Pentagon.

So what's to disprove?