Pentagon Attack Witnesses - dissecting their testimony and credibility

[twinstead]

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

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

Since NONE of your witnesses saw the plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon, aren't you basing your theory on what your witnesses deduce as well?

How else can you explain claiming something that even your own witnesses didn't see?

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

Once again, I am not arguing for or against your "hypothesis". We are examining the details of the witnesses, and any areas of lost credibility due to their statements, locale, or background.

You have threads dedicated to arguing for/against your hypothesis.

TAM

 

[Rahne Everson]

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

Based on the trajectory, I'm thinking it's the north side... Besides, the red line usually means the north side.

 

[T.A.M.]

So to sum up Gary Bauer:

1. PNAC ties...irrelavent unless you come to the table with the pre-conceived PNAC Inside Job stance.

2. From the photos provided by Lyte, we can see he could see the pentagon, and the side of the impact. He was not extremely far away, and he could make out the top half of the pentagon, just above the actual impact area.

It is logical and rational, given that he watched the plane fly from behind his car, down to the pentagon, and had a clear view of the top half of the pentagon, right over the area of impact, that had a flyover/pull up occured, he would have seen it. We can also assume, since he does not make mention of this, but rather says that he saw the plane hit the pentagon, that his testimony is reliable.

Next witness shortly.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Based on the trajectory, I'm thinking it's the north side... Besides, the red line usually means the north side.

Yes, the reason I asked was that Mr. Bauer said the plane flew from BEHIND his car, overhead, and then toward the Pentagon. The Red path does not match his testimony, but the south of Citgo path does.

TAM

 

[Lyte Trip]

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

Then that's why I didn't want to participate in this thread.

There isn't a reason on earth that anybody in this forum would doubt the "integrity/credibility/legitimacy" of any witness (unless they saw the plane on the north side of the gas station) so why are you bothering to discuss it?

I started the thread challenging Gravy because I know for a FACT that there are very few places where people would be able to actually physically see the impact.

This is due to the fact that the Pentagon sits down at the bottom of a hill and the topography is much more complicated then people who have not been there ever realize.

You CAN NOT see the impact point when you are on 395 headed towards DC.

You can't even see it from most places on route 27!

Therefore it is deceptive and inaccurate to say 105 people "saw the plane hit the Pentagon".

If he had said "deduced that the plane hit the Pentagon" it would be accurate.

I know this because we went there and plotted the POV's of these witnesses.

We are proving it to you with images and footage.

You can choose to ignore my point while you merrily list all the published accounts of people who deduced the impact but what's the point if you're going to go so far as to blow off their ACTUAL point of view or details as dubious of the fact that one is part of the very powerful cabal that publicly announced a desire for an event like 9/11?

 

[T.A.M.]

Sergeant Maurice L. Bease:

The interview with him is also no longer available at the original link, so if someone can find a cached version, would be great...

http://www.mca-marines.org/Leatherneck/nov01pentagonarch.htm

Here is the quote from the interview/testimony:

Sergeant Maurice L. Bease, 24, had worked around Marine aviation long enough to know what a fly-by was, and it sounded like one as he stood outside his office near the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Turning around expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards from where he stood.

Problems:

1. Does not actually say, directly, that he saw the plane hit. The interviewer has stated it, inferring it from the man's testimony.



TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Every time a witness was brought up in the old thread Lyte, you would bring in to question their past, or their location, or their words, and try to use it to discredit them.

I am providing a thread for you to continue this with civil discourse, without the moderation time lag, and allowing others to post their comments in opposition, so that others can see the issue for themselves and decide.

If you do not like where it is going, then leave, and see how much feedback you get in the old thread.

TAM

 

[Lyte Trip]

Yes, the reason I asked was that Mr. Bauer said the plane flew from BEHIND his car, overhead, and then toward the Pentagon. The Red path does not match his testimony, but the south of Citgo path does.

TAM

The red line is south of the citgo.

He could feasibly have described the plane as coming from behind him with either flight path.

Bottom line he does NOT directly contradict the north side claim.

 

[T.A.M.]

The red line is south of the citgo.

He could feasibly have described the plane as coming from behind him with either flight path.

Bottom line he does NOT directly contradict the north side claim.

No but given the south of Citgo line is closer to him, and given he spoke of the plane as coming toward them, from behind, it makes the south of Citgo trajectory more likely...but this is off topic wrt the OP.

TAM

 

[Lyte Trip]

This thread is for Lyte, and anyone else, who would like to make comment on why or why not a given Pentagon attack witness is or isn't credible, and please provide proof or evidence, not just "I don't buy his testimony" or "he worked for such and such, or was a such and such" opinion does not cut it...bring the facts.

I'll start you off with the first one, Steve Anderson:

Here is his testimony:



His entire comment is found here...

http://www.jmu.edu/alumni/tragedy_response/read_messages.html

TAM

He is one 8 USA Today employees who see this event actually happen. 7 of which have proven to be suspect themselves because it is statistically improbable if not absurdly impossible to have them on that little stretch of Rt 27.

He is at the USAToday building in Rosslyn. He also indicates that he heard the jet fly by his office in Rosslyn. This would NOT be the official NTSB flight path.

Does he specify whether the plane was on the North side or the South side of the Citgo?

The biggest problem is WHY DIDN'T HE SEE THE "SECOND" JET/PLANE FLY AWAY AFTER SHADOWING/CHASING THE PLANE?????

Here is an actual view of the pentagon from his POV with a camera zoom:

He is one 8 USA Today employees who see this event actually happen. 7 of which have proven to be suspect themselves.

He is at the USAToday building in Rosslyn. He also indicates that he heard the jet fly by his office in Rosslyn. This would NOT be the official NTSB flight path.

Does he specify whether the plane was on the North side or the South side of the Citgo?

The biggest problem is WHY DIDN'T HE SEE THE "SECOND" JET/PLANE FLY AWAY AFTER SHADOWING/CHASING THE PLANE UP UNTIL IT HIT THE WALL?????

Here is an actual view of the pentagon from his POV with a camera zoom:



Sorry, it is clear he is not a genuine witness to debunk the North side.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/mary_ann_owens2.jpg

 

[Mince]

The biggest problem is WHY DIDN'T HE SEE THE "SECOND" JET/PLANE FLY AWAY AFTER SHADOWING/CHASING THE PLANE?????

<raises hand in air and shakes it violently>

Ooooh! Ooooh! I know this one. Pick me! Pick me!

 

[Totovader]

Again, Lyte is unable to give any reasonable explanation as to why this witness should be excluded.

This is not simply a matter of us cherry-picking our witnesses, this is a matter of Lyte being unable to address the facts and even stick to the issues.

He certainly is kicking and screaming- trying to derail a bit...

Since there is no valid reason to exclude this witness, I move to bring forth the next witness.

Can I get a harumph?

 

[Lyte Trip]

***NOTE TO POSTERS***

The North side flight path (and subsequent pull-up) negates the impact.

You have not provided one witness that directly disproved the North side flight path.

Lagasse said he saw it impact the building for 5 years until we all determined he saw the plane on the North side of the Gas Station. Now he is a problem witness for you isn't he?

Please confirm where they saw the plane at and come in at. Please clarify details of what they saw.

 

[Totovader]

***NOTE TO POSTERS***

The North side flight path (and subsequent pull-up) negates the impact.

You have not provided one witness that directly disproved the North side flight path.

Lagasse said he saw it impact the building for 5 years until we all determined he saw the plane on the North side of the Gas Station. Now he is a problem for witness for you isn't he?

Please confirm where they saw the plane at and come in at. Please clarify details of what they saw.

Quit throwing a hissy fit.

We're doing exactly what you wanted done- and if you would just DO YOUR JOB and "research" this objectively- you wouldn't need to keep trying to IGNORE THE FACTS.

But... if you did that your own (non-sequitur) little pet theories would be out the window...

Anyway, Lyte- please stick to the topic.

 

[Mince]

***NOTE TO POSTERS***

The North side flight path (and subsequent pull-up) negates the impact.

You have not provided one witness that directly disproved the North side flight path.

***NOTE TO LYTE TRIP***

BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ONE WITNESS THAT DIRECTLY PROVES THE NORTH SIDE FLIGHT PATH!!!!!!!1!!11!!!1!!1



EYEWITNESSES ARE NOT EMPIRICAL PROOF!!!!1!!

 

[Lyte Trip]

FYI,

We've found two more published witnesses.

One confirms the North side and NOT looking like AA.

And the other didn't see anything other than a fireball, and was very nice and wanted to take a look at our info, as in he didn't believe the official story.

Think about why "Gravy" is not here.

 

[Calcas]

***NOTE TO POSTERS***

The North side flight path (and subsequent pull-up) negates the impact.

You have not provided one witness that directly disproved the North side flight path.

Lagasse said he saw it impact the building for 5 years until we all determined he saw the plane on the North side of the Gas Station. Now he is a problem witness for you isn't he?

Please confirm where they saw the plane at and come in at. Please clarify details of what they saw.

Quit screaming...that's something my 10 year old does.

Legasse still says he saw it impact the Pentagon. He also is not willing to talk to you or the CIT team anymore. What does that say?

I have been there. The sight lines are fine. It's impossible to believe that NOBODY saw a flyover if there was one.

Please, give it up.

 

[Totovader]

FYI,

We've found two more published witnesses.

One confirms the North side and NOT looking like AA.

And the other didn't see anything other than a fireball, and was very nice and wanted to take a look at our info, as in he didn't believe the official story.

Think about why "Gravy" is not here.

Think about why you refuse to address the witnesses that are being addressed.

Think about why you can offer no valid explanation as to why they should be excluded. You just demand that they be ignored without any justification whatsoever.



Quick folks, gather 'round. We're about to watch his head explode from all the contradictions smashing into each other.

 

[Lyte Trip]

EYEWITNESSES ARE NOT EMPIRICAL PROOF!!!!1!!

They are when the plane was on the North side.

You can't move a plane.

You heard the witnesses, they saw the plane on the North side, all of them.

Lagasse:

The..plane..was..where..I said it was.