• 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

Calcas said:
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.
Click to expand...

So he saw it impact coming from the North side of the Citgo. That's what you're saying correct?
 
Lyte Trip said:
So he saw it impact coming from the North side of the Citgo.
Click to expand...


Apparently. If he (Lagasse) saw the plane approach from the north and impact The Pentagon. Or are you impeaching the credibility of your own witness? I mean really, you use at least two witnesses who think flight 77 hit The Pentagon to prove flight 77 didn't hit The Pentagon?
 
Last edited:
Totovader said:
:alert: Please do not allow Lyte to derail this thread. :alert:
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Lyte's large-fonted Lagasse fit was a derail.

Lyte, please stop derailing this thread.

I like that picture you posted, zoom and all. It shows me that Steve Anderson could have seen the plane hit the building at that distance. It also shows me that he could easily have seen any flyover that occurred.

Please pick Mince. I think he's got an answer that you should consider.
 
T.A.M. said:
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:)
Click to expand...

-"he stood outside his office near the Pentagon". That means he is either on the outside of the Pentagon near 77 ft of wall near either the north or the south parking lot.

-"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." He ducked as it came over/at him. Sounds like he was at the Navy Annex. BUT CLEARLY HE MISSED THE IMPACT BECAUSE HE DUCKED BEFORE IT COULD PLOW INTO THE BUILDING. The writer inferred the impact. He did not and COULD NOT see the impact from the Navy Annex parking area.

DSC_0404.jpg


-He called it white. Supports our plane. Over the Navy Annex supports the North side fight path.

Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Mince said:
Wrong. Eyewitnesses are not empirical evidence...ever.
Click to expand...

They are when it was the suspects own backyard and the suspect is supplying us most of the data.

They were empirical when you used to spend all those late nights with "twoofers" spamming witness lists to prove that there was a plane.
 
Last edited:
Mince said:
Yeah, you're right. Sorry. It's just very difficult to let such ignorance and lack of logic pass unchecked. I promise to stop.
Click to expand...

Oh- I know it's not easy. I was doing it only a little bit ago.

But, just remember, the only way he can win is if he walks us off this path and abandons logic. If we have to fight his absurd statements, he'll just do what he's always done and ignore the facts while we sit around waiting for answers.

If he's forced to actually address the facts and argue his point logically, he cannot possibly win. Logic, truth, and science are not on his side.
 
On Sergeant Maurice L. Bease:

I'm not terribly familiar with this account, but it does seem to mostly corroborate the physical evidence. If he was only 200 yards away from the impact, he could have literally blinked and missed it. This is certainly the explanation for the inconsistencies in his statement (ie white plane, when really it was probably a flash that he saw, from the reflective material).

Although this witness was actually too close to really tell us anything, I see no reason to exclude his statements. However, they should be taken in context.
 
Totovader said:
On Sergeant Maurice L. Bease:

I'm not terribly familiar with this account, but it does seem to mostly corroborate the physical evidence. If he was only 200 yards away from the impact, he could have literally blinked and missed it. This is certainly the explanation for the inconsistencies in his statement (ie white plane, when really it was probably a flash that he saw, from the reflective material).

Although this witness was actually too close to really tell us anything, I see no reason to exclude his statements. However, they should be taken in context.
Click to expand...


This is absurd. Are you actually reading what you are writing?

Are you able to analyze what the man is saying?

Are you literally going to take a second hand account as proof of an impact and PROOF it wasn't on the North side?

Is this the type of "critical thinking" you people want representing you here at Jref?
 
T.A.M. said:
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:



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:)
Click to expand...


As reported in Jun of 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/20020602...marines.org/Leatherneck/nov01pentagonarch.htm
 
Lyte Trip said:
Oh I am sorry, did I derail you guys?

Did I rattle you a bit when I reminded you what this is about?
Click to expand...

No, Lyte. You rattled no one. You just provided one more example of how that hyper-legalistic mindset of yours can switch on and off when it suits you.
 
Lyte Trip said:
This is absurd. Are you actually reading what you are writing?

Are you able to analyze what the man is saying?

Are you literally going to take a second hand account as proof of an impact and PROOF it wasn't on the North side?

Is this the type of "critical thinking" you people want representing you here at Jref?
Click to expand...

This is not a response to my critique of the witnesses statements, but is rather a poor attempt at a personal attack.

If you have no rebuttal, I suggest we move on. Whatever problems you're having are of your own invention and do not warrant a response beyond that.
 
So 5 witnesses thus far, and all lyte can do is
1) say they are lying
2) try a personal attack on them (character) to prove their statements are false (which actually does nothing at all anyway)


seeing as these are not legitimate reasons, lets move on to witness #6


So 5 credible and very reliable witnesses .



moving on.....
 
Totovader said:
This is not a response to my critique of the witnesses statements, but is rather a poor attempt at a personal attack.

If you have no rebuttal, I suggest we move on. Whatever problems you're having are of your own invention and do not warrant a response beyond that.
Click to expand...


Are you going to answer the questions?

Are you going to actually analyze the man's account?

Are you going to show how it is proof the plane was on the South side as opposed to the North side?
 
Lyte Trip said:
They are when it was the suspects own backyard and the suspect is supplying us most of the data.

They were empirical when you used to spend all those late nights with "twoofers" spamming witness lists to prove that there was a plane.
Click to expand...


Nope. Never. Ever.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Are you going to answer the questions?

Are you going to actually analyze the man's account?

Are you going to show how it is proof the plane was on the South side as opposed to the North side?
Click to expand...

There are no questions in your first statement that need to be answered- they are of no merit and are only created to derail the subject of this discussion.

Likewise, your screaming on and on about "South Side/North Side" nonsense is not the topic of discussion, here. We are going through the witnesses one by one and discussing the credibility. After we are done with that, you can have a whole big shouting match if you want, but so far every single witness that has been presented has been accepted.

What that means for your stupid theory will be discussed at a later time.

Let's continue.
 
boloboffin said:
I like that picture you posted, zoom and all. It shows me that Steve Anderson could have seen the plane hit the building at that distance. It also shows me that he could easily have seen any flyover that occurred.
Click to expand...

Could he have seen everything with the details he describes? Remember the plane was coming at him and then he had 3 fortunate seconds to catch that little plane crash into the building.

Then he doesn't see the plane that flew away over the Pentagon as it the plane made impact? Th eplane that was chasing/shadowing it?

He didn't see the jet hovering in the skies like his buddy Vin Narayanan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom