Pentagon Attack Witnesses - dissecting their testimony and credibility

[Totovader]

As much as I don't like you I do not believe you are this dumb.

Dr. Bidlack is not a witness to the plane.

He can not refute the north side claim or speak as to the alleged impact because he did not see it so therefore he is NOT a witness of the "attack".

He is a witness to the rescue but that has nothing to do with this thread.

You are being disingenuous and it's tiresome.

Considering your refusal to address my question, I will just assume that- like the other witnesses presented- you have no criteria with which to exclude Mr. Bidlack's account.

Whether you think his testimony is personally important to your stupid conspiracy theory is none of my concern. Although I would love to see you tell your theory to the faces of these survivors- my personal wishes are of no relevance to this thread.

So, let's move on.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Considering your refusal to address my question, I will just assume that- like the other witnesses presented- you have no criteria with which to exclude Mr. Bidlack's account.

Whether you think his testimony is personally important to your stupid conspiracy theory is none of my concern. Although I would love to see you tell your theory to the faces of these survivors- my personal wishes are of no relevance to this thread.

So, let's move on.

Are you refusing to concede that this thread is about eyewitnesses to the "attack" and not the rescue?

Are you going to start listing other people who didn't see the plane at all?

There were a lot more of them you know.

You could keep us busy for a looooooooong time.

Or are you going to be a man and admit that you were wrong and that Hal Bidlack is not a witness to the "attack" after all?

 

[Totovader]

I've lost track of what witness we're on, but what about Major Lincoln Leibner:

I left my vehicle and started running towards the building, essentially perpendicular to the building, running not my fastest run, but a good clip towards the building. I was just about to make my turn up the sidewalk towards one of the entrances when I heard jet engines. It was not the normal jet track into National Airport, which is very, very different. I turned my head about maybe 90 degrees towards the sound of the engines, which were very loud. I fully expected to see A-10s or F-15s or something, and I saw the American Airlines airplane coming down. I watched the entire terminal descent into the building. It’s probably the loudest noise I ever heard in my life. I have heard artillery very close. I have heard rock concerts, but nothing came close to that noise. I watched the entire airplane go into the building. I was personally shook by whatever percussion, and not hit, and the fireball from my angle wasn’t as dramatic as I have subsequently seen on the file tape.

Also...

I told them the plane came in full throttle, level, flaps up,
wheels up, wasn’t crashed into the building, was flown into the building.

The Secretary was essentially incredulous, but, then again, maybe that was just his manner. He asked me if I was sure. And as I said, I was close enough to look into the windows of the airplane as it flew passed. There was no doubt in my mind what I had seen.

Any reason to exclude this account, Lyte?

 

[Totovader]

Are you refusing to concede that this thread is about eyewitnesses to the "attack" and not the rescue?

Are you going to start listing other people who didn't see the plane at all?

There were a lot more of them you know.

You could keep us busy for a looooooooong time.

Or are you going to be a man and admit that you were wrong and that Hal Bidlack is not a witness to the "attack" after all?

This has already been addressed in my previous reply to you. Your attempts to create strawmen have been noted, and your refusal to answer my question meant that I was forced to move on. You had an opportunity to answer, but decided to dodge the issue, instead.

We've now moved on to the next witness. What say you, Lyte?

 

[Lyte Trip]

This has already been addressed in my previous reply to you. Your attempts to create strawmen have been noted, and your refusal to answer my question meant that I was forced to move on. You had an opportunity to answer, but decided to dodge the issue, instead.

We've now moved on to the next witness. What say you, Lyte?

What strawman?

You said Hal was a witness to the attack.

I said he is not and has never claimed to be.

You have not shown where he has even claimed to be one.

Yet you claim victory and move on while suggesting that Hal counts as another witness to the attack.

I know you realize what a pathetically deceptive approach to discussion this is but I won't let you continue without admitting you were wrong.

I am tired of you and your disingenuous spin tonight and will continue proving how erroneous and deceptively incorrect Gravy's claim of 105 people who "saw the plane hit the building" is tomorrow.

In the mean time consider yourself in the corner until you can own up to your own mistakes.

Goodnight.

 

[Arus808]

Seesm that TAM is off right now and im not sure what list he is going by, but I'll post this witness in the mean time


Donald R. Bouchoux

"At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car."

Unfortunately, the washington post does not offer free archives of their articles that have aged off their website.
If you have an account at Lexis Nexis, im sure you could get teh article
https://web.lexis-nexis.com/univers...z-lSlzV&_md5=f11fb03a759fc2478b5de7c9cdf9e780

 

[Arus808]

What strawman?

all the ones you continually use

You said Hal was a witness to the attack.

no he didn't. reread his posts.

I said he is not and has never claimed to be.

not in so many words; but you have accused him of not seeing what he saw. same thing

You have not shown where he has even claimed to be one.

we claim that he is a witness to the events of 9/11/2001 at the Pentagon. Nothing more.



the only one being deceptive here, is you.


since you can't refute so far 5 witnesses , we are moving on to witness #6 above

 

[boloboffin]

According to his account, Hal found some airplane debris. He is a witness to the plane.

 

[Lyte Trip]

I've lost track of what witness we're on, but what about Major Lincoln Leibner:



Also...



Any reason to exclude this account, Lyte?

-He was in the South Parking lot about to walk and turn up to a sidewalk to an entrance and had to turn his head 90 degrees. He is at the 77ft wall. He did not see it impact. He also told reporters he saw the plane hit a helicopter on the helipad. That didn't happen either. He embellished about helping save Alan Wallace.

 

[stateofgrace]

I'm done. I don't think I shall enter another Lyte thread again. He has beaten me to exhaustion with his stupid stick. I would call his mentality and intellect child-like, but I don't want to offend any children. I grow weary of it. You guys keep up the good fight. I greatly respect your tolerance and fortitude. It's time to move on to a salvageable soul.

Good day.

I actually came to the same conclusion a while ago. there is no point. It becomes tiresome reading the same drivel over and over again.

Lyte, you are welcome to your theory. You are welcome to your paranoid little world. You know something Lyte? there really is a lot a goodness on this planet, there really as been a lot of great achievements and the world really does have a rich and diverse history. You cannot see it, all you see is the nasty evil man who is pulling your chains, the nasty USG who controls it all. This is your world Lyte, a world whereby you actually believe that you are being controlled, watched and all the dreadful events on this planet take precedence over all the good things.


A world where it is fine to dismiss the true acts of courage that have taken place on this planet, including the unselfish acts of many of those caught up in this dreadful event. The witnesses, who you dismiss did not ask for this, they did not volunteer to become part of this dreadful event, they got caught up in something so dreadful , it is hard to imagine how many of them cope with it.


I pity you.

Do not reply, I will not debate you , I will not engage you ,you are not worth the effort.

 

[twinstead]

Lyte you're like some kind of crooked defense lawyer trying to get his client off any way possible when faced with the overwhelming evidence he is guilty.

Let's go on to the rest of the witnesses; I'm actually curious how you will spin their statements.

And we haven't got to the physical evidence yet. I'm curious as to how you manage to wave all that away. "It was all faked!!!!!" LOL

 

[chillzero]

Pomeroo,
I understand your anger, but the thread is in danger of being seriously derailed by tackling these types of posts.

I am sorry to have missed being able to address the initial query abou this thread on page one, but it has grown substantially overnight (where I am).

I considered merging the two threads initially, but as mentioned in the other one, it is no longer about the witness testimonies as identified in the OP. I felt that this OP opened the same question in a more structured format, and I can see through the progression of the thread that the topic has been brought sharply back to focus as required. There is a good job being done here to keep the thread from being derailed. Well done, guys.

I am happy for this thread to proceed as planned - to discuss published witness testimonies, and examine them for credibility.

I should not need to point out that the thread is not for discussing 'the pentacon', or the fly over theory. It is an examination of witness testimony, which is what was hoped for in the other thread.

Should it prove difficult to maintain this thread on topic, a request can be made to me or another mod, to have hte thread made moderated, and a set of rules drawn up as to what will not be approved.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[T.A.M.]

Sorry guys; I was away enjoying that life the truthers say I don't have...lol

1. Lyte you have repeatedly tried to derail this thread with the North of CITGO Theory. This thread is not for that, please drop it. If you do not want to post on the witnesses without mentioning it, than I suggest you not post in thread...you have others to post that theory in.

2. Others, please do not engage in debate or argument with Lyte regarding unrelated topics, or at least keep it to a minimum. As of now this thread is unmoderated, which allows fast posting with no restrictions...do not cause this to change.

3. Anyone can post the next witness, as long as we are satisfied that we have finished with previous witnesses. If anyone posts argument after we have finished with a witness, I suggest we leave it, or we will NEVER complete this thread, so once A witness has been argued about, and the group decides to leave the witness, then move on.

4. We should make distinction between "saw the impact" versus, "deduce they saw the impact". This is relavent to Lyte. If we do this, please avoid statements such as "so you lose one" or "therefore they are useless". SImply make the statments, present the facts, debate the merits, and move on.

I believe the current witness is Licoln Leibner.

Thanks

TAM

 

[Totovader]

-He was in the South Parking lot about to walk and turn up to a sidewalk to an entrance and had to turn his head 90 degrees. He is at the 77ft wall. He did not see it impact. He also told reporters he saw the plane hit a helicopter on the helipad. That didn't happen either. He embellished about helping save Alan Wallace.

[qimg]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/LiebnersEntrance.jpg[/qimg]

Are you saying he did not have the physical ability to turn his head 90 degrees?

Here is a photo demonstrating this technique.

This is a perfectly normal maneuver. Note: the expression on his face is not from the pain of performing this task of rotating the head, but rather of rhythmic dance.

You will need to provide proof for the following statements:

1) That he did not see the impact. Simply stating this ipse dixit will not work.
2) That he reported that the plane hit a helicopter on the landing pad. The only account I could find of this was a reporter stating he had said that, not a quotation.

His supposed accounts of embellishing his bravery are non-sequitur.

We can certainly discuss this one, but the photo you provided does not support your claims- or at least what you're trying to insinuate from your claims. You have provided no evidence countering this witness, and have given no substantial reason to exclude him.

If you are unable to provide this evidence, we will move on to the next witness.

 

[twinstead]

The above image of the Pentagon sure makes it appear a flyover would have been easily seen.

 

[nicepants]

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.

Would it be absurdly impossible for them to be on Rt 27 if that was the route they took to get to work?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Are you saying he did not have the physical ability to turn his head 90 degrees?


If you are unable to provide this evidence, we will move on to the next witness.

90 degrees?

How about see around a corner?

The evidence is the fact that the Pentagon is a 5 sided structure.

Do I have to prove that to you too?

You can NOT see the alleged impact point from ANY OTHER SIDE of the building.

Obviously you have demonstrated that you have ZERO intention of analyzing these accounts honestly since you STILL insist that Hal Bidlack is a witness to the attack when even he has never claimed to be one.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Would it be absurdly impossible for them to be on Rt 27 if that was the route they took to get to work?

Yes.

6-7 editors and reporters or 8 if you count Peter Kopf (he is a director of information). On the same stretch of highway at the exact moment at 9:37 when the plane flies over/in front of them, .16 of a mile. All having accounts that are problematic and damaging for the official story. None being able to prove they were actually on the highway at the time. Only Mike Walter being able to prove he was there moments after and he has been more than busted.

 

[twinstead]

90 degrees?

How about see around a corner?

The evidence is the fact that the Pentagon is a 5 sided structure.

Do I have to prove that to you too?

You can NOT see the alleged impact point from ANY OTHER SIDE of the building.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon folder 2/Pentagon.jpg

Obviously you have demonstrated that you have ZERO intention of analyzing these accounts honestly since you STILL insist that Hal Bidlack is a witness to the attack when even he has never claimed to be one.

From what angles do you think a sudden pull up and fly over would have been seen? Remember, what you claim wasn't witnessed by ANY witnesses, including yours.

 

[Totovader]

90 degrees?

How about see around a corner?

Do you have any evidence that he would have needed to "see around a corner" to describe what he described?

The evidence is the fact that the Pentagon is a 5 sided structure.

That evidence does not prove what you are saying.

Do I have to prove that to you too?

You have to prove that his statements could not possibly be true. You have not done that. Saying that "the Pentagon is a five-sided structure" is non-sequitur. The number of sides of the structure has no bearing on whether the witness was accurate or not.

You can NOT see the alleged impact point from ANY OTHER SIDE of the building.

Strawman.

You have said nothing which refutes the account of this witness. Instead you are trying to state he could not have seen the point of impact, which is an arbitrary and useless position you have set up on your own to make any account unreasonable in your eyes. We are not discussing your personal incredulity- we are discussing the credibility of the witnesses.

You have provided no evidence contradicting this witness, and- in fact- have provided nothing to refute his statements.

As such, I would suggest that the statements of this witness are accurate. Shall we move on to the next one?

Obviously you have demonstrated that you have ZERO intention of analyzing these accounts honestly since you STILL insist that Hal Bidlack is a witness to the attack when even he has never claimed to be one.

"Obviously" that isn't true in the least. I have painstakingly gone over your rebuttals and pointed out why you're wrong- and you have offered no counter to those observations. I also am not going to continue to respond to your strawman statements. We've moved on to the next witness- and your statements regarding the testimony Mr. Bidlack are patently false.

Consider the fact that you have to continue to invent strawman arguments to even keep your head above water, here. What does that say about your position? You're unable to address these accounts- you can't even stay on topic...

Please stop dodging these statements. Let's continue with the next witness.