Flyover Witnesses

Everything we cite is fully supported by independently verified evidence.



You aren't interested in truth Mark Roberts.


LYTE, stop derailing this thread! How many times are you going to be told to stick to the topic?


This is about "witnesses to the flyover"

NOT about your speculation about what they meant
NOT about your interpretation of what they saw
NOT about your pet theory.


Now, present your next witness.
 
Hey, I'm slow! Whaddaya want from me? Seriously, what am I still missing?

Once you click on "quote", you don't need to wrap the text with another [(/)quote] code. But what you are doing is close enough, it's much easier to read. :)
 
Please give the name of the pilot you spoke with, along with his exact words.

Which pilot did you speak with? Lt. Colonel Steve OBrien, the pilot of that C-130 tells a different story. (video link to interview @ 26min)

"It had that distinctive silver finish. In our minds, it was definitely an American Airlines aircraft. And as he moved to our 11 o'clock position, he started his turn, and by the time he was at our 12 o'clock position right out in front of the aircraft, he was rolled up in about I would estimate about 30 to 40 degrees of bank..."

"and then all of the sudden we saw this big explosion, and I keyed the mike again and said 'Washington, this is Gopher 0-6, that plane has hit the west side of the pentagon"

Yes well he figured that out AFTER he flew closer to the building but he claims that he did NOT initially see this happening and the legitimate accounts of the c-130 (i.e. Scott Cook) have him coming into the scene about a 60 seconds later.

Steve O'brien did NOT "shadow" the AA jet or see it hit the building.

C-130 Pilot Steve O'Brien: "I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport."
 
Everything we cite is fully supported by independently verified evidence.
And everything you cite confirms that not a single one of your witnesses saw a flyover.

Perhaps you have others who did?
 
Really?

The c-130 pilot disputes it was him!

So who do you think it was?

C-130 Pilot Steve O'Brien: "I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

Source for your quote?

So you agree that he saw the plane, something you denied earlier?

"It had that distinctive silver finish. In our minds, it was definitely an American Airlines aircraft. And as he moved to our 11 o'clock position, he started his turn, and by the time he was at our 12 o'clock position right out in front of the aircraft, he was rolled up in about I would estimate about 30 to 40 degrees of bank..." - C-130 Pilot Steve O'Brien

"and then all of the sudden we saw this big explosion, and I keyed the mike again and said 'Washington, this is Gopher 0-6, that plane has hit the west side of the pentagon" - C-130 Pilot Steve O'Brien

- BBC Interview - available online
 
The question for this thread is "Who says they saw a flyover?"

Not "Who says they saw the plane come from the north?"
Not "Who says they saw a second plane?"

WHO SAYS THEY SAW A FLYOVER?
¿Quién dice que él vio un fly-over?
Qui indique qu'elles ont vu un survol ?
Wer sagt, daß sie eine Überführung sahen?
Wie zegt zij een vlieg-overschot zagen?
だれが言うfly-over を見たことをか。
 
Everything we cite is fully supported by independently verified evidence.
None of what you cite is evidence of a flyover. We are still waiting for the eyewitness account of an airliner flying through the fireball and over the Pentagon.
All you do is dismiss the evidence we present out of hand.
You have yet to provide any evidence of a flyover. So we dismiss your "evidence" since it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
We have proven that all the initial questions about the physical evidence were 100% justified.
Nope. Not even close
The north side claim is not a theory.
Yes it is a theory. All you've shown that you were able to lead 4 people into saying it was on the north side of Citgo. All other evidence, including Penny's statement in the other thread, proves otherwise.

CIT did not make up the north side claim.
Nope, but you foolishly support this phony claim.

There is not a single account in the entire investigative body of evidence that directly contradicts it yet you are happy to dismiss it with the wave of a hand.
Penny's account contradicts it.
 
Everything we cite is fully supported by independently verified evidence.


To date, you have provided only agenda-driven speculation, carefully mined and cherry-picked quotes, and baseless, outlandish claims.


Exactly what you can't be bothered with providing to back up your claims in your silly blogs.

All you do is dismiss the evidence we present out of hand.

We have proven that all the initial questions about the physical evidence were 100% justified.


You have done absolutely nothing to call the physical evidence into question. The people on board Flight 77 were all killed when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Wreckage from the aircraft was identifed, as were the remains of the passengers. Your fantasy of a vast, mathematically-impossible conspiracy falsifying, well, everything, is absurd.


The north side claim is not a theory.

CIT did not make up the north side claim.

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis have PROVEN with confirmed EVIDENCE that the plane flew on the north side.


No, it falls far short of being a theory. You twist the words of a tiny handful of witnesses and ignore direct, unambiguous statements from a much larger group. You have proved nothing: You have failed abysmally to prove any of the preposterous myths you promote.


There is not a single account in the entire investigative body of evidence that directly contradicts it yet you are happy to dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

You aren't interested in truth Mark Roberts.


ALL the available physical evidence refutes your fantasy. Mark has demonstrated extraordinary diligence and objectivity, while you have employed the methods of a charlatan to advance a pernicious and false interpretation of a tragic event.



You have carved yourself a little place in the internet world and it satisfies your ego to have your admirers suck up to you and swallow your garbage info at the peril of the future of our country and the world.

You have devoted your life to debating and pathetically attempting to "debunk" people you believe to be lunatics pushing absurd theories.

The fact that you don't realize how pathetic that really is proves you do this to bask in the glory of your ego.


What is the evidence to suggest that the lunatics and liars Mark confronts are more than lunatics and liars?
 
Pomeroo, you're doubling up the quote brackets now. All you need is the quote bracket that has the name qualifier inside and the end-quote bracket. For some reason, you're adding plain quote brackets to something already quoted. Perhaps you're thinking that the bracket with the name qualifier isn't a real quote bracket. If that's the case, it is!

Is there any way to get my mitts on an uncompressed version of the Citgo tape? To my eye, it looks like Lagasse doesn't even look up until after the impact explosion.
 
Last edited:
Erm, as I'm coming somewhat late to Lyte's "argument," could someone (other than Lyte) possibly explain to me, succinctly, exactly how Lyte alleges that American 77's being north of the Citgo would prove that the aircraft flew over the Pentagon at the same spot as the explosion? I've been trying to figure this out from some of his more recent posts, but I must be dense or something, because I'm just not getting it. :confused:
 
Pomeroo, you're doubling up the quote brackets now. All you need is the quote bracket that has the name qualifier inside and the end-quote bracket. For some reason, you're adding plain quote brackets to something already quoted. Perhaps you're thinking that the bracket with the name qualifier isn't a real quote bracket. If that's the case, it is!

Is there any way to get my mitts on an uncompressed version of the Citgo tape? To my eye, it looks like Lagasse doesn't even look up until after the impact explosion.


Like this? By George, I do believe I've got it!

But, how do I handle multiple quotes?
 
Erm, as I'm coming somewhat late to Lyte's "argument," could someone (other than Lyte) possibly explain to me, succinctly, exactly how Lyte alleges that American 77's being north of the Citgo would prove that the aircraft flew over the Pentagon at the same spot as the explosion? I've been trying to figure this out from some of his more recent posts, but I must be dense or something, because I'm just not getting it. :confused:


Join the club. The ugly suspicion lurks that there isn't anything to get.

Incidentally, an update on lapman's list: number of witnesses Lyte has produced for his imaginary flyover--ZERO.
 
Lyte Trip:

You quote Sucherman saying

Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"

You also claim "We have personally interviewed Joel at the new USA Today building and he told us that this alleged "2nd plane" flew over the Pentagon within 3 to 5 seconds of the explosion."

Can you provide a source for that first quote and a transcript/videoclip of your interview of Sucherman that we can link to, because neither claim seems to agree with what he said in the following taped interviews:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1fhdp_joel-sucherman-interview-later-on-9

Let's me quote what he says in that video clip ...

"Well, we were stuck in traffic. Nobody was moving much and we heard a sonic bomb. All of a sudden we saw a jet ... what appeared to be an American Airlines passenger jet come screaming just a few feet above the highway which runs to the west side of the Pentagon. It within a second or so it slammed into the west side of the Pentagon. There was an explosion, flames shot up, there was white smoke and then within seconds there was thick black smoke surrounding the area."

Asked "How were you sure this was an American Airline's jet?" he said "I was a plane, a jet with silver uhhhh it was painted silver and then there was some markings along the window which reminded me of an American Airlines jet. They were red and blue."

Next he was asked what happened at that point. He said "Well everybody just stopped. There were a lot of people that did get out of their cars. I did not. I was just worried there would be another impact seconds later and without being able to maneuver away from the scene, another impact could have shot flames. We all would have been toast."

Here's another taped interview where he says basically the same thing:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1fa00_pentagon-eyewitness-joel-sucherman

Your claims also don't fit this excerpt from a USAToday interview http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta03.html "The impact hit on the west front side of the Pentagon. The plane came heading east. Again, it screamed low. You couldn't even see the plane before it was about, oh 20 feet or so off the ground, screamed across the highway and slammed into the side of the Pentagon. Within a minute another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear whether that plane was trying to maneuver out of the way and out of the air space or if that plane was coming around for another hit as well. That plane ended up disappearing into the sky."

Nor does it fit this one: http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm "Well while listening to the radio reports of the World Trade Center problem, there was a sonic boom, and looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway. It was Route 110 on the west side of the Pentagon. The plane went west to east, hit the west side of the Pentagon. Immediately flames were searing up into the air. There was white smoke, and then within seconds, thick black smoke. ... Then there was another plane, that was off to the southwest, and that made a beeline straight up into the sky and then angled off and we weren’t sure if that was going to come around and make another hit or if it was just trying to get out of the way. That disappeared and we didn’t see it again. ... I did not see the engines, I saw the body and the tail and it was a silver jet, with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an American Airlines jet. This was not a commercial, excuse me, a business jet, right it was not a Learjet, Gulfstream something like that. It was a bigger plane than that.”

Sucherman said something else, that I think is quite apropos, in another interview quoted at http://911files.info/map/jsucherman.htm: "It's a terrible tragedy that someone is trying cash in on the fears and suspicions of an unsuspecting public with misinformation and a deliberate attempt to twist peoples words, taking them out of context with a disregard for the truth."
 

Back
Top Bottom