Flyover Witnesses

[PhantomWolf]

Heya sts60, welcome to the madhouse. I'm assuming you're the sts60 I know from AH and BAUT. I think after dealing with Lyte and Truthseeker for a bit, you'll be longing to return to 3onthetree and Turbonium.

As to Lyte's claim, you know, if I got into the office one morning and found it rigged with explosives under my desk, and pieces of aircraft wrapped about the enteral pillars, I'd be just a tad suspicious, but for some reason, assuming Lyte's bizaro world was real, the Army Budget Account staff in the ground floor that Flight 77 hit, never took any notice of these rather obvious warning signs.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Besides,

The plane would be past the fireball by the time it rose.

Erm, if the fireball was at the Pentagon wall, that would mean that the plane wouldn't have risen before it got to the wall, which means it would have crashed into the wall.

Or do you mean before the fireball rose? In that case, many of the witnesses would have seen the plane pull up and climb over the building before the explosion. So how could any significant number have been fooled into thinking that the plane crashed? Orbital mind-control lasers??

Whatever minimal debris was within the fireball wouldn't have necessarily affected the plane that would already have passed the facade of the building.

Again, many people would have seen the aircraft climb and pass over the building before the explosion.

Oh and I notice how you guys have abandoned your argument of the latent vortices of the plane affecting the fireball now that Ace had you argue against this happening at the towers!

Apples and oranges. With the towers, the wake vortices stopped at the impact point. Vortices drift downward. Had American 77 flown over the Pentagon, its vorticies would have drifted down into the fireball, creating a noticeable effect in the security video photos.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Heya sts60, welcome to the madhouse. I'm assuming you're the sts60 I know from AH and BAUT. I think after dealing with Lyte and Truthseeker for a bit, you'll be longing to return to 3onthetree and Turbonium.

He's already encountered Malcolm; that should prepare him for just about anything (except our resident neo-Nazis ). I also passed along your comment about how half of BAUT will probably be here soon.

I'll second your comments about the usual suspects from AH's being pretty tame in comparison, though turbonium somehow usually manages to find a way to really get my

As to Lyte's claim, you know, if I got into the office one morning and found it rigged with explosives under my desk, and pieces of aircraft wrapped about the enteral pillars, I'd be just a tad suspicious, but for some reason, assuming Lyte's bizaro world was real, the Army Budget Account staff in the ground floor that Flight 77 hit, never took any notice of these rather obvious warning signs.

"But it's the Army--everyone always mindlessly follows orders and never asks questions!"

 

[PhantomWolf]

He's already encountered Malcolm; that should prepare him for just about anything (except our resident neo-Nazis ). I also passed along your comment about how half of BAUT will probably be here soon.

That must be how I missed his arrival. I have been religiously avioding the Malclom thread, I perfer my sanity sort of intact still.

 

[The Demon's Head]

If a flyover would have occurred, wouldn't there have been a lot more witnesses? A plane flying over a building isn't something somone wouldn't miss seeing with their own eyes, especially when the plane is that near to the ground.

 

[stateofgrace]

So In summary, after 8 pages , there is not a single witness who saw the fly over and there is absolutley no physical evidence to support it.

 

[nicepants]

Well, I'm not qualified to judge someone's sanity; I'm no psychologist.

I'd just like for Lyte Trip to state exactly how many eyewitness accounts he has seen or heard of an airliner flowing low over the ground, at the Pentagon as if to hit it, then pull up and fly over it. That's all.

Right..only in twoofer world does evidence that proves you wrong...actually prove you right.

The fact that no witnesses reported Rosie O'Donnell with a RPG outside the pentagon proves that they are COVERING IT UP!

Lyte's claims are unfalsifiable and ridiculous at best, and outright lies at worst. He knows this, I think the only reason he persists in arguing is so that he can try to gain either money or fame like his hero Dylan Avery. I'm literally shocked at how ignorant someone can be to actual facts. There comes a point at which you have to step back and say "wow.....I know I've invested a lot of my life into this, but it looks like I might be wrong"....lacking the presence of mind to make such a determination is the mark of the twoofer.

(I will gladly recant the above rant if Lyte can provide eyewitness testimony from ANY witness who saw AA77 fly over the pentagon)

ETA: Bump for Lyte - Which media published accounts were "completely fabricated", and which were "inaccurately reported"?

 

[LashL]

So In summary, after 8 pages , there is not a single witness who saw the fly over and there is absolutley no physical evidence to support it.

Thanks, sog. (I should have just started with the last page and read your update rather than reading through the entire thread full of Ranke's nonsensical posts, dodging, weaving, fallacies, and outright BS.)

 

[SpitfireIX]

That must be how I missed his arrival. I have been religiously avioding the Malclom thread, I perfer my sanity sort of intact still.

Probably a good policy in that case. Things have gotten so bad, there's actually a movement to rename the Stundie award in (dis)honor of Malcolm.

 

[PhantomWolf]

ETA: Bump for Lyte - Which media published accounts were "completely fabricated", and which were "inaccurately reported"?

If he can twist it to make it seem that there was a plane that flew over, then it was inaccuarate reporting. If he can't, then it was fabricated.

I mean come on, he takes one paragraph stated by a person, claims that half of it is proof that there was a fly over and then uses the other half as proof the guy is a lair and government stooge spreading disinfomation.....

 

[Lyte Trip]

Using Paiks flight path and you already admit he couldn't see the annex I produce this flight path. yes Lyte you have seen this twice before and folded. Shall I bring up your posts?

Folded?

You have got to be kidding me!

Your absurd flight path STILL completely contradicts the physical damage, route 27 witnesses, FDR, AND the security video!

So even IF you simply dismiss the citgo witnesses and suggest the plane made an S like that AFTER the navy annex then you are STILL proving all the other official evidence incorrect.

Thanks.

 

[nicepants]

291 posts and Lyte still has not provided even ONE eyewitness to a flyover by Flight77. How long are you going to keep us waiting?

 

[PhantomWolf]

291 posts and Lyte still has not provided even ONE eyewitness to a flyover by Flight77. How long are you going to keep us waiting?

How long do you have? He's performing a rather inadequate rendition of Waiting for Godot

 

[Lyte Trip]

No matter how you look at it the evidence I have provided it proves the plane can not be what caused the physical damage.

That means you can either suggest something ELSE that happened to the plane other than the flyover if you like or else you must accept the flyover alternative.

Of course everyone in this group of supposed "critical thinkers" has instead simply chosen to disingenuously ignore the implications of this evidence with your fingers in your ears going la la la la la la while demanding more witnesses.

Incredible.

 

[uk_dave]

No matter how you look at it the evidence I have provided it proves the plane can not be what caused the physical damage.

That means you can either suggest something ELSE that happened to the plane other than the flyover if you like or else you must accept the flyover alternative.

Of course everyone in this group of supposed "critical thinkers" has instead simply chosen to disingenuously ignore the implications of this evidence with your fingers in your ears going la la la la la la while demanding more witnesses.

Incredible.

No it means that your witnesses cannot be expected to represent the path of a plane flying over them at high speed at an unknown height (unknown to them) above the ground, with a single thin pen line on a photograph.

The degree of inaccuracy inherent in that approach is staggering and would never stand up in court.

Lyte, you MUST admit that every witness you have which supports your north side claim could be off in their recollection sufficient for the official account to be true. You have to see that, or you really are not to be trusted on this.

Just as I am perfectly willing to accept that your witnesses could be inaccurate in favour of the northside claim, in that they place the plane further to the south than it might have actually been on the day.

The problem with this is that something hit the pentagon and caused the trail of evidence leading to that impact point.

The problem is, no one saw the flyover, or if they did and reported it to the police they have certainly kept quiet about it ever since. But then you believe a lot of weird things in this world so I've no doubt you will have a tortured explanation for why all those people who had the potential to see what you believe they saw have not tried to get their stories out into the public domain.

The problem is there is a way too many problems with your witnesses contradicting the mass of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence for it to be a reasonable conclusion to draw.

 

[CurtC]

That means you can either suggest something ELSE that happened to the plane other than the flyover if you like or else you must accept the flyover alternative.

How about this - the plane actually crashed into the building, from the North path, but since it was reinforced recently, it didn't dig in very far and only lightly damaged the Pentagon. The rest of the damage was staged.

It's still nuts, but it's a lot more consistent with the evidence than your version.

 

[Rahne Everson]

How long do you have? He's performing a rather inadequate rendition of Waiting for Godot

Godot could come by, go on vacation in Tahiti, and swing back around for a month's stay before Lyte offers anything that supports his assertions.

 

[uk_dave]

Lyte,

Think about this:

The whole 911 conspiracy is based upon visual testimony.

Everything 'truthers' claim about 911 comes from either their own interpretation of the visual record of that day, or the recollections of various eyewitnesses.

But all of the 'truthers' claims, whether it be the collapse of the wtc towers or the crash site in shanksville can be dismissed by knowledge, expertise and science. Every 'truther' claim has a logical alternative.

There's not one single claim which has been made, founded in the personal beliefs/interpretation/incredulity of the claimant which has not been shown to be false.

And yet you use exactly the same method for arriving at your belief with regard to the pentagon.

You're not a structural engineer or an architect or even a builder, and yet you believe you can comment on the damage at the pentagon based solely on the available photographs and your own.... what? Common sense?

You're not a trained or experienced crash investigator and yet you feel capable enough to comment on the crash of a plane. With common sense?

You're not a trained or experienced researcher or journalist and yet you expect to be able to get people to talk to you about their experiences, when you have no accreditation with a reputable news agency or university and offer the people you wish to interview no recourse for action if you are found to be misrepresenting them. You're an amateur with a cause and a camera and yet you seem to believe that your material should be given equal weight as that which is produced by people who do this work for a living.

You do no use an unbiased, impartial method for your investigations.You set out to prove what you already believe rather than attempt to falsify those beliefs.

You have so many things to overcome if you are to be taken seriously. And the fact that no one does take you seriously means you have a long way to go.

Just an admission that the pentagon attack could have happened the way the official account describes it would be a big step in the right direction.

 

[Lyte Trip]

No it means that your witnesses cannot be expected to represent the path of a plane flying over them at high speed at an unknown height (unknown to them) above the ground, with a single thin pen line on a photograph.


The degree of inaccuracy inherent in that approach is staggering and would never stand up in court.

What are you talking about? They are interviewed on location.

The second each of them pointed in the exact same direction history was made.

Lyte, you MUST admit that every witness you have which supports your north side claim could be off in their recollection sufficient for the official account to be true. You have to see that, or you really are not to be trusted on this.

I can admit that it would not be impossible for one of them to be so drastically mistaken about such a simple claim. Although it would certainly implausible.

But for 4 of them to independently ALL be so drastically mistaken in the exact same way is a statistical impossibility.

With each corroborated account the chances that they are inaccurate about this detail decreases exponentially.

Just as I am perfectly willing to accept that your witnesses could be inaccurate in favour of the northside claim, in that they place the plane further to the south than it might have actually been on the day.

What? I am not following you here. If the plane wasn't exactly lined up with the light poles FAR on the south side the official story is proven a farce. There is zero room for error in this regard.

The problem with this is that something hit the pentagon and caused the trail of evidence leading to that impact point.

If you say so but we have proven that it wasn't the plane.

The problem is, no one saw the flyover, or if they did and reported it to the police they have certainly kept quiet about it ever since. But then you believe a lot of weird things in this world so I've no doubt you will have a tortured explanation for why all those people who had the potential to see what you believe they saw have not tried to get their stories out into the public domain.

A lot fewer than you realize had the potential to see this 3 second event but yes if someone called the police about it that is as far as it would go because they would be told they saw another plane and pointed to the the 2nd plane cover story.

The problem is there is a way too many problems with your witnesses contradicting the mass of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence for it to be a reasonable conclusion to draw.

That's the entire point.

We have shown why there have been so many questions about the admittedly by the government "counter-intuitive" physical evidence.

 

[Lyte Trip]

How about this - the plane actually crashed into the building, from the North path, but since it was reinforced recently, it didn't dig in very far and only lightly damaged the Pentagon. The rest of the damage was staged.

It's still nuts, but it's a lot more consistent with the evidence than your version.

The plane was on the north side yet the damage is not consistent with this in any way.

However you choose to reconcile the north side claim it disproves the official story.