Flyover Witnesses

[pomeroo]

To avoid derailing the ongoing thread built around Lyte Trip's ambitious attempt to discredit every witness to the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon, I am starting a new thread, one that I predict will be extremely short.

I want the names of eyewitnesses to the flyover of the Pentagon. I want to see how many people actually observed a plane head toward the Pentagon and suddenly pull up without hitting it.

Let's begin here. Lyte, it's your move. Tell us who confirms your theory.

 

[Lyte Trip]

For the record:

The "flyover" is not a theory it is an alternative.

It has been definitively proven and independently confirmed that there WAS a twin engine passenger jet that flew over the area timed perfectly with the explosion so if it does not match with the physical damage then the only alternative is that it flew over the building.

1. Edward Paik.

The independently confirmed testimony of Edward Paik filmed on location has the entire plane crossing over to the north side of Columbia Pike placing it fatally off course from the physical damage flight path headed straight towards the north side of the citgo station. His account is solid evidence that the plane did not cause the physical damage and therefore that the flyover alternative is true.

 

[Lyte Trip]

2. Robert Turcios.

Robert's independently confirmed testimony filmed on location has the plane definitively on the north side of the citgo station making it irreconcilable with the physical evidence and therefore supporting the flyover alternative.

But Robert's account particularly supports the flyover alternative because he saw the plane literally "pull up" to miss the street sign and light poles.

Robert's account of the plane on the north side is confirmed by his manager as being his story since 9/11 so this is not merely a recollection from many years later.

 

[Lyte Trip]

3. Sgt. Brooks

Sgt. Brooks confirms Edward and Robert's testimony of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station/Columbia Pike making it irreconcilable with the physical evidence and therefore supporting the flyover alternative.

Although Sgt. Brooks claimed in the past that he saw the plane hit the light poles he clarified on video camera that this is not the case and that he deduced this detail in the past.

His account is a prime example of how incorrect information from witnesses is used to support the official story outlining the importance of independent confirmation of all details.

 

[apathoid]

For the love of Pete, Lyte. We've heard it all a thousand times already. It's obvious that Pomeroo wants a list of people who described the flyover - like ".....it was a big silver jet and it buzzed the Pentagon at high speed and appeared to bomb the * out of it...it pulled up and flew away".

Your witnesses did not, as the only ones who were in position to see the impact said it impacted.

 

[pomeroo]

And what do the New York Times and the Washington Post (I doubt that you can con us into believing that they support Bush's policies) think of your revelations? They surely agree that it is the biggest story in the history of journalism, right?

You haven't attempted to contact them? Hmmmm.

 

[strathmeyer]

Lyte, how long should you be unable to answer simple questions before we can dismiss your theories?

 

[Arus808]

For the record:

The "flyover" is not a theory it is an alternative.

its a theory; not an alternative.

1. Edward Paik.

The independently confirmed testimony of Edward Paik filmed on location has the entire plane crossing over to the north side of Columbia Pike placing it fatally off course from the physical damage flight path headed straight towards the north side of the citgo station. His account is solid evidence that the plane did not cause the physical damage and therefore that the flyover alternative is true.

Actually no , his account is not "solid" evidence of anything (solid evidence = physical evidence; something that you have continually ignored). HIs account is just a testimony to what he observed that day. There is nothing more from his account that you can take , save for what he saw. Speculating beyond what he saw IS YOURS and YOUR inference only.


You of course ignore that
1) he didn't mention seeing the fly over
2) and that in your own video, by your leading questions, he didn't even know what the flight path was, and he had to draw it twice. You also ignored that he was gesturing to a path that would have put it between the Navy Annex and Columbia Pike.

So no, your witness doesn't meet the criteria of witnessing the fly over.

We are playing your game. Since you want to contend that our witnesses didn't see the actual impact, we are now going to use it against you; so far Edward , has not stated that he actually saw the flyover.


so next witness Lyte. Edward was not a witness to the flyover and he actually contradicts your claims with his original path.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Let's not call it a theory and confuse out resident creationists.

 

[JimBenArm]

It's not a theory, it's not an alternative, it's a big, steaming pile of poo.

 

[pomeroo]

For the love of Pete, Lyte. We've heard it all a thousand times already. It's obvious that Pomeroo wants a list of people who described the flyover - like ".....it was a big silver jet and it buzzed the Pentagon at high speed and appeared to bomb the * out of it...it pulled up and flew away".

Your witnesses did not, as the only ones who were in position to see the impact said it impacted.

Apathoid, he's playing dumb here. He understands very well that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE witnessed a flyover. This mad game of his has been brilliantly exposed by TAM on the other thread. So far, our scorecard on this thread includes three names, NONE of whom actually saw a "flyover." Lyte has taken honest, if hazy, testimony and has massaged it for his own evil purposes. I asked for witnesses; he gave me extrapolations.

There are no witnesses to a flyover. It didn't happen. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and wreckage of the plane along with the remains of those on board were identified.

 

[CHF]

So in other words the answer is "No, none of the witnesses saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. But a fair number saw the plane fly into the Pentagon."

Seriously, can we trade in Lyte and Truthseeker for some more mainstream twoofers - people not considered "disinfo" by 99% of the "movement?"

 

[apathoid]

Apathoid, he's playing dumb here. He understands very well that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE witnessed a flyover. This mad game of his has been brilliantly exposed by TAM on the other thread. So far, our scorecard on this thread includes three names, NONE of whom actually saw a "flyover." Lyte has taken honest, if hazy, testimony and has massaged it for his own evil purposes. I asked for witnesses; he gave me extrapolations.

I know Ron.....but I wanted to make it clear to Mr. Trip that this wasn't yet another thread that was ok for him to vandalize with his PentaCon garbage, there are already like 34 of those.

So, Lyte. Do you admit that there are no witnesses who directly(note the qualifier) support your flyover theory?

 

[Lyte Trip]

4. Sgt. Lagasse

Sgt. Lagasse confirms Edward, Robert, and Sgt. Brooks' testimony of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station/Columbia Pike making it irreconcilable with the physical evidence and therefore supporting the flyover alternative.

There is officially released confirmed proof that Sgt. Lagasse was at the citgo station on 9/11 via the security video tape.

Although eyewitness accounts are fallible the extreme high level of independent corroboration of the north side claim detail is so strong without being directly contradicted by anyone that the notion that all of these witnesses are so drastically mistaken in the exact same way is a statistical impossibility.

 

[rwguinn]

3. Sgt. Brooks

Sgt. Brooks confirms Edward and Robert's testimony of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station/Columbia Pike making it irreconcilable with the physical evidence and therefore supporting the flyover alternative.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon stills/brookspointing.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon stills/brooksflightpath.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon stills/brooksflightpath2.jpg


Although Sgt. Brooks claimed in the past that he saw the plane hit the light poles he clarified on video camera that this is not the case and that he deduced this detail in the past.

His account is a prime example of how incorrect information from witnesses is used to support the official story outlining the importance of independent confirmation of all details.

So, nobody actually SAW an airplane fly over, they you deduced it did for them, just as they deduced that it dropped a missile, or a bomb, or something else that went "Bang" in a big way.
Just as nobody actually SAW the impact with the pentagon--they were too far away and thus survived the encounter. Nobody who actually WITNESSED the impact could have survived. right?

 

[jaydeehess]

from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2792526&postcount=58 (with corrections in my grammer)

.. he (Robert)states that his view was obscured, that all he saw was the fireball. That is completely consistent with someone who has seen a fast aircraft desend past and below the highway embankment and infers an impact when he sees the fireball.
In FACT if your senario were to be true Robert it would have him saying that the fireball occured BEFORE impact and therefore obscured his view of the impact that caused the fireball. That is a temporal paradox. Had Robert seen the fireball that he understands was due to the impact BEFORE impact occured do you not think he would have thought that to be somewhat ODD Lyte???? Instead he is quite adamant that the plane did indeed hit the building and logic dictates that he is saying that the fireball was his cue that the plane had (note the past tense Lyte) hit the building even though it was out of his line of sight.

Quote:
You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that Robert says the plane pulled up over the do not enter sign.

During which time Robert was running up an embankment thus altering his perspective of the plane. NONE of your other witnesses has the plane rising at any time IIRC. Thus if you are using Robert as your sole witness among the dozens that watched the plane approach to "prove" that the plane rose and therefore flew above the Pentagon you are using the extreme minority account to bolster a fanatstic tale, a fiction of your own creation.

ETA: in fact no one else mentions a rising aircraft

Quote:
His account blows the official story out of the water no matter how you look at it and he is 100% validated about the plane being where he says it was and therefore that he really saw the plane

When, at the time he says the plane went directly overhead of the station or when he says it went over the trees a few feet next to the lot or when his account of the path the plane took in no way matches your other witnesses accounts, other than that in one of Robert's versions, the plane is actually north of the station?

_____________________________________

Lyte, you asked those witnesses about other planes and IIRC about a flyover. The answers were all negative. However it is obvious that you were already thinking along the lines of a flyover.

However, a flyover covered up by some pyrotechnics would still require that the aircraft be at least 70+ feet agl as it approached the side of the building BEFORE the fireball appears. Your Citgo witnesses were all in a great position to see the top few floors, at least, of the Pentagon. They all say the plane impacted the Pentagon. You cliam they all implied impact yet you failed to ask where they thought the plane had impacted. Given that in your senario the plane must appear to be headed to impact the upper floors and the position of your witnesses at the Citgo, they would have had a very clear idea of where the plane would impact.

Given that the "official story" has the plane impacting the ground floor and you have it flying over the Pentagon it would have seemed a no-brainer to then ask "when you watched the plane approach the building did you have any thought about the level of impact? Near the top of the building or lower down?" You wanted evidence of a flyover. You sought no eyewitness testimony that would support a flyover. You have ONE witness saying the plane rose and absolutly no other testimony about the height of the plane at "alleged" impact. None!!! Why would you not even attept to seek such corroboration?

One person who's testimony on that specific point , is suspect yet you chose not to persue corroboration of that point.

 

[pomeroo]

4. Sgt. Lagasse

Sgt. Lagasse confirms Edward, Robert, and Sgt. Brooks' testimony of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station/Columbia Pike making it irreconcilable with the physical evidence and therefore supporting the flyover alternative.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon stills/lagassebetshislife.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon stills/lagassenorth.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon stills/lagasseflightpath.jpg

There is officially released confirmed proof that Sgt. Lagasse was at the citgo station on 9/11 via the security video tape.

Although eyewitness accounts are fallible the extreme high level of independent corroboration of the north side claim detail is so strong without being directly contradicted by anyone that the notion that all of these witnesses are so drastically mistaken in the exact same way is a statistical impossibility.

So, you concede defeat? You admit that your lunatic fantasy is baseless?

You cannot produce A SINGLE PERSON WHO DESCRIBES A PLANE HEADING TOWARD THE PENTAGON AND THEN FLYING OVER IT.

 

[lapman]

Ok. Here is what we have so far:

1. Edward Paik - Did not witness flyover
   
2. Robert Turcios - Did not witness flyover
   
3. Sgt. Brooks - Did not witness flyover.

Well, Lyte. You're 0 for 3. The OP specifically states "eyewitnesses to the flyover." Not speculation or conjecture based on witness testimony. So, where are the eyewitnesses of an airplane flying through the fireball and over the Pentagon?

 

[CurtC]

It's not a theory, it's not an alternative, it's a big, steaming pile of poo.

The Petacon, at least at one point, used to be officially subtitled "The Smoking Gun Edition."

I think I was the one who called it "The Steaming Turd Edition."

I see Lyte has brought Paik's statements into evidence again. Besides not even remotely supporting his flyover hypothesis, Paik's description, if we take it as true that the plane flew approximately over him, absolutely falsifies the "North of the Citgo" claim.

 

[Gravy]

Lyte is panicking. I thought he welcomed the truth?