Flyover Witnesses

[jaydeehess]

To sum up, if no one has done that recently, Lyte is saying that there are no witnesses who can say that they saw a plane approach the Pentagon then pull up and over the building just before the fireball.

instead he claims that everyone, looking upon the scene from anywhere, was fooled into believing that the plane had hit the building and that of all the witnesses only 4 were not fooled into believeing that the plane that hit the Pentagon came along the path of the knocked down poles, and furthermore only 1 person witnessed the plane pulling up at any time during the last few seconds.

That correct Lyte??

 

[lapman]

Actually, I think he says that there is one witness, but either he is part of a cover up or he wasn't there. Lyte cannot decide.

 

[Diazo]

Who are you talking about?

There is not one witness account in the entire investigative body of evidence that directly contradicts the north side claim.

Not even one.

Forgive me for going back a few pages, but there are several witnesses who do directly contradict the north side claim.

Just to confirm, you are contending that if the plane was on the north side of the Citgo station, it would have been impossible for the plane to hit the lights poles, meaning the knocked down light poles are planted correct?

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.

(Bolding mine.)

A large part of the irreconcilable evidence being the knocked down light poles.

Now, while we do not have witnesses saying "I saw the plane on the south side of the Citgo station", we do have MANY witnesses who say they say saw the plane strike the light poles.

From http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
where the longer quotes mentioned can also be found.

The following excerpts are from longer quotes in the links above. Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo...It knocked over a few light poles in its way."
Mark Bright: "...at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."
Mike Walter: "...it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there. It was an American Airlines jet."
Rodney Washington: "...knocking over light poles"
Kirk Milburn: "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles."
Afework Hagos: "It hit some lampposts on the way in."
Kat Gaines: saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles
D.S. Khavkin: "First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles"
Wanda Ramey: "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.
Penny Elgas: A piece of American Airlines Flight 77 was torn from the plane as it clipped a light pole. It landed in her car.

Now, you stated that the north side flight path makes it impossible for the plane to have hit the light poles, the witnesses statements above directly contradict the north side flight path since they did indeed see the plane hit the light poles.

From here, it's pretty straight forward. One of the sets of witnesses must be wrong as they are in direct contradiction with each other.

The witnesses who say the plane did hit the light poles have many other witnesses and a lot of physical evidence that was recovered also supporting their story (the official version).

Where-as your witnesses for north side flight path have what else supporting them? I am not aware of anything or anyone else that supports the north side theory.

On the balance, the massive amount of evidence for the offical story makes the north side flight path simply impossible, regardless of what a few people remember.

 

[jaydeehess]

Diazo, in Lyte's mind, lack of evidence is evidence that his senario is correct.

 

[twinstead]

On the balance, the massive amount of evidence for the offical story makes the north side flight path simply impossible, regardless of what a few people remember.

Well, yea, but that only shows that all the physical evidence was planted and the witnesses who support the official story are plants.

 

[sts60]

"... 3 fireman were
there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this
entire process and are luck to be alive.

That would be the crew of Fort Myer Foam 61.

Just so it doesn't get lost in all the posting, I'll reiterate my question from post 315 for Lyte Trip:

How many 9/11 eyewitnesses have said they saw an airliner flowing low over the ground, at the Pentagon as if to hit it, then saw it pull up and fly over it?

All I'm interested in is a nonnegative integer. Thanks.

 

[jaydeehess]

Lyte claims that anyone at the heliport could not have seen the plane coming in along the accepted flight path. This is much like his inference that only 4 people could see the plane coming in along north of the Citgo.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Now, you stated that the north side flight path makes it impossible for the plane to have hit the light poles, the witnesses statements above directly contradict the north side flight path since they did indeed see the plane hit the light poles.

From here, it's pretty straight forward. One of the sets of witnesses must be wrong as they are in direct contradiction with each other.

You have ignored what I have already posted in this regard and more importantly the FACTS.

Of that list only Wanda Ramey and The "anonymous Navy Admiral" literally claim that they "saw" the light poles get clipped. The anonymous account does not count so that leaves one. The rest merely mention the poles which does not prove that they saw the plane hit them.

We weren't able to find Wanda Ramey to confirm her account despite the fact that she is allegedly a Pentagon police officer. We would love to see if she would still directly contradict her colleagues.

But her single unconfirmed account is NOT enough to counter the citgo witnesses.

However we DID talk with many others and of these alleged 16 "light pole witnesses"; none of their accounts have been confirmed as having actually seen the light poles get clipped!

We have personally interviewed the most significant ones (McGraw, Sucherman, Walter, and Brooks) who ALL personally told us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit by the plane and merely deduced it after the fact.

This is shows exactly how these witness statements are taken out of context and incorrectly skewed to fit the official story by people like Gravy and now you as you copy and paste the deceptive information in his blog.

But this is particularly odd in the case of McGraw, Sucherman, and Walter who were all allegedly on route 27 with a PERFECT view of the poles but a not so perfect view of the alleged impact that they all suspiciously claim they saw in detail.

Here is the real life view of the confirmed position of Sucherman and Walter:

McGraw would have had the best view of the alleged impact but an even better view of poles 3, 4, and 5.

Here is his alleged real life view:

So how come he claims he didn't see the light poles get hit and how come not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence mentions the alleged smoke trail?

 

[Diazo]

Diazo, in Lyte's mind, lack of evidence is evidence that his senario is correct.

Unfortunately, I am aware of that.

Which is why I'm trying to show that his Citgo station witnesses are remembering details wrong. They are the only thing he has to grasp at that even remotely support his north side theory. (And that's after ignoring half of their statements.)

At this point, I have pretty much said all I'm going to say. It has been shown to any reasonable level of proof that the north side flight path isn't possible and plenty of reasons given why.

 

[twinstead]

Why then, oh master investigator, did not a single witnesses in the entire investigative body of evidence mention a plane aiming straight for the Pentagon suddenly veer up and fly over it at the last minute?

 

[Diazo]

Okay, it seems like Lyte made a post simultaneously to my previous one.

However we DID talk with many others and of these alleged 16 "light pole witnesses"; none of their accounts have been confirmed as having actually seen the light poles get clipped!

We have personally interviewed the most significant ones (McGraw, Sucherman, Walter, and Brooks) who ALL personally told us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit by the plane and merely deduced it after the fact.

This is shows exactly how these witness statements are taken out of context and incorrectly skewed to fit the official story by people like Gravy and now you as you copy and paste the deceptive information in his blog.

You have transcripts of these interviews you conducted? I am certainly not about to take your word for it.

Indeed, seeing how you have presented previous witness statements, I would go as far as to say YOU are the one taking witness statements out of context and skewing them to try and fit them into your personal story.


Anyways, enough is enough. This will probably be my last post in this thread, Lyte is just rehashing the same thing again.

Lyte: If you want to actually continue, present the transcripts of these interviews you personally conducted, or present a transcript from a witness that actually saw this flyover.

Again, present transcripts. You word on what they said is not good enough for me seeing how you have handled previous witness statments.

I will not be posting in this thread again until I see either of those things.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Lyte is right. We must stick with the facts. And the facts show that the physical evidence proves the plane did NOT fly over the north side. Thus proving the rest of his conjecture impossible.


Of course it is amusing to think that someone would pull of such a huge plot that relied completely on a slim chance that no one would happen to notice anything. All it would take is one person to simply glance over or be in one of a million key places and the whole plan would be ruined. Perhaps they rolled a pair of dice to decide to go through with the plan. Or...Magic.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let me reiterate my post above;

To sum up, if no one has done that recently, Lyte is saying that there are no witnesses who can say that they saw a plane approach the Pentagon then pull up and over the building just before the fireball.

instead he claims that everyone, looking upon the scene from anywhere, was fooled into believing that the plane had hit the building and that of all the witnesses only 4 were not fooled into believeing that the plane that hit the Pentagon came along the path of the knocked down poles, and furthermore only 1 person witnessed the plane pulling up at any time during the last few seconds.

I would add,
Lyte also believes that anyone else who says that the accepted flightplan and impact on the ground floor of the building is what they saw is aliar or a 'plant.


That correct Lyte??

 

[jaydeehess]

Or...Magic

works for Judy Woods and her super-duper steel vaporizer

 

[Lyte Trip]

Let me reiterate my post above;

I would add,
Lyte also believes that anyone else who says that the accepted flightplan and impact on the ground floor of the building is what they saw is aliar or a 'plant.


That correct Lyte??

What witness accounts are you talking about?

There might be about one or two who perfectly support the official flight path.......the most significant being Lloyd England and yes we have proven that he is an accomplice to this crime whether or not he participated willingly.

 

[lapman]

Lyte, have you "interviewed" anyone that was on the 4th street bridge or Highway 110? These people would have seen the flyover and not been distracted by the explosion. Yet there is nobody that has come forward. Interesting.

 

[DavidJames]

...we have proven that he is an accomplice to this crime whether or not he participated willingly.

and yet you refuse to do anything with your evidence. You refuse to provide it to the authorities. If this is a crime, then why are you withholding evidence.

I know the answer Lyte. It's because you are a fraud, a scam artist, a charlatan., a huckster. You don't really believe a word of your nonsense, but it's now your chosen profession and you need to stick with it.

There was no "crime" as you claim it, you know that. If there was, you would be pounding down the doors of lawyers, DA's. the police, insurance investigators, etc. You would be here proudly telling us who you contacted and that they are ignoring you and therefore complicit in the "crime". You don't, why not? Simple, you are a fraud and a liar.

Prove me wrong.

DavidJames, this is a personal attack, and is against the civility requirement in your membership agreement. Please re-read your membership agreement, and do not continue this kind of activity. Attack the argument and not the person.

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

 

[nicepants]

There might be about one or two who perfectly support the official flight path.......the most significant being Lloyd England and yes we have proven that he is an accomplice to this crime whether or not he participated willingly.

The lack of damage to the hood of his car does not prove that he is an accomplice. It just proves that nothing smashed the HOOD of his car.

What is it that went through his windshield?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Prove me wrong.

I have no interest in proving to you who we have approached with this information and I am not particularly concerned with your unsupported personal attacks.

We have approached media and authorities both local and federal and we will continue to do so until they pay attention to the conclusive evidnece we present.

 

[Lyte Trip]

The lack of damage to the hood of his car does not prove that he is an accomplice. It just proves that nothing smashed the HOOD of his car.

His account is beyond implausible but in light of the testimony from the witnesses who were at the CITGO station placing the plane on the north side it has been shown that Lloyd's account is a complete fabrication.