Flyover Witnesses

nicepants said:
OHHH! I think I get it. He's ONLY lying about the parts of his story that conflict with your theory! NOW it is making more sense.

So, if he didn't see a C-130....what did he see?

ETA: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1418946a6d88b3b754.jpg
Click to expand...

You aren't getting it.

He didnt see anything, he more than likely was not there at all or was in Arlington Cemetery and didn't see anything. Or was in Arlington Cemetery saw it all go down. Either way, he had a set story to tell.
 
If Keith Wheelhouse is a liar, why are you using him on your site as a witness to a plane flying over the Pentagon?
 
Lyte Trip said:
You aren't getting it.

He didnt see anything, he more than likely was not there at all or was in Arlington Cemetery and didn't see anything. Or was in Arlington Cemetery saw it all go down. Either way, he had a set story to tell.
Click to expand...

That is just....sad. Seriously Lyte, please take some time away from this subject. There's a whole world out there unconnected to 911 fantasies and chemtrails and god knows what else you currently believe in, but it's a real world not a fantasy world and you have to function within it.

The way you're going with this desperate attempt to make your fantasy a reality is just going to make you more disengaged with reality and that can't be healthy.

Calling someone a liar while at the same time depending upon their testimony to support your claims is just..... weird.
 
nicepants said:
1418946a6d88b3b754.jpg
Click to expand...

Lyte: "I'm invincible!"
Everyone else: "You're a loony."
 
Once again, all Lyte is doing is presenting the same evidence for every claim. And that evidence is simply 3 people who think they may have seen the plane fly to the north of the Gas station.

THATS IT.

Everything else is conjecture.

No he does NOT have witnesses who saw the fly over. No he does NOT have evidence of another plane trailing it, he is simply taking reports out of context.

I think Lyte believes that if he says he has proven the plane flerw to the North enough times, then it will become true. I bet he wonders why it hasn't come true yet. I imagine he wonders why he never got that fame and recognition he hoped for. I bet he wonders why the mainstream media won't even acknowledge his findings. Because that's what this is all about.
 
Lyte Trip said:
He is telling the "truth" about a plane veering away from Pentagon at the time of the explosion. But he is lying about which plane and what type of plane it was.
Click to expand...



Yet more Lyte Trip methodology for all to see!
 
Ranke’s Razor: Whenever witnesses testify to two or more incompatible versions of the same event, if one such version is supported by a markedly lower number of those witnesses and is also the version least compatible with the physical evidence, then that version must be the truth.
 
Lyte Trip said:
He is not one of our witnesses. He is a liar.
Click to expand...

Out of the hundreds of people who were near/at/around the Pentagon on 9/11, you have come to the conclusion that four out of hundreds, are the only ones telling the truth...

I feel sorry for you Lyte.
 
Lyte Trip said:
No don't you get it yet?

He is telling the "truth" about a plane veering away from Pentagon at the time of the explosion. But he is lying about which plane and what type of plane it was.

That is his job.
Click to expand...

Ok, I am one of those that visit this site and don't post all that often. Mostlybe cause things I would say are redundant to a lot of the posts but..........

Lyte, did you eat paint chips as a kid?

You realize almost all of the witnesses you have quoted to support your ideas (I won't even justifiy them by calling them theories) you only use half of what they are saying. You pick and choose what you want to hear and disregard any information that comes out of the same mouths that contridicts you. It actually makes my ears start to bleed......

You're at about 14:45 of your 15 minutes of pseudo-fame....you better hurry.

Still waiting on a single witness that claims a flyover.......

Oh and do us another favor.....When you are speaking about the witnesses to the deaths of these innocents that died that day, please stop referring to them as "our witnesses". You only listen to these people when it suits you and dismiss them when it doesn't, they are not on your "side or team" so stop using words making it sound like they are.

Everytime I read posts from these people I feel a little bit of that orange juice vurp come up in the back of my throat.
 
Last edited:
Lyte Trip said:
Nobody's getting it yet?
Click to expand...


We get the idea that absolutely nobody saw a plane hurtle toward the Pentagon, then pull up and fly over it.


Lyte Trip said:
It's ok, take some time. Let it sink in. Remember, we spoke with Kieth Wheelhouse. We interviewed him.

Seriously, take some time and think about it.

The plane doesn't look like an AA, was on the North side of the Citgo and pulls up over the highway.
Click to expand...


Let's talk about your research skills. Imagine that two elderly women describe their experiences in a German concentration camp. Their descriptions of a particularly sadistic guard match right down to the mole on his left cheek, with a single difference: one woman claims that he had brown eyes; the other says they were blue. Now, which of the following does this suggest to you:

a) The Holocaust was a hoax;

b) Both accounts have been discredited;

c) One woman provides a definitive account; the other can be dismissed as hopelessly misleading.

d) One woman's memory--for this precise detail--is more accurate than the other's, but both of them retain clear memories of the experience.
 
Lyte, why are you this obsessed with Pentagon? What was your influence to start your Pentagon research? And why don't you use the same logic in here, as you use with WTC, where you said no-planers are wrong?
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I would be most interested in seeing that statistical analysis, Lyte.

by the way, I wonder how a plane travelling at high speed at low altitude would look to someone rather close. I would think that it would rush past so fast that it would be rather difficult to discern exactly where its flight path was. After all, these witnesses are not looking down at an aerial photograph of the area.

Lurker
 
CurtC said:
Yes, it's tortuous, but try to stay with me. If the plane came in from the North of the Citgo, then of course it couldn't have knocked down the light poles, so they had to be planted. But get this - the damage pattern inside the Pentagon clearly was lined up with the path that points back at the light poles, so a plane from the North of the Citgo could not have made that damage! Therefore, the most parsimonious explanation is that the jet didn't hit the Pentagon at all, therefore it must have flown over without hitting it, therefore there must have been something else that caused the big explosion. But all those witnesses thought they saw it it, so it must have been exquisitely timed so that the explosion happened at just the instant that the large airliner-sized plane pulled up and flew just over the Pentagon's wall. No one reported seeing this flyover, because the news media immediately pounced on the scene and planted false memories in the witnesses by asking "did you see the plane that hit the Pentagon?"

I'm serious, this is his explanation.
Click to expand...

Occam's razor in action. :rolleyes:

When I read Lyte's posts l almost - almost! - feel sorry for the rest of the twoof movement. They're already facing an uphill battle trying to sell their mindless crap and along come Lyte with his mega mindless crap to make it that much harder.
 
Lurker said:
by the way, I wonder how a plane travelling at high speed at low altitude would look to someone rather close. I would think that it would rush past so fast that it would be rather difficult to discern exactly where its flight path was. After all, these witnesses are not looking down at an aerial photograph of the area.
Click to expand...

I'd like also to see this 'extreme high level of independent corroboration' he talks about. When do we get to see that?
 
Lyte, you still don't get it. Anyone who saw BOTH planes at the same time could then not be 'fooled' by the second aircraft into believeing that the other one hit the Pentagon. They would already know there were two planes AND after the fireball there would only be one.

One plane 'shadowing' in your use of the word , would mean that one plane was right behind the other. That would mean that there should be dozens of witnesses who saw two screaming jets in formation headed at the Pentagon.

If one plane came in from one angle and the second from another then you should have many reports , not just 4, of that occuring. Is there some reason that the area north of the Citgo station would make planes less visible than the other direction?

You still have not answered as to how you can justify the contention of a "north of Citgo" flightpath based upon only 4 of several dozen witnesses to the event.
 
jaydeehess said:
You still have not answered as to how you can justify the contention of a "north of Citgo" flightpath based upon only 4 of several dozen witnesses to the event.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell, he claims that although witness reports can be unreliable, HIS 4 out of several dozen have 'extreme high level of independent corroboration', and that's what makes them trump all the other witnesses, who, I assume, don't have 'extreme high level of independent corroboration'.

Or something like that.
 
Good morning everyone! Here is what we have so far after many hours of "debating":
  1. Edward Paik - Did not witness flyover
  2. Robert Turcios - Did not witness flyover
  3. Sgt. Brooks - Did not witness flyover.
  4. Sgt. Lagasse - Did not witness flyover.
  5. Steve O'Brien - Did not witness flyover
  6. Keith Wheelhouse - Did not witness flyover
Well, Lyte. You're now 0 for 6. The OP specifically states "eyewitnesses to the flyover." Not speculation or conjecture based on witness testimony or our claimed flight path. So far, your flyover theory, idea, alternative, whatever has been proven completely false. So, where are the eyewitnesses of an airplane flying through the fireball and over the Pentagon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom