Flyover Witnesses

nicepants said:
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
Click to expand...

That's the other part of the puzzle you guys are missing.

Have any of you obviously incredibly intelligent people bothered to map out his interaction with the plane i.e. where he was at when he first saw it, where the plane was at when he first saw it, what it did, where it went?

That's very key to this story.

The purpose of these second plane accounts are to have a "second" plane/jet veering away from/being in the sky/above the building at the time of "impact" or the explosion/fireball. That is why the wording is key and the amibiguity is even more important. It's basically about acknowledging a plane flying away being over the Pentagon at the time of the explosion, bringing it closer to the plane when hits.

The fact is the C-130 got passed when the craft crossed in front of him, descending to his altitude and even lower as it went by the right side of the C-130 as it went westbound. We found out he had 3 radio calls before he even turned around. When he did turn around in an *attempt* to follow it he had hard time keeping in sight (it was coming out of that spiral), when he did see the explosion he was so far away and high up, that he did not know where or what it had impacted. He arrived over the scene about 60 seconds after the explosion. No one saw him following or chasing the plane, because it did not happen. None of our witnesses saw the C-130. Robert Turcios said he stood out on the mound for about 10 minutes until they cleared everyone away. He didn't even see the C-130. It didn't make a big grand entrance. It came in at a high altitude, flew over the Pentagon and flew by/through the MINUTE OLD smoke plume and flew over the Potomac, climbing rapidly over the Tidal Basin. The C-130 crew are innocent pawns, they were not part of the operation.

I can tell you that spiral turn ain't where it should be and if you guys had done your homework you would know that too.
 
Last edited:
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. Why he trusts the damage pattern inside the Pentagon that disproves a plane strike from the wrong direction, yet dismisses all the other evidence from within the Pentagon, such as identified plane parts, DNA of its passengers, and the flight data recorder, I don't think I'll ever know.
Click to expand...


:faint:
 
boloboffin said:
What's more, Lyte thinks the physical evidence not lining up with the actual flight path was part of the plan. I can't remember whether he copped to this here or at DU, but he said this in response to my specific questions about it. I was mock-lamenting the fact that the "ground crew" had done all that work faking a specific flight path and then the plane missed it by a good 15 or 20 degrees. This was of no concern to him, however. Somehow, he's got it worked out that the incongruence was intentional.
Click to expand...


:faint: :faint:
 
So, it's settled, then? The absurd flyover theory is completely irrational.

Time to get a beer.
 
I'm really starting to hate memory reconstruction. If it wasn't for perfection bias, Craig and Aldo would vanish into obscurity.
 
Nobody's getting it yet?

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.
 
Good Evening Lyte,

Since you can't produce any witnesses I guess that part is done.:covereyes
I'm arriving late so pardon me if I ask a related question about your flyover theory. I'm sure you've seen the fireball from the explosion at the Pentagon, right? Do you realize there is more than fire in that fireball? It's known as fragments from any type of explosive known to man and there would also be fragments from building parts and pieces flying pretty high up into the air. How did your magical flyover aircraft avoid all of that fragmentation and debris and still fool the eyewitnesses that say an aircraft flew into the building?

Related to that, what kind of weapon produced the tunnel in the building in line with the Official flight path fired or dropped from the angle of your theory. How is it possible that an aircraft approaching from North of the Citgo fired a rocket or dropped a ballistic weapon causing the obvious angle of damage to the building? Do you have a magical rocket or a ballistic weapon that will do that kind of aerobatics? Psssst - there isn't one

Thanks in Advance for your answer
 
Last edited:
Lyte Trip said:
when he did see the explosion he was so far away and high up, that he did not know where or what it had impacted.
Click to expand...

Source for this please.

Lyte Trip said:
He arrived over the scene about 60 seconds after the explosion. No one saw him following or chasing the plane, because it did not happen. None of our witnesses saw the C-130.
Click to expand...

Then what is this?

Lyte Trip said:
I've spoken with Keith Wheelhouse over the phone 3 times.

He confirms his account of a "2nd plane" "shadowing" the jet and veering away over the Pentagon just after the explosion. He identifies it as a C-130.
Click to expand...
 
Lyte Trip said:
Nobody's getting it yet?

It's ok, take some time. Let it sink in. Remember, we spoke with Kieth Wheelhouse. We interviewed him.
Click to expand...

so what? does he specifically state that the plane flew over.

we only want this statement from any of your witnesses

"I saw the plane flyover the pentagon"

anything else, is irrelevant


in the 100+ posts thus far, you have provided none.



remember you started this game. we are simply using your tactics against you.
 
Lyte Trip said:
He is not one of our witnesses. He is a liar.
Click to expand...


watch it Lyte, you do know what libel is? dont libel people on this forum lyte; you do not have proof that he has lied. so quit it


now provide witnesses that have seen the plane flyover the pentagon
 
nicepants said:
So I guess this claim:



Is no longer valid since he was lying.
Click to expand...


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.
 
nicepants, yes, if lyte calls him a liar, then he must ignore everything he stated. even any vague references to a "flyover".


doncha just love when Lyte shoots himself in the foot?


ETA:

NO lyte, YOU called him a liar, that means you musT EXCLUDE EVERYTHING he has stated about what he saw that day. INCLUDING anything about a flyover. so, NO he is not a witness to the flyover. and He is not a witness to seeing any second plane


ITS all or nothing lyte. You can't pick and choose a witness statements just because it fits your delusions. YOu were told this with your original 4 witnesses (where you cherry picked the statements they made that fit your delusions)


ALL or nothing.
YOU call a witness a liar, then you hae to consider their ENTIRE statement a lie.
 
Last edited:
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.

That is his job.
Click to expand...

His job? Want to back that up?

I laughed for a long time at your post Lyte. How you got so insane is beyond me.

"He's right about this, and wrong about this! BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!"
 
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...

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:
1418946a6d88b3b754.jpg
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
Good Evening Lyte,

Since you can't produce any witnesses I guess that part is done.:covereyes
I'm arriving late so pardon me if I ask a related question about your flyover theory. I'm sure you've seen the fireball from the explosion at the Pentagon, right? Do you realize there is more than fire in that fireball? It's known as fragments from any type of explosive known to man and there would also be fragments from building parts and pieces flying pretty high up into the air. How did your magical flyover aircraft avoid all of that fragmentation and debris and still fool the eyewitnesses that say an aircraft flew into the building?

Related to that, what kind of weapon produced the tunnel in the building in line with the Official flight path fired or dropped from the angle of your theory. How is it possible that an aircraft approaching from North of the Citgo fired a rocket or dropped a ballistic weapon causing the obvious angle of damage to the building? Do you have a magical rocket or a ballistic weapon that will do that kind of aerobatics? Psssst - there isn't one

Thanks in Advance for your answer
Click to expand...

I second this question. Such a maneuver, flying a large plane at high speed through an explosion, would be an extremely audacious (that means "ballsy" for you younger readers) thing to do.

How'd they pull it off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom