BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I notice he no longer wants to discuss Sucherman (no response to my post on the man) so I think he's back to three out of hundreds.
Flyover Witnesses
- Thread starter pomeroo
- Start date
I notice he no longer wants to discuss Sucherman (no response to my post on the man) so I think he's back to three out of hundreds.
CurtC
Illuminator
Three witnesses. His first witness, Edward Paik, refutes the "North of the Citgo" claim. Here's Edward's drawing, with the location of the Citgo added to it:
Further, if the plane flew over Paik like he claimed, the plane could not have physically been able to make the turn to go to the North of the gas station and then to the explosion point on the Pentagon. So to believe Lyte, you also must believe that the plane went a few blocks to the North of Edward, instead of right over him like he seemed to recall. Either that or magic fairies allowed the plane to make a high-g turn without banking.
Once again we have to go back on the merry go round.
Paik did not even have a view of the Navy Annex or the plane once it went by.
The plane also has to remain on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times:
Your Citgo is also off. Are you trying to be deceptive?
Here is the most honest representation of the flight path for edward, because he is not looking at it from a weird elevated angle with the Pentagon in the background and him trying to match up the flight path with where he remembers the impact being. You can even see the pen mark where he first marked in the area of the impact.
Oh Lyte, your infamous mismatched aerial shot of the navy annexe comes out to play yet again.
Try Google Earth and then elevate and align the navy annexe, citgo and the impact point as shown on the photo posted by CurtC. He's got the CITGO spot on in position and the line drawn by your witness places the plane to the south.
Try Google Earth and then elevate and align the navy annexe, citgo and the impact point as shown on the photo posted by CurtC. He's got the CITGO spot on in position and the line drawn by your witness places the plane to the south.
Lyte, you have numerous threads here already. You have posted the SAME PICTURES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. We've all seen them.
So, please stop spamming the forums with the same pics.
Ok, back on track.
THIS thread is about YOU providing us with witnesses to your alleged flyover. And, if I'm not mistaken you have provided us with
ZERO FLYOVER WITNESSES.
Does that about sum it up?
So, please stop spamming the forums with the same pics.
Ok, back on track.
THIS thread is about YOU providing us with witnesses to your alleged flyover. And, if I'm not mistaken you have provided us with
ZERO FLYOVER WITNESSES.
Does that about sum it up?
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Hey Lyte. Have you ever plotted the flight paths of your witnesses on a satellite image of the area? Do you realize that none of the witnesses' drawn flight paths match up?
Go ahead and plot them using the photographs of what they've drawn.
Sgt. Brooks' flight path has the plane just inside the North cloverleaf, continuing (in a straight line mind you, no banks) on between eastbound and westbound Columbia Pike. Now, based on that drawing, his depiction of the flight path, the plane would had to have made two turns somewhere between the Citgo station and the East side of Fort Myer in order to match Edward Paik's drawn flight path. NONE of your witnesses represent turns in their flight paths. How come?
Next point. Edward has drawn on two pictures. One places the flight path to the south and the other to the North. Which is correct?
Question about Robert Turcios' drawn flight path not match the impact hole? He points to the right of it. How come?
I plot them all and get different flight paths. I thought they all corroborated.
Anyone looking at your evidence and plotting them on a map would see that none of them match. Isn't that a bad thing for your "alternate" scenario for those trying to find the truth?
Go ahead and plot them using the photographs of what they've drawn.
Sgt. Brooks' flight path has the plane just inside the North cloverleaf, continuing (in a straight line mind you, no banks) on between eastbound and westbound Columbia Pike. Now, based on that drawing, his depiction of the flight path, the plane would had to have made two turns somewhere between the Citgo station and the East side of Fort Myer in order to match Edward Paik's drawn flight path. NONE of your witnesses represent turns in their flight paths. How come?
Next point. Edward has drawn on two pictures. One places the flight path to the south and the other to the North. Which is correct?
Question about Robert Turcios' drawn flight path not match the impact hole? He points to the right of it. How come?
I plot them all and get different flight paths. I thought they all corroborated.
Anyone looking at your evidence and plotting them on a map would see that none of them match. Isn't that a bad thing for your "alternate" scenario for those trying to find the truth?
Low resolution photo where he couldn't see the overhead sign? Quick lazy drawing without thinking before we took him outside to get detailed? We weren't supposed to be in the store filming and he nervously drew it quickly before his manager came over and told me I couldn't film in the store? He didn't know how accurate we wanted him to be? He was hung up which corner of the canopy we kept asking him about on the phone? He was caught off guard and didn't see EXACTLY how close the plane was to the canopy and guesstimated?
I would go with the last one though, regardless, Lagasse summed it up when he conceded that it could have been closer or further away "but it was on THIS side of the gas station.
We know their place is approximate, but it is definitely on the North side of the Citgo.
PERIOD.
Is that the Lagasse who couldn't even remember where HE had been standing until you 'reminded' him? That one?
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
Reposted from unanswered #159
How can this be true if...
Which one of your above statements is wrong?
How can this be true if...
Which one of your above statements is wrong?
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
So let me get this straight. You are accusing the government of mass murder and anyone who agrees with the official story to be obstructing justice.
In your own words you are describing the testimony of your KEY WITNESSES with words like:
"Quick lazy drawing without thinking"
"Nervously drew it quickly"
"Didn't know how accurate we wanted him to be"
"didn't see EXACTLY how close the plane was to the canopy and guesstimated"
Is this really how you feel about your witnesses testimony?
From what I gather here, you are only concerned about the approximate location of the plane being on either the North or South side of the Citgo station correct and nothing else? Regardless of someone's description of the flight path, direction the plane was heading or the fact that none of your witnesses' flight paths match. Is that correct?
Good Day Lyte,
Remember that question I asked several posts ago? It was about how your flyover aircraft avoided the fragmentation and debris in that fireball.
Now, wait a minute, this is on topic and it is related to your witnesses. You have one that has an explanation!
Do you remember one of them (can't remember which one) said that he saw something hovering over the pentagon at the time of the explosion? Well, that's your answer!
The aircraft that flew over the Pentagon used vectored thrust! That would be one of the ways that your flyover aircraft could avoid the frag pattern on the flyover and you have an independently verified witness who saw it. I'm trying to find him now.... I'm working on the weapon used, but you have to give me more time for that, it's a tough one...
Remember that question I asked several posts ago? It was about how your flyover aircraft avoided the fragmentation and debris in that fireball.
Now, wait a minute, this is on topic and it is related to your witnesses. You have one that has an explanation!
Do you remember one of them (can't remember which one) said that he saw something hovering over the pentagon at the time of the explosion? Well, that's your answer! The aircraft that flew over the Pentagon used vectored thrust! That would be one of the ways that your flyover aircraft could avoid the frag pattern on the flyover and you have an independently verified witness who saw it. I'm trying to find him now.... I'm working on the weapon used, but you have to give me more time for that, it's a tough one...
Last edited:
i just did that and guess what? it agrees totally with all you and curtc write. no deception. plane on south side of citgo...
see below. the yellow line is my approximation of curtc's presentation. the red line is just speculation on my part as to where the jet may have ended up if it crossed the building at the point indicated and passed the citgo on the north side.
face it lyte. it just doesn't gel. give up this ludicrous charade.
BV
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
The same witness that while running up an embankment states that (and he is the sole person who does) that the plane rose over the highway signs.
This is the same person who Lyte characterizes as having seen the fireball , AND THEN the plane was obscured by the fireball, AND THEN the plane hit the building.
Oh, Lyte does not put it that way exactly. Lyte says that Robert is saying that his (Robert's) view of the impact was obscured by the fireball. This of course makes no sense whatsoever since it means that Robert has no problem with a fireball which he believes to have been caused by impact of the aircraft occuring before the impact that causes the fireball.
Since Lyte cannot provide even one witness who said that the plane that headed at the Pentagon flew through a fireball and then over the Pentagon how about we move the goalposts to Lyte's advantage. Anyone who was fooled by some combination of circumstances into believing that a plane, which actually flew over the Pentagon, flew into the Pentagon surely would have believed that they saw the plane impact the upper levels of the building. It is after all rather incongrous that everyone seems to have seen or deduced that the plane hit the lower floors when in fact the plane they were watching flew over the Pentagon, an altitude that is approx 75% of the wingspan of the aircraft, or alternatively, twice the height of the aircraft tail structure.. So, Lyte, can you produce any witnesses that say they had thought the plane had hit the upper floors of the Pentagon? How about Brooks, Lagasse or Turcios since they are your 'stars' and were in fact interviewed by you.
Last edited:
You guys are the best. It's like watching a circus.
Hey guys, so when exactly were you guys going to tell Lagasse and Brooks, oh and Robert, that they are wrong?
I was just curious?
Anybody have the grapes to correct Lagasse...on camera, on the phone?
Because clearly, you all, who are behind your dells and were not there on 9/11 know better of course. For sure. Most definitely.
Hey guys, so when exactly were you guys going to tell Lagasse and Brooks, oh and Robert, that they are wrong?
I was just curious?
Anybody have the grapes to correct Lagasse...on camera, on the phone?
Because clearly, you all, who are behind your dells and were not there on 9/11 know better of course. For sure. Most definitely.
so have you run away from the other thread, that I purposely created for you to argue against the 105 witnesses?
You have been on here numerous times, but you have not posted on the new witness.
I assume you are fed up/tired etc...of the thread are you Lyte?
TAM
You have been on here numerous times, but you have not posted on the new witness.
I assume you are fed up/tired etc...of the thread are you Lyte?
TAM
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
So, just out of curiosity, did you tell them they were wrong about the plane hitting the Pentagon?
Since you were behind your Dell, and not there on 9/11, either.
roger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
- Messages
- 11,466
I'm really, really confused as to why I didn't see the flyover, insomuch as
1) I was on the 6th floor balcony of my office building when it happened.
2) This balcony faces the pentagon and reagen national airport.
3) As I sit here I'm watching a plane take off from national airport.
4) While I cannot see the pentagon from here, as it is obscured by trees, I could see the results (smoke)
5) During that day, we watched aircraft be escorted into national by military jets.
6) Any flight path that could have resulted in the plane being totally hidden from view from me the entire time from its movement from the pentagon to DCA or IAD would result in such a low flight path that thousands of people in dozens of neighborhoods would have seen and reported it.
I'm also really, really confused by the statements of my coworkers, who were in the Pentagon at the time of impact, walked out past the airplane debris, and walked here to our offices here. How did they see plane debris when no plane was there.
Not to mention the dozens of other tall office buildings and apartment buildings in the area that provide views of DCA and the Pentagon. It's just so confusing to understand how we watched all the other flight traffic in the area, but somehow missed the flyover. But there must be some explanation. Think, roger, think!!!!
1) I was on the 6th floor balcony of my office building when it happened.
2) This balcony faces the pentagon and reagen national airport.
3) As I sit here I'm watching a plane take off from national airport.
4) While I cannot see the pentagon from here, as it is obscured by trees, I could see the results (smoke)
5) During that day, we watched aircraft be escorted into national by military jets.
6) Any flight path that could have resulted in the plane being totally hidden from view from me the entire time from its movement from the pentagon to DCA or IAD would result in such a low flight path that thousands of people in dozens of neighborhoods would have seen and reported it.
I'm also really, really confused by the statements of my coworkers, who were in the Pentagon at the time of impact, walked out past the airplane debris, and walked here to our offices here. How did they see plane debris when no plane was there.
Not to mention the dozens of other tall office buildings and apartment buildings in the area that provide views of DCA and the Pentagon. It's just so confusing to understand how we watched all the other flight traffic in the area, but somehow missed the flyover. But there must be some explanation. Think, roger, think!!!!
CurtC
Illuminator
Just to close the loop, if the plane had gone from Paik, to the North of the Citgo, then it could not have made the turn to the right and to the impact point of the Pentagon, unless it was flying very slowly and making a drastic bank.
I certainly would, if I were in DC. But sorry, the gain in making a point to two or three crazy guys on the Internet isn't worth the trip.
I'd show them a picture of the damage that day, of how it lines up with the downed poles at the intersection, and about how all that and the damaged taxi are to the South of the station, then I'd ask them whether they might have been wrong in their recollection last fall.