Flyover Witnesses

[Lyte Trip]

So you're using a fabricated account to support your flyover theory. Now I get it.

Yes.

The fact that accounts were fabricated to cover up the flyover supports the flyover alternative.

Glad you finally understand.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Oh really?

Look at this image of the hole left after the impact.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pent-foam-small.jpg

Explain why the columns in the image are bent towards the point where witnesses and engineers say the 757 hit the building. They are also bent a little inward, too. Wouldn't explosives on the inside of the building bend them in the opposite direction and outward? Obviously, more than pyrotechnics was involved in doing that damage and the damage they found through the building. What's your theory, genius?

"Powder monkeys" can do just about anything.

Especially when they have unlimited, time, resources, and access due to a multiple year long "renovation".

But you CAN see that columns were blown outwards where the alleged tilted up right engine would have entered.

 

[Lyte Trip]

One thing I just thought of for the 3 Citgo witnesses, did they actually see the plane or only hear it and are using the word "saw" in their reports?

Perhaps you should watch the testimony before commenting on it.

Edit: Also, if there is this massive cover-up of this flyover happening? Why are 2 of your star witnesses Police Officers?? Wouldn't they be in on it themselves? Having two of the people who would be part of the ones managing the cover-up saying stuff like this is a big strike against a cover-up in my eyes.

So now YOU'RE the conspiracy theorist.

We have never suggested that everyone was "in on it".

The fact that these officers were willing to talk to us and did not know the implications of what they told us.....AND.....the fact that their accounts are independently corroborated by 2 previously unpublished civilians who we found on our own via our independent investigation by canvassing the area shows that their placement of the plane is honest and accurate.

 

[lapman]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/074-large.jpg[/qimg]

Yeah, the big fuel-air explosion would never have done that to columns that were cut by the engine and wings.

 

[lapman]

The fact that accounts were fabricated to cover up the flyover supports the flyover alternative.

Deja Vu. So, your proof of the cover up is where?

 

[Par]

So, at this stage, how many witnesses have been listed who report a plane heading towards the Pentagon and pulling up at the last minute?

 

[Par]

Yes.

The fact that accounts were fabricated to cover up the flyover supports the flyover alternative.

Glad you finally understand.

Both the begging the question and false dichotomy fallacies.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Yeah, the big fuel-air explosion would never have done that to columns that were cut by the engine and wings.

Where is there room for the engine OR the wing to enter the building?

Nowhere.


This image from the ASCE report illustrates the alleged wing tilt:

Yet, no engine was found, and there is no place for the engine or wing to enter and there is no continuity to the alleged wing damage:

They want us to believe that the wing and engine simply disintegrated without causing consistent damage to the facade.

Oh and look at the LEFT engine and how the reported wing tilt has it literally burrowing into the ground!

Yet not only is the lawn untouched but the foundation to the inside of the building remained undamaged as well.

In physical reality concrete is not impervious to plane crashes:

 

[uk_dave]

Either the official story is correct or the truth movement is correct in that it was an inside job.

For the sake of discussion if you can step outside of your bias for 2 seconds and hypothetically consider it was an inside job you will understand how all video data would have been vetted and/or manipulated.

But can you do the same thing?

You have a preconception about 911. I'm not going to make claims that you're doing this for fame or glory, I'm willing to accept that you really believe you are right.

But you also believe the contrails we see everyday are these mythical 'chemtrails' set to... do.... something to us.

You also believe that speeches made describing the opportunity for a new world order after the collapse of the soviet union are referring to an actual global government initiative, rather than a just a phrase describing the changes (for the better) which could be instigated now that there are no longer two heavily armed superpowers playing global power games and threatening the world with destruction.

Your world view is warped by these beliefs. It's not hard to see how you would believe in a 911 conspiracy.

But you also seem to expect people to trust you without question. And yet you've done nothing to earn that trust here.

You started off with a strange little paranoid dance over at LCF claiming that your telephones were tapped and that you feared for your safety.

You then came and danced for us with your promises of evidence which would shatter our worlds. You kept that little jig up for weeks. It did nothing to give you credibility.

When you finally presented your film the world outside of the 'truther' community was unimpressed. You presented 4 witnesses who all believed the plane had struck the pentagon but you focused on their ability (or lack) to be able to judge the height, speed, direction and attitude of a plane which they had only seconds to see and assimilate. You presented witnesses who cannot be relied upon to be 100% accurate about their recollections, even to the point where one witness couldn't get his position at the CITGO correct without your help.

Now, look at it from our point of view (which is the major flaw in the way you have approached this whole thing: You never seem to be prepared for people not seeing what you see, not trusting your word and not believing what you believe). This isn't a game. This isn't winners and losers and who gets 'pwned'. This is real life. And in real life, just because your mates and your family believe you and just because you find it convincing it is very naive of you to think others will.

You haven't done it, Lyte. As has been said on countless times before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There is so much you cannot convincingly explain to make your theory work you really are never going to convince people unless they want to believe as you do.

You propose an illogical, massive, risky, difficult sleight of hand by a government you believe is poisoning the air with 'chemtrails' and is working towards a gobal government (dictatorship?) and you want people who do not share your belief in those things to somehow believe you on the basis of your personal incredulity, your lack of expertise as a researcher or a journalist, your inability to provide the unedited raw footage which you used for your video and your seemingly unconcerned attitude about the months which have now passed and still you have no mainstream media interest, no criminal investigations and no legal action underway.

You just continue to post on internet forums and, no doubt, you're editing together a Pentacon v2.0.

OK I am going to say it because I believe it is relevant to your motivation:

I think you (and others like you) saw the fame and opportunities which Avery obtained and you decided you could have a slice of that pie too. You went from being a follower in the 'truth' movement to being a 'leader' on the basis of an idea you got about the flightpath of the pentagon plane crash. You believe you have your smoking gun and this is your chance to be bigger and better than Avery, because you think you've found something no one else has seen.

But try to step away from it and think rationally. Falsify it. Could your witnesses be wrong? Could they be mistaken about the path they think the plane flew along, given that it was travelling very fast and we're not used to seeing up close aircraft of that size flying so low. How can we be absolutely sure that a plane with the wingspan of that jet flying a steep descent can be accurately described by an untrained witness on the ground?

You MUST have some doubts about your claims. Seriously, your evidence is not strong enough for 100% certainty.

 

[Diazo]

One thing I just thought of for the 3 Citgo witnesses, did they actually see the plane or only hear it and are using the word "saw" in their reports?

Perhaps you should watch the testimony before commenting on it.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Why are the Citgo witnesses right and all the others wrong? Isn't it possible that Citgo witnesses are wrong and the others right?

Edit: Also, if there is this massive cover-up of this flyover happening? Why are 2 of your star witnesses Police Officers?? Wouldn't they be in on it themselves? Having two of the people who would be part of the ones managing the cover-up saying stuff like this is a big strike against a cover-up in my eyes.

So now YOU'RE the conspiracy theorist.

We have never suggested that everyone was "in on it".

The fact that these officers were willing to talk to us and did not know the implications of what they told us.....AND.....the fact that their accounts are independently corroborated by 2 previously unpublished civilians who we found on our own via our independent investigation by canvassing the area shows that their placement of the plane is honest and accurate.

Err, okay. Accepting the fact that the police assigned to the areas near the pentagon aren't in on the cover-up (which makes the cover-up MUCH harder as it is these police who the general public will call to investigate suspicious incidents) why do these witnesses not report the people scattering the fake plane parts on the lawn? Remember these officiers are RIGHT THERE, there is no delay where the cover-up has a few minutes to scatter the debris. Also as police officers, they would immediately head over there since this type of incident would be something they are to deal with as part of their job, again denying the cover-up any time to scatter said debris.

Neither scenario works. If they are part of the cover up, the testimony from them would be completely different. If they are not part of the cover-up, where in their reports do they see a who bunch of people on the lawn of the pentagon scattering debris?

The only way the testimony makes sense is if there IS NO COVER-UP, and they are remember things a bit differently due to human nature and the fact that our memories are not perfect.

 

[BeAChooser]

"Powder monkeys" can do just about anything.

Even make concrete objects move towards the source of an explosion? You are nothing if not entertaining, LT.

ROTFLOL!

Especially when they have unlimited, time, resources, and access due to a multiple year long "renovation".

So now you are accusing all those who worked on the renovation as being part of the conspiracy? I see.

But you CAN see that columns were blown outwards where the alleged tilted up right engine would have entered.

I guess you failed to notice but those columns (or more accurately, what remains of them) are hanging from the ceiling and the lower end of each hanging portion is to the LEFT of where the column is attached to the ceiling. Thus, the columns in that image are clearly bent to the left, towards your claimed explosive source. An impossibility.

 

[nicepants]

Yes.

The fact that accounts were fabricated to cover up the flyover supports the flyover alternative.

Glad you finally understand.

So what you're saying is, since no one reported a flyover, this is evidence that the flyover was covered up. This is nonsense.

No one reported seeing the pillsbury dough boy either...is that evidence that it was covered up?

Having something go unreported is not, in itself, evidence of any cover up. For this to support a cover up theory, you would first have to prove that there WAS a flyover, then subsequently work on proving that these people intentionally covered it up.

Also: If his account was fabricated, you cannot use it to support your theory.....because it was fabricated

 

[peteweaver]

Lyte, were you there ?

NO.

Could your claims be false ?

YES.

 

[Lyte Trip]

That's the point I'm trying to make. Why are the Citgo witnesses right and all the others wrong? Isn't it possible that Citgo witnesses are wrong and the others right?

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.

Err, okay. Accepting the fact that the police assigned to the areas near the pentagon aren't in on the cover-up (which makes the cover-up MUCH harder as it is these police who the general public will call to investigate suspicious incidents) why do these witnesses not report the people scattering the fake plane parts on the lawn? Remember these officiers are RIGHT THERE, there is no delay where the cover-up has a few minutes to scatter the debris. Also as police officers, they would immediately head over there since this type of incident would be something they are to deal with as part of their job, again denying the cover-up any time to scatter said debris.

What are you talking about?

Where have we ever asserted such a thing?

We assert that most of the small unrecognizable debris was blown out of the obliterated construction trailers that were in front of the generator trailer.

There were barely any significant sized pieces outside (limited to image below) and there are a multitude of ways they could have been inconspicuously planted in such a highly secure and controlled area like this. Perhaps even 10 minutes or so BEFORE the event when nobody was paying attention.

 

[lapman]

Where is there room for the engine OR the wing to enter the building?

I'd say the cut columns are the first clue.

Nowhere.


This image from the ASCE report illustrates the alleged wing tilt:

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/138b.jpg[/qimg]

Yet, no engine was found, and there is no place for the engine or wing to enter and there is no continuity to the alleged wing damage:

You mean like this engine?

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/145a.jpg[/qimg]


They want us to believe that the wing and engine simply disintegrated without causing consistent damage to the facade.

Like? Remember, this is reinforced concrete that was designed to withstand a bomb blast, not light steel. So don't show the towers for comparison.

Oh and look at the LEFT engine and how the reported wing tilt has it literally burrowing into the ground!

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/138b.jpg[/qimg]

Yet not only is the lawn untouched but the foundation to the inside of the building remained undamaged as well.

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/withoutdebris.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/foundation2.jpg[/qimg]

What were you expecting to see from an aircraft that went in near straight and level? So you're taking that interpretation of the data as absolutely the exact position of the aircraft? Is there an over view pic that shows there was no damage? That pic is after the cleanup. How do you know that there weren't any repairs done to the foundation prior to that pic?

In physical reality concrete is not impervious to plane crashes:

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/sacramento_dc8_feb1602_2.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/sacramento_dc8_feb1602_1.jpg[/qimg]

Would help if you did a apples to apples comparison. That aircraft didn't hit a reinforced concrete wall.

 

[sts60]

I know there were a lot of witnesses who saw an airliner fly into the Pentagon, and a lot of whom saw it fly low and towards the Pentagon, but lost sight of it before they could see the final moments. I know some people reported a second airplane in the area.

But I just had one question:

How many witnesses reported an airliner fly low to the ground, at the Pentagon, then pull up at the last minute and fly over it? How many, exactly?

 

[nicepants]

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.

I was under the impression that the impact itself contradicted the "north side of citgo" witnesses.

 

[uk_dave]

But I just had one question:

How many witnesses reported an airliner fly low to the ground, at the Pentagon, then pull up at the last minute and fly over it? How many, exactly?

In round figures?

At the last count it was 0.

And we counted it twice just to be certain.

 

[Lyte Trip]

So what you're saying is, since no one reported a flyover, this is evidence that the flyover was covered up. This is nonsense.

No one reported seeing the pillsbury dough boy either...is that evidence that it was covered up?

Having something go unreported is not, in itself, evidence of any cover up. For this to support a cover up theory, you would first have to prove that there WAS a flyover, then subsequently work on proving that these people intentionally covered it up.

Also: If his account was fabricated, you cannot use it to support your theory.....because it was fabricated

You are being disingenuous.

If you fail to see how planted witnesses/fabricated accounts support our theory then you will understand very little when discussing this information.

Plus YOU DO NOT KNOW what people reported and neither will ANYONE know because the 911 calls were quickly confiscated and permanently sequestered.

This fact ALONE has serious implications.

So no matter how much you people keep insisting that the finite number of often inaccurately reported, always incomplete, and sometimes completely fabricated media published accounts that exist represent the entire witness pool; CIT has proven that this is patently untrue.

 

[Lyte Trip]

In round figures?

At the last count it was 0.

And we counted it twice just to be certain.

YOU DO NOT KNOW what people reported and neither will ANYONE know because the 911 calls were quickly confiscated and permanently sequestered.

This fact ALONE has serious implications.

So no matter how much you people keep insisting that the finite number of often inaccurately reported, always incomplete, and sometimes completely fabricated media published accounts that exist represent the entire witness pool; CIT has proven that this is patently untrue.