[Moderated]Gravy's witness "summary" does not reflect reality.

[WilliamSeger]

Lyte, I posted this a couple weeks ago, but I want to make sure you've seen it. When I was visiting my parents in Alexandria a couple of weeks ago, I met one of their neighbors who was on his way out of D.C. when he saw the plane hit. He was on 395 where it bends around the Pentagon south parking lot. (He is not on that list of published accounts, btw, and at 9:34 AM in that area, it's quite certain there are many more witnesses who are not.) From his description, I snapped this picture from that approximate location:

This is the south corner of the building; the plane hit the wall around the left corner, so he didn't see the actual impact. But he says he did see the plane for about a second as it dove toward the building (he would have been about perpendicular to the flight path), and then he saw the fireball over the roof. Look at that picture again: He couldn't see the impact from there, but he was in a nearly perfect position to see what you claim happened. So were a lot of other people, and even if they didn't see the plane, most of them would have certainly looked that way when the fireball went up. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that they would have been so confused by the "illusion" of the plane flying into the fireball that they wouldn't have seen a 757 (!) flying over that roof and then flying away to the east! (As I have said before, if that had happened, people from the sides would have certainly thought that a low-flying plane had dropped a bomb, yet there are exactly zero reports of that.) When I told this guy that people like you believe that's what happened (he apparently hadn't heard that before), he looked astonished and then just said, "They're full of $#!%!" I tend to agree, but I thought I'd give you a chance to defend yourself: How were people who had this vantage point fooled by the "illusion?"

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Guys,I think we should just let thist hread drop until Gravy is willing to tell Lyte where he got the statements so he can do his own research. In other words, follow cz's advise.

 

[Arus808]

So, the majority of eye witnesses STILL report a plane hitting the Pentagon.

What's your point, LYTE?

that they dont specifically state that it "did not go north of citgo"

Unless those 105 other witnesses state exactly "it flew {whatever direction} of Citgo" he and his crap researching will ignore it.


He's been doing this on the myspace forums. When people tell him that not every witness will use CITGO as a point of reference, he ignores you.


its a GAME to him. Both him and merc. they are not interested in the truth; they are only interested in seeing how they can twist the claims made by victims and witnesses to fit their ideology.

 

[Lyte Trip]

So what you are looking for are the words "I saw the plane hit the building" or "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon", and if these exact words are not there, then what?

TAM

Then that particular witness account is not able to be counted as one of the 105 that allegedly "saw the plane hit the Pentagon".

 

[Arus808]

Then that particular witness account is not able to be counted as one of the 105 that allegedly "saw the plane hit the Pentagon".

translation : unless that they specifically reference CITGO, I [Craig] will ignore their claims


translation: despite my own 4 witnesses stating they saw the plane hit the pentagon, i will continue ignoring that part of their claim and concentrate on their alleged claim that the plane flew north of citgo

 

[Lyte Trip]

Steve Anderson:


TAM

Although Steve is a USA Today employee who reports the wing dragging into the ground which we all know for a fact did not happen due to the lack of damage to the lawn and the security video; he does claim he saw the plane hit so that effectively counts as one.

A very dubious one but nonetheless Steve Anderson is witness number one because he claims the plane hit and we have verified that he was not at the old USA Today building in Rosslyn but was in Pentagon City so he may have had a view of the alleged impact (although with very little detail).

 

[pomeroo]

Then that particular witness account is not able to be counted as one of the 105 that allegedly "saw the plane hit the Pentagon".

To cross all the t's and dot all the i's, you contend that a person who watched the plane hurtle toward the Pentagon, missed the moment of impact (he or she was standing where the crash was obscured by the building), but saw the fireball, did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.

Strictly speaking, we will all agree that this person did not "see" the plane hit. The inference, however, that the plane crashed into the building, producing the observed fireball, would have a probability of, oh, 99.999...% of being accurate.

Your position has been stated fairly, right?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Mike Walter:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses/usatoday.wav

TAM

Mike Walter could not have seen the impact due to the trees that blocked his view.

He has personally confirmed his location with us and Russell Pickering and he admitted on national TV with Bryant Gumble on 9/12/2001 that the trees blocked his view so he does not count.

He has changed his story since 9/11.

He has admitted on national television that he could NOT see details of the alleged impact due to trees that were blocking his view.

We had dinner at Mike Walter's house. We spent about 3 or 4 hours there chatting and drinking beer with him, his wife, and his friend.

Here are some key contradictions in his story:

1. He contradicts the official flight path. He claims he saw the plane do a "graceful bank" before gaining speed and flying into the building.

There would be no "bank" in the official flight path whatsoever that he could possibly see on route 27.

But there most certainly IS a bank in the eyewitness flight path that we report!

(this is an old and preliminary eyewitness flight path estimate but close enough to get the point of the bank.)

2. He ADMITTED on an interview with Bryant Gumbel on national television that trees blocked his view of the impact!

September 12th 6AM eastern on CBS:

Mr. WALTER:"...and I could see over in the distance the American Airlines jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon"
(this is completely irreconcilable with the official story.)
...
"GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball..."
(Why was he less sure about details of the impact on the day after 9/11 when he was telling his story to the world?)
...
"GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away."

Here was his view:

He could not have seen the impact in the detail that he describes in this new video (that was released THIS YEAR) if at all.

Why is he so much more descriptive about the impact now compared to how he was on 9/12/2001?


He told us a very interesting story about how the FBI interrogated him but was most curious about his claim of the plane making a "graceful bank" and specifically asked him about his use of the word "graceful".

I bet they did since this contradicts the official story!

He was very detailed in his description of this graceful bank to us.

Bottom line he does not count as an impact witness because he could not see and admittedly did not.

You still only have one.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Although Steve is a USA Today employee who reports the wing dragging into the ground which we all know for a fact did not happen due to the lack of damage to the lawn and the security video; he does claim he saw the plane hit so that effectively counts as one.

A very dubious one but nonetheless Steve Anderson is witness number one because he claims the plane hit and we have verified that he was not at the old USA Today building in Rosslyn but was in Pentagon City so he may have had a view of the alleged impact (although with very little detail).

Bolding Mine

#1

It's gonna be a long thread if we're going to prove how high you can count, I reckon!

And, by the way, they promised me there'd be no math!

 

[Lyte Trip]

No, you are missing the point of our dismissal. You're the one who says that Gravy's compilation is false/inaccurate. Now you go prove it.

You accept his claim out of hand.

I require evidence.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Gary Bauer:

Although his account is unconfirmed and he rather conveniently and suspiciously just so happens to be a member of the neocon think tank PNAC and an actual signer of their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document that called for a "New Pearl Harbor" he counts as a VERY dubious number 2.

 

[Lyte Trip]

So lets say there are 70 of the 105 who actually state that they saw the jet airliner HIT THE PENTAGON. Those 70 kind of put your "Fly-Over" theory to rest...you can SPECULATE all you want on how they might have been fooled, and then the plane "flew over", but it is pure speculation. The witnesses say they saw the PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON.

TAM

Wrong.

Even though you simply made up that number....

1. It shows that Gravy's claim is woefully inaccurate.

2. It demonstrates a very finite number of questionable witnesses a portion of which were no doubt embellishing their account and many of others that were easily fooled by the sleight of hand illusion.

Continue with you efforts and we will come to a more accurate number.

 

[Lyte Trip]

James Cissel:

From Interview with Cincinatti Post:

You quoted the reporter not Cissel.

That would be hearsay.

Particularly since James Cissell has publicly stated that the reporter lied by suggesting he claimed he saw people in the windows of the plane.

We contacted Kimball Perry the reporter and he claims he doesn't remember the interview at all so he can not confirm or deny any of the details.

Cissell does not count as an impact witness.

 

[leftysergeant]

The total lack of witnesses who saw a plane come in for impact, then pour on the power and climb more sharply than any 757 possibly could kind of blows your twoofer woo out of the water, Lyte.

I don't know how much time you have spent around aircraft, but I spent about three and a half years on the crash crew, much of that time sitting in a truck a hundred feet from the runway. There is no mistaking the sound of jet engines at full throttle. In real life, some of them heard engines at full throttle, followed by a God-awful explosion.

In Twoofer World, they would have heard an explosion and jet engines really roaring for at least twenty seconds.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Terrance Kean:

Number 3.

 

[Pardalis]

Is it me or is Gary Bauer a dead ringer for William H. Macy

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, I posted this a couple weeks ago, but I want to make sure you've seen it. When I was visiting my parents in Alexandria a couple of weeks ago, I met one of their neighbors who was on his way out of D.C. when he saw the plane hit. He was on 395 where it bends around the Pentagon south parking lot. (He is not on that list of published accounts, btw, and at 9:34 AM in that area, it's quite certain there are many more witnesses who are not.) From his description, I snapped this picture from that approximate location:

http://opendb.com/images/dscn0197.jpg


This is the south corner of the building; the plane hit the wall around the left corner, so he didn't see the actual impact. But he says he did see the plane for about a second as it dove toward the building (he would have been about perpendicular to the flight path), and then he saw the fireball over the roof. Look at that picture again: He couldn't see the impact from there, but he was in a nearly perfect position to see what you claim happened. So were a lot of other people, and even if they didn't see the plane, most of them would have certainly looked that way when the fireball went up. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that they would have been so confused by the "illusion" of the plane flying into the fireball that they wouldn't have seen a 757 (!) flying over that roof and then flying away to the east! (As I have said before, if that had happened, people from the sides would have certainly thought that a low-flying plane had dropped a bomb, yet there are exactly zero reports of that.) When I told this guy that people like you believe that's what happened (he apparently hadn't heard that before), he looked astonished and then just said, "They're full of $#!%!" I tend to agree, but I thought I'd give you a chance to defend yourself: How were people who had this vantage point fooled by the "illusion?"

That's a great image Bill.

It actually kind of looks like it it's really good CGI!

Anyway someone with that view would have to be looking behind them to view anything and if there was an incredible explosion that's what they would be looking at.

If they saw a plane fly away they wouldn't be that alarmed since it happens all day long right there due to the fact that it's next door to Reagan National Airport.

Your witness friend didn't see the alleged impact so he does not count.

The fact that he didn't see a plane fly over means nothing because there WAS a 2nd plane reported that flew over the building so why didn't he report that?

 

[leftysergeant]

Everyone inside the building would have heard it fly over, after it was seen flying that low. There is absolutely zero evidence reported by anyone, from any location, of a low-altitude fly-over. There were people outside the building who saw the fireball and did not hear anything else but the explosion. You would have to be MILES away from it not to have heard it.

Now, a bit about human psychology. People look at things that make noise. The aircraft was making noise when it came in. Their eyes would have been tracking it. They would have seen it pulling up. It would have taken at least half a second for their eyes to stop tracking it to pay attention to the fireball.

I know that twoofers have a hard time understanding how rational humans think, but you really should try it sometime.

 

[boloboffin]

[qimg]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/395ActualPOV.jpg[/qimg]

Here is an overhead shot to illustrate the parts of 395 that would allow you to see the plane/pentagon/flyover.

Green=visible
Red=not visible

That is utter crap, Craig.

One car on 395 was right here when they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

A passenger then scrambled for a video camera and began to shoot this footage.

http://www.tribby.net/pentagon/pentagon.mov

As that footage shows, plenty of people in the "red zone" on your picture could have seen a flyover if it had happened. What's more, seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon as a explosion was occurring would have made most people think that the plane had actually bombed the Pentagon.

How many accounts from people on 395 do we have of a plane bombing the Pentagon and flying over it? Zero.

Give it up. It can all be over.

 

[chillzero]

This thread has seen several reports and actions. I already advised that it should remain on the topic of the validity of reports used as evidence. Should there be any further bickering, or personal attacks, or derailing discussion of the flyover theory, then this thread will be moderated.

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