CZ - it's pretty hard to ignore the flyover claims since this whole exercise of Mr. Trip is designed to support his primo ludicrous theory, and this is bound to relate to it. Asking to keep to a specific topic in a thread like this is pretty stringent, IMHO; not dissimilar to limiting a thread on the Anzio invasion, by saying, "And no discussions of the Eastern and Western fronts, 'kay?"
Hmm. I've considered resurrecting the "Pentagon Flyover Illusion" thread I started a few months ago, for those who want to continue on that topic. The problem is, about halfway through that thread, Lyte stopped responding to posts on the illusion theory, after which I stopped the "informal moderating" I'd been doing on the thread (politely urging people to stay on topic). The discussion shifted, ironically, to the topic of the quality of the eyewitness reports and Gravy's witness list, and it was in cat-picture mode when it ended.
As for my previous post in this thread, I apologize to the forum for helping to derail the topic of this thread. There was a valid point in my sarcasm, but it was not on topic so I won't follow it up here.
Instead, let me refocus my point on the topic of witness reports. Lyte, I think it's fair to say that your conclusons about witness statements fall into the following categories:
1. The witness statement is accurate.
2. The witness statement is inaccurate because the witness was mistaken or lying about what they saw.
3. The witness statement is inaccurate because the witness, while accurately reporting what they saw, had been deliberately fooled so that what they saw did not reflect reality.
You acknowlege, at least in theory, the second possibility for "your" (north side) witnesses as well as for "Gravy's" (plane hit the building) witnesses, which is why for instance you try to emphasize the reliability of your preferred witnesses (pointing out that some are police officers, for instance) and try to cast doubt upon the reliability of other witnesses (pointing out that some are political conservatives, for instance).
Yet you addresss the third possibility only for the witnesses who report the plane hitting the building.
Why is it not at least equally likely that the witnesses who reported the plane north of the Citgo were deliberately fooled?
No, I can't plausibly explain exactly how witnesses would be fooled into thinking the plane flew north of the Citgo, nor for what purpose. But neither can you for your corresponding flyover scenario. In the flyover illusion thread we had physicists and professional magicians, among others, trying to do so. However, I will point out that fooling a few witnesses in a particular range of positions (as the witnesses you've presented so far were) about a particular detail (the flight path of the plane prior to impact)
would be a lot easier and more likely to succeed than fooling witnesses on all sides of the Pentagon about the most important feature of the event (whether the plane impacted of flew over).
In fact, to the extent that you do attempt to explain how the witnesses to a crash were fooled, such as by hypothesizing deceptive maneuvers by other planes in the vicinity, those explanations work as well or better for explaining how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking the plane flew north of the Citgo. Perhaps what they saw was merely a second plane that flew north of the Citgo (perhaps a smaller aircraft that would mimick the appearance and sound of a jetliner
only from your witness's positions and be unnoticed by anyone else) just before the (real) crash.
Respectfully,
Myriad
