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

[AZCat]

Remember folks, the plane came in on the North side of the Citgo. There is no question about it.

You heard the witnesses who were there.

Just because you say "there is no question about it" that does not make it true.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes there IS question about the plane coming in from the North side of Citgo.

ALL EVIDENCCE except 3 people proves your eyewitness testimony incorrect. So not only is there question, it's pretty much not even possible. The North side theory has been clearly ruled out.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Remember folks, the plane came in on the North side of the Citgo. There is no question about it.

You heard the witnesses who were there.

The knocked over lamp posts are all on the south side of the Citgo.

Owned yet again.

 

[T.A.M.]

Remember folks, the plane came in on the North side of the Citgo. There is no question about it.

You heard the witnesses who were there.

We heard the RECOLLECTION of an event that occured in a few seconds, and that occured 5 years earlier, from 4 (FOUR) witnesses.

I question it, 95% of the JREF CT subforum question it. The crash investigators, who analyzed the damage, and determined that the plane flew on a different trajectory than you propose question it. I am sure 95% of the world would question it...so YES there is QUESTION ABOUT IT.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ego.

TAM

 

[peteweaver]

Here is the real life view of the confirmed position of Sucherman and Walter:

That picture doesnt reveal much, its just one photograph, and its not even focussed to give information as to what was written on the road signs.

Poor photographs indicate nothing.

The fact is, that The Pentagon could be seen from the road, an airliner flying over the road and going on to hit the Pentagon would be seen, the engines of an airliner flying low would make rather a lot of noise (anyone who's been to airshows would know this) so people would have heard the plane approach, and looked around, to see it.

a 757 is not small, and despite the fact it was moving quickly the eye is fast enough to spot something like that, and the brain is generally fast enough to recognise it too...

When someone says they saw an american airlines jet, its not likely they saw something different.

 

[Lyte Trip]

I do believe, but could be corrected, that the number of witnesses that saw a JET AIRLINER FLY OVER THE PENTAGON at the time of the explosion are ZERO.

TAM

-“I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second *jet* hovering in the skies”. -Vin Narayanan

-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. -Joel Sucherman

-...she saw a second plane in the air *over the Pentagon* *as* a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress...some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. "Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason." (Kelly sounds like a great actress) Pentagon official said late Friday no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack. (man that would sure fool a lot of people who saw a jet fly away) -Kelly Knowles

-He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon....As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal, " Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west." A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport . The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport... (He) said it's possible the second plane was a military plane, but the military has not said it had a plane shadowing the hijacked jet." -Kieth Wheelhouse

-Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet... the other three witnesses say they're not sure what the plane looked like."-Pam Young (+ Kieth Wheelhouse) & friend at funeral.

 

[chillzero]

Due to the fact that the bickering continued, and has even been put here on display, this thread is now going to moderated status. The usual rules apply to that.

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

 

[T.A.M.]

-“I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second *jet* hovering in the skies”. -Vin Narayanan

Hovering in the skies after the explosion is not FLYING OVER THE PENTAGON AFTER THE FIREBALL.

-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. -Joel Sucherman

He does not state that at the time of the explosion he saw a PLANE FLY OVER THE PENTAGON.

-...she saw a second plane in the air *over the Pentagon* *as* a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress...some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. "Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason." (Kelly sounds like a great actress) Pentagon official said late Friday no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack. (man that would sure fool a lot of people who saw a jet fly away) -Kelly Knowles

She also says she saw a PLANE PLUNGE INTO THE PENTAGON at the same time as she saw a SECOND PLANE...this is not a fly over by the jet that approached the pentagon.

-He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon....As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal, " Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west." A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport . The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport... (He) said it's possible the second plane was a military plane, but the military has not said it had a plane shadowing the hijacked jet." -Kieth Wheelhouse

This is not proof that the Plane that allegedly hit the pentagon, did not, but instead FLEW OVER the pentagon.

-Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet... the other three witnesses say they're not sure what the plane looked like."-Pam Young (+ Kieth Wheelhouse) & friend at funeral.

ANOTHER plane, flying NEAR the hijacked jet. How is this proof that the alleged impact plane FLEW OVER the PENTAGON.

Is your theory now, that the Airliner hit the pentagon, but a second jet, nearby, FLEW OVER? You cannot have it both ways.

TAM

 

[A W Smith]

-tsk tsk. Again with the incomplete research. Jack Singleton is NOT a witness. He is Mickey Bell's boss, the owner of Singleton Electric. He was not there, only relays Mickey Bell's story second hand.

tsk tsk you just lost Robert Turcios as a north of citgo witness lyte. You spoke with his boss the manager in your little video. not with Turcios. he only relays Turcios story. Please apply the same standards to your own witnesses.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

-“I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second *jet* hovering in the skies”. -Vin Narayanan

Skies are usually not located 50ft off the ground.

-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. -Joel Sucherman

Sharp turn? I thought this thing was going to fly away from the explosion?

-...she saw a second plane in the air *over the Pentagon* *as* a hijacked jet plunged

Make sure you

Edited by chillzero: 

Moderated thread

Do you seriously believe she means a few feet above the roof of the dammed thing?

-He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon....As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal, " Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west." A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport . The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport... (He) said it's possible the second plane was a military plane, but the military has not said it had a plane shadowing the hijacked jet." -Kieth Wheelhouse

Right, so he saw two planes? One flying directly above the other? How does that prove your story?

-Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet... the other three witnesses say they're not sure what the plane looked like."-Pam Young (+ Kieth Wheelhouse) & friend at funeral.

Flying near. That means two, not one.

So all you have going for you is the possibilty of two planes in the area. Near an airport. Well done.

Face it. You are going nowhere with this. You are going nowhere. And all this is coming to nothing. All you have in the future is a few minutes at a tin-foil conference with a bunch of spotty nerds. Not the pulitzer prize. Dylan knows it. Aldo knows it. We know it.

You know it.

 

[Lyte Trip]

The knocked over lamp posts are all on the south side of the Citgo.

Owned yet again.

And yet the plane was nowhere near them. You know we found another witness who confirms the North side.

Imagine that.

 

[chillzero]

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?"

Yes, fair enough. It seems that 8 pages in it is unlikely that Gravy will come in to defend his papers when approached in such a manner. There is no point in merging this into the other thread as it is so long and the other is so much older.

The thread is being moderated for civility, but the various theories can be discussed, since the focus of the thread was lost long ago.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And yet the plane was nowhere near them. You know we found another witness who confirms the North side.

Imagine that.

Physical evidence will always trump three witnesses (see AW Smiths comment on hearsay evidence above). This has been explained to you before.

The lamposts were knocked over south of the Citgo, ergo the plane came in south of the Citgo.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What Lyte ALSO doesn't point out is those photos he uses to try and say make it impossible to have seen the impact, also prove it was impossible for a fly-over. From those vantage points the witnesses would have a clear view of the plane flying over the Pentagon. And if it did not fly over, it flew into.

Add to that all the rest of the physical evidence, as well as his own witnesses who literally saw the plane hit the generator, the poles, and the building and you can say conclusively that the plan absolutely hit the Pentagon no matter where it came from.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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.

Nope, not CGI; it's actually one of a stereo pair that I shot with two Nikon L12s wired together, if you'd like to see it in 3D. But no, the shot is from the passenger side window looking toward the front-right quarter, not behind. This witness would have seen the approach through his windshield, but could have easily seen the flyover out the right window, if that had happened.

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.

Excuse me, but we're talking about a guy who saw the plane "diving toward the building" and then saw the fireball. For your "illusion" to work even for people to the west, the plane would need to pass very, very close over the roof. It's ridiculous to assert that anyone -- even those who didn't see the plane before impact but looked over when they saw the fireball -- would have mistaken that for a plane on a normal National flight path.

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?

He, himself, says that he saw the plane "hit the building" because he saw it "diving toward the building," too low to miss it or to pull up, and then saw the fireball, and then he didn't see the plane flying over the roof! How else would you describe that scene? Look at the picture again and try to imagine what he saw, from a position about perpendicular to the flight path. I think it's perfectly reasonable for him to say he saw the plane "hit the building" even if he didn't have a direct view of the actual impact wall. You might say that his estimate of the plane's altitude may have been off, so that's just a "logical conclusion" rather than a direct observation, but the ONLY other possibility is that the plane simply disappeared, Lyte! Do you claim that as a reasonable possibility?

 

[uk_dave]

Do we still count Paik? I thought (correct me if I'm wrong those of you with better memories) that Lyte's claim that Paik placed the plane one side of the turnpike and therefore confirmed the north of citgo fantasy had been debunked in one of the previous lyte trip ego threads.

Anyway, since lyte couldn't get the sketch provided by paik to line up with the north of citgo fantasy, it's probably a moot point.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Nope, not CGI; it's actually one of a stereo pair that I shot with two Nikon L12s wired together, if you'd like to see it in 3D. But no, the shot is from the passenger side window looking toward the front-right quarter, not behind. This witness would have seen the approach through his windshield, but could have easily seen the flyover out the right window, if that had happened.



Excuse me, but we're talking about a guy who saw the plane "diving toward the building" and then saw the fireball. For your "illusion" to work even for people to the west, the plane would need to pass very, very close over the roof. It's ridiculous to assert that anyone -- even those who didn't see the plane before impact but looked over when they saw the fireball -- would have mistaken that for a plane on a normal National flight path.



He, himself, says that he saw the plane "hit the building" because he saw it "diving toward the building," too low to miss it or to pull up, and then saw the fireball, and then he didn't see the plane flying over the roof! How else would you describe that scene? Look at the picture again and try to imagine what he saw, from a position about perpendicular to the flight path. I think it's perfectly reasonable for him to say he saw the plane "hit the building" even if he didn't have a direct view of the actual impact wall. You might say that his estimate of the plane's altitude may have been off, so that's just a "logical conclusion" rather than a direct observation, but the ONLY other possibility is that the plane simply disappeared, Lyte! Do you claim that as a reasonable possibility?

Well a dive is not a low and level approach into the first floor now is it?

Your "friend" is anonymous. Your "friend" has no proof he was on the highway. Your "friend" does not contradict the North side flight path.

Can we interview your "friend"?

 

[pomeroo]

Remember folks, the plane came in on the North side of the Citgo. There is no question about it.

You're lying again. There is a question about it. As the plane did not come in on the North side of the Citgo station, there is necessarily a question about it.

You heard the witnesses who were there.

What happens when we assemble ALL the witnesses, Lyte?

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE YOUR CHERRY-PICKED QUOTES TO A REAL REPORTER

Edited by chillzero: 

moderated thread[/mod]?

Edited by chillzero: 

 

[pomeroo]

I posted the following yesterday and Lyte, for obvious reasons, ignored it:

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?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Well a dive is not a low and level approach into the first floor now is it?

Your "friend" is anonymous. Your "friend" has no proof he was on the highway. Your "friend" does not contradict the North side flight path.

Can we interview your "friend"?

"Diving" is the word he used, and since the plane certainly lost altitude between hitting the top of the lightpoles on the bridge and hitting the base of the building (and since it couldn't get between those two points with a "level approach"), I think his description is more accurate than yours.

The "friend" is a "neighbor" of my "parents." What are you trying to imply with the quotes?

Yes, he's anonymous -- to you -- and shall remain so. He seemed pretty sincere when he said you guys are "full of $#!%" so I don't think he wants to be "interviewed" by the "citizens investigation team."

No, I can't prove he was on that highway or saw what the says he saw, but I have absolutely no reason to doubt him since his story is completely consistent with all the other witnesses and all the physical evidence. The "north side flight path" is irrelevant, since for our purposes here the important part of his story is what he didn't see: a flyover. If you choose to disbelieve him just because it makes your idiotic theory harder to sell, suit yourself. But I'd still like to hear some rational explanation for how anyone from that vantage point could have possibly missed seeing a 757 fly over the roof in my photo or mistook it for a plane on a National flight path. You previous attempt at that was, um, somewhat less than credible.