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

[nicepants]

He [gravy] simply doesn't want to be held accountable for the lies he posts in his blogs

Could you please elaborate? What "lies" gravy has posted on his blog?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, it comes down to where does the majority of proof lie, and which theory based on the proof, will the majority of people believe.

By far, the majority of proof, far and away, lies on the side of the Plane hitting the Pentagon. You can choose to believe otherwise. I am telling you with certainty, if you take 10,000 people, provide them with your tape, your interviews, and then against that provide them with the mountain of evidence supporting the plane hitting the Pentagon, it is no contest...greater than 90% of the 10,000 people will not believe your take on things.

TAM

Nonsense.

You like Gravy are simply making unsupported claims.

 

[Calcas]

It is statistically impossible for all of them to be so drastically mistaken about this specific detail in the exact same way.

It's posts like this where you really show your lack of knowledge.

Please show us how something like this is "statistically impossible."

Why do your 3 or 4 witnesses somehow "trump" the hundreds of other witnesses who have a different recollection? Oh, I know. It's because they were "independently corroborated" and "quadruple checked" and "verified"...blah blah blah.

This while you simply choose to ignore everybody and everything else.

The physical evidence alone completely blows your theory away.

The eyewitness evidence is 99% to 1% against your fantasy.

So again, please provide some evidence regarding your math claim of "statistically impossible."

 

[SOMERLED]

Sorry malcolm but I agree with Foolmewunz.

Jack White is a fraud.

The Bob Pugh video footage proves that White's claims of photo fakery are nonsense.

I'm not referring to Jack White. I'm referring to the photos. He can't possibly have faked the photos. Those photos are all over the web, including govt origins. The photos cannot be faked.
Pole 2 is both still standing and a copy is on the ground Somebody forgot to knock pole two down. The 'bagman', IV bags are pressurised, nobody holds them up only in films and on TV. Gravity fed IV's went out thirty years ago.
Jack White doesn't even metion that. He didn't switch the vehicles around.
It's nothing to do with Jack White, just check out the same photos from a govt site - they're faked.

 

[A W Smith]

Ridiculous.

This statement is beyond disingenuous and is yet another example of using a circular logical fallacy to dismiss the data we present.

We have proven that the plane flew on the north side of the station because this has been independently verified from ALL of the witnesses who were in a position to tell.

This proves that it CAN NOT be the plane that caused the physical damage and therefore that the dubious, questionable, and admittedly by the government "counter-intuitive" physical damage/evidence was caused by something else.

Nothing circular about it. You lack physical evidence. Statements from 4 people are not "data" There is DNA which cannot be falsified to create a match. There is the black box flight data, There is the wreckage, There is the damage path inside the pentagon which lines up with the flight path and poles, All this physical evidence, You have NO physical evidence. nada, zip, zero, none. You have proven nothing.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Nonsense.

You like Gravy are simply making unsupported claims.

So the notion of everyone being tricked into seeing the plane hit the pentagon or most everyone being involved with the plot, including the passengers and family members of the flight and the plane flying over top of the pentagon with not a single shred of evidence is supported?

I think TAMs statement is well supported. The evidence to support what he is saying is far more than 3 people who think they saw the plane on the Norht side of th gas station.

 

[A W Smith]

The 'bagman', IV bags are pressurised, nobody holds them up only in films and on TV. Gravity fed IV's went out thirty years ago.

Thats a lie. You don't pressurize IV bags. if you did you would inject fluid into the patient. Over the past year I have had 3 procedures where I had IV bags. They are gravity drip with a slide pinch regulator and are mounted in an IV pole

http://rescuepad.com/catalog/iv_pole.php

 

[jaydeehess]

It is not my "puppy" and I resent the condescending rhetoric. Contrary to popular belief we did not begin our investigation with the belief in a flyover. Our assertion of the flyover is a RESULT of our investigation. All witnesses saw the plane on the north side and Robert saw it "pull up". If it pulled up AT ALL it could not have hit the building let alone the bottom two floors.

Condescending? Sorry, must be the difference in local speech. the "puppy" remark simply means it is your idea, your pet theory if you will.

Robert is the only, solitary witness that reports any pulling up at all at any time during the final few seconds of the aircraft. He also states quite clearly that he was running UP an embankment at the time he saw the plane pull up to clear that signage. THAT would change his perspective on the event and would explain why he sees a pull up when there was none. If several people had rported that the plane pulled up to clear any signage then you may have a point. Instead you use the extreme minority report (1) upon which to base a contention thatthe plane did indeed pull up.

It works like this, he sees the plane coming, he watchs it fly by and to increase his viewing position he moves up the bank. That changes his perspective putting the signage closer to his level effectivly lowering the apparent height of the sign. The plane is moving, he knows that the sign does not move BUT the sign which, when he was lower down seemed to be higher is now lower. The way the brain processes information he concludes that the plane moved up.

A similar thing can happen to you at an intersection. You wait with your foot on the brake with a car next to you also waiting for the light to change. Out of your peripheral vision you see the car next to you move forward BUT for a few seconds you have the distinct feeling that your car is moving backwards. Your brain made an erroneous conclusion. This occurs most often if both of you are at the front of the lines of cars at the intersection and the driver next to you has just decided to move closer to the intersection. Your brain understands that the light has not changed to green so the car next to you must be stationary therefore it must be you that is moving.

Even the citgo witnesses could not have had a detailed view of the alleged impact. Same is the case with the route 27 witnesses.
Bottom line; VERY few people were in a position to be able to physically see the alleged impact at all let alone be able to tell with certainty how high or low the plane was as it reached the building. That is the entire point of this thread beyond exposing Gravy's inaccurate reporting.].

Really but how many would have been able to see an aircraft headed for the upper floors Lyte? You are stating that the plane pulled up, that it flew over the Pentagon hidden by a firebal that would have to occur AS the plane reached the front of the building. Therefore witnesses should be reporting that the plane was headed for the upper floors. NO ONE REPORTS THAT THE PLANE WAS HEADED FOR THE UPPER FLOORS. The reports from anyone that saw the impact ALL have it hitting the gropund floor Lyte. That simply does not wash with any flyover theory AT ALL. even most of the people on route 27 would have been able to see a large aircraft, with a wingspan of over 100 feet, 70+ feet off the ground.


[/quote]Well this is where you are wrong because the north side claim is 100% relevant to this as is Robert's "pull-up". Why do you dismiss the north side claim?

Do you think it's possible for a plane on the north side to still hit the light poles and cause the reported damage up to the c-ring hole?[/QUOTE]

Play dodge ball much Lyte?

I have pointed out that there is absolutly no witness testimony to support the contention of a flyover. None at all Lyte. You have wasted several years of your life on a fantasy of your own creation.

As for the north side flight you have 4 witnesses that place it there. The vast majority of people who saw the plane place it over the line that does indeed have it mowing down those light poles. This is barely a tic better than using the extreme minority of one person's account to base a theory on. Now you are up to about 4% of the witnesses upon which you base this other claim.

 

[jujigatami]

You've explained his erroneous methodology (assuming--improbably--that it isn't intentional deception) quite well. Lyte seizes on the outliers and ignores everything else. Most of us get the idea that if a hundred ordinary people describe an event, the descriptions will cluster around the version that best fits the known evidence. A few will veer off and stray far from the facts. These are the only ones that interest Lyte. The notion that a handful of eccentric, demonstrably wrong-headed views can refute a well-established hypothesis is a defining characteristic of charlatans. It is the difference between Lyte Trip and an honest researcher.

Forget that! Lytes own witnesses tell him that they saw the plane crash in to the pentagon!

He somehow takes that as evidence that they were fooled.

It has nothing to do with the descriptions given by the witnesses, and everything to do with Lyte's interpretation of those descriptions.

 

[CurtC]

There's still the issue of the flight path, too. If Paik was correct, that the plane flew approximately over him (and not a few blocks North of him), there's no way that a large plane could then go North of the Citgo and then to the impact point of the Pentagon, at any speed even approaching "fast."

That one fact falsifies Lyte's hypothesis.

 

[Belz...]

Gravity fed IV's went out thirty years ago.

That is a malicious lie. Why, just last NOVEMBER I had one plugged into my arm. Or whatever verb you use for those.

LAST NOVEMBER, Malcolm.

And I only lost 5 minutes of time because of what was in the IV, not 30 years.

 

[T.A.M.]

Nonsense.

You like Gravy are simply making unsupported claims.

No Lyte, I offered you my opinion. You can take it for what it is worth, but I know human nature, I know how people think and react. Part of my profession involves with sitting down with 30-40 people every day and getting details from them. Often times it involves probing into what they are thinking, but too embarrassed or too afraid to speak of. I can confidently say, that I know what most reasonable people would consider valid or not. I am quite good at reading people.

Whether you chose to believe it or not, I am confident that 90% of any group of REASONABLE, RATIONAL people, would trust the overwhelming evidence supporting AA77 hitting the pentagon, compared with your collected evidence to the contrary.

Of course, we will likely never be able to carry out a test to confirm my notion, so if you wish to call it false...go ahead.

TAM

 

[Diazo]

For the record, I have read the entire thread, but I am pretty much responding to the opening post and discussion about the validity of witness statements, from both sides of the discussion.

First off, any witness statment, taken by itself, is as valid as any other statement. With this in mind, you have to compare multiple witness statements, combined with the physical evidence, to piece together what really happened.

At this point I would like to bring up the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt". The reason for this is that in almost every event witness by multiple people there will exist contradictory evidence simply because people saw things from different perspectives and will remember events differently based on this fact.

It should be noted that ALL the witnesses are reporting what THEY remember to be the truth, it is simply that the truth reported will vary from person to person and there will be some contradiction between them.

Accepting that there will be contradiction in witness statments, we then have to determine which witness statments (or parts of) are true and which are false.

In this case we have many witnesses, highlighted by the list linked in the opening post, and the physical evidence found on that day at the pentagon to support the plane crashing into the pentagon.

On the other side we have up to 5 witnesses who saw the plane north of the station, and no witnesses (that I am aware of) stating they saw the plane pull up and fly over the pentagon.

Looking at the evidence on both sides and accepting the fact that there will be contradictions, it is beyond a reasonable doubt to say that the plane crashed into the pentagon.

Note that I was very careful to say contradictions, not lies. The witnesses reports which are shown to disagree with the conclusion reached are not lying, they are reporting what they believe to be the truth. However, for some reason (which I will not speculate on not having talked to any of those witnesses) they remember the events slightly different from everyone else.


Hmmm, perhaps my post is a bit long, but I see a lot of conclusions being stated in this thread and not much reasoning behind those conclusions, so I wanted to be clear where I was coming from.

On a side note (and offtopic for the thread), I'm seeing this "second plane present" being thrown around. That plane is a C-130 that did fly over the area. See the quote from page 5 of the "Pentagon Flyover Illusion" thread.

"When we took off [About 9:30 a.m.], we headed north and west … I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o’clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That’s awful close, so I was surprised he wasn’t calling out to us. … O’Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft … “The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge… Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon. …I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn’t a good idea to be flying through that plume. He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land."

This is a generally known fact, I just wanted to state it in this thread as the presence of a second plane has been brought up.

 

[Lyte Trip]

On a side note (and offtopic for the thread), I'm seeing this "second plane present" being thrown around. That plane is a C-130 that did fly over the area. See the quote from page 5 of the "Pentagon Flyover Illusion" thread.


This is a generally known fact, I just wanted to state it in this thread as the presence of a second plane has been brought up.

We know all about the C-130.

The C-130 was never close enough to shadow or even chase a few seconds behind following it.

He never even got directly behind it.

After just oing by the mall westbound, he saw it up and to his left descending to his altitude, at 10, 11, and then 12 o clock, then it went past him still descending. Wrapped around DC and went DRA (down river approach). After 3 radio calls Lt. Col Obrien fianlaly turns around eastbound in an attempt to follow it. He had a hard time keeping it in sight. When Lt. Col O'brien saw the explosion he did not know what or where it had impacted, he was that high and far away.

He arrived on the scene approximately 60 seconds after the explosion, while the smoke plume gathered strength. He arrived at a much higher altitude that was not easily seen by our witnesses or many others on the scene. He was more visible to people who were further away. He flew over the pentagon and climbed rapidly on the other side of the river at the tidal basin according to a very detailed account from Scott Cook.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Just walked past the TV. The news was on. No mention of the Citizen Investigation Team's Earth-shaking findings.

Nor will there ever be.

 

[kbm99]

That is a malicious lie. Why, just last NOVEMBER I had one plugged into my arm. Or whatever verb you use for those.

LAST NOVEMBER, Malcolm.

And I only lost 5 minutes of time because of what was in the IV, not 30 years.

Forget last November, I was on a IV YESTERDAY, and guess where it was? Hanging from the IV pole attached to the bed I was on. No pump, no "pressurization" - just old fashioned gravity.

Seriously, where do people get these ideas?

 

[JimBenArm]

Forget last November, I was on a IV YESTERDAY, and guess where it was? Hanging from the IV pole attached to the bed I was on. No pump, no "pressurization" - just old fashioned gravity.

Seriously, where do people get these ideas?

I think it's the "secret sauce" in their IVs!

 

[Gravy]

Totovader,

Can you please the list the 105 or get Gravy to list the 105?

And detail how they saw the actual impact without contraciting any other part of the story?

I'm seeing this thread for the first time, so forgive me if this is redundant. This will be my only contribution.

The above post by Lyte Trip demonstrates the quality of his research. After 5 pages of nonsense in this thread he still hasn't found the witness list, which anyone who isn't legally blind or legally insane will immediately see linked when they go to the Pentagon section of my website. It's been in the same location since the site, which is not a "blog," has been up.

I would say, "astonishing," but unfortunately it's par for the course for this troubled person.

I see that Lyte also says that locating contact information for Mark Williams, an army Sergeant who was one of several people to see human remains in airline seats, would be like finding "a needle in a haystack."

That's odd, since it took me only five minutes to find his contact information, photo, etc., when I looked for it months ago. Hint to Craig: if a building ever falls on you, you want him on your side.

How sad this all is.

 

[Gravy]

Oh, and I'm glad I checked to see that the list is still active: I thought maybe Lyte had had technical problems viewing it. I found that I had listed one person twice (names were slightly different). So it's only 104 people from that list whose accounts don't reflect Lyte Trip's reality.

See Lyte: I made a mistake and corrected it. You'd be amazed at how easy that can be.

 

[Belz...]

We know all about the C-130.

The C-130 was never close enough to shadow or even chase a few seconds behind following it.

He never even got directly behind it.

Who said anything about chasing ?