Pentagon Attack Witnesses - dissecting their testimony and credibility

[T.A.M.]

This thread is for Lyte, and anyone else, who would like to make comment on why or why not a given Pentagon attack witness is or isn't credible, and please provide proof or evidence, not just "I don't buy his testimony" or "he worked for such and such, or was a such and such" opinion does not cut it...bring the facts.

I'll start you off with the first one, Steve Anderson:

Here is his testimony:

Quote:

I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

His entire comment is found here...

http://www.jmu.edu/alumni/tragedy%5F...Fmessages.html

TAM

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I'll start you off with the first one, Steve Anderson:

Here is his testimony:



His entire comment is found here...

http://www.jmu.edu/alumni/tragedy%5F...Fmessages.html

TAM

Due to the fact that his statements are precise, supported by the physical evidence, flight path damage, FDR information, DNA, plane parts, body parts, etc- my vote is: CREDIBLE.

[mortimer]

<Lyte>I'm going to have to vote NOT CREDIBLE since he did not specifically place the route of the plane in relation to the Citgo station. As we all know, only witnesses who say whether the plane is north or south of the Citgo are credible, and the latter are liars as well.</Lyte>

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Don't forget to check their voter registration as well. Anyone with an "R" is automatically rejected.

As well as most people with an "I" or a "D", too.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Totovader

Due to the fact that his statements are precise, supported by the physical evidence, flight path damage, FDR information, DNA, plane parts, body parts, etc- my vote is: CREDIBLE.

Really? You derived all that from his account?

Really? So the plane passing by his building in Rosslyn fits the FDR information?

You have no idea what you are talking about and are showing your bias plainly without even analyzing the information properly.

I will wait until the mods post my posts so we can continue the thread I started.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

You have no idea what you are talking about and are showing your bias plainly without even analyzing the information properly.

But, we counter with the fact that WE don't think YOU have any idea what you are talking about and are showing your bias plainly without even analyzing the information properly.

In other words, those who think they are the ones who have analyzed the information properly think you are totally wrong. To us, you are the biased one.

So, exactly how are we to determine who is the one who has really 'analyzed the information'? Who gets to decide that?

[bonavada]

i believe the story related by the witness below. i have no reason to believe otherwise. along with the dozens of other witnesses stories i've read.


Full account HERE

Quote:

THE sound of sudden and certain death roared in my ears as I sat lodged in gridlock on Washington Boulevard, next to the Pentagon on September 11.
Up to that moment I had only experienced shock by the news coming from New York City and frustration with the worse-than-normal traffic snarl ... but it wasn't until I heard the demon screaming of that engine that I expected to die.
Between the Pentagon's helicopter pad, which sits next to the road, and Reagan Washington National Airport a couple of miles south, aviation noise is common along my commute to the silver office towers in Rosslyn where Gannett Co Inc. were housed last autumn.
But this engine noise was different. It was too sudden, too loud, too encompassing.
Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.
The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard.
Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon.
Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact. An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me. The plane, the wall and the victims disappeared under coal-black smoke, three-storey tall flames and intense heat. I had just witnessed the mass murder of hundreds of people, maybe more

BV

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Really? You derived all that from his account?

Really? So the plane passing by his building in Rosslyn fits the FDR information?

You have no idea what you are talking about and are showing your bias plainly without even analyzing the information properly.

I will wait until the mods post my posts so we can continue the thread I started.

Actually it does match everything. Darn you must try harder to make up more junk and lies. You have fabricated new false information and on the record testimony by your own witnesses in 2001 proves you have fabricated stories to match some demented flight path you made up which a plane can not even fly based on witnesses and facts about flight 77.

How you can actually make up lies about something and present false information to make money and talk to idiots who are too challenged to understand 9/11 at your "truther" conventions of woo?

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Really? You derived all that from his account?

Really? So the plane passing by his building in Rosslyn fits the FDR information?

You have no idea what you are talking about and are showing your bias plainly without even analyzing the information properly.

I will wait until the mods post my posts so we can continue the thread I started.

This response does not address any of the points raised. It does not offer any evidence to the contrary, and gives no valid reason to exclude or otherwise modify or amend the testimony given by this eyewitness.

The thing you obviously cannot grasp (and refuse to do so because it would utterly destroy your silly theory) is that you cannot just dismiss this information because you don't like it. It corroborates the flight path damage, the wreckage, and the FACTS. Because of that- you want to ignore it by making stupid personal attacks or arguments from incredulity- but it won't work.

That- quite obviously- is your bias. You're motivated by political and personal goals, not by any search for the truth.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by twinstead

But, we counter with the fact that WE don't think YOU have any idea what you are talking about and are showing your bias plainly without even analyzing the information properly.

In other words, those who think they are the ones who have analyzed the information properly think you are totally wrong. To us, you are the biased one.

So, exactly how are we to determine who is the one who has really 'analyzed the information'? Who gets to decide that?

Oh I know! I know!

*raises hand*

The witnesses who's account most closely match the available evidence- the witnesses who most closely match reality. Excluding certain witnesses on an arbitrary basis (or because the story they present does match reality) is not acceptable and indicates a strong bias.

So... therefore Lyte is horribly wrong- and his bias has severely influenced his "research".

Ah, case solved. Let's get a beer.

[bje]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

This thread is for Lyte, and anyone else, who would like to make comment on why or why not a given Pentagon attack witness is or isn't credible, ...

The first order of business is to confirm what eyewitnesses actually said. We now have Lyte Trip on record of having no idea what hundreds of eyewitnesses actually saw.

[T.A.M.]

The issue with the plane flying by his office is a point raised before. As I have said in the past, it was based on his "hearing" the jet. That tells him, and us nothing as to the trajectory, or the distance from his office.

Has given an interview elsewhere that tells you anything more than that? If not, his "hearing" the jet pass by, really supports neither trajectory, nor does it effect his credibility as a witness.

Shall we move on to the second witness, and call this one a bonifide witness to the plane hitting the pentagon?

TAM

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Shall we move on to the second witness, and call this one a bonifide witness to the plane hitting the pentagon?

TAM

Tripper presented no valid rebuttal to the first witness, but certainly was not happy about the facts.

I say we move on to the next one as to keep this thing moving along. If he has any evidence contradicting the eyewitness testimony, he will have to present it as they come up- instead of just whining about them and trying to attack individuals in this thread.

So, let's move on.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Really? You derived all that from his account?

Really? So the plane passing by his building in Rosslyn fits the FDR information?

You have no idea what you are talking about and are showing your bias plainly without even analyzing the information properly.

I will wait until the mods post my posts so we can continue the thread I started.

You are showing your bias by assuming that by "I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. " he was stating that the plane was on a path that could not possibly have matched the aircraft that hit the Pentagon.

You do exactly the same thing with the witness you interviewed, Robert. He states that he did not see the impact. Instead all he saw was the fireball and you stretch that senario into one in which the fireball occurs BEFORE the plane reachs the Pentagon but that Robert did not find that unusual in the least and believes that he did not see the impact because his view was blocked by this fireball.

You are therefore proven not be above stretching eyewitness testimony to the breaking point as long as it will fit your predetermined notion of what happened on 9/11/01.

That you refuse to acknowledge this utterly obvious bias means that you are a liar along the lines of those who stretched the intel concerning Iraq's intentions and capabilities.

[T.A.M.]

ok, Witness #2: Deb Anlauf

Quote:

Mrs. Deb Anlauf, resident of Colfax, Wisconsin, was in her 14th floor of the Sheraton Hotel [located 1.6 mile from the explosion], (immediately west of the Navy Annex) when she heard a "loud roar":

"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook. (…) "

Full article no longer available, but was from:

http://www.leadertelegram.com/

TAM

[jaydeehess]

Does she state what side of the Sheraton she was looking out of?

[Alareth]

I reject her testimony because I think her last name is funny.

[Mince]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Really? You derived all that from his account?

In your video, none of your four witnesses:

1) Claimed flight 77 flew over the Pentagon (in fact, at least two claimed they believed flight 77 hit the Pentagon)

2) Made any statement about planted light poles or plane parts

3) Made any statement regarding a secondary aircraft



The witnesses were your substantive proof (snicker) that flight 77 flew over and not into the Pentagon.

You derived all that from their accounts?

[Mince]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

ok, Witness #2: Deb Anlauf

Quote:

It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon).

So it wasn't a plane at all. It was a fireball which hit the Pentagon. This witness is excused with prejudice.

[The Doc]

The Lyte Trip Code:

Quote:

BEGIN
Read witness.Testimony
IF witness.Testimony.References.Citgo = South
Dim witness As Credible
Ignore witness.Testimony.References.Other
IF witness.Testimony.References.PlaneHit = True
Dim witness as nonCredible
witness.Insult
witness.Testimony.Misinterpret
txtJREFforumNewPost.Text = Spout.Lunacy
END

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by Mince

In your video, none of your four witnesses:

*snip*

2) Made any statement about planted light poles or plane parts

*snip*

Lagasse did make a statement about the light poles (though not that they were planted in any way). He indicated that they were in a different position than they were found, so that the physical evidence would support his story.

[bonavada]

sorry. i got the jist of the OP wrong.
carry on tam.

BV

[Gravy]

Sigh.

[jaydeehess]

Anyone who has been in an air traffic terminal control tower knows what aircraft look like when they are close to the ground. They look closer than they really are. Her statement that "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close" rings very true. There is little to judge distance by. On the ground we see familiar objects between us and the object of our attention or beyond it, and the brain silently calculates distances for us.

Another example of this reference distortion is to look at the full Moon as it rises. It looks so much larger near the horizen than it does an hour later when it is high in the sky. However if you simply extend your hand and choose a thumb or fingertip that just masks the Moon when your arm is straight out you will find that the same applies boith when the Moon is on the horizen and when it is high up illustrating that the Moon is the same size and it is your perception that changes.

Her statement that "It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon)." is merely her way of expressing the drama of the situation though I am sure that Lyte will pounce on it as illustrating that the fireball occured prior to the 'alleged' impact.

She seems to have had a good view of the roof of the Pentagon and clearly did not see any aircraft rising out and away from the Pentagon.

Her account fits the accepted account as well as any other.

I call bona fide.

[Totovader]

Witness #2's testimony is consistent with the footage we have from the DoubleTree hotel, and matches the physical evidence.

I would also like to know if the witness ever stated- or could state- what side of the hotel she was on, but a lack of this information does not mean that the witness statement should be excluded. I would say it's CREDIBLE.

So, that's 2/2.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Sigh.

Sorry Mark. I knew this thread would bother you in such a way, but for me it serves the purpose of ACTIVELY educating myself on the matter, it allows me to do so in an interactive way, and it enables the forum to display both sides of the arguement, and who is being more reasonable, more logical.

I realize that for you, this is probably the 100th time this type of thread on this topic has been done.,,but give us a little slack...lol

TAM

[T.A.M.]

bump for Lyte, or others who wish to discuss further witness #2...

[T.A.M.]

Do you wish to discuss witness #2 Lyte? If not, we will assume you concede her as witness #2, with no problems.

TAM

[Lyte Trip]

I have created a thread to discuss the veracity of witness claims and to challenge the accuracy of Gravy's reporting. This is a duplicate thread with different wording and should be merged.

I will not participate in this thread that was designed to take attention away from Gravy's deceptive and incorrect blog.

[T.A.M.]

No, your initial thread was created to examine how many of Gravy's list of witnesses actually spoke of seeing the plane hit the pentagon. You constructed it to "call him out" on it, so that if the list that had this exact wording in it, did not reach 105 you could claim victory. That thread became moderated due to deviation from the topic, by addressing such issues as the type I have provided for you in this thread.

This thread is to argue the merits and credibility of the witnesses themselves, not look at the minutia of their testimonials.

The topic is related, but not a duplicate.

Do as you see fit...we know why you will not post here.

TAM

[Lyte Trip]

I specifically asked him (or anyone) to list the witnesses one by one in order to back up his claim.

There is no reason to do the exact same thing in this thread in order divert attention from Gravy's deceptive reporting.

I am happy to discuss details in the other thread and am simply refusing to do the exact same thing here because your tactic is transparent.

[T.A.M.]

read my previous post. Your first post was not designed to discuss who they were, why they might not have seen things, what their "angle" was. You wanted them listed one by one, with their exact "statements" so that you could nitpick the wording of their comments to see if the actually said the words "I saw the plane hit the pentagon" as this is an EXCLUSION CRITERIA for your "valid" witness list.

That is not the purpose of this thread. This thread was made so you, I, and others could go over the witnesses in terms of where they were, who they were with, what they do for a living, and other areas that make YOU suspicious of them and their testimonies, so that we might be able to debate the merits of your claims, or lack of merit...

TAM

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

I specifically asked him (or anyone) to list the witnesses one by one in order to back up his claim.

There is no reason to do the exact same thing in this thread in order divert attention from Gravy's deceptive reporting.

I am happy to discuss details in the other thread and am simply refusing to do the exact same thing here because your tactic is transparent.

That thread has been abandoned as explained by the moderators.

There is no reason you cannot address the issues as they are presented here.

In fact- it can only serve to benefit you. Avoiding this only makes you look like you want to jump into a thread where the discussion has obviously gone too far off course to even address the specifics.

If you have no comments on the validity of Witness #2, I propose that we move on.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Totovader

That thread has been abandoned as explained by the moderators.

There is no reason you cannot address the issues as they are presented here.

In fact- it can only serve to benefit you. Avoiding this only makes you look like you want to jump into a thread where the discussion has obviously gone too far off course to even address the specifics.

If you have no comments on the validity of Witness #2, I propose that we move on.

The moderators did not "abandon" the thread.

The only reason it went off topic is because the members here were so upset that Gravy's deception had been exposed that they resorted to constant attacks against me personally so the thread would be moderated and/or disposed of.

As it stands the thread still exists and if Gravy or the members here refuse to discuss the witnesses one by one and back up his assertion it is clearly a concession that Gravy's claim is incorrect.

If he has a shred of integrity he will modify his blog to reflect this.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

read my previous post. Your first post was not designed to discuss who they were, why they might not have seen things, what their "angle" was. You wanted them listed one by one, with their exact "statements" so that you could nitpick the wording of their comments to see if the actually said the words "I saw the plane hit the pentagon" as this is an EXCLUSION CRITERIA for your "valid" witness list.

That is not the purpose of this thread. This thread was made so you, I, and others could go over the witnesses in terms of where they were, who they were with, what they do for a living, and other areas that make YOU suspicious of them and their testimonies, so that we might be able to debate the merits of your claims, or lack of merit...

TAM

There are no exclusion criteria.

All witnesses can be discussed in the other thread.

I have no reason to exclude witnesses that could not or did not see the alleged impact because obviously they support the flyover theory as much as they do the official story.

[pomeroo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

The moderators did not "abandon" the thread.

The only reason it went off topic is because the members here were so upset that Gravy's deception had been exposed that they resorted to constant attacks against me personally so the thread would be moderated and/or disposed of.

As it stands the thread still exists and if Gravy or the members here refuse to discuss the witnesses one by one and back up his assertion it is clearly a concession that Gravy's claim is incorrect.

If he has a shred of integrity he will modify his blog to reflect this.

If you had a shred of integrity (and you don't), you'd take your fabrications and outright falsehoods to a real reporter. Let's see what happens.

[T.A.M.]

For the love of god, Lyte, I am done. I purposely made this thread so we could look at your perspective wrt the witnesses.

If for nothing else, use this thread, as it does address a different group of issues than your original theads intent, and this thread is also not moderated, and will not take 10 years to post 105 witnesses, or however many we can get to.

TAM

[Arus808]

TAM since Lyte isn't questioning witness #2 , then that means he concedes and witness #2 is credible. Let's move on to witness #3.

So we now have 2 witnesses that are credible and nothing in their statements are questionable.


Witness #3?

[T.A.M.]

I wish, but Lyte has chosen to take the "I am not gonna answer it here" tactic, so this thread will likely not move on, at least not with his input...ok, for the sake of the others we will keep Deb Alnauf as ours, having no rebuttal against her.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Witness #3: David Battle

Quote:

Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."

Ok:

1. Article is no longer available on line so, we are limited already.
2. He does not state he actually saw the plane hit, he says WHEN it hit, the cars and everything were shaking.

I find no reason to question his statement, but we are limited, in that we do not have the full article testimony to see the context of the statement. So far we know he saw it coming down toward the pentagon, head first. Everything else is speculation or inference.

This witness, seems credible, but we do not have definite proof at this time that he VISUALIZED the crash itself.

TAM