Lyte&merc: Explain The >fly Over Theory<

Lyte&merc: Explain The >fly Over Theory<

davel
Advanced Member
davel
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 15 2007, 07:33 PM

Mar 2 2007, 12:29 PM #1

I apologize for my bad image composing skills but what exactly is the fly over therory?

Do you think the plane flew over the pentagon like in this animation:



Or more like this one?

Quote
Like
Share

davel
Advanced Member
davel
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 15 2007, 07:33 PM

Mar 2 2007, 12:57 PM #2

And please explain what could have happend or what you think happend.
As far i understand your theory, this happend:

1. They take a passenger plane, (not flight 77?)
2. then they fly towards the pentagon (very low altitude)
3. they blow up the wall, (To hide the plane behind the explosion)
4. then they spontaneously pull up the plane, (in the same second as the explosion)
5. they quickly place debris, (How did they do it???)
6. then they damage the lightpoles on the highly frequented Washington Blvd.
7. Somehow they manage to cloak (Drivers heading towards the Pentagon on the Jevverson Davey Highway or the Washington Blvd. don`t notice the plane) and land the plane somewhere without any notice from any airtraffic control.

Do you think this happend? And if so:

Why did nobody see it flying over the pentagon? I assume that everybody who heard or saw the explosion watched the scene. There are two highly frequented streets around the pentagon, so i guess there were hundreds of cars driving towards the pentagon or passing by on this sunny, clear day.

Why did the flight control center fail to see the plane still flying on their radar? Didn`t they know about the alleged hijacked plane heading towards Washington?

And did you talk to one of them?
Quote
Like
Share

Ashoka
Member
Ashoka
Member
Joined: Oct 22 2006, 10:47 AM

Mar 2 2007, 01:07 PM #3

Davel, have you seen the Pentacon?

In the first seconds of the movie there is a graphic animation, made by Pier, that shows the flyover...


Google video link

The animation is in the trailer too

Trailer on Youtube

bye,

Ashoka
Quote
Like
Share

Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Jarroyo
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 08:16 PM

Mar 2 2007, 03:11 PM #4

davel, I think the first image you posted represents more accurately Lyte and Merc's flight path.

This is a Gif extract from the animation of the Pentacon:



To Lyte and Merc the plane was flying very high and not at all horizontal to the pentagon wall.

J

PS: Here is a smaller Gif :D

Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Mar 2 2007, 03:17 PM #5

Anyone who isn't comfortable accepting the flyover theory is welcome to present their own hypothesis about what happened to the plane after it flew on the north of the station.

We look forward to your suggestions.

Thanks,
CIT
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Feb 27 2007, 08:17 AM

Mar 2 2007, 03:38 PM #7

Lyte Trip @ Mar 2 2007, 03:17 PM wrote:Anyone who isn't comfortable accepting the flyover theory is welcome to present their own hypothesis about what happened to the plane after it flew on the north of the station.

We look forward to your suggestions.

Thanks,
CIT
My hypothesis is that the plane flew along the path of the damaged light poles and crashed into the pentagon. This is based on the evidence recovered from the crash scene and eyewitness reports from the day which are well documented on numerous websites. Here are 2:

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pe ... ns_est.htm
Quote
Like
Share

Citizen Merc
Advanced Member
Citizen Merc
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 23 2007, 05:43 AM

Mar 2 2007, 03:51 PM #8

Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 03:26 PM wrote:
There is NO proof the plane flew north of the Citgo.
Right, contact Lagasse and Brooks then you coward.

You are so transparent.
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Mar 2 2007, 04:53 PM #10

Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 03:26 PM wrote: There is NO proof the plane flew north of the Citgo.

You have eyewitness testimony of people who believe it did 5 years later.

A memory of where something was is not where the thing actually was.

1) Lagasse remembered he was somewhere he wasn't.
2) Lagasse remembered the entire cab scene where it wasn't.
3) Lagasse has placed a plane where it wasn't 75% of the time.

You really need to be honest about beliefs versus proof and phrase it properly when discussing it. That will help you when the real heat comes your way.
NONE of the 3 points you mention have any bearing whatsoever on Lagasse's POV.

Why do you keep ignoring the extreme importance of his POV?
1.&nbsp; Lagasse remembered he was somewhere he wasn't.
This was a minor detail that had "NO BEARING" on his point of view. Did you not hear him say that? Do you not agree? If not please explain why because his postion on the far NORTH END of the gas station does not change by being merely being parked 15 feet behind where he originally remembered.

It's completely deceptive of you to suggest that this is a legitimate reason as to why he would remember the completely opposite placement of the plane from what really happened.
2.&nbsp; Lagasse remembered the entire cab scene where it wasn't.
Once again this has nothing whatsoever to do with his placement of the plane. You are FILLED with absurd logical fallacies in this discussion because this is the only way you can spin this rock solid data. His POV is such that he would see and notice the plane on the north side perfectly but there is no reason to suggest he would have seen the taxi at all until he drove over the area. And even then, in all the post event chaos, there is no reason to suggest he should remember perfectly on what side of the bridge the taxi was. This detail would have been considered insignificant to him at time where as the placement of the plane would clearly be the most obvious and significant detail that he witnessed.

Besides......he may be right about this. The planted cab may have been moved.

Again.....this has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on his extremely simple and detailed description of a plane on the north side.

His POV of a plane on the south side however wouldn't have been very good at all.
3.&nbsp; Lagasse has placed a plane where it wasn't 75% of the time.
What? He has ALWAYS said north/starboard side. Now you are making stuff up and even making up bogus statistics to make it seem more legitimate.

Your deception and spin tactics are unparalleled.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

buddy
Advanced Member
buddy
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 28 2007, 08:38 PM

Mar 2 2007, 04:57 PM #11

Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 10:26 AM wrote:There is NO proof the plane flew north of the Citgo.

You have eyewitness testimony of people who believe it did 5 years later.
You've got "proof" and "evidence" mixed up:

proof: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

evidence: an outward sign, something that furnishes proof, something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

The testimonies are evidence. The argument and explanation of what happened, and how, is the proof. Proof that something happened a particular way is done when there are no other explanations that fit better and that other explanations are highly unlikely or impossible.

This is an approach the the government should take when proving that official story of 9/11.
This board like to drive aways its friends. Bye
Quote
Like
Share

buddy
Advanced Member
buddy
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 28 2007, 08:38 PM

Mar 2 2007, 05:31 PM #13

Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 12:20 PM wrote:Lyte,

I know you want to discount everything your witnesses said except for the thing you set out to prove.

But I am sorry it doesn't work that way. You have to admit the errors. You guys are willing to believe he embellished and even made up a story about being blown into the car to explain him ducking back into it.

Here is what you are saying (or have said) broken down.

1) I don't believe my witness about the plane hitting the Pentagon.
2) I called my witness a liar in the past in part due to him claiming he saw the shades down.
3) I don't believe my witness when he describe the exact position of the plane over the annex in an earlier interview because in this one he stated he did not see the plane over the annex.
4) I do not believe him when he states his explosives experience and clearly tells you it was NOT explosives he witnessed.
5) I don't believe my witness was actually blown into the car.
6) I do not believe my witness when he says it was clearly an AA plane because I believe it was a military plane that was white or gray.
7) I do not believe my witness saw the plane yaw at impact because I believe he did not see an impact.
8) I do not believe my witness estimating the speed of the plane because that kind of turn at 400 mph violates physics and was not reported by anybody.
9) I do not believe my witness was standing in the location he was having memories from because the video proved that incorrect. But in the case of another witness I believe the video was altered with no proof and I refuse the opportunity to prove it.
10) I don't believe my witness in the elevation of 100-150 AGL because another witness claims it had to pull up over a 30 foot high sign which was 10 feet below the lamp poles and if the plane dove from 150 AGL to 30 AGL in that time frame it is impossible to have pulled up.

COMPARED TO:

1) I believe my witness because he said the plane was on the north and that is what I want to believe.
Wait now. You are dong the same thing. And from what I saw in the Pentacon video, the main point being made was that the plane was on the north side on the Citgo station, not whether the shades were down, whether there was an explosion, or what type of plane it actually was. The impact into the building was addressed but that is separate from where the plane was flying in relation to the Citgo.

You can take different parts of the testimonies and test them. If several people independently state that the saw the plane flying in a particular location and those testimonies corroborate, then that's pretty strong. If one person says that he saw shades down, but no one else did, and if he only saw that for a split second, then that is not so strong..

The point I got from the film is that there is strong evidence that the plane was on the north side, not the south which is where the official story indicates, and the only reason it really matters is because the lightpoles were on the flight path of the plane if it flew on the south side. So we have a mystery here: how does a plane flying on the north of the Citgo knock down lighpoles that are south of that flight plan? I don't know, but it cannot just be brushed aside. (And I am not on board yet with the flyover theory)
This board like to drive aways its friends. Bye
Quote
Like
Share

SDG guy
Advanced Member
SDG guy
Advanced Member
Joined: Jan 17 2007, 06:32 PM

Mar 2 2007, 05:38 PM #14

buddy @ Mar 2 2007, 05:31 PM wrote:If several people independently state that the saw the plane flying in a particular location and those testimonies corroborate, then that's pretty strong.
Well I count 184 statements here that say otherwise. Would you then conclude that's pretty strong?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/ev ... /bart.html
Quote
Like
Share

Halliburton
Advanced Member
Halliburton
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 23 2007, 09:28 PM

Mar 2 2007, 05:40 PM #16

IMO this is why a fly over is only plausible answer..... no way on earth this is AA77 500mph, inches off the ground....NOWAY!....

Quote
Like
Share

SDG guy
Advanced Member
SDG guy
Advanced Member
Joined: Jan 17 2007, 06:32 PM

Mar 2 2007, 05:41 PM #17

Halliburton @ Mar 2 2007, 05:40 PM wrote: IMO this is why a fly over is only plausible answer..... no way on earth this is AA77 500mph, inches off the ground....NOWAY!....

Way.
Quote
Like
Share

Halliburton
Advanced Member
Halliburton
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 23 2007, 09:28 PM

Mar 2 2007, 05:44 PM #18

SDG guy @ Mar 2 2007, 05:41 PM wrote:
Halliburton @ Mar 2 2007, 05:40 PM wrote: IMO this is why a fly over is only plausible answer.....&nbsp; no way on earth this is AA77 500mph, inches off the ground....NOWAY!....

Way.
provide youre positive ID it is AA77....

from both PARTS, and or after dropping off radar....

till you can, you are assuming it is AA77
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Mar 2 2007, 05:44 PM #19

Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 05:20 PM wrote: I know you want to discount everything your witnesses said except for the thing you set out to prove.

But I am sorry it doesn't work that way. You have to admit the errors. You guys are willing to believe he embellished and even made up a story about being blown into the car to explain him ducking back into it.
We DID admit and include their errors!

But the errors are irrelevant to the fact that they ALL place the plane on the north.

We are willing to believe Lagasse embellished the wing vortex becuase he admitted that he did!

The placement of the plane is by far the simplest and most significant detail.

It is completely logical for us to suggest that this detail would be remembered the most accurately.

Why?

POV

Remember that? It means point of view.

Their point of view was perfect to tell on what side of the station the plane flew.

They all say the same thing.

To suggest that mistakes about other less significant details have any bearing whatsoever on this simple right or left quadruple corroborated claim is insane and is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

To suggest that they would be SO CERTAIN about this detail but yet the exact opposite of what they all claim is truly what happened is beyond deceptive.

To suggest that WE are the ones picking and choosing what to believe is absurd when clearly the most significant, obvious, and strongly corroborated detail is what YOU are choosing not to believe.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: