Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Lyte Trip]

Explain how you came to this conclusion.

I'll be the first to admit that it's speculation.

But it is not speculation to suggest that there would be significant damage.

Just like it's not speculation to suggest there would be significant damage to Lloyd England's taxicab hood.

There is no need to abandon common sense.

[Pardalis]

ignore. and move on. lyte wont change, so like Christophera, its best to ignore those who are seriously disturbed.


It's morbid fascination at this point, you know, when a cat is playing with a half-dead mouse. ;)

[Pardalis]

I'll be the first to admit that it's speculation.

But it is not speculation to suggest that there would be significant damage.

Just like it's not speculation to suggest there would be significant damage to Lloyd England's taxicab hood.

There is no need to abandon common sense.

Common sense is relative, especially when it's people like you.

OK so you got empty speculations about the Pentagon crash. Why are you bothering us for? This is a skeptics forum.

[Pardalis]

You know lyte, I got to give you credit for one thing. Unlike all the other twoofers, you actually got out your chair and went to Washington D.C. and talked to actual people. Even thought your methodology and reasoning are hidiously flawed, I say kudos for you.

Now why stop there? You got a lot of investigatin' to do.

[uk_dave]

I'll be the first to admit that it's speculation.

But it is not speculation to suggest that there would be significant damage.

Just like it's not speculation to suggest there would be significant damage to Lloyd England's taxicab hood.

There is no need to abandon common sense.

Yikes, he's mentioned 'common sense'!!111!!!!eleventy11!!

Tell us lyte, what does your 'common sense' tell you when you consider why it is that all these things about the pentagon are so OBVIOUS to you, and yet not so obvious to others?

I mean, where is your common sense when it comes to considering how this carefully planned, painfully complex plot involving flyovers, preplanted explosives, planted witnesses, planted trees, planted lightpoles and fireballs, can all fall to pieces because there's not enough damage to the ground floor slab of the pentagon building?

Doesn't your common sense tell you that maybe, just maybe, you're barking up the wrong tree on this?

How does your common sense reconcile the fact that whether caused by a plane or explosives, the building was damaged, a large section of it COLLAPSED on to the 'undamaged' floor slab, there is pictorial evidence of that collapse, and yet still the slab does not show enough damage (to you) in the pictures you present.

Doesn't it give you pause for thought?

[chippy]

Well lyte, apparently I'm the one you're ignoring tonight, so I'm going to bed. I would actually like you to answer my questions, but I'd also like to point out to you that your time here is a complete waste. Have you not yet figured out that this 9/11 battle you are fighting actually has absolutely NOTHING do with any single member of JREF? We are not members of the government. Even if you change a few JREFers minds on something, which is unlikely since they seem to dislike you so much, who cares? There's still a government out there who got away with a crime that you think they committed. Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here? I really think you ought to ask yourself that question as sincerely as possible. I don't know why you spend so many hours debating these things with us, as if our opinions actually matter. We already have what we want. You don't. You have to go and get it. So why don't you?

[Lyte Trip]

Common sense is relative, especially when it's people like you.

OK so you got empty speculations about the Pentagon crash. Why are you bothering us for? This is a skeptics forum.

Dude.

We are the first to present eyewitnesses to the plane filmed on location.

No matter what your position on 9/11 if you are truly a researcher or someone concerned with this debate you would understand how groundbreaking this is.

If the witnesses said they saw the plane on the south side of the station and hit the poles we would have reported it and most likely let the Pentagon issue go.

But they didn't.

Something terribly different happened on that day.

The plane did not cause the physical damage.

That much we know for sure.

[Pardalis]

Dude.


Actually, judging from his avatar, Qarnos is "the Dude".

[Minadin]

The film does not "debunk itself". It is impossible for both the north side claim and the impact to be simultaneously true.

See, that's not completely true. If the plane was travelling at a much slower speed than it was reported as, it becomes a lot easier for these things to happen. It also becomes a lot easier for said plane to pull up and fly over the pentagon to perpetrate the illusion that you claim. I'm not saying that this is what actually happened; I'm suggesting that you're not even very good at creating false dichotomies. There's too many variables in play for you to paint the situation into a corner like that.

[A W Smith]

Lyte. Wheres the crater from the blast? any explosion thats going to have enough force to demolish a two foot thick wall and cut it clean off its foundation at grade is most certainly going to leave a blast crater through that slab. Where the hell is it? Your photos are now proof that a plane flew into the building.

[Lyte Trip]

Yikes, he's mentioned 'common sense'!!111!!!!eleventy11!!

Tell us lyte, what does your 'common sense' tell you when you consider why it is that all these things about the pentagon are so OBVIOUS to you, and yet not so obvious to others?

I mean, where is your common sense when it comes to considering how this carefully planned, painfully complex plot involving flyovers, preplanted explosives, planted witnesses, planted trees, planted lightpoles and fireballs, can all fall to pieces because there's not enough damage to the ground floor slab of the pentagon building?

Doesn't your common sense tell you that maybe, just maybe, you're barking up the wrong tree on this?

How does your common sense reconcile the fact that whether caused by a plane or explosives, the building was damaged, a large section of it COLLAPSED on to the 'undamaged' floor slab, there is pictorial evidence of that collapse, and yet still the slab does not show enough damage (to you) in the pictures you present.

Doesn't it give you pause for thought?

No because this is clearly WAY less obvious physical evidence.

That's why nobody has said anything about it. Merc was the first to point it out.

Plus we have proven that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station so it couldn't have caused the physical damage anyway.

[gumboot]

We are the first to present eyewitnesses to the plane filmed on location.


What about all the media organisations that interviewed eyewitnesses on site on the day? I suspect their work trumps yours.

Such a cute little mouse...

-Gumboot

[uk_dave]

No because this is clearly WAY less obvious physical evidence.

That's why nobody has said anything about it. Merc was the first to point it out.

Plus we have proven that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station so it couldn't have caused the physical damage anyway.

Lyte, the floor slab apparently remained undamaged after an explosion and after a collapse.

Why is that?

[Lyte Trip]

What about all the media organisations that interviewed eyewitnesses on site on the day? I suspect their work trumps yours.

Such a cute little mouse...

-Gumboot

That's not the same.

I meant in any subsequent study after the fact.

[Minadin]

You don't think that the same-day interviews were "after the fact"? Really?

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, the floor slab apparently remained undamaged after an explosion and after a collapse.

Why is that?

Explosives and/or incendiary devices were planted in strategic areas so as to simulate the trajectory of the plane.

Apparently they didn't plant the explosives in the floor.

[gumboot]

That's not the same.


I agree, it's not the same. You went there years after the fact, with an agenda, carefully selected witnesses that supported your claims, and you STILL failed miserably.

In contrast the media on the day had no agenda other that reporting the truth, the memories were fresh in the eyewitnesses minds, and people were chosen at random.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

Explosives and/or incendiary devices were planted in strategic areas so as to simulate the trajectory of the plane.


THAT'S your next step! That's what you got to prove.

Now go investigatin'! :cool::cool:

[uk_dave]

Explosives and/or incendiary devices were planted in strategic areas so as to simulate the trajectory of the plane.

Apparently they didn't plant the explosives in the floor.

What about the collapse of the structure?

What about the internal damage? Were your explosives so focused that they could only cause damage parallel to the ground.....a bit like flying debris?

Explain to us how all this damage was caused to the structure, enough to cause it to collapse, and yet the floor slab remained 'undamaged'.

[Lyte Trip]

You don't think that the same-day interviews were "after the fact"? Really?

See?? You guys are obsessed with semantics!

It's so annoying.

OTHER THAN INTERVIEWS ON THAT DAY........

We are the first to present witness accounts filmed on location.
:rolleyes:

Sheesh.

And we are definitely the first to present witnesses at the citgo station on location or at all.

Bottom line it's groundbreaking and important information and would be compelling to any honest unbiased person that is interested in first hand accounts of what happened.

[A W Smith]

Explosives and/or incendiary devices were planted in strategic areas so as to simulate the trajectory of the plane.

Apparently they didn't plant the explosives in the floor.


Wrong. Any blast from an explosive thats going to displace those columns to the north as you pointed out, is going to cause a floor crater. it is impossible for such a blast wave to do otherwise.

[Go_]

Obviously that wouldn't be easy to accomplish now would it? That's why we had to consider all data and decided to comb the streets of Arlington to find out what the eyewitnesses saw.

Turns out they proved the plane could not have caused the physical damage.



Why is this so when after you 'combed the streets of Arlington,' the two most credible witnesses in your video (and the only two of the four with a view of the Pentagon at the time of impact) told you directly in unambiguous language that they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon?

Lagasse specifically stated in your presence that this was a point beyond any reasonable dispute. He, like other witnesses, mentioned that it looked as if the Pentagon had 'swallowed' the plane. This strongly implies that the plane disappeared from his view before the fireball erupted. How is it possible that the plane disappeared from his view before the fireball erupted if the plane flew over the building?

How is it possible that the plane never rose above the roof of the building before it disappeared from Lagasse's view when Lagasse was standing only a few hundred feet away?

For a plane to clear the Pentagon from Lagasse's viewpoint, the plane would have to appear to be above the Pentagon even if only slightly. This undoubtedly was never the case.

Why didn't you ask him to try to reconcile those observations with your theory? Why didn't you do so in his presence?

[Pardalis]

Welcome Go, I mean stay... but welcome... :)

[A W Smith]

No because this is clearly WAY less obvious physical evidence.

That's why nobody has said anything about it. Merc was the first to point it out.

Plus we have proven that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station so it couldn't have caused the physical damage anyway.

You have proven nothing. Thats hand waving and denial

[Earl The Tall]

It was probably partially prefabricated and then finished off with explosives.

Perhaps it was even moved in advance or simply blown in that direction.

That made me almost do a spit take with my Diet Dr. Pepper.

[Lyte Trip]

I agree, it's not the same. You went there years after the fact, with an agenda, carefully selected witnesses that supported your claims, and you STILL failed miserably.




Nothing could be farther from the truth. We contacted as many witnesses as we could. We concentrated on the citgo station because the manager told us about Robert Turcios.

So we simply set out to confirm or refute his north side claim.

Well it got confirmed.

Beyond our wildest imaginations.

It's not our fault. It's simply what the witnesses saw.

[uk_dave]

See?? You guys are obsessed with semantics!

It's so annoying.



That is kinda ironic, when 90% of the 911 CT is based on the 'truthers' interpretation of what someone else has said.

[Minadin]

Please, Lyte (may I call you Lyte?)

I am tempted to believe that you are either:

- A pro-truther disinfo agent intending to make us feel overconfident by proposing these absurd theories, distracting us from debunking the "real" 9/11 research that definitively proves that it is an inside job.

- A government shill who is trying to make the conspiracy theorists look ridiculous on purpose, by proposing such easily refutable claims, without any hard evidence.

Of course, I don't believe either of these things, yet. I'm trying to keep an open mind and look at just the facts. But I would love to hear your response to either.

[Go_]

Thank you, Pardalis. Good to be here among so many of my fellow skeptics.

What are the chances of Lyte Trip answering any of my questions?

And has he said anything about when the long-delayed, but much anticipated ;) "The Pentacon: Researchers' Edition" is coming out?

I've got my popcorn ready.

[Lyte Trip]

Why is this so when after you 'combed the streets of Arlington,' the two most credible witnesses in your video (and the only two of the four with a view of the Pentagon at the time of impact) told you directly in unambiguous language that they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon?

Lagasse specifically stated in your presence that this was a point beyond any reasonable dispute. He, like other witnesses, mentioned that it looked as if the Pentagon had 'swallowed' the plane. This strongly implies that the plane disappeared from his view before the fireball erupted. How is it possible that the plane disappeared from his view before the fireball erupted if the plane flew over the building?

How is it possible that the plane never rose above the roof of the building before it disappeared from Lagasse's view when Lagasse was standing only a few hundred feet away?

For a plane to clear the Pentagon from Lagasse's viewpoint, the plane would have to appear to be above the Pentagon even if only slightly. This undoubtedly was never the case.

Why didn't you ask him to try to reconcile those observations with your theory? Why didn't you do so in his presence?


It is impossible for both the north side claim and the impact claim to be simulaneously true.

You are forced as the viewer to choose one over the other.

Whenever analyzing eyewitness testimony it is up to you (let's say "the jury" for the sake of discussion) to determine if the witness is remembering accurately, remembering inaccurately, deducing, embellishing, or lying.

You have to make this determination with this testimony in regards to the north side claim vs the impact claim.

I listed a bunch of reasons in the original post of this thread why it is infinitely more logical to believe they are remembering accurately in regards to the north side claim over the impact. Please review them again.

[Lyte Trip]

Actually those reasons are in the original post of this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78097

[A W Smith]

It is impossible for both the north side claim and the impact claim to be simulaneously true.

You are forced as the viewer to choose one over the other.

Whenever analyzing eyewitness testimony it is up to you (let's say "the jury" for the sake of discussion) to determine if the witness is remembering accurately, remembering inaccurately, deducing, embellishing, or lying.

You have to make this determination with this testimony in regards to the north side claim vs the impact claim.

I listed a bunch of reasons in the original post of this thread why it is infinitely more logical to believe they are remembering accurately in regards to the north side claim over the impact. Please review them again.

Ive reviewed it and you are right in that it is impossible for both the north side "claim" (not proof you said claim) and the impact to be true. Therefore. Because of a preponderance of evidence. The debris field including the lamp posts. the DNA evidence. the plane wreckage. the flight data recorder evidence. the radar evidence from the local ATC. the passenger bodies one of them still attached to their seat in the pentagon. The "claim" of a north side flight by your witnesses cannot in any possibility be true.

[uk_dave]

I listed a bunch of reasons in the original post of this thread why it is infinitely more logical to believe they are remembering accurately in regards to the north side claim over the impact. Please review them again.

Yep, in particular Lagasse, who couldn't remember which pump he was at, couldn't place the light poles and taxi cab properly to correspond with where he remembered he had been, but could remember seeing the plane hit the pentagon.

Lyte, consider this:

You're going about your everyday business, not expecting anything weird to happen, and maybe not really paying much attention to what you are doing. We all use our autopilot sometimes, don't we?

How many times have you driven the same route to work and then when you got there thought to yourself "I don't actually remember much about that journey"? Maybe you had other things on your mind, or were listening to a cd or something.

But then when an amazing, out of the ordinary event occurs, suddenly you are overloaded with a mass of new information.

So, people are going about their normal day, and suddenly, without any warning, they are seeing a bloody great passenger plane flying extremely low past/over them.

The enormity of this event causes them to momentarily enter a state of shock. They are seeing something which you just don't see normally.

But then that plane crashes into a building.

The final scene of this unexpected shocking event is a massive crash into a building.

So, are you going to use your common sense to say that everything leading up to the crash is clearer in the minds of the witnesses than the crash itself?

They were taken by surprise. They don't even know for certain that they were where they thought they were.

But the finality of the crash is seared into their memories.

Did you ever consider it in those terms?

[Go_]

It is impossible for both the north side claim and the impact claim to be simulaneously true.



No, not at all. In fact, it's not only not impossible, but it is highly probable that the plane would have crashed into the Pentagon if you believe Lagasse's account.

If you'll remember from your interview with Lagasse he stated that the plane was only about 100 to 150 feet above ground level when the plane was at the Citgo station. [This, BTW, contradicts the claim by PFT that the plane was 300 feet over the street light poles by the time it got anywhere close to them, but that's a separate issue.]

Given the altitude which Lagasse attributes to the plane and given the angle of descent of the plane it is much more likely that the plane would have crashed into the Pentagon than it is that the plane would have suddenly pulled up to fly over the Pentagon with that rather dramatic maneuver going unnoticed.

This makes it very likely that the plane hit the Pentagon just as Lagasse told you it did.

Therefore, since we've established that the plane hit the Pentagon, now the only anomalies we have to account for are the damage pattern reported inside the Pentagon and the location of the downed light poles. Since the flight path given by the NTSB for flight 77 perfectly coincides with these events, the most likely explanation for them is that the plane came in on that flight path, which in turn means that either the location of the plane that Lagasse gave you can be reconciled with this flight path or that Lagasse is simply mistaken.

Might Lagasse be mistaken in regard to the location at which he first places the plane?

In your interview with Lagasse, he mentions something about the plane being almost past him before he spotted it. I think he mentioned something about the Doppler effect to account for this. Do you think that it's possible that he never actually saw the plane until it was fully past him and that he unconsciously mentally reconstructed the location from which, in his mind, the plane had to be coming? Remember, this all took place in two seconds or less.

I'm not saying this IS what happened. I'm offering this only as one of many possibilities which might explain the discrepancy.

To digress for a second, one of the things I don't like about any of the conspiracy theories that I've heard, including yours (no offense), is the 'certainty' with which most of these theories claim that certain events had to transpire. Well, there is no certainty when we are dealing with human perception. It's perfectly feasible that any of our perceptions might be mistaken at any time. It is the whole body of evidence which must be accounted for, not particular remembrances.


Whenever analyzing eyewitnesses testimony it is up to you (let's say "the jury" for the sake of discussion) to determine if the witness is remembering accurately, remembering inaccurately, deducing, embellishing, or lying.



True, but ALL the facts have to be taken into consideration.

So what are the facts in our case here?

A) We have five light poles knocked from their pedestals with the tops severed which just happen to perfectly coincide with the flight path attributed to a plane by the world's finest airliner crash investigators.

B) We have several witnesses who state unambiguously that they saw the plane hit the light poles.

C) We have a report issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers in which the damage pattern found inside the Pentagon accurately matches the damage pattern that should be expected from a 757's impacting the Pentagon on the flight path given by the NTSB.

D) And we have your interviews in which witnesses state, in perfect harmony with the above, that they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon.

The only wildcard here, unless the location attributed to the plane by your witnesses can be reconciled with the NTSB-determined flight path, is why your interviewees would place the plane in a different location than the location in which it almost certainly was.

There are, however, explanations even for this as I outlined above.



I listed a bunch of reasons in the original post of this thread why it is infinitely more logical to believe they are remembering accurately in regards to the north side claim over the impact. Please review them again.



No need to review them, I remember them perfectly; but I find them to be more convenient than persuasive.

[JimBenArm]

I'll be the first to admit that it's speculation.

But it is not speculation to suggest that there would be significant damage.

Just like it's not speculation to suggest there would be significant damage to Lloyd England's taxicab hood.

There is no need to abandon common sense.
So why did you abandon common sense?

[JimBenArm]

Thank you, Pardalis. Good to be here among so many of my fellow skeptics.

What are the chances of Lyte Trip answering any of my questions?

And has he said anything about when the long-delayed, but much anticipated ;) "The Pentacon: Researchers' Edition" is coming out?

I've got my popcorn ready.
Chances of him answering? Close to zero. He just rambles about how his eyewitness testimony is airtight, even after his own witnesses point the holes out to him.
In other words, he's got serious mental problems. Can't be reasoned with, won't accept anything that doesn't validate his view, and just drones on and on.

[a_unique_person]

Chances of him answering? Close to zero. He just rambles about how his eyewitness testimony is airtight, even after his own witnesses point the holes out to him.
In other words, he's got serious mental problems. Can't be reasoned with, won't accept anything that doesn't validate his view, and just drones on and on.

Hmmm, sounds like just about everyone in the politics forum.

[I Am He]

LYte

How can you keep using those two eyewitnesses to prove your case when you keep calling them liars?? Are they telling the truth or not?? You can't have it both ways. Either their telling the truth or they are not. And, don't give me that crap that they're only telling half truths.

I see you're playing stupid again, but this time you won.

I Am He

[Architect]

You know, Lyte, if I were going to try and propose an alternative theory I would investigate it thoroughly. I would ensure that I could show that I had proposed a detailed hypothesis, propduced sufficient technical evidence to support this claim, and (this is the key) could do so to a level of understanding at least equivalent to that of the "official" account.

But you don't do that, do you? There are huge gaping holes in your hypothesis. Let's look at some basic examples:

1. You didn't appear to know whether the Pentagon had a basement and if so, the construction of the ground (that's first to you Yanks) floor slab.

2. You don't actually know the difference between a foundation, footing, ground bearing (or raft) slab, and a floor slab. This is rather important when you claim that damage to same is indicative (or otherwise) of a certain theory.

3. You can't account for the protection provided to the substructure by the solum, nor can you apaprently explain to us what damage/deformation patterns we should expect.

And that's before I move away from "architectural" concerns and into wider issues about the plane path.

Face it, mate. You ain't got what it takes.

[JimBenArm]

Hmmm, sounds like just about everyone in the politics forum.
That's why I stay here. Less looniness.

[uk_dave]

2. You don't actually know the difference between a foundation, footing, ground bearing (or raft) slab, and a floor slab. This is rather important when you claim that damage to same is indicative (or otherwise) of a certain theory.



Apparently that is a matter of 'semantics'.

Lyte only used 'foundation' to avoid having to say "the big grey thingy at the bottom of the picture" and therefore leave himself open to accusations of ignorance.

You know how important it is for 'truthers' to appear to know what they are talking about.

[Architect]

Apparently that is a matter of 'semantics'.

Lyte only used 'foundation' to avoid having to say "the big grey thingy at the bottom of the picture" and therefore leave himself open to accusations of ignorance.

You know how important it is for 'truthers' to appear to know what they are talking about.

I was going to ask him whether it was simply that the screed had been damaged, as we might expect, and scraped back to the slab as part of the clean up. But that would probably just be semantics too, eh?

:covereyes

[T.A.M.]

Yawn. Yawn. Yawn.

Haven't you gone to the proper media and authorities with this yet. Choose which ones you want to give it to, and just do it already. You are boring beyond belief now. You are not convincing anyone here, so go try your luck with someone else.

Take your uneducated, agenda driven common sense, take your presentation and your grainy poor resolution photos of the "foundation" and tell someone who can do something. Quite acting like a child, gloating about the new toy they got for Xmas, and do the responsible, grown up thing here.

Every time you say "We are the first" you make it more clear where your agenda comes from, what your inspiration is for doing all this.

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

I was going to ask him whether it was simply that the screed had been damaged, as we might expect, and scraped back to the slab as part of the clean up. But that would probably just be semantics too, eh?

:covereyes

Indeed.

I found some of lytes pictures quite interesting in regard to the 'undamaged' slab.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12295461a4085063c4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5066)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12295461a40aa72e02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5067)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12295461a40f322030.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5068)

Now to my untrained eye, the temporary supports are bearing at a level above the adjacent floor slab, suggesting that part of the loadbearing wall either side of the damaged area is above floor level. But I wonder if it is possible that there was a suspended floor above the slab, and that the floor within the undamaged area was retained at this level therefore necessittating the retention of the loadbearing wall to the same floor level.

There also appears to be a great deal of damage to the 'grey thingy at the bottom of the picture' in both the second and third pictures.

But then again, we all know how futile photgraphic analysis is unless more data is available.

[T.A.M.]

arguing with Lyte and his "Photographic" evidence, is like arguing with your 6 year old child about the WTC collapse based on his recently build LEGO model of the towers.

TAM:)

[defaultdotxbe]

arguing with Lyte and his "Photographic" evidence, is like arguing with your 6 year old child about the WTC collapse based on his recently build LEGO model of the towers.

TAM:)
i always felt the "WTC7 should have toppled" argument is based on an experiment involving alphabet blocks

[Bobert]

I'll be the first to admit that it's speculation.

But it is not speculation to suggest that there would be significant damage.

Just like it's not speculation to suggest there would be significant damage to Lloyd England's taxicab hood.

There is no need to abandon common sense.

Lyte,
Do you think that it was Wil Smith or Tommy Lee Jones that planted the lightpole and helped Lloyd remove it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Let's frame it this way:

You are the prosecuter accusing a big boeing of causing the damage. Lyte Trip is the defense attorney representing the big boeing. The burden is on the prosecuter to prove that there was a big boeing present at the scene of the crime. The prosecution has thusfar provided very little to suggest that a big boeing was present, while defense attorney Lyte Trip has offered compelling evidence that a big boeing could not possibly have done the damage.
Wrong again Ace. Lyte Trip is in the role of proponent and is making the claim that the status quo position that the Pentagon was struck by a Boeing is wrong. The burden of proof is on Lyte Trip to substantiate his claim. Lyte Trip's opponents (those supporting the status quo position that the Pentagon was struck by a Boeing) need only refute, that is to say present counter-claims, Lyte Trip's claims.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Indeed.

I found some of lytes pictures quite interesting in regard to the 'undamaged' slab.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12295461a4085063c4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5066)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12295461a40aa72e02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5067)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12295461a40f322030.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5068)

Now to my untrained eye, the temporary supports are bearing at a level above the adjacent floor slab, suggesting that part of the loadbearing wall either side of the damaged area is above floor level. But I wonder if it is possible that there was a suspended floor above the slab, and that the floor within the undamaged area was retained at this level therefore necessittating the retention of the loadbearing wall to the same floor level.

There also appears to be a great deal of damage to the 'grey thingy at the bottom of the picture' in both the second and third pictures.

But then again, we all know how futile photgraphic analysis is unless more data is available.
Unless you are planning on presenting evidence that a Boeing striking the Pentagon could not have failed to caused the damage that you are expecting to see, then your opinions don't add up to spit.

Just because you think that a Boeing striking the Pentagon must cause a certain type of damage does not make it so, you must show that your assumption is valid. Otherwise your are just making an argument from personal incredulity.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Interesting.

So now I suppose I should simply use the term "1st floor" instead of foundation.

Semantics.

You guys are obsessed with it.
That's because WORDS MEAN THINGS. If I am discussing gravity with physicists and I describe it as a 'weak interaction', they are going to correct me and tell me that I am wrong, because even though gravitation is the weakest, it is a separate category of fundamental interaction than 'weak interactions' are.

Words matter, because exactness and accuracy help to convey the meaning of an idea while minimizing ambiguity.

Failing to be exact and accurate not only fails to convey the idea in a meaningful manner, but continuing to do so often suggests that such ambiguity is intentional and is being used in an attempt to mislead.

[uk_dave]

Unless you are planning on presenting evidence that a Boeing striking the Pentagon could not have failed to caused the damage that you are expecting to see, then your opinions don't add up to spit.

Just because you think that a Boeing striking the Pentagon must cause a certain type of damage does not make it so, you must show that your assumption is valid. Otherwise your are just making an argument from personal incredulity.

Steady on there wolfy. :D

I don't EXPECT to see anything.

Damage caused to a structure by a unique event is in itself going to be unique and as such we can none of us have preconceptions as to what that damage should look like.

I was merely pointing out, for the benefit of Lyte, that his claim of there being no damage to the floor slab seemed contradicted by two of his pictures.

I was also speculating as to whether there was a void between the top of the slab and the actual floor of the pentagon.

[jaydeehess]

Wow, 4 days, 8 pages.

I read the first two and last one, so if anything I say has been covered before forgive me for not wanting to go over the other 5.

I see that Architect and others came in and established what 'foundation' means for Lytely. That was one of the things that tweaked me on page 1.

Also on page 1 is Lyte's claim that the plane went in under the first floor ceiling and that such is the 'official' theory.

That is incorrect. The port wing and part of the starboard wing went in under the ceiling(floor level of the 2nd floor as denoted in the N.American way of things). That puts the bulk of the mass of the fuselage entering the second floor and lo and behold there is a 18 foot wide , basically round, hole in the center ofthe damaged area and on the second floor wall.

He also claims that the port engine is depicted as grinding through the ground at impact. Well the port engine did take a 'bite' out of a curb just in front of the building so it was low and just at ground level as it hit the building. This means that it was hitting that floor slab at a very slight angle which means that there was not much of a vertical component to the velocity of that engine. Then of course once through the wall, for which Lyte is kind enough to illustrate as two feet of limestone, brick and concrete, that engine would no longer be constrained to follow the wing as it was no longer connected to it. The engine would then be free to tumble, twist, or roll and I am quite sure it did a great deal of each along with subsequent impacts with anything inside the Pentagon.

He complains about the tail section not having punched through the wall as well. Once again though it should be pointed out that by the time the tail section reachs the wall it is no longer connected to the bulk of the aircraft and would be free to tumble, twist, rotate when it did impact the wall. The lower portion of that tail section would be entering through the already missing front wall portions while the upper section would be impacting still intact parts of the wall. The upper portion was also less massive than the lower portion and it is quite easy to see that this would result in the tail rotating into the hole (and breaking up in the process).

Lyte states that the damage to the front wall is consistent with explosives as he says that columns are blown outward. One problem with this is that Lyte cannot show that the columns are indeed leaning outward can he? He is using a one dimensional picture that shows the columns leaning but this is hardly suprising given that it also shows the whole structure above the first floor slumping. Those columns can just as easily be leaning inward. The wall above the first floor is quite likely bulging outward. The columns below have been broken and no longer support the upper mass. The upper mass is constrained from moving inward by the stiff flooring but it is unconstrained from going in the other direction. The mass of the upper floors is also being bourne in a catenary fashion by those floor and attached to intact interior columns. This would cause a rotation about those connections as the floor bow which would be seen from the outside as a bulge. Thus, in a one dimensional picture it might appear that the wall and the columns are leaning outward as if an explosion had occured within the building.

BUT, if there was an explosion that was capable of removing this amonut of front wall and blowing outward then one should also note the debris from that outward moving wall debris all around the Pentagon. witnesses near the Pentagon should have noted huge amounts of shattered limestone, brick and concrete flying past them. The front wall is missing for approx 90 feet. The wall is 24 inches(2 feet) thick. Assuming that doors and windows take up approx half of the surface and that the floor is only 8 feet tall(in which I assume values designed to under estimate the volume of the missing wall all around IMHO) we have a volume of limestone, brick and concrete of
(90 X 2 X 8) X 0.5 = 720 cubic feet of debris that should be in front of the wall. To put this in perspective a large dump truck can carry 10-15 cubic yards(= 90 to 135 cubic feet) which means we should see 5 or so truckloads of debris ( if the wall is 10 feet high, or , if the windows and doors only take up 40% of the surface of the wall, then that's an additional truckload each) from that wall lieing about in front of the building. Is this in evidence in any photo?

[Myriad]

Double post, deleted. See next post. Apologies.

Respectfully,
Myriad.

[Myriad]

Hi Lyte Trip,

I'd like to discuss the illusion you're suggesting, of a flyover screened by a fireball, from a point of view of principles of stage magic. It occurs to me, from my skeptical perspective, that you might be under some common (and often deliberately fostered) misimpressions of how stage illusions actually work. For example, "misdirection" as a stage magic concept doesn't mean what most people think it means. As a result, you appear to be overestimating how effective an illusion based on getting witnesses to look away from the vanishing object (in this case, the plane) could be.

Clearly, your whole case for a flyover depends on this illusion. Even if your witnesses are correct about the flight path, even if (let's suppose) persuasive evidence of bomb damage were found in the building, it all comes to nothing if there's no plausible explanation for how the plane whose incoming trajectory was witnessed by many people could have cleared the building and left the scene unwitnessed.

Therefore, I would expect that you have begun undertaking a thorough review of illusion techniques, with an eye toward extending your simulation to show how the illusion worked in the ten seconds or so after the explosion, while the plane (per your theory) passed over the rest of the building and continued in flight from there, as viewed from different angles. Stage magic, of course, is not real magic, so every illusion has a specific method to it, including a specific way of hiding the "vanished" article or person from subsequent view. Until you can posit a method and demonstrate its effectiveness, your flyover hypothesis will not be credible.

If you haven't begun such a study, there are any number of books on stage illusions, available at bookstores, specialty magic stores, and libraries. (If you were wondering, there's no "Magican's Code" restricting the sale of such information, except insofar as the sellers usually want money for it. For instance, no one at Tannen's ever asked me to pull a rabbit out of a hat or show a signed copy of any Magician's Oath before selling me stage illusion construction plans.)

Anyway, this is a bit off-topic for this thread, but I'm willing to start a new thread for the topic if you're interested. While I don't agree with your conclusions, I do give you credit for maintaining a civil tone consistent with a desire to persuade rather than provoke. I'll to risk being blamed for starting "yet another PentaCON thread," since I think the discussion might be interesting.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Pardalis]

Just one question Lyte, what is the white glow on your animation (your avatar)?

Is that artistic license?

[Bobert]

Myriad,
Excellent post but IMHO Lyte has not been very civil.

[Mince]

Plus we have proven that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station so it couldn't have caused the physical damage anyway.


Dude, no you have not. You have proven that four people seem to think, or believe, it flew on the north side of the NEX gas station. You have not proven that the plane actually flew on the north side of the NEX gas station. Do you understand that logic? Dude?


Also, explain why the need to fake a specific flight path (i.e. the light poles). Would the conspiracy have been any less believable had it not knocked out those light poles? And how did one end up in the windshield of a taxi cab? Was it launched from an RPG tube? Also, how did they stage all of that debris in the mere seconds between the explosion and everyone staring at the Pentagon?

[pomeroo]

[quote=Lyte Trip;2502916]That's a lame hypothetical generalization.



No, it's not a generalization so much as an accurate observation about the tendencies of conspiracy liars.



I brought back proof that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station.




No, you produced nothing that rises anywhere near the level of proof.




I am not making this up.




You strike me as more crazy and unintelligent than dishonest.



Now we know why the damage is so cookie cutter and anomalous and there was so little debris.




Some people do understand the nature of the damage to the Pentagon. You are not among them.




The eyewitnesses have definitively confirmed the suspicions.



Whether you're crazy or simply lying is not terribly important. In fact, eyewitnesses have strongly contradicted your absurd fantasies.

[CurtC]

According to you?

Not according to the official story or the physical damage.

They both clearly indicate that the plane had to be TILTED with the right wing up and the left wing down.
When he said the plane was going parallel, he meant that its flight path was basically horizontal, not that the wings were perfectly level with each other. Also, you never answered my question about your claim that the official story says that the plane went underneath the first and second floors. Everyone else here knows that the plane entered the first and second floors. Just like the drawing you posted.

And then you posted images in which you can barely make out the slab, with some kind of vague claims about the foundation being undamaged. Can you be more specific? I wouldn't expect an engine to burrow very far into a concrete slab, edgewise, even at 500 mph. Especially after it hit a concrete curb outside the Pentagon's outer wall first, which would apparently cause it to begin tumbling upwards, more into the first floor area than the slab.


We've had one of you in this thread that was man enough to admit that Purdue was incorrect in their analysis...
As far as I know, the official story in no way depends on the Purdue animation. I believe that was done as an exercise in FEA for graduate students, not a genuine investigation tool.

[Gravy]

People, is there really a need to spend more time on Lyte Trip's idiocy? Why give him the attention he craves?

[Myriad]

Myriad,
Excellent post but IMHO Lyte has not been very civil.

Perhaps so, but not all the skeptics have excelled in civility on this thread either. Lyte Trip has done, at least, better than average for being outnumbered in an adversarial argument. I make allowances for being only human in such trying circumstances.

That said, let me make it clear that I don't believe that the discussion of stage illusions that I've proposed will be favorable to the flyover hypothesis or influence anyone's opinion in that direction. But because I could be wrong, I'm willing to address the topic and perhaps Lyte Trip will be also, for the same reason.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jaydeehess]

Concerning "The PentaCon"


When Robert is interviewed he states he saw one engine 'on the wing'. He is obviously stating that he could not see the engine on the other wing. Repeatedly he is also asked if he saw any other plane and specifically if he saw a C-130.

The interviewer however ignores his stating that there was no other aircraft and characterizes his account as that of a single engine craft.

The interviewer also ignores the internal inconsistencies in the witnesses testimony. Robert states he could only see one engine on the wing but also has stated that he was all but directly under the plane as it passed over. It would not be possible to be unable to see both engines from that vantage point. Unless the aircraft that passed overhead had only one engine on one wing the statements are inconsistent.
Another inconsistency is that Robert draws a flight path on the photo putting the plane directly over the corner of the canopy. Asked which part of the plane went over the canopy's corner he states the right wing did. That would put the trajectory over the asphalt to the north of the canopy. Did Robert draw a path of the starboard wing or did he misunderstand the question and state that or mis-state which wing went over the corner of the canopy and then change his story to match what he just said rather than admit that he meant the port wing went over the corner.
Robert states that the plane pulled up to clear a highway overhead sign. When he details his account of it pulling up it is obvious that he is saying that it pulled up while he was moving up the enbankment. In other words he had to be watching the plane while running and asending the enbankment. This would have his view changing as he moved north and up and would affect how he perceived the movement of the plane.
Robert also states he did not see the impact. He says this is due to the enbankment being lower then than it is today but the interviewer ignores that instead concentrating on his saying that he did not see the impact.

It is very possible that Robert saw the aircraft pass to the south of the station but is misreading how close it is to him. He believes it passed directly over the station but it was further south than that. He climbs the bank which further confuses the interpretation of the movement of the aircraft. He states he saw the plane pass in about two seconds. That is probably an understatement as it would hardly give him time to run to the enbankment. However it does underline the short time he had to develop any visual reference as the plane roared by.
When interviewed he says the right wing passed over the corner but then realizes that he meant to say the left wing and instead of correcting himself he changes his story to match his mistake which is evident in the very deliberate drawing of the flight path where he at best puts the fuselage over the corner of the building. He now actually has two paths for the plane, the one he drew(fuselage over the corner), his last one in which he puts the fuselage over the tree to the north of the station and there is the suggestion that he saw the entire aircraft over the station which would neccessitate the aircraft be south of the canopy since the plane is wider than the entire station.

Sgt Brook states he was filling his vehicle "where that gentleman is" pointing to a man filling his car in the second from the north end. The interviewer states "so, the far right?" and Brooks answers in the affirmative. But from the pov of where they are standing it is slightly to the right and to the pov of the canopy it is closer to the far left.
Later Brooks is describing where he saw the plane and is asked if it was to the left or to the right. He states to the left and points. However this is the direction which he had, moments before, characterized as 'right'.
As the interview continues he states that saw the plane "go directly in front of the building". While it seems obvious that the building he is refering to is the Pentagon he could mean the Citgo station. That would put the aircraft to the south of the station. However, it is a good bet he is refering to the Pentagon. Therefore he states it is in front of the Pentagon and then boom a huge explosion. He states, three times, very clearly that he saw the plane impact the Pentagon!!!
He describes the plane as a "very large " aircraft. he says '737' but the basic shape of a 737 is a passenger jet with two wing mounted engines, so is a 757 and a 767. Most people would recognize a 747 with its bulge in the forward part of the fuselage but the other three look basically the same unless one has time to get a good look or is very familiar with each aircraft. Obviously he did not have that time. Everything happened very quick but he seems pretty sure he saw a logo and states it may have been "United" blue logo. Sgt. Brooks is really not all that certain about any of the details of the aircraft he saw, except for having seen it fly into the Pentagon. I don't fault him for this. It was a situation unlike any he had ever witnessed before and will in all probability never witness again and from start to finish lasted only seconds culminating in the single most riveting scene he is likely to ever see, the impact of a high speed , large aircraft into a large, important building.

Sgt. Lagasse positively identifies the aircraft as American Airlines. He states that the plane went from where he first saw it to the Pentagon in a second. Probably not quite right but again very quick. He positively states , no landing gear or flaps down. He very positively states that the plane hit the Pentagon even describing that it hit at an angle and using his hands to indicate an angle very much in agreement with that which we are told the plane hit the building. He does seem to be quite confident that the plane went over to the north but readily admits(albeit with a slight bit of sheepishness in his voice and demeanor) that recollections change. He does state that it was never coming at him yet he ducks into his car. Ok that could be a common reaction, its moving fast and the brain has not had time to determine exact trajectory yet so you act instinctively. It could also be that the plane was indeed coming at him and he reacted to that. It also puts him moving quickly which as in the case of Robert can confuse the mind as to the direction the object came from or manouvers it made. Later he describes how he is reconstructing in his mind where the plane was by what he could see concerning the trees and other obstructions. In other words he cannot be sure, he is assuming a direction from the visibility he had from where he was. He saw the plane hit the Pentagon but is adamant that there was no upward mevement of the plane. He mentions, and all the witnesses here also say, that he did not see it hit the light poles. However, he also points out that the poles blend into the building as they are a similar color as the building and are barely visible at all. the videographer zooms into "light pole 1" from where he is standing. This is not where Sgt Lagasse was at the time nor did the Sgt. have the ability to 'zoom in'. He believes that the plane took only a second to move from where he first saw it to the Pentagon. However can that be? At 400 to 450 MPH the plane was doing 580 to 660 feet per second. If the aircraft was more than 660 feet from the building when he first saw it then it had to take longer than one second. In fact the Citgo station is much farther than 660 feet from the Pentagon, more like three times that distance and the Sgt states he saw the plane before the plane had reached the station. It was longer than one second.
Sgt Lagasse does not know how he ended up in his car, only that he did. This would neccessitate him taking his eyes off the scene and he seems to put this movement of getting into the car before the impact of the aircraft with the building.
Near the end he also states that the poles that were hit were north of where the poles actually were hit, that the taxi was north of where the taxi actually was. So is his recollection of the path of the aircraft incorrect or is the loaction of the poles and the taxi incorrect? Given that we know exactly where the poles and the taxi were I vote he is incorrect. What may have occured is he saw the aircraft coming and saw enough to notice the AA logo and no wheels down, dove into his car and then looked up again. By this time the aircraft has passed the station, to the south. He did not see it pass to the south because he was entering his car at the time. Now he looks up to see the plane fly into the Pentagon. Later, in reconstructing the memory he believes he first saw the plane north of where he actually did see it or has incorrectly assumed its trajectory before he enters his car. If the plane had gone along the path he said it did it could not have impacted the building at the angle he is quite sure it hit.
That is all I have had time to go over but what we have here is the whole range of the problems with eyewitness testimony.

This is far from 'smoking gun' evidence.

[Lyte Trip]

No, not at all. In fact, it's not only not impossible, but it is highly probable that the plane would have crashed into the Pentagon if you believe Lagasse's account.


Hypothetically maybe but not in regards to the physical damage. This makes it impossible.


If you'll remember from your interview with Lagasse he stated that the plane was only about 100 to 150 feet above ground level when the plane was at the Citgo station. [This, BTW, contradicts the claim by PFT that the plane was 300 feet over the street light poles by the time it got anywhere close to them, but that's a separate issue.]
PFT does not make any claims as to the altitude of the plane. They merely report what the FDR says. So it's the FDR that conflicts with Lagasse and the physical damage....not PFT.


Given the altitude which Lagasse attributes to the plane and given the angle of descent of the plane it is much more likely that the plane would have crashed into the Pentagon than it is that the plane would have suddenly pulled up to fly over the Pentagon with that rather dramatic maneuver going unnoticed.

This makes it very likely that the plane hit the Pentagon just as Lagasse told you it did.
How can you know the true angle of descent? Plus again it is impossible for a plane on that side of the station to have caused the physical damage so you are incorrect.


Therefore, since we've established that the plane hit the Pentagon, now the only anomalies we have to account for are the damage pattern reported inside the Pentagon and the location of the downed light poles. Since the flight path given by the NTSB for flight 77 perfectly coincides with these events, the most likely explanation for them is that the plane came in on that flight path, which in turn means that either the location of the plane that Lagasse gave you can be reconciled with this flight path or that Lagasse is simply mistaken.
Lagasse isn't the only one who saw the plane on the north side. His placement of the plane is corroborated by all the citgo witnesses and contradicted by none. You are using circular logic.


Might Lagasse be mistaken in regard to the location at which he first places the plane?

In your interview with Lagasse, he mentions something about the plane being almost past him before he spotted it. I think he mentioned something about the Doppler effect to account for this. Do you think that it's possible that he never actually saw the plane until it was fully past him and that he unconsciously mentally reconstructed the location from which, in his mind, the plane had to be coming? Remember, this all took place in two seconds or less.
Watch the interview again because you are wrong. The "doppler effect" is in regards to when he "heard" the plane but he was very explicit in the fact that he SAW the plane BEFORE he heard it. He even points out electrical transformers on a pole as the place where he first saw it. The fact that all the other witnesses place the plane in the same general area indicates that he is accurate in his approximate placement of the plane on the north side of the station.


I'm not saying this IS what happened. I'm offering this only as one of many possibilities which might explain the discrepancy.
This is a drastic mistake. What are the odds that they would all make the exact same drastic mistake? Slim to none.


To digress for a second, one of the things I don't like about any of the conspiracy theories that I've heard, including yours (no offense), is the 'certainty' with which most of these theories claim that certain events had to transpire. Well, there is no certainty when we are dealing with human perception. It's perfectly feasible that any of our perceptions might be mistaken at any time. It is the whole body of evidence which must be accounted for, not particular remembrances.
There becomes a period when a claim is so simple and so general that when corroborated it becomes virtually undeniable.

Consider this analogy:
3 pedestrians in the same general area that they all frequent on a daily basis
all witness a fatal car accident on an intersection a 1/2 a block north of them. If each were questioned
about the incident on location some time after the fact it would stand
to reason that they may have different stories about specific details
like what type of cars were involved, the color, exactly how the
accident happened etc. But if they all place the accident on the same
intersection that was 1/2 block north of them rather than south of them
couldn't the interviewer be fairly certain that the probability that
this very general yet 100% corroborated claim was correct?
Do you understand how perfect this analogy is?

Although Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse all had different descriptions of the plane they all saw it fly by in the same general vicinity and they all frequent that gas station/area daily. Does it really seem feasible to you that they could all be so ridiculously mistaken in the exact same way about such a simple claim? You see they all would have had to simultaneously remember the complete opposite of reality. The physical damage flight path is drastically different from what they all saw. Lagasse's vantage point was such that he wouldn't have seen it at all through the building on the south side. All of their senses would have been drawn to the other side of the station.




True, but ALL the facts have to be taken into consideration.

So what are the facts in our case here?

A) We have five light poles knocked from their pedestals with the tops severed which just happen to perfectly coincide with the flight path attributed to a plane by the world's finest airliner crash investigators.
Hyperbole and circular logic. If the citgo witnesses are correct the poles had to have been staged.


B) We have several witnesses who state unambiguously that they saw the plane hit the light poles.
Very incorrect. You have about 20 that mention the poles but only 1 specifically states that she "saw" the poles get clipped. Wanda Ramey. We have spoken with 3 published so called "light pole witnesses" (sucherman, mcgraw, and brooks) who ALL admitted they merely deduced the poles after the fact. Wanda Ramey either deduced it just like them or is embellishing her account.


C) We have a report issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers in which the damage pattern found inside the Pentagon accurately matches the damage pattern that should be expected from a 757's impacting the Pentagon on the flight path given by the NTSB.
NTSB flight path conflicts with the physical damage AND they eyewitnesses. The ASCE report conflicts with the eyewitnesses. You are using the same circular logic to discredit the eyewitnesses.


D) And we have your interviews in which witnesses state, in perfect harmony with the above, that they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon.
Yes but since they all saw the plane on the north side we know the impact could not have happened.


The only wildcard here, unless the location attributed to the plane by your witnesses can be reconciled with the NTSB-determined flight path, is why your interviewees would place the plane in a different location than the location in which it almost certainly was.

There are, however, explanations even for this as I outlined above.

No need to review them, I remember them perfectly; but I find them to be more convenient than persuasive.You have not brought anything new to the table that convincingly demonstrates how all witnesses at the citgo would simultaneously hallucinate the exact opposite of reality.

Using the conflicting physical evidence as a means to prove them wrong is merely circular logic.

[Arus808]

and lyte continues to ignore facts as evidence by his reply

[Lyte Trip]

Hi Lyte Trip,

I'd like to discuss the illusion you're suggesting, of a flyover screened by a fireball, from a point of view of principles of stage magic. It occurs to me, from my skeptical perspective, that you might be under some common (and often deliberately fostered) misimpressions of how stage illusions actually work. For example, "misdirection" as a stage magic concept doesn't mean what most people think it means. As a result, you appear to be overestimating how effective an illusion based on getting witnesses to look away from the vanishing object (in this case, the plane) could be.

Clearly, your whole case for a flyover depends on this illusion. Even if your witnesses are correct about the flight path, even if (let's suppose) persuasive evidence of bomb damage were found in the building, it all comes to nothing if there's no plausible explanation for how the plane whose incoming trajectory was witnessed by many people could have cleared the building and left the scene unwitnessed.

Therefore, I would expect that you have begun undertaking a thorough review of illusion techniques, with an eye toward extending your simulation to show how the illusion worked in the ten seconds or so after the explosion, while the plane (per your theory) passed over the rest of the building and continued in flight from there, as viewed from different angles. Stage magic, of course, is not real magic, so every illusion has a specific method to it, including a specific way of hiding the "vanished" article or person from subsequent view. Until you can posit a method and demonstrate its effectiveness, your flyover hypothesis will not be credible.

If you haven't begun such a study, there are any number of books on stage illusions, available at bookstores, specialty magic stores, and libraries. (If you were wondering, there's no "Magican's Code" restricting the sale of such information, except insofar as the sellers usually want money for it. For instance, no one at Tannen's ever asked me to pull a rabbit out of a hat or show a signed copy of any Magician's Oath before selling me stage illusion construction plans.)

Anyway, this is a bit off-topic for this thread, but I'm willing to start a new thread for the topic if you're interested. While I don't agree with your conclusions, I do give you credit for maintaining a civil tone consistent with a desire to persuade rather than provoke. I'll to risk being blamed for starting "yet another PentaCON thread," since I think the discussion might be interesting.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I would be very interested in such a thread Myriad.

Please do start it.

But I would first like to add that our "theory" does not rely solely on a single illusionary trick to fool everyone.

There was an important cover story as well as other diversions.

The cover story was other accounts of a "2nd plane" that
"shadowed" the jet and "veered off" just after the explosion.


The diversion was actual other planes that circled the area immediately after the explosion.

People are most familiar with pilot Steve O'brien and his c-130 but there was a white E4b in the area as well as America West plane tail number N644AW (AA 77 was N644AA) that supposedly landed at Reagan at 9:39. 1 minute after the alleged impact.

We also have footage of another plane circling the area minutes before the impact time.

So any analogies that you use must take this additional information into consideration.

[chippy]

[The generator] was probably partially prefabricated and then finished off with explosives.

Perhaps it was even moved in advance or simply blown in that direction.

In other words, you do not know for sure and have to assume these things so that they fit your version of the truth, correct?

I might add that an explosion of the magnitude that could take that big of a gouge out of the generator would most certainly have been visible on the security footage. It was not visible.

Lyte, this is what I wanted you to respond to last night.

[NobbyNobbs]

Yes but since they all saw the plane on the north side we know the impact could not have happened.



Wait a minute....your own witnesses have said

A) the plane passed over on the north side of the citgo, and
B) they witnessed the impact

You believe them when they say A, but not when they say B? What leads you to make that choice? If your witnesses are so unreliable that 50% of their statements are mistaken, then there is an equal possibility that it is statement A that is mistaken.

[Bobert]

Lyte is no different then Judy Woods and her space beams.
They both believe their fantasies and will defend them to the death despite being 100% wrong.
Lyte you still HAVE NEVER addressed what your qualifications are?
You hold no degrees IN ANYTHING yet you **** on people who spent years investigating the pentagon and who hold high level degrees.
You chit on people who had to remove body parts, DNA, ETC.
My favorite part of your movie fraud was when over and over you would say to your witnesses
"are you sure you didnt see the second plane, other people saw it"
You are a fraud and you NOTHING about how to do an investigation, hell you dont even know how to operate a camera and mic.
I wont even comment on how you got some 19 year old kid to edit your movie and you had only known him for what a month before you asked him to edit your movie?
Oh and that "really cool Italian dude" who did your 3d animations.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, this is what I wanted you to respond to last night.

I have never claimed to know for sure how they staged the damage to the generator trailer.

You asked me to speculate about this!

That's another thing I noticed about members here. You will demand that I speculate about specific details and then say....."AH HA! You are just speculating!"

We'll we did not speculate the north side of the citgo claim and if the eyewitnesses are even somewhat correct in their placement of the plane it proves that the generator damage was somehow staged.

To suggest it would be impossible for the richest most powerful defense agency on earth to do this in their own backyard is not a valid argument.

[Lyte Trip]

Wait a minute....your own witnesses have said

A) the plane passed over on the north side of the citgo, and
B) they witnessed the impact

You believe them when they say A, but not when they say B? What leads you to make that choice? If your witnesses are so unreliable that 50% of their statements are mistaken, then there is an equal possibility that it is statement A that is mistaken.

If they are incorrect about B then it does not mean they are incorrect about A.

Quite the contrary.

In fact it pretty much proves that they were correct about A.

However it is impossible for them to be correct about A and B together.

There are many reasons why it's more logical to suggest they are correct about A.

Please see my thread about Lagasse and Brooks for a list of them.

[Lyte Trip]

Concerning "The PentaCon"




I wrote a big reply to all this but then the internet went down before I could post it.

I have it saved on a different computer and will post it for you tomorrow.

[Qubit]

I have never claimed to know for sure how they staged the damage to the generator trailer.

You asked me to speculate about this!

That's another thing I noticed about members here. You will demand that I speculate about specific details and then say....."AH HA! You are just speculating!"

I could be mistaken, but I never read anyone asking you to speculate. They have asked for explanations which would require valid proof. If you do not have an explanation, it would be better for you just to say, "I don't have an explanation."

In any case, it is easy to see by the film that both Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse were confused about the placement of the plane. They both corroborate the fact that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and with sincere conviction. It is undeniable the level of corroboration amongst all witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon that it proves the official flight path and the damage. In fact, Sgt. Legasse previously stated he held plane parts in his hand and witnessed first hand bodies still strapped in chairs. Of course, you fail to question him about these statements. Is there something you are hiding?

[Arus808]

If they are incorrect about B then it does not mean they are incorrect about A.

true, but you have take their entire testimony into consideration and use that testimony against what is found via OTHER witnesses testimonies and the physical evidence.

that is what an investigator does.

they do NOT however, determine that one set of witnesses are more correct than another set, without GETTING ALL of their testimonies

Which you have not done
Which you have never attempted to do
Which you haven't corroborated against physical evidence.

In fact it pretty much proves that they were correct about A.
False. You can't make that determination without
1) getting the testimony of other witnesses who were not at the CITGO station
2) looking at hte physical evidence
3) taking the testimony of hte investigators on scene
4) taking the testimony of the rescue crew on scene
5) taking the testimony of the American Airlines employees brought into help with the idenfitification
6) taking the testimony of the clean up crew who were brought in
7) taking the testimony of the FBI agents brought into collect evidence
8) taking the testimony of the Naval lab that was tasked with performing tests on the DNA evidence
9) taking the testimony of the NTSB who collected the data needed to determine the plane's trajectory

you're missing alot of detail; so its MORE correct to say that A cannot be true.

However it is impossible for them to be correct about A and B together.

actually it can. When their memories start to put thigns out of context an place, to them A is true; to OTHERS however, it isn't true, because of all the other 1-9 details that you overlooked.

There are many reasons why it's more logical to suggest they are correct about A.

There are thousands of more reasons why they are wrong about A.

Please see my thread about Lagasse and Brooks for a list of them.

Both of them contradict your claims

[Qubit]

Both my sister (6 years older than me) and I do not remember me being born. The high level of corroboration between us proves that I do not exist. Even though my father has said he remembers when I was born, when I specifically asked him if he "saw" me being born, he said "no". He was fooled into believing I was born. None of my other family members statements contradict the "me not being born" claim because they deduced I was born. This proves 9/11 was an inside job.

[chippy]

I have never claimed to know for sure how they staged the damage to the generator trailer.

You asked me to speculate about this!

I asked you what you think hit the generator in front of the Pentagon. As shocking as this may be, everything that all of us ever say about anything that relates to 9/11 ever is speculation. Why? Because we didn't notice it ourselves. All we can do is look at the evidence and come up with the most reasonable assumptions based on them. You seem to think that this amounts to "speculation". Haven't you asked yourself why you can't do better than speculating about what happened to the generator? Does it bother you at all that your north-of-the-citgo claim does not come close to explaining what happened to the generator? If the plane did nick this generator, it definitively places the plane too low to have flown over the Pentagon. So by default, you must assume that the plane did not hit the generator.

See the problem? You explain something impossible by a matter of default. To you, it doesn't seem to matter how it happens. You simply explain it away with this frustratingly vague statement:

To suggest it would be impossible for the richest most powerful defense agency on earth to do this in their own backyard is not a valid argument.

You seem to think that vast sums of money = mind-blowingly amazing technology that can remove material from massive objects and even move them considerably without use of explosives or anything at all for that matter. Why? Have you thought about this at all?

Seriously. Think about it. You suggested that the generator could have been moved by explosives. An explosive that moved the generator that much, and even removed a whole bunch of material from the generator, would have produced a very visible explosion, which includes a fireball and smoke. Fortunately, we do have video footage of the crash, and this smoke and fireball are not visible. Thus it is logical to conclude that explosives were not involved with the movement of the generator.

How else could it have moved? By some rotating platform that was specially installed to move it on 9/11? That doesn't explain the gouge. It also makes you wonder how such a thing could be installed without people noticing it....

What theories does that leave us with? That the Pentagon used their vast sums of money and advanced technology to stage this event? Seriously, how many people actually know about this damned generator? Why would the government go through the trouble of inventing technology that can move things and subtract material from them in ways that are not noticeable (and take it from this engineer that such an invention is, hands down, one of the dumbest inventions you could ever come up with) when they could just fly the plane into the building, or even fly the plane into that generator?

The fact of the matter is that your arguments make no logical sense. And at best, you can do no better than speculate about what happened to the generator. But what bothers me is that there is a very practical, reasonable explanation for what happened to this generator, and you deny it, not by offering evidence as it relates to the generator, but by offering completely different evidence and arguing that the generator damage was staged by default.

Here's the beauty of the official story. You can actually propose a theory. The plane knocked over light poles, hit the generator, and slammed into the building. The Purdue model is flawed and places the plane too low.

Let me do your job for you by offering your theory.

The plane flew north of the Citgo. It then maneuvered itself back towards the point of explosion only moments before the explosion, and it pulled up over the building. The generator must have been damaged by other means.

Of course, no eyewitness actually saw the plane fly over the building. And the security footage from the Doubletree Hotel is fake since it showed no plane flying over the Pentagon.

Why don't we summarize what you think is the fake evidence, which must be fake in order to fit with your theory?

-The 89 eyewitnesses that actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon are mistaken.
-The eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the light poles are mistaken.
-The light poles were brought down by some special means or planted by the government.
-The generator was damaged by some special means or planted by the government.
-The damaged trees in the area were brought down by some special means or planted by the government.
-The Pentagon security footage that shows a smoke trail only feet above the ground is faked since this smoke trail clearly establishes a flight path that did not go over the Pentagon.
-Everyone around the Pentagon, even behind the explosion, was somehow too distracted to notice that a plane had actually just flown over the building.
-The doubletree hotel footage that shows an explosion at the Pentagon and no plane flying over it is a forgery.
-The plane made a very tight turn after flying north of the Citgo, even though aviation experts at this forum have determined that if Flight 77 actually executed such a turn, its wings would be at a very steep angle, and no single eyewitness testified to seeing anything other than a relatively level aircraft
-The government planted explosives or sent an additional explosive at the Pentagon and, for some strange reason, forgot that a plane is also a very good explosive, and they sent the plane over the building for NO REASON AT ALL

If you are right, Lyte, then you have to believe every single one of the things above. To me, that's ridiculous. It's much less ridiculous to believe that your eyewitnesses were mistaken. Heck, a closer analysis of the testimony from the first guy showed that he didn't necessarily place the plane north of the Citgo! How you can accept all of the ridiculous assertions above, however, is beyond me. How do you respond to those?

[uk_dave]

The fact of the matter is that your arguments make no logical sense.

Ahhh but in 'truther' land 'common sense' trumps 'logical sense'.

Don't forget, you're trying to convince someone who believes in the 'chemtrails' conspiracy. Someone who doesn't need any actual knowledge of construction or the process of aircrash investigation to KNOW, not just THINK or BELIEVE but KNOW, that the damage caused to the Pentagon supports his no plane theory.

Lyte thought he'd rock our world and would be accepting apologies by now. Well, the Pentacon failed to move. Even his own brethren at LCF have snubbed it.

Perfectly legitimate objections to the eyewitness testimony presented in his video have been raised here and elsewhere. No doubt Lyte is sick of being told "physical evidence beats eyewitness testimony", so he now sets out to disprove the physical evidence, a la killklown and the shanksville crash site.

But, just like killklown, Lyte has no expertise to bring to the debate, he just finks it don't look right.

Lyte wants us to believe that the floor slab shown in those limited pictures is undamaged, and that if a plane had hit the pentagon it would have been damaged.

But he has yet to explain how the building could have collapsed onto that slab and it still remain undamaged, or how explosives could have been used to blow out the exterior wall and cause internal damage and yet not damage the floor slab.

He doesn't explain, because he doesn't know the answer. He doesn't know what the slab should look like after the building collapse or the explosion, because he doesn't have the expertise or the imagination to consider it.

The thing is, he doesn't have the expertise or the imagination to consider the damage which would be caused by a plane crashing into the pentagon either. Very few people do.

Without a previous example of the same sized plane crashing at the same speed into the same part of the structure, no one can really be sure what the damage will look like. Well, prior to 9/11 at least. Now we do know. Because that is what happened on 9/11 and that is what we see in those pictures.

But if you believe in chemtrails, it's easy for you to believe that everything you are told by people who know more than you is a lie (excpet if they also believe in chemtrails of course).

We'll never convince lyte trip. He has too much invested now in his conspiracy fantasy.

[Architect]

You know, Lyte, if I were going to try and propose an alternative theory I would investigate it thoroughly. I would ensure that I could show that I had proposed a detailed hypothesis, propduced sufficient technical evidence to support this claim, and (this is the key) could do so to a level of understanding at least equivalent to that of the "official" account.

But you don't do that, do you? There are huge gaping holes in your hypothesis. Let's look at some basic examples:

1. You didn't appear to know whether the Pentagon had a basement and if so, the construction of the ground (that's first to you Yanks) floor slab.

2. You don't actually know the difference between a foundation, footing, ground bearing (or raft) slab, and a floor slab. This is rather important when you claim that damage to same is indicative (or otherwise) of a certain theory.

3. You can't account for the protection provided to the substructure by the solum, nor can you apaprently explain to us what damage/deformation patterns we should expect.

And that's before I move away from "architectural" concerns and into wider issues about the plane path.

Face it, mate. You ain't got what it takes.


Still waiting, Lyte. :rolleyes:

[Mince]

I wrote a big reply to all this but then the internet went down before I could post it.

I have it saved on a different computer and will post it for you tomorrow.

You have four "witnesses" who claim the (an) aircraft flew over the North side of the NEX. However, you have those same four witnesses who say the exact plane they saw fly over the North side of the NEX hit the Pentagon.

Your eyewitness testimony contradicts the physical evidence. The physical evidence outweighs the eyewitness testimony by an infinite magnitude, especially since physical evidence doesn't forget after time. Once you can reconcile the physical evidence with your eyewitness testimony, then you might have a breakthrough.

Please review Darat's notice about moderation of this sub-forum, and refrain from personal attacks.

[gumboot]

Both my sister (6 years older than me) and I do not remember me being born. The high level of corroboration between us proves that I do not exist. Even though my father has said he remembers when I was born, when I specifically asked him if he "saw" me being born, he said "no". He was fooled into believing I was born. None of my other family members statements contradict the "me not being born" claim because they deduced I was born. This proves 9/11 was an inside job.



That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

-Gumboot

[jaydeehess]

PFT does not make any claims as to the altitude of the plane. They merely report what the FDR says. So it's the FDR that conflicts with Lagasse and the physical damage....not PFT.

Then the problem is soley with the way the FDR data is being used by PFT or, the FDR data is incorrect due to faulty altitude measuring instruments or instruments that were operating in a situation beyond their certified operating parameters. That or your eyewitnesses are wrong about the height.

Which do you support Lyte?

[Pardalis]

Lyte, you didn't answr my question:

What's the white glow in your animation?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Flyover.gif (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Flyover.gif)

There's no white glow there:

TAaP4Z3zls8

Is that some sort of "artistic license"?

[jaydeehess]

I wrote a big reply to all this but then the internet went down before I could post it.

I have it saved on a different computer and will post it for you tomorrow.

I would expect it would be a longer post given the length of mine.
Just a suggestion; I copy my longer posts to my clipboard before posting. That way if the submission of the post does not go through it is still in my clipboard and I can then save it to "Word" and post it again later from the same computer.

Lyte, while you are at it I also have a post on page 8 concerning the physical evidence at the Pentagon. Perhaps you'd address that post as well, especially in reference to where the debris from an outward exploding wal went.

[Mince]

Please review Darat's notice about moderation of this sub-forum, and refrain from personal attacks.


Yeah, I apologize. I let drunken anger best me.



Lyte, if at least two of your witnesses (all four?) saw the plane hit the Pentagon (or at least fly into the fireball, as you say) did any of them notice any pre-planted debris on the lawn? There was a considerable amount of debris. Surely one of your witness would have noticed the pre-planted debris. Did you even ask them about the debris? If they watched the plane hit the Pentagon, that would a very logical question to ask.

[uk_dave]

You definitely should.

The girl who reads all of the quotes in our film also had a role in Inland Empire.

Kat Turner


http://myspace-359.vo.llnwd.net/01169/95/37/1169067359_l.jpg
http://myspace-416.vo.llnwd.net/01169/61/48/1169068416_l.jpg

With one of her co-stars, Jeremy Irons:
http://myspace-410.vo.llnwd.net/01243/01/49/1243759410_l.jpg


The biggest mystery about the pentacon, for me anyway, is just how deep her voice is.

[A W Smith]

Pardalis in that Utube video you posted. Look just above the ticket machine just before impact. Is that a light pole way back on the exit ramp of the highway disappearing as the plane crosses?

[Myriad]

I would be very interested in such a thread Myriad.

Please do start it.

Thanks for your interest. I will start it, and I planned to have done so already, but today's turned out to be fairly busy and I don't want to rush the OP so as not to make it too long. (Brevity takes longer, for me.) Tomorrow, most likely.

But I would first like to add that our "theory" does not rely solely on a single illusionary trick to fool everyone.

There was an important cover story as well as other diversions.

The cover story was other accounts of a "2nd plane" that
"shadowed" the jet and "veered off" just after the explosion.

The diversion was actual other planes that circled the area immediately after the explosion.

People are most familiar with pilot Steve O'brien and his c-130 but there was a white E4b in the area as well as America West plane tail number N644AW (AA 77 was N644AA) that supposedly landed at Reagan at 9:39. 1 minute after the alleged impact.

We also have footage of another plane circling the area minutes before the impact time.

So any analogies that you use must take this additional information into consideration.

I do plan to try to "moderate" (in a figurative sense, as I am not a moderator on this forum) the discussion to keep it focused on the topic of the hypothesized fly-over illusion and avoid getting side-tracked into other subjects such as the presence/absence of airplane debris already debated in other threads. However, insofar as the presence of other aircraft in the area could plausibly contribute to such an illusion, I agree that you should certainly include them in the discussion.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Lyte Trip]

The biggest mystery about the pentacon, for me anyway, is just how deep her voice is.

If you notice in the credit roll at the end we thank her for doing voice overs in the "Researcher's Edition" which has not been released yet.

She reads all the quotes for us.

We did not include any quotes in the narrative of the "Smoking Gun Version".

[Lyte Trip]

Please review Darat's notice about moderation of this sub-forum, and refrain from personal attacks.


Yeah, I apologize. I let drunken anger best me.



Lyte, if at least two of your witnesses (all four?) saw the plane hit the Pentagon (or at least fly into the fireball, as you say) did any of them notice any pre-planted debris on the lawn? There was a considerable amount of debris. Surely one of your witness would have noticed the pre-planted debris. Did you even ask them about the debris? If they watched the plane hit the Pentagon, that would a very logical question to ask.

A. They couldn't even see the light poles from that location let alone a few small pieces of debris on the lawn.

B. There was not a "considerable amount" of debris.

Here is the extent of all significant sized pieces that have been reported as found outside:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/096b.jpg


C. The debris may have been planted simultaneously with the explosion or dispersed from some other type of nearby detonation that happened at the same time.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, you didn't answr my question:

What's the white glow in your animation?

[/URL][URL]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Flyover.gif (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Flyover.gif)

There's no white glow there:

TAaP4Z3zls8

Is that some sort of "artistic license"?

Look at 2:47.

There most certainly is an odd glow.

However that was likely inserted to obscure the fact that they altered the footage.

The gif does seem to enhance the "glow" in the animation but when viewing the full animation it is merely a part of the effect of the explosion.

It is simply an animation for demonstration purposes and not meant to depict live accuracy to perfection.

Relax.

[Lyte Trip]

Then the problem is soley with the way the FDR data is being used by PFT or, the FDR data is incorrect due to faulty altitude measuring instruments or instruments that were operating in a situation beyond their certified operating parameters. That or your eyewitnesses are wrong about the height.

Which do you support Lyte?

PFT is simply reporting the anomalies in the data and demanding answers. The NTSB refuses to acknowledge that there are any errors and insists that the data is what it is.

Naturally I do not support government supplied data that is irreconcilable with their own story or the eyewitness accounts.

The eyewitnesses can only estimate.

Bottom line ALL other data conflicts with the physical damage 100%.

[stateofgrace]

C. The debris may have been planted simultaneously with the explosion or dispersed from some other type of nearby detonation that happened at the same time.

Why ?

[Lyte Trip]

I would expect it would be a longer post given the length of mine.
Just a suggestion; I copy my longer posts to my clipboard before posting. That way if the submission of the post does not go through it is still in my clipboard and I can then save it to "Word" and post it again later from the same computer.

Lyte, while you are at it I also have a post on page 8 concerning the physical evidence at the Pentagon. Perhaps you'd address that post as well, especially in reference to where the debris from an outward exploding wal went.

Here is my response to yesterday's post. I'll check the one on page 8.


When Robert is interviewed he states he saw one engine 'on the wing'. He is obviously stating that he could not see the engine on the other wing. Repeatedly he is also asked if he saw any other plane and specifically if he saw a C-130.


Robert was on the south side of the station and he saw the plane on the north side. He was not directly underneath it. He was simply being clear that there was only one "turbine engine" on the wing and not two propeller engines like you would see on a c-130.


The interviewer however ignores his stating that there was no other aircraft and characterizes his account as that of a single engine craft.
Nonsense. Nothing was ignored. He saw only one plane and was very specific about this and very specific that it was a passenger jet.


The interviewer also ignores the internal inconsistencies in the witnesses testimony. Robert states he could only see one engine on the wing but also has stated that he was all but directly under the plane as it passed over. It would not be possible to be unable to see both engines from that vantage point. Unless the aircraft that passed overhead had only one engine on one wing the statements are inconsistent.
He says it was the tip of the right wing that was close to the north end of the canopy and that the rest of the plane was further north. This was his story since day one to his manager and in our initial phone conversations with him. He was on the south side of the station and was not directly underneath the plane. Here he points to where the plane was in relation to where he was:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon%20stills/robertpoints1.jpg



Another inconsistency is that Robert draws a flight path on the photo putting the plane directly over the corner of the canopy. Asked which part of the plane went over the canopy's corner he states the right wing did. That would put the trajectory over the asphalt to the north of the canopy. Did Robert draw a path of the starboard wing or did he misunderstand the question and state that or mis-state which wing went over the corner of the canopy and then change his story to match what he just said rather than admit that he meant the port wing went over the corner.
He drew the plane as close to the station that he remembered it being but clarified that the body of the plane was further north. EVEN IF he meant his line is where the fuselage was (but he didn't) the flight path is still irreconcilable with the physical damage and on the north side of the station.



Robert states that the plane pulled up to clear a highway overhead sign. When he details his account of it pulling up it is obvious that he is saying that it pulled up while he was moving up the enbankment. In other words he had to be watching the plane while running and asending the enbankment. This would have his view changing as he moved north and up and would affect how he perceived the movement of the plane.


He ran EAST to the mound, not north. That would not change his perception of the plane being north or south of the station at all.


Robert also states he did not see the impact. He says this is due to the enbankment being lower then than it is today but the interviewer ignores that instead concentrating on his saying that he did not see the impact.
What? You are quite wrong. Please watch the interview again. He as quite clear when he specifically says that the "fireball is what obstructed his view. Why are you making stuff up?


It is very possible that Robert saw the aircraft pass to the south of the station but is misreading how close it is to him. He believes it passed directly over the station but it was further south than that. He climbs the bank which further confuses the interpretation of the movement of the aircraft. He states he saw the plane pass in about two seconds. That is probably an understatement as it would hardly give him time to run to the enbankment. However it does underline the short time he had to develop any visual reference as the plane roared by.
When interviewed he says the right wing passed over the corner but then realizes that he meant to say the left wing and instead of correcting himself he changes his story to match his mistake which is evident in the very deliberate drawing of the flight path where he at best puts the fuselage over the corner of the building. He now actually has two paths for the plane, the one he drew(fuselage over the corner), his last one in which he puts the fuselage over the tree to the north of the station and there is the suggestion that he saw the entire aircraft over the station which would neccessitate the aircraft be south of the canopy since the plane is wider than the entire station.


You are extrapolating and twisting his testimony to some how reconcile this account with the official story. His placement of the entire plane on the north side of the station was what he has maintained since 9/11 as confirmed by his manager and now corroborated by 2 Pentagon Police officers. He never said or meant anything different and even if he did it would have STILL been fatally off course from the light poles.


Sgt Brook states he was filling his vehicle "where that gentleman is" pointing to a man filling his car in the second from the north end. The interviewer states "so, the far right?" and Brooks answers in the affirmative. But from the pov of where they are standing it is slightly to the right and to the pov of the canopy it is closer to the far left.
I simply meant the far right pump. All this is irrelevant since that is not where he was when he saw the plane.


Later Brooks is describing where he saw the plane and is asked if it was to the left or to the right. He states to the left and points. However this is the direction which he had, moments before, characterized as 'right'.
Please watch the interview again. The question I asked him was......"When facing the Pentagon was the plane more to the left or the right of the station." He was quite clear and he pointed as well to demonstrate this 100% so there would be no confusion. Every single reference he made to the plane was over to the north. Just like Lagasse and just like Robert.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon%20stills/brookspointing.jpg



As the interview continues he states that saw the plane "go directly in front of the building". While it seems obvious that the building he is refering to is the Pentagon he could mean the Citgo station. That would put the aircraft to the south of the station. However, it is a good bet he is refering to the Pentagon. Therefore he states it is in front of the Pentagon and then boom a huge explosion. He states, three times, very clearly that he saw the plane impact the Pentagon!!!
Yes we know he believed the plane hit the building as they all did. But clearly it could not have if it was ANYWHERE near where they all place the plane. When he says "to the front of the building" he mean the north side of the gas station.



He describes the plane as a "very large " aircraft. he says '737' but the basic shape of a 737 is a passenger jet with two wing mounted engines, so is a 757 and a 767. Most people would recognize a 747 with its bulge in the forward part of the fuselage but the other three look basically the same unless one has time to get a good look or is very familiar with each aircraft. Obviously he did not have that time. Everything happened very quick but he seems pretty sure he saw a logo and states it may have been "United" blue logo. Sgt. Brooks is really not all that certain about any of the details of the aircraft he saw, except for having seen it fly into the Pentagon. I don't fault him for this. It was a situation unlike any he had ever witnessed before and will in all probability never witness again and from start to finish lasted only seconds culminating in the single most riveting scene he is likely to ever see, the impact of a high speed , large aircraft into a large, important building.
The plane he saw was most definitely on the north side of the station. This is the only point we are claiming to be a smoking gun.


Sgt. Lagasse positively identifies the aircraft as American Airlines. He states that the plane went from where he first saw it to the Pentagon in a second. Probably not quite right but again very quick. He positively states , no landing gear or flaps down. He very positively states that the plane hit the Pentagon even describing that it hit at an angle and using his hands to indicate an angle very much in agreement with that which we are told the plane hit the building. He does seem to be quite confident that the plane went over to the north but readily admits(albeit with a slight bit of sheepishness in his voice and demeanor) that recollections change. He does state that it was never coming at him yet he ducks into his car. Ok that could be a common reaction, its moving fast and the brain has not had time to determine exact trajectory yet so you act instinctively. It could also be that the plane was indeed coming at him and he reacted to that. It also puts him moving quickly which as in the case of Robert can confuse the mind as to the direction the object came from or manouvers it made. Later he describes how he is reconstructing in his mind where the plane was by what he could see concerning the trees and other obstructions. In other words he cannot be sure, he is assuming a direction from the visibility he had from where he was. He saw the plane hit the Pentagon but is adamant that there was no upward mevement of the plane. He mentions, and all the witnesses here also say, that he did not see it hit the light poles. However, he also points out that the poles blend into the building as they are a similar color as the building and are barely visible at all. the videographer zooms into "light pole 1" from where he is standing. This is not where Sgt Lagasse was at the time nor did the Sgt. have the ability to 'zoom in'. He believes that the plane took only a second to move from where he first saw it to the Pentagon. However can that be? At 400 to 450 MPH the plane was doing 580 to 660 feet per second. If the aircraft was more than 660 feet from the building when he first saw it then it had to take longer than one second. In fact the Citgo station is much farther than 660 feet from the Pentagon. It was longer than one second.
Near the end he also states that the poles that were hit were north of where the poles actually were hit, that the taxi was north of where the taxi actually was. So is his recollection of the path of the aircraft incorrect or is the loaction of the poles and the taxi incorrect? Given that we know exactly where the poles and the taxi were I vote he is incorrect.
That is all I have had time to go over but what we have here is the whole range of the problems with eyewitness testimony.

This is far from 'smoking gun' evidence.He saw the plane in the same general vicinity as the other witnesses.

It is not logical to suggest that ALL of them were so ridiculously mistaken in regards to this simple right or left claim.

[gumboot]

Here is the extent of all significant sized pieces that have been reported as found outside:



Lyte Trip when you post those images, you are posting images of a Pentagon lawn literally covered in pieces of aircraft.

How can you be so dishonest?

This is as bad as Truthseeker posting pictures of the pile at Ground Zero, claiming it's a crater, and demanding to know where all the steel went.

Open your eyes, man! Your own witnesses contradict your statements. None of them are clear about where they were or what happened. Your own photographs contradict your assertions.

You have nothing.

And PLEASE, for the sake of all that's holy, stop pretending you know how to interpret photographs, because you clearly don't.

-Gumboot

[Lyte Trip]

Why ?

To fool people into believing that the plane hit the building silly.

[gumboot]

To fool people into believing that the plane hit the building silly.



Why not just fly a plane into it?

-Gumboot

[chippy]

Lyte, I would appreciate a response to my comments.

[stateofgrace]

To fool people into believing that the plane hit the building silly.

Why ?

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte Trip when you post those images, you are posting images of a Pentagon lawn literally covered in pieces of aircraft.


-Gumboot

Nonsense.

Those were all of the significant sized pieces that were reported outside of the building. (and they still aren't very significant or positively identifiable).

Sure there were some other tiny indistinguishable scraps.

Obviously they would be even easier to disperse.

[gumboot]

Nonsense.

These were all of the significant pieces that were reported outside of the building.

Sure there were some other tiny indistinguishable scraps.

Obviously they would be even easier to disperse.



YOU CAN SEE THEM IN YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS!

Look at those "tiny indistinguishable scraps" and compare them to other recognisable objects nearby such as the fire engines. There's nothing tiny about them.

Do you know what foreshortening is?

-Gumboot

[Lyte Trip]

Wow, 4 days, 8 pages.

I read the first two and last one, so if anything I say has been covered before forgive me for not wanting to go over the other 5.

I see that Architect and others came in and established what 'foundation' means for Lytely. That was one of the things that tweaked me on page 1.

Also on page 1 is Lyte's claim that the plane went in under the first floor ceiling and that such is the 'official' theory.


I have never claimed this. I have only said the first two floors.

This turned me off to the rest of your long winded post right away and frankly I don't have the time to answer it all.

[Lyte Trip]

YOU CAN SEE THEM IN YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS!

Look at those "tiny indistinguishable scraps" and compare them to other recognisable objects nearby such as the fire engines. There's nothing tiny about them.

Do you know what foreshortening is?

-Gumboot

Show the part.

Prove that it's from a plane and prove that it's more significant than any of the pieces I have shown.

There are 100's of high resolution images from all over that lawn.

There are no more significant pieces.

[gumboot]

Show the part.

Prove that it's from a plane and prove that it's more significant than any of the pieces I have shown.

There are 100's of high resolution images from all over that lawn.

There are no more significant pieces.



Do you know what foreshortening is?

-Gumboot

[stateofgrace]

Lyte why did they need to fool everybody into believing that a plane hit the building?

Why?

[Lyte Trip]

Do you know what foreshortening is?

-Gumboot

Yep.

You have no idea what the pieces are that are being foreshortened.

Prove that it's from a plane and prove that it's more significant than any of the pieces I have shown.

There are 100's of high resolution images from all over that lawn.

There are no more significant pieces.

[Lyte Trip]

Ok gotta go for now. Serious, intelligent, civil, and relevant inquiries will be addressed.

Peace.
Lyte

[stateofgrace]

Lyte why did they need to fool everybody into believing that a plane hit the building?

Why?

Ok gotta go for now. Serious, intelligent, civil, and relevant inquiries will be addressed.

Peace.
Lyte

Why won't you answer my perfectly civil question?

[David Wong]

Lyte why did they need to fool everybody into believing that a plane hit the building?

Why?

Why not just fly the plane into it?

Or use bombs and say Al Qaeda planted them?

Why, why, why pull off this ridiculously convoluted stunt that can go wrong in 50,000 different ways, and requires hundreds of people and thousands of other people to suddenly go blind or lose their memories?

A bomb that scatters aircraft debris? Really?





Really? You're actually thinking that? In your head?

[gumboot]

Yep.

You have no idea what the pieces are that are being foreshortened.


Would you explain what foreshortening is and how it would relate to the photographs we have from The Pentagon?

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Funny thing is his chief witnesses were some of the first if not the first guys on the scene! They would have seen the MIB setting out all the evidence and Mr Lyte Trip would have a Pulitzer Prize. But as we all know his witnesses saw the plane hit posts, and hit the pentagon. And his witnesses did not see the MIB setting out fake evidence. If anyone forgot, their original stories were take in 2001 and can be heard here.

Here are their stories back in 2001, more information on both. Interview with Brooks and Lagasse, here: http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html (http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html)

Lagasse Interview (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000152)))

Books iterview , (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150)))


Why do you tell and make up lies?


Ok gotta go for now. Serious, intelligent, civil, and relevant inquiries will be addressed.

Peace.
Lyte

LOLANL

[Pardalis]

Look at 2:47.

There most certainly is an odd glow.

However that was likely inserted to obscure the fact that they altered the footage.


That's a lens glare.

The light from the blast refracted in the security camera's optics. Nothing odd about it.

[Pardalis]

However that was likely inserted to obscure the fact that they altered the footage.

There was no glow and I think you put it in your animation to help you create the effect that the plane disappears.

How about that?

[mortimer]

Show the part.

Prove that it's from a plane and prove that it's more significant than any of the pieces I have shown.

There are 100's of high resolution images from all over that lawn.

There are no more significant pieces.

Just to be clear, are you using "significant" as a synonym for "large"?

[jaydeehess]

PFT is simply reporting the anomalies in the data and demanding answers. The NTSB refuses to acknowledge that there are any errors and insists that the data is what it is.

Naturally I do not support government supplied data that is irreconcilable with their own story or the eyewitness accounts.

The eyewitnesses can only estimate.

Bottom line ALL other data conflicts with the physical damage 100%.

Whoa, you can't have it both ways Lyte.

You have hyped your video for months starting prior to its release as being so very, very rock solid as to showing that the plane could not have moved along the same path as it is said to have.

You praise P4T for doing much the same only their main beef is that the plane was too high. P4T makes no claim that the FDR data is faked do they? So it must be correct, at the very least it is not from the plane you attempt to show was flying towards the Pentagon on 9/11, yet it is of one that was flying a lot lower over the Pentagon than would be normal.

If faked then it is really strange that the perpetrators would miss a very important item such as the altitue of the aircraft as it passed over the highway. If it is from a plane that over flew the Pentagon it was not the plane your indisputable witnesses saw. If it was from a plane that over flew the Pentagon at 200 feet agl no one saw it do so on, before or after 9/11.

Now you are faced with your indisputable(arguably) witnesses claiming the plane was at least half as close to the ground than the FDR illustrates.

I certainly agree, they can only speculate, that would be similar in fashion as their description of how long it took the plane to travel from when they first saw it and into the Pentagon(which they all say it did)

So, are the testimonies of your witnesses the bombshell indisputable evidence that you hyped them to be or not?

Now I'll have to check your answer to my other post.

[Totovader]

Oh ok well I got the pic by googling Barney Fife Badge under google images.
I will DL the pic and attach it next time.
I have heard the expression hotlinking before but now it makes sense what it means.
Thanks!



For anyone concerned about hotlinking- there's a free service that makes it so you don't have to keep hotlinking to the same server.

http://imgred.com/

Will host the image the first time it's requested so you aren't hotlinking.

Just FYI. This topic is going nowhere anyway...

[jaydeehess]

Robert was on the south side of the station and he saw the plane on the north side. He was not directly underneath it. He was simply being clear that there was only one "turbine engine" on the wing and not two propeller engines like you would see on a c-130.

Nonsense. Nothing was ignored. He saw only one plane and was very specific about this and very specific that it was a passenger jet.

He says it was the tip of the right wing that was close to the north end of the canopy and that the rest of the plane was further north. This was his story since day one to his manager and in our initial phone conversations with him. He was on the south side of the station and was not directly underneath the plane. Here he points to where the plane was in relation to where he was:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon%20stills/robertpoints1.jpg


He drew the plane as close to the station that he remembered it being but clarified that the body of the plane was further north. EVEN IF he meant his line is where the fuselage was (but he didn't) the flight path is still irreconcilable with the physical damage and on the north side of the station.




He ran EAST to the mound, not north. That would not change his perception of the plane being north or south of the station at all.

What? You are quite wrong. Please watch the interview again. He as quite clear when he specifically says that the "fireball is what obstructed his view. Why are you making stuff up?


You are extrapolating and twisting his testimony to some how reconcile this account with the official story. His placement of the entire plane on the north side of the station was what he has maintained since 9/11 as confirmed by his manager and now corroborated by 2 Pentagon Police officers. He never said or meant anything different and even if he did it would have STILL been fatally off course from the light poles.

I will endevour to watch Robert's part again. However he is very clear that the plane passed over where he was, was he not? How in God's name could he then not see both engines? The only way for him to only be able to see one engine would be if the plane was beyond another object or further away such that one side is obstructed from view.

Running east, north, south or into another dimension he was moving and this would obscure his ability to see the plane rise which was my point. This is important because you want the plane rising at some point to illustrate a flyover.

Again, I will try and find time to rewatch it but I believe I heard him say that all he saw of the impact was the fireball, not that the fireball prevented him from seeing it impact the building.(which doesn't even make any sense since even in your senario the fireball occurs when the plane passes overhead, not before it reachs the Pentagon)


I simply meant the far right pump. All this is irrelevant since that is not where he was when he saw the plane.

But from where you are the far right pump is next to the station store. He indicates the guy pumping gas. That is on the right side of the far left pump. Both of you have left/right confused it seems.

Please watch the interview again. The question I asked him was......"When facing the Pentagon was the plane more to the left or the right of the station." He was quite clear and he pointed as well to demonstrate this 100% so there would be no confusion. Every single reference he made to the plane was over to the north. Just like Lagasse and just like Robert.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon%20stills/brookspointing.jpg


Yes we know he believed the plane hit the building as they all did. But clearly it could not have if it was ANYWHERE near where they all place the plane. When he says "to the front of the building" he mean the north side of the gas station.

So, one of two things that your indisputable witnesses say is true and the other untrue. The plane was either to the north or it hit the Pentagon at the location of the fireball.
However, many other witnesses state the plane did pass over the path indicated by the knocked over poles. That suggests that of those two items, the impact is the one that your witnesses did get correct.

The plane he saw was most definitely on the north side of the station. This is the only point we are claiming to be a smoking gun.

Which is contradicted by many other witnesses whom your choose to ignore.

He saw the plane in the same general vicinity as the other witnesses.

No, he says he saw the plane in the general vicinity of only those witnesses you choose to interview.

It is not logical to suggest that ALL of them were so ridiculously mistaken in regards to this simple right or left claim.


But it is logical to suggest that they were all wrong about the plane hitting the Pentagon, correct?(well Robert was not able to see that)

[Bobert]

For anyone concerned about hotlinking- there's a free service that makes it so you don't have to keep hotlinking to the same server.

http://imgred.com/

Will host the image the first time it's requested so you aren't hotlinking.

Just FYI. This topic is going nowhere anyway...

So I take it you haven't pre-ordered your copy of the Researchers Edition?
:D
I guess Lyte's "smoking gun" shot blanks.
:D

[Mince]

I guess Lyte's "smoking gun" shot blanks.
:D


You have to appreciate the effort however. He failed miserably, of course, but at least he attempted some investigating that didn't involve his computer and the internet.

[Pardalis]

Why not just fly a plane into it?

-Gumboot

He tried to explain it once:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2473451#post2473451

I guess in his world it makes sense. :rolleyes:

[Regnad Kcin]

Why not just fly a plane into it?Because a plane would just bounce off the Pentagon, just as it would've if any plane actually hit either of the Twin Towers! C'mon, now!

[Lyte Trip]

Whoa, you can't have it both ways Lyte.

You have hyped your video for months starting prior to its release as being so very, very rock solid as to showing that the plane could not have moved along the same path as it is said to have.


And it does. Quadruple corroborated first hand testimony filmed on site is pretty rock solid.


You praise P4T for doing much the same only their main beef is that the plane was too high. P4T makes no claim that the FDR data is faked do they?
Actually they do but that doesn't matter. They are mostly just demanding explanations for the anomalies.



So it must be correct, at the very least it is not from the plane you attempt to show was flying towards the Pentagon on 9/11, yet it is of one that was flying a lot lower over the Pentagon than would be normal.
No you are basing this on the incorrect notion that I accept the FDR as valid which I do not.


If faked then it is really strange that the perpetrators would miss a very important item such as the altitue of the aircraft as it passed over the highway. If it is from a plane that over flew the Pentagon it was not the plane your indisputable witnesses saw. If it was from a plane that over flew the Pentagon at 200 feet agl no one saw it do so on, before or after 9/11.
Yep. Very strange. I would think you would want answers for something so serious.


Now you are faced with your indisputable(arguably) witnesses claiming the plane was at least half as close to the ground than the FDR illustrates.
Further proving the FDR as invalid.


I certainly agree, they can only speculate, that would be similar in fashion as their description of how long it took the plane to travel from when they first saw it and into the Pentagon(which they all say it did)

So, are the testimonies of your witnesses the bombshell indisputable evidence that you hyped them to be or not?

Absolutely. They prove the plane flew on the north side of the gas station.

[uk_dave]

So Lyte, how do you explain the apparently 'undamaged' ground floor slab at the pentagon given that the structure collapsed down on to it?

You seem to have avoided this question. Could it be that:

If you cannot explain this, then you are in no position to demand that the aircraft should have also damaged the floor slab.

If you can explain this, then the same reasoning could be used to explain the lack of damage from the aircraft impact.

Perhaps you have a third option?

[Mobyseven]

And it does. Quadruple corroborated first hand testimony filmed on site is pretty rock solid.

You keep saying this - "Quadruple corroborated first hand testimony..."

I find that it is odd that you call this rock solid, and that you use such obfuscating wording to discuss this.

Why don't you just say what you have?

Four witnesses, whose accounts of where the plane was located only corroborate eachother in the sense that they don't place the plane where a multitude of other witnesses who were closer to the unfolding events place it.

[Regnad Kcin]

Nope, still no headlines in the media about these earth-shaking findings.

And there won't ever be.

[gumboot]

Lyte Trip,

I see you're back. Will you please explain in your own words what foreshortening is and how this might be important in relation to the photographs of The Pentagon?

-Gumboot

[I Am He]

Lyte, have you by any chance call your eyewitnesses liars to their face?? You didn't?? I wonder why?? You've been saying it here, am I not correct?? Now how could they be telling you the truth about the plane flying on the left side and hitting the Pentagon at the same time??

I Am He

Please bear in mind the new guidelines for the CT forum. Be civil and polite.

[Obviousman]

Although I totally disagree with Lyte's conclusions, I have to congratulate him for maintaining generally civil tone during all the rebuttals.

What's my point? Notice the difference between here (the evil empire) and the loose change forum. You don't get banned here - without warning - for holding an opposing view.

[Belz...]

The citgo witnesses have proven that they were either embellishing or lying.

The notion that there are 99 previously published accounts of people who literally "saw" the impact is absurd.

So, basically, all the OTHER witnesses are lying, but YOUR witnesses are dead-on ? What makes THEM special, aside from the fact that what they say agrees with you ?

We know some people up on 395 would have seen the fly over.

They were just told it was a different plane.

Speculation. Or did you interview any of them ?

One that was reportedly "shadowing" the AA jet

Do you know what that term means ?

But the illusion would have easily fooled those out route 27 and obviously at the citgo.

Nobody else had a good enough view.

And it's a good thing, too. The NWO planned this crash exactly at the moment where no one would have a good view!!

The citgo witnesses have proven the plane didn't cause the physical damage.

This implicates people all the way to the top in this crime.

Double non sequitur.

At this point the evidence has proven otherwise so it makes no sense to suggest I could believe something that is not true unless reality was altered.

Yes, reality was altered. In your mind.

This has been proven.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

There wasn't an investigation.

They were told what happened and accepted it.

Ah, yes. Every expert in the world simply takes the word of the US government at face value. Everybody is a yes-man. EXCEPT truthers.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

I think this simplistic understanding of physics summarises the entire truth movement.

Perhaps one of you will feel inclined to do the math to prove me wrong!

The universe was created when a cosmic-sized brown chicken laid it like an egg. Prove me wrong.

[Belz...]

You are quite wrong.

It is quite clear that the plane was on the north of the citgo. Rational unbiased people that watch this testimony can only agree.

Ah, yes. YOUR witnesses, again.

So now I suppose I should simply use the term "1st floor" instead of foundation.

Semantics.

You guys are obsessed with it.

THIS is your response to Gumboot's proof that you were incorrect in your assumptions ?

Amazing.

It's semantics because the engine of the plane would STILL cause damage to the 1st floor as it would the foundation.

Ah, so you dont' know what "semantics" means ?

The viewer MUST choose which to believe.

Yeah, THAT's how investigations are made. Faith. :rolleyes:

There is no need to abandon common sense.

I was wondering when "common sense" would creep up.

Explosives and/or incendiary devices were planted in strategic areas so as to simulate the trajectory of the plane.

Evidence ?

Bottom line it's groundbreaking and important information and would be compelling to any honest unbiased person that is interested in first hand accounts of what happened.

I don't think you know what "unbiased" means.

It's simply what the witnesses saw.

Witnesses vs reality, and in your mind reality loses.

Whenever analyzing eyewitness testimony it is up to you (let's say "the jury" for the sake of discussion) to determine if the witness is remembering accurately, remembering inaccurately, deducing, embellishing, or lying.

Yes, based on the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. The evidence we HAVE supports the plane crash theory.

[Go_]

Wrong. Plenty of people saw it. They were just told it was a different plane. Others even reported a "2nd plane" that shadowed the AA jet and veered off over the Pentagon at the time of "impact". Imagine that!

. . . yet of the 4 witnesses you spoke with in "The Pentacon" not one of them say that they saw a second plane. They all say that they saw only one plane.

Don't you think this odd?

Here's a possible explanation. They never saw AA flight 77 fly north of the Citgo. Instead, they saw the second plane fly north of the Citgo and believed it to be flight 77.

They heard but didn't see flight 77 because, since it was south of the Citgo, their view would be blocked. They saw the second plane fly north of the Citgo, then a couple of seconds later -- blam! -- they see the Pentagon explode and believe that the plane they just saw (the second plane) was the plane that had crashed into it.

This story makes every bit as much as sense as your story does and it better fits the physical evidence.

[Belz...]

If the citgo witnesses are correct the poles had to have been staged.

Interesting.

I have never claimed to know for sure how they staged the damage to the generator trailer.

You asked me to speculate about this!

You're going to have to have a theory at one point. Otherwise all you're doing is speculating.

To suggest it would be impossible for the richest most powerful defense agency on earth to do this in their own backyard is not a valid argument.

No matter how rich they are, they can't change the laws of physics.

B. There was not a "considerable amount" of debris.

And yet your pictures prove otherwise.

C. The debris may have been planted simultaneously with the explosion or dispersed from some other type of nearby detonation that happened at the same time.

That's not speculation, anymore. That's pure fantasy.

However that was likely inserted to obscure the fact that they altered the footage.

How can you say something is "likely" when you're just making it up as you go ?

Bottom line ALL other data conflicts with the physical damage 100%.

Especially all those plane parts found in the building! :rolleyes:

It bothers me because I most certainly would like to know all the details even though I know this is impossible but nevertheless it does not convince me that the plane didn't fly on the north side of the citgo station.

And since the plane did fly on the north side of the citgo station it couldn't be what damaged the trailer.

Slow down, mate. You're using your admitted belief as rock-solid assumptions, here.



And, as you've been asked, why didn't they just fly a plane into the Pentagon ??

[Disbelief]

Lyte, do you believe that there was another plane shadowing Flight 77 or did it just flyover? Just trying to make sure I understand your theory.

[Randy Mott]

Why would anyone need to go to the trouble of flying the plane in from one direction and "staging" a fake approach from another direction? There is no logic reason for Mr. Trip's elaborate game of "planted evidence."

It is also clear that some of his four witnesses saw the planes hit light posts and saw other things inconsistent with the revisionist interpretation that the lane was north of the CITGO station. If the witnesses had been under oath, I would have shown them the damaged area and light poles and ask if this is where they saw the plane. Then I would go to the over-view with the CITGO and ask them where the plane was in relation to the station.

It is typical for witnesses to get facts wrong and miss things, especially years later. Where their own testimony contradicts the location of the plane in relation to the gas station, you have to asume that they are mistaken in their recollection. Where all of the other witnesses closer to the flight path saw it fly by and hit things and the physical evidence supports that conclusion, there is no doubt in any reasonable mind.

The alternative explanation of the evidence gets so attentuated that it is a joke. Something else that no one saw hit the Pentagon? Flight 77 simply disappeared from the FAA radar and the DNA from its passengers' dead bodies was planted at the Pentagon? Dozens of bagged and tagged samples with chains of custody logs were faked? Dozens of witnesses were intimidated or somehow made to lie?

All this for what reason? Why would it be necessary for any conspiracy to go through all of this nonsense? There is no logical explanation.... not to mention the reams of physical evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Randy

[HyJinX]

. . . yet of the 4 witnesses you spoke with in "The Pentacon" not one of them say that they saw a second plane. They all say that they saw only one plane.

Don't you think this odd?

Here's a possible explanation. They never saw AA flight 77 fly north of the Citgo. Instead, they saw the second plane fly north of the Citgo and believed it to be flight 77.

They heard but didn't see flight 77 because, since it was south of the Citgo, their view would be blocked. They saw the second plane fly north of the Citgo, then a couple of seconds later -- blam! -- they see the Pentagon explode and believe that the plane they just saw (the second plane) was the plane that had crashed into it.

This story makes every bit as much as sense as your story does and it better fits the physical evidence.


Great point, Go. Nice job.

Lyte...prove Go is wrong.

[peteweaver]

Lyte, the no plane theories are amusing to say the least...

[Matthew Best]

No, they're amusing to say the most.

[jaydeehess]

Ok, I have watched Robert's statements again.

He puts the plane over the corner of the canopy, or over the tree next to the corner of the canopy. This is well south of where the other witnesses at the Citgo put it. It also puts it almost directly overhead where Robert is.

Now, he hears the plane but would be unable to see it until he runs out from under the canopy. He believes at that point that he turned to his left and saw the plane. However he is quite clear that he saw only one engine which is simply unbelieveable if the plane did pass almost directly over his head as he is stating. However if the plane was further off to one side then it is more likely in that the fuselage would then block his view of the far engine. He states that he could only see the engine "on my side".

Robert then states that the plane rose to go over the overhead signage and that his view of the impact was obstructed. Well yes it would be obstructed since the bank was lower and the plane was below the highway overpass when it hit the Pentagon. From where he was the first floor of the Pentagon is not visible. He DOES NOT say that he could not see the impact because of the fireball. When asked if he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon he looks confused as to why the question would be asked saying that he only saw the plane fly "in a direct line to go into the Pentagon".

So we have a witness that saw an event occur that took only seconds. this witness had to run, he did not walk as that would not have afforded him time to get to where he says he was when the plane hit the Pentagon, and turn to one side. It is very possible that the acoustics of the station had him turn to his left to seek the origin of the sound but that he had to turn almost 180 degrees before he actually caught sight of it over the canopy to the south side of the station affording him a view of the port engine but not the starboard one. The overhead sign near where the taxi was is the signage that he saw the plane flyover and all but disappear as it headed down to the ground level of the Pentagon.

In later recollection he recalls that he turned to his left but is mistaken as to where he finally caught sight of the plane. It is well known that our brains will often fill in blanks in memory and it is likely that is what is happening to Robert here. The plane simply could not have gone over his head the way he says it did and not have him see both engines so we already know that he is mistaken.

He, and the next two witnesses are very adamant that they did not see the plane fly over the Pentagon or see any other aircraft. It would be beyond belief that they would not be looking at the Pentagon just after the fireball and further beyond belief that they would not have seen another aircraft heading for the same spot as the impact area of the Pentagon. No one else saw another aircraft fly over or near the area of the impact at the Pentagon either. There was no other aircraft flying over the Pentagon that could be confused with the one that these or other witnesses saw hit the Pentagon.

Only Robert reports a riseing up of the plane but Robert was also running up the bank so his perspective was cghanging in azimuth and elevation as this was occuring. that raises doubt about this manouver.



more later perhaps, lunch is over

[Lyte Trip]

He DOES NOT say that he could not see the impact because of the fireball.

Yes he does.

He SPECIFICALLY says this.

He heard and saw the plane and then ran up to the mound to get a better view and then saw the plane pull up and and explosion.

When I press him about whether or not he actually saw the impact he says:

"No....it was obstructed still.....all I could see was the fireball."

Plus he was NOT directly under the plane. This is clear.

Yes he remembers it being closer to the station then Brooks and Lagasse but that is a simple perception issue.

Point is that ALL of them most definitely saw the actual plane on the north side. This is undeniable.

They did not see a shadow and they saw details of the plane.

If the plane was on the physical damage path they would not have heard and seen the plane on the complete opposite side of the station.

It is clear that ALL of their senses convinced them without any doubt whatsoever that the plane was on the north side.

[Architect]

I have never claimed this. I have only said the first two floors.



I suspect that Lyte is blissfully unaware that for UK, Antipodeans, and others the "first floor" is what Americans call the second floor, and hence the side swipe he takes is somewhat misplaced. JayDee's original post makes perfect sense.

:rolleyes:

[Blackwell]

...Yes he remembers it being closer to the station then Brooks and Lagasse but that is a simple perception issue.
So you're admitting that that your witnesses could have perceived the same event differently. I guess that's a positive step.

It is clear that ALL of their senses convinced them without any doubt whatsoever that the plane was on the north side.
I hope their tongues are OK.

[Architect]

You know, Lyte, if I were going to try and propose an alternative theory I would investigate it thoroughly. I would ensure that I could show that I had proposed a detailed hypothesis, propduced sufficient technical evidence to support this claim, and (this is the key) could do so to a level of understanding at least equivalent to that of the "official" account.

But you don't do that, do you? There are huge gaping holes in your hypothesis. Let's look at some basic examples:

1. You didn't appear to know whether the Pentagon had a basement and if so, the construction of the ground (that's first to you Yanks) floor slab.

2. You don't actually know the difference between a foundation, footing, ground bearing (or raft) slab, and a floor slab. This is rather important when you claim that damage to same is indicative (or otherwise) of a certain theory.

3. You can't account for the protection provided to the substructure by the solum, nor can you apaprently explain to us what damage/deformation patterns we should expect.

And that's before I move away from "architectural" concerns and into wider issues about the plane path.




And STILL waiting, Lyte.

[Lyte Trip]

jaydeehess,

You need to realize that the physical damage flight path is relatively far south of the station. This would not be an easy mistake to make as the difference compared to what they saw is DRASTIC.

They would have most definitely heard it much different as well.

It makes no sense that they would all place it so far on the north side if this was the case.

Even for one of them to do this would be strange but all 3?

No way.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/citgowitnesses.jpg

[Lyte Trip]

And STILL waiting, Lyte.

For what?

You don't believe that a several ton engine digging deep into the floor (is that term ok to use?) of the building would cause significant or visible damage and I do.

[Lyte Trip]

So you're admitting that that your witnesses could have perceived the same event differently. I guess that's a positive step.




When have I said otherwise?

They all have different descriptions of the plane. We left all the contradictions in their testimony and did not hide this one bit.

But the very simple and general claim of what side of the station the plane flew is the ONLY claim we are calling a smoking gun.

There is "no chance" it was on the physical damage flight path.

They only have to be somewhat correct in their approximate placement of the plane.

The chances that they are all so drastically incorrect in the exact same way are slim to none.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For what?

You don't believe that a several ton engine digging deep into the floor (is that term ok to use?) of the building would cause significant or visible damage and I do.
What you believe doesn't mean spit unless you can demonstrate that it is consistent with reality.

[Lyte Trip]

I suspect that Lyte is blissfully unaware that for UK, Antipodeans, and others the "first floor" is what Americans call the second floor, and hence the side swipe he takes is somewhat misplaced. JayDee's original post makes perfect sense.

:rolleyes:

As does mine.

[HyJinX]

As does mine.

Wishful thinking, Lyte...but..ummmmm....no. I've watched your "after school special" three times now and all I can say is...your witnesses are mistaken. I forget stuff all the time and I get confused as to which direction I'm facing or moving in on a regular basis. Given the physical evidence and the numerous other eye-witnesses that were there, I think your witnesses are simply mistaken about what they saw that day. Sorry...it's just not enough to prove convincing or compelling. It's just not enough.

[Lyte Trip]

. . . yet of the 4 witnesses you spoke with in "The Pentacon" not one of them say that they saw a second plane. They all say that they saw only one plane.

Don't you think this odd?

Here's a possible explanation. They never saw AA flight 77 fly north of the Citgo. Instead, they saw the second plane fly north of the Citgo and believed it to be flight 77.

They heard but didn't see flight 77 because, since it was south of the Citgo, their view would be blocked. They saw the second plane fly north of the Citgo, then a couple of seconds later -- blam! -- they see the Pentagon explode and believe that the plane they just saw (the second plane) was the plane that had crashed into it.

This story makes every bit as much as sense as your story does and it better fits the physical evidence.

Ok. So find an official record of a second passenger jumbo jet that flew treetop level over Arlington and you might have a point.

Otherwise this is even more proof of a conspiracy.

Plus to suggest that they didn't see the plane fly over the building and also missed another plane fly over tree top level "seconds later" is beyond a stretch.

[Regnad Kcin]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/citgowitnesses.jpgI'd like to take issue with this fave pic of yours.

It is misleading to indicate the two flight paths by drawing two narrow lines; the jet's wingspan would be significantly wider. Why is this important? It narrows the distance between the south path and the alleged north path, perhaps to an extent that can be accounted for by normal error.

In other words, these witnesses may, based on their vantage point, as well as the speed of the aircraft (and its very rapid pass), be less precise than the photo above suggests.

Let me add, in regard to my recollection of witnessing a close-by helicopter crash years ago (which you never acknowledged, by the way), I can be pretty sure of its final, rapid dive. But it's quite possible if not likely I'd be nowhere exact if we were somehow able today to "go to the tape."

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, do you believe that there was another plane shadowing Flight 77 or did it just flyover? Just trying to make sure I understand your theory.

Since the c-130 pilot says he did not do this and NONE of the witnesses we found saw such a thing there is no reason to believe there were two planes.

This is clearly a cover story for those that saw the plane fly over.

They were simply told it was another plane and pointed to these other accounts.

[Blackwell]

When have I said otherwise?

They all have different descriptions of the plane. We left all the contradictions in their testimony and did not hide this one bit.

But the very simple and general claim of what side of the station the plane flew is the ONLY claim we are calling a smoking gun.

There is "no chance" it was on the physical damage flight path.

They only have to be somewhat correct in their approximate placement of the plane.

The chances that they are all so drastically incorrect in the exact same way are slim to none.
somewhat correct in their approximate placement of the plane? Those sure are some exacting standards you have there, Lyte.

[A W Smith]

lyte you have convinced no one. Your witnesses are simply wrong. if i am to believe them than what they saw was the shadow of the plane as deduced from the suns azimuth for that location on that day at that time. I don't know why you are wasting your time here. Your delusion that the light poles were a set up is laughable at best. Why they would need to go through all that effort when they could have the flight make a steeper dive? why take the risk of someone noticing the light pole setup? Why make the generator take a hit? Why add the risk of complicating the supposed conspiracy? I don't even believe that you believe all this nonsense yourself. You are simply on the tour to sell a book/movie/DVD/speaking engagement. another profiteer on the ct bandwagon. Even your peers (if you can call them that) know it is all BS. you are A modern day charlatan. I find it curious when you state that your so called witnesses will no longer speak to anyone. So when they drew their lines on your photographs with that pen did they also sign your confidentiality agreement as a condition to share in your proceeds? all I can say is.. Loathsome. simply loathsome.

[Lyte Trip]

I'd like to take issue with this fave pic of yours.

It is misleading to indicate the two flight paths by drawing two narrow lines; the jet's wingspan would be significantly wider. Why is this important? It narrows the distance between the south path and the alleged north path, perhaps to an extent that can be accounted for by normal error.

In other words, these witnesses may, based on their vantage point, as well as the speed of the aircraft (and its very rapid pass), be less precise than the photo above suggests.


I am not claiming they are exactly precise. I am claiming that they would simply be pointing in the other direction in reference to where the plane was because that would be where they saw and heard it.

Here is an overhead shot that also indicates the 124 foot wingspan of the plane:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/327a1-1.jpg



Let me add, in regard to my recollection of witnessing a close-by helicopter crash years ago (which you never acknowledged, by the way), I can be pretty sure of its final, rapid dive. But it's quite possible if not likely I'd be nowhere exact if we were somehow able today to "go to the tape."Irrelevant analogy.

The vantage point of the witnesses and the simple right or left claim they are making is hugely different.

This analogy taken from another jref'er real life experience is much more accurate:


Hypothetical example: 3 pedestrians in the same general area that they
all frequent on a daily basis all witness a fatal car accident on an
intersection a 1/2 a block north of them. If each were questioned
about the incident on location some time after the fact it would stand
to reason that they may have different stories about specific details
like what type of cars were involved, the color, exactly how the
accident happened etc. But if they all place the accident on the same
intersection that was 1/2 block north of them rather than south of them
the interviewer could obviously be fairly certain that the probability that
this very general yet 100% corroborated claim is correct.


Although Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse all had different descriptions of the plane they all saw it fly by in the same general vicinity and they all frequent that gas station/area daily. Does it really seem feasible to you that they could all be so ridiculously mistaken in the exact same way about such a simple claim? You see they all would have had to simultaneously remember the complete opposite of reality. The physical damage flight path is drastically different from what they all saw. Lagasse's vantage point was such that he wouldn't have seen it at all through the building on the south
side.

Plus.....they do NOT have to be accurate in their placement of the plane. They only need to be remotely correct.

[CurtC]

The major inconsistency I see in your video's witnesses is that Lagasse clearly remembered the taxi and the white car, and that the plane went directly over them, but he places them quite a bit to the North of where we know, absolutely, for certain, that they actually were. I wonder how he would reconcile his memory if someone were to show him all the photos from that day, showing those two cars sitting helter-skelter on the overpass? Too bad the person interviewing him wasn't interested in the answer, but only to bolster his own preconceptions.

[Lyte Trip]

somewhat correct in their approximate placement of the plane? Those sure are some exacting standards you have there, Lyte.

This statement is fact and is exactly why this is such a smoking gun.

There is zero room for error in the physical damage flight path.

The plane HAD to be completely on the south side of the station.

If it was ANYWHERE near the north side of the station it could not have hit the light poles.

[CurtC]

Although Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse all had different descriptions of the plane they all saw it fly by in the same general vicinity
I see you've left out your fourth witness from the video, Edward the Asian guy from the car shop. Are you now dismissing his description because you realize that it's inconsistent with a North-of-the-Citgo path? That's been pretty well established by now, that an airliner could not fly over Edward, then North of the Citgo, and then make it to the impact point on the Pentagon.

[Lyte Trip]

The major inconsistency I see in your video's witnesses is that Lagasse clearly remembered the taxi and the white car, and that the plane went directly over them, but he places them quite a bit to the North of where we know, absolutely, for certain, that they actually were. I wonder how he would reconcile his memory if someone were to show him all the photos from that day, showing those two cars sitting helter-skelter on the overpass? Too bad the person interviewing him wasn't interested in the answer, but only to bolster his own preconceptions.

He did not see the plane hit light poles, admitted that he couldn't even see the light poles from that location, and could not see the cab from his location either.

He simply saw the cab after the fact. There is no reason he would remember the exact placement of the cab or take note of this seemingly insignificant detail.

It makes sense that he would insist the cab was within the flight path that he saw.

Sorry I didn't predict the future and determine what he would say so I could bring all relevant images to the interview.
:rolleyes:

[Lyte Trip]

I see you've left out your fourth witness from the video, Edward the Asian guy from the car shop. Are you now dismissing his description because you realize that it's inconsistent with a North-of-the-Citgo path? That's been pretty well established by now, that an airliner could not fly over Edward, then North of the Citgo, and then make it to the impact point on the Pentagon.

You are incorrect.

Edward corroborates their claim 100% because he has the plane definitively passing over to the north side of Columbia Pike.

This fact is also irreconcilable with the physical damage flight path and puts the plane on course for the north of the citgo.

There is NOTHING impossible about this at all.

[Pardalis]

You are incorrect.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886460aecd4abda2.gif

You remind me so much of him when you say that.

[Blackwell]

This statement is fact and is exactly why this is such a smoking gun.

There is zero room for error in the physical damage flight path.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Obviously, the flight path was what it was. I'll assume you mean that the physical damage needs to match up with the actual flight path, which I think goes without saying.
The plane HAD to be completely on the south side of the station.
Agreed.
If it was ANYWHERE near the north side of the station it could not have hit the light poles.
Agreed.

However, none of your above points mean that your witnesses were 100% correct in their recollection of events.

[CurtC]

Edward corroborates their claim 100% because he has the plane definitively passing over to the north side of Columbia Pike.

This fact is also irreconcilable with the physical damage flight path and puts the plane on course for the north of the citgo.

There is NOTHING impossible about this at all.
We've been over this before. If the plane went over Edward, then went north of the Citgo, there is no way it could then make it to the damage point at the Pentagon. If it were flying a lot slower than everyone says it was, and if it did a very hard bank as it passed by the Citgo, then perhaps it might pull that off. But then, it would be in the wrong attitude to pull up out of its shallow dive and fly over the Pentagon.

Any reasonable estimates of the plane's speed and the lack of descriptions of a severe bank by any witnesses make your path impossible by a large margin. You can't get around that. Either LaGasse, Turcios, and Brooks were incorrect in their description of which side it passed on, or Edward was incorrect in his memory that it flew right over him. If the former three were correct, the plane would have had to fly a couple of blocks north of where Edward was.

[CurtC]

You are spouting out unsupported nonsense.
I've done the math, and I haven't seen anyone point out where it's in error. Do you want me to drag it back out?

[Arus808]

why has lyte never addressed that all image of his flight path , in all the pics contradict each other?

Geometry Lyte, you know the subject you never took in HIgh school

[Architect]

For what?

You don't believe that a several ton engine digging deep into the floor (is that term ok to use?) of the building would cause significant or visible damage and I do.

Seriously Lyte; have you been through university level education, because you seem to be missing key points here?

The issues is not the terminology for substructural elements, although your apparent failure to grasp the basics of building construction does give cause for concern since it is central to your underlying argument on this point. Rather you choose not to answer points put to you about (say) the deformation patterns anticipated or the effect of solum infil on impacts.

Moreover you've not responded to other issues such as the adequacy (or otherwise) of the photographic evidence of any damage to the floor slab, the extent to which subsequent clearance operations may have obscured any damage, and the effects which impact vector and engine construction may have had.

Are you really following the points put to you? :confused:

[DavidJames]

...we will prove it.Would you like to prove that you've submitted your "evidence" to the media and authorities.

No, I didn't think so

[ihaunter]

Yes he does.

He SPECIFICALLY says this.

He heard and saw the plane and then ran up to the mound to get a better view and then saw the plane pull up and and explosion.

When I press him about whether or not he actually saw the impact he says:

"No....it was obstructed still.....all I could see was the fireball."



He is NOT saying the fireball obstructed his view of the impact. He is saying that his view of the impact was obstructed (by something unnamed) and all he could see was the much larger fireball which was not obstructed, or more accurately, only partially obstructed. Note the word "still". He was most assuredly NOT talking about the newly formed fireball.

[jhunter1163]

Lyte:

I've mentioned this anecdote before, but I feel it bears repeating. On May 18, 1980, I witnessed the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. I was about thirty miles due north of the mountain and saw everything; the landslide, the explosion, the ash plume ascending (well, not so much of the ash plume because I was engaged in getting the hell out of there as fast as I could). From my vantage point, it appeared that the explosion issued from the north side of the mountain. However, physical and seismological evidence shows that the blast actually emanated from the northeast side of the mountain.

Which should be given more weight? My story or the physical evidence?

[jaydeehess]

Yes he does.

He SPECIFICALLY says this.

He heard and saw the plane and then ran up to the mound to get a better view and then saw the plane pull up and and explosion.

When I press him about whether or not he actually saw the impact he says:

"No....it was obstructed still.....all I could see was the fireball."

"still" what Lyte? Still obstructed by the fireball? That makes no sense whatsoever. Still obstructed by the overpass? That makes sense. However , it could not be obstructed by the overpass unless it had passed over it which is where the light pole flight path takes it.

Plus he was NOT directly under the plane. This is clear.

Oh, I agree, he was not under the plane but in his statement he is basically stating that he was. He states that the plane went between the two trees which is only a couple dozen feet from where he was. Once again, if he could see both engines it would have been where he says it is. We agree that it wasn't.

Yes he remembers it being closer to the station then Brooks and Lagasse but that is a simple perception issue.

Yes, and your insistence that it was to the north flies in the face of other things he says.

Point is that ALL of them most definitely saw the actual plane on the north side. This is undeniable.

No, all of them say it was to the north. Only that is undeniable.

They did not see a shadow and they saw details of the plane.

Many details that corroborate the idea that it was a large AA Boeing.

If the plane was on the physical damage path they would not have heard and seen the plane on the complete opposite side of the station.

All of them including Lagasse could have seen the plane on the south side. Remember that Brooks was located well away from the station and Lagasse could not have seen the plane during part of the time as he was getting into his patrol car and grabbing the radio.

It is clear that ALL of their senses convinced them without any doubt whatsoever that the plane was on the north side.


However, their recollections do, in places, not agree with each other. All of them state that the plane was on a course to hit the Pentagon or that they actually saw it hit the Pentagon. Only Robert says the plane rose up. Not a one of them says that they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

What do other witnesses say? No one, no one at all, any where, saw a plane fly over the Pentagon, not on the side of impact nor on the opposite side of the Pentagon/Potomac. This is a very large jet, going very fast and barely higher above the ground than its windspan is wide.

It is patently clear then , from the preponderance of the eyewitness statements that the plane that flew at the Pentagon did not flyover the Pentagon. It is obvious by the preponderance of the eyewitness statements that the plane did not rise but continued to move desend. It is obvious by the preponderance of the eyewitness statements that the plane impacted the Pentagon. It is obvious by the preponderance of ALL the eyewitnesses statements that the plane flew to the south of the Citgo station.
With eyewitness statements one must rely on what is common in the preponderance of the eyewitness statements whereas you have chosen one aspect that is in the minority of those statements.

Did you start this exercise with a mind to understand what the eyewitnees statements would show? No! You have stated that you found the physical evidence puzzling and then went forward to find corroboration of what you perceived as anomolies. You did not find corroboration of the anomolies you perceived in the physical evidence at the site of destruction. Instead you found anomolous eye witness statements and then constructed a fiction to fit your perceived anomolies, namely that the plane flew towards the Pentagon at an angle that is in direct contradiction to the preponderance of the eyewitness statements and then flew over the building which contradicts not only the preponderance of the eyewitness statements but All of them.

why do you make all of this up?

You have 4 who say it went north but their statements are far from unassailable. Robert did not, could not see the plane coming in, he had to get east of the canopy first, Lagasse did not, could not see the plane fly past the station as he was entering his car at that time. Brooks' statement suggests that he had the plane in sight all the way from when he first sighted it until it hit the Pentagon (was that possible?). Still, you have 4 of many witnesses to the plane's flight path and have chosen to interview only these 4 and not anyone who saw the plane anywhere else.

[Go_]

Plus to suggest that they didn't see the plane fly over the building and also missed another plane fly over tree top level "seconds later" is beyond a stretch.

No, you've got that backwards. The Citgo witnesses would have heard flight 77 first but wouldn't have seen it because the Citgo station blocked their view. In looking up they then spotted another plane to the north of the Citgo station -- but this plane was not flight 77.

William Lagasse clearly states in your video that he saw a plane slam into the Pentagon a fraction of a second, "about a half-a-second," after he spotted a plane at the Citgo. This is physically impossible. This means that if a plane slammed into the Pentagon a fraction of a second after Lagasse spotted a plane north of the Citgo, then the plane Lagasse spotted north of the Citgo was NOT the plane that slammed into the Pentagon.

Lagasse also states in your interview that no driver southbound on HWY 27 could have seen the plane hit the Pentagon but for "that long [snaps his fingers]" because "of the trees over there" yet that many southbound drivers on HWY 27 do report seeing the plane before it hit the Pentagon. How do we explain the apparent contradiction?

We explain it like this: Lagasse and the southbound drivers on 27 are referring to two different planes.

The "shadowing" plane theory also accounts for the fact that three of your 4 witnesses did not recognize the plane as an AA jet. Only one of them did and I submit that that one was the most likely to have had his recollection influenced by subsequent events that he saw on TV or the internet, read in the papers, heard on the radio, etc.

How is it possible that none of the other three noticed the distinctive red, white, and blue stripes that run the length of the plane? One of your witnesses (Robert Turcios) even insisted that there was no stripe on the plane.

Turcios also says that the plane "pulled up" before it got to the Pentagon.

Joel Sucherman, an editor for USAToday who also witnessed the Pentagon crash, says that he saw a second plane off to the west climb steeply and make a sharp turn after he saw AA flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.

Could this be Robert's plane?
--------------------------------------------------

So what does all this mean?

It means that your claim that it is "impossible" for people to have seen a plane north of the Citgo and for a plane to have crashed into the Pentagon at about the same time is based on a fallacy. It's based on the fallacy of the false dilemma.

What I've outlined here is just one "possible" alternative scenario. There are others, as well, including that your witnesses' remembrances are simply mistaken.
--------------------------------------------------

PS When will the much-anticipated "The Pentacon: Researchers' Edition" be released? Why the delay? I want to see those other interviews.

[Mince]

C. The debris may have been planted simultaneously with the explosion or dispersed from some other type of nearby detonation that happened at the same time.


And God may have willed it on the Pentagon lawn. However, I'm interested in fact, not wild speculation. Why did you not ask your witnesses, on camera, about debris. Why, when they told you they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, something completely contrary to your thesis, did you not investigate their claims more thoroughly. Remember, there are four corroborating witnesses, in your own video, who claim the plane hit the Pentagon. If all four were fooled into "thinking" the plane hit the Pentagon when it actually did not, maybe all four were fooled into "thinking" the plane flew on the North side of the NEX when it did not.

[Bobert]

Seriously Lyte; have you been through university level education, because you seem to be missing key points here?

The issues is not the terminology for substructural elements, although your apparent failure to grasp the basics of building construction does give cause for concern since it is central to your underlying argument on this point. Rather you choose not to answer points put to you about (say) the deformation patterns anticipated or the effect of solum infil on impacts.

Moreover you've not responded to other issues such as the adequacy (or otherwise) of the photographic evidence of any damage to the floor slab, the extent to which subsequent clearance operations may have obscured any damage, and the effects which impact vector and engine construction may have had.

Are you really following the points put to you? :confused:

Lyte hold NO DEGREE!
He complains to the mods about me posting truths like this so we shall see how long this lasts.

[Bobert]

Would you like to prove that you've submitted your "evidence" to the media and authorities.

No, I didn't think so

He claimed over and over before the release of the video that he was going to go to the authorities and that a Grand Jury would be called as a result of his film.
So now the film is out and he is asked "so who have you notified".
This seems a natural question to ask a researcher who claims time and time again to be after the truth.
It would seem natural that if someone were not lying and making stuff up that they would be proud to say who they brought the info to.
So what does Lyte do?
He clams up and refuses to say who he brought it to further mocking the victims of 9-11.

[jaydeehess]

from my post on page 8 which deals with the immediate subject of this thread and which lyte has not addressed.................

........ on page 1 is Lyte's claim that the plane went in under the first floor ceiling and that such is the 'official' theory.

That is incorrect. The port wing and part of the starboard wing went in under the ceiling(floor level of the 2nd floor as denoted in the N.American way of things). That puts the bulk of the mass of the fuselage entering the second floor and lo and behold there is a 18 foot wide , basically round, hole in the center of the damaged area and on the second floor wall.

He also claims that the port engine is depicted as grinding through the ground at impact. Well the port engine did take a 'bite' out of a curb just in front of the building so it was low and just at ground level as it hit the building. This means that it was hitting that floor slab at a very slight angle which means that there was not much of a vertical component to the velocity of that engine. Then of course once through the wall, for which Lyte is kind enough to illustrate as two feet of limestone, brick and concrete, that engine would no longer be constrained to follow the wing as it was no longer connected to it. The engine would then be free to tumble, twist, or roll, coming apart as it did so, and I am quite sure it did a great deal of each along with subsequent impacts with anything inside the Pentagon. This engine would be hitting the wall with a very shallow vertcal angle. However the upper part of the cowling would hit the wall first. At this time the engine is also no longer connected to the wing. The net result would be at least a slight upward roll of the engine further reducing the vertical velocity component of this engine when it impacts the floor of the Pentagon.

He complains about the tail section not having punched through the wall as well. Once again though it should be pointed out that by the time the tail section reachs the wall it is no longer connected to the bulk of the aircraft and would be free to tumble, twist, rotate when it did impact the wall. The lower portion of that tail section would be entering through the already missing front wall portions while the upper section would be impacting still intact parts of the wall. The upper portion was also less massive than the lower portion and it is quite easy to see that this would result in the tail rotating into the hole (and breaking up in the process).

Lyte states that the damage to the front wall is consistent with explosives as he says that columns are blown outward. One problem with this is that Lyte cannot show that the columns are indeed leaning outward can he? He is using a one dimensional picture that shows the columns leaning but this is hardly suprising given that it also shows the whole structure above the first floor slumping. Those columns can just as easily be leaning inward. The wall above the first floor is quite likely bulging outward. The columns below have been broken and no longer support the upper mass. The upper mass is constrained from moving inward by the stiff flooring but it is unconstrained from going in the other direction. The mass of the upper floors is also being bourne in a catenary fashion by those floor and attached to intact interior columns. This would cause a rotation about those connections as the floor bow which would be seen from the outside as a bulge. Thus, in a one dimensional picture it might appear that the wall and the columns are leaning outward as if an explosion had occured within the building.

BUT, if there was an explosion that was capable of removing this amount of front wall and blowing outward then one should also note the debris from that outward moving wall debris all around the Pentagon. witnesses near the Pentagon should have noted huge amounts of shattered limestone, brick and concrete flying past them. The front wall is missing for approx 90 feet. The wall is 24 inches(2 feet) thick. Assuming that doors and windows take up approx half of the surface and that the floor is only 8 feet tall(in which I assume values designed to under estimate the volume of the missing wall all around IMHO) we have a volume of limestone, brick and concrete of
(90 X 2 X 8) X 0.5 = 720 cubic feet of debris that should be in front of the wall. To put this in perspective a large dump truck can carry 10-15 cubic yards(= 90 to 135 cubic feet) which means we should see 5 or so truckloads of debris ( if the wall is 10 feet high, or , if the windows and doors only take up 40% of the surface of the wall, then that's an additional truckload each) from that wall lieing about in front of the building. Is this in evidence in any photo?

[A W Smith]

It looks to me that the columns are cut and bent to the north (the left in that image) not outward. Which would be consistent with the plane impacting at an angle into the pentagon. With the right wing acting on the columns just like a huge scythe swung to the left. The tail section is essentially hollow and not designed in a structural manner to hold the weight of the plane in the air and cannot be compared to the wings which hold fuel.

[jaydeehess]

Well the anomalous physical evidence is what started all the questions to begin with. That's what inspired us to go to Arlington and find out what people saw in the first place.

Which makes little sense. If one sees anomalies in the physical evidence one would expect that a proper chain of investigation would be to get expert opinion on the perceived anomalies.

So as in most investigations....this one was inspired by suspicions that arose from examining physical evidence.

Anomalies that were subsequently not followed through on as far as investigation goes.

The eyewitness testimony simply confirmed our suspicions beyond our wildest imaginations.

Testimony that you sought in order to back up your preconception that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. You sought only those witnesses who could throw doubt on the path of the aircraft.

Realize that if the citgo witnesses are even somewhat correct in their placement of the plane that this PROVES the physical damage was staged which means the physical evidence IS the crime. Therefore the approach of this investigation has to adjust accordingly. We must look for anomalies.

You certainly do look for anomalies and attach great significance to any that may be stretched into backing your preconceived contention that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. You ignore any other anomalies such as Robert positioning the aircraft over the Citgo station or Sgt. Lagasse being unable to see the plane while entering his car and reaching for the radio. You utterly ignore or dismiss the eyewitnesses who stated that the plane took the path denoted by the downed poles. You utterly ignore or dismiss all witnesses who state that the aircraft hit the Pentagon and adhere to your contention that the plane flew over the Pentagon despite not being able to list even one witness who states that this occured, let alone show that the prepoderance of eye witness statements claim the plane flew over the Pentagon.

In other words, your contentions that the plane flew over the Pentagon and that the downed poles were faked, the aircraft debris was faked, and that the damage to the Pentagon was caused by pre-planted explosives is baseless and has absolutly no evidence to back it other than a minority of eye witness statements, which themselves could at best only cast doubt on one aspect, the path of the plane. These witnesses do not themselves agree on the path of the aircraft but beyond that, in order for them to be correct all other witnesses as to the path of the aircraft must be wrong. Your contentions come down to nothing but a fiction you have dreamt up.

[jaydeehess]

It looks to me that the columns are cut and bent to the north (the left in that image) not outward. Which would be consistent with the plane impacting at an angle into the pentagon. With the right wing acting on the columns just like a huge scythe swung to the left. The tail section is essentially hollow and not designed in a structural manner to hold the weight of the plane in the air and cannot be compared to the wings which hold fuel.

It just looks sooooo,,,,, obvious,,,,,,, doesn't it Mr.Smith!
Lyte just cannot bring himself to see it that way.

[A W Smith]

It just looks sooooo,,,,, obvious,,,,,,, doesn't it Mr.Smith!
Lyte just cannot bring himself to see it that way.

I am certain he sees it that way. But that wont sell DVDs. He is a ghoulish profiteer of tragedies and not to be confused as a researcher.

[uk_dave]

If you notice in the credit roll at the end we thank her for doing voice overs in the "Researcher's Edition" which has not been released yet.

She reads all the quotes for us.

We did not include any quotes in the narrative of the "Smoking Gun Version".

That is interesting.

You see in the real world the version with the condensed summary of a particular claim, with all the bells and whistles to make it accessible to the layperson, is normally created from the longer, more dense 'researchers' version, which is aimed at academics and specialists who are more interested in hard data than a hip hop soundtrack and funky graphics.

Now, the fact that your 'researchers' edition is not ready for release, and hasn't been for some time now, makes one suspect that perhaps it is not going to be the hard, dry, no frills, heavy on facts and low on entertainment version it should be.

That your much vaunted 'hollywood' voice over artiste doesn't appear on the 'smoking gun' version also leads one to suspect that the 'researchers edition' is not going to be what we have so far been lead to believe it will be.

So, here's my theory:

The 'smoking gun' version was produced to test the water and raise some cash.

The 'Researchers Edition' will be a do-over of the SG version, in which you will attempt to counter the criticisms you have received on the SG version.

The 'smoking gun' doesn't have the 'hollywood' voice over because you couldn't afford it, but hoped to be able to by the time you completed the 'RE' version because you hoped to have sold a few dvd's and got some media appearances under your belt by then.

That your SG isn't making the waves you had predicted prior to its release, seems to suggest that not only do you have an awful lot of work to do in order to make the pentacon (second edition) workable, but you haven't raised enough money yet to pay for the 'hollywood' voiceover.

How's that sound?

[I Am He]

Lyte, you say that there were abnormalities in the official report and then you went down to D.C. to investigate them? Can you please tell me what credentials you have in that field. Were you ever in law enforcement at one time? Were you ever employed by any investigation firm that investigates air disasters? Do you have any type of schooling in that field? Did you ever take any human behavior courses while you were in school? Last but not least, how far did you get in math classes?? I would really appreciate your answers to these questions, because they sure could clear up a few things.

Thank You
I Am He

[Disbelief]

Since the c-130 pilot says he did not do this and NONE of the witnesses we found saw such a thing there is no reason to believe there were two planes.

This is clearly a cover story for those that saw the plane fly over.

They were simply told it was another plane and pointed to these other accounts.

OK. You do realize that it would have been impossible for a C-130 to shadow a jet anyway.

Now, are you saying that the witnesses were told that the jetliner streaking away at 500+ was really just a C-130? You do know that C-130s aren't that fast? You do know that they are not jet engine planes but prop planes? You do know all you would have to ask a witness is whether it had props or jets? Yuo know that there is a distinct difference in sound between the two types of planes?

[Bobert]

Lyte, you say that there were abnormalities in the official report and then you went down to D.C. to investigate them? Can you please tell me what credentials you have in that field. Were you ever in law enforcement at one time? Were you ever employed by any investigation firm that investigates air disasters? Do you have any type of schooling in that field? Did you ever take any human behavior courses while you were in school? Last but not least, how far did you get in math classes?? I would really appreciate your answers to these questions, because they sure could clear up a few things.

Thank You
I Am He

He wont answer this anyway but if he does you will get a whole lot of no's to your questions.
I will field the ones that I do know for sure:
NO credentials in that field
NO law enforcement experience
NO employment by any firm that investigates air disasters
NO degree

[Belz...]

For what?

You don't believe that a several ton engine digging deep into the floor (is that term ok to use?) of the building would cause significant or visible damage and I do.

It's a good thing that reality trumps belief.

But the very simple and general claim of what side of the station the plane flew is the ONLY claim we are calling a smoking gun.

Thanks. That sums it up.

Otherwise this is even more proof of a conspiracy.

No, it isn't. Even NO proof against you isn't proof in your favour, especially if said proof isn't necessarily expected.

The vantage point of the witnesses and the simple right or left claim they are making is hugely different.

Apparently you've never studied memory.

Plus.....they do NOT have to be accurate in their placement of the plane. They only need to be remotely correct.

"Remotely" as in, beign wrong about what direction the plane was coming from ?

[Belz...]

If it was ANYWHERE near the north side of the station it could not have hit the light poles.

Precisely.

He simply saw the cab after the fact.

He also didn't see the evil government men planting the evidence, did he ?

There is NOTHING impossible about this at all.

Oh, yes there is. Because then you have to assume that SOMEHOW all the evidence was planted. It means that this konspirazy is so complex that it had to fake and fake and fake, while all they had to do was fly a damn remote 757 into this building.

[CurtC]

Bobert, I think your sniping at Lyte is not helpful. He's done a good job of staying civil here, and I would like to see other members treat him courteously personally, while holding a hard line on facts and evidence. Let's expect him to address those, and keep the sniping out of it, please.

[Lyte Trip]

I find it curious when you state that your so called witnesses will no longer speak to anyone. So when they drew their lines on your photographs with that pen did they also sign your confidentiality agreement as a condition to share in your proceeds?

I knew it was a matter of time before one of you broke down and straight up called them liars.

I never said that they will no longer speak with anyone.

I might have said that I doubt that they will because they are likely scared for their jobs or even their lives over the implications of what they saw.

Why don't you try contacting them and call them liars for profit directly?

[Lyte Trip]

Bobert, I think your sniping at Lyte is not helpful. He's done a good job of staying civil here, and I would like to see other members treat him courteously personally, while holding a hard line on facts and evidence. Let's expect him to address those, and keep the sniping out of it, please.

Poor gent is upset because he lost his job over being obsessed with harassing me because of my political beliefs.

You'd think for the sake of his sanity he would let it go and move on with his life.

I guess he finds comfort in the fact that so many other people here feel like he does about my beliefs.

Too bad he can't see what a raving lunatic he looks like even to you folks.

[DavidJames]

I knew it was a matter of time before one of you broke down and straight up called them liars.

I never said that they will no longer speak with anyone.

I might have said that I doubt that they will because they are likely scared for their jobs or even their lives over the implications of what they saw.

Why don't you try contacting them and call them liars for profit directly?
Please highlight the the comments in A W Smiths post where he calls them liars.

You are the one who claims you provided your "evidence" to the media and authorities but refuses to provide to whom. I think you are the only liar here.

[Belz...]

I knew it was a matter of time before one of you broke down and straight up called them liars.

As opposed to you calling the other witnesses... er... what are they again ? Ah, yes. They've been TOLD to say something they know isn't true.

Well I guess that makes them honest folk, doesn't it, Lyte ?

[CosCos]

Lyte Trip, please explain this:

Your theory contends that the “plan” was always for the plane to fly south of the citgo correct? By taking the northern flight path that was essentially a mistake that the conspirators made correct?

What I don’t understand is if the plan was always to be the southern route, why would they have rigged the light poles anyway? Wouldn’t they have been struck on cue? Or would the plane have flown over the lightpoles which would then have been exploded anyway? Or did the conspirators realize the error in the flightpath and dispatched commandoes immediately to rig/blowup the lightpoles within nanoseconds?

Have you thought through that aspect of your theory?

[NobbyNobbs]

Yes he remembers it being closer to the station then Brooks and Lagasse but that is a simple perception issue.

Point is that ALL of them most definitely saw the actual plane on the north side. This is undeniable.


I could just as easily say...

"Yes, they remember it being on the north side of the station, but that is a simple perception problem.

Point is that ALL of them most definitely saw the actual plane hit the Pentagon. This is undeniable."

...and be correct. You are being very picky about which statements of your witnesses you choose to believe. I would be interested in knowing

a) Why you choose to believe and dismiss the statements that you do?

b) If you think doing so is a very scientific way of gathering data?

It makes no sense that they would all place it so far on the north side if this was the case.

Even for one of them to do this would be strange but all 3?

No way.

You have no problem with this, but you have a hard time believing all the other witnesses who say otherwise? Everyone else says it flew to the south.

"It makes no sense that they would all place it so far on the south side if this was the case.

Even for one of them to do this would be strange but all 99? No way."



But the very simple and general claim of what side of the station the plane flew is the ONLY claim we are calling a smoking gun.

There is "no chance" it was on the physical damage flight path.

They only have to be somewhat correct in their approximate placement of the plane.

The chances that they are all so drastically incorrect in the exact same way are slim to none.

Not true. Eyewitness testimony is horribly uncertain, especially when faced with the unexpected.

I remember an experiment my English teacher did in 12th grade. He came around the classroom and showed each of us a card (the same card to everyone) from a deck of cards. He then asked us what the card was. Simple, right?

Half the class said it was the King of Spades. The other half said it was the King of Hearts. Both halves of the class were willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that is what they saw.

Two mutually impossible situations, yet only one card was shown. In fact, I recall a very loud argument that nearly came to blows, with many insults tossed back and forth, because no one wanted to believe they saw the wrong thing. What I'm saying is, the eyewitness testimony of 4 people doesn't hold the weight you think it does.

(For those of you who want to work out the card mystery for yourselves, I've put the answer in this spoiler)

The teacher had taken the King of Hearts and colored the hearts in with a black marker. Some students saw the shape, and claimed "hearts", others saw the color and claimed "spades".


Here is an overhead shot that also indicates the 124 foot wingspan of the plane:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/327a1-1.jpg


Would a pilot on this thread be able to take the location where Lyte claims the plane pulled up, combine it with the speed of the plane, and figure out..

a) if the plane could clear the Pentagon?

b) how much G-force the pilot would experience doing so?



Plus.....they do NOT have to be accurate in their placement of the plane. They only need to be remotely correct.

That's the first thing you've said right this whole thread. They were remotely correct. The plane was headed in the direction of the Pentagon.

[A W Smith]

I knew it was a matter of time before one of you broke down and straight up called them liars.

I never said that they will no longer speak with anyone.

I might have said that I doubt that they will because they are likely scared for their jobs or even their lives over the implications of what they saw.

Why don't you try contacting them and call them liars for profit directly?
Where did I say that? YOU however....
What about them?

The citgo witnesses have proven that they were either embellishing or lying.

The notion that there are 99 previously published accounts of people who literally "saw" the impact is absurd.

Prove it came from the Pentagon.

Accepting the word of the suspect is never accepted as proof.

I went back a bit into your post history. i could have pulled many more examples of YOU calling witnesses and investigators Liars. This is not even including your Lloyd thread.

[Regnad Kcin]

Irrelevant analogy.Of course it isn't, but quite similar. Just as with your vaunted witnesses, I too remember watching a close-by (helicopter) crash. I can describe it and could even show you on the scene where the aircraft plunged from the sky and its impact point (with resultant fireball). However, it's been over 10 years, and there's no guarantee I'd be precise in my recollection. Especially if the physical evidence was not in agreement.

The vantage point of the witnesses and the simple right or left claim they are making is hugely different.Except it isn't. It's been many years since the event, an event that was not only a surprise to witnesses on the ground, but was over and done with in a moment. Plenty of room for inexact recollections and resultant descriptions. Which is why we rely on the enormous amount of physical evidence present at the Pentagon.

[Arus808]

also, terrain features have changed since 911 . Where trees once stood, are no longer there.

they could have been using a tree for reference, and being that it was not there on the day of interview, they could have used another "tree" thinking it was the same tree from that day.

That fudged me up one time when I was tryhing to remember where a building was, because of a unique looking tree that was in front of it. The owners of the property decided to "change" it, and it made me miss the building.

[Bobert]

Poor gent is upset because he lost his job over being obsessed with harassing me because of my political beliefs.

You'd think for the sake of his sanity he would let it go and move on with his life.

I guess he finds comfort in the fact that so many other people here feel like he does about my beliefs.

Too bad he can't see what a raving lunatic he looks like even to you folks.

Edited to remove personal information.

This feud between the two of you needs to stop. Either it ends voluntarily or by banning. I don't care which.

[mortimer]

How's xxxxxx treating you Lyte?
You still there?
Ext xxxxxx still?
www.xxxxxxxxx.com (http://www.xxxxxxxxx.com)

Reported.

[Mince]

OK. You do realize that it would have been impossible for a C-130 to shadow a jet anyway.

Now, are you saying that the witnesses were told that the jetliner streaking away at 500+ was really just a C-130? You do know that C-130s aren't that fast? You do know that they are not jet engine planes but prop planes? You do know all you would have to ask a witness is whether it had props or jets? Yuo know that there is a distinct difference in sound between the two types of planes?


Perhaps all of these bits of logic, which I'm sure the producers of the video have already given consideration to, are covered in the Researcher's Edition.

[Regnad Kcin]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/327a1-1.jpgIncidentally, I have no Photoshop skills whatsoever. If I did, I would place a straight line on the above picture, in a plane to coincide with the directional compass in the lower left corner. It would reach from the compass, go through the Citgo, and terminate towards the right of the image.

Having done so, it would reasonably indicate that much of the true (red) path of the plane was already north of the Citgo once it had passed the landmark. And it was also traveling "left to right", in respect to north, on its way to the Pentagon.

Setting aside the issue of innacurate memory, it is quite easy to see how your witnesses could make their claim and have it be consistent with the true (red) flight path. Very easy.

[Pardalis]

Lyte Trip, please explain this:

Your theory contends that the “plan” was always for the plane to fly south of the citgo correct? By taking the northern flight path that was essentially a mistake that the conspirators made correct?

What I don’t understand is if the plan was always to be the southern route, why would they have rigged the light poles anyway? Wouldn’t they have been struck on cue? Or would the plane have flown over the lightpoles which would then have been exploded anyway? Or did the conspirators realize the error in the flightpath and dispatched commandoes immediately to rig/blowup the lightpoles within nanoseconds?

Have you thought through that aspect of your theory?

Good question.

[Architect]

I notice he's still strangely silent on the whole foundation thing. Hmmmmm.....

[Lyte Trip]

I notice he's still strangely silent on the whole foundation thing. Hmmmmm.....

Unless you are claiming the floor was made of solid diamond the point I made still stands regardless of the terminology that is used to describe what the left engine of the plane would have dug into according to the official story.

[Lyte Trip]

Edited to remove personal information.

This feud between the two of you needs to stop. Either it ends voluntarily or by banning. I don't care which.

Please take note that I have only ignored his perpetual personal attacks and revealing of personal information about me until this one post which was not directly to him.

I will continue to ignore him so please don't misconstrue his attacks against me as a "feud".

[Architect]

That's it? That's your proof? "Because I said so"?

[Go_]

Excellent point, CosCos.

Your same point put slightly different might ask:

Since none of us dispute that five light poles were observed to be down along a fairly precise flight path south of the Citgo and that the perpetrators of 9/11, one way or another, were responsible for their being down, let's start with those agreed-upon facts.

Since the 9/11 perpetrators severed only those five light poles at exactly the height at which they were severed and no others, it's clear that the perpetrators of 9/11 had planned for the plane to take a fairly precise flight path south of the Citgo toward the Pentagon.

How likely is it, then, that this same group of conspirators who clearly planned and went to great lengths to make the downed light poles a key part of the evidence for the plane's alleged crash into the Pentagon, that this same group of conspirators then flew a completely wrong flight path to the Pentagon?

. . . and this after circling the area once? . . . and this on a day when visibility was perfect? . . . and this, if Lyte Trip's hypothesis is correct, by a very skilled pilot?

Does this seem the least bit probable?

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte Trip, please explain this:

Your theory contends that the “plan” was always for the plane to fly south of the citgo correct? By taking the northern flight path that was essentially a mistake that the conspirators made correct?

What I don’t understand is if the plan was always to be the southern route, why would they have rigged the light poles anyway? Wouldn’t they have been struck on cue? Or would the plane have flown over the lightpoles which would then have been exploded anyway? Or did the conspirators realize the error in the flightpath and dispatched commandoes immediately to rig/blowup the lightpoles within nanoseconds?

Have you thought through that aspect of your theory?

Yes we have thought about this.

The answer is that they likely planned it this way on purpose for people who saw the plane fly over.

It makes it easier to suggest a different plane hit the building if the plane people saw fly over is not perfectly on the correct flight path.

Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident.

The former is more likely.

[Calcas]

Please take note that I have only ignored his perpetual personal attacks and revealing of personal information about me until this one post which was not directly to him.

I will continue to ignore him so please don't misconstrue his attacks against me as a "feud".

Lyte, please go to the "Pentagon Flyover Illusion" thread.

I'm sure many of us would love to see a reply from you.

[Lyte Trip]

That's it? That's your proof? "Because I said so"?

The proof is the corroborated first hand testimony.

The observations via photos of anomalies in the physical evidence is what made us suspicious enough to go find out what the witnesses saw.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, please go to the "Pentagon Flyover Illusion" thread.

I'm sure many of us would love to see a reply from you.

Your wish is my command.

Missed you at the conference.

Did you get a flat tire on the way?

[Architect]

The proof is the corroborated first hand testimony.

The observations via photos of anomalies in the physical evidence is what made us suspicious enough to go find out what the witnesses saw.

No, you've deliberately evaded the point. You were asked to address issues such as solum backfill, deformation patterns, and so on.

Still waiting.

[Pardalis]

Yes we have thought about this.

The answer is that they likely planned it this way on purpose for people who saw the plane fly over.

It makes it easier to suggest a different plane hit the building if the plane people saw fly over is not perfectly on the correct flight path.

Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident.

The former is more likely.

I keep reading and rereading this post.

It doesn't make any sense, none whatsoever.

:hypnotize

[beachnut]

The proof is the corroborated first hand testimony.

The observations via photos of anomalies in the physical evidence is what made us suspicious enough to go find out what the witnesses saw.
Your witnesses saw the plane hit, and the poles hit. They said this in 2001. You have made this all up. You cannot ignore their statements in 2001 as you are doing. Their testimony has to include what they said in 2001, or you are just telling lies and making up stories to sell your ideas on your road trips. I will publish their stories in their own voices again unless you stop telling lies.

[Lyte Trip]

I keep reading and rereading this post.

It doesn't make any sense, none whatsoever.

:hypnotize

Think about the cover story of another plane "shadowing" the AA jet and then veering off over the pentagon just after the explosion and perhaps it will make more sense to you.

Or perhaps you just need to read it a few more times.

[Lyte Trip]

Your witnesses saw the plane hit, and the poles hit. They said this in 2001. You have made this all up. You cannot ignore their statements in 2001 as you are doing. Their testimony has to include what they said in 2001, or you are just telling lies and making up stories to sell your ideas on your road trips. I will publish their stories in their own voices again unless you stop telling lies.

Only one of them said they saw the light poles get hit in 2001 and he set the record straight for everyone on video tape in 2006.

He did not see the light poles get hit.

There is nothing else contradictory in their testimony from 2001 particularly in regards to the north side claim which is the only thing we are calling a smoking gun anyway.

[Lyte Trip]

No, you've deliberately evaded the point. You were asked to address issues such as solum backfill, deformation patterns, and so on.

Still waiting.

I have never claimed to be an expert.

If you are suggesting these things would prevent a floor from being damaged after a several ton jet engine is dug into it as 500mph + then so be it.

I have never claimed our observations of the physical damage anomalies to be proof.

Merely that they they were suspicious to us and led us to dig deeper and find the proof.

Even if some of those suspicious details happen to have perfectly valid explanations that does not negate the proof that we have obtained.

[Pardalis]

Let's have a crack at it again, step by step.

The answer is that they likely planned it this way on purpose for people who saw the plane fly over.

So are you saying that the North of the Citgo flightpath was part of the plot, even though it contradicts the physical damage they themselves planted?

It makes it easier to suggest a different plane hit the building if the plane people saw fly over is not perfectly on the correct flight path.


Explain this sentence, it doesn't make sense. Are you saying the plane that flew over the Pentagon was deliberately flown off course for the benefit of a couple witnesses, specifically at the CITGO?

Why is the CITGO station so important in this conspiracy?

Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident.

Which would make more scene, but still makes this entire plot really stupid.

[beachnut]

Only one of them said they saw the light poles get hit in 2001 and he set the record straight for everyone on video tape in 2006.

He did not see the light poles get hit.

There is nothing else contradictory in their testimony from 2001 particularly in regards to the north side claim which is the only thing we are calling a smoking gun anyway.
Yes there is. You are not being very truthful with the testimony. Their 2001 testimony is contrary to all your conclusions. You must of missed it, you need to listen to it where they say 77 hit the Pentagon, and they said it in 2001. No coaching, no agenda, just the truth in 2001.

[Calcas]

Your wish is my command.

Missed you at the conference.

Did you get a flat tire on the way?

I'm glad you enjoyed my little joke. In case you didn't know, I don't live within 1000 miles of Ca anymore. But, you sure got your panties in a knot when I said I was going to crash it without paying, didn't you?

Anyway, good to see you here and posting somewhat rationally.

BTW, too bad about your partner in crime Merc. It seems his latest meltdown at lcf has gotten him banned forever this time, no?

P.S. to Bobert (who I don't even know)...you need to chill with the personal attacks and info or you will be GONE from here forever. And, these Mods can, and will, ensure that you can't come back.

[Mince]

Think about the cover story of another plane "shadowing" the AA jet and then veering off over the pentagon just after the explosion and perhaps it will make more sense to you.

Or perhaps you just need to read it a few more times.


Nope. Pardalis is correct. That post of yours was utterly nonsensical. I was going to post likewise, but I feared I may have missed something. You now have double corroboration about your post not making sense. Makes it a pretty solid deal, now doesn't it?

[Go_]

Lyte Trip evidently has not thought through the implications of his claim, Pardalis.

Here:It makes it easier to suggest a different plane hit the building if the plane people saw fly over is not perfectly on the correct flight path.

He assumes the very thing he tries to prove; namely, that a plane flew over the Pentagon.

But the fact of the matter is there are no witnesses -- NONE -- who claim to have seen a plane fly over (as opposed to in the general area of) the Pentagon.

Even his second bit of speculation (that is, that the plane was 'slightly' off course by accident) makes no rational sense.

Lyte and others argue that a skilled, experienced pilot flew flight 77. How likely is it that such a pilot would miss the predetermined flight path by such a margin even after making two passes at it on a clear day?

[Calcas]

Nope. Pardalis is correct. That post of yours was utterly nonsensical. I was going to post likewise, but I feared I may have missed something. You now have double corroboration about your post not making sense. Makes is a pretty solid deal, now doesn't it?

OK, I now make it TRIPLE corroboration.

One more and it will be QUADRUPLE corroborated.

Sound familiar Lyte?

[Bobert]

It is my pleasure to QUADRUPLE corroborate it!

[Qubit]

I would like to go back to the light poles for a second. Correct me if I am wrong but Lyte contests they were "planted". How were they planted? I have read other conspiracy theorists say they were "blown out by their base". Is this your contention Lyte? These light poles have serious damage. Which means they would have to be pre-damaged. Also, there is no evidence of damage caused by explosives. Finally, if they were somehow timed to coincide with the flight, how does one not recognize light poles falling for no reason? Don't you think Mr. England would have noticed such a momentous event of light poles falling for no reason? Does he not contradict your "North Side" claim? It appears you are running out of staws to grasp at.

[Go_]

Don't you think Mr. England would have noticed such a momentous event of light poles falling for no reason? Does he not contradict your "North Side" claim? It appears you are running out of staws to grasp at.

Lyte Trip strongly implies that England is a mental defective who is easily duped.



I'd like to hear Lyte Trip definitively respond to the point first brought up by CosCos and then echoed by Pardalis and others.

The perpetrators of 9/11 would not have knocked down those five light poles if they knew that the FDR of flight 77 would definitively prove that flight 77 could not possibly have knocked them down.

Yet, Lyte Trip claims this is precisely what they did.

This is an entirely implausible claim that he has yet to justify.

[A W Smith]

Lyte Trip strongly implies that England is a mental defective who is easily duped.



I'd like to hear Lyte Trip definitively respond to the point first brought up by CosCos and then echoed by Pardalis and others.

The perpetrators of 9/11 would not have knocked down those five light poles if they knew that the FDR of flight 77 would definitively prove that flight 77 could not possibly have knocked them down.

Yet, Lyte Trip claims this is precisely what they did.

This is an entirely implausible claim that he has yet to justify.

Even if he uses the canard that the pole bases were charged with mini explosives. what bent the poles into arcs?

[jaydeehess]

Unless you are claiming the floor was made of solid diamond the point I made still stands regardless of the terminology that is used to describe what the left engine of the plane would have dug into according to the official story.
..................
Merely that they they were suspicious to us and led us to dig deeper and find the proof.



You perceive the condition of the floor as an 'anomalie' but have utterly failed to examine whether or not it is. You contacted no relevent expert for an opinion, and did no personal research to corroborate your uninformed contention that it is anomalous for this engine to have smashed through a 24 inch thick wall of stone, brick and concrete without causing severe damage to the concrete flooring in the loaction you assume it would have hit and using a picture that contains a large amount of other rubble on that concrete slab. You have then utterly failed to illustrate how this is anomolous. your inexpert, 'common sense', personal incredulity is not sufficient.

You did not 'dig deeper' , you changed subjects. You then operated upon the preconception that this and other aspects were 'anomolous' and strove soley to back up the contention that there were anomolies. You did not operate in a fashion that would suggest you wanted the truth but that you wished to corroborate an already faulty assumption. For this you chose one of the types of evidence that is the absolute most likely way to find contradictions, eyewitness testimony. Now you take the 4 contrarian reports from amoung many others and proclaim that this is 'smoking gun' evidence AND devise a senario of a flyover that has absolutly no evidence of occuring whatsoever, no physical evidence and no eyewitness testimony. NONE Lyte, none.

How can you possibly propose this as a probable senario when you have nothing at all to base it on?

Yes we have thought about this.

The answer is that they likely planned it this way on purpose for people who saw the plane fly over. In reality absolutly no one saw any plane fly over the Pentagon and no one saw another aircraft flying low and fast near the Pentagon. The C-130 is almost as different from a 757 than one could get and the one in the area was several thousand feet away from the Pentagon at all times. No one puts it close let alone on an intercept path with the Pentagon or anywhere close to (less than several thousand feet) Flight 77.

It makes it easier to suggest a different plane hit the building if the plane people saw fly over is not perfectly on the correct flight path.

Which might make a tiny bit of sense if the one that flew over was on the path of physical damage while the other one wasn't since it is the path of physical damage that is to be the 'official' story anyway.

Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident.



If there were any significant chance that the plane would be so off course as you suggest it could be(wildy off course given the abilities of aircraft navigation)then it would simply be better to not have a separate level of deception as to attempt to fake the pole damage.

Neither senario is very likely at all.

[jaydeehess]

Once again with the physical evidence at the Pentagon;

If explosives blew the ground floor wall out then where is the 5 or so truckloads of limestone, brick, concrete and steel window frames that should be on the ground in front of the Pentagon?

You have often called the aircraft debris in front of the building insufficient to account for an aircraft hitting the building. Where is the wall rubble? The aircraft was at least purported to be moving into the building, your supposition though would have the wall debris moving outward.

You have often stated that the aircraft debris found outside the Pentagon was planted. Would you now contend that a large percentage, at least, of the several truckloads of wall rubble was simultaneously and surreptitiously removed?

[Mince]

It is my pleasure to QUADRUPLE corroborate it!

There you have it, Lyte, quadruple corroboration. As you know, proof doesn't get any stronger than that. There is no debate. Are you now prepared to concede that your post was nonsensical and issue appropriate apologies?

[Go_]

Lyte Trip's "theory" has been demolished.

Should we release a video and maybe call it "ThePentaconcon." :)

[Mince]

Lyte Trip's "theory" has been demolished.

Should we release a video and maybe call it "ThePentaconcon." :)


No. That will just prompt him to make a video called The Pentaconconcon, prompting us to make a video called The Pentaconconconcon, prompting him to make a video called The Pentaconconconconcon, prompting us to make a video called The Pentaconconconconconcon...

[Regnad Kcin]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/327a1-1.jpgIncidentally, I have no Photoshop skills whatsoever. If I did, I would place a straight line on the above picture, in a plane to coincide with the directional compass in the lower left corner, delineating north and south. It would reach from the compass, go through the Citgo, and terminate towards the right of the image.

Having done so, it would reasonably indicate that much of the true (red) path of the plane was already north of the Citgo once it had passed the landmark. And it was also traveling "left to right", in respect to north, on its way to the Pentagon.

Setting aside the issue of innacurate memory, it is quite easy to see how your witnesses could make their claim and have it be consistent with the true (red) flight path. Very easy.I felt it important to add the bolded clarification above, even though you have not responded.

[gumboot]

No. That will just prompt him to make a video called The Pentaconconcon, prompting us to make a video called The Pentaconconconcon, prompting him to make a video called The Pentaconconconconcon, prompting us to make a video called The Pentaconconconconconcon...


At which point I would release The Penta and pwn you all!

-Gumboot

[Bobert]

I wonder how many recuts the Researchers Edition will contain?

[I Am He]

Lyte

Could you please answer the questions I asked you in Post #428, Please.

If you don't remember it, this should refresh your memory:

Lyte, you say that there were abnormalities in the official report and then you went down to D.C. to investigate them? Can you please tell me what credentials you have in that field. Were you ever in law enforcement at one time? Were you ever employed by any investigation firm that investigates air disasters? Do you have any type of schooling in that field? Did you ever take any human behavior courses while you were in school? Last but not least, how far did you get in math classes?? I would really appreciate your answers to these questions, because they sure could clear up a few things.

Thank You
I Am He

[Belz...]

Unless you are claiming the floor was made of solid diamond [snip]

WHAT ? Diamonds are HARD, but weak. Don't try to smash a rock on a diamond, please.

The answer is that they likely planned it this way on purpose for people who saw the plane fly over.

"Likely" ? How so ?

So, basically, these idiotic konspiratorz had this HUGE plan going on, with split-second timing; enough to fool all onlookers into thinking a plane hit the building... and they BLEW IT by having the plane approach from the wrong angle. Boy, it's a good think twoofers are smart!

The proof is the corroborated first hand testimony.

The minority of the first hand testimony, I might add. And I'd ALSO add that this testimony still says the plane hit the building.

Think about the cover story of another plane "shadowing" the AA jet and then veering off over the pentagon just after the explosion and perhaps it will make more sense to you.

That's because you're in paranoia-thinking mode.

[CosCos]

Yes we have thought about this.

The answer is that they likely planned it this way on purpose for people who saw the plane fly over.

It makes it easier to suggest a different plane hit the building if the plane people saw fly over is not perfectly on the correct flight path.

Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident.

The former is more likely.
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to PENTAcorroborate that that answer does not make sense. Are you saying that they planned a north of citgo path on purpose and rigged the lightpoles to.......what?? fool the people who saw the "flyover??" Do you even realize how silly that sounds??

"Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident."

But that brings us to the whole point of the question. If it was off course by accident that means the southern flightpath was correct all along which would make the lightpoles being rigged moot!!

You're starting with this flyover assumption which means you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to make everything fit. Sorry, it doesn't fly and your whole theory has crumbled around you. Either you see this and refuse to admit it which makes you intellectually dishonest, or you honestly believe your theory which makes you........

[Disbelief]

OK. You do realize that it would have been impossible for a C-130 to shadow a jet anyway.

Now, are you saying that the witnesses were told that the jetliner streaking away at 500+ was really just a C-130? You do know that C-130s aren't that fast? You do know that they are not jet engine planes but prop planes? You do know all you would have to ask a witness is whether it had props or jets? Yuo know that there is a distinct difference in sound between the two types of planes?

Lyte, could youplease answer these questions.

Also, what type of C-130 was flying over?

[twinstead]

Judge: So, Barrister Lyte, exactly how do you explain the wealth of physical and eye-witness evidence that directly counters your theory?



Yes we have thought about this.

The answer is that they likely planned it this way on purpose for people who saw the plane fly over.

It makes it easier to suggest a different plane hit the building if the plane people saw fly over is not perfectly on the correct flight path.

Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident.

The former is more likely.

judge: okay, sir. Interesting. Do you have any actual evidence that this did indeed happen, or that any physical evidence at the scene was planted? Any at all?

chirp...chirp...chirp...

judge: sir?

chirp...chirp...chirp...

judge: CASE DISMISSED!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Has Lyte Trip supplied an approximate heading for his "north of the Citgo" flight-path?

[Belz...]

Can't focus with Disbelief's avatar.

Who's are those, anyway ?

[Belz...]

Judge: So, Barrister Lyte, exactly how do you explain the wealth of physical and eye-witness evidence that directly counters your theory?

judge: okay, sir. Interesting. Do you have any actual evidence that this did indeed happen, or that any physical evidence at the scene was planted? Any at all?

chirp...chirp...chirp...

judge: sir?

chirp...chirp...chirp...

judge: CASE DISMISSED!

Actually It'd go like this:

judge: okay, sir. Interesting. Do you have any actual evidence that this did indeed happen, or that any physical evidence at the scene was planted? Any at all?

Lyte: It's LIKELY!

judge: CASE DISMISSED!

[twinstead]

Can't focus with Disbelief's avatar.

Who's are those, anyway ?

Yea, such a cute little kitty. :rolleyes:

[jaydeehess]

"Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident."
There is another problem with that senario.
Lyte contends that the light pole damage was faked and planted. This would have to be done maually by several persons on the scene. the plan would be to plant the damaged poles or cause them to topple when the plane flew overhead. However, Lyte suggests that perhaps the plane was coming in on a different course than originally planned for. He goes as far as to accuse Lloyd England of being one of those who did the faking of the evidence. The problem now is that there was, supposedly, no plane flying over any of those poles. Agents tasked with the damage fakery for some inexplicable reason all went ahead with their part even though the plane did not pass over them.

Even if one argues for an automatic toppling of the poles (Lloyd is then off the hook) one must assume that the planner would account for a much less than ideal flight path and so make sure that the plane must pass directly over, within a small margin of error, before this part of the plan is implemented. To not have a contingency for this part of the plan is ridiculous given the stakes involved.

No one stated that the poles came down too early or too late. No one saw any inconsistency in the poles coming down having occured due to the plane's passage so the timing was well within a small margin or error. No one saw anyone running around placing downed poles about the place.

For that matter no one saw anyone running around placing any debris of any kind all about the entire scene from poles to Pentagon. No one noticed anyone going around picking up the truckloads of wall rubble that would indicate an explosive was detonated within the Pentagon.

[uk_dave]

oh come on, give lyte a break.

He's found us out. We might as well admit it.

Yes we carefully staged the attack on the pentagon, and would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids and...etc etc.

It was all so carefully thought out.

We knew the trees would obscure the view of the pentagon.

We knew no one would be taking any pictures in the area at the time.

We knew that EVERYONE, even those people listening to their 'walkman', or with the latest 'slipknot' cd playing at full blast on their car 'radiogram', would be overawed by seeing the plane fly overhead that they would naturally assume it had hit the pentagon just as the preplanted explosives exploded explosively.

We knew that no one would be videoing or taking photographs that morning and might accidentally capture the flyover.

We knew that, despite the error in the preplanned flight path, we could still synchronise the explosion and the flightpath without knocking the 'hijacked' plane out of the sky.

We knew no one would notice the planting of all the fake evidence, because people just don't notice **** like that, not when there's a fireball to distract them. And we knew that they would stay distracted for the 20 mins or so it would take to spread the fake debris.

We knew that even though our plane flew the wrong path, all those who saw it wouldn't come forward until some intrepid investigators started snooping around, but this wouldn't happen for about five years and by that time no one would give a **** anyways.

We knew all this.

And it worked.

Damn, we're good.

[Qubit]

However, Lyte suggests that perhaps the plane was coming in on a different course than originally planned for. He goes as far as to accuse Lloyd England of being one of those who did the faking of the evidence.

Herein lies the problem. There is apparent hypocrisy with Lyte. He will say how we accuse his witnesses of lying (which, to my knowledge, no one has) but turn around and accuse those who contradict his claims liars, plants, or in Mr. England's case, mentally instable. This is done without any proof or evidence. I actually find it offensive. You are basically accusing and innocent man who is just telling his story, of being mentally ill. I know I would feel outraged if I read all over the Internet that I was labeled a plant, a liar, or mentally ill without any evidence.

It seems to be the conspiracy theorist's way of thinking. Basically, the Government is able to do anything, even break the laws of physics.

No proof of demolitions? Must be the super secret space beam weapon that caused it.
No proof of fly-over? Must be the advanced cloaking device and master illusions put forth by the government.
Evidence of planted and pre-bent/damaged light poles? Super-duper cover operatives and plants since they (the government) knew all along who would be there AND their exact locations during the event.

It's my opinion that Lyte doesn't believe any of this and just wants to steel some thunder from LC. He saw the notoriety garnered from LC and hopes he could gain fame and perhaps make a few dollars on the way.

[Architect]

It seems to be the conspiracy theorist's way of thinking. Basically, the Government is able to do anything, even break the laws of physics.



Ye Cannae Break the Laws O' Physics!






Sorry, I just couldn't resist. But I do in a REAL Scottish accent.

[Whiplash]

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to PENTAcorroborate that that answer does not make sense. Are you saying that they planned a north of citgo path on purpose and rigged the lightpoles to.......what?? fool the people who saw the "flyover??" Do you even realize how silly that sounds??

"Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident."

But that brings us to the whole point of the question. If it was off course by accident that means the southern flightpath was correct all along which would make the lightpoles being rigged moot!!

You're starting with this flyover assumption which means you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to make everything fit. Sorry, it doesn't fly and your whole theory has crumbled around you. Either you see this and refuse to admit it which makes you intellectually dishonest, or you honestly believe your theory which makes you........


An excellent post, which uses logic to show how insane the ideas are to begin with. Sadly, such logic will be completely lost on Lyte. And he will just completely ignore it.

I don't understand these truthers. They honestly think that just ignoring these responses makes them less valid somehow. It's mind boggling. They sit in these forums and make idiotic points, and get blown away over and over. But they sit in stark denial, as if they are actually winning, let alone even surviving. Quite perplexing.

[Woody-]

I still dont understand why the "conspirators" would even bother with knocking over a few light poles anyway. I would bet that 99% of the population doesnt even know that some light poles were knocked down, only truthers seem to think that the downed light poles are part of the essential evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Heck it wasnt until a couple years after 9/11 that I even knew that some light poles were knocked over near the Pentagon. It was an interesting bit of trivia once I heard about it but it had no bearing one way or another on my thoughts of the events of the day.

It just goes against the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid) to even think someone would include knocking over light poles as part of some plan since the inclusion of knocked over light poles would only marginally, if at all, help their deception while adding complexity to the plan.

I just cant see someone being suddenly not convinced that a plane hit the Pentagon if the light poles were not knocked over, the other evidence is just overwhelming.

[uk_dave]

Welllll not really. I mean, IF the flight was supposed to have taken the path of the physical evidence, but not actually hit the pentagon, then obviously 'truthers' everywhere would be saying "If it was low enough to hit the pentagon then it should have hit some lightpoles along the way".

So in those terms it is necessary to have the poles knocked down.

The question then is why did the plane, as witnessed by lytes superhuman eyewitnesses, not take the path of the physical damage?

'Truthers' would have us believe that someone cocked up (You know, like how there's NO WAY the US air defences could have failed on 9/11 unless they were ordered to 'stand own' because cock-ups don't happen, but the plane taking the wrong route to the pentagon, that's a 'cock-up') or the technology failed.

But the plan was too advanced to be changed (of course no one co-ordinating the distribution of 'fake' debris would be bothered that the plane had flown a different route, they had a job to do!) and so they just proceeded to fake the originally planned for flightpath and hope no one would come back in five years time and question four of the witnesses to the events of that day.

[jaydeehess]

But the plan was too advanced to be changed (of course no one co-ordinating the distribution of 'fake' debris would be bothered that the plane had flown a different route, they had a job to do!) and so they just proceeded to fake the originally planned for flightpath and hope no one would come back in five years time and question four of the witnesses to the events of that day.

Exactly,, in the event that the plane did not follow the intended route then all one need do is inform the several 'agents' not to distribute the damaged poles if that occurs. All witnesses , including Lyte's Citgo stars, saw the plane hit (well Robert says his view of the impact was obstructed) so there would be no problem with no downed poles along the supposed northern path. In fact jst put the plane 25 feet higher and at a very slightly steeper desent and you don't need downed poles anywhere and it still impacts the ground floor.


Yet there is that one very relevent point that comes up now and then.

Lyte's senario has a vast, complex, complicated dance of illusion, fakery and deception occuring. Flight 77 and all it souls on board were never seen again. So on one hand you have comandeered a large fast heavy aircraft and you have no concern whatsoever for the people on board and will kill them all,,,,, BUT ,,,,, on the other hand you have planted explosives in the Pentagon, gathered a fairly large team to fake flight path damages, aircarft debris in and around the Pentagon, fake human remains and to kill the people and dispose of the plane elsewhere.

This enormous complex plot could have been made very simple if you just had the plane fly into the building at top speed. Even if it misses the fact that it was moving that fast would ensure that all on board die. Aim for the ground floor and you have 77 feet margin of error above ground. Miss and hit the ground short and everyond still dies.

"Big Lie" doesn't cut it and is completely unneccessary.

[uk_dave]

Except that in 'truther' land the perps didn't know how much damage an actual plane crash would cause to the pentagon (only 'truthers' know how much damage should have been caused) so the perps decided on a more controlled method of causing the necessary outrage.

Of course, it would have been simpler to have chosen a different target.

And, of course, the faking of the damage was so open to being revealed that the risks outweigh any possible benefit in using the pentagon as a target (you know, leading immediately to questions about why the US military headquarters wasn't better protected etc etc)

They could have just hit the damn citgo station and caused just as much outrage.

[Go_]

So what have we got so far?

Well, it seems that even though our diabolical 9/11 conspirators have already successfully crashed two planes into two buildings in New York, at the Pentagon they inexplicably decide to fake a plane crash into a building instead of actually crashing yet a third plane into a third building.

Yes, you read that right -- even though it would be much easier, much more realistic, much less risky to plot exposure, etc., etc., to simply crash a plane into the Pentagon to give the appearance of a . . . uh, plane crashing into a building, our zany crew of conspirators decides to blow the Pentagon with explosives and to fake the crash instead.

To further complicate matters they also go to the entirely unnecessary trouble of faking a second flight path by surreptitiously taking down five light poles along a busy stretch of highway near the Pentagon to give the appearance that a second jet flew in the same general area just in case someone near the Pentagon happens to notice the conspirator's jet flying over the Pentagon when the fireball explodes.

Why do I say this was unnecessary? Because amazingly enough NO ONE on the other side of the Pentagon did notice a large, noisy passenger jet flying over the building simultaneous with the fireball/explosion. This, despite a busy highway and massive parking lot being located on the other side of the Pentagon from where the fireball exploded and despite a number of construction workers at work there.

Our conspirator/geniuses then somehow manage to sneak into the busy, secured Pentagon disaster site area to plant a fully functional flight data recorder at the site. They do this knowing full well that the flight data contained therein will show that the conspirator's plane flew, um . . . north of the Citgo and then up and over the Pentagon. They do this knowing full well that it will show that the plane could not have been the plane that struck the light poles, thus proving beyond reasonable doubt that the official story they've constructed is a hoax.

In other words, even though our madcap geniuses are apparently bright enough to end the FDR's data run before it shows the plane actually sailing up and over the freakin' Pentagon, it apparently never dawns on them that the data nevertheless will show that the plane was nowhere near the light poles (which, remember, they themselves had unnecessarily taken down) AND that it would overfly the Pentagon by no less than 100 feet were it to continue on any physically reasonable course.

Oh, yeah -- and they also plant a cockpit voice recorder at the site. However, this they intentionally damage so badly that no useful information can be obtained from it. Yes, that's not a mistype. The same conspirator group who manually ruins the data on the CVR stupidly leaves the smoking gun data from the FDR intact.

Hmm . . . you know, the more I think about this -- and since the Three Stooges are dead, right? -- the more I believe that just maybe the bungling Bush administration was behind this.

[uk_dave]

Maybe it's a conspiracy to drive the CIT mad.

It may even be working. :D