Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Pardalis]

Good to know someone is keeping track of Lyte's insane scenario. :D

[Mince]

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.

And why crash a third plane at all? And into the Pentagon. The conspirafantasists claim 9/11 was executed to curry support for a Middle East war. Well, why debilitate your capacity to make war? The destruction of three WTC buildings and three aircraft was not enough to declare war? Four buildings and four aircraft was the magic number? And why shoot down Flight 93 when you needed it to crash into a building to obtain support for a war?

Very good analysis of the thread to date.

[Pardalis]

Go, you might have missed lyte's explanation as of why "they" didn't just crash the plane in the Pentagon. It's a real gem, you might want to add it to your very good summary.

Enjoy :)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2473451&postcount=302

[Go_]

Lyte, i ask you again. The conspirators went to all this trouble to not crash the plane into the Pentagon, yet they crashed two other planes in the WTC towers.

Why?
They used planes as diversions while the actual destruction of the towers was completed with pre-planted explosives.

Same MO in Arlington.

Perhaps they didn't want the plane to hit the pentagon because they wanted more control over the damage since no catastrophic destruction of the entire building was planned.

WTF?

Let me get this straight. The conspirators did not crash a plane into the Pentagon because they wanted better control over the damage? And this would be the same damage that was done in the first place to simulate a plane crash into the Pentagon?

In other words, these wacky conspirators figured that they could use explosives to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon that would appear to be more realistic than an ACTUAL PLANE CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON would appear?

And you really believe this??? Really?

This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.

[What heretofore unknown dimension of reality has this thread slipped into?]

[Brainache]

WTF?

...

This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.

[What heretofore unknown dimension of reality has this thread slipped into?]

The Twilyte Zone.

[Alt+F4]

This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.

Yes Go, you are missing something. Lyte can't make any money off the obvious fact that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. He can only make money if he tries to make up an elaborate lie.

[uk_dave]

WTF?



In other words, these wacky conspirators figured that they could use explosives to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon that would appear to be more realistic than an ACTUAL PLANE CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON would appear?



Hey it makes perfect sense to me!!

Just as with Shanksville, the whacky conspirators made the 'fake' scene so believable that only highly trained investigators such as....damn, can't remember his nickname now, anyone some guy online figured it all out simply by LOOKING at photographs!! Incredible, no?

All that time and trouble to plant fake evidence to make it seem (to those dumb professional investigators) that a plane crashed in shanksville, and along comes some kid with a computer and no girlfriend and , voila!, he busts the case wide open, coz you can't see a tail stickin' out of the ground.

So, of course, with the pentagon, the whacky conspirators thought, "What would be even more believable than a real plane crash? a fake one!!"

And they went and faked the damage and the debris and the lightpoles and the generator and the taxi cab and the weather, and they would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those pesky............

[Disbelief]

Can't focus with Disbelief's avatar.

Who's are those, anyway ?

Maybe that is why Lyte hasn't answered the questions either.

As for who's they are, does it really matter?:)

[jhunter1163]

My title for Disbelief's avatar: "Kitty in Snack Valley."

*rim shot*

[Pardalis]

The Twilyte Zone.

:bigclap

Well crafted :D

[Pardalis]

WTF?

Let me get this straight. The conspirators did not crash a plane into the Pentagon because they wanted better control over the damage? And this would be the same damage that was done in the first place to simulate a plane crash into the Pentagon?

In other words, these wacky conspirators figured that they could use explosives to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon that would appear to be more realistic than an ACTUAL PLANE CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON would appear?

And you really believe this??? Really?

This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.

[What heretofore unknown dimension of reality has this thread slipped into?]

Don't forget that they didn't use any plane for WTC7 and yet they imploded it with controlled demolition charges... :boggled:

Guess they felt they didn't need that plane diversion anymore, that would have been way too obvious. :rolleyes:

The strangest thing about it all is that is seems to make perfect sense to Lyte.

[Bobert]

WTF?

Let me get this straight. The conspirators did not crash a plane into the Pentagon because they wanted better control over the damage? And this would be the same damage that was done in the first place to simulate a plane crash into the Pentagon?

In other words, these wacky conspirators figured that they could use explosives to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon that would appear to be more realistic than an ACTUAL PLANE CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON would appear?

And you really believe this??? Really?

This cannot be correct. I have got to be missing something here. Tell me I'm missing something. Please.

[What heretofore unknown dimension of reality has this thread slipped into?]
Niiiice Find there Pardalis!!
Great response Go!!!

[mailman]

So looks like this geezer has done a runner...or maybe he is out there trying to save the world! :)

Mailman

[Architect]

The silence is quite interesting, isn't it.......

[Belz...]

Maybe that is why Lyte hasn't answered the questions either.

Hummm...

As for who's they are, does it really matter?:)

It does if they're yours!! ;)

[Bobert]

Lyte is busy with damage control after Merc's nice email to Dylan.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79570

[Mince]

Lyte, I'm curious:

Where is the pull-up and fly-over in this video?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4987716.stm


Yeah, yeah. I know; it's not there.

Why not?

[Mince]

Lyte?

Lyte?

[pomeroo]

I understand the purpose of the new restrictions on ad hominem argument. Really, I do understand. And civility is a very good thing.

But...the inevitable "but." How does one, in all fairness, with the milk of human kindness flowing like a mighty river, confront the sort of argument that animates this thread without ever employing such terms as "insane," "deranged," "delusional," "barking mad," etc.? Milder expressions such as "irrational" and "wildly implausible" don't begin to suggest the totality of the collapse of a mind that produced the sort of hypothesis--presented as incontrovertible fact--we've been discussing here.

I'm talking about the proverbial 800 lb. gorilla in the room, the elephant in the parlor. Sometimes separating the argument from the arguer is not merely difficult, it's actually counter-productive. Style, Buffon observed, is the man himself.

[David Wong]

I thought Ad Hominem went like this:

"I support tariffs on imported goods."

"Well, that's exactly what I'd expect a FILTHY IRISHMAN to say!!!"


As in, it diverged completely off the subject and became a personal insult as a diversionary tactic.

When you get:

"I support the theory that the moon is located just 10 miles from the Earth."

"No sane person with even a basic education could think that."

I don't see that as Ad Hominem. You're making what is a very true statement: what's being proposed flies against even basic knowledge of the subject.

I guess I'm not sure now how you draw the line.

[A W Smith]

Apparently Draco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconian) has been made a moderator. But at least enforcement is balanced and the Axe falls on both sides. And few have been banned.

[pomeroo]

I thought Ad Hominem went like this:

"I support tariffs on imported goods."

"Well, that's exactly what I'd expect a FILTHY IRISHMAN to say!!!"


As in, it diverged completely off the subject and became a personal insult as a diversionary tactic.

When you get:

"I support the theory that the moon is located just 10 miles from the Earth."

"No sane person with even a basic education could think that."

I don't see that as Ad Hominem. You're making what is a very true statement: what's being proposed flies against even basic knowledge of the subject.

I guess I'm not sure now how you draw the line.



Exactly. We're definitely on the same wavelength. Your first example is pure name-calling that never engages the argument. The second makes a useful point, namely, the argument is so self-evidently wrong that it is appropriate to consider the mind that produced it.

[David Wong]

There's another factor, too. Say someone enters a discussion with educated adults and says, "I know for a fact that the planet Mars is made out of ham."

If the other people reply with, "Well, analysis from the probes and the rover that took soil samples indicates a chemical makeup significantly different from ham or any other cured meat..."

In other words, if they show the same measured, calculated reply they'd give to a real scientist, it is almost misleading to an observer. It indicates to them that the ham theory is treated the same as any other, that the difference between it and the accepted theory is just scientific straw-splitting.

Whereas the pure, emotional reaction of, "ARE YOU INSANE!?!?" is acutally more accurate because it actually reflects how far outside the bounds of any kind of reality the ham claim is. I know people hate the sarcasm here, but there are instances where it's actually a very valuable way to demonstrate the difference between a claim that is worthy of consideration, and a claim that is so obviously untrue and ugly and outlandish as to be malicious and worthy of some derision.

[pomeroo]

There's another factor, too. Say someone enters a discussion with educated adults and says, "I know for a fact that the planet Mars is made out of ham."

If the other people reply with, "Well, analysis from the probes and the rover that took soil samples indicates a chemical makeup significantly different from ham or any other cured meat..."

In other words, if they show the same measured, calculated reply they'd give to a real scientist, it is almost misleading to an observer. It indicates to them that the ham theory is treated the same as any other, that the difference between it and the accepted theory is just scientific straw-splitting.

Whereas the pure, emotional reaction of, "ARE YOU INSANE!?!?" is acutally more accurate because it actually reflects how far outside the bounds of any kind of reality the ham claim is. I know people hate the sarcasm here, but there are instances where it's actually a very valuable way to demonstrate the difference between a claim that is worthy of consideration, and a claim that is so obviously untrue and ugly and outlandish as to be malicious and worthy of some derision.



Again, you are exactly right and you make an important distinction. By according arrant nonsense the same rhetorical courtesy you'd extend to a reasonable argument that you happen to disagree with, you necessarily elevate the nonsense above its actual merit. The best way to combat fantastic claims that flaunt their contempt for reason is first, label them as nonsense, and second, show why they're nonsense. Omitting the first step sacrifices objectivity and forensic rigor on the altar of politeness.

[T.A.M.]

Ron said:
Omitting the first step sacrifices objectivity and forensic rigor on the altar of politeness.

Very nice.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I thought Ad Hominem went like this:

"I support tariffs on imported goods."

"Well, that's exactly what I'd expect a FILTHY IRISHMAN to say!!!"
Actually, no.
If you start with, "I support tariffs on importated goods because of X, Y, and Z" you can end up with three different kinds of ad homs:
1) "And X, Y, and Z are wrong because you're a FILTHY IRISHMAN" (abusive)
2) "Of course you would, you've already got tariffs because your a FILTHY IRISHMAN" and (tu quoque)
3) "Of course you would, because you wouldn't have to pay them because you're a FILTHY IRISHMAN!" (circumstantial)


As in, it diverged completely off the subject and became a personal insult as a diversionary tactic.

When you get:

"I support the theory that the moon is located just 10 miles from the Earth."

"No sane person with even a basic education could think that."

I don't see that as Ad Hominem. You're making what is a very true statement: what's being proposed flies against even basic knowledge of the subject.

I guess I'm not sure now how you draw the line.
Though your reasoning is reasonable, your example actually is an ad hom. Because you are doing:
P1: No sane person believes the moon is 10 miles from Earth
P2: You believe the moon is 10 miles from Earth
C: You are not sane

The person's sanity has no relevance on their claim that the Earth is 10 miles from the Moon.

ETA: The way I always remember it is:
"Your wrong, therefore you're an idiot!" is not an ad hom.
Whereas "Your wrong because you're an idiot!" is an ad hom.

If the insult can be left off the argument without changing the logic/facts of the argument, it's not an ad hom.

[D'rok]

There's another factor, too. Say someone enters a discussion with educated adults and says, "I know for a fact that the planet Mars is made out of ham."

If the other people reply with, "Well, analysis from the probes and the rover that took soil samples indicates a chemical makeup significantly different from ham or any other cured meat..."

In other words, if they show the same measured, calculated reply they'd give to a real scientist, it is almost misleading to an observer. It indicates to them that the ham theory is treated the same as any other, that the difference between it and the accepted theory is just scientific straw-splitting.

Whereas the pure, emotional reaction of, "ARE YOU INSANE!?!?" is acutally more accurate because it actually reflects how far outside the bounds of any kind of reality the ham claim is. I know people hate the sarcasm here, but there are instances where it's actually a very valuable way to demonstrate the difference between a claim that is worthy of consideration, and a claim that is so obviously untrue and ugly and outlandish as to be malicious and worthy of some derision.

Even Socrates is in agreement with you here. He uses this exact strategy in the Gorgias when he essentially tells Callicles that he is being a jackass and his argument means that he thinks the life of a catamite is pleasurable and good. You have the weight of Greek philosopy behind your argument.

Sometimes ridicule is indeed the best and only response.

My $0.02

[Calcas]

There's another factor, too. Say someone enters a discussion with educated adults and says, "I know for a fact that the planet Mars is made out of ham."

If the other people reply with, "Well, analysis from the probes and the rover that took soil samples indicates a chemical makeup significantly different from ham or any other cured meat..."

In other words, if they show the same measured, calculated reply they'd give to a real scientist, it is almost misleading to an observer. It indicates to them that the ham theory is treated the same as any other, that the difference between it and the accepted theory is just scientific straw-splitting.

Whereas the pure, emotional reaction of, "ARE YOU INSANE!?!?" is acutally more accurate because it actually reflects how far outside the bounds of any kind of reality the ham claim is. I know people hate the sarcasm here, but there are instances where it's actually a very valuable way to demonstrate the difference between a claim that is worthy of consideration, and a claim that is so obviously untrue and ugly and outlandish as to be malicious and worthy of some derision.

Very well put.

Nominated.

[jaydeehess]

In the "Pentagon illusion" thread, Lyte complained that some were posting topics not relevent to the thread. Although my post was a direct response to one by Lyte in that thread I now repeat it in this thread. As per Lyte's request.
Quote Lyte Trip:
The plane had already pulled up over the highway as Robert Turcios saw:
Once again with a minority account Lyte?

Robert is the sole witness who claims he saw the plane rise. Robert was running up an embankment when he witnessed this. His perception appears to have been affected by his changing perspective as he moved.

How can you take the one and only account that has the plane rising and create a flyover from that?

All of your winesses (including Robert) and every other witness who observed the plane all the way to the Pentagon say it hit the building. Several accounts have it banked slightly to port with the port engine or wing contacting the ground just as it impacts or a fraction of a second before impact. Physical evidence shows that indeed a curb had a chunk taken out of it along the path of the port engine. You make everyone of these witnesses wrong or liars (including Robert) by contending that Robert's sole account of the aircraft rising means that it actually flew not into the ground floor but over the roof. The roof is 77 feet above ground level. How did every single witness, every last one understand that the plane hit the Pentagon, several even describing it as occuring 80 or so feet below where you say it really was?
How did no one, no one at all notice a very large, very fast, very loud aircraft scream by on the other side of the Pentagon especially when there has been a giant fireworks display set off to draw all eyes in that direction?(this would be the polar opposite of 'misdirection').
I have worked at airports Lyte. I have stood next to the runway button when aircraft were landing, and next to the localizer array during take-offs, and there is no way anyone would confuse a plane at 100 feet (as it flies over the Pentagon) for one at 10 feet (or less).

Yes there are other aircraft that are technically low near the Pentagon. However an aircraft at a couple of thousand feet or even several hundred feet, is never going to be characterized as being at several dozen feet by anyone.

[truthseeker10]

Do not spam the forum

[Calcas]

I thought this was worth remembering...


:boggled: Originally Posted by 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?



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.